Replies

---Now let's argue---

I LOVE this! Sincerely.

Ok...onto the points:

---First of all, the Church's beliefs are based BOTH on Scripture AND Tradition--there are some things which were practiced, or orally transmitted, which were not written down. Thus, while Scripture provides foundation, it is only 1/2 of the foundation(s) on which the Church operates.---

I can only argue from a point that I believe that the true Church is NOT confined to a denomination such as the RCC or Protestant. I will exclude Islam, Hindus and all other abominations. By abominations I mean those who deny Jesus is the Son of God and our Saviour.

When you state that scripture provides the foundation, I agree. But when you say it is only 1/2.. the Bible says:

2nd Thes. 2:15:

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In fact, read the whole chapter for a clear context. I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Again, read the entire chapter for context. The verse, written above, does not say: "Therfore, brethren, listen to whatever we decide is going to be tradition....". No. Rather it says STAND FAST and HOLD. I reject further traditions (spiritual in nature, but conceived by man) after the scripture was written. To accept them means one has not stood fast and held, but has MOVED.

2 Thes. 2 is a very powerful chapter and I encourage all to read it, in context. It deals with very timely subjects, such as these.

---In the specific case, it was demanded of those who would be priests, WITH THE ASSENT of the wife.---

Yep. Except that we find that this self restraint is tempered with the second tenet (of three) of this doctrine: Fasting. (One and three are consent and prayer)

To be concise:

1st Cor. 7:5

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Clearly fasting is an integral part of the consent. So, if I may be so bold, I claim that when one is eating he/she has NO authority to claim the above verse. And NEVER as to refuse an advance...(as written it be with CONSENT and FASTING and PRAYER). At the end of the fast/prayer/consent session a man MUST be with his wife....that SATAN will not tempt you.

---Summarily: 1) Continence was part of the Tradition, and both continence and celibacy should be considered when discussing the matter. 2) What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law. This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture.----

Continence was not tradition, it was scriptural as shown above. But....have a meal and you had better be having sex. Why? The author CLEARLY explains why! And what does verse 6 say?

6:But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

So, if you take Pauls advice, you had better follow it through and not eat while being continent! Otherwise you are fair game for Satan.

When you say, "What is written is not necessarily ALL of the law." I can't help but disagree.

We are FREE from the law. Romans explains this quite clearly. FREEDOM from the law brings joy. I, myself, struggle with this. But it nonetheless remains...freedom from the law.

And in finality:
---This leads us back to the necessity of Tradition in conjunction with Scripture---

Disagree. By reading 2 Thes. 2 I read that the tradition was already taught and finalized. No need for something new that scripture forbids.

I hope we can keep this an honest debate.

I AGREE there were traditions AND this verse says to STAND FAST and to HOLD to them. So why the CHANGE? Isn't the 'change' violating the 'stand fast' and 'hold' portion?

Bingo. You have the "tradition" of priestly celibacy contradicting both scripture AND the tradition of the early church.
And by the way, if tradition is important enough to supercede scripture, then why hasn't the Catholic church published a book containing all of the tradition that the apostles supposedly taught? Doesn't that smack of a secret knowledge that only the initiated have access to? Yep, there's that old Gnosticism again.
Why was it a thousand years before the "tradition" of priestly celibacy was enforced and almost two thousand years until the "tradition" of the Assumption of Mary was formalized? What other traditions are there that we don't know about? Enquiring minds want to know.

It would seem as though you are over-reading. In the passage re: fast/continence, there is NO reason to infer that it is directed to priest-candidates/priests.

On the other hand, we know that several of the Apostles chose to remain single and we do NOT know exactly what was the status of Peter's wife (alive, but when?) and even if she were alive through all of Peter's life, we certainly do not know if they continued marital relations.

We are FREE from the Law

Not exactly. We are free to do what is right, or JC would not have referenced the Commandments in the story of the young man who sought to be 'perfect.' Recall that JC said to him: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all your things, and follow Me." Although the story does not tell us whether the young man had a wife (likely he did not) this 'freedom from all things' implies a similar freedom from marital encumbrance. What we DO know is that the current ceremony for ordination of deacons (a step away from priesthood) STILL includes a vestigial reference to continence--that is, the wife's explicit acceptance of same, EVEN THOUGH such is no longer required of deacons (unless they are in the Seminary program to become priests.)

As I pointed out in another post above, there is also a BIG difference between "imposing" celibacy from the outside and "accepting" celibacy (or continence) from the 'inside.' The evidence and the Tradition clearly show that continence/celibacy was the accepted norm for priests, although it was often ignored or violated (sin happens...)

Finally, we know that Revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle, but within such Revelation and Tradition there are logical implications. To make such implications explicit is not to change, but to acknowledge their existence.

After a bit of puzzling over other items, I came to acknowledge that the Church is eminently the Church of common sense. This is not to state that other Christian religions are NOT common-sensical; but that the Church's teachings and decisions reflect 'common sense' consistently, in regard moral, doctrinal, and disciplinary matters.