1. If you think that the apostles were married while they were apostles, give us your answer to #236.
2. The RCC does not allow democracy (or anarchy) in the pews to govern the Church. That is why we are still anti-abortiion, anti-divorce, and anti-birth control as all Christian chuirches were a century ago.
3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.
LOL! You know as well as I do that the scriptures do not name the wives of the apostles. What you evidently don't know though is that scripture does refer to at least some of the apostles having wives and that their wives traveled with them on missionary journeys.
1Co 9:5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
If they weren't married while they were apostles, then whose wives were they leading around?
According to Clement of Alexandria in Stromata III (I haven't found an English translation, but here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says), Peter's wife was the first of the two to suffer martyrdom. Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica III has this to say:
"They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, `Oh thou, remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."
Even the church fathers that you claim as your own recognized had no problem with the fact that Peter was married while an apostle and that his wife traveled with him!
2. The RCC does not allow democracy (or anarchy) in the pews to govern the Church. That is why we are still anti-abortiion, anti-divorce, and anti-birth control as all Christian chuirches were a century ago.
No one's talking about democracy leading the church. We're talking about the church following scriptures and the teachings of the early church fathers.
3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.
I'm not talking about what I think are God's rules -- I'm talking about following the plain meaning of the scriptures and the teachings of the early church. If you read your Bible you'll find that the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time believed that only they could discern the meaning of scriptures. They even had their own traditions that they claimed were passed down orally from Moses. History repeats itself.
All I'm doing is pointing out that today's Magisterium conflicts with the early fathers. How can that be?
Open your Bible and check the geneologies at the beginning of Matthew. Note how rarely women are mentioned (without my Bible in front of me, only Rahab and Ruth come to mind). Using your logic, should we assume therefore that the men listed in the geneoligies were all widowers?3. What you meant to say was that the RCC should be run by what YOU THINK are God's rules. YOPIOS is still YOPIOS: nothing more and nothing less. Every Tom, Dick and Harry serving as his own teaching magisterium really does not work now or ever.
This might come as a horrible shock to you, but the early church did not have a formal magisterium. The gospels, the letters of Paul and the others were sent to individual churches and read directly to the people. The meaning of their writings was clear and remains clear to this day. The notion of a formal magisterium to "interpret" the scriptures was an invention that came much later.Does that mean that every one is on their own when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Not at all. The scriptures need to be interpreted in accordance with the regula fidei formed in the early years of the church. Thus, when protestants come up with novel doctrines like "name it and claim it" and the Catholics come up with novel practices like a celibate clergy, we need to check those ideas with the scriptures and how they have been interpreted in light of the historical faith.
But, you argue, Paul was an apostle and therfore was a part of the original magisterium. Okay, then why did Paul write that Peter and the other apostles took their wives with them on their travels? Why did he prophesy that the teaching of forbidding marriage would enter the church and call it a heresy? Why did Paul write that continence was always to be a temporary state and not a permanent one?
If Paul was a member of the original magisterium, then the things that he taught conflict with what the magisterium currently teaches. The magisterium has overturned the teachings of the early church, not only in the so-called "discipline" of clergy celibacy, but in many other areas as well.