First of all, I rarely quote Catholic Answers as they, in my opinion, only scratch the surface of what Catholic apologetics is capable of. I prefer much meatier material.
That being said, strictly speaking, Catholic Answers isn't authoritative(in the Catholic sense). They in no way constitute, nor are they a part of, the legitimate teaching authority in the Catholic Church. That role is reserved to the Pope and the Bishops.
Catholic Answers can in no way promulgate teaching which binds the conscience of a Catholic. Once again, that authority resides in the Pope and the Bishops.
Insofar that Catholic Answers accurately reflects defined Catholic teaching(i.e. teachings on the Pope, the Mass, the Sacraments, the Trinity, etc...), then it remains a source to be trusted.
But since the Magesterium, which constitutes the Pope and the Bishops in union with him, has not, to my knowledge, authoritatively defined teaching linking 1 Timothy 5 to the practice of having nuns in the Church, then, to a Catholic, the matter is open to legitimate opinion.
It is the opinion of Catholic Answers that 1 Timothy 5 is talking about a type of 1st century nuns. Personally, just like you, I remain unconvinced that 1 Timothy 5 is refering to "nuns". Does that make me any less Catholic that the folks at Catholic Answers, or vice versa? On this particular issue, no.
I'm sure that you utilize the Internet to cull information that you may use on these threads. Do you have to agree with everything a website may contain in order to use specific material which you do agree with? If not, then you hold us to double standard which may just be another corollary to SoothingDave's Law.
Do you understand? Can you see, in light of the above, that it was wrong for you to equate the specific material regarding 1 Timothy 5 located at Catholic Answers as if, for instance, it were something the Pope said?
Pray for John Paul II
My point seems to have slipped past you or you are blowing smoke and I don't pretend to know which. If the garbage is posted to a website as authoritative and offered up for argumentation against anyone, it is 1) lying to the unlearned, 2) making ya'll look dumb, and 3) a waste of our time when you guys present it. It's no wonder pegleg shot himself in the foot a number of threads back. They haven't a clue what they're talking about and he doesn't know the material to begin with.
I have used and continue to use internet sources. But, I don't cut and paste Christian answers to Catholic Questions or any such nonsense. 'If you don't know it and won't research it, what are you doing here and why are you professing it..' that's my approach. You see, something happens when you realize you're personally responsible for your soul and the word of God - if you're a Christian and serious, you learn as much as you can. And you don't allow anyone to feed you a line of garbage that cannot be backed up or that doesn't line up with the word of God.
Do you understand? Can you see, in light of the above, that it was wrong for you to equate the specific material regarding 1 Timothy 5 located at Catholic Answers as if, for instance, it were something the Pope said?
I understand that it's only authoritative if is said while standing on one foot with a martini in one hand, a straw up your nose a 5 pound weight dangling from your pony-tail and a donkey well prepared to kick you aft. Authoritative seems to be a highly subjective word when it comes to anything said by any Catholic. If the NI&O is crap, which I've been told it is, and the Pope doesn't know what he's saying or is always misinterpreted, and if councils and doctrines are always misinterpreted - sounds like knowbody really knows what's going on - including you guys. That or someone is doing one heck of a pr job on the lurkers trying to make it look as if it all really does make sense - somehow. (NOT).
God's word is steady and reliable. It doesn't create confusion. And nothing further than the 66 books of the Bible are needed for instruction for salvation or living our everyday lives. A point which has been addressed repeatedly and which I'm not sure even one of you has addressed. If ya'll could take it for what it is and read it without the Catholic Church hangin over your shoulder, you might learn something.