How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy

perhaps you would like to explain the Protestant view of The Gospel of John 6: 22-67 with particular emphasis on 67.

Let me take a stab at this. I do not know what the "Protestant" view of this is, because I do not think there is one. Each person reads and interprets as the Holy Spirit leads them. I can only tell you what I think. I always hold to the view that we should interpret scripture literally where the context says we should, and figuratively where the context says we should. I think this is one of those times to interpret it figuratively. Jesus said He was the bread which came down from Heaven. OK, I can handle that. I do not, however, think he meant for the people to literally and physically to eat his body and drink His blood. I believe He was merely saying to appropriate His sacrificial death on the cross as a substitute for their sins. I think many of the people here, misinterpreted Him, and took Him literally, and could not handle it, so they left. Peter may or may not have understood it either, but chose to stay. We know that many times, Jesus used parables to illustrate His point, and still they did not get it. We may think these guys were not too bright, but if we had been there, we would have failed to understand also. As I mentioned before, this is all nice to know kind of stuff, but pales in comparison to the backdrop of eternity. The only thing that really matters, is where one takes up eternal residence. I have no intention of going to that hot place, where Satan, the arch enemy of God and man will reside. That does not appeal to me at all, and thankfully, I will miss it.

While I am gone, perhaps you would like to explain the Protestant view of The Gospel of John 6: 22-67 with particular emphasis on 67. Are you not still walking away if you deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

Thanks for your very nice post.

Discussing the Eucharist is kind of a divergence from this thread, and it merits hundreds of pages of discussion. Here is a summary of my limited understanding:

Transubstantiation -- the whole substance of the wine and bread is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. For Catholics and Anglicans, this also includes the notion of a perpetual sacrifice.
Orthodox view -- Christ is present in the communion in a spiritual sense, but the partaker is not required to believe that Christ is present in a physical sense.
Consubstantiation -- this view, held by Lutherans, maintains that the physical body and blood of Jesus is present, not in place of, but in addition to the bread and wine.
Reformed view -- the bread and the wine contain the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual sense.
Memorial view -- this view is held by Baptists and some other groups and maintains that the bread and wine is to commemorate Christ's crucifixion.

You can see why we can't really have a significant discussion on this topic through only a few newsgroup postings.

In my opinion (and it's nothing more than that), this is one of those issues that shouldn't divide. I grew up Baptist, now attend a conservative, evangelical Episcopal church, and have spent a lot of time in Lutheran churches. I've pretty much covered the bases.

One can't really appeal to the "unanimous consent" of the early church fathers, because there was no consent. Some supported the idea of a real physical presence of Jesus while others firmly rejected it. In the second century, Justin Martyr wrote:

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isaiah 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. (Martyr, Justin, Dialog with Trypho, 2^nd Century A.D.)

The first real mention of the doctrine of transubstantiation that I'm aware of was by Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century. The idea was not declared an article of faith until the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 AD. Considering that Justin was born around 100 AD in Samaria, one could argue that his beliefs more closely reflected those of the early church. Justin was certainly aware of the meaning of his words, because one of the charges against the early Christians was that they cannibalized others in bloody rites.

At a first reading, the Bible seems to support the idea of the real, physical presence of Christ. Jesus says "He who eats my flesh and blood has eternal life," and it is clear that the Jewish leaders and some of his disciples took him literally. Note, however, that in verse 63, which is part of the same discourse, Jesus concludes by saying "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Most Protestant scholars conclude that Jesus was telling those who rejected him that his words were to be taken in a spiritual sense.

It is clear from reading John (which also happens to be my favorite book) that Jesus is often portrayed using vivid figures of speech. Jesus is called bread (6:50), living bread (6:51), the light (8:12; 9:5; 12:46), a door for sheep (10:7), a door for humans (10:9), the good shepherd (10:11), and the vine (15:5). These are descriptions of Jesus, but one shouldn't take them in a wooden, literal sense. When Jesus hands his disciples the bread in the upper room, he says "this is my body." He says "this is my blood" when he handed them wine. He couldn't be in two physical places at once because of his earthly limitations, so it is unlikely that the disciples would take his words in anything other than a spiritual sense. And after he consecrated the wine, he still referred to is as the "fruit of the vine." If one is to take him in a literal sense a few verses earlier when he called the contents of the cup his body, then why does he now call the fruit of the vine? Did it change back into wine?

Finally, one can take these passages in a spiritual sense and still take them very seriously. Whatever the physical dynamics of communion, the spiritual effects of it are far more important. We don't have to understand it fully in order to know that we should do it in a very serious manner.

Again, I have a limited understanding of this and presume that I'll know more a hundred years from now.

Scholarly or otherwise, you are self-interpreting Scripture.

Thanks, but why do consider that a bad thing? Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures to see if what he told them was so. Why would it be a good thing for the Bereans to do but not for me or you? Paul was an apostle and he could well have said "shut up and let me tell you what you should and shouldn't believe!" He didn't though and we shouldn't be afraid to follow in the footsteps of the Bereans.

Further, Jesus told his critics: "You err because you do not know the scriptures." The clear corollary is that if they knew the scriptures, they would not err. The truth that Jesus spoke is just as valid for today as it was for 2000 years ago. He wants us to know the scriptures.

As for interpreting scriptures, one thing we know is that "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things." The gospel is a simple message. I enjoy reading good, conservative scholars whether they are Protestant or Catholic -- I've followed Fr. Richard Neuhaus and Peter Kreeft for more than 10 years. The Bible can continue to offer me new insights if I live to be as old as Methusaleh, but I understood the most important things even when I was 5 or 6 years old.

Scholarly or otherwise, you are self-interpreting Scripture.

Yes, but self-interpretation is both unavoidable and implicit to find meaning, understand, and apply scripture, as we are so clearly taught to do. There are several passages in which the reader, the believer, is exhorted to understand and apply what is written, the following by Christ himself:

Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[ 4:4 Deut. 8:3] "
Mark 4:20
Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop–thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."
Luke 6:46

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.

Paul and Hebrews teaches that our ability to understand scripture would be aided by the word itself and the Holy Spirit:

1 Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[ 2:13 Or Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men]
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

James and Peter taught to us be doers of the word and pay it attention:

James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
2 Peter 1:19
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

None of this is possible without interpretation. Our own interpretation as we study God's word ourselves, and further supplemented by the interpretations of ordained teachers when we study their writings, messages, and catechisms, but yet we compare those teachings as well to scripture as did the Bereans.

Further, regarding the interpretations of teachers, Paul had an extra caution in his second pastoral letter to Timothy, that he handle the 'word of truth correctly'

2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

And most significantly, Christ himself (in Mark 7:13) warned the Pharisees and teachers of the day to not allow the teachings of men to override the word of God:

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Hey Blackie, I have a question for you, being as you seem to be pretty sharp and knowledgeable. Look at Genesis 6, and tell me your opinon on who were the sons of God, who were the Nephilm, where did they come from, where did they go, what did they do that was so bad that God had to destroy the earth with the Flood. Will they come again?

Later

Yo Black, are you there?

Hey Black:
You've got your Leos mixed up buddy. It was Leo X who unjustifiably did in Henry VIII. Incidentally, you might take note that both Henry II and Philip were known to have roving eyes as well, but the church--still reeling from the fact that Henry VIII's papa turned down its request to wage war on the Turks--had it in for the king of England; therefore the monarchs of France and Spain got off scot free (oh well, as you Romans say: "Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur"!)

As far as your attempted denial that early popes did not marry and have offspring (many produced offspring without the benefit of marriage)shows, IMHO, either your ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of the history you took in Roman schools. For instance, in the case of the Apostle Peter, how else could you explain the reference in Matthew 8:14 when Christ is speaking specifically of Peter's Mother-in-Law?

On another matter, you call yourself a "Catholic" but that is what I am--catholic being defined as "universal". The difference is that some churches don't deny the very body of Christ to parishoners who have (many through no fault of their own) suffered divorce and after years of celibacy gotten remarried without having to suffer a church investigation and obtaining permission from the Bishop of Rome!

Been offline for ten days. Actually it was Henry VIII who did in Henry VIII as in most cases of excommunication via mortal sin. Whichever pope had the historic privilege and opportunity to formalize the SOB's excommunication is hardly important just so long as it was done. Ummmm, Henry VIII had a bit more than a roving eye. Other parts were also involved or he would not have died so prematurely.

I have no idea whether Peter was STILL married at the time he was called by Jesus Christ. That he had a mother-in-law proves nothing but that he had been married at one time. Like Senator Biden, he may have lost his wife to accfidental death. Like so many in his time prior to antibiotics, he may have lost her to disease. In any event, while his mother-in-law is mentioned as being cured by Christ and getting up to prepare a meal for the guests, either his wife was not around at the time or she was rather rude in not taking care of the meal preparation personally but laying the responsibility off on her just recovered mother. The word widower comes to mind. As a pious Jew and widower, he would have taken his mother-in-law into his home to care for her out of respect for his deceased wife and as a filial obligation. What does this matter as to a discipline not adopted until the 12th century thereafter and then as discipline or prudential judgment and not as dogma. Many rites of the actual Roman Catholic Church have married priests. Only the Latin rite does not allow its priests to marry. What is it about the distinction between discipline and dogma that heretics fail to understand?

There is ONE, holy, catholic and universal Church. It is not the Anglican Church invented out of Henry's illicit desires nor that of your female neo-Diocletian Lizzie I. You guys invent these abominations and then expect those who continue in the faith of Jesus Christ to spend our time responding to the impudence of those who worship themselves and their desires. By the way, was remarriage after divorce allowed in even the Anglican church before the Lambeth Conference of about 1930? Birth control? Female priests? Lesbian bishops? Acceptance of homosexuality?

Face facts, Anglicanism, with no mandate whatsoever of EITHER Scripture OR Tradition, has invented an entirely new religion in our times of which even Henry VIII would be profoundly ashamed.

Unlike Scripture lovers who place their reliance upon salvation by grace alone through faith alone via Scripture alone, the Anglican churches want to be neither fish nor fowl. Not accepting the disciplines and dogmas of Roman tradition via the Roman Catholic Church which (even old Henry would have to conceded as the "Mother Church" from which your disobedience and heresy removed itself) and yet also not willing to accept or even pretend to accept the discipline of Scripture. After all, either alternative would interfere with the trend of the week club and with the trend of the weak club as well.

If, as is the case, you lack apostolic succession, you also lack validly ordained priests and therefore lack the Real Presence in the Eucharist and so it does not particularly matter to whom and under what conditions bread and wine under the appearances of bread and wine are distrubuted by your clergy. Now, if we were talking about the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, it would be an entirely different matter but, as we well know, in Anglicanism that is not what we are talking about.

Pope Leo XIII in the latter part of the nineteenth century ordered an historical investigation of the validity or invalidity of Anglican orders. This investigation had nothing whatever to do with the great Tudor adulterer but rather with the craven behavior of the apostate bishops of his time who sucked up to royal power by apostasizing and did not follow the noble example of St. John Fisher, a bishop executed for the Faith as was St. Thomas More. The investigation was also of the subsequent history of "The Church of England" and its practices as to Holy Orders and Consecration of Bishops. The conclusion was that the apostolic succession was lost.

You might also want to communicate with the former Anglican bishop of London, Bishop Graham Leonard, who left Anglicanism for Catholicism about ten or fifteen years ago with many of the dwindling number of English Anglican priests to become Catholic priests.

Excuuuuuse me. The Roman Catholic Church IS the Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter. See Matthew. What Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven. What Peter looses on earth is loosed in heaven. Other churches MAY be Christian in the partial sense of adhering to Scripture according to the individual understanding of the individual believer which becomes a very non-objective guideline over two thousand years. Fortunately, Jesus Christ, anticipating the problems of the future (weeping at Gethsemani over the fact that His flock would NOT be one in the future) established the Roman Catholic Church upon Peter to provide authoritative leadership and teaching.

Either you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ (Matthew), that the Holy Eucharist of the Roman Catholic Church is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (John 6) or you can believe that Jesus Christ was incarnated, lived, suffered, died, resurrected, ascended and sent the Paraclete to be with His Church ALWAYS in order that a disobedient Augustinian monk 1485 years later could tack some theses to a cathedral and begin Christ's religion (and to do so you must also reject the Peter passage and John 6). I am going with Scripture AND Tradition because it does not seem likely on the evidence that there is any way to be "sola Scriptura" without mangling the Peter passage or denying the Real Presence. Who says otherwise should name any church not Catholic which is "sola Scriptura", accepts the founding of the Church on Peter AND believes in the Real Presence.

The authority of the pope IS the teaching of both Jesus Christ and Scripture on the authority of Jesus Christ. We are not drafting anyone. Run your own church as you see fit. Mind your own business, however.

Been offline for ten days or I would have answered sooner.

Unlike Scripture lovers who place their reliance upon salvation by grace alone through faith alone via Scripture alone, the Anglican churches want to be neither fish nor fowl. Not accepting the disciplines and dogmas of Roman tradition via the Roman Catholic Church which (even old Henry would have to conceded as the "Mother Church" from which your disobedience and heresy removed itself) and yet also not willing to accept or even pretend to accept the discipline of Scripture. After all, either alternative would interfere with the trend of the week club and with the trend of the weak club as well.

We acknowledge it still as the "Mother Church" however, we believe it strayed from Christ wanted long ago--hence, the need for reformation. Trouble with you RCs is, you give us Protestants such hope like when Vatican II occurred, but then you pull the rug out from under us by ELECTING truculent recalcitrant types such as John Paul II to head your church. On the matter of the ordination of women, where in NT scripture is it forbidden--oh, and don't bring in the Apostle Paul to defend your argument, try one of the other 11 who actually KNEW Jesus...it must be noted, also that the very first person that Christ appeared to after the resurrection was a woman!
On another matter, it is really ashame that Leo XIII didn't regard our bishops as apostolic ones (I'm certain that he REALLY was the most unbiased judge the church could have tapped); Apart from apostolic succession, what else did he decide? That Mary I's church wasn't really RC either and that because of it, all Anglicans were doomed to 9th ring of Hell?
Well, Black, I'm sitting on pins and needles awaiting your response...really hoping this time that you won't try to fabricate something like Peter's wife dying before he was called or still refusing to believe that many of the early popes did not have wives and engaged in enjoyable sexual intercourse with them. Heaven forbid!

When little boys are being raped it is everyone's business pal. It's a disgrace to the name of Jesus, and I am offended by that, so it is my business.

I note, dear, that in your presumed heresy, you are capable only of continued cheap shots. If you can't distinguish between, on the one hand, SINS such as pederasty, pedophilia, homosexuality, and violation of vows which have been engaged in and practiced by the likes of the former Archbishop of Milwaukee and his, ummm, Amchurch clerical pals, and, on the other hand, the actual Roman Catholic Church, that is your problem not ours and it explains why you wallow where you do (wherever that may be but certainly not in Roman Catholicism).

You do not understand the Roman Catholic Church. You do not know the Roman Catholic Church. You regularly display your ignorance of such matters and yet you presume that your opinion counts. You may be as bigoted as you please against the Roman Catholic Church. You may remain outside of it (which, unless you adjust your attitude sharply and improve your knowledge substantially, is a very good idea, since in the United States, Catholicism has already far outstripped a tolerable quota of people ignorant of our Faith but chock full of irrelevant opinions which they would substitute for the teachings and administration of our popes while claiming to be Catholic).

We aren't drafting anyone, dear. If you believe what you seem to believe, rejoice in your beliefs but the governance of the Roman Catholic Church is manifestly and absolutely none of your business. Never has been, never (in the absence of your unlikely conversion) will be. Why do you think that any of us would ever agree with you or anyone like you?

Do not presume to speak for Jesus Christ. Jesus can, has, and will act on His own behalf and He will not be needing your help or advice in regard to the governance of His Church in the foreseeable future any more than he has over these past 1,970 years.

As far as little boys being raped (or adolescent under-age boys, for that matter), the government ought to do its job of charging, arresting, indicting, trying, convicting, sentencing and punishing miscreant clergy of my Church or yours. Of course, that is the same government that believes that slicing and dicing or burning the skin off innocent unborn infants is a virtual "constitutional sacrament", but never mind. Why tax your intellect?

As a matter of fact, you simply cannot imagine (literally) just how eager actual Roman Catholics are to see the government jail perverts and their enablers in our clergy. It is a great shortcut compared to clerical due process.

Bernard Cardinal Law, enabler of pederasts extraordinaire, rooming with Big Bubba at Walpole would not be very available for administrative duties in Boston's chancery. I will refrain from posting the litany of those AmChurch liberal "Catholic" clerics who ought to share his fate. That is your business as a taxpayer, regardless of creed or lack thereof, because you will participate in paying the bills.

Your cheap opportunistic shots and unsolicited opinions as to the governance of the Roman Catholic Church (Who governs it? What policies will be followed administratively? What constitutes doctrine or dogma and what does not? What prudential decisions are appropriate and which are not? Who will be consecrated as bishops or ordained as priests? Who, within Roman Catholicism, will obey whom? Will there be a married clergy in the Roman rite? Why won't women ever be ordained?) These and an infinity of other questions having to do with the internal governance of the Roman Catholic Church are absolutely none of your business or the business of anyone else not Catholic, dear.

And, if you don't like being called "dear", then don't call me "pal". I am no more your "pal" than you are my "dear".

You probably have gotten too accustomed to the timid little confused Kumbaya "Catholics" who go around apologizing for breathing. There are more than you suspect who don't and won't apologize to you for stepping on your errors and upon your egregious effrontery. Rest well in the knowledge that the Roman Catholic Church will be there at the end and that the United States government or its subsidiaries or the governments of other nations enjoy no such guarantees.

Little high on your horse there aren't you? Careful how you speak to a member of Christ's body, or doesn't your Pope teach you that?

I pointed out that your "denomination" doesn't follow the biblical description of a minister of the Lord. Married to one woman, having well mannered children. For all your flood of accusations and pompus ramblings, I'm right about what I stated.

It's become very obvious to those outside your sect that little boys are being assaulted. When you claim Jesus as your Lord, it makes it the business of all Christians who hate actions that bring shame to His name. Deal with it.

It is your "denomination" that has stated they have a shortage of Priests so a huge number of Pedophiles have found a happy hunting ground in your numbers. I have stated the biblical option out of the problem and you rain condemnation on my head? lol....your funny.

Apparently, your idea of straying from Christ has to do with the Roman catholic Church maintaining objective rules as to sexual behavior which you find incoonvenient as did Henry the Serial Adulterer. You are at least a traditionalist in that respect.

You are missing some nuances here. Henry the Adulterous died believing himself Catholic, hilarious though that particular pretension may be. He simply imagined himself the "head" of the Catholic Church of England.

Bear in mind that he had been deemed a "Defender of the Faith" by a pope for his published refutation of Martin Luther and of Luther's published views. This award was temporary and limited to the specifics of Henry's published religious views (as a laymen) as to Lutheranism prior to his remarkably enthusiastic dive into the pool of serial and quite public adulteries and murders. Nonetheless, his successors have assumed (in comic opera fashion: Where are Gilbert and Sullivan when we really need them?) that Defender of the Faith (Defensor Fidei) is some sort of hereditary title granted by the papacy which it is not. Right down to Lizzie II, the Brits pathetically mint their coins with the abbreviation D. F. under the constitutionally limited monarchical countenance.

Thus, such madmen as George III were regarded (despite being Germans) as "Head" of the Church of England but also defenders of the faith!!!! Hence do not libel actual Protestantism, honest "reformed" churches, by identifying Anglicanism with the reformation. The reformation was not built upon adultery, thievery and murder.

As far as our dashing your hopes that Catholicism would become a heretical faith (which will not occur because Christ Himself guaranteed that it would not) so that you could cynically say: See: We are all made of the same clay, you know!, I'm not going to apologize for the election of the very Catholic Karol Wojtlywa as Pope John Paul II, an ecclesiastical Matt Dillon to clean up the prudential (not doctrinal) mistakes of his predecessors twice and three times removed.

You can keep on reposting this business of married popes and popes who were sons of other popes until the cows come home and it won't be one whit morew valid as a criticism. The celibacy rule of the Roman rite was not imposed until the twelfth century long after the popes in question. Clerical celibacy is a changeable discipline which may be bound or loosed by Peter or his successors as they deem prudenbt. It is not dogma. It is not doctrine. It is governance. If JPII declares tomorrow that priests may marry, that is fine by me. This question has to do with OBEDIENCE to papal authority, but you already knew that, didn't you? You just want to make believe that it is permissible for Catholics, and even "Catholic" priests, to defy papal authority, just like Luther and Henry the Lecherous did. No surprise here. Move along now.

I am still waiting to hear the names of each wife of each apostle and the Scriptural reference as to each and the Scriptural evidence that any marriages that survived the call by Christ to apostlehood continued to involve sexual relations. It might well be that each and every one was married and it would be dogmatically irrelevant as well, but the burden of proof is on those who make the assertion that the apostles were married and sexually involved with wives DURING their respective ministries.

As to Peter's mother-in-law, just as a widower or a divorced man (quite permissible under Jewish law for the pre-Christian Simon bar Jonah) would still be the father of any of his children in spite of the cessation of his marriage, so too he would continue to be his mother-in-law's son-in-law. This is a lot easier to decipher than murderer Henry the Insatiable's status as murderess Lizzie I's father AND grandfather.

As to Queen Mary Tudor, she was not the "Head" of the Church of England, whatever the ignorant Parliament that had previously ordered the execution of St. Thomas More might think. If she had been the "Head" of the Church of England, you should have no trouble with her execution of the heretic Cranmer and a handful of other miscreants. Actually, she was the head of the English government. In that capacity, she executed the civil laws of the land including the execution of Cranmer after he was judged by competent ecclesiastical authority. She died with so much work undone and particularly failed to perceive the dishonesty of Lizzie I.

As to Pope Leo XIII, as pope, he and, in his time as pope, only he had the authority to determine whether the Anglicans retained legitimate apostolic succession, which flows only within or through the "Mother Church" of Rome. We do not deny and, in fact, we confirm the apostolic succession enjoyed by the Eastern Orthodox Churches which probably were not waiting on our opinion due to the 1,000 years of schism. In most respects, our contention with the Eastern Orthodox and theirs with us has usually been more bitter in its expressions than any contentions with the self-created "Church of England." This is not a matter of bias but of the truth of apostolic succession. The Eastern Orthodox have it. Your church does not, will not and cannot.

You have insisted that I should not rely on St. Paul but on one of the other 11. Apostles? Then there would be twelve, not counting Judas. Matthew was an apostle but, if you don't recognize the authority of the papacy over you, then perforce you reject Matthew. Eight of them did not participate in the divinely inspired authorship of Scripture. Peter, James and John seem not to have addressed the matter. Are there any other books of the New Testament that you reject in addition to Acts and the many Epistles of St. Paul? Has Anglicanism come to this?

Roman Catholicism is apparently not convenient to your sexual desires. It is not convenient to the sexual desires of many people. Then again, it never claimed to be convenient to the sexual desires of many although it is to many others: the ones who would be married to one person of the opposite sex until death do them part.

We are still not drafting anyone, and a good thing too since we seem to have no trouble generating Rembert Weakland types as vipers within at least in AmChurch leftist circles. May the day come when you look back fondly at JP II as much more tolerant than his successors. Read the actual documents of Vatican II and you will find considerably less encouragement for your hopes of the Protestantization of the Roman Catholic Church than you apparently imagine based upon dishonest hype by the tiny rump caucus of the faithless liberals who insist upon calling themselves Catholics.

BTTT!

And your qualifications as a member of Christ's body are????? If you refer to the pope as my Pope, then your credentials must not be Roman. If not, you really don't want to get into an historical argument claiming that Catholicism is merely a denomination. What your OPINIONS of the meaning of Scripture may be are of absolutely no relevance. No one appointed you to render such opinions. If I remember correctly, St. Paul told you that if you had any questions about religion, you ought not to bring them up in public but to ask your husband in the privacy of your home. Then again, Scriptural interpretation and teaching is the pope's job description not mine and certainly not yours.

Why would the pope teach me to express dishonestly an unmerited respect for error and impudence and busibodiness? As to what my "denomination" says or doesn't say, you are full of beans. Liberal AmChurch heretics who established the "pink palace" status of many AmChurch seminaries may have claimed a shortage of priests so that they can join their confreres outside of the Church in ordaining kangaroos or whatever. They have also systematically excluded orthodox vocations in very large numbers from their seminaries. If you want to know the truth on this, obtain a copy of Michael Rose's recent book: Goodbye, Good Men for an introduction and subscribe to the Wanderer for an ongoing news coverage much more extensive than anything you will see in the secular press.

Did I post anything to suggest that I disagree with the obvious fact that there are perverted, vow-breaking, priests and bishops in the liberal American Catholic Church aka AmChurch who have systematically pervertedly sexually abused not only little boys but little girls, teenagers of all persuasions, but most pervertedly homosexually and that those priests and bishops deserve, along with their protectors to be jailed and punished as severely as allowed by law IN ADDITION to severe Church penalties? I don't think so! Don't falsely pretend otherwise.

You cannot begin to be as indignant and outraged as actual Catholics are over this situation. Nor will absolutely ANY action that you might engage in begin to have any effect whatsoever on the Church itself. If you are not on the team, you do not come to bat.

It may come as a shock to you but Jesus Christ did not become man, live, engage in His ministry, suffer, die, resurrect, ascend to heaven so that a renegade Augustinian monk could found his Church 1485 years later. Jesus actually did His own founding upon Peter. It is right there in Matthew. It was in all the papers. If your faith is sola Scriptura, where do you think you got the Scriptures from (before you removed the books inconvenient to the reformation)???? When were the first copies available even to Church leaders? Who preserved the Scriptures during the barbarian invasions of Europe? Who codified the Scriptures and when? We Catholics do not "claim" that Jesus Christ is Our Lord. He was and is our Founder. He IS and always has been and always will be our Lord and Savior, since long before YOUR denomination was a gleam in the eye of whatever self-appointed and self-annointed biblical critic, merely human and without divine warrant, may have served as its founder. You are, as a generic Christian of some sort, entitled to claim Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior because He is. What you are NOT morally entitled to do is instruct His Church from your erroneous perspective.

You will not be the first and you will not be the last to imagine your errors to be truth. Go find others who share your errors (as you probably have) and comfort one another in your mutual errors. Whatever you may imagine, you have no particular authority over the Church of the truth which you have long rejected. I am not going to dignify such a pretentious argument by pointing out the malefactors in Protestant denominations. If every one of your ministers were engaged in this sort of misconduct (which manifestly most are not) that fact would not justify the slightest sin of even one priest of the Roman Catholic Church. And they will sin, as will we, given the fallen nature of man. Nonetheless, no sin is justified.

Reasonably enough, I would be ignored if I had the effrontery to stick my nose into the affairs of some local Protestant church whose minister stood accused or convicted of misconduct. If the members of that church do not accept the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, they have little business listening to any complaints of mine as to their internal governance. I have no business launching the complaints. My business in the circumstances described would be to pray PRIVATELY (to God and not to my gullible fellow humans) that the sinner repent and be forgiven by God and, after death, enjoy Eternal Life. My business would not be to act like some self-righteous, door-to-door tract dispensing prig offering impudent and unwarranted and unwelcome opinions. If you don't like my posts to you, remember that you started us down this road as though you had some divine warrant to correct theologically the Church of Jesus Christ Himself.

Just because you subscribe to whatever flavor of erroneous belief happens to satisfy your inclinations, doesn't mean that you are entitled to be taken seriously by Catholics based upon the record to date.

If you want to argue doctrine, take it to the Neverending Story threads where you may get a more respectful hearing. If I seem "a little high on my horse", that is a matter of perspective and entirely understandable, given yours and mine respectively. Nice of you to notice.

You are missing some nuances here. Henry the Adulterous died believing himself Catholic, hilarious though that particular pretension may be. He simply imagined himself the "head" of the Catholic Church of England...You can keep on reposting this business of married popes and popes who were sons of other popes until the cows come home and it won't be one whit morew valid as a criticism. The celibacy rule of the Roman rite was not imposed until the twelfth century long after the popes in question. Clerical celibacy is a changeable discipline which may be bound or loosed by Peter or his successors as they deem prudenbt... dogma. It is not doctrine. It is governance. If JPII declares tomorrow that priests may marry, that is fine by me. This question has to do with OBEDIENCE to papal authority, but you already knew that, didn't you? You just want to make believe that it is permissible for Catholics, and even "Catholic" priests, to defy papal authority, just like Luther and Henry the Lecherous did. No surprise here. Move along now. I am still waiting to hear the names of each wife of each apostle and the Scriptural reference as to each and the Scriptural evidence that any marriages that survived the call by Christ to apostlehood continued to involve sexual relations. It might well be that each and every one was married and it would be dogmatically irrelevant as well, but the burden of proof is on those who make the assertion that the apostles were married and sexually involved with wives DURING their respective ministries... As to Peter's mother-in-law, just as a widower or a divorced man (quite permissible under Jewish law for the pre-Christian Simon bar Jonah) would still be the father of any of his children in spite of the cessation of his marriage, so too he would continue to be his mother-in-law's son-in-law. This is a lot easier to decipher than murderer Henry the Insatiable's status as murderess Lizzie I's father AND grandfather. Roman Catholicism is apparently not convenient to your sexual desires. It is not convenient to the sexual desires of many people. Then again, it never claimed to be convenient to the sexual desires of many although it is to many others: the ones who would be married to one person of the opposite sex until death do them part....

Firstly, Blackie, check out some history facts: Henry was first betrothed to Catherine of Aragon way back in 1503--a contract he denounced in 1505 long before his divorce. As I stated previously, he was more or less forced into the marriage by his nobels when brother Eddie kicked the bucket and ugly little Cathy was left without a hubby...and though wedded to little Cathy for nearly 20 years, it was far from a happy situation for Henry, hence enter eager Anne Boyelyn (among countless earlier others) in the court. But let's take a look at what was happening in one-religion Europe about the same time: When he wasn't demanding war and excommunicating EVERYONE in the Venetian Republic (or, later, his ally France afer he formed the Holy League) Pope Julius II was busy diddling just about anything resembling female...(incidentally, Julius did invite Henry VIII into his Holy League so the rumors adultry must not have mattered too much to this randy pope). Much of what was going on the the church then--forking a life's savings to get a loved one out of purgatory, the tortuous Inquisition, etc., was what sparked a little known monk in Worms Germany to nail his protest to the door of the church...oh, but there were some good points to old Julius such as the rebuilding of your great St. Peter's Church which was begun during his reign (1506)...
Later, about the time of Leo X, that great Catholic, Holy Roman Emperor Charles, was establishing an adultry record that more than eclipsed Henry VIII--that is if you consider five bastard children ('course Henry's Mary, Lizzie and Eddie were all legit.)

But enough about history of adultry in the 16th Century. On to some other points you made. Of course I cannot name the wives of some of the apostles, I can't name any of the wives of the prophets either, nor the wives and concubines of Kings David and Solomon. But I know they had them because it was (still is in orthodox versions) an absolute bedrock requirement in Judaism that Jewish men marry. Roman Catholicism has nothing to do with my sexuality, nor should it have anything to do with anyone else's. All I am hoping (praying) that the church will regale celibacy to the monestaries and convents (where the Anglicans have put it) and let hetrosexual married priests do their jobs (50 percent of that job is, according to their very own lips, involved with marriage counseling).

Your problem is with God's word, take it up with Him. I have no idea why you would think that only Catholics are "Peter's Church". That claim doesn't wash against, "Who are my brother's and my sister's? Those that do the will of my Father". Not all of any denomination fit's that bill, so I'll let God judge between me and thee.

Traditions of men do little to impress God, a good way to solve the problem of pedophiles in the priesthood, is to lay down that tradition of celibacy, that isn't scriptural, and allow married men to serve. I have a responsibility to tell it like it is, I have done so, let it be accepted or rejected. My work here is done.=o)

You answer nothing of substance, reassert your own individual imagination as to the meaning of Scripture, accept little of what even Scripture says, do priggish, theological drive-by attempted shootings, understand nothing, assert everything on your own non-existent authority, expect with the customary effrontery of the Janie come lately that you have some business intruding into the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church with which you disagree in any event and expect members of Jesus Christ's own Church to be impressed by your self-worship and do-it-yourself carnival sideshow misinterpretations of Scripture and adhere to your teachings? And your work is done here!!!! I certainly hope so but how can we tell if it ever began? Again, MYOB and stop embarrassing yourself.

Bye, bye, etc.

Golly, I am sooooo impressed!!!!!! Don't forget the Tales of Maria Monk. As Monty Python observed, NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition.

As I said at the outset of this discussion with you, please see to it that the fantasies underlying Anglicanism are set down in writing so that people will be better able to study this peculiar form of state worship as a proper pathology when your church's institution's extinction is as historically confirmed as that of the Shakers. Ten years from now, twenty years from now? Fascinating, fascinating.