That sneaky desperate Catholic Church is at it again

American Papist ^ | July 22, 2006 | Thomas

[Petronski]

I have already demonstrated in this thread how wrong you are, yet you persist. But then you've posted so many falsehoods. Do you work on commission?

[sitetest]

Dear marajade,

Again, you have... interesting interpretations of Scripture. The reference to 1 Tim 3 shows only that it is clear that celibacy is not a doctrinal mandate for the priesthood. The same writer who wrote 1 Timothy writes elsewhere that celibacy is actually the preferred estate of life.

But citing Scripture is not the same thing as citing Scripture scholars.

Please cite for me some Scripture scholars from 2000 years ago who said that priests could not be celibate. You said you could do so.

Thanks,


sitetest

[marajade]

Why would the Pope have to use his infallibility to make it clear?

[marajade]

I guess my mistake is I go by what I believe what the Bible says and follow it. Not what some other scholar says its supposed to mean.

First Timothy is clear to me that a bishop must be married with faithful children.

[sitetest]

Dear marajade,

"I guess my mistake is I go by what I believe what the Bible says and follow it. Not what some other scholar says its supposed to mean."

Then you have no Scripture scholars to cite to support your personal interpretation of Scripture? You did say:

"And 2000 years of scholarships says they are wrong."

I guess you said it, but it wasn't true.

"First Timothy is clear to me that a bishop must be married with faithful children."

It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear at all to anyone who reads the WHOLE Bible, especially the other epistles of Paul.

St. Paul elsewhere says that he himself is celibate, and in that the Apostles are the first bishops, and St. Paul is an Apostle, then it would be contradictory to say that St. Paul says bishops MUST be married. After all, he was an unmarried bishop, himself.

One cannot say, "I support Roe," and "There should be no legal abortions except for medical necessity, where the baby is already deceased," because that's a contradiction in terms.

A similar contradiction in terms is to say that the celibate Apostle and bishop, St. Paul, said that bishops could not be celibate.


sitetest

[marajade]

I believe what First Timothy says as to the qualifications of bishops and you don't. Let's just leave it at that.

[neocon]

I believe what First Timothy says as to the qualifications of bishops and you don't. Let's just leave it at that.

You don't understand the concept of "less than or equal to". Let's just leave it at that.

[sitetest]

Dear marajade,

"I believe what First Timothy says as to the qualifications of bishops and you don't. Let's just leave it at that."

The difference between my belief and yours is that mine is harmony with Sacred Scripture AND the teachings and disciplines of the Catholic Church, while yours are internally inconsistent with Scripture.

Your interpretation makes Sacred Scripture contradict Sacred Scripture.

One cannot assert that the celibate Apostle/bishop St. Paul said that a bishop may not be celibate.

Or perhaps you could cite for me two thousand years of scholarship to show interpretations that support your internally contradictory view?


sitetest

[marajade]

Huh? Where is that in First Timothy?

[Wings-n-Wind]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

(1) Regarding Peter's wife and mother-in-law; you are attempting to make an argument out of silence... and I sense you are trying to use the "roadway" of your own experience to re-align the Biblical "map".

(2) Your point about the Gospels and the is not taken -- The Gospels are about Christ -- not about the disciples who became apostles; Therefore -- no scintilla is expected to be found therein.

The Gospels are about the heralding of the Kingdom of God -- Each Gospel concludes with the Great Commission -- the entrusting of the testimony of Christ, and the prophetic ministries of the Kingdom of God in the Holy Spirit given to the entire room full of faithful believers.... THEN

(3)The book of Acts tells us about these eleven men, and the inclusion of other men with diverse gifts and abilities within each apostolic team. Their letters and encouragements to the church give us the historical and grammatical basis for the birth, mission and fruition of the living Body of Christ.... including ministry, family, and all of our relationships.

Let's examine your language research;

Jesus experientially spoke Aramaic and Hebrew -- the Gospel Scriptures were promulgated in Greek -- are you referring to the Hebrew or Aramaic --

Or the Biblical Greek gune (pronc. goo'nay) (which is SC1135) mentioned 221 times; 129 mentions are the generic 1st definition: "a woman of any age regardless of status as a virgin, married, or widowed" The other 92 occurrences are specifically translated "wife" or "betrothed"

Within the whole counsel of Biblical Scripture, we see the Kingdom of God expanding -- moving forward -- progressing from law to grace -- from helplessness to a complete hope in the finished work of Christ!

If the Lord God sovereignly selected men of old --with spouses-- as leaders (Noah, Abraham, Moses), prophets (Hosea, Ezekiel), and kings (David -- and the marriage champion: King Solomon)as anointed leaders --

Why would the leadership of the new covenant in Christ be more restrictive, and not more free-- than the old covenant of law?

Do you think Jesus was speaking of himself -- as the coming bridegroom in the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1ff)

Why would the covenant of earthly marriage be used as a prophetic image Christ and the Church (Eph 5)

And if marriage among Christian ministry leadership is so forbidden -- why do the Spirit and the BRIDE OF CHRIST say come.... (Rev 22:17) Amen.

Please be clear on my points -- I have no objection to voluntary celibacy and chaste singleness wthin or without the ordained ministry of the Lord-- and I concur with all Apostle Paul wrote about the tension experienced between the two institutions....

But I fear the imposition of man's traditions over the authority of the Word of God form a serious artificial barrier and limitation...

...Which at times weakens -- and certainly lately -- due to corporate misunderstanding and imposition of artificial ineffective restrictions - which then leads to the bringing of reproach on the Lord's name and the reputation of the church.

If we accepted the whole counsel of Scripture -- we would have some priests/ministers who are clearly called to celibate singleness and others who are quite capable of all of the works of the ministry who enjoy the blessings of marriage and raising Godly children...

My conviction remains that all of the church should see things God's way --take the Word at face value -- and not beguile ourselves either by adding unnecessary restrictions or taking unpermitted liberties.

[marajade]

Paul established churches sure, but he put them in someone elses hands and went on.

I've backed up my belief with Scripture that priests should be married, First Timothy.

Where is your belief that priests should be celibate backed up by scripture?

Ever read 2nd Peter 1:20?

[neocon]

Huh? Where is that in First Timothy?

The prescription of 1 Timothy is satisfied by "one" or "zero" wives. That is the meaning of "husband of but one wife".

[marajade]

And what about faithful children?

[AnAmericanMother]

Your points are well put (this is the kind of discussion I like!)

Just to chime in with my two cents. When in Matthew 8:14-15 Jesus heals St. Peter's mother in law, here's my question: why did the poor old lady have to get up from her bed and wait on them? If St. Peter's wife was still living, wouldn't SHE have been the lady of the house and the one who would have done the social duties? And wouldn't St. Peter's wife have had something to say regarding Jesus healing her mom?

This isn't really an argument from silence . . . more of an argument from the facts as presented.

[marajade]

"One cannot assert that the celibate Apostle/bishop St. Paul said that a bishop may not be celibate."

I never said that. I'm quoting First Timothy which was authored by Timothy. And what about the scripture that the Word, the whole word is the inspired word of God?

[Petronski]

It says that those children he might have be faithful, not that he have children and that they be faithful.

[marajade]

That's not what First Timothy says. Read it.

[Petronski]

I believe you'll find that the books of Timothy were letters by Paul TO Timothy.

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and of Christ Jesus our hope: 2 To Timothy, his beloved son in faith. Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you're reading of Timothy on this point is so inattentive, what are we to think of your other personal interpretations of scripture?

[Petronski]

I've already read it. Oh, and my reading of Timothy isn't marred by obvious reading comprehension problems, like yours is.

First Timothy was written by Timothy? Puh-leaze.

[neocon]

And what about faithful children?

Obviously, with zero wives, there could be no children unless the sin of fornication had been committed. I'm sure you're not advocating that. So the clause concerning children is operative only if there is a wife at all.

Suppose a bishop and his wife, through no fault of their own, happened to be infertile. Would a married bishop lose his ministry in that case because his wife had never given birth? Would his ordination be contingent on his begetting children at some future date? Would he somehow not be a bishop until that happened? What would be the state of his ministry in the interim? No, none of that would make any sense, unless you think ordinary reason has no role in Scriptural interpretation.

But again, there is the counter-example to your thesis of St. Paul, as sitetest has pointed out, who was unmarried, had no children, recommended celibacy as a higher calling, and yet was a bishop. So, apparently, it is possible to be simultaneously celibate, childless, and a bishop. Which means your interpretation of 1 Timothy is erroneous.