Posted on 12/14/2009 11:06:25 AM PST by the_conscience
That would assume it has some basis in Scripture which it doesn't so to ask what's wrong with it based on Scripture is that it's baseless.
So if there is
no basis in scripture
to declare it wrong,
how can you say it is wrong?
Is this simply a matter of prudential judgment for you?
So in 150 you have condemned a Catholic practice as wrong:
CAMPION: Okay, and if the church asserts that a valid “calling” to the priesthood presupposes a “calling” to the virtue of apostolic celibacy, then ... ?
YOU: That Church is wrong.
But in 201 you deny that your condemnation has a basis in scripture:
ME: And it is wrong on what “sola scriptura” basis?
YOU: That would assume it has some basis in Scripture which it doesn’t so to ask what’s wrong with it based on Scripture is that it’s baseless.
That's not what I said, FRiend.
Let's repost campion's question and see if you can figure out what the problem is:
Okay, and if the church asserts that a valid “calling” to the priesthood presupposes a “calling” to the virtue of apostolic celibacy, then ... ?
But sadly not by the largest Lutheran synods.
Yes. We can agree on this. The appalling condition of the fallen creature can be quite grievous. But you were and still are attempting to lay at the feet of the reformers, the depravity of certain people, and even groups present depravity.
The distinction I was making was that it was the individual Catholics you listed in your earlier reply who fell into sin but on the other side it was the reformer's Lutheran Church itself which fell into sin.
Such statements as...only work when one (willfully?) ignore all those other children of the Reformation, who vehemently oppose such.
This isn't an issue of individual children of the Reformation but rather of the largest of the synods founded by the reformers. The sad fact is that only a small part of these synods hasn't yet fallen in to outright apostasy. The majority of the tree Luther planted is bearing rancid fruit. The argument that Luther instead planted many trees, a few of which haven't yet produced such toxic output, ignores the history and intent of the reformation.
Since we can agree, I assume, that it is most certainly not the Catholic's church's fault that humans are indeed sinners, even as one can easily enough point at gross sins within portions of historical Catholic hierarchy, up to the very highest levels; then to blame Luther for present sinning, is comparably preposterous.
I am not blaming Luther for the sinful condition of his followers, but rather I am blaming him for much of the sinful condition of the majority of the churches which bear his name.
He himself never recommended such sinning, nor sought to COVER IT UP, either! That last part, is very important. The cover-ups, have continued unto nearly this present time, at very high levels.
Certainly there have been and continue to be many terrible failings by the clergy and the laity of the Catholic Church. The relevant (and most definitely miraculous) aspect of this is that this sinning hasn't poisoned the moral teachings of the Catholic Church in the same way so much of the Lutheran Church has been poisoned.
Teaching, and leading, is not only by what one says but by what one does
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Catholic Church, but sadly the same can not be said of the majority of the Lutheran Church. Their open sanction and support of actively and unrepentant homosexual pastors and their tacit support of abortion most certainly originates from the depths of Hell.
I realize that the thesis you offer here (it's all Luther's fault!) sounds good to your own ears, and is popular rhetoric amongst some Catholics, but once dragged into the light of day, it miserably fails.
I certainly do not blame Luther for all of the present sins of so much of his church, but I do blame his actions for creating the schism which ultimately led to the sins of these synods.
Luther did indeed bring needed correction, some of which is obliquely, rather quietly acknowledged [by the Catholic Church].
Luther most definitely brought many valid criticisms of the Catholic Church to light. Had he remained in the Church rather than turning against it, he likely would be regarded as a great saint. However by revolting and dividing Christendom heretically as he did, he bears great responsibility for the apostasy in so many of the churches which bear his name today.
As far as *some* of the Lutherans now, presently being openly seen to continence sins, I can agree with you that they are. For them to do so is grievous, damaging to the body & cause of Christ. We can find wide agreement on this forum, of that...
As I suggested in my early posts in this thread, I speculate that Martin Luther would have remained in the Catholic Church even with the discipline of clerical celibacy had he been able to see the great scandals the majority of his followers would eventually commit in his name.
But again, to stress the point, is that what you yourself seem to be ignoring, (willfully, to make your argument work?) is at the same that a GREAT MANY "children of the reformation" churches, are raising a standard against such sins, in very much the same way as factions within the Catholic church fought (ideologically) for centuries, for purity.
I admire the many minority synods which are still fighting to hold onto the remnant of truth which Luther took with him. I personally believe, however, that despite their valiant efforts, they too will eventually lose this fight because they remain separated from the Church Christ started.
What I mean by this, is that in the history of the Catholic church, there were groups and clergymen, many times of very high rank, who not only winked at certain sins amongst themselves, but had gone so far as to formalize how such could be justified. Clerical concubinage comes to mind, among others. ...Medieval scholars attest that clerical concubinage was commonplace. Further, as was previously noted; Adultery, casual sex with unmarried women and homosexual relationships were rampant... rotten, wicked "fruit". Quit putrid.
The fact that these personal sins were never incorporated into the magisterium of the Catholic Church is something I firmly believe was only possible through direct divine intervention. I also believe that it was because of Martin Luther's heretical schism that the churches which bear his name were not provided with the same miraculous protection. This simple historical observation played a part in my conversion from a baptized Lutheran into a confirmed Catholic.
Yes, there were those at the time, and along throughout history, within the church, who were aghast at such things. Luther was even one of them! But the corruption was so widespread, so deeply embedded, he got a wee bit 'torqued off'. You are blaming the wrong guy...
I personally believe that much of what Martin Luther initially sought within the Catholic Church was very positive. Where he erred was in the means he used to achieve his goals. By separating himself from the one true Church, he also separated himself and his church from God's enduring grace. The consequences of this most serious sin are apparent not only in the apostasy of so many of his churches, but they can also be seen in many of the continuing weaknesses of the Catholic Church. From the near powerlessness of Western Christianity in the face of secularism and Islam all the way to the poor liturgical music and scriptural illiteracy of many Catholics today, these problems can be traced back in varying degrees to this tragic schism. It is my sincere hope that someday through God's grace this wound will be healed and our churches will be reunited.
I understand your position as follows:
1. Catholic requirements for ordination are wrong.
2. There is no scripture that supports the view that Catholic requirements for orindation are wrong.
Please clarify if I have misunderstood your position.
I understand your position as follows:
1. Catholic requirements for ordination are wrong.
2. There is no scripture that supports the view that Catholic requirements for ordination are wrong.
3. You approve of some other method for selecting who is to be ordained, which is vague and hard to pin down.
Please clarify if I have misunderstood your position.
Here you go:
1. Scripture does not command clerical celibacy and in fact through inference allows for clerical marriage.
2. Romanism presupposes clerical celibacy as a necessary antecedent to Scripture.
3. Therefore Romanisms position on clerical celibacy is not based on Scripture.
See how cut and dried that is? No need for obfuscation or polemics. Just the hard truth.
Of course you have left out that scripture encourages servant’s of Christ’s Church to imitate His own celibacy, and that He gave His keys and the power to bind and loose to His Church, and that His Word admonishes men to hold fast to traditions handed down orally.
Except you have not explained your specific criteria for ordinatio and who makes that call. Or the precise scriptural basis for your explanation.
illud quos copiose erroris terrenus sceptrum , cause, institutio quod philosophy , pro mystical somes of Sarcalogos teneo non Suus Phasmatis
I had no obligation to show anything further since your original question was incoherent as I showed that Romanism does not base clerical celibacy on Scripture.
If you want to make some other argument like Romanist doctrines overrule God's own revelation, go for it.
You have not offered a scriptural basis for the criteria that you prefer for ordination.
You have not even asserted what those criteria might be.
You simply assert your (unkwnown) criteria are valid.
If your criteria are valid, then according to your own argumants, they must be supported by scripture.
While scripture DOES encourage all followers of Christ to be celibate,
scripture does NOT forbid leaders to require celibacy for ordination.
You have not offered any scripture to indicate that celibacy must NOT be a requirement.
You have not shown any such thing. You have argued a point, but you certainly have not shown your position to be the only one that could be valid.
In fact, you have not asserted much about what YOU believe, other than that Catholics can’t be right.
By the way, one of the courtesies applied at FR when engaging an adherent of a religion is to use the terms preferred by that adherent. Did you think I prefer the (normally) perjorative term that you keep using?
That was never asked.
You have not even asserted what those criteria might be.
That was never asked.
You simply assert your (unkwnown) criteria are valid.
I don't recall asserting any such thing. How could I not assert a criteria and assert at the same time those criteria are valid?
If your criteria are valid...
You said I didn't assert a criteria
then according to your own argumants, they must be supported by scripture.
I made no such argument. My only argument was that the Romanist doctrine of clerical celibacy was not based on Scripture. I don't recall making any positive arguments about ordination. You're arguing against ghosts. If you want to know what my positive arguments for ordination are than just ask.
While scripture DOES encourage all followers of Christ to be celibate, scripture does NOT forbid leaders to require celibacy for ordination. You have not offered any scripture to indicate that celibacy must NOT be a requirement.
Why should I have to prove a negative? If Scripture does not forbid a married clergy why do I have to prove that a married clergy can be forbidden?
In fact I did and you did not present any counter arguments against my proof. The fact is that you implicitly agreed with my proof.
You have argued a point...
Point, proof, evidence...What's your point?
but you certainly have not shown your position to be the only one that could be valid.
I didn't need to. We were speaking of a specific statement.
In fact, you have not asserted much about what YOU believe, other than that Catholics can’t be right.
I was never asked. I merely responded to one poster's question.
By the way, one of the courtesies applied at FR when engaging an adherent of a religion is to use the terms preferred by that adherent.
Do I need to ask every poster their preferred nomenclature? One Romanist refers to himself as a "feelthy papist". Would you prefer that?
Did you think I prefer the (normally) perjorative term that you keep using?
I have no idea what you prefer. I'll use my freedom of speech to use the term that I think best describes each cult. Mormons prefer "Latter Day Saints", I prefer Mormon.
I did invite you to comment on all of this - in 207, if not previously. In any event, your whole theme of criticising the Catholic perspective naturally will draw you to provide your own perspective.
This is OPEN discussion, so there are not limits on what you will be asked.
If you don’t have a good answer, then of course you can give curt ones that dodge the material issues.
You have described your understanding of the Catholic ordination criteria, so it is quite natural to ask: what do YOU think the criteria for ordination should be?
What is the scriptural basis for YOUR view?
Is there any scriptural basis to criticize your view?
Is there any scripture that supports the Catholic criteria?
Is there any scriptural basis to criticize the Catholic view?
You are quibbling when you pretend that Romanism is not a perjorative.
I simply invited you to stop using a perjorative, and now you are free to demonstrate how charitable you are.
I received many queries that I did not responded to. If I recall correctly this series of post started when you re-queried me to post 203, I think, and I responded to that particular query.
In any event, your whole theme of criticising the Catholic perspective naturally will draw you to provide your own perspective.
I posted the essay. You have not inferred that I may be in agreement with the arguments provided in the essay?
This is OPEN discussion, so there are not limits on what you will be asked.
Yes
If you don’t have a good answer, then of course you can give curt ones that dodge the material issues.
I've given good answers unlike the obfuscation and polemics you initially presented. The fact that the answers I provided reflect the truth of the Romanist position does not make that a "dodge".
You have described your understanding of the Catholic ordination criteria, so it is quite natural to ask: what do YOU think the criteria for ordination should be?
I would start with 1 Timothy.
What is the scriptural basis for YOUR view?
See above.
Is there any scriptural basis to criticize your view?
No.
Is there any scripture that supports the Catholic criteria?
No.
Is there any scriptural basis to criticize the Catholic view?
Yes. 1st Timothy and many others.
And yet you're still not describing the Catholic Church.
I guess I shouldn't even bring that up, since you don't claim to be doing so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.