Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
Oh, now... Is that ALL you can come up with? You can do better than that.
I’m not nearly as good looking as that hillbilly you posted.
Maybe WPaCon can come chastise you for your unChristian-like behavior. Or, maybe not if hypocrisy manages to show up.
Hoss
Celibacy works for those who can handle it.
If not, Paul says, better to marry than to burn (with lust).
The priests in ancient Israel were all married men and able to fulfill their priestly duties.
There have been uncounted numbers men who have been successful ministers and pastors, while being married and raising children.
Being able to shepherd a congregation and being married are not mutually exclusive.
I think the only hope for the Catholic church surviving is to allow for married priests again. I suspect that it’s the only way that it’s going to be able to get enough men to enter the priesthood these days and since there is nowhere in Scripture that DEMANDS that a pastor be single, there’s really no justification for it.
Which posters do I attribute things to? List, please.
Wow. You actually go as far as reading the mind of God.
Scripture, actually, I can help you out on the unfamiliar bits (Genesis to Revelation from what I can see).
And, sadly, the points you list are all wrong! ALL!
That second exclamation mark is very convincing.
Since your post included me, let me ask you this: how do you know I reject the Gospel?
I don't know that you've rejected the Bible. However, the fruits are getting rather mushy and nasty smelling.
You cannot know it. Because I LOVE the Gospel.
So you say. My 4-year old LOVES hot dogs.
Next... what on earth is Paulianity? Roman Catholics claim to have provided the Bible to the world -- Paul wrote books that are Canon, no? So - -do you reject Paul's teaching, inspired by the Holy Spirit?
What do they teach you in that tent? Obviously not the Christian faith, otherwise you would know about Paulianity, and the reasons that it was rejected as heresy. I suppose that you embrace Nestorianism as well, would you say?
Gnosticism? I think not. My salvation is based on Christ's shed blood on the Cross -- On the faith and trust that God has provided for me in His only begotten Son.
I thought that you had knowledge of your salvation.
Nestorianism? Fail. Nice try though, but fail.
Then you have no trouble with the concept of Mary, Mother of God, right?
I have not the first issue with the Nicene Creed -- but obviously, you attribute to me this issue since you pinged me.
Well, if you adhere to the usual Presbyterian beliefs blatted about here and elsewhere, you believe that Jesus is lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is a mechanism or tool of the Father and the Son; you have a recently coined definition of the Catholic Church that is at odds with Christianity; you do not believe in the communion of saints as defined by the Church 1700 years ago; you do not believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins; and your beliefs are at odds with early Christianity such as double predestination and the creation of men by God in order for them to suffer hellfire eternal. That is, if you believe in the usual Presbyterian beliefs.
The only "check" that is being shown here is a "check" written that cannot be cashed -- your points all come back marked "insufficient funds."
It's not my cash - it's God's.
Ok, Hoss, I apologize for criticizing your posting style/tone.
I guess it’s understandable in a thread like this.
Yeah, right.....
*Do as I say...*
Just what I thought.
No problem. Now get busy with Mark and be consistent.
:D
Hoss
No one knows how effective the public schools are at ferreting out and disposing of pedophiles.
I don't know what was the original justification other than apocryphal stories. Since the Catholic Church admits married priests from other denominations who matriculate, the boys upstairs seem sort of flexible on the issue.
You've managed to ruin any credibility you had with statement. That was funny.
Fail. Keep trying.
Hoss
And you escaped without riding a lightning bolt...
God's mercy in action.
Whatever.
As an aside, I think this is an appropriate prayer for Catholics to pray when coming on threads such as these:
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
We have a similar situation with the argument that only by passing gun control laws can we keep them out of the hands of criminals. The criminals don't care ~ that's because they are criminals.
Pedophiles are hardly deterred from their mission of sex with kids simply because women may be more available to them.
Since you give no era for this claim, I will post from early Church history on celibacy in the service of God.
Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and Church History gives a good picture from the fourth century on. Here are some excerpts:
Clerical continence in the West
a. Fourth century legislation
Convincing testimonies to the normative nature of clerical continence in the fourth century can be found in individual Western patristic authors (such as Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome). The first known example of actual legislation is c. 33 of the Spanish Council of Elvira, the usual date of which is given as ca. 305. It reads:
We decree that all bishops, priests and deacons in the service of the ministry are entirely forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives and to beget children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honour of the clergy.17
There is a similar canon which certain manuscripts ascribe to the First Council of Aries (314), considered to be a sort of General Council of the West. Canon 29 reads:
Moreover, (concerned with) what is worthy, pure, and honest, we exhort our brothers (in the episcopate) to make sure that priests and deacons have no (sexual) relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision, will be deposed from the honour of the clergy.18
The wording of these canons does not immediately suggest that an innovation is being introduced, and it would be an error in historical procedure to maintain a priori that such was the case. The seriousness of the implications for the life of the clergy, the absence of justification for the strictness of the discipline and the canonical penalty attached, would suggest, on the contrary, that the Church authorities were concerned with the maintenance and not the introduction of this rule. The important papal decretals of the fourth century, which indicate the rule for all the West — Directa (385) and Cum in unum (386) of Pope Siricius; Dominus inter of Innocent I (or Damasus?), and the Synod of Carthage (390) — were in fact emphatic that clerical continence belonged to immemorial, even apostolic, tradition.19 Patristic writings are often explicit in considering the apostles as models of the priesthood. Yet those who might have been married were thought not to have lived other than in continence?20
Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop at the Council of Nicaea, writes in the Demonstratio Evangelica, I, 9 (3 15-325): «It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife’. But this being understood, it behoves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse with their wives.» St Jerome, who had a good knowledge of the Eastern Churches, writes to the priest Vigilantius (406): «What would the Eastern Churches do? What would (those of) Egypt and the Apostolic See do, they who never accept clerics unless they are virgins or continent men, or if they had had a wife, (accept them only) if they give up matrimonial life...» (Adversus Vigilantium, 2).
Epiphanius (315-403), born in Palestine and consecrated bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, condemns all forms of encratism but nonetheless insists that priests themselves are required to live continently, as regulated (he believed) by the apostles. Priestly continence is observed, he maintains, wherever the ecclesiastical canons are adhered to, human weakness and the shortage of vocations being inadequate reasons for clergy to contravene the rule.38
Synesius. of Ptolemais, of the Libyan Church, knows that he is expected to live in continence with his wife if made bishop,39 and Palladius the historian reports that a synod presided over by John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the year 400, condemned Anton inus, Bishop of Ephesus, for doing what was forbidden by the ‘holy laws’ including resuming common life with his wife.40
Other testimonies to be taken into special account include Origen (d. ca. 253) (23rd homily on Numbers, 6th homily on Leviticus), Ephraem Syrus (Carmina Nisibena, 18 and 19 [ca. 363]), and the Syriac Doctrina Addei (ca. 400).
Thus has it been almost from the beginning of Church history. Your statement is wrong.
As to what.The men accused of abuse are with young male’s.Your point is Men should marry men?.
I try to take into account the limitations of those I converse with.
That could be said of any organization.
However, given the Catholic church's history, they haven't been doing too good a job at it, and there is less excuse for THEM not doing a good job.
They, after all, have direction from God Himself and Jesus own words directing how to deal with sin within and they've chosen to ignore it.
Sometimes I am guilty of overestimating people.
I'd suggest he simply be ignored.
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.