Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
Branded?
This is how God works. God puts His seal on me Himself, the seal of the Holy Spirit. I am his forever more.
2 Corinthians 1:22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
2 Corinthians 5:5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Your defense of catholisim was immediate, first line..rather than a focus on Christ and what He has asked of us by following Him in Baptisim.....which should be a wakeup call to you the stronghold of the church has you.
Read my post again for it’s clearly stated why we choose to be Baptised. Your question has already been answered there but apparently overlooked.
Memebership in a church does not guarantee salvation to any rather salvation comes thru Christ Jesus and the work He does in the life of the individual in bringing them to Himself.....
“Jesus said...”No man comes to the Father but by me”.....no doubt He meant that. The Christians I know understand this as well as those I don’t know who I might meet along the way. Salvation is thru Christ..not a church nor Sacrements, rituals or Baptisim. It’s settled and understood in the believers life.
When I have met Catholics along the way...varied answers and comments indicate they don’t know if they are saved and or because the church teaches them to know this is sin. They have no assurance in Christ because they are relying on a denomination and it’s leadership.
“Your defense of catholisim was immediate, first line rather than a focus on Christ and what He has asked of us by following Him in Baptisim which should be a wakeup call to you the stronghold of the church has you.”
Thanks for the compliment sir. :)
“Read my post again for it’s clearly stated why we choose to be Baptised.”
Do you believe baptism to be optional for believers? Can you baptize yourself? Are you baptised?
“Memebership in a church does not guarantee salvation”
Never said this, but Christ himself submits to baptism, where God himself made himself known. Baptism confirmed his status as the Son of God, to which John the Baptist confessed.
“to any rather salvation comes thru Christ Jesus”
Which is why he commanded Baptism.
“and the work He does in the life of the individual in bringing them to Himself”
And one of the ways he works is through the sacraments.
“Jesus said...”No man comes to the Father but by me”
Indeed, for it is he who commanded Baptism.
“Salvation is thru Christ”
Which is why Christ commanded baptism. There is no divide between Christ and baptism, nor could there be.
“not a church nor Sacrements, rituals or Baptisim.”
If Baptism is not from Christ, why do you do it?
“When I have met Catholics along the way...varied answers and comments indicate they don’t know if they are saved and or because the church teaches them to know this is sin.”
That is because the Church teaches that we are saved through the Grace of God through Faith in Christ. Sola Gratia. God knows, but we will not know until after judgement.
“They have no assurance in Christ because they are relying on a denomination and it’s leadership.”
It’s God’s prerogative. If we were relying on the Church, why wouldn’t the Church teach that they would save us?
Oh wait....
Your appear to be squirming and your post attests to that....nobody said we baptize ourselves.. by stating so is enciting confusion which is very common among catholics and their teachings.
as for Jesus’s Baptisim..and why He did so...it established the Trinity as follows:
Jesus said to John..... “I have need to be baptized by you.”..... yet John knew Jesus was the son of God and had no need to be forgiven of sins because he was sinless...still Jesus knew John’s reluctance and said... “It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”
There were three individuals present at His Baptism.....God the Father....Jeusus the Son of God...and the Holy Spirit desending from Heaven...thus establishing the Trinity right from the beginning and before He went into the wildnerness.
Yes, I have been Baptized....but it was after I committed my Life to Him and with the understanding of what Baptisim is.
“Yes, I have been Baptized....but it was after I committed my Life to Him and with the understanding of what Baptisim is.”
That’s fine. I understand that and where you are coming from. I have no way of knowing this unless I ask.
“There were three individuals present at His Baptism.....God the Father....Jeusus the Son of God...and the Holy Spirit desending from Heaven...thus establishing the Trinity right from the beginning and before He went into the wildnerness.”
Well, I would hope John the Baptist was there too. ;) But yes, this is why this happened to demonstrate this and the truth that Christ was truly the Son of God, as you said, a public witness to Christ and his true nature.
What do you know of ‘baptism of desire’?
When someone depends on a denomination or mans criteria of salvation it can never assure ones heart and mind for it is Christ’s work thru His Spirit to assure us of the salvation He's given and He does so as He communicates with us thru the scriptures.
and further..."If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.... For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved" (Romans 10:9-10).
and again...."You also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 1:13).
The thief on the cross had no time for Baptism yet HE was with the Lord that very day...as Christ stated..it was enough for the thief to have identified with Christ...He acknowledged Christ's sinlessness, he recognized his own sin deserving of punishment... HE recognized Christ the Messiah HE needed. “Remember me when you enter into your kingdom”....there was no Baptism by water.
Therefore Baptism is not required for salvation...it is something the Lord will reveal for an individual as He walks the walk of faith. God does all things well and that includes when and if one is to be Baptized...We follow Him and once someone recognizes and commits to walking with Christ...and He learns of Baptism..generally speaking they desire to follow Him in that.
I do not see Baptism as a “command” from Jesus....rather an act of following Him because it pleases Him that we do so, and that gladly for the love we have for Him....a public and symbolic way of showing we are His to other believers...and even those who are not...it evidences "my life has changed.. Im His and He's mine".... Keep in mind Jesus did not Baptize any with water.
Nobody said Baptism wasn't of Christ...you're somehow apparently confused in your own confusion...and you keep evidencing this by repeating questions and many out of context to the topic...which are already answered quite clearly....
Let me ask this....Suppose that you were to die today and stand before God and He were to ask you, "Why should I let you into my heaven?"..... What would you say?
I have to go now...errands to run...
It was not intended as a compliment....perhaps better said the stronghold of 'catholisism' has you...which is quite another thing from the church (body of believers in Christ). Talking to a catholic using the word church is often confusing for them because many still see the catholic church as the superior, one and only "real" church capable of presenting the gospel....they aren't up to date with the Popes statements...which they should be agreeing with.
Your character Fr. Bernstein didn’t convert to Christianity. he converted to Catholisism. Now he’s simply promoting Catholisim and Roman Catholic doctrine in preference to what God said as it was written in the N.T. Gospels by those that knew and lived with Him.
>>Small problem. Fr. Bernstein is Russian Orthodox.
Catholicism IS Christianity. Evangelicalism is a Gnostic sect.
Oh, you refer to Lumen Gentium which teaches that while the Catholic church has the fulness of Christ, that we are separated brethren? Yes, I am aware of what was written.
“This verse says,.... that you may “know,” not “hope,”
it says eidete - “so you may SEE life everlasting”
I teach you this so you may see life everlasting.
“When someone depends on a denomination”
I believe I said that God is sovereign. Did you miss this? God decides, not us.
“and further...”If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.... For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved”
And it is the Lord who knows our true hearts and minds.
and again....”You also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit”
Indeed, this is what happens at confirmation.
“The thief on the cross had no time for Baptism”
Which is why I asked if you knew anything of baptism of desire. It covers these circumstances where one desiring baptism dies before the undertaking.
“Therefore Baptism is not required for salvation”
Not so. For his baptism is already given in his heart. God does not hold it against him, for God can read hearts and minds.
“generally speaking they desire to follow Him in that.”
All those who sincerely believe in him desire baptism.
“I do not see Baptism as a “command” from Jesus”
You quoted it yourself. It was right for him to submit to John, it is right for us to submit to Christ.
“a public and symbolic way of showing”
It’s not a symbol. We are cleansed of our sins and we are washed again. Baptism is efficacious. Again, if baptism has no meaning, why do you do it?
“Keep in mind Jesus did not Baptize any with water.”
The Jordan was wet, was it not?
“you’re somehow apparently confused”
When you deny that those who are baptised are part of the body, yes you are denying that baptism comes from Christ.
“Let me ask this....Suppose that you were to die today and stand before God and He were to ask you, “Why should I let you into my heaven?”..... What would you say?”
I would confess that I was unworthy of such a blessing.
so of course the catholic church doesn't have the fullness of Christ for they have long ago missed the mark of the High calling of God in Christ Jesus.........on the contrary it's fullness consists of it's own agenda rules and regulations which govern it's membership via the magesterium/Priest and their King Pope whomt they obey rather than Christ.
Wasn't that why you were asking me if I was Baptized or not? You were maybe attempting to "qualify" me ....for according to the LG any who are baptized would be accepted as being “joined” to the catholic church just not ‘incorporated’ into catholisism via your sacraments and rituals, doctrines and such.
But the LG goes even further and acknowledges “the possibility of Salvation for any non-Christian or non-theists. Which pretty much would cover anybody of any faith or beliefs.
So the catholic church is certainly on a role to ‘incorporate’ all peoples they can regardless if they're in Christ or not..because numbers matter now and will moreso in the future as the push for a One World church system is fast moving...and so will matter the revenues the churches have to be controlled by this new system.
Unfortunately your church hasn't learned even now...as it's doing exactly as they did with the barbarians they invited into the "sheep pen" during the middle-ages...
... Therefore many of us still can rejoice there was the Reformation and we want no part of Catholicism...anymore than the Reformers did and left the catholic church for it's failures to obey God and rid itself of 's rules and regulations hung around the necks of the people which Jesus never intended.
God is good.. and like the Israelites He had chosen as His own and brought them out and away from the task masters in Egypt.......HE also brought the true believers out of the decaying and barberistic catholic church and Priesthood man had devised ....The Reformation worked to set the captive free!...and I'm convinced there's a movement of His Spirit to pull the rest of believers out before it's too late.
I would have thought the revealing by the media of the Homosexual Infestation and coverup would have created a grand Exodus...but then the tentacles are tight and deep even at the risk of their own families.
Why would any want to go back or even consider joining your church when it's headed right down the pike to the Universalistic plans for a One world church system? For that matter many other churches today headed that same direction.? The church membership still is asleep....while it's leadership is following the piped piper.
...."I would confess that I was unworthy of such a blessing".....
You'd be right... you wouldn't be worthy apart from the finished work of Christ which would make it possible for you to even stand before Him. You're own merit can only doom you. But if you know Him and your His why hang your head low....we are to have "Joy that our names are written on the scroll of life.
And therein is the great gulf between you and I... for I would be standing In Christ my Savior and Lord before my Father... and for that be welcomed into His Kingdom as His child with opened arms....for He has already... now today.. accepted me as "worthy" thru His Son Jesus Christ.... I will be delighted beyond measure to see His face at last...there will be no question or doubt between God and myself...just pure bliss to finally be home and with Him.
"Therefore there is NOW no condemnation to them who are In Christ Jesus." What a homecoming it will be!
“But if you know Him and your His why hang your head low”
Because I have not finished the race and there are many more miles left to go.
“And therein is the great gulf between you and I... for I would be standing In Christ my Savior and Lord before my Father... and for that be welcomed into His Kingdom as His child with opened arms”
I do not presume to know what the Father has decided.
“No I’m not referring to LG...and I wouldn’t do so for it’s just another document of manipulation and deception by Rome in preparing and positioning it’s members to join with the One World System of Religion to come”
Well, that is your loss. Lumen Gentium is an excellent encyclical, right up there with Humanae Vitae. You should read it some time. I found it rather edifying.
“so of course the catholic church doesn’t have the fullness of Christ”
Considering that you’ve declined to provide your own affliation, I’m not sure on what basis you make that determination. Fulness presumes that there exists another body that is in the fulness of Christ, yet you refuse to affirm the existence of such body.
It’s a puzzle. I can only surmise that if the Catholic church is not in fulness, and you do not acknowledge someone who is, then that can only mean that no one is in the fulness of Christ. This of course can be rather easily remedied.
“for they have long ago”
How long ago did this Apostasy occur?
“consists of it’s own agenda rules and regulations which govern it’s membership via the magesterium/Priest and their King Pope whomt they obey rather than Christ.’
Well, for sure, for Peter is the rock upon which our Church is founded.
“Wasn’t that why you were asking me if I was Baptized or not?”
I was attempting to determine what precisely you believed with respect to baptism.
:according to the LG any who are baptized would be accepted as being “joined” to the catholic church just not ‘incorporated’ into catholisism via your sacraments and rituals, doctrines and such.”
Well, seeing as I’m rather familiar with that procedure, yes they would be qualified to enter, but they would have to see the permission of the bishop and undergo confirmation.
“But the LG goes even further and acknowledges “the possibility of Salvation for any non-Christian or non-theists. Which pretty much would cover anybody of any faith or beliefs.”
Indeed. As Paul himself teaches in Romans, the one who is without the law who lives in accordance to the dictates of the law, becomes a law unto himself. God is sovereign. He is not bound by the Church. He will save those whom he will save.
“So the catholic church is certainly on a role to ‘incorporate’ all peoples they can”
Given what scripture says, I can only conclude they are affirming Paul’s teachings in Romans.
“regardless if they’re in Christ or not”
How would you determine whether someone was in Christ or not?
“because numbers matter now and will moreso in the future as the push for a One World church system is fast moving...and so will matter the revenues the churches have to be controlled by this new system.”
Well I’m very curious to know which church you attend given your views expressed here and your reluctance to reveal your own faith. I must profess not to understand this reluctance.
I’m Catholic. I see no reason to admit otherwise or concel what I believe.
“Unfortunately your church hasn’t learned even now...as it’s doing exactly as they did with the barbarians they invited into the “sheep pen” during the middle-ages”
You mean the English and the French and the Germans? Indeed, the Church has been bringing barbarians in for a very long time.
“Therefore many of us still can rejoice there was the Reformation and we want no part of Catholicism”
Personally I find the argument that you want no part of the Church, yet you carry her books around. To me, that makes you unwitting missionaries, you spread Catholicism wherever you go and increase the Faith.
But enjoy your reformation, sir.
“anymore than the Reformers did and left the catholic church for it’s failures to obey God and rid itself of ‘s rules and regulations hung around the necks of the people which Jesus never intended.”
Yet you would apply similar rules to the faithful.
“HE also brought the true believers out of the decaying and barberistic catholic church”
Again, by what means do you claim to know those who are in the faith?
“I’m convinced there’s a movement of His Spirit to pull the rest of believers out before it’s too late.”
You are mistaken.
“I would have thought the revealing by the media of the Homosexual Infestation and coverup would have created a grand Exodus...but then the tentacles are tight and deep even at the risk of their own families.”
Perhaps the fact that the Church still teaches that contraception is sinful is evidence that it is the Church which retains the body of the Faith.
“Why would any want to go back or even consider joining your church”
Do you wish to know?
I believe the correct reply is,
si fueris Romae...
Just curious...have you seen the surveys printed here that show a sizable percent of current Catholics disagree with what the Church teaches on contraception? Not only that, over 50% of Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates, themselves. So, I hate to burst a bubble, but whatever your "experience" is, it is not the "norm". Catholics who disagree with the Church on contraception, rarely leave over it, they just stay pretending it isn't important.
As an ex-Catholic, I DO agree with the Catholic Church on the subject of abortion as well as any contraceptives that are abortifacient - that is, they cause "mini-abortions" by ensuring if fertilization occurs, the embryo cannot adhere to the uterine wall. As for other types such as barrier methods, I think the Catholic Church is wrong to oppose it and is hypocritical to push NFP but not another that doesn't threaten life.
So, now you can change your experience of "most if not all", since Metmom and I attest we left for theological reasons and NOT because of contraception.
Why indeed, as i made it easy to see stats relative to that*, and if you had looked then you could have seen that evangelicals practice contraception more (71% perhaps due to having more sexual relations), contrary to historical teaching (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc., as well as women pastors).
However, that would hardly be a reason for Catholics leaving the comfort of Rome, as 59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%)
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
Of never-married adult females, 25% of Evangelicals, 11% of Catholics and 14% of Mainline Protestants professed never to be have had sexual relations. Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use, Guttmacher Institute, April. 2011
74% of Evangelicals, 73% of Mainline Protestants, and 68% of sexually active Catholics women use birth control. 3% of the Catholics rely on natural family planning. Attendance at religious services and importance of religion to daily life are largely unrelated to use of highly effective contraceptive methods. ^
40% of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said the church’s “teachings on sexuality and birth control are out of date.” http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%). Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States:
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/Catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
26 percent of Catholics polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivoval position on abortion Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4% ^
30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). Arthur Jones, 2002 National Catholic Reporter. Gale Group. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
71 percent of priests responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. ^
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^
49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent. ^
Also, there is THE EARLY CHURCH AND CONTRACEPTION. Matthew D. Schultz
I am aware that there are a few married priests within the Roman Catholic Church, converts from eastern Eastern Orthodox church, and that it is a church law, which can be changed. And therefore the Catholic can only argue that there is warrant for it, and not that Scripture requires it.
Neither is St. Paul. If marriage is a requirement to be a bishop, why does he preach that celibacy is better?
And Paul's recommendation of celibacy is carefully worded and conditional, and the superiority of celibacy relates to the advantages celibacy enables due to focus more upon purely spiritual things, and because of the danger that Paul sees as imminent. The latter aspect may be prophetic as the destruction of the temple and 70 A.D. was a traumatic event.
Yet Paul's requirement of marriage for pastor relates to his job description that of pastoring. "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5) David was a shepherd before he became the King. As for Paul, he was a traveling apostle, not simply a stationary pastor of a local flock, if that make any difference, and even among apostles he was a anomaly. (1Cor. 9:5)
Yet whether the requirement that one be married in 1Tim. 3 and Titus 1 is an absolute requirement of all bishops/elders is debatable, but in the light of this and the rest of Scripture what is presumptuous is requiring an entire class of clergy to have the gift of celibacy, however commendable and advantageous that practice is. If all the apostles were celibate, and if the requirements for a bishop/elder did not mention ruling one's own household first, then there would be a better case for clerical celibacy.
While celibacy is a gift and is spiritually advantageous over marriage in certain ways, yet it is a gift which Scripturally cannot be presumed all clergy must have. And rather than being a function for procreation which also has a unitive effect, in which it would be wrong to have any relations if procreation was precluded, marital relations in Scripture can be seen glorified as a blessing of marriage, in that context, beyond the purpose of procreation.
"Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." (Proverbs 5:19)
"Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine." (Ezekiel 16:8)
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (1 Corinthians 7:2-5)
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
In contrast, many church “fathers not taught that marital relations are sinful if not for procreation (Lactantius even says “merely for the creation of offspring”), but some indicate they saw sexual relations as impure even for that purpose within marriage, and some required the exact opposite of Paul in 1Cor. 7 for married men.
Despite the sanctification of marital sexual relations in the New Testament, without procreation been the condition, and Hebrews 13:4 sanctifying the marriage bed, the pious scholar Jerome reasons all sexual relations are unclean, and requires married clergy to remain celibate.
Does [Jovinianus] imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?...The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean....He who has married a wife, and he who has planted a vineyard, an image of the propagation of children, is forbidden to go to the battle. For he who is the slave of his wife cannot be the Lord’s soldier.
The difference, then, between marriage and virginity is as great as that between not sinning and doing well; nay rather, to speak less harshly, as great as between good and better.
You surely admit that he is no bishop who during his episcopate begets children. The reverse is the case—if he be discovered, he will not be bound by the ordinary obligations of a husband, but will be condemned as an adulterer.
The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray.
In Genesis Jerome engages in more eisegesis of Scripture in his imbalanced view of marital relations:
This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. [yet a 6 day creation was all good, and the Lord sent out his disciples two by two]. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. — St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 Chapter 7,13,16,33 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html
Augustine cannot conceive of sexual relations being without lust. “On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27):” Marriage is itself "honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4 the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed undefiled" (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication.[St. Cyprian, "Of the Discipline and Advantage of Chastity," ANF, v. 5, p.1251]
George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America finds, "There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century"[19]
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.