Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:
Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1
And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:
…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2
And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:
Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3
Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:
When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4
And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:
Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5
Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:
To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6
Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.
Authority
The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:
Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7
Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:
By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:
A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.
Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8
This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.
Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:
And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9
Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10
Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:
And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’
The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.
Flavius Josephus surrendered his own son to the Romans as a war criminal.....quite a reference.
Of course it did, but not as the Ark if the Revealed Word, but as a lectionary for the Liturgy of the Word. Funny how some criticize that effort because it does not serve a purpose not invented for another 1200+ years.
“Yes, the Church put them together. Yes, the Church also has the oldest and most accurate manuscripts.”
Good! Here is the church’s opinion on why the apocrypha are included!
Athanasius on the canon of the scripture:
“But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.
In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.
But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html
Rufinus of Aquileia on the Canon
“37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, 2 which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, 3 which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, 4 which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.
Of the New Testament there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, which was written by Luke; fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul, two of the apostle Peter, one of James, the brother of the Lord and an apostle, one of Jude, three of John, and the Revelation of John.
These are the books which the fathers have included in the canon; on which they would have us establish the declarations of our faith.
38. But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not “canonical” but “ecclesiastical” by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter. 7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named “apocrypha,” 8 which they would not have read in the churches.” (Exposition of the Creed)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html
Noticing a pattern!? “NOT BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF DOCTRINE”
“Here is the church’s opinion on why the apocrypha are included!”
St. Athanasius = the church?
“St. Athanasius = the church?”
More than that, thou spammer. You’ve seen many more quotes from me than just these two. A “Pope,” Saints, Scholars, all explaining that the apocrypha are included for the “edification of the faithful,” but NOT as authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine.
Why do you continue to act as though "the confirmation of doctrine" was the primary purpose of the Bible?
Seriously??? Believing that the Divinely-inspired Sacred Scriptures are secondarily used to establish truth claims is presumptive and heretical? Who knew! I guess that would have to be the thought process if one must cling to a religion that presumes it supersedes God's revealed word. It is EXACTLY because we can trust the Scriptures to teach us the truths as they were originally taught, without all the extras man has to tack on (Pharisees ring a bell?) that Scripture has been confirmed to be THE authority to which we must cling.
Tell me, how can the Bible have a "greater purpose" than that?
It is ironic that when protestants proclaim sola scriptura, based upon a product of the Church, they are affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
It's ironic to me that Catholics presume the Scriptures are "their" product YET they then refuse to obey it as the authority of God should their magesterium override it with fabricated traditions of men.
“Why do you continue to act as though “the confirmation of doctrine” was the primary purpose of the Bible?”
I didn’t say that was the only purpose of the scripture. Paul says all scripture is useful for doctrine AND reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect.
Funny, that is exactly my response when Protestants reject outright the role of Sacred Tradition, which together with the Sacred Scripture, forms the Deposit of Faith. To ignore the Liturgy, and role of the Scripture within it, while demanding that Catholics accept Sola Scriptura as a given in any discussion, tells me what I need to know about about a concerns for a "greater purpose".
Did St. Paul all Scripture was necessary or just useful? Wasn't he referring to the Septuagint which includes the books you dispute?
What did St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St. Peter and Jesus say about the Eucharist and the Real Presence?
Peace be with you
1. contrary to the idea that i argued celibacy was a doctrinal requirement, i specified this was only "church law " (canon law) and changeable.
2. contrary to the assertion that that celibacy is not a requirement at all, so any distinction btwn it being absolute requirement versus a conditional a one, both Rome and the EOs have celibacy requirements, despite some differences, as neither unmarried or widowed men can marry after ordination vows.
3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development, though as with laity, some bishops had a greater weight than others while none neither are distinctively titled priests.
4. contrary to your assumption, i myself did not argue for married priests ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’.
5. contrary to your mind reading false charge, i did not teach falsehood in holding that Rome has celibacy requirements though i knew there were exceptions for married converts, as i did not teach all priests had to be married, and i went on to document that Rome and the EO have differences in celibacy requirements.
6. contrary to your blanket assertion otherwise, the Catholic church does have celibacy requirements. Both the Latin and the the Byzantine rite disallow unmarried men from marrying after vows, while Rome expands that to exclude all but already married converts from being priests, and th EOs exclude married men from being bishops.
7. contrary to your charge, i did not provide a “Random misquote of catechism," nor chose it due to the motive your next attempt at mind reading asserted, but i attributed it as being part of Canon law, which is what class the celibacy requirements belong to.
8. there is prohibition against a pastor getting married after being ordained, and the apostolic freedom to be married does not infer they had no freedom after being ordained.
9. contrary to your assertions, the text does not actually say "but one wife, but simply "one wife, and "mia" is not always restricted to one, nonetheless contrary to your charge that i cannot accept the interpretation that "one wife" is forbidding polygamy, i can, but that the husband requirement goes beyond this.
10. contrary to your "just in case he is married with children" reason for the stipulation that the candidate have orderly children, i see this as being a normative requirement as evidencing shepherding qualifications, and nowhere does he see fit to detail how single men should be likewise proven to be able governors.
11. contrary to your objection that married pastors was the "norm," Scripture only mentions married men in its qualifications, and only 2 single apostles, and if single men were the norm instead then it is incongruous that the apostle would omit single men rather than only mentioning married men and proven fathering credentials. Moreover, apostles like Paul were sovereignly chosen and had a rather different type of ministry. While i allow for singles as rare exceptions, they are exceptions that have less warrant.
12. contrary to your misconstruance that i was supporting divorced pastors to remarry, that was not the context of this aspect, but the case of widowed pastors.
“now misrepresent either what i or your church has stated.” The Catholic church doesn’t teach that Celibacy is a doctrinal requirement. It’s a disciplinary requirement in the Latin rite alone.
You did misrepresent what i said. Who said i was referring to the entire Catholic church or that this was dogma? The celibacy aspect of our exchange began with my statement to you as an RC and dealing with your church in post 296 - and which you quoted - in which i stated,
"Meaning you give your RC explanation why they are distinctively titled priests and are required (apart from special cases) to be celibate."
"RC" as you must know, means Roman Catholic, and "they" refers to them whom you are under as an RC.
I also stated "this is only "church law" and changeable," while showing differences btwn Rome and the EO in correcting your belief that the Byzantine rite does have celibacy requirements.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand what the Catholic church teaches on this issue, but that’s a fact.
What you apparently do not want to understand is that i had already stated this was canon law, and what both the Latin and Byzantine rites teach, and that both do have celibacy requirements.
“First, you truncated my statement as if i had stated clerical celibacy was an absolute requirement” Ohh. There we go. ‘absolute’ requirement. It’s not a requirement, period. Glad to see you admit you were wrong. Again.
Your attempt at sarcasm will not cover up your continued insolence, as it is you who is wrong. Again.
First, my distinction which you belittled is valid and pertinent, RC rules requiring clerical celibacy are not an absolute requirement, for as i noted well before, there are exceptions.
Second, contrary to your statement that celibacy is not a requirement, celibacy is "a disciplinary requirement in the Latin rite," as you just affirmed, while EOs also have disciplinary rules requiring clerical celibacy, if not wholly identical to Rome, though neither strictly requires celibacy of all priests, which was never my assertion, nor again, was it that this was dogma,versus disciplinary rules/requirements.
For contrary to your assertion that the Byzantine rite have no celibacy requirement, as documented from more than one EO source , "Married men may be ordained to the presbyterate (become a priest) if they are qualified, but a man who has been ordained to priesthood, and who is single (celibate), cannot get married." In this regard they are quite like Rome, though married priests are an exception. And as noted, "there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried."
“require all bishops/elders to have this gift” Ahh - so now we get to the meat and potatoes of this. Yes, the Catholic church requires celibacy of bishops - but not of priests.
The "meat and potatoes" is actually whether Rome's clerical celibacy rules are Scriptural, while my statement was in regard to Rome, yet your blanket statement that the Catholic church does not require celibacy priests is only accurate in the absolute sense, but which i never argued was the case!
Both Rome and the EOs have rules that require priests to be celibate, but with Rome allowing converts to retain spouses while the Eastern churches allow any qualified marrie
d man to become priests, but neither allow unmarried priests to marry, nor allow widowed to remarry.
You seem to assume that the calling to the episcopy is no different tjan the presybterites.
It is you (following traditions of men) that seems to assume that episkopos is distinguishable in office from presbuteros, but that is not seen in the NT, in which it is used interchangeably. (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Phil. 1:1 Acts 15:2; 20:17,27)
The two classes in the NT are those of episkopos/presbuteros and apostles, though all were pastors/shepherds. The many distinguishing hierarchical terms was a latter and progressive development.
Your own NAB notes on Phil. 1:1, while affirming the latter development, states,
Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means “one who oversees” or “one who supervises,” but since the second century it has come to designate the “bishop,” the official who heads a local church. In New Testament times this office had not yet developed into the form that it later assumed... (http://www.usccb.org/bible/phil/1:1#58001001-a)
R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) states while also trying to defend the use of priest - states:
"The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html
Now, let me ask you a question - the argument for married priests is that ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’. This assumes that the priesthood is all about people’s feelings.
You told me i should go to Orthodox sources regarding what they believed, and that was their argument, not mine: .
There are many gifted preachers who found themselves discouraged from entering the Roman Catholic Communion because ministerial service is reserved to the celibate caste. - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy
Second, that there is a ‘priest shortage’.
The greatest shortage was in the NT church, as not a single pastor is titled priest (but overseers/elders), using the distinctive term for priest, (hiereus) except as part of the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers.
The episcopy is different, always has been. But in Scripture there is no distinction between bishop and elder. (Titus 1:5)
“For i was well aware that there are exceptions for married converts.” Which explains why you continue to teach falsehood not out of ignorance but out of wilfull misrepresentation. documented , you construed my argument as if i spoke in absolute terms, besides responding to my earlier statements as if i was referring to all of Catholicism, or ignored the distinction btwn dogma and church law.
It is hard to not conclude that wilfull misrepresentation is the charge against you (but it is contrary to FR rules, which ad hominens i see RCs as most often resorting to).
“Secondly, we are specifically speaking about the Roman church, and to broadly claim Rome’s church law does not require celibacy is simply misrepresentation.”
Nice snip. I said that it does not require celibacy of priests. Never has except in the Latin rite. It’s not a doctrinal requirement.
Here you wanted to counter my statement as if i was not specifically speaking about the Roman church, which i affirm requires celibacy of priests, but not absolutely or as dogma!
“Random misquote of catechism that doesn’t actually say what I want it to say”, bla bla bla, snip.
It is not a "random misquote" of the catechism, nor did i choose it because the CC did not say what i wanted it to say contrary to another attempt at mind reading by you, but RCs have a hard time not resorting to mind reading assertions. The source, as diligently attributed, is to Canon law, as you rejected celibacy as a requirement:
Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbour. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PX.HTM
The actual source of the catechism is here, and here’s what it actually says:
Which adds no requirement i have not said, but the CCC here does not provide all the details Rome teaches on the subject, northat of the EO.
There is a reliable source for the catechism. It’s called the Vatican website. I suggest you use it.
As other RCs here can attest, i certainly have in refuting them, and it is good you are finally documenting something, while that RC priests are "normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" is what i expressed, as is that "while [EO] bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests."
But as you demanded Orthodox sources for the latter, so i did, and which provides more details than the CCC. You have no real reason to protest.
“Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry.” Which is precisely what I said.
That was after i showed that your blanket statement that "the Byzantine rite have no celibacy requirement" was misleading. That unmarried or widowed priests cannot be marry, or bishops be married, is a requirement.
Why does the Latin rite have this as a discipline? You look at the council of Elvira, and they make the same arguments that St. Paul makes from scripture - that unmarried men are freer to devote themselves solely to God.
And why do you treat my argument as if it was about whether unmarried men are freer to devote themselves solely to God? I affirmed celibacy, as one that is, while the issue was whether Scripture supports presuming almost all pastors have the gift of celibacy, and if being a husband and father is overall treated as an exception for pastors and a negative condition relative to their duties. And the answer is no.
Where does scripture permit someone already ordained to marry? Find me a passage that says this....Show me where Scripture says that a priest can get married after being ordained.
How about even an apostle? You do think they were priests. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5)
"Power" is used just before and after this verse to mean freedom and ability, as in to "power to eat and drink" and to forbear secular work to fund their work, and though they did not presently use these freedoms does not mean they could not in the future (Paul sometimes did receive support).
They would not have any choice to have a wife unless they could choose afterward they were called.
But even if you believe Paul and Barnabas could not marry, yet your appeal here rests upon a perceived argument from silence, and likewise i could ask you to find me a passage that says someone already ordained cannot marry. You can invoke the general exhortation, "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife," (1Cor. 7:27) but which is written to all men without distinction of office , and if absolute, would forbid any person to marry if he was single when saved,(v. 24) or any widower, yet that exhortation is followed by "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned." (v. 28)
Nor again is support for near total clerical celibacy justified by the virtues of celibacy, as again, it is presumptuous to presume almost all have that gift, and the Scriptural requirements for pastors treats them as married.
No, That’s not what it says” Yes, it is what it says. And yes - the distinction is made in the Greek.
Your statement was that “ the “husband of one wife” is not what it says but “the husband of but one wife,” yet precisely speaking, there simply is no word in the Greek in 1Tim. 3:2 that says "but" or anything except "husband one [mia] wife. " Yet i do not dispute that "but one" or "only one" can be the valid normative meaning (though see texts such as 1Jn. 1:7 where "one" might not be absolutely restricted), but that the requirement here extends beyond merely preventing polygamy.
“Having a proven shepherding record would be irrelevant if the requirement for being a husband was simply to prevent polygamy.” *Sigh*, that’s because it isn’t just about preventing polygamy.
Glad you agree.
"Again, one can rule ones own house as a single person." “One can, but which makes the requirement of a proven shepherding record to be superfluous.” Nonsense.
No, it is not nonsense as Paul specifically invokes proven fatherhood credentials as a qualification, and says nothing about single pastors, contrary to the premise that Paul considered single men just as capable and he was simply mentioning fatherhood in case the pastor is married with children.
“while this does not absolutely exclude single persons” Thank you for conceding the central point.
Again, this "concession" was part of my argument before.
the requirements given makes it obvious that married pastors was the norm” Where does the word “Norm” appear anywhere in the passage? [[citation needed]] Biblical exegesis 101. The citations are 1Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 1:5-17; 1Cor. 9:5. When the specific requirements for ordination - in both books - only mention married men, and being proven capable fathers is part of their stipulate credentials and most of the apostles were married (including Peter), and the only known single pastors were two traveling apostles, then the evidence only warrants the conclusion that married pastors was the norm.
“and having fatherly experience is invoked in support of shepherding ability.” Absolutely, but again, as you admitted, fatherhood isn’t required. Are you saying that lacking fertility is grounds for removal from the priesthood?
See above. When the the only known single pastors were two traveling apostles, and at least one had likely been married, and they had a vocation that involved frequent travel (if not in prison), then single pastors are shown as exceptions in exceptional vocations, while fatherly experience as evidence of shepherding ability is what is a normative requirement.
“nothing is said that bishops/elders could not marry or remarry” Remarry? Do you miss that passage where Christ says that remarriage is adultery?
That is forgetfulness or worse. The context was obviously about qualifications for ordination, and follows the quote before that that stated "married priests, if widowed, may not remarry." Dealing with divorced pastors was simply not in the scope of this despite another of one your vain attempt to find a contradiction..
“Did St. Paul all Scripture was necessary or just useful?”
He says all scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for doctrine, etc, that the man of God may be perfect. Evidently, he held it was sufficient for perfection and furnishing the man of God.
“Wasn’t he referring to the Septuagint which includes the books you dispute?”
No, he was referring to the Old Testament as accepted by the Jews, and his own writings, and the writings of the other Apostles and their close associates. They quoted the Greek, and variations of it, only because it was the most common language, and they did not follow it strictly.
“What did St. Paul, St. John, St. James, St. Peter and Jesus say about the Eucharist and the Real Presence?”
Nothing at all, at least in the RCC’s sense.
Are you willing to stick to the point of what we are discussing? You made a statement using the term "exactly" to say what the Vulgate of the fourth century held matches the canon of the modern RCC. It doesn't. Are you willing to concede this point?
St. Paul, in bringing the Gospel to the gentiles and the Hellenized Jews, did so in their native Greek. That was the Septuagint. He was not referring to things not yet written.
“St. Paul, in bringing the Gospel to the gentiles and the Hellenized Jews, did so in their native Greek. That was the Septuagint. He was not referring to things not yet written.”
How’s it not written when we’re reading his work? Are you saying Paul did not write his epistles? That Peter did not write his? We already know that the Apostles considered themselves scripture producers. It’s up to you to take them at their word or not. I myself already made the decision to believe them.
Really? Why then did only 4/12 Apostles produce Scripture that was included in the Catholic canon? How do you explain than Mark and Luke, who were not Apostles, were included?
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.