Posted on 03/31/2014 7:35:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
And by the same source that you used, as Alex showed you, there are also thousands of "catholic" churches to choose from.
It isn't up to me to be called a Christian. That is up to the Lord God Jesus Christ. Lots of people can call themselves Christians, but aren't. Millions have done that since His resurrection. I can call myself lots of things. It doesn't mean I am any of those things. :)
Figures you would resort to ad hominen attack rather defending your position.
Fact is since priests in the Bible were in fact married men as were the early popes, bishops, and priests for more than 10 centuries after the Church was established, one could plausibly argue that a married priesthood IS the tradition of the Church. Mandatory clerical celibacy was not instutionalized until well into the Middle Ages.
Fact is the Church enforced mandated clerical celibacy primarily to combat corruption within the Church, especially nepotism and the transfer of Church property.
Sorry to annoy you with the facts.
Blessed Mary was conceived of a human man and human woman. That tells the story.
Jesus strongly believed in marriage.
The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply.
The Lord created Eve because He did not want Adam to be alone.
We are supposed to celebrate life, not celibate life.
Physical intimacy between husband and wife is a holy gift from God and should be denied to man, and certainly not our priests.
Good luck with that. I wish you well.
Apparently it wasn't that hard for you personally, as you were able to give the number 35,000 in your prior post. And with this new post, we're hearing that "Christian Denominations" have grown by 6,000 just in the last few hours! It's a miracle!
Nobody denies that.
It would really help if you at least looked at what our teachings are before you dismiss them.
LOL
For my next trick, I will multiply the Obamacare signups.
Nobody claims that celibacy is a dogma of the Church. The Church instituted Priestly Celibacy in the 12th Cnetury.
Nobody denies that the Church had and HAS corruption. The Church is a Human institution populated with REAL LIVE Human beings. They are all fallible and fallen. EVEN THE POPE. That is why he so publicly went to confession the other day.
What the Church says is that the Pope is infallible ONLY when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals and Only when he speaks Ex Cathedra.
What I said wasn’t an attack it I just simple truth. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION! IT IS WORTHLESS TO ME!
What is your real question? 41,000 is certainly MORE than 35,000. 3,000 - 8,000 is certainly thousands.
What is your point Mr. Murphy?
My point is that there are certainly THOUSANDS even TENS OF THOUSANDS of ‘Christian’ churches you can choose if you do not want to follow the Catholic Church.
What exactly is your point?
Obviously you must care about my opinion or you wouldn’t bother to respond to me.
I am making the argument that a married priesthood is in the tradition of the Bible and the early history (first 12 centuries at least) and tradition of the Church.
Mandatory clerical celibacy is not mandated in the Bible (to the contrary!) and should not be a requirement for service in the priesthood.
What is your argument for keeping mandatory clerical celibacy in place?
‘Physical intimacy between husband and wife is a holy gift from God and should be denied to man, and certainly not our priests.’
I suggest that you don’t become a Catholic priest.
‘Jesus strongly believed in marriage’
As does the Catholic Church. However, I do not know who Jesus married or how many children he fathered.
‘What is your argument for keeping mandatory clerical celibacy in place?’
What is your argument to eliminate it? Jesus was married to who? He was fruitful and multiplied how many times?
There are MARRIED CATHOLIC PRIESTS now.
Some Orthodox Catholics have married priests.
Some Anglican Priests that have come to the Roman Church are married as well. They are just as much Catholic Priests as those that where always Catholic.
The Church may decide to change this tradition in the future. They are free to do so as it was NEVER an article of faith or morals.
We might then actually be on the same page based on what you just wrote.
I know WHY the Church institionalized mandatory clerical celibacy in the Middle Ages. And they had good reason AT THAT TIME to do it. Question remains: Is it still necessary? If so, why?
Some seem to think I should be kicked out of my Church merely for raising the question. I hope you are not one of them.
I know the teachings. I tend to go with what is known from Scriptures. We know Blessed Mary had a human mother and human father. We know she was a virgin when Gabriel proclaimed: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”
We know these things they are certain.
My point is that your argument is now in backpedalling mode. Inexactness exposes the illegitimacy of the argument. I've done my homework and am very familiar with the sources behind the "thousands of denominations" argument. I can name those sources, I can quote the standards used to arrive at those numbers. What is the conclusion alleged from "proving" there are "thousands"?
If your intent is to claim that "there are certainly THOUSANDS even TENS OF THOUSANDS of ‘Christian’ churches you can choose if you do not want to follow the Catholic Church", then I can provide direct quotes, using the very same sources, that conclude that there CERTAINLY THOUSANDS even TENS OF THOUSANDS of 'Catholic' churches to choose from if you do.. Any time a Catholic apologist claims the one without acknowledging both is being lazy at best, and deliberately slanderous at worst.
It can’t really be called necessary when so many churches in full communion have married priests, can it?
So what is wrong with a priest dedicating his life completely to Christ as a single?
What is wrong with a woman deciding to become a cloistered nun that prays for sinners?
What is wrong with becoming a member of an order (Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, etc.) and putting special duties and promises at the top of your list?
FYI, there are some Anglican and Lutheran and other converts to Catholicism who have kept the married state and become priests....they are in a sense, grandfathered in. I’ve been to the ordinations of two of them, but there were ten times the single men dedicated only to God ordained on those days! I also know of a very holy priest who was divorced and then his wife died, so he entered the seminary. What’s wrong with that?
Are you denying that all “Catholic” churches are under the leadership of the pope?
Or are you denying that there is any substantive difference between Prptestant denominations who all claim to just follow the Bible?
I have seen Calvinists and Arminians battle here. Are you saying they are all one?
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.