=============================================================
What a gross misapplication of scripture!
Paul wrote that letter to Titus, who had been a pagan who was converted to the Christian Church (showing that God really does have enough power to convert pagans to Christians, contrary to what many posters here constantly express strong doubts about), and Titus eventually became the Bishop of Crete.
In this letter, Paul is telling Titus (in the first chapter of the book of "Titus") that there were some rebellious Christian men in the Church founded by Jesus Christ (the Catholic Church) who were teaching various erroneous heresies. Concerning the men who Paul said should "be silenced", Paul also said they were "insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers" (Titus 1:10) who, though Christians, were teaching errors, and they "profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed". (See Titus 1.)
This letter from Paul obviously shows that the Church was hierarchical (with leaders called "bishops"), and that it was wrong to be insubordinate and disobedient to the Church founded by Jesus Christ regarding teachings on faith and morals, (the Church which Paul was obviously in, as Jesus Christ Himself converted Paul).
With their rebellious, erroneous heresies which they were promoting (based on their own personal interpretation of "the scriptures" concerning circumcision, and other matters), they were (as Paul says there) contradicting the "sound doctrine" of the Church, and those heretical Cretans sounded very much like the rebellious and insubordinate protestants of the 16th century. Those are the kind of men who Paul said should be silenced.
Paul did not instruct Titus to yell "Shut Up!" at those insubordinate clowns who were teaching flagrant errors. Rather, Paul said to rebuke them for teaching errors, and the obvious result if they did not stop teaching errors would be that they would be expelled from the fellowship of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ (in other words, "excommunicated"), so they could no longer spread their errors within the Church, or, externally, as representatives of the Church.
Paul was a follower of Jesus Christ, not of some foul-mouthed punk named "Steven Jo". He followed the example of Jesus Christ, who, when badgered by those humans teaching or expressing grave errors, did not yell at them to "shut up", but rather, He either straightened them out with the truth, or "He opened not His mouth".
Paul obviously wanted Titus to try to straighten those rebels out, or to make sure they were no longer falsely representing the Church when they taught their grievous errors.
This is another good opportunity to see the truth about the nature of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ, where men were not permitted to just interpret the scriptures for themselves, but had to be subordinate to the teachings on faith and morals of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided into "all truth" by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ had solemnly promised them.
Don't miss this great opportunity to learn that valuable truth from that letter of St. Paul to St. Titus which you quoted from.
Are you still in denial that the Reformation was not only necessary, but was brought on by the very type of rebelliousness to (prior) authority, ancient and most original traditions, and the Spirit too -- which top-most hierarchy that you also just proclaimed be so needful -- were guilty of themselves, in spades?
Don't miss the opportunity for some of around here at least -- to assist yourself in learning valuable truths.
We are here to help.
I will continue to illustrate (at least in part) where the problems truly lay...
Upon now having gone back and reviewed the context of where you had quoted Elsie having utilized a passage from Titus, himself (for emphasis) having displayed that with selected colored font thusly;
I believe that I understand what he most likely was intending to express, and can agree with him, but possibly not entirely, and that part of where I do not, may possibly be able to agree with yourself, at least to some degree (as for an inherent aspect or consideration which had been germane to his earlier discussion with yourself -- and the other whom I told to shut up).
Knowing him as I do (and he does seem to have a good memory as for comments persons here make) I can even guess that he will know immediately upon his own reading of this note --- what I would possibly be disagreeing with him concerning.
You had replied to him;
And I could possible agree with yourself -- but only in a much smaller way which had reservation --- and not entirely with the rest of where you then went with things --- which altogether leaves his usage of Titus 1:11 not altogether lacking righteousness...leaving it not altogether as you put it "gross misapplication of scripture".
What I could possible agree with you, H-R, concerning, is the "bread" or wafer becoming the body of Christ in context of communion, with this being more than mere perfunctory or sentimental memorial, for as those whom have had the Lord minister deeply within themselves know, He is truly present.
This is very important, and I do much appreciate, for those who truly know Him in and by this manner, how important this is to them, for I am one of them. But I am still and have always been distant from the narrowest visible confines of the Church of Rome. ANd yet --- He has come in with me to sup with me (and me, with Him) regardless of the seeming fact that the RCC "teaches" that this not be possible -- because I do not submit myself to them visibly and directly -- yet still can enjoy, be blessed by Him with valid communion.
I do not know if you would recall myself having touched upon how Christ remarked, even in note of correction -- that it was not Moses whom provided to the children of Israel, the manna.
Gotta' news flash for ya'.
That teaching, is still in effect. I can bear witness to the fact...
Now for the really bad news---
What aspects Elsie is very near to being ENTIRELY correct concerning, is the notion of exclusivity as towards Eucharist (if his own consideration included that subject) whereby those of the Church of Rome make noises that this be afforded from on high, only to those in submission or acquiescence to the full teachings of Rome ---- including all which have emanated from and accumulated around such things as "popery", with that singular "popery" and the clericalism as that exists too, said to being necessary for valid communion with even Christ Himself.
A shading of strong disagreement must at times and places be addressed to other RCC "teaching" also, which can veer this way and that (within certain bounds) and still be not opposed from within the RCC, in fact is seemingly widely supported -- as long as salvation itself is kept quite difficult to come by, even a thing which persons can and even must work to earn.
On this point the Calvinists are likely as not to say something along the line that; the unregenerate man cannot at all earn OR do a worthy-of-Him thing. The born again/born from above regenerated man, when that man does a good and Godly work, even then it is not the man who works, but God working within and through the man, leaving us still unable to "earn" one single penny of heavenly sort, but rather only able to put to good use the coinage bestowed upon us to do good with.
Yet, going back to this past, 16th century age and all those pesky, insubordinate Protestants;
What was one of the most reprehensible things which the RCC engaged in but engage in sale of indulgences? (AND I DON'T CARE HOW MANY TIMEs I HEAR "oh, but that was not the Church which did it, that was just bad people doing it" NOISE, I will never believe those excuses as far as they are frequently stretched by the White Legend white-wash brigades).
Even leaving issues ancillary to indulgences (what a screwed up mess that is -- not true Apostolic doctrine!) aside, the RCC from highest levels and on down through the ranks, can most certainly be seen to have eagerly swallowed up widow's houses, that and more, much more, for they were indeed in temporal-realm business of many sorts, mixing in and blending the things of this world with those of Christ's own kingdom, which as Christ said of His own -- was not of this world.
No, H-R, you are in part at least quite wrong, as is particular aspects of Romanist teaching, particularly as *some* of those were asserted in the centuries leading up to the Reformation.
Though the Reformers were arguably themselves not without reproach, that does not equate with many of the objections which they did raise --- were not justified.
The demand for complete subordination itself, is wicked sinful in itself. If it is not -- then it sure is tough to get over how it once was, spread out over many centuries time, showing itself a bloody stinking beast. The Lord did not establish Romanism.
True apostolicity, transferred by the laying on of hands -- always was and shall always be a thing of hope, for there is no guarantee that all whom are such appointed will be and do and convey only that which the original Apostles themselves taught as for the things of the Lord, if varying only by shading, degree or extent, which sort of shifts of things put all together can and HAVE BEEN in the history of the RCC (as elsewhere too, in more recent memory) leveraged by the unscrupulous in and among the Church, wherever that is to be found... Learn.
Accept the facts.
Allow the negatives of past history to teach oneself...consider those most carefully-- then ask yourself this question;
Would an all-knowing and Most High (whom would know in advance every detail of all which would transpire, centuries in advance of whatever it was come to pass) set up such a religious system choke-point which made it impossible to fulfill what He required all whom would know Him, namely, to eat His flesh and drink His blood --- unless one also entirely subjected themselves to an "ecclesia" which can be plainly seen to have indulged in many excesses with the most grievous contra-scriptural of those all be related to haughty Sola Ecclesia --- a literal "do as wesay" whom set themselves beyond all correction to the degree and extent the correction must be FORCED in order to finally bring them to "seeing the light"???
Because that IS what happened, my FRiend.
Says a person who truly believes that Peter is the Rock Jesus was speaking about.
At least they weren't FOOLS.
HMMMmmm...
Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.