Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DallasMike; sinkspur
Dealing with people of your intellectual caiber probably makes Sinkspur glad he didn't become a priest.

See Sinkspur,someone who agrees with you about more things than one and also gives you another reason to be happy that you left the seminary.

Dallas Mike,I have expressed my thoughts for at least one and a half years and had chosen to remain a lurker on this one. However, I entered to tell someone,who I thought was a new poster,that Smedley had the patience of Job,after she had commented on his style which she thought prickly. I added that she should read what he wrote because he was the expert on the subject. I myself got tired of giving the same information to the same people who casually drop a non fact and claim it a truth.

Several posts later sinkspur said he had never heard of a priest who had a problem with women who was not booted. In the interest of truth,I gave him information on one that I knew had not been let go. I was not interested in involving myself in the spinning and twisting and weaving that you all do when the subject comes up,at that time.I certainly could care less with what the NAB says and stayed out of it. Lately I content myself with asking something real simple if I do get in the discussion.

As I said,I was not a particularly avid Bible reader before I found Free Republic but some of the discussions,especially with Bible only Christians,led me to study it more seriously. Since I believe that God is a God of order and since I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the center of Christianity,I started studying scripture by trying to determine what Christ said in the Four Gospels first,since they are the Divinely Inspired writings,teachings and observations of those who walked with Christ.

Imagine my surprise to find that the linchpin or even any arguments against celibacy are missing from the Gospels. I even considered that Christ said he did not come to change one iota of the Law:looked at the Moral Law,to which He referred, but there was nothing there either.In fact,what Christ said,did and how He lived seem to argue for celibacy.At first I thought I must have missed something and tried to elicit some responses that clearly showed He said or acted in a way that would lead one to conclude that He did indicate somewhere that it didn't matter.No one came up with anything other than the things you on this thread have strained to cobble together.

I hope this explains why I have not responded to your demands,but if it hasn't,let me be very clear,until you can find me something in the Gospels that show even one apostle was married,I will go not further. Once you can admit that truth,then I might go into Paul but not until then. You seem unable to comprehend that I am not the person who claims that the bible is the only source of the Truth,I look to my Church to maintain and hand down the repository of the Faith.You are the one,who claims in your post #379:

"The argument I use against required celibacy is that it is blatently and plainly unbiblical."

I am merely saying that I think that it is time you all stopped using that old canard "after all the Apostles were all married" and show me that any of them were. I say,you can't do it from the Gospels. Admit it.Or at least admit it is not blatent nor is it plain.

512 posted on 07/02/2003 1:21:17 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies ]


To: DallasMike
caiber ='s caliberDarn,it's that ole intellectual deficit,I guess.
513 posted on 07/02/2003 1:25:24 AM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies ]

To: saradippity
It ought to be obvious that DalMi has a mission, and that he will not be deterred. He now indirectly claims that Kreeft and Neuhaus are his mentors---Neuhaus, the celibate!

514 posted on 07/02/2003 6:20:38 AM PDT by ninenot (Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies ]

To: saradippity
I am merely saying that I think that it is time you all stopped using that old canard "after all the Apostles were all married" and show me that any of them were. I say,you can't do it from the Gospels. Admit it.
I freely admit that you can't do it from the Gospels, other than the reference to Peter's mother-in-law. It's not me that has a problem admitting the truth. On the other hand, you certainly can't prove that they weren't married from the Gospels either.

Why do you insist upon sticking to the Gospels for proof? I would like an answer. Are the letters of Paul and Peter -- both Apostles -- of lesser spiritual quality? If you believe this, then where did you get this idea?

You haven't addressed either the early Church document from Clement of Alexandria -- a recognized Father of the Church according to the Catholic Encyclopedia -- that talks of Peter being with his wife when she was martyred. If tradition is so important to you, then why do you refuse to address this early written Church tradition by such an esteemed saint?

And why can't you direct me to any tradition that says the apostles were not married? If this is such an important doctrine, then surely you must be able to find a reference to it your catechism.


515 posted on 07/02/2003 7:34:04 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson