What would make you Catholic?

[Cruciform]

One problem for Catholics is the rule for priests not being married. As this was not an original condition, and is in contradiction to scripture.

And yet, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostle Paul were all celibate "clergy." Hardly "in contradiction to Scripture," then.

This rule is the main reason so many priests are homosexuals.

Of course, all informed readers will recognize that this claim is simply nonsense.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[brewmama]

One problem for Catholics is the rule for priests not being married. As this was not an original condition, and is in contradiction to scripture.

This rule is the main reason so many priests are homosexuals.

Actually, no, it's because so many homosexuals were let into the priesthood back in the 60's and 70's, when liberals in the establishment were high on what they thought Vatican II was going to do in softening Catholic views on sexuality. Of course they were wrong, and it has since been corrected, (as much as possible) in not allowing homsexuals to the priesthood.

 

[brewmama]

It also discredits most of the RCC's dogmas and traditions... so be careful.

No it doesn't.

 

[Wick Stick]

And yet, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostle Paul were all celibate "clergy." Hardly "in contradiction to Scripture," then.

Celibacy aside, informed readers will recognize that there is no division between "clergy" or "laity" within the New Testament church. This post is inane.

 

[Cruciform]

Celibacy aside, informed readers will recognize that there is no division between "clergy" or "laity" within the New Testament church.

On the contrary. The moment that Jesus appointed the apostles to guide and teach his one historic Church in his own name and by his very authority, he created a hierarchical structure (clergy/laity) for the Church. The apostles then went on to ordain successors (bishops) to their own ministry, further developing the hierarchy. In the end, three ecclesial offices developed in the early apostolic Church---bishop, priest, and deacon. So much for your above claim.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Wick Stick]

On the contrary. The moment that Jesus appointed the apostles to guide and teach his one historic Church in his own name and by his very authority, he created a hierarchical structure (clergy/laity) for the Church. The apostles then went on to ordain successors (bishops) to their own ministry, further developing the hierarchy. In the end, three ecclesial offices developed in the early apostolic Church---bishop, priest, and deacon. So much for your above claim.

You are so far off the track that your comments are verging on non-sequitur. The existence of elders, overseers (bishops), and waiters (deacons) is completely irrelevant.

I didn't say that there wasn't clergy and laity. I said that the division isn't within the church.

Peter says it's the whole of the church that is ordained as priests. Put them ALL in the former category. The laity is the rest of humanity, and the church is meant to intercede on their behalf.

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...
1Pe 2:9 You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

The church IS the clergy. The church IS the priesthood. The Old Testament priests ministered to the people OUTSIDE the temple, and this hasn't changed in the New Covenant.

If that doesn't resemble your "church" then it is time to ask whether or not you are even part of the church. Perhaps you are properly part of the laity.

I don't know why I spent this many words on you. I'm sure all I'll get back is "click here!" or "post #85!"

Jarrod

 

[Ktoyou]

And yet, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostle Paul were all celibate "clergy." Hardly "in contradiction to Scripture," then.


Of course, all informed readers will recognize that this claim is simply nonsense.
Cruciform

True Jesus and John the Baptist were not married, then it was not written they were not married for any specific reasons. Paul was not married, and assumed there to be mater in his abstinent life, yet was wise enough to set in Scripture that marriage was necessary, that a good spiritual man should be in high standing and married to one wife.

How will they be so informed when we all know how many, disproportionately so, Catholic priests are homosexual?

 

[Cruciform]

True Jesus and John the Baptist were not married, then it was not written they were not married for any specific reasons. Paul was not married, and assumed there to be mater in his abstinent life, yet was wise enough to set in Scripture that marriage was necessary, that a good spiritual man should be in high standing and married to one wife.

Addressed here and here.

How will they be so informed when we all know how many, disproportionately so, Catholic priests are homosexual?

This has already been answered in Post #282 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

I didn't say that there wasn't clergy and laity. I said that the division isn't within the church.

Where, then, does it exist?

On the subject of the hierarchical structure of Christ's one historic Church, see this and this.

Peter says it's the whole of the church that is ordained as priests.

Peter says nothing whatsoever about everyone in the Church being "ordained." They are, however, "priests" of a sort, though not in the same sense in which members of the clerical priesthood are priests.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ktoyou]

This has already been answered in Post #282 above.

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.
Then it has not been answered to my satisfaction and my position stands.

 

[glassjester]

I'm curious why you do not believe in sola scripture?

At no time has Christ's Church ever based its entire body of teachings solely on Scripture.

In fact, if this were even humanly possible, then there would not be thousands of non-Catholic denominations (with contradictory doctrines), all claiming to be based on "Scripture alone."

Yet, we are instructed, as Christians, to be of one faith. Do you not think Christ would have foreseen the impossibility of "one faith" under rule of sola scriptura? Of course He did.

Hence the binding teaching authority of the Church He founded.

 

[Cruciform]

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality. Then it has not been answered to my satisfaction and my position stands.

What question remains to be answered for you?

 

[brewmama]

Celibacy aside, informed readers will recognize that there is no division between "clergy" or "laity" within the New Testament church. This post is inane.

You must be kidding. Where do you get your info?

 

[brewmama]

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.
Then it has not been answered to my satisfaction and my position stands.

That's absolutely true, but it was in the past, and is being corrected since the scandal happened. The majority of homosexual priests became priests in the 60's and 70's.

Sickening though, how the press made it out to be pedophilia rather than homosexuality, for no other reason than to protect gays.

 

[turbosixx]

At no time has Christ's Church ever based its entire body of teachings solely on Scripture.

In fact, if this were even humanly possible, then there would not be thousands of non-Catholic denominations (with contradictory doctrines), all claiming to be based on "Scripture alone."

Yet, we are instructed, as Christians, to be of one faith. Do you not think Christ would have foreseen the impossibility of "one faith" under rule of sola scriptura? Of course He did.

Hence the binding teaching authority of the Church He founded.

Which one do you hold to be truth when the rcc and scripture contradict? For example:

Marriage. To my knowlege scripture only gives one reason for divorce.

Matt. 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

The rcc gives a whole list of acceptable reasons to break a marriage. Here's an interesting one.

Future condition (Canon 1102, sec. 2)
You or your spouse attached a future condition to your decision to marry, e.g., you will complete your education, your income will be at a certain level, you will remain in this area.

On whose authority can a married couple be separated for reasons other than sexuall immorality?

 

[Cedarbay]

That's absolutely true, but it was in the past, and is being corrected since the scandal happened. The majority of homosexual priests became priests in the 60's and 70's.

Sickening though, how the press made it out to be pedophilia rather than homosexuality, for no other reason than to protect gays.

- deleted -

 

[Ktoyou]

That's absolutely true, but it was in the past, and is being corrected since the scandal happened. The majority of homosexual priests became priests in the 60's and 70's.

Sickening though, how the press made it out to be pedophilia rather than homosexuality, for no other reason than to protect gays.

I know, they were hippie homo priests and now the church has stepped in, they had to and now there may be less, although with all the attention they may be more careful.

The real deal is all this was over church greed and people inheriting outside the church so, they made a rule that priests cannot marry and they cannot be playboys either, of course, so, what we have left over were homos. Now, on change, the homos are not as likely to fear being known so many more want to forget the priesthood. One reason there are fewer priest who maybe homos is there are fewer priests in the USA at least, where being a homo is tolerated by the many libs.

It used to be readily seen so much a perversion few would practice it openly. I been around long enough to know this for sure.

During the Middle Ages, before my time, the homos were let off the land and made to be monks, where they could monkey around day and night, as long as the abbot did not catch them.

 

[turbosixx]

Actually, no, it's because so many homosexuals were let into the priesthood back in the 60's and 70's, when liberals in the establishment were high on what they thought Vatican II was going to do in softening Catholic views on sexuality. Of course they were wrong, and it has since been corrected, (as much as possible) in not allowing homsexuals to the priesthood.

Shouldn't this be proof enough the rcc isn't capable of guiding souls but the list just goes on and on.

 

[Ktoyou]

Shouldn't this be proof enough the rcc isn't capable of guiding souls but the list just goes on and on.

It was The Institution, the First Estate, House of Giulio di Giuliano de' Medici. and Pompeo Colonna, the Madhouse!

 

[intojoy]

Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Wine women song