ECT DEEP IN HISTORY
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You win again. On TOL you are undefeated, 991-0.
You are the greatest apologist ever.
:bow:
brewmama
New member
That is the most laughable thing I've seen in awhile. I'd be embarrassed to post such drivel.
brewmama
New member
You do know that popes are bishops, right? And bishops are certainly mentioned in the Bible.
Cruciform seems to be a Hispanic Catholic who doesn't believe in Vatican 2.
Cruciform
New member
You're wrong on both counts. Try again?
And Bishops have real families also. you forgot to mention it.
Cruciform
New member
In the 1st century some of them did, that's true. Your point is...?
brewmama
New member
Some did, initially, probably because they were already married when the became bishops. And it does not say they have to have a wife, they just can't have more than one.
My point is that all of them did before 70 AD. What is your point?
HisServant
New member
But their family was supposed to be a test as to whether they are qualified to be an elder in the first place.
Cruciform
New member
Proof, please.
1 Timothy 3:1-5 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
Cruciform
New member
Already addressed in Post #71 above.
No, it did not. Catholic tradition has always allowed bishops with families, thou lying prude. In fact, it is a requirement for being a bishop even in the Catholic Church. Celibacy has always been a fraud, as are thou.
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
A straightforwardly false statement on your part. Try again.
Childish name-calling---the last resort of one with no actual argument to offer.
Your ignorance of Catholic history and teaching is noted.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
A flat out lie by thee(k), and not a surprise. Celibacy even if fake, makes the priests look good in naive cathlik eyes.
You are prude for pretending priests are both celibate and pro-life. You are prude for supporting open borders, and defiling US citizenship with Mexican illegals who can't even write Spanish.
There was no organized Latin church back then. Your lies can't stop, can they?
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
Post your proof. :yawn:
Thus merely proving my point made in Post #78 above.
No one has suggested otherwise. There was not yet a Latin Rite in the Church, but the one historic Catholic Church---of which the Latin (Roman) Rite is but one rite among several---certain did exist from the very beginning. (CLUE: There IS no Latin "Church." Rather, the Latin Rite is but one of several liturgical rites in the Catholic Church.)
Your ignorance can't stop, can it? Pot, meet Kettle.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+