Search results

If someone dares to join the RCC clergy, are the officials only suggesting for them abstinence or demanding abstinence?

To join the RCC clergy it is forced. This of course in not found in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This of course is scriptural dishonesty to their clergy. This of course does not make them any holier(obviously).

You debunked this.... 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Recommended celibacy for non clergy. Get it right. Not mandatory celibacy for anyone.

Nepotism was definitely part of the equation when taking such a drastic step to demand complete abstinence for the priests. Abstinence is not even Biblical since some Apostles were married. Every doctrine devised has roots. Punishing ones flesh with self denial of ones natural desire to...

No, the RCC was not worried about the buildings, but the organization. Of course it was not monasteries and cathedrals inc. It was a group of power happy individuals in early Christendom that sought to retain power as the properties would come later. I AM NOT SAYING IT WAS NOT SMART, BUT i AM...

Do you think that there was no underlying reason for the mandate? Such a radical idea as celibacy? Thousands of men to never touch a woman? Without the baptism of the Holy Ghost? Right, this was a power securing idea, which nobody would but into if they knew it was to avoid nepotism.

You don't get it. This has nothing to do with Hislop or holiness. This is the logical underlying reason for power retention in the development of the RCC. They had to eliminate the competition. This became a good ol boys club, instead of a family rulership. They knew good and well what they were...

Should we eliminate Acts 2:38 because a man in the desert can't find water?

Fascinating... Tom MeadowcroftMar 23rd 2017, 14:56 All governance systems that do not explicitly battle it are prone to nepotism. Just about every absolute ruler in history has tried to dictate that transfer of power should be dynastic. Because genetic links to sons are a deeply unreliable...

The RCC fathers would never openly admit it. However, it is common knowledge that there was a worry of losing control like all kingdoms have lost control per nepotism. The RCC fathers cleverly disguised this concern as a holiness issue. It worked, and they were able to boot out non conformists...

Must I google it, or can you?

Just ask your local priest when they created the celibacy rule. They are taught it’s origins in seminary. They think it is to keep them pure, but it is to keep them from having their kids take over the congregation

Not what I am saying. I am saying the RCC hierarchy decided in the beginning to keep priests from having sons, this way no sons could be elected as successors. This gave the kingship to elected priests in their affiliation , not elected priests by the laity. Sons take kingdoms and churches, but...

Too much to list

Banning RCC priests from being married had only 1 objective. To eliminate nepotism in their hierarchy system. They survived 1700 years and are still going strong because of this. Protestants accept nepotism which creates constant evolution in doctrines.

No, you guys made up all the fake stuff and reformers are shaking the hook.

There is zero scripture that assigns particular persons as baptizers. Therefore it is open game.

Lol

Hey, I know a guy that was stuck in prison and baptized himself on a the name of Jesus Christ. He got out years ago and stayed in the faith(I once volunteered there)