The Catholic Church and Authority

[StanJ]

I wouldn't trust that web site. I've just checked through the canons of the Council of Nicaea and I can't find anything about priests not marrying after ordination.

I have no reason to not trust it but given your positional bias I can't be surprised at your answer. The fact is that Eastern Rite churches have clergy that are married and celebacy is only common in the Latin rite churches.

 

[tom55]

Actually she is far from wrong
https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church

When someone says, "...the Church changed its teaching, and ever since they have been required to be celibate" and in FACT Priest don't have to be celibate then that IS wrong. The reason it is wrong is because it is NOT TRUE. The website you provided even says that priest DO NOT have to be celibate so you helped me make my point.....Thank you for agreeing with me StanJ.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood (read paragraph 3)

 

[tom55]

I wouldn't trust that web site. I've just checked through the canons of the Council of Nicaea and I can't find anything about priests not marrying after ordination.

Mungo,

Surely by now you have realized by now that StanJ doesn't quote what the RCC teaches. He quotes what non-Catholics THINK the Catholic church teaches. Also, he will never admit to being wrong.

 

[tom55]

On the one hand, the Catholic church claims to be the one and only authority. On the other there are people claiming that it is heretical (or worse). (And there are other less extreme points of view)

How am I to choose between these competing claims without exercising my own judgement? How do you decide to agree with the Catholic church without exercising yours? If you haven't given up thinking for yourself, why do you condemn me for doing the same?

It is clear in scripture that Jesus established a visible CHURCH (not Churches) with authority. I believe scripture (Peter as the leader of the Apostles upon Jesus death) and history tells us that the RCC has that authority. You seem to believe YOU have that authority.

Can you tell me when that authority was taken away from the Church? After the last apostle died? What year? By who? A certain incident perhaps? If you call someone heretical you have to have the authority to call them heretical. Who has that authority? If no one does then there is no authority in ANY Church to decide if someone is an anti-Christ or a heathen or pagan or tax collector or if your brother has sinned against you.

Nowhere does the Bible say OR imply "scripture alone is sufficient" (sola scriptura). The bible and history does show MEN with authority and that authority being passed to the next generation and so on and so on. But nowhere does it say anyone can read the bible and interpret it any way they want and be right. In fact it says OPPOSITE of that.

There can be only ONE Church that has the authority to exercise the ability to fulfill Mathew 18:17 and I believe that Church is the Catholic Church. I am ROCK solid in my belief that the RCC is infallible. Are you ROCK solid what you preach on your website is infallible? (I know you have already answered that and the answer is NO) Who do you believe has authority?

Here are a whole bunch of questions you didn't answer from my post. Can you at least ATTEMPT to answer them?

YOU seem to believe that everything YOU decide as right to be right. You rely on you. That is except for your belief in the Apostles Creed. You didn't write that yourself, did you? You relied on others. Or the Trinity doctrine. YOU didn't come up with that, did you? Then you accuse me of giving up the need to think for myself? Is that a thorn in your eye or a log? YOU think you can read scripture and interpret it correctly without twisting it to your own destruction? You are infallible?

And with all do respect if you researched and wrote out everything on your website I am very impressed. It must have taken a long time and effort. I disagree with some of the things you wrote but I am proud of you!!

 

[tom55]

Actually she is far from wrong
https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church

The link you provided is a product of Corpus Canada. http://www.corpuscanada.org/

In the future I would suggest if you want to know what the RCC teaches and you want to provide a link about what the RCC teaches you SHOULD NOT go to an anti-Catholic website. In this case the link you provided (from what little I read of it) rightly concludes that RC Priest can be married.

If you want to have any respect from others on this forum you should be a little more diligent in your research and back up what you say with facts FROM THE SOURCE instead of biased websites.

Respectfully....TOM55

 

[StanJ]

The link you provided is a product of Corpus Canada. http://www.corpuscanada.org/

In the future I would suggest if you want to know what the RCC teaches and you want to provide a link about what the RCC teaches you SHOULD NOT go to an anti-Catholic website. In this case the link you provided (from what little I read of it) rightly concludes that RC Priest can be married.

If you want to have any respect from others on this forum you should be a little more diligent in your research and back up what you say with facts FROM THE SOURCE instead of biased websites.

Respectfully....TOM55

So are you trying to tell us that only RCC approved websites speak the truth and everybody else lies?

Yeh right.

 

[StanJ]

When someone says, "...the Church changed its teaching, and ever since they have been required to be celibate" and in FACT Priest don't have to be celibate then that IS wrong. The reason it is wrong is because it is NOT TRUE. The website you provided even says that priest DO NOT have to be celibate so you helped me make my point.....Thank you for agreeing with me StanJ.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood (read paragraph 3)

Interestingly enough, the website that I cited and that you cited pretty much say the same thing and that is, I quote from your link; "the tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages."
Now you can equivocate all you want about words and about different rights within the Catholic church but the bottom line is on this website we are dealing with Catholics who are part of the Latin right church and as such the RULE is that priests are celibate. You can throw up all the smoke screens you want but I am used to seeing through smoke screens.

 

[StanJ]

It is clear in scripture that Jesus established a visible CHURCH (not Churches) with authority. I believe scripture (Peter as the leader of the Apostles upon Jesus death) and history tells us that the RCC has that authority. You seem to believe YOU have that authority.

Can you tell me when that authority was taken away from the Church? After the last apostle died? What year? By who? A certain incident perhaps? If you call someone heretical you have to have the authority to call them heretical. Who has that authority? If no one does then there is no authority in ANY Church to decide if someone is an anti-Christ or a heathen or pagan or tax collector or if your brother has sinned against you.

Nowhere does the Bible say OR imply "scripture alone is sufficient" (sola scriptura). The bible and history does show MEN with authority and that authority being passed to the next generation and so on and so on. But nowhere does it say anyone can read the bible and interpret it any way they want and be right. In fact it says OPPOSITE of that.

There can be only ONE Church that has the authority to exercise the ability to fulfill Mathew 18:17 and I believe that Church is the Catholic Church. I am ROCK solid in my belief that the RCC is infallible. Are you ROCK solid what you preach on your website is infallible? (I know you have already answered that and the answer is NO) Who do you believe has authority?

Here are a whole bunch of questions you didn't answer from my post. Can you at least ATTEMPT to answer them?

YOU seem to believe that everything YOU decide as right to be right. You rely on you. That is except for your belief in the Apostles Creed. You didn't write that yourself, did you? You relied on others. Or the Trinity doctrine. YOU didn't come up with that, did you? Then you accuse me of giving up the need to think for myself? Is that a thorn in your eye or a log? YOU think you can read scripture and interpret it correctly without twisting it to your own destruction? You are infallible?

And with all do respect if you researched and wrote out everything on your website I am very impressed. It must have taken a long time and effort. I disagree with some of the things you wrote but I am proud of you!!

There's a big difference between learning scripture from teachers and it being approved in your own spirit by the Holy Spirit and being inculcated by a man-made tradition, that puts a man at the head of the body of Christ rather than the actual head who is Jesus. You put your trust in man and institution and she puts her trust in the Holy Spirit and Gods written word. I know exactly who's going to come out on top and you, quite sadly, will be sorely surprised.

 

[tom55]

So are you trying to tell us that only RCC approved websites speak the truth and everybody else lies?

Yeh right.

If you started a website that told everybody about what you believe and I wanted to know what you believe I would go to your website....NOT the website started by tom55 who says what he THINKS you believe.

We are not talking about truth or lies. We are talking about going to the source.

 

[tom55]

There's a big difference between learning scripture from teachers and it being approved in your own spirit by the Holy Spirit and being inculcated by a man-made tradition, that puts a man at the head of the body of Christ rather than the actual head who is Jesus. You put your trust in man and institution and she puts her trust in the Holy Spirit and Gods written word. I know exactly who's going to come out on top and you, quite sadly, will be sorely surprised.

Who does the Holy Spirit speak to write down those words? MAN

Who interprets the word and provides that interpretation to mankind? MAN

At some point in your life StanJ a MAN is going to tell you what that "God written word" means and at some point you have to decide if that MAN interpreted it correctly.

(I see your still stalking me)

 

[tom55]

Interestingly enough, the website that I cited and that you cited pretty much say the same thing and that is, I quote from your link; "the tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages."
Now you can equivocate all you want about words and about different rights within the Catholic church but the bottom line is on this website we are dealing with Catholics who are part of the Latin right church and as such the RULE is that priests are celibate. You can throw up all the smoke screens you want but I am used to seeing through smoke screens.

Interestingly enough.......I already said, "In this case the link you provided (from what little I read of it) rightly concludes that RC Priest can be married." Do you have a comprehension problem?

Interestingly enough....You didn't even attempt to address these statements: In the future I would suggest if you want to know what the RCC teaches and you want to provide a link about what the RCC teaches you SHOULD NOT go to an anti-Catholic website. If you want to have any respect from others on this forum you should be a little more diligent in your research and back up what you say with facts FROM THE SOURCE instead of biased websites.

It is weird that you addressed something we both agree on but you didn't address the part that reveals how biased you are!! Hmmmmm....very interesting

No equivocating* here. I have come right out and told the truth in clear language and I am committed to the truth. When someone says, "...the Church changed its teaching, and ever since they have been required to be celibate" and the FACT is Priest don't have to be celibate then SHE is wrong. The reason SHE is wrong is because it is NOT TRUE.

*Equivocate defined: use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself

 

[StanJ]

If you started a website that told everybody about what you believe and I wanted to know what you believe I would go to your website....NOT the website started by tom55 who says what he THINKS you believe.
We are not talking about truth or lies. We are talking about going to the source.

The source that won't even commit itself to its own truth? A source that uses contradictory and equivocal language to support it's so-called truth? We are definitely talking about truth or lies and for the most part religious organizations like the RCC are very adept at equivocation and double-talk. They know how to obfuscate the issues that are problematic for them. Even when they advocate that something is the truth, they just claim that as far as they know it is, so don't hold that into it as they may be able to be proven wrong.

 

[StanJ]

Interestingly enough.......I already said, "In this case the link you provided (from what little I read of it) rightly concludes that RC Priest can be married." Do you have a comprehension problem?

So you admit that and then still don't agree with her. How exactly does that work? Was she right or was she wrong?

Interestingly enough....You didn't even attempt to address these statements: In the future I would suggest if you want to know what the RCC teaches and you want to provide a link about what the RCC teaches you SHOULD NOT go to an anti-Catholic website. If you want to have any respect from others on this forum you should be a little more diligent in your research and back up what you say with facts FROM THE SOURCE instead of biased websites.
I did address it, as I noted both links pretty much said the same thing so I guess your position was wrong and just because a website says something to point out what an organization's position is doesn't mean it is wrong. If you want to know about the Republican prospective you go to work Republican website but that doesn't mean that that website speaks only the truth and is not biased. The or predisposition to only accepting Catholic websites is exactly why you keep faltering. If you want to only hear what the Roman Catholic Church teaches then go to only Roman Catholic websites and Roman Catholic forums because you won't get anybody to believe on this type of open forum that what they teach overall is true or correct or of God.

It is weird that you addressed something we both agree on but you didn't address the part that reveals how biased you are!! Hmmmmm....very interesting

You always have to resort to the low road don't you Tom? If you don't get your own way or get somebody to go along with you, then you rant and whine like a child.

No equivocating* here. I have come right out and told the truth in clear language and I am committed to the truth. When someone says, "...the Church changed its teaching, and ever since they have been required to be celibate" and the FACT is Priest don't have to be celibate then SHE is wrong. The reason SHE is wrong is because it is NOT TRUE.

The fact is that the rules say they do so you bringing up exceptions does not change the rule which I have clearly shown in this case is factual and that those coming into the priesthood for the first time in the Latin right part of the RCC have to be celibate. You see that's the thing about truth, you can't change it through semantics or equivocation.

 

[tom55]

The source that won't even commit itself to its own truth? A source that uses contradictory and equivocal language to support it's so-called truth? We are definitely talking about truth or lies and for the most part religious organizations like the RCC are very adept at equivocation and double-talk. They know how to obfuscate the issues that are problematic for them. Even when they advocate that something is the truth, they just claim that as far as they know it is, so don't hold that into it as they may be able to be proven wrong.

Your funny.... but I am still going to try and help you understand so you can hopefully comprehend what we are talking about.

YOU quoted an anti-Catholic website as YOUR source for what the Catholic Church teaches/believes.

Why wouldn't you just quote a Catholic website as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches/believes?

It doesn't matter if YOU disagree with the website (source). This is a matter of quoting the SOURCE of the discussion.

 

[StanJ]

Who does the Holy Spirit speak to write down those words? MAN

Who interprets the word and provides that interpretation to mankind? MAN

At some point in your life StanJ a MAN is going to tell you what that "God written word" means and at some point you have to decide if that MAN interpreted it correctly.

(I see your still stalking me)

Not what I was addressing. You actually have to have had the baptism / in filling of the Holy Spirit to be able to use the Holy Spirit to witness to you about what is truth and what isn't. John 14:26.
Again it is the holy spirit that makes Gods written word real to us and reveals the truth therein. Teaching is of course necessary, especially two new converts, but sooner or later we are told that we have to move on to maturity and no longer drink milk. Our relationship with Jesus is a personal one and not based on an institution. We all have to be weaned off of the milk of the spirit and move on to the meat of the word but if one is habitually affixed to the teet of the RCC then they have no chance of eating meat.

 

[StanJ]

Your funny.... but I am still going to try and help you understand so you can hopefully comprehend what we are talking about.

YOU quoted an anti-Catholic website as YOUR source for what the Catholic Church teaches/believes.

Why wouldn't you just quote a Catholic website as a source for what the Catholic Church teaches/believes?

It doesn't matter if YOU disagree with the website (source). This is a matter of quoting the SOURCE of the discussion.

You have absolutely nothing to help me understand anything but in order to put this thing to rest, show us exactly how the website I link to his anti-Catholic.
Oh and by the way you and Mungo seem to be the only two that are participating in this thread that claim to be Catholic and Mungo does not agree with you about Catholic websites teaching the official position of the Catholic Church, despite the disclaimers they write. That's just the two of you the can agree on this issue as opposed to all the rest of us who do agree on the false teachings of the RCC.

 

[tom55]

So you admit that and then still don't agree with her. How exactly does that work? Was she right or was she wrong?

The fact is that the rules say they do so you bringing up exceptions does not change the rule which I have clearly shown in this case is factual and that those coming into the priesthood for the first time in the Latin right part of the RCC have to be celibate. You see that's the thing about truth, you can't change it through semantics or equivocation.

She said the opposite of the truth so she was wrong. (The opposite of being right is being wrong)

I have never disagreed with anyone that "those coming into the priesthood for the first time in the Latin right part of the RCC have to be celibate." If I have then please quote me!!

She said, ...they (priest) have been required to be celibate".

Priest DO NOT have to be celibate and you have already provided a link agreeing with me. So how can you now disagree with me?

 

[StanJ]

She said the opposite of the truth so she was wrong. (The opposite of being right is being wrong)

I have never disagreed with anyone that "those coming into the priesthood for the first time in the Latin right part of the RCC have to be celibate." If I have then please quote me!!

She said, ...they (priest) have been required to be celibate".

Priest DO NOT have to be celibate and you have already provided a link agreeing with me. So how can you now disagree with me?

I just showed that the RULE is they have to be celibate since the Middle Ages. What is it you don't understand about RULE? You are so inculcated you can't even understand basic language. What exactly do you think a RULE is?

 

[tom55]

Not what I was addressing. You actually have to have had the baptism / in filling of the Holy Spirit to be able to use the Holy Spirit to witness to you about what is truth and what isn't. John 14:26.
Again it is the holy spirit that makes Gods written word real to us and reveals the truth therein. Teaching is of course necessary, especially two new converts, but sooner or later we are told that we have to move on to maturity and no longer drink milk. Our relationship with Jesus is a personal one and not based on an institution. We all have to be weaned off of the milk of the spirit and move on to the meat of the word but if one is habitually affixed to the teet of the RCC then they have no chance of eating meat.

I thought baptism didn't do anything? It was just a symbol.

Now you are saying, "You actually have to have had the baptism / in filling of the Holy Spirit to be able to use the Holy Spirit to witness to you about what is truth and what isn't."

So which is it? A symbol OR baptism actually does something??

BTW....In John 14:26 he was talking to the Apostles ONLY.

 

[tom55]

I just showed that the RULE is they have to be celibate since the Middle Ages. What is it you don't understand about RULE? You are so inculcated you can't even understand basic language. What exactly do you think a RULE is?

Your funny. And you didn't quote me to prove me wrong.....because you can't.