Who is Your Pope?

[williemac]

Latin rite priests and Bishops are unmarried. However it is their choice to give up the option of marriage when they become priests “because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 19:12)

"An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord." (1Cor 7:32)

Similarly if a man marries he gives up the option of being a priest (at least unless his wife dies)

“But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife and he is divided.” (1Cor 7:33-34)

Paul says “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [unmarried], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Marriage and Ordination are sacraments. Whichever a person chooses he or she will be given the graces (gifts) to live the life they have chosen.


It’s a choice. No-one forces anyone to marry or become a priest.

No-one forbids anyone to marry, but some choices rule out others.

If a man or a woman chooses to follow a celibate life as a priest, monk or nun then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

If a man or a woman chooses to marry then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

As I said some choices rule out others.


Moreover thisn discussion started because I said "No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture and no scripture contradicts Catholic doctrine."

Celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine so the issue of marriage for priests is not relevant to that.
"


Absolutely not.


You are wrong.


The Bible doesn't say we are saved by Faith Alone. That was an invention of Martin Luther. He even added the word "alone" into his translation.

James says that faith without works is a dead faith. We will not be saved by a dead faith
"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (Jas 2:26).

We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). That faith must be a living faith, which includes works. But not the sort of works that Paul condemned which were "works of the law" (Gal 2:10, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10, 3:12)



Many Catholic priests in the Eastern Rites are married, as are some of the Anglican Rite.

For whether they are forbidden - see my reply to Polt above.

OK, I stand corrected. Forbidden is a strong word. Discouraged is probably more accurate. But did Paul suggest that the grace to be single automatically comes along with the ministry? It is quite obvious that he did not. The proof of that lies in the so called "pudding". The choice should not be "stay single if you want to be clergy" The choice should be.." stay single if you are called to do so, whether in the clergy or not". There seems to be a strong and unfortunate innuendo that influences men to ignore their weaknesses just so that they can serve God. The proverbial head is buried in the sand.

As far as faith is concerned, there is a common ongoing misunderstanding concerning the term that is quoted from James. We cannot just hang a phrase out there in our own application of it. It must be understood in light of the author's intent.

Dead faith is faith that has not served its purpose. Faith is the means by which we receive from God. An apple tree cannot bear apples if it is not first an apple tree. By faith we receive all things that pertain to life and godliness. This includes both the new man, and the Holy Spirit.

Works are not there to prove faith to God, by the way. James said "show me". He did not say "show God".
We receive first, before the works. Therefore, God responded to faith first, before the works. What proof does He need after that? He knows the heart.

James observed things that caused him to comment in his letter. These things were concerning the lack of love, or the inconsistency of love, in those tho whom he addressed the letter. I figured this out by simply reading the entire letter. Anyone else can do the same.

Love is the first and most significant fruit of the spirit. If one is not walking in the kind of love that comes from the spirit, then we can question if he actually has the spirit. Therefore if the works are not appropriate, it is neither appropriate to incite better works. James did not do this. He went to the source. Faith. If one's faith is dead, he does not need works, he needs faith.

Paul said in Rom.5:1, in conclusion to a long discourse and introduction, ..." Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ". Who cares if "alone" is not in the text? Works are neither mentioned. And neither are they mentioned in Rom.10:9,10. Works happen as a result of having been saved by faith. They do not contribute to salvation. This is made abundantly clear in Ephesians 2:8,9. The term "not of works" should be respected. The word "gift" should be respected. Salvation is a gift that is given. Faith is merely the way we receive a gift from God. The works are a result. If works are not present, the gift was never given.

But I should add that it is entirely possible for works to exist apart from faith. One example would be if a person is working for his salvation. The two (faith and works) are not to be mixed together for the purpose of justification before God. This is a no no. James did not intend to suggest that we do such a thing. To misquote him in that way, in my opinion is an injustice to the gospel of grace and an insult to the Spirit of Grace.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Yes, the Holy Spirit helps guide us, those of us who submit ourselves. And, yes, the Holy Spirit will guide in the Bible and not give us new doctrines (anyone who practices anything to the contrary is a cult).

Pssst, Luke wrote more of the New Testament than Paul.

How did Luke write more of the new testament then Paul??

Latin rite priests and Bishops are unmarried. However it is their choice to give up the option of marriage when they become priests “because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 19:12)

"An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord." (1Cor 7:32)

Similarly if a man marries he gives up the option of being a priest (at least unless his wife dies)

“But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife and he is divided.” (1Cor 7:33-34)

Paul says “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am [unmarried], but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Marriage and Ordination are sacraments. Whichever a person chooses he or she will be given the graces (gifts) to live the life they have chosen.


It’s a choice. No-one forces anyone to marry or become a priest.

No-one forbids anyone to marry, but some choices rule out others.

If a man or a woman chooses to follow a celibate life as a priest, monk or nun then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

If a man or a woman chooses to marry then the Church expects them to faithfully honour that choice and the promises that go with it.

As I said some choices rule out others.


Moreover thisn discussion started because I said "No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture and no scripture contradicts Catholic doctrine."

Celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine so the issue of marriage for priests is not relevant to that.
"


Absolutely not.


You are wrong.


The Bible doesn't say we are saved by Faith Alone. That was an invention of Martin Luther. He even added the word "alone" into his translation.

James says that faith without works is a dead faith. We will not be saved by a dead faith
"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (Jas 2:26).

We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). That faith must be a living faith, which includes works. But not the sort of works that Paul condemned which were "works of the law" (Gal 2:10, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10, 3:12)



Many Catholic priests in the Eastern Rites are married, as are some of the Anglican Rite.

For whether they are forbidden - see my reply to Polt above.

I am not wrong,
The Bible says we are saved by faith, NOT BY WORKS, Faith alone.
As for James, He isn't talking about works for salvation, He is talking about works to justify our statement of faith, See v18.
Abraham was already a man of God, It wasn't his works that saved him.
Feedin& clothing poeple, offering up your son to be killed and protecting people DOESN'T same anyone.

Paul mentiond any kind of works. Rom 4: 2, Plus the Greek means Any kind of work.
But catholics have to do works, Because they don't have the faith to accept the simplicity of gaith alone.

 

[aspen]

there are married RCC priests. Anglican converts.

 

[Episkopos]

A Christian has no pope but the Father who is God! Any other person who lifts themselves up as such is blaspheming His name. It is idolatry to both propagate this and bow down to this idol.

 

[Mungo]

How did Luke write more of the new testament then Paul??


I am not wrong,
The Bible says we are saved by faith, NOT BY WORKS, Faith alone.
As for James, He isn't talking about works for salvation, He is talking about works to justify our statement of faith, See v18.
Abraham was already a man of God, It wasn't his works that saved him.
Feedin& clothing poeple, offering up your son to be killed and protecting people DOESN'T same anyone.

Paul mentiond any kind of works. Rom 4: 2, Plus the Greek means Any kind of work.
But catholics have to do works, Because they don't have the faith to accept the simplicity of gaith alone.

The Bible says we are saved by grace.

"works to justify our statement of faith"! What gibberish is that?

Jesus was very clear that you will not get to heaven without good works. Read Mt 25:31-46

A Christian has no pope but the Father who is God! Any other person who lifts themselves up as such is blaspheming His name. It is idolatry to both propagate this and bow down to this idol.

Well that is your opinion.

 

[Alanforchrist]

The Bible says we are saved by grace.

"works to justify our statement of faith"! What gibberish is that?

Jesus was very clear that you will not get to heaven without good works. Read Mt 25:31-46



Well that is your opinion.

OH So you are calling God's word,"Gibberish", Se James 2: 18.
James IS NOT talking about works for salvation, But works for those who are ALREADY saved.

We are saved by grace, throug faith...NOT by WORKS, Eph 2: 8--9.

Jesus is talking to those who are ALREADY saved, In Matt 25, He isn't talking about works for salvation, But works as a Christian.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

OH So you are calling God's word,"Gibberish", Se James 2: 18.
James IS NOT talking about works for salvation, But works for those who are ALREADY saved.

We are saved by grace, throug faith...NOT by WORKS, Eph 2: 8--9.

Jesus is talking to those who are ALREADY saved, In Matt 25, He isn't talking about works for salvation, But works as a Christian.

WRONG.

Works are not simply evidence of our faith. Once we believe - works are essential. In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats - Jesus isn't talking about those who are "already saved" but those who CHOSE to cooperate with God's grace and those who CHOSE not to cooperate with His grace.

When James states that faith without works is dead - he is reiterating Jesus wordas in Matt. 25. This is why Luther wanted to remove the Book of James, calling it the "Epistle of Straw" - because it went against Luther's own invented doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone).

 

[Episkopos]

WRONG.

Works are not simply evidence of our faith. Once we believe - works are essential. In the Parable of the Sheep and Goats - Jesus isn't talking about those who are "already saved" but those who CHOSE to cooperate with God's grace and those who CHOSE not to cooperate with His grace.

When James states that faith without works is dead - he is reiterating Jesus wordas in Matt. 25. This is why Luther wanted to remove the Book of James, calling it the "Epistle of Straw" - because it went against Luther's own invented doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone).

Maybe you're not getting your point across because you are not using enough bold letters? just sayin'

BTW...If a man says something in a forest and there is no woman to hear him...is he still WRONG?

 

[ChurchAuthority]

Maybe you're not getting your point across because you are not using enough bold letters? just sayin'

BTW...If a man says something in a forest and there is no woman to hear him...is he still WRONG?

Maybe I'll use more, then.
Something's bound to make those scales fall from your eyes . . .

 

[Episkopos]

Maybe I'll use more, then.
Something's bound to make those scales fall from your eyes . . .

If something isn't working...then do it a lot more....that usually works!

 

[HammerStone]

By the way, I did want to address a half-truth about the book of James. Luther was not the first to question it. Many notable Catholics did the same.

Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08275b.htm

In the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the Epistle was doubted by some, and amongst others by Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is wanting in the Muratorian Canon, and because of the silence of several of the Western Churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Church History III.25 and II.23); St. Jerome gives the like information (Illustrious Men 2), but adds that with time its authenticity became universally admitted. In the sixteenth century its inspired nature was contested by Erasmus and Cajetan;

This is a topic in which I disagree with Luther. However, the great freedom in Protestantism is that we can reject the incorrect teachings of men who otherwise got things right. We are not forced to accept as dogma the errors along with the correct doctrines.

Another Luther quote:

"The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest...Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." (Luther's Works 34, 317)

It is further notable that this comment was eventually dropped by Luther. Had such a decree been made ex cathedra...well...you wouldn't see that happening, of course.

Further Protestant reading on the subject can be found here:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1892

I don't normally use my privileges to comment on a closed thread, but this assertion is always one I find frustrating, because it conveniently hides unfavorable events.