[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Things we share in common

Was Galileo right, or were his persecutors right?

One could not write anything funnier or more rediculous that the contemporary response by the Vatican to "the Galileo problem".

The Vatican spent ten years trying to figure out what to say about the fact the Galileo was right and the Pope was wrong. But after ten years of study, you will not find these words in the final report, "The Pope was wrong, Galileo was right."

Instead, there is some indirect references to "mistakes". The lie that the Pope is infallible must be preserved at all costs because cash flow is more important than truth.

We can be proud that at Landover Baptist, unlike the Catholic Church, only the truth prevails.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Things we share in common

Of course celibacy is important, and is preferable to marriage as St Paul says.

So married priests are not as good as celibate priests, that's what you're saying. BTW, who do you think Paul was addressing in Phil. 4:3?

You can't just make anything up as you please. Sacred oral tradition evolves gradually over centuries among the popes.

Right. Gotcha. I have to put on a silly hat, then I can make up anything I please. BTW, did evolution happen or not? Was Galileo right, or were his persecutors right?

Let us look then at the question of bishops. In the early years of the Church, there was a great scarcity of single men who were eligible for ordination, so that is why men who were already married were accepted for the priesthood and the bishopric. When St Paul said that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, he did not mean that bishops must marry. That would be plainly a wrong interpretation since Paul would have then contravened his own rule! The rule means that a bishop must not have more than one wife, and this include remarriage in the event of widowing. We see then that a man who never marries does not violate this rule.

1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

How on earth could anyone interpret that in any way other than what it clearly says - that having a family is a positive asset for a bishop?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Things we share in common

The rule means that a bishop must not have more than one wife, and thhttp://www.landoverbaptist.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=582850is include remarriage in the event of widowing. We see then that a man who never marries does not violate this rule.

What a weak argument.

At least you didn't claim that the pope's law trumps even Paul's. I have seen that line of argument before. I have to give you some credit for that.

Still, you are purposely ignoring the scriptures, yet again. It's funny how it gets easier and easier for you popists to lie to yourself when the scriptures clearly say a Bishop should be married with children. Otherwise, they would be unqualified to give practical advice.

Paul even warns against false prophets prohibiting marriage. but you knew that too.

The truth is that even you know you only give lip service to your false religion. You only want to be right. The more you study it, the more falsity you see.

[Sister Christina]

Re: Things we share in common

The rule means that a bishop must not have more than one wife, and this include remarriage in the event of widowing. We see then that a man who never marries does not violate this rule.

Ok, if we go with that for a minute, then where exactly does it say that it includes remarriage if widowed?

[The Cantabrian]

Re: Things we share in common

Ok well you know my ability to answer questions would be greatly aided if I were not impeded by a 700 second delay between posts.

Let us look then at the question of bishops. In the early years of the Church, there was a great scarcity of single men who were eligible for ordination, so that is why men who were already married were accepted for the priesthood and the bishopric. When St Paul said that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, he did not mean that bishops must marry. That would be plainly a wrong interpretation since Paul would have then contravened his own rule! The rule means that a bishop must not have more than one wife, and this include remarriage in the event of widowing. We see then that a man who never marries does not violate this rule.

[Oliver Brendan Hayve]

Re: Things we share in common

You never answered the question about the bishopric being required to be married.

I noticed the same thing. Cantabrian, you're not exactly helping your case by ducking questions and relying on proof by assertion.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Things we share in common

Of course celibacy is important, and is preferable to marriage as St Paul says. You can't just make anything up as you please. Sacred oral tradition evolves gradually over centuries among the popes.

Like infallibility, papal succession and the bishop of Rome being the head of the church? Like Peter dying in Rome?

All oral traditions.. Not biblically based nor sound.

You never answered the question about the bishopric being required to be married.

1 Timothy 3 1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Things we share in common

Sacred oral tradition evolves gradually over centuries among the popes.

Where does it say that in the Holy Bible?


BTW; your popes are all antichrists. Every pope who's ever lived is in hell right now.

[The Cantabrian]

Re: Things we share in common

To add to what my esteemed colleagues posed to you, no wife is mentioned in the Gospels. What are the Books of Matthew and Luke (4:38)? I was unaware they are not Gospels. Is that more "sacred" oral tradition?

If the other apostles were married at one time and decided to become celibate like the "sacred" oral tradition claims, wouldn't they be in violation of 1 Corinthians 7:5?

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

You catlickers love to point to Paul's writing that he is celibate in that chapter, but conveniently ignore the fact that Paul advocates healthy relations with the wife only two scriptures before.

Yes, and did you read what he said thereafter:
"I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (1 Cor 7:6-7).

So, is celibacy important or not? Does God place a special value on celibacy?

This sacred oral tradition sounds like a wonderful thing. So, you're saying that I can make anything I like up, and as long as I tell it to someone else, it becomes true?

Of course celibacy is important, and is preferable to marriage as St Paul says. You can't just make anything up as you please. Sacred oral tradition evolves gradually over centuries among the popes.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Things we share in common

OK Levi, let us deal with this issue of marriage shall we. There are a few things to say.

First, the Catholic church does NOT forbid anyone to marry. No member of the church is mandated to take a vow of celibacy. It is always voluntary, with them renouncing marriage as per Matthew 19:12.

So, is celibacy important or not? Does God place a special value on celibacy?

Secondly, with regard to Peter's wife, the Holy Catholic church does not deny that Peter was once married. But is it not odd that no wife was mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts? Sacred oral tradition suggests that his wife was martyred, so he was not actually married at the time he was designated as the ROCK. He was more likely a widower.

This sacred oral tradition sounds like a wonderful thing. So, you're saying that I can make anything I like up, and as long as I tell it to someone else, it becomes true?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Things we share in common

But is it not odd that no wife was mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts?

To add to what my esteemed colleagues posed to you, no wife is mentioned in the Gospels. What are the Books of Matthew and Luke (4:38)? I was unaware they are not Gospels. Is that more "sacred" oral tradition?

If the other apostles were married at one time and decided to become celibate like the "sacred" oral tradition claims, wouldn't they be in violation of 1 Corinthians 7:5?

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

You catlickers love to point to Paul's writing that he is celibate in that chapter, but conveniently ignore the fact that Paul advocates healthy relations with the wife only two scriptures before.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Things we share in common

OK Levi, let us deal with this issue of marriage shall we. There are a few things to say.

First, the Catholic church does NOT forbid anyone to marry. No member of the church is mandated to take a vow of celibacy. It is always voluntary, with them renouncing marriage as per Matthew 19:12. Ordinarily, the Church then selects candidates for the priesthood from those who have renounced marriage in such a way, but it is not unknown for the church to accept priests who are married.

It is, in fact, practically unknown for the church to accept married priests. If that were not so, why are there so many men who can't move beyond the post of deacon because they are married? (In fact, you also forbid widowed Deacons from remarrying!)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PY.HTM Code of Canon Law (from the Vatican's website)

Canon 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

The only exceptions that are made are for the case of a (already married) Protestant who converts to Catholicism and wants to become a priest. No doubt this is done only to encourage conversion and nothing more. (I could mention the theory that Catholics only instituted this rule so that no children of priests could claim to inherit Church land, but whatever...)

Secondly, with regard to Peter's wife, the Holy Catholic church does not deny that Peter was once married.

Perhaps not, but you certainly did. You said that NONE of the Apostles were married.

But is it not odd that no wife was mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts? Sacred oral tradition suggests that his wife was martyred, so he was not actually married at the time he was designated as the ROCK. He was more likely a widower.

Oh, are you honestly suggesting that by the time of Matthew 16, Peter's wife had been martyred? That is VERY odd indeed, considering both the Bible AND your Catholic Church proclaim St. Stephan to have been the first martyr, in Acts 7, several years after he was "designated as the ROCK".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14286b.htm

"St. Stephen - One of the first deacons and the first Christian martyr; feast on 26 December."

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

First, the Catholic church does NOT forbid anyone to marry. No member of the church is mandated to take a vow of celibacy. It is always voluntary, with them renouncing marriage as per Matthew 19:12. Ordinarily, the Church then selects candidates for the priesthood from those who have renounced marriage in such a way, but it is not unknown for the church to accept priests who are married.

Do you plan to answer the question about the bishops?

Secondly, with regard to Peter's wife, the Holy Catholic church does not deny that Peter was once married. But is it not odd that no wife was mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts? Sacred oral tradition suggests that his wife was martyred, so he was not actually married at the time he was designated as the ROCK. He was more likely a widower.

To reconcile the "sacred oral tradition" with the Bible, the Romanists have had to invent still more "sacred oral tradition." Wouldn't it make more sense to skip the made-up bits altogether and just take God at His Word?

Being a catholic is even worse than being an atheist. At least atheists are honest about hating God.

Yes, it is.

Rev. 3:15-16: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Things we share in common

First, the Catholic church does ... insane rambling removed ...

Being a catholic is even worse than being an atheist. At least atheists are honest about hating God. Maybe you got addicted to getting raped by priests, but you really have to snap out of this and start on saving your soul before it is too late.

[The Cantabrian]

Re: Things we share in common

What about your bishops which are required to be married according to Paul?

Are you saying the Bible is self-contradictory?

None of Christ's apostles were married? Are you sure about that?

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

You would think a PhD student would know "the rock" was married.

OK Levi, let us deal with this issue of marriage shall we. There are a few things to say.

First, the Catholic church does NOT forbid anyone to marry. No member of the church is mandated to take a vow of celibacy. It is always voluntary, with them renouncing marriage as per Matthew 19:12. Ordinarily, the Church then selects candidates for the priesthood from those who have renounced marriage in such a way, but it is not unknown for the church to accept priests who are married.

Secondly, with regard to Peter's wife, the Holy Catholic church does not deny that Peter was once married. But is it not odd that no wife was mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts? Sacred oral tradition suggests that his wife was martyred, so he was not actually married at the time he was designated as the ROCK. He was more likely a widower.