Catholicism wrong?

[Lisa0315]

It's intended to be. It sounds as if scholars differ on whether it was THE Peter or someone who wrote in his name . . . like people did with Paul.

Well, I know Paul had people write for him because of his eye condition, but there is at least one epistle that he wrote himself. Is that what you mean?

I also see where it lists the Books of the Bible including "Acts of us the Apostles"

This has definitely intrigued me.

A lot of this deals with marriage within the clergy. When did marriage become banned and how does that line up with this? Why did they change this? Or more importantly, how could they change it?

Lisa

 

[WarriorAngel]

Gregory the Pope around 800ish AD [ dates are tough for me...but it was Gregory] made it a mandatory discipline to be chaste and abstanant.

Paul did say it would be better, and why.

St Gregory had to literally 'clean up' some messes.
For one thing He was voted in to replace the Anti Pope Sylvester lll....etc

 

[Vedant]

It was 900-1200 years later?

I believe it had to do with stopping nepotism...that is clergy giving offices to their children.

 

[WarriorAngel]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm
Yes, Gregory Vll.

I did get the year wrong. I knew, I knew it. lol

With admirable discernment, Gregory began his great work of purifying the Church by a reformation of the clergy. At his first Lenten Synod (March, 1074) he enacted the following decrees:

• That clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church.
• That no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights.
• That all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry.
• That the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Similar decrees had indeed been passed by previous popes and councils. Clement II, Leo IX, Nicholas II, and Alexander II had renewed the ancient laws of discipline, and made determined efforts to have them enforced.

He had to clean up after an anti Pope...Thus the Spirit led him to make these decrees.
Also he made celibacy a priority and its long reading. Altho the issue of celibacy was not a new concept...it was put into finality by Gregory I do believe.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

But for the moment, we may note that St. Dunstan, who more than any other character in early English history is identified with the cause of a celibate clergy, was Archbishop of Canterbury from 960 to 988, a period during which the papacy was subjected to oppression and disorder of the worst kind. In fact the practice of celibacy was almost universally enjoined long before the resolute energy of Gregory VII (Hildebrand) built up what it has of late years been the fashion to call the papal monarchy.

This is a genuine reform, from within the walls by a Pope.

Peace..and night

 

[a_ntv]

A lot of this deals with marriage within the clergy. When did marriage become banned and how does that line up with this? Why did they change this? Or more importantly, how could they change it?

From the very begining of christianity lot of people decided not to marry to follow better the Lord.
In the first millennium monks (and most of bishops) were unmaried. This is the habit folowed by Orthodox.
In about XI XII century, in the West it was asked also to priests not to marry.
That for two different reasons:
- to improve the spiritual level of priests.
- to avoid that priests became a caste (this reason shall be seen into the medioeval society)

Be clear that celibacy of priests is simply a good habit, not a doctrine. There are some catholic priests married now. So is not something you shall believe. It could be changed in any moment.

 

[Markh]

In the early Church it was a requirement for men to abstain from marital relations upon ordination.

and priests could not get married after ordination.

 

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm
Yes, Gregory Vll.

I did get the year wrong. I knew, I knew it. lol



He had to clean up after an anti Pope...Thus the Spirit led him to make these decrees.
Also he made celibacy a priority and its long reading. Altho the issue of celibacy was not a new concept...it was put into finality by Gregory I do believe.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm


This is a genuine reform, from within the walls by a Pope.

Peace..and night

Good morning!!!!

Thanks for the explanation. I surely did not mean it as a criticism. Paul recommended not being married because a married man is divided in his duties at times. My brother, uncle, grandfather and cousin are all ministers and are married. Three out of the four manage because they are married to godly women who support them and their ministries. Their wives see supporting their husbands as THEIR ministry. My cousin's wife, though, was horrible, and he ended up having to leave the ministry because she was unfaithful to him and to God. It was just a terrible mess.

I was just curious as to when and why priests stopped getting married. I knew that they had at one time had married, but I didn't know at what point or for what reason they stopped.

Lisa

 

[ScottBot]

Good morning!!!!

Thanks for the explanation. I surely did not mean it as a criticism. Paul recommended not being married because a married man is divided in his duties at times. My brother, uncle, grandfather and cousin are all ministers and are married. Three out of the four manage because they are married to godly women who support them and their ministries. Their wives see supporting their husbands as THEIR ministry. My cousin's wife, though, was horrible, and he ended up having to leave the ministry because she was unfaithful to him and to God. It was just a terrible mess.

I was just curious as to when and why priests stopped getting married. I knew that they had at one time had married, but I didn't know at what point or for what reason they stopped.

Lisa

For exactly the reasons that Paul suspected. Priest were getting caught up in worldly concerns at the expense of their congregants. They were paying too much mind to the legacy of their children and not enough to the spiritual wellbeing of their flocks. So the church made a rule, if you want to be a priest, you have to remain celibate. If you want to marry and have kids, have at it.

 

[anawim]

.

A lot of this deals with marriage within the clergy. When did marriage become banned and how does that line up with this? Why did they change this? Or more importantly, how could they change it?

Lisa

Priestly celibacy is eschatological. It points us towards our eternal destiny which as Jesus tells us "nobody will either be married, nor given in marriage".

 

[Lisa0315]

Priestly celibacy is eschatological. It points us towards our eternal destiny which as Jesus tells us "nobody will either be married, nor given in marriage".

Very true.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Are they any other questions?
Just wondered.

I like being able to discuss the Catholic stand that in GT no one even reads.

Its chaotic in there. lol

 

[Lisa0315]

Are they any other questions?
Just wondered.

I like being able to discuss the Catholic stand that in GT no one even reads.

Its chaotic in there. lol

Not right now. I will say that I have been inspired to read as many of the early writings of the church fathers as I can. As I go through them, I will come back. If the thread is lost, I will start a new one.

Of course, that may be easier said than done. I have been on vacation this week. Believe it or not, I have gotten so much done this week. We painted two rooms and the house looks really great! Next week, though, I will be at work, then, school three nights a week. I will be lucky to post at all much less do independent research.

Anyway, I really feel as if this thread has been remarkable and I have learned a great deal. It is really weird how it all worked out. It wasn't even my thread. I think I kind of hijacked it but I think AS was okay with that. I hope so anyway.

See ya around!

Your sister and friend,
Lisa

 

[WarriorAngel]

Hey Lisa....
Ya wanna come to my place, my whole basement needs painted. lol [j/k]

THe earliest history is very fascinating. It is the glue of the Church so to speak....it glues the Apostles writings to the history of the whole Church [Christinaity]

O, and i found this and thot it was relevent to the earlier question of the unborn.

Romans 9
11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,)

 

[Lisa0315]

Hey Lisa....
Ya wanna come to my place, my whole basement needs painted. lol [j/k]

THe earliest history is very fascinating. It is the glue of the Church so to speak....it glues the Apostles writings to the history of the whole Church [Christinaity]

O, and i found this and thot it was relevent to the earlier question of the unborn.

Romans 9
11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,)

Err...I luvs ya but I would have to give birth to ya before I would help you paint! What a job!

I am proud to say that I just used the Apostolic canon to defend the faith, thank you very much. I was asked why we threw out the Gospel of Thomas since it showed Jesus in a bad light, murdering people and causing blindness, etc. I calmly explained what the Apostolic Canon was, who it had been written by, how Peter was referenced in these documents and was likely the writer of at least part of it. I explained how Peter had the use of the keys and the authority to use them to designate which books of the Bible were to be used.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I promise I didn't mangle it too badly!

Your sister, friend, and student,

Lisa

 

[WarriorAngel]

Err...I luvs ya but I would have to give birth to ya before I would help you paint! What a job!

RATS!! No harm trying...lol


I am proud to say that I just used the Apostolic canon to defend the faith, thank you very much. I was asked why we threw out the Gospel of Thomas since it showed Jesus in a bad light, murdering people and causing blindness, etc. I calmly explained what the Apostolic Canon was, who it had been written by, how Peter was referenced in these documents and was likely the writer of at least part of it. I explained how Peter had the use of the keys and the authority to use them to designate which books of the Bible were to be used.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I promise I didn't mangle it too badly!

Your sister, friend, and student,

Lisa

Keep on keeping on. You are just taking baby steps to understanding it...but it is good that you are filling with grace in this regard. Good job.

I just posted the list of St Ireneaus written around 180 AD with his list of Popes since Peter.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church's existence. St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190 [AD], not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6) . His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates.

(1) Peter, xxv; (2) Linus, xii; (3) Anencletus [Cletus], xii; (4) Clement, ix; (5) Evarestus, viii; (6) Alexander, x; (7) Sixtus, x; (8) Telesophorus, xi; (9) Hyginus, iv; (10) Pius, xv; (11) Anicetus, xi;, (12) Soter, viii; (13) Eleutherius, xv; (14) Victor, x; (15) Zephyrinus, xviii; (16) Callistus, v; (17) Urban, viii; (18) Pontian, v (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).

This might be interesting too.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained [as Bishop] by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (De viris illustr., xv). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope.

*AND the importance to this list is showing us that the See of Peter continued, and who continued the office.

Evidently, Peter is important enough to have successors.
And of which means a great deal really.

If he were not leader, there would have never been scrupulous details to his succession.

 

[TAquinas]

It's a little disheartening to NOT pray to God directly, but that's just me. I mean, I want to know I am praying directly to God... and another disheartening thing is that I can never be as close to Him as the clergy, whereas a Protestant views this differently.

You can always talk to Jesus directly, particularly in the Adoration chapel in his presence. Only your mind is constructing that you cannot get close to him either in presence or prayer.

The clergy has been granted powers with Christ working through them "In persona christi". This does not prohibit your relationship with Christ, but through the forgiveness of sins facilitates you becoming even closer to him.

You have everyone in heaven and on earth helping you to be closer to him, they are all cheering you on so to speak. Read Luke Chap 15.

Peace and God Bless
TAquinas

 

[Lisa0315]

Are they any other questions?
Just wondered.

I like being able to discuss the Catholic stand that in GT no one even reads.

Its chaotic in there. lol

New Question:

A Catholic just posted that the Perpetual Virginity of Christ has to be true OR Jesus was not the Christ. How true to Catholic doctrine is this or is this person just blowing smoke? They cited OT prophecy about gates being shut as evidence for this.

Lisa

 

[a_ntv]

New Question:

A Catholic just posted that the Perpetual Virginity of Christ has to be true OR Jesus was not the Christ. How true to Catholic doctrine is this or is this person just blowing smoke? They cited OT prophecy about gates being shut as evidence for this.

Lisa

...OR Jesus was not the Christ....this statment is a little bit exagerated.

It is because CC have a so high consideration of Christ, who is not only prophet but God himself, that some consideration follows:
- Mary is virgin. If she is a virgin, she never touched Joseph, so Christ was really the son of God (and not of Joseph)
- Christ is so powerfull that everything He touch, also unwilling, became holy. See Lk 8,46 ("But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me." ). Consider that Jesus was nine months in the worm of Mary....could you immagine what happened to Mary?

 

[Lisa0315]

...OR Jesus was not the Christ....this statment is a little bit exagerated.

It is because CC have a so high consideration of Christ, who is not only prophet but God himself, that some consideration follows:
- Mary is virgin. If she is a virgin, she never touched Joseph, so Christ was really the son of God (and not of Joseph)
- Christ is so powerfull that everything He touch, also unwilling, became holy. See Lk 8,46 ("But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me." ). Consider that Jesus was nine months in the worm of Mary....could you immagine what happened to Mary?

Would you mind saying all of that in this thread? I am not Catholic and I am afraid that I might be mangling the Catholic position quite badly.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2989023-the-protoevangelion-of-james-c150-ad-where-the-ever-virginity-of-mary-came-from.html

 

[a_ntv]

Would you mind saying all of that in this thread? I am not Catholic and I am afraid that I might be mangling the Catholic position quite badly.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2989023-the-protoevangelion-of-james-c150-ad-where-the-ever-virginity-of-mary-came-from.html

This thread is about the Protovangelium of James (Protovangelium = Gospel of the Begining). It is a text (very used in the early church also read in services) that is like a novel about the borning of Mary and of Jesus.
I advice you to read it, it is really like a novel (http://www.gospels.net/translations/infancyjamestranslation.html)
This text was written on about 150 ad, so very shortly after other NT books.
When later the Church defined the canon of the NT, this book was left out. So it is NOT a doctrinal book for RCC.
This text tell the story of Mary in many details, and affirm the virginity of Mary.
There is NO Catholic position on it.


Remember that highlight the verginity of Mary is a way for highlight that Jesus is God.