Non-Biblical Practices done by Catholic believers

[Major1]

#3. Veneration of body parts of saints (bone fragments and such).

#4. Praying to saints.

Agreed.

Fidelibus said in comment #106...…………
"If you would like to discuss any Catholic teaching that IS NOT IN THE BIBLE such as Purgatory or the Rosary, or calling men FATHER or the inability of the laity to marry, please ask me and I will be glad to give you the Bible response.
Start a thread on what you believe are Catholic teachings that are not explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, and I'd be more than happy to go over them with you one by one, or how many others you think there are."

HE picked the subjects and I just posted 2 of the 4 he said to start with.

 

[thecolorsblend]

YOU said concerning that the Bible says a Bishop must be a married man....………..
"It says no such thing."

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

The original Greek literally is translated as “one-woman man.” In other words, a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to.

The NIV makes it even clearer.

1 Timothy 3:1-5 ...….
"Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his WIFE, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?

So then, do you still say that the Bible does not say that a Bishop should be a married man?

That's lovely.

I notice that you ignored my answer about most eligible men in the NT Church being married. Did you do that on purpose? If not, here it is again for your convenience.

The recruiting pool from which the Early Church had to work was made up mostly of married men. Pointing to that model as being exemplary of anything is intellectually dishonest.

Have at it.

 

[Major1]

That's lovely.

I notice that you ignored my answer about most eligible men in the NT Church being married. Did you do that on purpose? If not, here it is again for your convenience.

Have at it.

NOPE. JUst didn't see a need to respond as the Bible clearly says in 1 Timothy 3:2 words that are easily read and need no twisting or explination or manipulation...……
"Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".

It is real hard to manipulate or spin those words....IMO.

 

[NW82]

I think you mean clergy there.

True

Not really true. Eastern Catholic clergy are allowed to be married. And even in the Roman Rite, Anglican Use priests who were married prior to their conversion can still be ordained as Catholic priests.

Incorrect the OP clearly states Roman Catholic not Eastern.

The relevance of that to the modern world is shaky at best. The recruiting pool from which the Early Church had to work was made up mostly of married men. Pointing to that model as being exemplary of anything is intellectually dishonest.

Relevance to the modern world is not germane to the issue, the biblical precedent is, which is what the OP references.

Further, it ignores the reasons why clerical celibacy ever came about in the first place.

But the clerical celibacy was never mandated in the Bible, which is what the OP is referring to when he says "BIBLICAL".

It says no such thing.

Correct it doesn't say MUST be married, but if married MUST be married to one woman...so again, celibacy isn't biblical, which again is where the OP is directing the thought of the thread.

 

[NW82]

Oh, something else. As others may already know, the Catholic Church does not abide by scripture as her sole authority. If a given doctrine can be found in sacred scripture, that's great. But a doctrine's truth does not depend upon it being adduced from sacred scripture as per Catholic belief.

While Protestants are welcome to agree or disagree with this approach, the fact of it remains.

This is the to problem the OP is referring to, it is biblical. Most RC believe the Pope is infallible when it comes to teaching, etc., while Protestants trust in the Word of God alone...mainly (for me) because Christ stated no man is good, not one....the Pope is a man.

 

[NW82]

Number 2 on that list is just a misunderstanding; and numerous verses from Scripture show that other people on Earth are called Father and properly so. The OP is overly literal on this point.

I may be wrong, feel free to BIBLICALLY show me, but the CONTEXT of the reference is in a spiritual matter, which applies to the Catholic priesthood, in relation to the OP.

 

[Major1]

True


Incorrect the OP clearly states Roman Catholic not Eastern.


Relevance to the modern world is not germane to the issue, the biblical precedent is, which is what the OP references.


But the clerical celibacy was never mandated in the Bible, which is what the OP is referring to when he says "BIBLICAL".


Correct it doesn't say MUST be married, but if married MUST be married to one woman...so again, celibacy isn't biblical, which again is where the OP is directing the thought of the thread.

Just to clarify...…...Fidelibus was the one who used the word "Laity" in his asking me to start this thread. (Comment #106).

When I copied and pasted HIS comments I did not catch his mistake. I have now gone back and changed it "CLERGY".

 

[NW82]

One thing many people forget is you cannot quote from Authority if that "Authority" isn't accepted by both parties in the discussion; debating 101. I think we can agree that all of us can accept the Bible as an Authority. The trouble is Catholics try to use other "authoritative sources" which aren't accepted outside Catholicism, hence they do not hold up in the discussion based on that.

 

[URA]

I've been deep in debates for a long while on this site, so for now, I'll take a step back & bring up a point about Biblical differences in general.

How many Christians say that different interpretations of the Bible is perfectly acceptable? Some even say it's part of the beauty of Christianity, that so many differing beliefs can all still be in 1 body of Christ. Oftentimes, the idea of the Pope & bishops & authoritative church councils is refuted on the basis of "We're all human, so we all have flawed interpretations", and phrase it so nicely--until the Catholic interpretation of the Bible shows up, and then it's a firestorm of "proof texts" and "why can't you understand" and an abandoning on St. Paul's instruction to tell the truth with love, gently correcting those who are wrong. (Ephesians 4:15, 2 Timothy 2:25)

Just something to keep in mind.

 

[Major1]

That's lovely.

I notice that you ignored my answer about most eligible men in the NT Church being married. Did you do that on purpose? If not, here it is again for your convenience.

Have at it.

thecolorsblend said:
"The recruiting pool from which the Early Church had to work was made up mostly of married men. Pointing to that model as being exemplary of anything is intellectually dishonest."

I do not agree in anyway with that comment. I just posted what the Scriptures said my dear friend with absolutely no thought of dishonesty involved.

 

[TuxAme]

1. The verse in question doesn't necessarily mandate marriage. It only says "of one wife", which could also suggest that a bishop may be married only once. In other words, he cannot remarry.

It would seem that we actually retained this pretty strictly as, while most priests cannot have wives, exceptions are made (typically for converts), but such a priest cannot remarry if his wife dies before him (unless there are children involved, in which case a remarriage may be allowed for their sake).

Regardless, it falls in the realm of practices and can be changed.

2. Jesus also said to call no man teacher, yet instructs the apostles to teach just prior to His Ascension. He was using hyperbole, as evidenced by the fact that the apostles referred to themselves as fathers (unless you would call them deceivers, that is).

 

[Afra]

Oh Lord. Not again. This thread can only end with me getting banned.

 

[Afra]

I have been challenged/encouraged by my Catholic friend, @Fidelibus

#1. Bishops are not married.
So then, the Catholic practice for all of its CLERGY is that they all be celibate. In other words the RCC does not allow its Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to be married.

But the Bible says just the opposite in 1 Timothy 3:1...……
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...…".

In plain English, a Bishop MUST be a married man.

Yes, I am aware that many will say that is a warning against "polygamy". Bit that does not answer the question of being married to a woman. A Bishop MUST be married to only one woman.

Why do you care, by the way?

Do you even have a bishop? Who is your bishop?

Is the oneness Pentecostal T.D. Jakes a bishop? Why not? He calls himself a bishop.

 

[Major1]

1. The verse in question doesn't necessarily mandate marriage. It only says "of one wife", which could also suggest that a bishop may be married only once. In other words, he cannot remarry.

It would seem that we actually retained this pretty strictly as, while most priests cannot have wives, exceptions are made (typically for converts), but such a priest cannot remarry if his wife dies before him (unless there are children involved, in which case a remarriage may be allowed for their sake).

Regardless, it falls in the realm of practices and can be changed.

2. Jesus also said to call no man teacher, yet instructs the apostles to teach just prior to His Ascension. He was using hyperbole, as evidenced by the fact that the apostles referred to themselves as fathers (unless you would call them deceivers, that is).

I am sorry my friend, but when the scriptures say the husband of one wife, that clearly says MARRIED.

Yes, many men had more that one wife and the verse is used to say NO POLOIGAMY!
However, even then the words clearly say "Husband of one wife".

2.
The context Jesus was in was that the Jews, scribes and Pharisees used the name of Rabbi and FATHER.

Jesus said, “call no man on Earth your Father,” (Matt. 23: 19), yet St. Paul says, “I became your father through the Gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). St. Paul warns earlier in that epistle, though, that there is no Paul or Apollos, only Christ (1 Cor. 1:12-13).
And this is the key that ties it all together.

Christ warns us not to call any man our father so as not to create an alternative to God, a figure to draw us away from God. If we are a Christian but also a Marxist, we find Marx and Christ pulling us in different directions. But to be a follower of St. Paul is to be a follower of Christ. Paul’s fatherhood draws you in to the One Divine Father.
And from those same notes, “God is jealous of Baal, not Moses; of Mammon, not Peter. God’s jealousy is of anything which draws us away from Him.”

Christ denounced the Pharisees for creating a separate set of allegiances, obedience to a rabbinical tradition that interfered with their ability to follow the Ten Commandments (Mark 7:9-13). In Catholicism, there is no separate allegiance.

 

[Major1]

Why do you care, by the way?

Do you even have a bishop? Who is your bishop?

Is the oneness Pentecostal T.D. Jakes a bishop? Why not? He calls himself a bishop.

If you had read the very 1st post you would have seen that my Catholic friend, Fifelibus WANTED this thread and HE picked four practices of the Catholic church HE wanted to respond to.

Let me be clear again...……...HE picked out what he wanted me to ask and that is what I did.

Personally……..I don't care. YOU have the freedom and ability to do what you want to do with your choices in life.

Do I have a Bishop/Pastor?...…...ABSOLUTELY!

I do not know anything about T.D. Jakes. You brought him up.....YOU follow up on what you are trying to say because I have not a single clue.

 

[Chris V++]

Why does the RCC not want priests to marry? I remember reading the practice originally had to do with church property rights. e.g. What would happens to the widow of a deceased priest?. How would she be provided for? Where would she live? Would she be compensated? Would she have a legal claim on church property? I don't have a source but it sounds like it might have been a very practical solution to an economic problem.

 

[Major1]

Oh Lord. Not again. This thread can only end with me getting banned.

Maybe not if you just act and talk civil and Christian.

 

[Major1]

Why does the RCC not want priests to marry? I remember reading the practice originally had to do with church property rights. e.g. What would happens to the widow of a deceased priest, etc. How would she be provided for? Where would she live? Would she be compensated? Would she have a legal claim on church property? I don't have a source but it sounds like it might have been a very practical solution to an economic problem.

Good question.

Look at how many law suits and broken lives could have been spared if the clergy was allowed to marry.

 

[Afra]

If you had read the very 1st post you would have seen that my Catholic friend, Fifelibus WANTED this thread and HE picked four practices of the Catholic church HE wanted to respond to.

Let me be clear again...……...HE picked out what he wanted me to ask and that is what I did.

Personally……..I don't care. YOU have the freedom and ability to do what you want to do with your choices in life.

Thanks. You are right. I seemed to have jumped over your answer to that question right into the meat of your post. My apologies.

Do I have a Bishop/Pastor?...…...ABSOLUTELY!

I do not know anything about T.D. Jakes. You brought him up.....YOU follow up on what you are trying to say because I have not a single clue.

Well, if you are asserting that a bishop must be married, it seems to me that it is important to properly define what is and what is not a bishop. I imagine that there are elders in almost every Protestant church who are not married. And I certainly have met many Protestant pastors who are not married. I don't see anyone going around accusing them of acting out of accordance with Scripture, so there must be something about the definition of "bishop" that allows for these unmarried elders and pastors, while prohibiting celibate Catholic bishops.

By the way, what do you think of the text in 1 Cor. 7 that someone else posted? The text clearly teaches that an unmarried person has a greater capacity to give his undivided devotion to the Lord, and teaches that a married person's interests are divided. Do you want your pastor to have divided interests, or an undivided devotion to the Lord?

 

[Afra]

Maybe not if you just act and talk civil and Christian.

Well perhaps the Lord will grant both of us that grace.