• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Please, I'd really like to know the answer to this

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by PublicNewSense, Oct 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    +0
    ...keep in mind that in the Catholic Faith, the bottom line for rules pertaining to faith and doctrine is the Magesterium of the Church, not the Bible.

    I've always been taught that God is the bottom line for rules pertaining to faith and doctrine, and not the church. That is, in part, why he inspired members of his church to write the Scriptures, to teach the disciples God's commandments and not those of men.

    I've also been taught by those same Scriptures that the church (or Christian assembly) is the pillar and the ground of truth, and not any magisterium.

    And finally, I've been taught by the apostle Paul's writings that forbidding marriage is one of the doctrines of devils, as well as one of the marks of departing from that faith which was handed down by the apostles to the saints.

    Care to comment on what appears to be a discrepancy between the Catholic faith and the faith found in the Scriptures?

    SchracktheBaptist
     
  2. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    I've also been taught by those same Scriptures that the church (or Christian assembly) is the pillar and the ground of truth, and not any magisterium.

    The magesterium is the leadership of the Church established by God.

    And finally, I've been taught by the apostle Paul's writings that forbidding marriage is one of the doctrines of devils, as well as one of the marks of departing from that faith which was handed down by the apostles to the saints.

    Smells like a troll, brings up the same stupid "points" as a troll, talks like a troll... oh well, I'll answer your insipid statement anyway:

    The Church does not forbid marriage. Yes most Catholic clergy make a promise (NOT A VOW) to remain single to their Bishop, but they are not forbidden to be married. And there are a large number of married Catholic priests in the world.

    Nice try. Well, not really. But I'm sure you think you scored some points here. But only with those incapable of rational thought.

    Kirk
     
  3. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "The Church does not forbid marriage. Yes most Catholic clergy make a promise (NOT A VOW) to remain single to their Bishop, but they are not forbidden to be married. And there are a large number of married Catholic priests in the world. "

    One of the things discussed at Vatican II correct?
     
  4. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    And without the Church, which gathered up the Scriptures, and which preserved the teachings of the Apostles, how is God supposed to pass that information about faith and doctrine on to us? By osmosis?
    The Church, through the Magesterium, is the interpreter of the Scriptures as well as Tradition. There are levels of teaching in the Church, from dogmas down to minor devotions. Not all of them carry the same weight.
    Which is undoubtably why there are 20,000 Protestant denominations, and only one Catholic Church. They all interpret truth for themselves.....and splinter, and splinter, and splinter, and splinter.........
    And I've been taught by the same Apostle Paul that a man who is unmarried can attend to the Lord's business exclusively---see 1 Cor 7:32-35. Besides, Paul was talking about the Gnostics, who forbade marriage for a totally different reason. They saw the body as "evil"; we do not.
    Anytime, anywhere. And as I have said before: there is no discrepancy between the Catholic Faith and the Scriptures. There is a discrepancy between the Catholic Faith and the Protestant interpretation of the Scriptures.

    Keep studying......;)

    WolseleyTheCatholic.
     
  5. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    +0
    Hi Wolseleyy, thanks for taking the time to answer. I have a few problems with your argument, however.

    "And without the Church, which gathered up the Scriptures, and which preserved the teachings of the Apostles, how is God supposed to pass that information about faith and doctrine on to us? By osmosis?"

    Of course not. But we are not talking a commandment that was passed on in the Scriptures. We are talking about the Catholic church forbidding priests to marry when neither God nor his apostles ever demanded such thing from ministers. So, in your opinion, who has the last word? God, who permits ministers to marry, or your magisterium, who forbade them to marry?

    "The Church, through the Magesterium, is the interpreter of the Scriptures as well as Tradition. There are levels of teaching in the Church, from dogmas down to minor devotions. Not all of them carry the same weight."

    But the problem that we are discussing here is the fact that the law of God, which permits ministers to marry, does not carry the same weight as the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic church. Since when do the laws of men take precedence over the law of God?.

    "Which is undoubtably why there are 20,000 Protestant denominations, and only one Catholic Church. They all interpret truth for themselves.....and splinter, and splinter, and splinter, and splinter."

    Your avoiding answering to the truth of what Paul wrote. He said the church, the Christian assembly, is the pillar and ground of truth, not any magisterium. That is precisely why Paul told Timothy to be careful how he conducts himself when he is in the house of God. Therefore, being the pillar and ground of the truth empowers the assembly to follow God's laws in permitting marriage to its ministers, and not imposing upon them celibacy as a requirement to enter the ministry.

    "And I've been taught by the same Apostle Paul that a man who is unmarried can attend to the Lord's business exclusively---see 1 Cor 7:32-35."

    The difference is, Paul was not laying down a law in 1 Corinthians. He was not requiring ministers to be celibate in order to enter the ministry. In fact, he wasn't even addressing ministers at all but rather the congregation at large. And the reason for his advice was because of the "present distress" in verse 26. It was a temporary suggestion, based on the choice of the individual, and not a perpetual church mandate to be imposed upon ministers or ministers-to-be.

    Besides, Paul was talking about the Gnostics, who forbade marriage for a totally different reason. They saw the body as "evil"; we do not.

    Well, I found the reasons why your church forbade marriage to priests. According to official Catholic doctrine, they saw marriage for a priest as:

    1. A Scandal - "Can. 1394 §1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, §1, n. 3, a cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state." (Code of Canon Law)

    2. Forbidde, Void, Requiring Penance - "We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons and monks to have concubines or to contract marriages. We adjudge, as the sacred canons have laid down, that marriage contracts between such persons should be made void and the persons ought to undergo penance." (First Lateran Council)

    3. Unbecoming, Impurity - "We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity." (Second Lateran Council)

    4. Incontinence, Impurity, Outrageous Behavior - "Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour." (Ibid.)

    Can you please explain to me, then, why when God says marriage is "honorable in all," the Catholic church has made it dishonorable for priests?

    SchracktheBaptist
     
  6. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    The Church is the pillar of truth. But that Church is the Catholic Church. Protestant Churches have broken away from the organization Christ formed and in doing so have cast aside God's protections -- they are not part of the Church, and therefore their organizations are in no way pillars of truth. They get most things right, but only because they took them from Catholicism when they broke away.

    And Shrack keeps bleeting like an ignorant sheep about the big, bad Katholic Church banning all priests from marrying, but ignores the fact that there are, in truth, tens of thousands of married priests. And that a celibate priesthood is merely a DISCIPLINE of the faith, and not a doctrine.

    Kirk
     
  7. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    Personally I think it is wonderful to remain celibate, clergy or not. Wols I appreicate the way you express your beliefs and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Kirk, with all due respect try not calling people names next time just because they disagree with you. You seen awful touchy when you post.
     
  8. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Moderator Hat On

    I see we have some new faces here on the CDC...time for a little reminder.

    This is a Catholic Discussion Board. We come here to discuss our faith, issues surrounding the faith, etc. This is NOT a board where Catholics are to be challenged about their beliefs and have to defend our church to those outside the faith.

    There is a fine line between discussion, answering questions (which are fine!) and having to defend against misinformation and a false sense of the facts.

    We will gladly answer questions regarding the faith, how our beliefs are biblical, etc, but let's keep an eye on the debates.

    Cool?
    Moderator Hat off.
     
  9. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    Shrack's posts have been accusatory in tone, Jeff. Who does he think he is, to rudely deride the Catholic faith?

    Respect is for people who earn it, not aggressive fundamentalists with beefs against God's Church.

    Kirk
     
  10. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    +0
    Shall I move this discussion over to the round table? I'd hate for Kirk to blow a gasket here.

    SchracktheBaptist
     
  11. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Shrack -

    I don't think there is any opposition to having an intelligent, thought provoking discussion. It's when it gets carried to the point where we Catholics feel we have to defend our faith, that's when we have to put the brakes on the conversation.

    If you can't tell, we've had problems before where folks from other demoniations who have decided they are here to save the Catholics from damnation and to put us on the right track. Also, we're had many of these same discussions before regarding whether Catholics follow man-made laws or the laws of God.

    This is our safe haven where we can discuss the faith, answer questions that others may have about the Church and have friendly disagreements.

    Granted, some of us here are a bit more sensitive about those disagreements, but we can't have flame wars in our forum.

    I welcome you and anyone else who has legitimate questions about the faith and truly want to hear the answers from our knowledgeable folks, to stick around.

    If you come to stir up trouble and challenge us on our beliefs, you may want to take your discussion elsewhere.

    Peace be with you.
    KC



     
  12. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    If you can't tell, we've had problems before where folks from other demoniations who have decided they are here to save the Catholics from damnation and to put us on the right track.

    Why pussyfoot around the truth? It's not "other denominations." It's almost always one denomination -- Baptists. Southern Baptists in particular. Fundamentalists in general, but Baptists are the loudest, the least knowledgable and the most bigotted, as a rule.

    Everytime decent conversation begins between Catholics and Protestants it seems like a Baptist swings in with thier King Jimmy Bible and total ignorance of historical Christianity and gum up the works. The cause of Christian unity would be far more advanced than it currently is if not for the disruptions caused by groups like the Southern Baptist Convention -- look at what thier leaders did recently, cutting off talks with the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because too many of the SBC's churches are dependent on duping Catholics into tossing off real Christianity for their modernist version to keep their membership growing. Apparently the desire of the SBC to keep its rolls enlarging through the subversion of otherwise decent Catholics runs ahead of their concern for Christian unity.

    Kirk
     
  13. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    I certainly understand how you feel, Kirk. As you know I attend an SBC church, but despise the political cow pies who run the denomination, I respectfully say I am not like that. Heck I think it is horrible what people like Jack Chick and Bob Jones have done. Sometimes I wonder how my church is even in the SBC if the powers that be act like they do.

    At this year's convention, SBC president James Merritt was quoted as saying, "I believe that nobody loves Jesus more than Southern Baptists." That is such an irrational statement and very crude, bordering on bigotry. It's like he's trying to say only So. Baptists are Christians. Let me tell you if you truly know Jesus you could not love Him more than anyone else, regardless of being Catholic, Baptist, Methodist or whoever.

    I may not agree with or understand every doctrine or discipline of the Roman Catholic faith, but I certainly will not say stuff like Jack Chick or Bob Jones say. And for the record Kirk I apologize for what has happened between us here in the past. No hard feelings I hope.

    I look forward to chatting with you all here again soon. Blessings to all! :)


    In Christ,

    Jeff
     
  14. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    You are welcome here and I've enjoyed reading some of your posts. I hope that Kirk can do the right thing and accept your apology and extend his hand in Christian brotherhood.

    We have to be a true witness to Christ's love for all and I know that's a goal for all the folks here on our board.

    I welcome Shreck to continue the discussion as long as we keep it civil - same goes for Kirk.
     
  15. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Shrack, I think the major issues we're talking about here are authority in the Church, and celibacy; the latter being under examination due to the suspicion of the former to levy the said discipline upon the Church's clergy.

    So, I'd like to take the time to discuss this in some detail, so that you might understand the positon of the Catholic Church in these areas. You are free to disagree with the conclusions I post, as you are free to disagree with me and the Catholic Church. Nobody says you have to accept the Catholic viewpoint.

    Sit back and get comfortable, Gentle Readers, as this might get a tad lengthy. :)
    First of all, you repeatedly refer to clergy being allowed the option to marry as "the law of God", and you haven't yet proven to me, by means of Scripture or otherwise, that this is a "law". Scripture indicates that is allowed, certainly, but the particular preference of the individual is a long ways from being a "law".

    Celibacy is a discipline, which exists from the time of Paul, as I previously mentioned. It was considered mandatory in various early dioceses throughout the first millennium of Christian history, and was imposed Church-wide at the 2nd Lateran Council in 1139. The reasons for this are several.

    For one, the Church recognized the teaching of Paul that a man who is unmarried can attend full-time to the responsibilities of the Church, whereas a married man has divided responsibilities.

    For another, the Church has always insisted that clergy should be chosen by the Church; (this is what the lay investiture battles, where some king or duke felt he had the right to "appoint" priests he was happy with, as opposed to whom the Church felt was suitable for the job, were all about); in the Middle Ages, the usual rule for a job being passed along was primogeniture, meaning that the occupation of a father went to his oldest son when he died. There were cases of this happening with married priests; the father would die, and his son would simply take his place. It often proved, however, that the kid was not quite suitable for the job, either by deficiencies in morality or intelligence, and the Church, again, wanted men in Holy Orders who were fit for the job, not just somebody who inherited the position. Imposing mandatory celibacy was a way to clear up this problem.

    And finally, by 1139, the West had been in a Crusade or two, and was hoping to send Christian missionaries to convert the Muslims. This was a vain hope, of course, but that's besides the point. With celibate clergy, the Church could simply send missionaries wheresoever she chose, without having to worry about dependents being unsupported for months or years while the missionaries were away. This is sort of an extension of my first point above.
    Here is the issue of authority. You are taking this verse to mean "the assembly"----the whole Christian body of believers, who should come together and make decisions about issues in the Church. But it should be borne in mind that the Christian Church is not, and never was, a democracy. Take a look at the Book of Acts. Who has the authority when issues came up? Hint: it wasn't the whole assembly of believers. :) In Acts 6:2, it was the twelve Apostles. At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:6, it was the Apostles and the priests who decided what to do, not the entire assembly. And even in cases where the assembly is mentioned as being involved, such as Acts 15:22, it is still the Apostles and leaders in the Church who make the decisions, and the assembly merely gives its blessing.

    The Catholic Church has always seen itself, through the teaching authority which it got from the Apostles (the Magestrium), as the final arbiter of matters of faith or doctrine. This does not mean the entire body of believers, but the leaders of the Church---the Pope and the bishops. The origin for this belief comes from Christ Himself, and parts of it can be found in Scripture. In Matthew 28:18-20 and John 20:21, power is delegated to the Apostles---not to the assembly. In Ephesians 4:11, the structure of the Church is shown to be hierarchical, with those bearing the titles of evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc. on one side, and the body (or assembly) on the other. 1 Timothy 3:1 and 5:17 as well as Titus 1:5 indicate regulations for those in leadership positions; meaning that leadership of the Church is not the province of the entire assembly.

    There are manifold examples of this hierarchical structure and its subsequent authority throughout the early literature of the Church. Ignatius (who died in 110 AD) wrote letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, and Trallians, and in every one strictly ordered them to be in complete obedience to their bishops. Clement, bishop of Rome, said the same thing in 80 AD. The Bishop of Rome being in charge, and the bishops of other churches being in leadership positions, are mentioned by Hegesippus in 180 AD, Irenaeus in 180 AD, Tertullian in 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD, Origen in 226 AD, Cyprian of Carthage in 251, and Firmilian of Caesarea in 255, all of which pre-date the advent of Emperor Constantine, who, according to a popular Protestant mythology, "took over" the Church and introduced all sorts of pagan practices.

    So the Catholic Church sees itself, through the Magesterium of Popes, bishops, and councils, as the final word on faith and doctrine---not the Bible, not Sacred Tradition, and not the assembly. The Church cannot and does not change anything in Scripture or Tradition, but it does consider itself the proper interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. Indeed, it was the Magesterium of the Catholic Church which, in a series of councils, decided what was going to be considered Holy Scripture. They included the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of John, for example, but they left out the Acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Philip. You are, of course, not required to agree. :)

    Which brings us back again to celibacy:
    Dismissing the idea above of the assembly having the authority, which we have already disposed of, the Church has the right as the final arbiter of faith and doctrine, to impose disciplines on the Church or segments of it, and to lift them as well. Celibacy is a discipline, which means the Church imposed it, and the Church can lift it, if she so desires. You might be interested to know that Catholic priests in most, if not all, of the Eastern rites, can indeed marry. This is a reflection of the absence of primogeniture in the ancient East, while in the West, it was prevalent. Ergo, celibacy is more common to the Roman, or Western, rite of the Catholic Church than it is to the various Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic deacons are also allowed to take orders while married, and ordained ministers who are converts to Catholicism can also become Catholic priests while married. So, married clergy does exist, it is simply not the norm.
    The Church hasn't laid down a law in imposing celibacy, either. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine; it is forced on no one. Men who decide to become priests freely choose to embrace celibacy; nobody holds a gun to their head. If they don't want to be celibate, they don't have to become priests. Any male Catholic is free to marry, to embrace Holy Orders, or to remain single. The choice is entirely up to him. But someone who freely chooses to pledge his life to Christ alone, and then changes his mind, saying, "No, I've decided I want to marry that woman over there", we equate with someone who freely chooses to pledge his life to a woman in marriage, and then changes his mind, saying, "No, I've decided I don't love this woman any more---I want to marry that woman over there".
    Marriage is not dishonorable for anyone----it was the Catholic Church, after all, who, on the injunction of Jesus, elevated marriage to the level of a sacrament. The examples you have quoted are all originally from the Middle Ages, and are all those of men who have already made their pledge to the Church alone, and then have gotten involved in a romantic situation. Which, as I pointed out, is seen pretty much like being unfaithful to your wife in favor of another woman.

    Celibacy is not as easy discipline, and it is totally misunderstood by most modern people, who simply cannot for the life of them figure out why anybody would want to live their entire life without having access to "the wild thang" from time to time. It is especially misunderstood by most non-Catholic Americans, who do not understand the history of the Church or the disciplines within it, and who usually take no authority except Scripture, which they elevate above all. The Catholic Church does not operate under the said strictures---which opens it up to misapplications of 1st-century injunctions against ancient heretical groups being applied to Christians of later centuries, under completely different situations.

    I realize I have probably not changed your mind one whit on this subject, Schreck. You will still come back and say, "But the Bible says....." And that's fine, if that's what your church is based entirely upon. The Catholic Church is not. In the Catholic Church, the Church is the interpreter of both the Bible and the discipline of celibacy. We do not see the imposition of a discipline as a contradiction of Scripture; but we also do not see the Scriptural passages in question as absolute "laws", either. I do realize that your major kick in this whole thing isn't with celibacy, but with authority in the Church. We say the Magesterium, which you see as mere men setting themselves up as being superior to God. You say the full body of believers, which we see as a sure bet to another 20,000 different denominations, because if everybody has the say about what's right and proper, then everybody is going to have their own church. That's okay, I guess, but the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't operate that way. I guess the bottom line is if celibacy ain't your thing, then you hadn't oughtta be doing it. And if you disagree with the way the Catholic Church runs itself, then you shouldn't be a Catholic; you should be a Baptist, or Methodist, or Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Assembly of God, or any one of whatever you like.

    I don't know if this helps or not, but there you go.

    Blessings,
    ----Wols.
     
  16. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    As you know I attend an SBC church, but despise the political cow pies who run the denomination, I respectfully say I am not like that.

    No, you don't seem like that at all. My favorite was the former SBC president who said (to wild applause) "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew." Sick, sick, sick. Of course, there are some popes who've said similar things. Which is also sick, sick, sick.

    And for the record Kirk I apologize for what has happened between us here in the past. No hard feelings I hope.

    I don't recall what you're referencing here, so I'd assume it didn't really bother me that much. So okay.

    Kirk
     
  17. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    +0
    So basically I gather from all your response that you, as a Catholic, wholly believe your church has the authority to deny ministers that which God permits them, for reasons given above? Does that about sum it up?

    I apologize for not reponding to each point you made, but I don't think I could do so without sounding argumentative, and I wouldn't want to drive Kirk any more nuts than I already have. He sounds like loose canon, if you know what I mean.

    So I'll refrain from posting on this subject again in this forum, unless someone wishes to take it over to the round table.

    SchracktheBaptist
     
  18. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,762
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Not exactly. A Catholic believes that the Church has its authority from Christ Himself, and that while individual members of the Church or even the Magesterium are capable of error, the Magesterium itself, in a body, is infallible. Ergo, if the Church issues a ruling imposing clerical celibacy in a legitimate ecumenical council, presided over by the Supreme Pontiff, then that decision is not in error, and is the way God wants it to be.

    Again, no one says you are required to agree.
    [Gentle Sarcasm]Those of us who are lost, deluded, Mary-worshipping, statue-worshipping, Papist idolater mackerel-snappers, entangled in a false religious system designed by the devil and who in our ignorance are on our way to hell (did I leave anything out?) are required to adhere to these regulations. Those who are enlightened by the Reformers, and who have returned to the ancient simplicity of the Gospel, having jettisoned a thousand years of superstition, paganism, and dead ritual, believing in salvation by faith alone and absolute trust in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and nothing else, are not.[/Gentle Sarcasm] :)

    Feel free to E-mail if you like ([email protected]), or drop me a line if you decide to post on the Round Table. I'd be happy to talk with you some more.

    Peace,
    ----Wols.
     
  19. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    It's ok to discuss and even disagree with topics here in the Catholic Discussion Board. Keep it civil, friendly and the thread can continue.

    I thought you and Wols were doing just fine. Kirk, like the rest of us here, has been around for some time and we tend to be a bit sensitive. I will keep track of the discussion and it someone gets out of hand I'll take care of it.

    This is a good topic, please continue.
     
  20. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Those of us who are lost, deluded, Mary-worshipping, statue-worshipping, Papist idolater "

    :lol: ...catholics aren't even close ;) I'm there with ya wols..people over dramatise the catholic faith. When I first started studying this, because of all the paintings of Mary you see, its funny how people make ASSUMPTIONS about it. I think the issue of statue-worshipping was cleared up nice in that iconoclast contravery ;) Did you need a "prod" ;) to step in and chastise for wrong beliefs about catholics based on stupid assumptions? :)

    "Keep it civil, friendly and the thread can continue."

    KC, you do a great job ya know that? I know its hard to be impartial and keep both sides discipled and calm without taking one side..just wanted to complement you on it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...