so you know more than the pope?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Prerequisites vary from country to country and bishop to bishop.

Generally, you have to live in the seminary and study in some School of Theology for no less than 6 years. The courses vary from school to school, but they include some solid background in Philosophy, some History, a bit of art, Latin and Greek, perhaps Hebrew, Bible Studies and Theology proper. Priests candidates are usually further instructed, attend Mass daily and spend a lot of time in varied forms of prayer, which include several forms of Lectio Divina (studying the Bible).

It's a pretty intense experience.

[

 

[Dark_Lite]

Page 449...How can you miss it?

Oh, I'm staring right at it.

The first section concerns the election of the pope.

The second section, which is the one in question, is "Concerning the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the Pope". At first I thought this might be an index, full of incomplete sentences and references that point elsewhere. If that's the case, then you still haven't provided the full statements or the context of them.

If this is your full source, then I'm not quite sure why you're citing it, as the important parts (the ones you bolded and underlined) aren't even there, except for maybe the divine laws one, which if read in context (that's always important, you know), obviously refers to the binding and loosing, canon law, etc.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh, I'm staring right at it.

The first section concerns the election of the pope..<snip>

I gotta admit, yer Denomination has a rather "kewl" way of electing yer Pope

http://www.christianforums.com/t7510624-18/#post56050446
Holy Smoke!

 

[Melethiel]

No, I am not saying that only married men are to be elders....but the bible does however.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop than MUST BE blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, or good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he falls into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he falls into reproach and the snare of the devil.​

I honestly, don't understand how you can say that the qualification is that they should have a wife but then say that it is not a "must". It's a qualification, there are no exempts in place. And Paul encouraged those who are to be celibate to stay such, but for those who cannot, he says it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

As for Paul encouraging those who are to be celibate, well: Let's turn to the scriptures and see what it says:

1 Corinthians 7:6-9
Now I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift form God, one in this manner and another in that. but I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.​

The question was arisen to Christ as well:
This verse really starts in verses 1 but I'm going to skip down to 10-12 because it asks the question, directly.

Matthew 19:10-12
His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. he who is able to accept it, let him accept it.​

In both cases of what Paul says and what Christ says, never are those eunuchs "apart" of the body and delegated to be part of a Priesthood. They simply lived their Christian life for Christ in the way that He have asked without marriage. They were not considered Priest, it was only their relationship lifestyle that was different from the other Christians who were married.

The qualification is that he must be blameless. If he does have a wife and children, they must be blameless as well. However, the structure of the sentence does not say that the "must" refers to having one wife, only to the blameless. The others are further qualifiers. This is pretty basic grammar comprehension. It says "of BUT one wife" - implying one as opposed to many, not one as opposed to none.

And yes, Paul does allow those burning with passion to marry, but he still encourages celibacy, rather than forbidding it.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

The qualification is that he must be blameless. If he does have a wife and children, they must be blameless as well. However, the structure of the sentence does not say that the "must" refers to having one wife, only to the blameless. The others are further qualifiers. This is pretty basic grammar comprehension. It says "of BUT one wife" - implying one as opposed to many, not one as opposed to none.

And yes, Paul does allow those burning with passion to marry, but he still encourages celibacy, rather than forbidding it.

The qualifications continues and give a list of what "must be". There is not a period at the end of "blameless" that list goes on to include "blameless, husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle not quarrelsome, not covetous.......ETC.

If I am going to stay here and say, "blameless" goes for the wife and kid, then what do I think when I see the phrase "husband of one wife." Should I think, his kids must also be the husband of one wife? Should I think the wife, must be the husband of one wife? NO! Because those qualifications are for the one who desires to be a Bishop.

There is even a sentence that says "For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God) and that's right after it says that the children must be in submission to him. So, I don't care what grammar rules that tells us "one" means one, but it still mean "one". He must have "one".

And it is not Paul who allows us to get married, it is God.

 

[Melethiel]

Does God allow us to be celibate?

I'm not going to press this issue, because it's clear that you don't want to see it any other way than your preconceived notion, regardless of what the text actually says. You may disregard grammar, but in reading a text, grammar is everything (especially in Greek). Look at it this way...if I say that you are allowed to have "ONLY one car", do you take that to mean you can't have more than one car, or do you take that to mean you MUST have one car?

 

[simonthezealot]

Oh, I'm staring right at it.

The first section concerns the election of the pope.

The second section, which is the one in question, is "Concerning the dignity, authority, and infallibility of the Pope". At first I thought this might be an index, full of incomplete sentences and references that point elsewhere. If that's the case, then you still haven't provided the full statements or the context of them.

If this is your full source, then I'm not quite sure why you're citing it, as the important parts (the ones you bolded and underlined) aren't even there, except for maybe the divine laws one, which if read in context (that's always important, you know), obviously refers to the binding and loosing, canon law, etc.

Oops sorry wrong edition...
Here you go.

Clear as day> papa corona tanquam rex coeli terrae et infernorum~~~the crown of the pope as king of heaven with earth and of hell

 

[simonthezealot]

Here is another.

Papa tantae est dignitatis et exaltavit eum non esse hominem purum, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius

The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is another.

Papa tantae est dignitatis et exaltavit eum non esse hominem purum, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius

The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God

In case some those may have missed my previous posts [what else is new tho ], you put that as #1 in this thread you created

http://www.christianforums.com/t7325781-104/

snip OP:

#1. "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

 

[Dark_Lite]

Here is another.

Papa tantae est dignitatis et exaltavit eum non esse hominem purum, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius

The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God

Don't you find it strange that this sentence appears to give off two conflicting messages ("The Pope is God, and the Vicar of God.") separated by only a comma? I do.

Look up the definition of quasi. This passage is irrelevant. You are relying on a poor translation of the Latin. This particular passage is claiming that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, which has always been claimed (as every bishop is a vicar of Christ). That is quite, quite different than "the Pope is God."

As for the other quote, it doesn't even claim that the Pope is God. I am also more inclined to think that it is an expression of one of the theories about the symbolism of the papal tiara. Such an explanation makes a lot more sense than the sensationalism you're throwing around.

I will admit that this work is a bit flowery in its explanation of papal authority, but it doesn't claim that the Pope is God.

 

[Melethiel]

Here is another.

Papa tantae est dignitatis et exaltavit eum non esse hominem purum, sed quasi Deus, et Dei vicarius

The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God

That translation is kind of funky - I'd like to see the context there, because there seems to be an agent missing. The translation has "exalted" as a participle, but "exaltavit" is a perfect active indicative. The more literal translation would be "he raised him to not be a chaste man" - as you can see, it's not clear who the agent and the object are.

 

[Yarddog]

Wasn't saying that. Was saying that tradition would be your source for saying that Peter was celibate.

There is no tradition that says that Peter was celibate.

That choice is really not a choice. If you want to serve as a Priest you can't get married right?

Sure it's a choice. They don't have to be priests. They can serve in the Church in another capacity. There are married priests in the Catholic Church. Eastern rite Catholic priests can be married. A man who is married can become a priest in the Latin rite. It is a choice that men make before entering the priesthood.

When priests were surveyed, celibacy won out.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't you find it strange that this sentence appears gives off two conflicting messages ("The Pope is God, and the Vicar of God.") separated by only a comma? I do.

Look up the definition of quasi. This passage is irrelevant. You are relying on a poor translation of the Latin. This particular passage is claiming that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, which has always been claimed (as every bishop is a vicar of Christ). That is quite, quite different than "the Pope is God."

As for the other quote, it doesn't even claim that the Pope is God. I am also more inclined to think that it is an expression of one of the theories about the symbolism of the papal tiara. Such an explanation makes a lot more sense than the sensationalism you're throwing around.

I will admit that this work is a bit flowery in its explanation of papal authority, but it doesn't claim that the Pope is God.

Hello D L.....I couldn't help but notice yer avatar and what you have written next it......



Thing of beauty

 

[Yarddog]

some people are stuck on stupid.
you're the only guy i seen thats stuck on stupider.

i'll bet the pope has the bible memorized.

It seems that you are showing your immaturity and damaging the Churches call for ecumenism. You are not one that needs to delve into apologetics.

The Catholic Church calls for charity not name calling.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

It seems that you are showing your immaturity and damaging the Churches call for ecumenism. You are not one that needs to delve into apologetics.

The Catholic Church calls for charity not name calling.

It is getting rather tiresome actually. Your posts, on the hand, are charitable, Yarddog. God bless you.

 

[godisreal36]

I read all this and Just think to myself....Hmmmm

Good thing I'm not looking for Jesus here because all i would find is complex things concerning Catholic Religion. Sorry i cant remember that complex word that defines Catholic religion.

The gospel is so watered down with this stuff. Can you see it now? If i was looking for Jesus here i would Just turn back around and be an atheist.

Good thing i already have Him. Jesus way is simple, loving and gentle. This looks like a headache waiting to happen, my life is too hard for this stuff and if i was looking for Him i wouldn't want to hear about Mary or complex Vatican style religion that would make me stumble. Have fun with the religion, I'm following the Master.

The Gospel, the whole Gospel and nothing but the Gospel.

 

[Yarddog]

It is getting rather tiresome actually. Your posts, on the hand, are charitable, Yarddog. God bless you.

Thank you. Please forgive her youth.

 

[Yarddog]

Good thing I'm not looking for Jesus here because all i would find is complex things concerning Catholic Religion. Sorry i cant remember that complex word that defines Catholic religion.

Jesusloves

The Gospel, the whole Gospel and nothing but the Gospel.

That's our thing as well.

 

[godisreal36]

Jesusloves



That's our thing as well.

For you, but what about others who need the Lord?

Pope, mary.... Why would you put all this stuff on a new believer?

 

[drstevej]

Benedict is a highly educated man and certainly an expert in Catholic theology.