Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The living Tradition is the oral teaching of the Apostles, and this Tradition goes alongside Holy Scripture.
"Interpreting the Scripture "in the light of the tradition which produced it".
I'm confused, are you saying that tradition is what produced Scripture?
daydreamergurl15 said:Except the Scripture doesn't say "IF a bishop is married"
It says
"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,
-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;
-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 own house, how will he take care o the church of God?)
-not a novice, less 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, less he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Do you want to know the difference between my interpretation and yours?
You make the claim that the person is a bishop first and then some of the qualifications can apply. For example when you said "IF a bishop is married he must not be married to more than one woman", you inferred that one can be a bishop but they do not need to meet all the qualifications. My interpretation says that if one does not meet the qualifications--and those qualifications are a must--they should not be a bishop. The position of a bishop is NOT given to the man and then they meet the qualifications, the position of a bishop is something to be desired and then if they meet the qualifications they should be bishops.
I'm getting the feeling that someone is going to say that "must" only applies to the qualification of "blameless" but I implore you to read it again because Titus 1:5-9 re-illiterate many of those same qualifications.
Tradition not Scripture.The other points for Priests being unmarried are:
1. Priests mimic Christ the High Priest. Christ was not married. He was celibate.
Tradition, not Scripture.2. The Church teaches that the family should always be a primary focus for parents. Priests with families have divided attention. The Priests focus should be on Christ, on his flock and their spiritual needs.
I'm go by Scripture.Not everyone agrees with this Teaching, some Catholics included. It is a difficult and hard one to understand and agree with in this modern world. That doesn't change the fact that it is Doctrine and must be abided by.
This all boils down to authority and whose Teachings you are going to succumb to which is a personal, emotional and spiritual choice.
They were dependent upon the Holy Spirit to rememberSome Christians believe that the Scriptures have always taught Doctrine. Catholics believe Christ and the Apostles taught Doctrine orally FIRST. Jesus never wrote anything down. The Apostles wrote down their memoirs after a while, certainly not the days or months after Christs Ressurrection.
I think sometimes we forget that the Spirit of God was poured out on these people and they had the Spiritual gifts. Illiteracy would not have been a problem with them because they were being taught these things, but it wasn't illiterate people who were writing the Scriptures.How and what did they preach in those months? We say they taught orally and they preached about Christ and what they had seen, heard and experienced. They did not have Scriptures to pass out as the majority of their audience was illiterate. They heard Confessions, they shared the Eucharist (bread&wine), they Baptised people. This is called Holy Tradition or Divine Tradition. It is Divine Tradition because Jesus established it. Later on the Apostles teachings and memories of Christ was written down.
daydreamergurl15 said:That's not the question.
I asked:
I would never argue against Jesus, He is called the Shepherd and I most certainly believe it to the fullest, but Jesus will ALWAYS be the except. The same way that the Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." I automatically take Jesus out of that...Since Jesus never married and Paul never married, I would guess that a Bishop is not required to be married, either. But that's just IMHO.
daydreamergurl15 said:I would never argue against Jesus, He is called the Shepherd and I most certainly believe it to the fullest, but Jesus will ALWAYS be the except. The same way that the Scripture says "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..." I automatically take Jesus out of that...
As for Paul being a Bishop, I don't think so. He was an Apostle, yes, and He shared in the same tasks that Bishops did, but Scripture doesn't say he was an Bishop and seeing as he didn't meet the qualifications, he wouldn't be. But Christ gave Paul a different task as said in Acts 9:15-16. A lot of people confuse that because of 1 Timothy 4:14.
All I can say is that, according to Catholicism, the oral Tradition is a way that God communicates his message in addition to Holy Scripture. What I meant to say--or ought to have said--is the two are so closely connected that to separate Holy Scripture from Tradition (and on top of that, the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church) is to risk having an incomplete understanding of what Scripture teaches and what God is communicating to us. That is the Catholic view, as I understand it.
As for Christ being a Shepherd, again, I'll maintain that Christ is always the except. The same way I think He's sinless, even though Romans 3:23 tells us "all have sin" is the same way I'll take it as Christ being Shepherd. It's HIS church. And when the HOLY SPIRIT gives us qualifications for man to be Bishops, I think we should listen to Him.Well, if you maintain that a Bishop MUST have a wife, then that is your interpretation. Current Bishops in the Catholic Church have chosen to consecrate their lives and their bodies to the Lord so as to better serve him.
daydreamergurl15 said:As for Christ being a Shepherd, again, I'll maintain that Christ is always the except. The same way I think He's sinless, even though Romans 3:23 tells us "all have sin" is the same way I'll take it as Christ being Shepherd. It's HIS church. And when the HOLY SPIRIT gives us qualifications for man to be Bishops, I think we should listen to Him.
And just so you know, we are ALL supposed to live our lives for the Lord. It's neither better or worst if you're married or single. Even in marriage, you are still to live your life for Christ and it can happen whether you're married or single. And in fact the marriage of a man and woman represents Christ and His church as said in Ephesians 5:22-33.
Edit: Changed verse, I quoted the wrong verse in Romans.
"Closely connected"? I think that's the problem.
How can we have an "incomplete understanding" of what Scripture teaches if we think that Scripture needs something else to complete it BUT that then turns around and contradict Scripture when Scripture says:
I think what we are encountering is the difference between Protestant thinking and Catholic teaching. We believe that the holy Church (which Paul has called the pillar of truth) is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit reveals himself, so that all those councils of bishops, including the ones that compiled and canonized the Scriptures we now have and who wrote the Creeds that we profess have not been the mere traditions of men, but are what consists of the sacred Tradition, AS DIRECED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. I also observe that you are very bright and that I am not going to convince you of anything you don't want to be convinced of. I don't like to pursue the mentality that one of us must be proven "wrong". (That's no way to win anybody over anyway.) I simply reiterate the fact that we represent two different ways of thinking about the faith we share in common.
Standing Up said:So that "holy Church" you're speaking about, is it RC or EO or LDS?
See, the problem is, while the sentiment is intoxicating, the reality is far different.
I embraced Tradition. And I found very little correlation between Tradition taught today and Tradition of scripture/apostles/first mention in Tradition. The fact of conflict between EO and RC proves the vacuousness of Tradition.
Scripture alone is to recognize reality (schisim, division) and try to do something about it. Agree on a rule of faith. Now we can talk.
Again this objection comes up (including the apparent boogey-man of the LDS - for some reason)
The best defence this argument is goes "Okay we can't know what is true, but then again neither can you."
I am a Catholic of the Roman Rite. I don't know why you mention LDS, but the Catholic Church feels herself to be extremely close to the Eastern Orthodox to the point where it gives Communion to Orthodox members who spontaneously request it. However, the Orthodox Church tells its faithful not to receive in a Roman Catholic Church. So....the holy Church would be all those Churches who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
It sounds like you and I went in different directions as a result of our searches. There is traffic moving in both directions, and I don't doubt the sincerity of anyone who took a different direction than I did, nor their faith, nor their intelligence. There was a Protestant Professor of Theology named Scott Hahn who converted to Catholicism and who wrote several books about his journey into Catholicism. Perhaps there is an equivalent person who was Catholic and converted to Protestantism. I don't know what those statistics are. At bottom--and what is often left out of intellectual discussions--is that conversion is a matter of the heart. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, a conversion must take place in the heart. My conversion to Catholicism, I think, took seven years or longer. My first attempt at conversion--ie, in RCIA--didn't take because I was the one who brought in my Bible verses and said, "What about this?" and "What about that?" Ironically, it was during my years at Calvary Chapel when my questions about the Catholic faith resolved themselves.
Standing Up said:There was no searching. God moved a mountain "for me". I thank Him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?