• 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.

Where did the concept of 'Celibacy' come from?

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,009
1,471
✟75,992.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is gone way off topic.

Here is the answer to original thread question

325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.
Ok. This is a very ancient custom throughout all Apostolic Churches. A man once ordained as priest or deacon cannot get married. In Eastern traditions a married man can be ordained to priesthood or diaconate. In the Latin Church married men can enter the diaconate. There are married priests in the Latin church, these are usually men who were pastors or priests who have converted from a Protestant church.

352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
Which canon?

Ok went back and read the canons of Loadicea. Canon XI is the closest I found. It only speaks of a parish not electing a female president, whatever that was.

There were heresies that did ordain women though, so I wouldn't be surprised if one could find a canon rejecting such.

385-Pope Siricius left his wife in order to become pope. Decreed that priests may no longer sleep with their wives.
source?

Source : Future Church
You need to be suspicious of sources that don't provide sources.
 
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,009
1,471
✟75,992.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok this is becoming redundant, you know Cathloic dogma better than I do.
As well yout know the teaching on salvation

Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

I hope this helps you understand my post ,if not then forget it it's getting boring.
Sorry but I did not understand what you were trying to get at. See my response to civilwarbuff.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,800
19,812
Flyoverland
✟1,367,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
352-Council of Laodicea: women are not to be ordained. This suggests that before this time there was ordination of women.
Source : Future Church

Watch your sources.

A ruling from a council forbidding something does not mean that before that time it was permitted. Doesn't even suggest such a thing to anyone that isn't pushing for such a thing already. What typically happens is that some outlandish new idea is proposed and people get all excited about it and then, and only then, does a council have to reaffirm that such an outlandish idea is outlandish, would always have been outlandish, and will be forever outlandish.

The outlandish idea of Arius required the Nicene Council to repudiate it. It was not the council that invented the idea that the Eternal Son of the Father was always God. It was Arius that invented the idea that the Son was but a created being. Because Arius had convinced many, the council had to stand up against his outlandish idea.

Likewise a council which says women are not to be ordained does so because it is conserving the authentic position, not doing away with the authentic position. Of course canon 11 from the regional council of Laodicea is a complicated thing and it looks like your source may have mangled the import of it.

My main point is that using the date some council or pope mentioned something often has little to do with the origin of a practice. Councils and popes often reaffirm older teaching, or they make explicit something which was implicit. Nicea didn't invent the idea that once a person is ordained they could no longer marry. That is an older idea. Just like the idea of the Eternal Son of the Father being God is an older idea. Laodicea didn't invent the idea that women could not be ordained. And the idea of continence for married priests also appears to go way back as well, before pope Siricius. (Your source seems to have also mangled exactly what Siricius said and did. Oh well. Caveat emptor.) These were not inventions with the dates you got from your source. The best you could say is that the dates were the dates such positions were preserved in the historical record as more or less explicit teachings. Before that time they may have been, and probably were, generally recognized by all but a few neologians.

Perhaps useful is this article: http://compassreview.org/summer09/5.pdf
I'm not pretending this is the last word, but it has useful information in it.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,800
19,812
Flyoverland
✟1,367,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
You need to be suspicious of sources that don't provide sources.

Or any source called "Future Church" as they have a rather large ax to grind.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Lord came first Christ Jesus ,there is a difference between religion and salvation.

The Church of religon ,has nothing to do with the Body of believers in Christ.

The Church cannot offer salvation ,but God's word does.

A Church cannot be a Christian place of worship without God's word.

So if you are implying the Church of Rome has authority over God's Word, you are wrong.
Of course, this doesn't answer the question, at all. You confuse the human institution with the institution Christ founded-the Church, which came before the Bible. Of course, too, Christ knew it would be humans leading the Church, that's why He sent the Holy Spirit to guide them.
So, to answer the question correctly, Christ instituted the Church, with Him as the head, and Humanity as the body. Then came the body of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Council of Trullo in 692 - which is recognized in the Orthodox Church but not by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical - actually condemned the practice of involuntary celibacy for priests and deacons and anathematized those who attempted to separate priests and deacons from their wives. See http://orthodoxwiki.org/Quinisext_Council
We don't want any involuntary celibacy in the Catholic Church, either. All our priests are volunteers...We also don't attempt to separate deacons from their wives. I don't know where you got the idea that we ever did...
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This probably not the appropriate forum but since you did bring it up..... has not the RCC historically said that anyone outside the church (RCC) cannot be saved?
Yes. But how do you define "the Church"?
 
Upvote 0

civilwarbuff

Constitutionalist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2015
15,873
7,590
Columbus
✟756,257.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes. But how do you define "the Church"?
I think they require a person be in full communion with RCC (beliefs and practices) though I don't know the details of that but it would exclude most, if not all, Protestants. The Orthodox, not so much AFAIK.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I think they require a person be in full communion with RCC (beliefs and practices) though I don't know the details of that but it would exclude most, if not all, Protestants. The Orthodox, not so much AFAIK.
The Church is what Christ instituted. We enter the Church by our Trinitarian baptism. So with our deeper understanding of what constitutes the Church, no, we don't require a person to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Besides, I actually wonder if anyone, even professed Catholics are really in full communion with the RCC, considering that we believe our teachings are Christ's teachings...
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
The Church is what Christ instituted. We enter the Church by our Trinitarian baptism. So with our deeper understanding of what constitutes the Church, no, we don't require a person to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Besides, I actually wonder if anyone, even professed Catholics are really in full communion with the RCC, considering that we believe our teachings are Christ's teachings...

Hello Jessie!
How is it that you as a Roman Catholic have a deeper understanding of THE CHURCH ?
Since Christ is the Head of the Church, and you say you believe your teaching is Christ's teaching, do you believe Christ was Roman Cathloic?

Christ was from Judea,he was a Jew.
Historically the RCC has had a different idea of the Jewish people,far more harsh than any other Christian religion that I know of.
The Children of Isreal was God's chosen people,with the promise of the Gentiles being grafted in through Christ Jesus.

Even though the Apostle Paul stated there is neither Jew nor Greek/ Gentile in the Body of Christ,God with us came as a Jew,as well the Apostles and Peter too.


Following is a partial list of Papal Bulls and other relevant documents regarding the Jewish question, illustrating both the partial protection offered the Jews at different times and the institutionalization of Anti-Semitism.

Where protection was offered, it was often done in a condescending manner, asserting the Christian duty to have mercy on the Jews even though they were collectively guilty of killing Jesus (or in modern times, "forgiving" the Jews for killing Jesus) or was simply rescinding previous decrees. Catholic persecution of Jews - and protection - began in the Middle Ages, but the persecution continued and was intensified well after the Middle Ages, notably in the Inquisition and in the formation and regulation of ghettos, which began in the 1500s, well after the end of the Middle Ages. The Papal bulls and encyclicals that advanced and supported anti-Semitism included the following sorts of decrees:

  • Special badges or dress for Jews
  • Special taxes for Jews
  • Forcing Jews to remit debt of Christians
  • Banning, confiscating or burning Jewish law books and other writings.
  • Encouraging or forcing conversion of Jews
  • Expelling Jews from Papal territories or forcing Jews to live in ghettos.
  • Inquisition for backsliding converted Jews,
Many believed and hoped that Catholic persecution of Jews had ended in the period of Pope John XXIII. Recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well.

Pius V was perhaps the worst of the anti-Semitic Popes. He was nonetheless canonized and the canonization was not rescinded.

In addition to the actual regulations depriving Jews of livelihood or home or forcing conversions, the Bulls often were prefaced with language of racist incitement that indicated the attitude of the Catholic Church to Jews.

The Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum ("How completely absurd") of Paul IV, 1555, which created the ghetto of Rome, began with these words:

As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude,

The Bull Hebraeorum gens ("The Jewish Race") 1569, of Saint Pius V, which expelled Jews from some of the Papal states, began with these words:

"The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice -- in all towns, districts, and places -- must depart these regions."

The above is quoted in modern anti-Semitic works, including Catholic publications and the Stormfront Website.

To the modern reader, the Papal bulls seem to present a conflicting picture. Sometimes privileges were revoked and sometimes extended. Often the same Pope would order protection of the Jews from bodily harm but enact discriminatory laws of various kinds. Thus, the church would encourage hatred of Jews, but then it would discourage violence against Jews. For Catholic theology there was no contradiction. The role of the Jews was to serve as an example of the wages of sin to Christians. Therefore, the Jews must be tortured and ridiculed, but never killed.

The documents listed below are Papal Bulls unless otherwise noted. The Bulls get their titles from the initial words, generally the first three words, of the text of the document, which are known as the incipit. Note that there may be several Bulls with the same title by different Popes, and on entirely different subjects.


It seems that a better understanding of Christ would begin with his heritage.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Watch your sources.

A ruling from a council forbidding something does not mean that before that time it was permitted. Doesn't even suggest such a thing to anyone that isn't pushing for such a thing already. What typically happens is that some outlandish new idea is proposed and people get all excited about it and then, and only then, does a council have to reaffirm that such an outlandish idea is outlandish, would always have been outlandish, and will be forever outlandish.

The outlandish idea of Arius required the Nicene Council to repudiate it. It was not the council that invented the idea that the Eternal Son of the Father was always God. It was Arius that invented the idea that the Son was but a created being. Because Arius had convinced many, the council had to stand up against his outlandish idea.

Likewise a council which says women are not to be ordained does so because it is conserving the authentic position, not doing away with the authentic position. Of course canon 11 from the regional council of Laodicea is a complicated thing and it looks like your source may have mangled the import of it.

My main point is that using the date some council or pope mentioned something often has little to do with the origin of a practice. Councils and popes often reaffirm older teaching, or they make explicit something which was implicit. Nicea didn't invent the idea that once a person is ordained they could no longer marry. That is an older idea. Just like the idea of the Eternal Son of the Father being God is an older idea. Laodicea didn't invent the idea that women could not be ordained. And the idea of continence for married priests also appears to go way back as well, before pope Siricius. (Your source seems to have also mangled exactly what Siricius said and did. Oh well. Caveat emptor.) These were not inventions with the dates you got from your source. The best you could say is that the dates were the dates such positions were preserved in the historical record as more or less explicit teachings. Before that time they may have been, and probably were, generally recognized by all but a few neologians.

Perhaps useful is this article: http://compassreview.org/summer09/5.pdf
I'm not pretending this is the last word, but it has useful information in it.

Many Christian denominations forbid Women to Preach or Teach in their Churches, I personally do not agree but being raised in the Baptist Church it's not a deal breaker for me.
When researching the subject is have found underlying reasons for Paul's statements that are proprietary to certain Churches.
We clearly see Paul giving salutations to Women,and used them in his ministry as well.

Considering the RCC and their upholding the blessed Virgin in utmost respect I would say it would be illogical for both of us to go there.

Here is one source : Wikipedia

Among the early Church statements on the topic of sexual continence and celibacy are the Directa and Cum in unum decretals of Pope Siricius (c. 385), which asserted that clerical sexual abstinence was an apostolic practice that must be followed by ministers of the church.

The writings of Saint Ambrose (died 397) also show that the requirement that priests, whether married or celibate, should be continent was the established rule. To the married clergy who, "in some out-of-the-way places", claimed, on the model of the Old Testament priesthood, the right to father children, he recalled that in Old Testament times even lay people were obliged to observe continence on the days leading to a sacrifice, and commented: "If such regard was paid in what was only the figure, how much ought it to be shown in the reality!"[16] Yet more sternly he wrote: "(Saint Paul) spoke of one who has children, not of one who begets children."[17]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Ok. This is a very ancient custom throughout all Apostolic Churches. A man once ordained as priest or deacon cannot get married. In Eastern traditions a married man can be ordained to priesthood or diaconate. In the Latin Church married men can enter the diaconate. There are married priests in the Latin church, these are usually men who were pastors or priests who have converted from a Protestant church.

Which canon?

Ok went back and read the canons of Loadicea. Canon XI is the closest I found. It only speaks of a parish not electing a female president, whatever that was.

There were heresies that did ordain women though, so I wouldn't be surprised if one could find a canon rejecting such.

source?

You need to be suspicious of sources that don't provide sources.

My bad,I agree about being suspicious about not revealing sources especially when it is contrary to Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Or any source called "Future Church" as they have a rather large ax to grind.

I do believe I used them as one source,generally I try to stay away from biased commentary for a source.

I find in SDA teaching a great deal of commentaries on the Cathloic Church.

It's no different with Charismatic bashing from hyper Calvinist.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,909
3,645
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟399,065.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hello Jessie!
How is it that you as a Roman Catholic have a deeper understanding of THE CHURCH ?
I don't. The Church has a deeper understanding of THE CHURCH. I follow the Church.
Since Christ is the Head of the Church, and you say you believe your teaching is Christ's teaching, do you believe Christ was Roman Cathloic?
Christ was Christ. He instituted the Church. I believe you're confusing the faith with the human (political) part of the Church.
Christ was from Judea,he was a Jew.
Historically the RCC has had a different idea of the Jewish people,far more harsh than any other Christian religion that I know of.
Really? How come many Jews don't feel that way? In fact, we often say Catholicism comes from the Jews. I think your vision of History is skewed.
The Children of Isreal was God's chosen people,with the promise of the Gentiles being grafted in through Christ Jesus.

Even though the Apostle Paul stated there is neither Jew nor Greek/ Gentile in the Body of Christ,God with us came as a Jew,as well the Apostles and Peter too.


Following is a partial list of Papal Bulls and other relevant documents regarding the Jewish question, illustrating both the partial protection offered the Jews at different times and the institutionalization of Anti-Semitism.

Where protection was offered, it was often done in a condescending manner, asserting the Christian duty to have mercy on the Jews even though they were collectively guilty of killing Jesus (or in modern times, "forgiving" the Jews for killing Jesus) or was simply rescinding previous decrees. Catholic persecution of Jews - and protection - began in the Middle Ages, but the persecution continued and was intensified well after the Middle Ages, notably in the Inquisition and in the formation and regulation of ghettos, which began in the 1500s, well after the end of the Middle Ages. The Papal bulls and encyclicals that advanced and supported anti-Semitism included the following sorts of decrees:

  • Special badges or dress for Jews
  • Special taxes for Jews
  • Forcing Jews to remit debt of Christians
  • Banning, confiscating or burning Jewish law books and other writings.
  • Encouraging or forcing conversion of Jews
  • Expelling Jews from Papal territories or forcing Jews to live in ghettos.
  • Inquisition for backsliding converted Jews,
Many believed and hoped that Catholic persecution of Jews had ended in the period of Pope John XXIII. Recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well.
I have yet to see any partial list of Papal Bulls or relevant documents, or direct quotes from them, demonstrating Anti-Semitism.
All of your bullet points above are not really a condemnation of Catholicism, but was the way of the world. None of that was part of Catholic dogma, so again, you're condemning Catholics, not Catholicism.
Pius V was perhaps the worst of the anti-Semitic Popes. He was nonetheless canonized and the canonization was not rescinded.
I hope you understand that the Catholic Church does not name saints. They declare the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. If someone is declared a Saint, it's not going to be rescinded, because the Holy Spirit reveals saints.
In addition to the actual regulations depriving Jews of livelihood or home or forcing conversions, the Bulls often were prefaced with language of racist incitement that indicated the attitude of the Catholic Church to Jews.

The Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum ("How completely absurd") of Paul IV, 1555, which created the ghetto of Rome, began with these words:

As it is completely absurd and improper in the utmost that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal servitude,

The Bull Hebraeorum gens ("The Jewish Race") 1569, of Saint Pius V, which expelled Jews from some of the Papal states, began with these words:

"The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice -- in all towns, districts, and places -- must depart these regions."

The above is quoted in modern anti-Semitic works, including Catholic publications and the Stormfront Website.

To the modern reader, the Papal bulls seem to present a conflicting picture. Sometimes privileges were revoked and sometimes extended. Often the same Pope would order protection of the Jews from bodily harm but enact discriminatory laws of various kinds. Thus, the church would encourage hatred of Jews, but then it would discourage violence against Jews. For Catholic theology there was no contradiction. The role of the Jews was to serve as an example of the wages of sin to Christians. Therefore, the Jews must be tortured and ridiculed, but never killed.

The documents listed below are Papal Bulls unless otherwise noted. The Bulls get their titles from the initial words, generally the first three words, of the text of the document, which are known as the incipit. Note that there may be several Bulls with the same title by different Popes, and on entirely different subjects.


It seems that a better understanding of Christ would begin with his heritage.
Those documents you mention above represent the prejudices of individual men, rather than decrees of the Church. Throughout the later Middle Ages the Jews in almost every emergency turned to the popes as to their natural protectors. Despite such legislation as that of the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215) imposing the wearing of a distinctive badge and excluding Jews from public offices, still even the Jewish Encyclopedia declares that the Holy See exercised on the whole a markedly restraining influence on the persecuting spirit of the Middle Ages.

Now, getting back to the topic at hand..."Celibacy"...
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,800
19,812
Flyoverland
✟1,367,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
...which asserted that clerical sexual abstinence was an apostolic practice that must be followed by ministers of the church.

The writings of Saint Ambrose (died 397) also show that the requirement that priests, whether married or celibate, should be continent was the established rule.

Sort of my point, that clerical continency was an old thing, a very early tradition if you will, that even had some roots in the way OT priests understood things.

I'm not sure I see any need for celibacy or continence by Christian clergy but I do see it as something from the beginning. It may not have been practiced by every priest from the beginning either, but a probable supermajority. And it has a few advantages I suppose. If it went away tomorrow I wouldn't be broken up about it too much but I would wonder what we lost in 'gaining' such a thing.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,800
19,812
Flyoverland
✟1,367,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I do believe I used them as one source,generally I try to stay away from biased commentary for a source.

I find in SDA teaching a great deal of commentaries on the Catholic Church.
FutureChurch is a supposed 'Catholic' organization but actually subversive to the Catholic faith. It is tired old 'progressive' agitprop lobbying for married priests and women priests and who knows what other oddities. I could only look at their web site about three minutes before I had to look away. It wasn't Seventh Day Adventist at all. But it has this huge ax to grind.

Seventh Day Adventists do have an obsession about the Catholic Church. I wish they were instead as zealous for Jesus as they are against the Catholic Church.
 
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,009
1,471
✟75,992.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Church is what Christ instituted. We enter the Church by our Trinitarian baptism. So with our deeper understanding of what constitutes the Church, no, we don't require a person to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. Besides, I actually wonder if anyone, even professed Catholics are really in full communion with the RCC, considering that we believe our teachings are Christ's teachings...
That last sentence makes no sense.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Site Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟279,972.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
FutureChurch is a supposed 'Catholic' organization but actually subversive to the Catholic faith. It is tired old 'progressive' agitprop lobbying for married priests and women priests and who knows what other oddities. I could only look at their web site about three minutes before I had to look away. It wasn't Seventh Day Adventist at all. But it has this huge ax to grind.

Seventh Day Adventists do have an obsession about the Catholic Church. I wish they were instead as zealous for Jesus as they are against the Catholic Church.

It does seem like a big waste of time ,to bicker rather than Do the will of God
 
Upvote 0