Orthodox bishops can't marry, they have to be celibate or widowers.No, I am Catholic, not Orthodox.
Actually, that is not true.
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23 - 26
Judas committed suicide so now there were only eleven apostles.Our Lord was with them for over a month between His resurrection and ascension, and He never told them about finding a replacement for him. But after his ascension, Peter told them that need to replace Judas with someone else. This was proper for Peter to do, since Jesus said to said whatever he binds on earth be will be bound in heaven. The apostles chose two, and then they cast lots - which is like the rolling of the dice. No matter! The Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. And the lot feel to Mathias.
Now, I have not ever known a Protestant who questioned Matthias' apostleship, even though Jesus himself never selected him. Matthias was selected by the apostles, at the direction of Peter. Now, if they had the authority to select someone to replace Judas, it is logical that when they started dying off, they would have selected those to replace them as well.
I grant you this is not much, but there are doctrine that both of us believe that have even smaller support from the Bible than this one. What day do you honor the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? My guess is that you honor Sunday. But the Ten Commandments says that we should honor the Sabbath on the seventh day, which is Saturday. Now, the rationale for worship on Sunday is that this is the day that Jesus rose from dead. But there is no verse in the Bible that allows for that! It is based on Church tradition, the Church changed it to Sunday. If the Church is not infallible then we should go back and honor Saturday instead of Sunday. Also, I think you, along with me, are a Trinitarian. You would believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. BUT there is no verse in the Bible that states that there are three persons in one God. In fact, the word "Trinity" is no where to be found in the Bible! Protestants pick and choose which doctrines have to be supported from Bible and which do not.
At the time of Jesus, there were two texts of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic (or Hebrew) Text and the Greek Septuagint. Both were authoritative. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers quoted mostly from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. For instance Isaiah 7:14 says "Behold, a young woman gave birth to son" in the Masoretic text but the Greek Septuagint say "Behold, a virgin gave birth to a son". The Jews had a conference after the time of Christ and decided that the Masoretic text would be the only authoritative text, probably because the embarrassment of verses like Isaiah 7:14.
Now these Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text. So this was in the Christian Bible up until the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to rejected the Deutercanonicals because there was a passage in 2 Maccabees that strongly supported Purgatory. So the Reformers rejected Deutercanonicals, arguing that since the Jews rejected them that we should, too. But they neglected to point out that the Jews only rejected Greek Septuagint, which included the Deutercanonicals, after they had rejected Christ. So why should we take the Jews, who rejected Christ, over centuries of Christianity in determining the canon of the OT?
Well, Orthodoxy have married priests. However, their bishops can be married. Catholics do not have married priests. But since I am Catholic, I deal with this.
Celibacy is in the Bible. Most of the OT prophets were celibates. John the Baptist, Paul, and our Lord were celibates. In the Apostle John's vision, he sees in the future men so dedicated to God that they "did not defile themselves with women"(Revelation 14:4). In Cor 7, Paul writes that for Lord's sake it would better to be celibate but he allowed marriage if it was too difficult for person to remain celibate. But still the ideal was celibacy. The Church allowed priest to marry for the first thousand years. But many men and women chose celibacy in order to get closer to Christ.
The Church changed this in 1076 AD. Just as the apostles had the right on their own to replace Judas, their replacements had the authority to determine the qualifications of a priest. I noticed that you called them clergy qualifications. Actually, it was only some in the clergy. Deacons, even to this day, can be married. It is only the priests and the bishops that are required to be remain celibate. And that is only in one rite, the Latin Rite. But a deacon can be married, and a deacon does what a Protestant minister does. So if a married man feels called to preach sermons, baptize people, and marry people, he can be become a deacon. He cannot become a priest, which I doubt you believe is a valid calling in the clergy. So you are criticizing the Catholic Church for not allowing married priests but your church does not allow priests at all.
Actually, I do not think the Orthodox believe in Purgatory, but since we Catholics do I will address this.
Is this purification complete in this life? If yes, then that means you would have to believe in sinless perfection. In this life, all of us Christians would reach being totally pure before we die and go to heaven. If no, and there is no intermediate purification process before we are in heaven. That would mean that that there would be many impure souls in heaven.
I am sure you agree that we none of us reach perfection in this and yet once we are in heaven we will be perfect. So there has to be some sort of purification process after we die but before we enter heaven - even if the purification is instantaneous. All of will go from being impure to being pure. The only issues are how long will this purification will take and will this purification will entail some pain or deprivation. I would say it would take some kind of pain or deprivation based on 1 Corinthians 3:
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
Paul wrote that every one adds to the foundation of Jesus Christ. If his work does not survive, he will suffer loss but only as one who escapes through the flames.It is not just his work will go through flames. It is he himself going through the flames. That is Purgatory.
And Paul wrote this in 2 Cor 5:10:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
We must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ - non-Christians AND Christians. Paul wrote "WE", including his Christian readers and even himself. Now, Evangelicals try to argue that Christians are only judged by how many rewards they will receive. But Paul writes that we will be judged on what we did WHETHER GOOD OR BAD! That means the recompense could be a reward, or it could be a punishment.
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?That is your personal opinion and of course it is slated because you are an Orthodox believer.
However, there are many things that are not Biblical which the Orthodox church supports.
1. Apostolic succession.
There is NOT ONE single Scripture that supports such a doctrine.
2. Bible Composition.
Orthodox church Accepts the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, but also a collection of books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. These are known as Deuterocanonicals or a second canon of scripture.
3. Clergy Qualifications.
Bishops must be celibate.
4. Purgatory.
An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
So, to say that Orthodoxy is "better" is a personal opinion because it is not rooted in the Word of God.
No, I am Catholic, not Orthodox.
Actually, that is not true.
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23 - 26
Judas committed suicide so now there were only eleven apostles.Our Lord was with them for over a month between His resurrection and ascension, and He never told them about finding a replacement for him. But after his ascension, Peter told them that need to replace Judas with someone else. This was proper for Peter to do, since Jesus said to said whatever he binds on earth be will be bound in heaven. The apostles chose two, and then they cast lots - which is like the rolling of the dice. No matter! The Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. And the lot feel to Mathias.
Now, I have not ever known a Protestant who questioned Matthias' apostleship, even though Jesus himself never selected him. Matthias was selected by the apostles, at the direction of Peter. Now, if they had the authority to select someone to replace Judas, it is logical that when they started dying off, they would have selected those to replace them as well.
I grant you this is not much, but there are doctrine that both of us believe that have even smaller support from the Bible than this one. What day do you honor the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? My guess is that you honor Sunday. But the Ten Commandments says that we should honor the Sabbath on the seventh day, which is Saturday. Now, the rationale for worship on Sunday is that this is the day that Jesus rose from dead. But there is no verse in the Bible that allows for that! It is based on Church tradition, the Church changed it to Sunday. If the Church is not infallible then we should go back and honor Saturday instead of Sunday. Also, I think you, along with me, are a Trinitarian. You would believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. BUT there is no verse in the Bible that states that there are three persons in one God. In fact, the word "Trinity" is no where to be found in the Bible! Protestants pick and choose which doctrines have to be supported from Bible and which do not.
At the time of Jesus, there were two texts of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic (or Hebrew) Text and the Greek Septuagint. Both were authoritative. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers quoted mostly from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. For instance Isaiah 7:14 says "Behold, a young woman gave birth to son" in the Masoretic text but the Greek Septuagint say "Behold, a virgin gave birth to a son". The Jews had a conference after the time of Christ and decided that the Masoretic text would be the only authoritative text, probably because the embarrassment of verses like Isaiah 7:14.
Now these Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text. So this was in the Christian Bible up until the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to rejected the Deutercanonicals because there was a passage in 2 Maccabees that strongly supported Purgatory. So the Reformers rejected Deutercanonicals, arguing that since the Jews rejected them that we should, too. But they neglected to point out that the Jews only rejected Greek Septuagint, which included the Deutercanonicals, after they had rejected Christ. So why should we take the Jews, who rejected Christ, over centuries of Christianity in determining the canon of the OT?
Well, Orthodoxy have married priests. However, their bishops can be married. Catholics do not have married priests. But since I am Catholic, I deal with this.
Celibacy is in the Bible. Most of the OT prophets were celibates. John the Baptist, Paul, and our Lord were celibates. In the Apostle John's vision, he sees in the future men so dedicated to God that they "did not defile themselves with women"(Revelation 14:4). In Cor 7, Paul writes that for Lord's sake it would better to be celibate but he allowed marriage if it was too difficult for person to remain celibate. But still the ideal was celibacy. The Church allowed priest to marry for the first thousand years. But many men and women chose celibacy in order to get closer to Christ.
The Church changed this in 1076 AD. Just as the apostles had the right on their own to replace Judas, their replacements had the authority to determine the qualifications of a priest. I noticed that you called them clergy qualifications. Actually, it was only some in the clergy. Deacons, even to this day, can be married. It is only the priests and the bishops that are required to be remain celibate. And that is only in one rite, the Latin Rite. But a deacon can be married, and a deacon does what a Protestant minister does. So if a married man feels called to preach sermons, baptize people, and marry people, he can be become a deacon. He cannot become a priest, which I doubt you believe is a valid calling in the clergy. So you are criticizing the Catholic Church for not allowing married priests but your church does not allow priests at all.
Actually, I do not think the Orthodox believe in Purgatory, but since we Catholics do I will address this.
Is this purification complete in this life? If yes, then that means you would have to believe in sinless perfection. In this life, all of us Christians would reach being totally pure before we die and go to heaven. If no, and there is no intermediate purification process before we are in heaven. That would mean that that there would be many impure souls in heaven.
I am sure you agree that we none of us reach perfection in this and yet once we are in heaven we will be perfect. So there has to be some sort of purification process after we die but before we enter heaven - even if the purification is instantaneous. All of will go from being impure to being pure. The only issues are how long will this purification will take and will this purification will entail some pain or deprivation. I would say it would take some kind of pain or deprivation based on 1 Corinthians 3:
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
Paul wrote that every one adds to the foundation of Jesus Christ. If his work does not survive, he will suffer loss but only as one who escapes through the flames.It is not just his work will go through flames. It is he himself going through the flames. That is Purgatory.
And Paul wrote this in 2 Cor 5:10:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
We must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ - non-Christians AND Christians. Paul wrote "WE", including his Christian readers and even himself. Now, Evangelicals try to argue that Christians are only judged by how many rewards they will receive. But Paul writes that we will be judged on what we did WHETHER GOOD OR BAD! That means the recompense could be a reward, or it could be a punishment.
1 Timothy 4:14 New King James Version (NKJV) 14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.
Would people please check that their quote tags have not been messed up before they post, and if you quote someone else who has messed up quote tags, please edit them so that your own post doesn't get messed up.
Thank you in advance.
Orthodox bishops can't marry, they have to be celibate or widowers.
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
2) Nothing wrong with Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon or 1 Esdras.
3) Nothing wrong with that, priests can marry anyways.
4) Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory.
1).
It is an ACTION when someone places their hands on you, however, there is no biblical mandate requiring the physical laying on of hands for a particular spiritual ministry. We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.
2).
Those are "extra" Bible products that are not in any way inspired. With only a little bit of work anyone can understand why the books of the Apocrypha were rejected. Because their fictitious teachings endorse false doctrines of church, such as prayers for dead, false cures, virtue in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.
3).
No sir, that is incorrect. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.
The reason nuns and priests in the Catholic church do not marry is because it is the act of ultimate resistance of temptation and a completely giving your life over and dedicated your life only to the religion of Cathosolism. You may have noticed that priests are often caught with sexual crimes. That is the reason why.
4).
Synod. Flor. pp. 33, 35.
"When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward.
I have been perplexed that a Catholic poster here has been defining Orthodox praxis. I hope I never presume to do so.
Then please fix post #149Thank you for pointing that out. I also noticed the problem.
Please note that the poster you are replying to is Orthodox and not Catholic. Orthodox priests can be married, but Orthodox bishops cannot be married. The Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory.
Also true. Laying on of hands has many meanings in scripture, largely dictated by context. In I Timothy 4:14 there has been much debate concerning what gift was given to Timothy by the laying on of the hands by the presbyters. It could have been any of the spiritual gifts described in Romans 12 or I Corinthians 12, but the fact is that we simply do not know with any certainty.
How goofy is that.
Priests can be married but bishops cannot be married.
The Scriptures say...…….."A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".
As I understand that Scripture, it applies to elders/deacons/bishops/pastors. In other words it refers to all "Overseers" of the church without separating the function they have or the position they have.
The "context" demands that A minister of religion, who has the charge or oversight of any Christian church is considered a Bishop/pastor/elder/deacon.
You are correct, as usual!
As best as I can determine, laying on of hands is a sign of "Agreement".
I think it would be helpful to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself.
It is similar to the "anointing of oil" in James. Some have understood that to mean that there is healing ability in that process and there is none. The word in the Greek in James is the same word Jesus used when He told someone to "Anoint" himself with oil. It means to put some oil on your hair and brush it so that you will look presentable.
Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.I entirely agree with you on this. In many churches there seems to be a form of sacredotalism related to laying on of hands. Just the very act of doing so is a magic formula where God is required to perform some mystical function. In the case of Roman Catholicism, the ordination of priests means that once a priest is ordained, there is nothing possible that can eradicate his spiritual powers - even the most heinous of sins cannot change the fact that he is a priest forever. This means, of course, that Luther (that most blasphemous of ordained priests) is, according to Catholic theology, still a priest, although most Catholics believe he went to hell.
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.
Revelation 12 MSG;NIV - The Woman, Her Son, and the Dragon - A - Bible Gateway Is it Mary or the church?
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?