- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:06 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
Posted on 7/11/23 at 3:06 pm to GeauxLSUGeaux
quote:
Has to be a bee article
If he did say that he needs to be out of his job ASAP. No conversation about it at all. Bye
0
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:10 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:The immediate context of this passage is Paul's rights as an Apostle, not specifically his celibacy. I'll elaborate:
This is where we will strongly disagree. The question is what is Paul referring to when he says sister woman. In the greek adelphaen gunaika. It would appear that Paul is indeed speaking about wives or spouses, at-least the English appears that way. The problem with this interpretation or maybe this translation of the greek in this context is that Paul is speaking about him self, even though two chapters earlier he spoke about his own celibacy, or him remaining unmarried. So could wife or as you called it believing wife be something else?
The context of 1 Corinthians indicates that Paul is picking up a prior thought rather than introducing something new (like a patroness that isn't anywhere else mentioned in his letter, that I'm aware of). The passage in question is in chapter 9 where Paul talks about his rights (keep this word in mind) to "eat and drink" and to take a believing wife, as I'm asserting. The reason why I think he is talking about a right to take a wife is because of the prior two chapters. In the previous chapter (8), the entire section is Paul telling the church that they have the "right" (v. 9) to eat food sacrificed to idols but not to exercise that right if it makes a brother with a weaker conscience stumble in the faith.
Likewise in the previous chapter (7), Paul is addressing a concern from the Corinthians which Paul quotes: "It is good for a man ot to have sexual relations with a woman." Paul then goes on to refute that, by talking about marriage rights that are owed to each spouse. Paul spent quite a bit of time talking about marital relationships and rights, including rights of sexual intercourse, rights of spouses over each other, as well as the right to divorce for biblical reasons, but all of this within the context of marriage rights.
So you see, chapter 9 isn't in a vacuum. Paul talks about marital rights (against the assertion that it is wrong to have sex with a woman), and then the rights to eat meat sacrificed to idols--and both topics have concessions: it's better to not marry if you can help it, and it's better to abstain from "meat and drink" if they cause your brother to sin--prior to launching into a section of his own rights as an Apostle to eat and drink and to take a believing wife, as well as his right to get paid from the Church for his work on their behalf, all which he declines for their sake.
Interpreting this phrase as "taking a believing wife" fits the context better than inserting a brand new idea that wasn't mentioned anywhere in its context.
quote:1 Peter 2:5-9 speaks of this concept. The priests in the OT were the representatives of the people to God (as opposed to the prophets, who represented God to the people). When the veil of the Temple was torn upon Christ's death on the cross, Jesus opened up the holy of holies to His chosen people, so we no longer need priests to be mediators, since Christ as our great high priest is our only mediator between God and man. Because we all can boldly approach the throne of grace through Christ, we as believers are a royal priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to God.
This post is already getting long. So to respond to a few other points. The Church does recognized the priesthood of the believers. Jesus still envisioned a church where there is an office of priesthood.
The reason why I mentioned this is because there is no office of priest in the Church given to us in the NT, but we have the office of deacon and elder/overseer with requirements provided for those offices, including the allowance for men to be married and have children, not as an extreme caveat, but as a primary indicator of fitness to lead the Church.
quote:My point for mentioning the celibacy issue is that it wasn't decided because a new understanding of the Scriptures, but because of a need to address practical issues of abuses. And like I said, anyone can justify just about anything they want by abusing the Scriptures and taking verses out of context, but no where in the Scriptures does it teach that officers of the Church must be celibate. Having Scriptural backing for the general goodness of celibacy is not sufficient to mandate celibacy for officers.
Secondly just because a Pope or Council didn't set up the discipline of priestly celibacy until the 2nd millennium doesn't mean it has no grounding in scripture or was practiced in the Church. The first few hundred years of the Church there was no set scripture. Concepts like the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Jesus was not set immediately out the gates and took some time to be definitively defined. A more minor issue of celibacy not being mandated till 1075 doesn't mean it's wrong, or lacks scripture evidence.
quote:It is quite the stretch to go from "celibacy is good" to "celibacy is required". Jesus didn't call anyone to a requirement of celibacy, but spoke of eunuchs who choose celibacy in addition to ones who don't choose it (are born that way, for instance), and this within the context of defending marriage and strengthening it.
What I assert is that Jesus who was celibate, calls certain people (men and women) to a celibate life style...So it's not that big of a stretch to believe that the Church has the authority to require celibacy for their ministerial priests.
quote:Like I said previously, I believe this is a cop-out. When you require celibacy in order to be a priest, everyone who chooses the priesthood is "voluntarily" choosing celibacy... because they have to in order to be a priest.
Every celibate person voluntarily chooses celibacy.
The Scriptures calls a desire to be an overseer/elder a desire for a noble or good work, meaning that it's a good desire to have. Yet the qualifications for the office do not forbid marriage, but highlight care for a household as a good test for care of the church (1 Tim. 3:5). Making celibacy a requirement for an office of leadership and care of the Church goes against the Scriptures in this respect.
quote:I'm quite aware of the distinction. My concern is that that Rome forbids marriage at all for the office, not whether or not the command can be overturned.
I'll also make this point, there is a key distinction between a discipline, doctrine and dogma that I don't think you understand.
quote:Not only did Christ strengthen the institution of marriage, we find evidence that marriage is both a good and useful thing as well as something that is not forbidden in the Scriptures for ruling office in the Church.
I believe the question isn't so much whether Jesus demanded celibacy for his apostles, which I believe he did. But instead does the church have the authority to require celibacy (with exceptions) for priests and bishops. I know your answer but mine is yes it does.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:27 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:I've addressed this, but I don't believe a requirement for celibacy for a ruling officer is a Scriptural requirement, but goes against the teachings of Scripture that both call marriage a good thing, as well as something that is a good indicator of whether or not said officer can fulfill his office well.
it's not a cop-out, it's a good interpretation of the scripture.
quote:Paul's words aren't meant to be understood as a condemnation of Gnostics only, but of their (or anyone's) teachings and practices that go against what the Scriptures allow. In my previous post, I mentioned how the context of 1 Cor. 9 was marriage (chapter 7) and eating food sacrificed to idols (chapter 8). We see these two issues come up again in 1 Timothy, so Paul is clearly providing teaching on these particular subjects and not just condemnation of an unnamed group of heretics. Verse 1 calls such teachings "teachings of demons". Yes, he's calling out the "demons" who teach these things, but he's condemning the teachings, as well.
Catholic's are not falling into the Hersey of 1 Tim 4:3. The heresy St Paul is condemning is the gnostics who see marriage as an evil, and forbid it for their followers.
quote:Paul condemns specific commandments that go further than what God commands. Whether those commands are for all people or for church officers, they are commands that go beyond what God commands, and therefore such attempts to forbid what God says is good should be rejected. As Paul goes on to explain in verses 4 and 5 for why forbidding such things is evil, "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."
A man or woman who enters the celibate life style is doing so voluntarily, not by force. He or she has the freedom to marry. The gnostics forbid marriage because they believed it was evil. I hope you can see the difference of the Church requiring celibacy for clergy and religious and seeing marriage as evil, which the Church clearly doesn't say.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:51 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
that doesn’t exclude the RCC from the the same heresy IF they are putting lipstick on the same pig that the gnostics were.
But we know that the underlying reason why the Gnostics disfavored marriage for both laity and clergy is not mirrored in the Roman Catholic Catechism. IF a Catholic believes the same things as Gnostics, then they would be heretical? Yes. That's true.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Paul's words aren't meant to be understood as a condemnation of Gnostics only,
Mostly and largely he's referring to the Gnostics, though. We know this because the Gnostics were a fairly prominent group at that time.
The Gnostics held marriage in disfavor for BOTH clergy and laity. Paul's letters address this disordered view of marriage. Paul's letters do not address the Roman Catholic practice for its Priests. That's why your attempts to include Paul's criticism of the Gnostics as a bashing of the Roman Catholics is illogical, inaccurate and ridiculous.
Did you read Prodigal Son's post that includes some Bible commentary on the passage from Timothy that you say condemns the Roman Catholic practice of celibacy of Priests? That commentary undercuts your attempts to re-direct Paul's criticism away from Gnostics and direct it towards the Roman Catholic Faith.
But, we NEVER stop attacking the Roman Catholic Faith here in Foo Man Choo Land, do we? No we don't.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:56 pm to Champagne
quote:I'm not only willing to read content from that site, I spent an entire post responding to an article you linked previously. So unless you missed that post entirely, you are misrepresenting me at best and lying at worst.
Here's what we know about Apostolic Succession - from Catholic Answers. Plenty of well-researched articles here. Not for you because I know you never have and never will submit yourself to reading anything on Catholic Answers.
Here is the post in question that I spent a considerable amount of time responding to a CA article.
quote:I'm an enemy of false gospels that destroy souls. If Rome reformed tomorrow and repented of her heretical views of soteriology (among other things) and embraced God's Word alone as its rule and ultimate authority for faith and life, I would no longer be her enemy, but her friend. I don't hate Catholics; I hate Catholicism, which damns souls of people who think they are doing everything right, when the truth is that salvation comes by believing, not by doing.
That's because you are an Arch-Enemy of Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic Faith.
I did read a few of those articles and they don't make a compelling case for anyone who has studied the Scriptures. If you think there's a really, really good article that makes the best case, please link it and I might respond to it like I did the other article.
quote:So... they are to act like there isn't a Pope at all? Am I understanding you correctly? For several decades when there were two and then three different Popes, the laity just ignored the Papacy?
The answer to your specific question is simple - the laity don't "follow" a particular Pope, they follow the Catechism. They would attend Mass and be good Catholics, just like at any time when there were an undisputed Pope.
quote:Not confused at all, if my congregation is any sort of representation. God has given elders to the Church to govern her while He, as her head, is in Heaven, and we continue doing what God has commanded of us, by His grace alone.
How confused are the laity of YOUR Protestant sects as it splintered into hundreds of different groups, sub-groups and micro-sub groups and CONTINUES to splinter today?
quote:It's not confusing at all. You know that my small denomination is part of a larger association of Reformed and Presbyterian churches called NAPARC, where we are in fellowship with one another, accepting each other to the Lord's table (Eucharist) without concern, right? The differences between my denomination and a similar one, like the OPC, are very small. We have differences on whether women should be ordained as deacons and whether Psalms should be sung exclusively in worship, but the core teachings of the Scripture, we are in agreement on, and consider each other brothers and sisters in the Lord.
How confused must the Presbyterians be when we have one micro-sub-set of the sect, such as yours, that has less then ten-thousand members in the entire USA? For example, here in Louisiana, if I wanted to attend your particular sect, I would have to travel out of state - there are no congregations of your sect in Louisiana.
I can say that about other Protestant denominations that are more loosely affiliated, but affiliated through faith alone in Christ alone, too. My Arminian brothers and sisters in the Baptist, Methodist, and Non-Denominational churches, for example. We may have a lot of differences, but we are still brothers because we all share a common understanding of what is most important: our salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
While it may be confusing to you how we all can be different expressions of the one Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, it isn't confusing to me.
quote:I won't reiterate the lack of confusion we have, but I would imagine it would be quite confusing for us to identify our "rulers" and then have other "rulers" identified for us, to where we wouldn't know who to submit to in the Lord.
How confusing must hundreds of different denominations be? Much more confusing then say, a few contending Popes, I'd say - three choices as opposed to 300 choices AND the three Popes were all agreed on Catechism and doctrines of the Faith. That can't be said at all about the many Protestant sects.
quote:I bring it up because Catholics like yourself seem to think that Catholicism is immune from sectarianism and divisions. The three Popes is a great example of how Catholics are just as prone to error and division as everyone else. You even have division over things even with a single Pope. Instead of individual parishes breaking away, they are allowed to be "different".
You have brought up this particular topic about contending Popes before. You obviously think that it is a huge "Gotcha" point of argument. I think that when we compare three contending Popes at one specific brief moment in history 900 years ago to the hundreds of Protestant sects that we have today (and more are splitting off as we speak) - well, I think that any serious person can see that your point is no "Gotcha" at all for the Catholics, but, DOES seem to be a "Gotcha" for your religious sect.
I'd rather there be a million denominations of true Christians trying to worship God as they believe He has commanded in His holy and infallible Word than submit to one false ruler, believing a false gospel, for the sake of unity.
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 5:57 pm to Champagne
quote:You have an interesting way of interpreting reality
Foo will never in his life admit that you've just blown his "Proof Text" that he clings to out of the water. Of course, Paul's talking about the Gnostics in that letter that he dictated.
The proof text wasn't "blown...out of the water" at all.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:04 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The proof text wasn't "blown...out of the water" at all.
Of course it's blown out of the water because your Proof Text is not a proof text at all. You say it is, then you misrepresent what it really means.
You say that Bible passage makes RC celibacy practices for Priests illegal under God's Law. But when we study the passage and its context, it becomes clear that you are wrong.
It's false and a lie to say that Holy Scripture clearly and unambiguously states that the Roman Catholic practice of Priest Celibacy is against the Law of God, is "Unbiblical" or in some way Evil.
Here are two more good reasons for Catholics to ignore everything you say:
1) you believe that Catholics do not belong to the Body of Christ and the Christian Faith.
2) there are less than 10,000 members of your religious sect in the entire United States of America and NONE in Louisiana
This post was edited on 7/11/23 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:20 pm to Champagne
quote:Whether Paul was addressing Gnostics specifically is beside the point here, as I've shown, because he wasn't calling them out by name, but condemned their demonic teachings. What you don't seem to grasp is that it isn't an either-or, but a both-and; Paul is condemning any group that attempts to go beyond what God commands, forbidding what He has called "good", and marriage is "good", even for officers of the Church, as I keep pointing out from 1 Tim. 3, which you don't seem to want to touch with a 10-foot pole.
Mostly and largely he's referring to the Gnostics, though. We know this because the Gnostics were a fairly prominent group at that time.
quote:Again, it doesn't matter which "group" Paul is talking about. He's condemning both the groups who command such things as well as the commands, themselves.
The Gnostics held marriage in disfavor for BOTH clergy and laity. Paul's letters address this disordered view of marriage. Paul's letters do not address the Roman Catholic practice for its Priests. That's why your attempts to include Paul's criticism of the Gnostics as a bashing of the Roman Catholics is illogical, inaccurate and ridiculous.
quote:I did read it, and as Prodigal's own commentary on the passage he quoted shows, it doesn't preclude criticisms of other groups who do the same things as the Gnostics. Recall that it wasn't because they were called Gnostics that they were deemed heretical and against the teachings of Scripture, but because of what they believed, taught and practiced.
Did you read Prodigal Son's post that includes some Bible commentary on the passage from Timothy that you say condemns the Roman Catholic practice of celibacy of Priests? That commentary undercuts your attempts to re-direct Paul's criticism away from Gnostics and direct it towards the Roman Catholic Faith.
quote:I believe that Catholicism teaches a false gospel that prevents many people from salvation, in human terms, at least. It's not just a tribalistic issue with me, but a literal matter of life and death, as I see it.
But, we NEVER stop attacking the Roman Catholic Faith here in Foo Man Choo Land, do we? No we don't.
Also, I don't go out of my way to "bash" Catholics. I engage in these discussions when I believe it's appropriate to do so, but I don't go out of my way to change subjects for the sake of attacking Catholicism.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I believe that Catholicism teaches a false gospel that prevents many people from salvation, in human terms, at least. It's not just a tribalistic issue with me, but a literal matter of life and death, as I see it.
Catholicism teaches the Catechism, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit and Almighty God. I understand that you believe that this means, in you world - False Gospel.
Here is the Catechism.
LINK
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:28 pm to Champagne
quote:I've defended my position and it seems all you can do is say "nuh uh". If you would like to refute my specific claims and assertions, please feel free to do so, or link to another Catholic Answers article, since you seem to struggle to articulate your own convictions on these matters.
Of course it's blown out of the water because your Proof Text is not a proof text at all. You say it is, then you misrepresent what it really means.
quote:Again, "we" haven't studied the passage and its context, "I" have, and you just lean on what the Catholic Catechism teaches, believing it to rightly interpret the Scriptures (it doesn't).
You say that Bible passage makes RC celibacy practices for Priests illegal under God's Law. But when we study the passage and its context, it becomes clear that you are wrong.
quote:Perhaps you should wonder why I would make such a drastic claim (which I don't do lightly), and seek to show why I'm wrong about that.
Here are two more good reasons for Catholics to ignore everything you say:
1) you believe that Catholics do not belong to the Body of Christ and the Christian Faith.
quote:You keep saying this, as if you believe truth is determined by majority rule (it isn't). If someone lives in Louisiana, there are a few dozen churches I could point them to if they want to find a church similar to mine to join.
2) there are less than 10,000 members of your religious sect in the entire United States of America and NONE in Louisiana
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
other groups who do the same things as the Gnostics.
But the other groups and the Gnostics disfavored marriage for both clergy AND laity. Get that through your head.
The Roman Catholic practice does not apply to the laity - and there ARE some married Priests.
That's why you are making NO sense around here, you appear delusional and you are totally unpersuasive on this particular debate issue. I can't stress enough to you how badly you've lost this round.
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:33 pm to Champagne
quote:You believe the Catechism is God's inspire Word? Inspired like the Bible is? Please tell me you don't actually believe that.
Catholicism teaches the Catechism, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit and Almighty God.
My denomination holds to the Westminster Standards (Westminster Confession of Faith and Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms), but we acknowledge that while these are helpful documents and faithfully summarize what the Scriptures teach, they, themselves, are not the infallible Word of God like the Scriptures are, and we are committed to changing our standards to conform to the Scriptures if we believe they (the standards) are in error.
We teach that our standards are subordinate standards, because they are subordinate in authority to the Scriptures.
quote:I believe Rome's claim of salvation by faith + works is a false gospel.
I understand that you believe that this means, in you world - False Gospel.
quote:Thanks, but I've read enough of it on my own. If you'd like to quote something in particular to discuss, I'm happy to re-read that and have the discussion.
Here is the Catechism.
LINK
Posted on 7/11/23 at 6:41 pm to Champagne
quote:That doesn't matter. Forbidding marriage when God calls marriage "good" is what is in question, not who, in particular, is being forbidden to marry, although I do take exception to the fact that officers of the church, in particular, are the ones who are forbidden to marry (if they're already single), because 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 give clear measuring sticks to see who is fit to be an officer, and marriage is one of those things called out.
But the other groups and the Gnostics disfavored marriage for both clergy AND laity. Get that through your head.
quote:Again, it doesn't matter if it's only the officers that it forbids to marry. I've been clear about the concern here.
The Roman Catholic practice does not apply to the laity
quote:...who are not allowed to move higher in the church government because of it. They are barred from higher office.
and there ARE some married Priests.
And I know you keep harping on this point, but it doesn't really bolster your position of unity within Catholicism when you have exceptions to rules like this.
quote:Since it is you who is saying this, I'm not particularly concerned. I believe I've expressed my arguments thoughtfully and thoroughly. I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong, but simply linking to the Catholic Catechism isn't going to change my mind. You need to do some actual work and make an argument. Saying the equivalent of "i pWn3d y0u bro" isn't sufficient for me to take you seriously in these discussions. I'm only engaging you because others need to see how bankrupt your false religion is.
That's why you are making NO sense around here, you appear delusional and you are totally unpersuasive on this particular debate issue. I can't stress enough to you how badly you've lost this round.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:07 am to Champagne
quote:
IMHO, Atheists can't be converted by Scripture verses or by reading, on their own, the Bible. For an Atheist to be converted, IMHO, first there must be a sincere inner desire to know the Truth.
I am an atheist and have been since I was a teenager. In my adult life, I have been to where Jesus was supposedly born, baptized, arrested, crucified, buried and resurrected, and ascended. I have also touched the Western Wall and been in the Well of Souls in the Foundation Stone inside the Dome of the Rock. I have been to where John the Baptist was supposedly executed and Moses was shown the Promised Land.
Few Christians go see these places. It’s more important to have season tickets, expensive vehicles, pools, etc., than to see the origin of their religion and get a personal familiarity with it. You would think something like that would be important.
People generally don’t put much effort into seeking “the Truth.” Nearly everyone adopts the religion of their culture or heritage and does very little to truly critique what they believe and compare it to other religions or alternatives. If they put any effort into it, it’s mostly just to try to validate what they were raised to believe. The odds of a person born into a Christian family in the Bible Belt becoming a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist are nearly zero - even though those religions comprise about half the world’s population.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:14 am to FooManChoo
quote:
We have differences on whether women should be ordained as deacons and whether Psalms should be sung exclusively in worship, but the core teachings of the Scripture, we are in agreement on
Nope.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 7:27 am to Smeg
The Anglican Church is illegitimate anyway. No surprise to hear this latest.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:48 am to Globetrotter747
quote:True conversion to the truth comes through a work of the Holy Spirit which we call “regeneration”, or “being born again”.
Globetrotter747
Faith (saving faith, which is knowledge, assent, and trust) comes from hearing the Word of God, not from visiting a location or touching a wall. The truth is found in the person of Jesus Christ.
Since you claim the be an atheist, I would urge you to put your trust in Christ’s saving work. You are a sinner who has broken every commandment of God in thought and action and therefore deserves His just wrath for eternity (sins against an infinite God require an infinite punishment). None of us can pay the debt our sin owes, so we need Jesus, the son of God who entered into His creation as a man, to pay that debt for us by obeying God’s law perfectly and being an acceptable sacrifice for sins.
Trust that He paid the debt of sin that you owe and have everlasting life.
Posted on 7/12/23 at 8:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
others need to see how bankrupt your false religion is.
And here we have it again. Foo is the Arch-Enemy of Catholics and the Roman Catholic Faith. He has posted here that Catholics do not belong to the Body of Christ. He supports the Westminster Confession that says that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
His particular sect of Presbyterianism has no congregations at all in the state of Louisiana and has less then ten thousand members in all of the USA. How "bankrupt" is that, since Foo uses that word?
Here's what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches. It's all here. Let the people see for themselves and decide for themselves about it. People should not take theological advice from tiny sect leaders/pastors like Foo who are and always will be the Arch Enemy of Roman Catholicism. Foo is an Anti Catholic Bigot, and proud of it.
Here's the Catechism.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/12/23 at 8:56 am
Posted on 7/12/23 at 9:08 am to Smeg
Presumably this guy became a minister because he believes in the divinity of Christ. Yet he says the prayer Jesus taught us is problematic. What a faker.
Page 10 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News