why not multiple husbands?

[FollowingHim]

That being said I find calling the Pope a name that even my six year old students know better than to use immature and downright disrespectful. That kind of posturing and arrogance serves no one. I clearly stated that I feel strongly that everyone should follow their own callings and conscience and have never once insulted any of you that have felt led elsewhere. As a convert, I can state with confidence I never would have come to Christ had a constantly been met with such patronizing and mean-spirited attitudes. If your goal is to create an atmosphere that is Anti-Catholic and completely fundamentalist to the point of being exclusionary, let me know. There is a reason we don't have more ecumenical discussion and are so divided, even today, it starts with us.

Just remember, Luther (and others) set out to reform the church, not create an ongoing series of schisms. At the end of the day we are all members of one Catholic (universal) Church.

Thankyou Maggie, that is well-said. Everyone says the odd thing occasionally that is ill-thought, as was that term, but don't let that taint your opinion of either Mark or Biblical Families, I'd say it was a momentary lapse of judgement by a very upstanding individual. This is an inter-denominational ministry, and as such Catholics are as welcome here as any of us. Obviously given the role the Catholic church has had to play in the history of the church's views of marriage, and the Protestant-majority membership of the forum, you can expect to see a reasonable level of criticism of Catholic teachings here, but that will generally be mature and polite.

 

[cnystrom]

But I do trust my Christian peers (Catholics amongst them) who do feel that the Catholic Church (again, as an institution) have got it wrong wrt to sex (like celibate Priests for example, is that Biblical? I don't think it is....)

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

1 Cor 7:7

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

"as I am" here read as "single".

Just some ideas. The issue might not be as black and white as you suppose.

Best wishes,
Chris

 

[ChrisM]

Just remember, Luther (and others) set out to reform the church, not create an ongoing series of schisms. At the end of the day we are all members of one Catholic (universal) Church.

And what was it that Luther got for his ecumenical and quite respectful dissent?

I regret to make anyone upset, but I have to speak the truth even if it isn't popular as it deals with more than getting along, but rather the eternal fate of many souls hangs in the balance if we have the wrong view of the means of salvation. I have spoken to many inside the RCC, read their own literature, and even have on my shelf one of their apologetic books along with their catechism, which all sadly point to grievous errors in RCC doctrine. While some may not like his approahc, Mark Cahill walks through some of the major anti-Biblical problems of the RCC in the message available here http://audio.markcahill.org/catholic.zip and does so as I do, due to compassion for the deceived and a desire to see all come to repentance so that they would not perish eternally.

Since the days of Luther (not to mention the previous Inquisition, Crusades, etc.) , the RCC has gone even farther astray. I admit it was a bit silly of me to use such a term as I did, yet the reverence so often devoted to this man is also quite silly. The pope claims to have the authority to forgive sin, which even the Pharisees knew only God has as the One offended by transgressing His Law. A man who places himself in the place of the only "Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" is not a man one needs to show reverence for, but rather pray for mercy on his behalf as he has offended God.

Others are welcome to disagree with me and what I have said is not the position of Biblical Families, but my own personally of which no one has asked before.

At the judgment seat of Christ, each person will either be repentant, redeemed, and justified in God's sight by grace through faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, or they will have chosen not to trust Christ and instead try to justify themselves. Romans 4 speaks to the righteousness that comes through faith and the issue of works. In fact, most of the Bible speaks to the grace of God to give that which we could never deserve, and how those who tried in Jesus's day to work their way to righteousness utterly failed and ultimately crucified the only One who was able to forgive sin if they would simply believe on Him.

 

[ChrisM]

This is an inter-denominational ministry, and as such Catholics are as welcome here as any of us .

Everyone is welcome here so long as they are willing to discuss Biblical issues using the Bible and not traditions of men. The Mormons use the same Bible as we do (along with the RCC having additional writings that they consider scripture) and yet when they try to proclaim doctrines that counter the express teachings of the Bible, they are also challenged. I suggest that rather than being offended by a silly joke, folks would do well to consider the arguments themselves. Here, we stand firmly on the authority of the Word of God. Where the Bible is unclear or allows for various interpretations, I do my best to present only Biblical arguments. However, where the Bible is expressly clear, contrary teachings must be rejected.

Just so we are clear, the RCC's official position in paragraph 181 of the 1994 catechism: "The church is the mother of all believers. No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as mother" Don't try to tell me that Catholics are accepting anyone besides those who join the RCC. I admit being opposed to the RCC, yet the common statement is that it is protestants causing the rift.

Mormons do this same thing, claiming everyone is ok and needs to just accept them as Christians and invite their missionaries in to teach them as brothers, yet their own literature states that anyone not baptized by their ordained priesthood can never have eternal life. Mormons will never call you a brother or sister unless you join their church, yet the outcry of "let's all just get along" continues.

Colossians 2: 8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

 

[Isabella]

I would be quite interested in knowing which Polyandrous society this man based his research on, since, it seems very western biased

That book was actually written by a woman, and a secular woman at that. Don't jump to conclusions! Unless of course I am jumping to conclusions presuming someone called Miriam is necessarily a woman... The polyandrous societies she looked at were primarily in India, but she also looked at the Inuit.

Honestly Bels, I think you would find that particular book fascinating, since it comes from a completely secular perspective. My take on it above may be clouded by my presuppositions, you may come to a different conclusion. It's absolutely packed full of facts from serious research, to the point that it reads like a thesis in places (I suspect it might actually be a thesis turned into a book).

Sorry, I did not pay attention to the name, oh dear, how sexist of me! I would love to read it, I love anthropology. Thanks for the reference.

B

 

[Isabella]

But I do trust my Christian peers (Catholics amongst them) who do feel that the Catholic Church (again, as an institution) have got it wrong wrt to sex (like celibate Priests for example, is that Biblical? I don't think it is....)

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

1 Cor 7:7

I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

"as I am" here read as "single".

Just some ideas. The issue might not be as black and white as you suppose.

Best wishes,
Chris

Thank you Chris, as I have said before, I rely on outside knowledge, but are you sure the second quote means single? Or some other quality? I don't know but celibacy makes no sense to me, I am quite concerned at the kind of people it may attract though, but saying that I have known some nice Priests, I just.....well it is concerning.

B

 

[FollowingHim]

As Chris has shown, celibacy is a good thing for an individual who is called to it, and quite biblical. However, it's not for everyone, and the Bible also makes it clear that leaders in the church must be married. Paul was a traveling evangelist / missionary, a job in which celibacy no doubt has benefits as it saves having to take a wife around with you everywhere, a traveling life is simpler for a single man. However a church is a family, and a family man has experience that allows him to lead it better than a celibate man, which I believe is the most likely reason that church leaders are required to be married (Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3). The extension of celibacy to make it a mandatory requirement for all priests was therefore unbiblical.

The Catholic church has some very problematic doctrines, as Mark has stated, I certainly don't dispute that. However there are a few key biblical issues which they hold more firmly than many Protestant churches - the Catholic church is firmly pro-life, and opposes homosexuality and women in church leadership for instance. All three issues have been watered down or completely reversed by many Protestant churches. The Catholic church preaches against abortive contraception, an issue which the Protestant church as a whole tries to ignore. The practice of celebrating the first communion in the Catholic church, although obscured by layers of tradition, does serve to stress the importance of understanding what this symbol is about - while I've seen Protestant parents who let very young children with no understanding of it take communion, causing them to "eateth and drinketh damnation" on themselves (1 Cor 11:29). There is a lot the Protestant church can learn from the Catholics, on particular issues. No denomination is wholly incorrect.

 

[magzillasaurus]

"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know"-Pope Benedict XVI

Unless a Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra (as Vicarius Christi) he is to be respected as a wise man, an Elder as some of you might say. Aside from a few examples from history a Pope has yet to speak in error-unless you count being tortured or forced to proclaim something an actual example. This also happens VERY rarely (a handful of times). This means that the vast majority of Popes spend their entire tenure as the head of the church, much like a "senior" priest without ever proclaiming anything they say infallible. John 14:16-17 describes the spirit of truth that can dwell in man. In 1950 Pope Pius XII clarified the Assumption of Mary (Mary being less important in Protestant circles, clearly)...that was the last time a Pope has spoken Ex Cathedra. If the Pope were to approach me right now and preach heresy I would be free to reject it because it clearly could not be the infallible truth. Let us also remember interpretation is key when we cite scripture, as can be translation. I'm clearly not someone who views the Bible as absolutely literal all the time (and neither are any of you really, it's an almost impossible feat), which automatically sets me at odds with a great deal of you. I like to explore the views of others and learn new things even if I don't agree with them, Christian discussion and growth is Kingdom work.

That being said, he is still a religious head and he is respectful of and friendly with many other religious leaders around the world and as such is due basic courtesy afforded a man of his age and position. Rejecting theology is one thing, reducing oneself to insults is another. Great minds don't have to use small language. We're all Christians here, we're all heading in the right direction and we won't take minor doctrinal differences with us where we aim to go. Some of my most read theologians and scholars are Protestant and I have no doubt in my mind they help me on my journey, as can many of you.

I'll sign off with a quote from a Casting Crowns song that came to mind as I typed this-music always helps me reflect:

We can be passionate about what we believe but we can't strap ourselves to the Gospel 'cause we're slowing it down. Jesus is going to save the world but maybe the best thing we can do is just get out of the way.

Many Blessings, Ya'll

 

[magzillasaurus]

Oh, before I forget:

Deacons (who are very important church leaders) can be married, single or celibate by their own choosing.

 

[Isabella]

We're all Christians here,l

*ahem*

 

[magzillasaurus]

*makes OHNO face*

Ok, we're all kind and well-meaning people here!

 

[Isabella]

Oh no would be

haha, I thank you.... *bows*

 

[FollowingHim]

Unless a Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra (as Vicarius Christi) he is to be respected as a wise man, an Elder as some of you might say. Aside from a few examples from history a Pope has yet to speak in error

That's a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe a lot of Catholic theology is erroneous would believe the Popes must clearly have spoken in error repeatedly. Only those who accept the teaching of the Popes already as correct would believe they have never spoken in error.

 

[magzillasaurus]

Unless a Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra (as Vicarius Christi) he is to be respected as a wise man, an Elder as some of you might say. Aside from a few examples from history a Pope has yet to speak in error

That's a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe a lot of Catholic theology is erroneous would believe the Popes must clearly have spoken in error repeatedly. Only those who accept the teaching of the Popes already as correct would believe they have never spoken in error.

I was referring only to the obvious disdain for the Pope in regards to how much people revere him (based on doctrinal issues regarding Papal Infallibility, Catholicism as the one true church, etc). Essentially I was saying that as Catholics we are typically free to receive anything he says as we see fit, very rarely is it presented as infallible (which is when error would be considered heresy). Several recent Popes have gone on record to reinforce that they are only men who on occasion God sees fit to bestow wisdom. So of course, Popes as men have spoken erroneously from time to time..they are men (not some sort of deity).

All men of God err now and again. I was only addressing a very small point, not whether or not one believes as I do or not.

 

[CecilW]

Would be nice if it were merely a couple of small points, Maggie. We'd all really rather not have to disagree with you. However, when that church publishes statements such as the following ...

"Sunday is our MARK of authority..... The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact." The Catholic Record, London, Ontario, September 1, 1923 (emphasis mine).

... and we as a site and as a group (with a few notable exceptions, such as our dear Bels) believe fervently in the reformers cry of "Sola Scriptura", we just can't let it slide.

Many of us have ancestors who were severely persecuted, tortured, imprisoned, or killed for refusing to bow to that authority or obey the pronouncements coming from that throne. Those who did the persecuting, etc. were given pardons from that throne and told that any sin incurred was forgiven when committed while doing so.

So while any given holder of that position may or may not behave reasonably, please don't be too surprised by those who refuse to respect the position.

 

[magzillasaurus]

Do any of you have a comprehensive knowledge of Aramaic? Scripture alone in regards to which translation of a translation? I am not baiting you, just making a point that one comment can be taken a different direction and derailed entirely. I made a comment, someone made an inflammatory statement and I countered.

I was not brought up Catholic so I am in no way delusional about the sometimes cloudy history of an ancient institution. Should I blame all Christians for the large number of churches and their members that said nothing or supported slavery (on all ends of the theological spectrum)? War? Genocide? Is there a church on this earth that has a monopoly on the truth? Of course not.

I prefer formal highly educated clergy but listen to sermons by many types of preachers and am better for it. I am a Catholic by choice -I like tradition but do not use it as a crutch- but I do not think my church is flawless or the only way to find ones way. I am here to learn. If I was trying to do some weird evangelization you would know.

That said, thanks for the banter.

 

[magzillasaurus]

This is an inter-denominational ministry, and as such Catholics are as welcome here as any of us .

Just so we are clear, the RCC's official position in paragraph 181 of the 1994 catechism: "The church is the mother of all believers. No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as mother" Don't try to tell me that Catholics are accepting anyone besides those who join the RCC. I admit being opposed to the RCC, yet the common statement is that it is protestants causing the rift.

."

I was going to just ignore this entirely but I'll address a small part of it: The Church accepts the baptism of most denominations, does this sound like a rejection of these churches Christianity? I went to a Catholic college (under the authority of the Church) where the head of Campus Ministry was a Protestant, is that in line with a rejection of non-Catholics? Also don't forget that there is Catholic and there is catholic (capitalization is important). The catechism applies to members, not the world at large. There is also a big different between Catholicism and Mormonism, the two are hardly in the same league (is there a thread on Mormonism? I can wax on about that particular church for hours). I found that to be a little odd.

In my first comments on this discussion I made a simple request for respectful discourse, I wasn't seeking a pointless (in that we are all clearly firm in our convictions) debate. Thanks to Isabella and FollowingHim for some very civil dialogue!

 

[FollowingHim]

Thanks to Isabella and FollowingHim for some very civil dialogue!

You're welcome. One place I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit more strongly than anywhere else was in a Catholic monastery. Where two or three are gathered in Jesus' name, He is there in the midst of them - and when they are devoting their entire lives to His service, that is especially welcomed by Him. We all have erroneous theology somewhere, we just don't realise it yet, because if we knew where we were wrong we wouldn't be wrong any more! Nevertheless, God chooses to accept us and work through us, if we are focussed on following Him.

I have also received the greatest insult I have ever been given by a Christian in a Catholic service - to be denied the body and blood of my Lord. I have received great acceptance from Catholic friends, but not so from the priesthood - I understand the theological reasons for this but disagree with them strongly. My ancestors had to flee France due to persecution by the Catholic church - I don't let this get in the way of discussions with Catholic friends today, but nor do I forget it.

At university I was in a Christian student group which contained members of all denominations. This made for some fascinating times. Whenever we had communion, it would follow the traditions of whoever was leading it. I well remember a (nice and calm) dscussion about whether the leftover communion wine could be tipped down the sink or had to be drunk by somebody, with strong reasons on both sides! Those were very enjoyable and educational years. One of my closest friends through university was a Catholic flatmate. We attended Pentecostal evening Bible classes together, and learnt a lot about the Bible, but usually the opposite of what we were being taught (whispered conversations in the back row: "that's wrong I'm sure, let's check the Bible, see, actually it's very conclusive that's wrong, hey, what's that on the other page, that's interesting, ... what's he talking about now?")! Note that this reflects the positions of the particular group running those classes, not all pentecostals, before I offend a decent chunk of this forum!

So I disagree strongly with much Catholic theology. But I have learnt an enormous amount through respectful discussions with people of all denominations, particularly Catholics. I would encourage others to do likewise. It's good to have you around to have such discussions with Maggie. Nobody changes their mind through internet debates, but we can all learn by honestly exploring God's word with others who come from entirely different perspectives to ourselves.

 

[eternitee]

We all have erroneous theology somewhere, we just don't realise it yet, because if we knew where we were wrong we wouldn't be wrong any more!

I could not agree with you more. We are meant to be humans, with imperfect human understanding and God opens our eyes as and when he sees fit and as and when we are ready for the knowledge.

 

[magzillasaurus]

I have also received the greatest insult I have ever been given by a Christian in a Catholic service - to be denied the body and blood of my Lord. I have received great acceptance from Catholic friends, but not so from the priesthood - I understand the theological reasons for this but disagree with them strongly. My ancestors had to flee France due to persecution by the Catholic church - I don't let this get in the way of discussions with Catholic friends today, but nor do I forget it.

Closed communion (practiced up the Catholic Church and a few others that come to mind) is mainly on the basis of our belief in Transubstantiation. Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, etc does say it is the blood of the covenant, not it symbolizes it. Since we believe there is a literal, not symbolic transformation it would be a bit odd to share that with believers with slightly different views. It actually took me awhile to wrap my head around this one when I was in classes before joining.

When I was in South America on a service trip with people of various denominations one of our group members was unaware of this and took communion in a local church. Of course, none of us ran up to the altar and slapped it out of her mouth. Later on I politely informed her, it was a language issue. Typically unconfirmed members-including lifelong members who haven't gone through the process-place their hand over their heart and receive a prayer/blessing instead. Since the homily was in Spanish she had no idea and neither did the priest. It was not a huge issue and she was embarrassed but no one was angry or anything.

Out of respect for this divergent viewpoint I don't take communion at other churches either, even the many that practice open communion since it would seem hypocritical of me. I also find it interesting that most Protestant churches do not have daily communion, church always seems a bit odd to me without it! Your point about whether to "chug" or "dump" communion made me laugh as in college there were several occasions we would argue about who had to drink it. We have particular views on what's to be done if it's spilled, no one is around to finish it, etc. We are a peculiar people, I will definitely speak to that!

Great points!