• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Roman Catholic Magisterium and Catechism on polygyny

Hey I noticed a recent objector to polygyny is labeled as Catholic.

Since Scripture is to be interpreted by the Holy Spirit, Tradition and the Magisterium from a Roman Catholic perspective.

I was wondering if Mr. V.L. can explain what the magisterium and catechism explains about polygyny.

By the way are deacons allowed to be unmarried according to the Magisterium and Catechism and recent tradition?

Do Roman Catholics claim that the scripture is completely true according to the Catechism?
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Hey I noticed a recent objector to polygyny is labeled as Catholic.

Since Scripture is to be interpreted by the Holy Spirit, Tradition and the Magisterium from a Roman Catholic perspective.

I was wondering if Mr. V.L. can explain what the magisterium and catechism explains about polygyny.

By the way are deacons allowed to be unmarried according to the Magisterium and Catechism and recent tradition?

Do Roman Catholics claim that the scripture is completely true according to the Catechism?
In the sacrament of marriage, you forsake all others for the bride that God places into your hands.

If people here actually read their Bible rather then simply repeat their preconceptions again & again. You all would see that the Bible treats polygamy as gross offense against the natural order.

As for deacons, they haven't taken final priestly vows. It is permitted for deacons to marry if they choose. In which case they would then to be permanent deacons. This is the ancient custom of the Church. I wish people actually had a real knowledge of Church history. As John Henry Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." If the Catholic Church is not Christ's one & only true church, there is no true Church. If their is no Church, there is no Christ & we are still in our sins. The Catholic Church is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching.
 
VictorLepanto said:
donnag said:
Yes. OCA.
So I'd take it you weren't raised in some Orthodox group in America, you've converted to Orthodoxy?

I have one main question:
What's wrong w/ Frank Schaeffer?


I know who his dad was, and I have heard of him but haven't read any of his books so I don't understand your question.
 
donnag said:
Frank Schaeffer
He was involved in the OCA, atleast at some point. He has taken to writing books ridiculing denouncing his old Evangelical friends.

It is a pity, his Portofino book was wonderful.

It was a novel largely based on his family, & his father of course. He portrayed his mother as an insane harpy in his last book.
 
VictorLepanto said:
As for deacons, they haven't taken final priestly vows. It is permitted for deacons to marry if they choose. In which case they would then to be permanent deacons. This is the ancient custom of the Church. I wish people actually had a real knowledge of Church history. As John Henry Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." If the Catholic Church is not Christ's one & only true church, there is no true Church. If their is no Church, there is no Christ & we are still in our sins. The Catholic Church is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching.

Are deacons then permitted to be unmarried in Roman Catholicism according to the Magisterium and the Catechism and Tradition?
 
Victor Lepanto"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." If the Catholic Church is not Christ's one & only true church, there is no true Church. If their is no Church, there is no Christ & we are still in our sins. The Catholic Church is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching.

I used to have a fairly positive view of the Roman Catholic Church UNTIL I started studying it's history. The more I learned about it, the more corrupt it appeared to me. Based on what my Bible tells me, I cannot accept that the RCC "is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching". As for "if there is no church, there is no Christ"...you have that totally backwards ! Without Christ, there is no church..or Christianity, for that matter !
The RCC has been and is full of false doctrine....too numerous to list here.
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Fairlight said:
Victor Lepanto"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." If the Catholic Church is not Christ's one & only true church, there is no true Church. If their is no Church, there is no Christ & we are still in our sins. The Catholic Church is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching.

I used to have a fairly positive view of the Roman Catholic Church UNTIL I started studying it's history. The more I learned about it, the more corrupt it appeared to me. Based on what my Bible tells me, I cannot accept that the RCC "is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching". As for "if there is no church, there is no Christ"...you have that totally backwards ! Without Christ, there is no church..or Christianity, for that matter !
The RCC has been and is full of false doctrine....too numerous to list here.
Blessings,
Fairlight

The pope is only considered infallible by Roman Catholics when he speaks infallibly and not infallible when it comes to his behavior and morality.
 
I quoted Pope Benedict XIII in a post on another thread, but will repeat his quote here (reported by Catholic news Agency, 23 April 2009):
"The interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be a merely an individual academic undertaking, but must always be compared with, inserted into, and authenticated by the living Tradition of the Church.

"This norm is essential in order to ensure a correct and reciprocal exchange between exegesis and Church Magisterium," the Pope stated.
My question...doesn't this directly contradict what Jesus said about the traditions of the Pharisees?
Matthew 15:7-9 NKJV Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: (8) 'THESE PEOPLE DRAW NEAR TO ME WITH THEIR MOUTH, AND HONOR ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. (9) AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.' " {It's the NKJV translators YELLING, not me.}
"Reciprocal exchange" implies that tradition and Biblical Truth are equal in reliability and authority. "Reciprocal exchange" takes place between equals, not between master and student or master and servant or perfect and imperfect. There can be no reciprocal exchange between God's absolute, inerrant, infallible Truth and the often sinful traditions of man. Man had better "line up" with God, not the other way around.

Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9) not of works, lest anyone should boast.
 
Fairlight said:
Victor Lepanto"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." If the Catholic Church is not Christ's one & only true church, there is no true Church. If their is no Church, there is no Christ & we are still in our sins. The Catholic Church is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching.

I used to have a fairly positive view of the Roman Catholic Church UNTIL I started studying it's history. The more I learned about it, the more corrupt it appeared to me. Based on what my Bible tells me, I cannot accept that the RCC "is our only connection to the Apostolic teaching". As for "if there is no church, there is no Christ"...you have that totally backwards ! Without Christ, there is no church..or Christianity, for that matter !
The RCC has been and is full of false doctrine....too numerous to list here.
Blessings,
Fairlight
Then what you've read is the nonsense of posers & ignorant slanderers. You'd do well to find a real historian of the Church. I'd recommend Jaroslav Pelikan, except his work is rather formidable. donnag might know something of Pelikan, he was bapized as a Lutheran, but later converted to Orthodoxy. His history of the church runs to 5 volumes, & haven't read through it yet.

A more accessible book would be Rodney Stark's Victory of Reason. It is not really about the history of the Church as such but is about how the Church is the mother of Western Civilisation. Capitalism (including the modern banking system & publicly traded stocks), civil liberty including constitutional democratic order & all that goes w/ it, the whole set of values we esteem as modern liberty was nursemaided into existance by the Church. Capitalism & modern democracy began in Italy, not England.

Though the Church was also central in England as well. The barons who rebelled against King John were guided by the Archbishop of Canterbury to ennoble their political w/ some higher principled purpose. Though, I understand the Magna Carta has functionally repealled as anEnglishman was inprisoned a few years back for shooting criminal who'd invaded his home. an Englishman no longer have a right to be secure in his property, but the Supreme Court has also repealled the right for us.

The MC was hardly unique. The Poles elected their kings & the lords of Poland in their Diet had broad powers against their king. The Doge of the Republic of Venice was also elected & the political arrangments there were similar to Poland. Of course, Swiss democracy was born in the Middle Ages also, as part of the Holy Roman Empire. Power in the HRE was actually highly dispersed & decentralized.

The rights of local gov't against the central authority was an important issue for the much slandered Medieval mind. In the writings of St. Aquinas, he discusses a principle he calls "subsidiarity." That is the principle that political & legal issues are best handled by small local institutions immediately accessible to the people. In essense, it is the abstract general principle on which our principle of federalism is based. If you like the original intent of Founders & their Constitution, thank the Medieval Catholic Church.
 
VictorLepanto said:
Then what you've read is the nonsense of posers & ignorant slanderers. You'd do well to find a real historian of the Church.

As Christians, I believe our allegiance belongs to God and God alone! Church denominations are fine (as long as they teach the true Word of God) but it all ultimately comes down to God and His written Word. If we believe & follow God's Word, then we will be in good stead. there is much in the Catholic church that does not line up with what is written in my Bible (I have multiple translations but I prefer the NKJV and the KJV). While I do admire some people who happened to be Catholic, I cannot admire the Catholic church, itself. Being "Catholic" seems too important to you, IMHO. It's far more important for people to be authentically "Christian".....denominational name-tags aren't worth much in the long run. Just my opinion. :)

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
VictorLepanto said:
DiscussingTheTopic said:
I am still waiting to hear if a Roman Catholic deacon is allowed to be unmarried?
I do believe I answered your question.

If a deacon is allowed to be unmarried than explain how he can have one woman? Is he always supposed to be "dating" exactly one woman, even if he is unmarried?

12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy 3:12 King James)

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV 2010

5 “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. 6 They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the food offerings to the LORD, the food of their God, they are to be holy.

7 “‘They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God. 8 Regard them as holy, because they offer up the food of your God. Consider them holy, because I the LORD am holy—I who make you holy.

9 “‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. 11 He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, 12 nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. I am the LORD.

13 “‘The woman he marries must be a virgin. 14 He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, 15 so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy.’”
Leviticus 21:5-14 NIV 2010

How come a high priest is not told that he cannot marry a virgin either, because he cannot marry any woman at all?

How come priests are not allowed to marry in the MODERN Roman Catholic Church even though they were originally allowed to marry?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se ... tive_popes[/url] said:
Married before receiving Holy Orders

It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).

* Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
* Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
* Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
* Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
* Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
* Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
* Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
* Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
* Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
* Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy[/url] said:
Periodization

The period was first identified and named by the Italian Cardinal and ecclesiastical historian Caesar Baronius in his Annales Ecclesiastici in the sixteenth century.[1] Other scholars have dated the period more broadly or narrowly, and other terms, such as the Pornocracy (German: Pornokratie, from Greek pornokratiā, "prostitute rule") and the Rule of the Harlots (German: Hurenregiment), were coined by Protestant German theologians in the nineteenth century. Historian Will Durant refers to the period from 867 to 1049 as the "nadir of the papacy".[2] Baronius' primary source for his history of this period was Liudprand of Cremona.
10th-century Popes

During this period, the Popes were influenced strongly by a powerful and corrupt aristocratic family, the Theophylacti, and their relatives.[3] The family originated from Theophylactus, who held positions of increased importance in the Roman nobility such as Judex, vestararius, gloriosissimus dux, consul and senator, and magister militum.[4] His wife Theodora and daughters, Theodora and Marozia held a great influence over the papal selection and religious affairs in Rome through conspiracies, affairs and marriages.[5]

Marozia became the concubine of Pope Sergius III when she was 15 and later took other lovers and husbands.[6] She ensured that her son John was seated as Pope John XI according to Antapodosis sive Res per Europam gestae (958–62), by Liutprand of Cremona (c. 920–72). Liutprand affirms that Marozia arranged the murder of her former lover Pope John X (who had originally been nominated for office by Theodora) through her then husband Guy of Tuscany possibly to secure the elevation of her current favourite as Pope Leo VI.[7] There is no record substantiating that Pope John X had definitely died before Leo VI was elected since John X was already imprisoned by Marozia and was out of public view.

Theodora and Marozia undoubtedly held great sway over the Popes during this time.[citation needed] In particular, as political rulers of Rome they had effective control over the election of new Popes. Much that is alleged about the saeculum obscurum comes from the histories of Liutprand, bishop of Cremona. Liutprand took part in the Assembly of Bishops which deposed Pope John XII and was a political enemy of Rome. He is described by the Catholic Encyclopedia as "ever a strong partisan and frequently unfair towards his adversaries."
List of Popes during the saeculum obscurum

* Pope Sergius III (904–911), alleged lover of Marozia
* Pope Anastasius III (911–913)
* Pope Lando (913–914)
* Pope John X (914–928), alleged lover of Theodora (the mother), allegedly killed by Marozia
* Pope Leo VI (928–928)
* Pope Stephen VII (928–931)
* Pope John XI (931–935), son of Marozia, alleged son of Pope Sergius III
* Pope Leo VII (936–939)
* Pope Stephen VIII (939–942)
* Pope Marinus II (942–946)
* Pope Agapetus II (946–955)
* Pope John XII (955–963), grandson of Marozia, by her son Alberic II of Spoleto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se ... tive_popes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy
 
Back
Top