Why so many?

[Tibby]

Nope, I’m Catholic

[JudgeNot]

Ha-ha-ha-ha!
You kill me!  

Hey - wait a minute!  You killing me is breaking the 6th commandment!

[Tibby]

Don’t you read a word Heidi Said! We Catholics don’t believe in the 10 Commandments. I used to, but Heidi and Izar informed me of the fact that I didn’t. That God we have those brilliant scholars to keep us Catholics on the Right path.

[Left Coast]

blainefabin
First of all I am not one of those people that thinks the big bad Catholic church is to be blamed for everything.
I’ve talked with SDA’s that blame the RCC for changing the Sabbath. They didn’t, God did, but that is another topic.
And here we were getting lots of comments blaming the RCC for causing the fracturing in the body of Christ.
People want to blame the Catholic church for pretty much everything.
I would not be surprised if someone tried to blame the Catholic Church for 9/11 or AIDS.
Just because I don’t blame the RCC doesn’t mean I think they are faithful to the word of God, they are not. Their doctrines are very flawed. That in it’s own is not really a problem, there is at least one fatal flaw, it is the doctrine of infallibility.
Many churches are fatally flawed from their very foundation. Being based on the teachings of Arminius, Wesley’s Methodist church was fundamentally flawed.
My great grandfather was a Methodist preacher of some standing. He had a doctorate and even when was a Superintendent he preached on occasion.
This was all about 100 years ago. He would flip if he saw the Methodist church today.
Not only do they have women ministers, they have lesbian ministers. This is not the church he helped build and so it is fractured. The RCC had nothing to do with the fracturing of the Methodist Church.
I don’t think God raised Arminius or Wesley up, the doctrine of freewill is fundamentally flawed. But there are others He has raised up to preach the truth. People like John Bunyan,  John Newton, and Charles Spurgeon were true and faithful voices working within the churches.
There are other great men of God that developed new churches.
The Southern Baptists were founded on the backs of men like James P. Boyce. http://www.founders.org/  
Boyce College, a school of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was named after him.
James Boyce would also flip if he knew what the SBC teaches today. I used to attend a SB church. As I grew and studied I learned that what was being taught in my church was not faithful to the word. I eventually made a decision to leave. The SBC has been fractured, but not by any influence of the RCC.
These fractures are found all over, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Dutch Reformed, ETC. This is a not a surprise, the bible warns about such things.

1 Timothy 4:1 ¶  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Matthew 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

The signs and wonders movement has exploded in the past 50 years. Many churches, including the Catholic look to signs and wonders.

2 Thessalonians 2:4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
 
There are many churches that have fallen into this.
Jesus healed the sick, so you have ‘performances’ where people are healed on stage, to prove they teach the truth. I have yet to hear of anyone having a withered hand healed.
Because you ask about the Catholic church I will respond.
Only God is infallible. The only human that was infallible was Jesus, who was God made flesh. When a church claims their leader has infallible doctrine they are exalting their leader to the level of God.
Peter had a flawed doctrine, which Paul corrected.

Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He set down rules -- doctrine -- that the Gentiles were to live like the Jews. Rules even he did not follow.
If Peter was the first Pope then the Popes do not have perfect doctrine.
There is no solid evidence Peter ever went to Rome, so it is unlikely he had anything to do with the development of the church in Rome. That he went to Rome is a fable, the Catholic Church looks to their genealogy of Popes and teachers to give support for their teachings. The reasoning is because you have teachers that taught this in the past it must be true since it is closer to the time of Christ.
The fact is the Catholic Church was extremely powerful and suppressed those that taught differently. They controlled history.
To put your faith in the history of man instead of trusting God to reveal truth in your heart is a fundamental flaw.

1 Timothy 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I don’t need to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the Catholic church, I can know from their doctrines of today to know they are at odds with the gospel.
Wanting to raise their leaders to the level of God they tell you to refer to them as “Father”.

Matthew 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This is not talking about your earthly parent, this is talking about those who have charge over your spiritual life.
I have heard the argument made they called some “sons” therefore “father” is OK.
The bible doesn’t say call no man son.
I worship Jesus. The bible tells us we are not to make images of those we worship, worse than that Catholic church puts out images that are blatantly perverted.
I bet there is at least one picture on the wall of your church of a longhaired man that you call Jesus.
In fact I bet there are many such pictures in the Vatican City.
This is a most vile violation of the word of God. It is no more a picture of Jesus then it is a picture of my Great, Great, Great, Grandfather.
In fact it cannot possibly be Jesus. There is absolutely no possibility Jesus looked anything like that.
Jesus committed no sin. There was no shame found in Him. He never would have had long hair.

1 Corinthians 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

To promote a picture of Jesus as a sinner is a great sin.
Catholics look to their church for understanding, believing the church is the one to divide the truth. The bible says YOU must be the workman rightly dividing the truth.

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

There are many areas where Catholic teaching is in violation to the word of God. The bible warns about one that is unique, as far as I know,  to the Catholic church.

1 Timothy 4:1 ¶  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The Catholic Church forbids marriage--this is a fact. The priesthood cannot marry, not by choice, but by church doctrine.
In fact the bible teaches that those in charge of the Church must have been the husband of one wife, (not divorced). They must have raised obedient children. I know your argument concerning Paul. I don’t know of any proof he had never been married. His wife could have died, his child could have been grown.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Timothy 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
 
One of the reasons the child abuse issue got out of hand is because those in charge had never raised a family.
Before you start thinking I am saying something I am not, let me make this very clear.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRIESTS ABUSED CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE UNMARRIED. There are plenty of married perverts. Those in charge did not deal with the issue in a responsible manner.
Shipping the pervert off to another part of the country to offend again was bad parenting.
The failure to deal with the problem responsibly goes all the way up to the Pope.

1 Samuel 3:13  For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.
 
A responsible parent has an obligation to know what their child is doing, and to control their child.
When the bishops sent the offending priests off to another part of the country to abuse again they showed bad parenting. Certainly the cardinals were aware of the problem, if they weren’t then they should have been. This was happening in several districts, for many years. If this most awful abuse was not reported at least once all the way to the Pope then the family has a communication problem.
It is the parents responsibility to create lines of communication.
I could go on, about Mary and other issues, but this is enough.
I almost forgot, I did not say, “the catholic church fell away by the great schism”.  

[blainefabin]

blainefabin
First of all I am not one of those people that thinks the big bad Catholic church is to be blamed for everything.

Good, because I'm not into blaming games either.

Just because I don’t blame the RCC doesn’t mean I think they are faithful to the word of God, they are not. Their doctrines are very flawed. That in it’s own is not really a problem, there is at least one fatal flaw, it is the doctrine of infallibility.

I'm sure that there are many things that you dissagree with.. that's cool. I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.
 

Because you ask about the Catholic church I will respond.
Only God is infallible. The only human that was infallible was Jesus, who was God made flesh. When a church claims their leader has infallible doctrine they are exalting their leader to the level of God.
Peter had a flawed doctrine, which Paul corrected.

how can i trust what you say here? if you are not infallible then there is a chance that your assumtion here is wrong. I am wondering though if you correctly understand what infallibility is about,, at least what it means from a catholic perspective? it doesn't mean sinless or like jesus... it simply means that the pope and magesterium are protected from error when defining faith and morals.

Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He set down rules -- doctrine -- that the Gentiles were to live like the Jews. Rules even he did not follow.
If Peter was the first Pope then the Popes do not have perfect doctrine.

again you are confusing infallibility with impeccability.. peter, and every pope after him were sinners... some very bad sinners. the concept of infallibility doesn't protect them from sinning or make them perfect.. it simply protects them under certain circumstances from erring and that is it.

There is no solid evidence Peter ever went to Rome, so it is unlikely he had anything to do with the development of the church in Rome. That he went to Rome is a fable, the Catholic Church looks to their genealogy of Popes and teachers to give support for their teachings.

actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome. if it were a fable don't you think the early christians would have said so? some atheists claim that jesus never rose from the dead because the only people that say so were christians..... well that is because it is what they recieved from those before them. some say the bible is suspect because the church decided which books were true and which were not....

 

The reasoning is because you have teachers that taught this in the past it must be true since it is closer to the time of Christ.
The fact is the Catholic Church was extremely powerful and suppressed those that taught differently. They controlled history.
To put your faith in the history of man instead of trusting God to reveal truth in your heart is a fundamental flaw.

as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...

I don’t need to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the Catholic church, I can know from their doctrines of today to know they are at odds with the gospel.
Wanting to raise their leaders to the level of God they tell you to refer to them as “Father”.

Matthew 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This is not talking about your earthly parent, this is talking about those who have charge over your spiritual life.
I have heard the argument made they called some “sons” therefore “father” is OK.
The bible doesn’t say call no man son.

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..

I worship Jesus. The bible tells us we are not to make images of those we worship, worse than that Catholic church puts out images that are blatantly perverted.

the ark is an image...it even has other images on it....

I bet there is at least one picture on the wall of your church of a longhaired man that you call Jesus.
In fact I bet there are many such pictures in the Vatican City.
This is a most vile violation of the word of God. It is no more a picture of Jesus then it is a picture of my Great, Great, Great, Grandfather.
In fact it cannot possibly be Jesus. There is absolutely no possibility Jesus looked anything like that.
Jesus committed no sin. There was no shame found in Him. He never would have had long hair.

while i agree that chances are jesus never looked like that, other chances are that he may have had long hair...  in jewish custom there was the vow of nazarite where those who took the vow were not allowed to cut their hair... samson had long hair yet the bible doesn't say that was his shame does it?

To promote a picture of Jesus as a sinner is a great sin.
Catholics look to their church for understanding, believing the church is the one to divide the truth. The bible says YOU must be the workman rightly dividing the truth.

the catholic church doesn't promote jesus as a sinner.

There are many areas where Catholic teaching is in violation to the word of God. The bible warns about one that is unique, as far as I know,  to the Catholic church.

1 Timothy 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The Catholic Church forbids marriage--this is a fact. The priesthood cannot marry, not by choice, but by church doctrine.
In fact the bible teaches that those in charge of the Church must have been the husband of one wife, (not divorced). They must have raised obedient children. I know your argument concerning Paul. I don’t know of any proof he had never been married. His wife could have died, his child could have been grown.

i have no argument concerning paul...
i would like to point out that the catholic church does not forbid to marry... it has a sacrament called matrimony. that the priests in the roman rite are under a discipline to not marry is entirely different than a doctrine to not marry. that discipline is in place for practical reasons but could change.... who knows. regarless, the church doesn't teach not to marry.

One of the reasons the child abuse issue got out of hand is because those in charge had never raised a family.
Before you start thinking I am saying something I am not, let me make this very clear.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRIESTS ABUSED CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE UNMARRIED. There are plenty of married perverts. Those in charge did not deal with the issue in a responsible manner.
Shipping the pervert off to another part of the country to offend again was bad parenting.
The failure to deal with the problem responsibly goes all the way up to the Pope.

i think the issue of pedophile priests is horrible and i also don't think it has anything to do with celibacy, i also think that there is a great need for reform in this matter,,,, but even if this issue goes all the way to the pope it still would not make the pope infallible, it would only show that he too is a sinner.

I almost forgot, I did not say, “the catholic church fell away by the great schism”.  

oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

mike

[Left Coast]

I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.

Why?
Salvation is dependent on Gods work. He can use even those that are unsaved, and those that teach false doctrine to save. The tool God uses is the word. Any church or witness that quotes the bible can be used by God.

Romans 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Romans 12:3  For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

The apostles were concerned about someone that was not following Christ, but was casting out devils. That’s language directed at bringing salvation.

Luke 9:49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

God can use imperfect doctrine to bring salvation.
The bible tells us we will not have perfect understanding. We are fallible.

1 Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

how can i trust what you say here? if you are not infallible then there is a chance that your assumtion here is wrong. I am wondering though if you correctly understand what infallibility is about,, at least what it means from a catholic perspective? it doesn't mean sinless or like jesus... it simply means that the pope and magesterium are protected from error when defining faith and morals.

Yes there is a chance my assumptions are wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.
My suggestion has always been don’t trust me, don’t trust the Pope, don’t trust any man. Trust the bible. I continually quote the bible, some may think too much, so you can look up what I say. Check it out.
I understand what Catholic infallibility is, problem is it fails. And it is unnecessary.
The Catholic Church has done a good job on some things like marriage being a life long commitment, and women are not to teach or have authority over men.
They have failed on other things, some we have mentioned here, others like purgatory can lead us on overwhelmingly long posts.
Catholic infallibility imprisons your church.
In some ways it is good because they stick to some good moral points. However because they cannot admit they could have made a mistake on doctrine they are forced to maintain doctrines that are not true. It is discouraged to even consider the possibility doctrinal error because then the Pope would no longer be infallible.
I can understand your point with Galatians 2:14.
I wasn’t confusing infallibility with impeccability I had failed to read the passage carefully.

actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome.

What is this evidence? Your argument sounds like I would have to prove someone didn’t commit the crime. Guilty until proven innocent. Why would I have to prove he wasn’t at the scene?

as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...

2 Thessalonians 2:11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..

He is not referring to himself as Father the one who has leadership. It is a metaphor. As in the originator. It would be more fitting of a missionary to be referred to as a father because they planted the seed.

1 Corinthians 3:6  I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

The church has used the term as one who has rule. Paul differentiates between the teachers, (pastors), and the fact that he brought the gospel to them.

the ark is an image...it even has other images on it....

The images were not things to be worshipped. They did not make an image of God.

while i agree that chances are jesus never looked like that, other chances are that he may have had long hair...  in jewish custom there was the vow of nazarite where those who took the vow were not allowed to cut their hair... samson had long hair yet the bible doesn't say that was his shame does it?

Jesus was not a Nazarite, He was a Nazarene.
-----
From Easton’s Dictionary.

(Heb. form Nazirite), the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in #Nu 6:2-21 The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses. The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,
1. abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2. refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3. the avoidance of contact with the dead.

When the period of the continuance of the vow came to an end, the Nazarite had to present himself at the door of the sanctuary with
1. a he lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering,
2. a ewe lamb of the first year for a sin-offering, and
3. a ram for a peace-offering.

After these sacrifices were offered by the priest, the Nazarite cut off his hair at the door and threw it into the fire under the peace-offering.
-----
While someone was performing the vow they would obviously be exempt from the command to cut their hair. If they were not a Nazarite and had long hair it was a shame to them. It was a sin. A Jesus with long hair would be a sinner.

i would like to point out that the catholic church does not forbid to marry... it has a sacrament called matrimony. that the priests in the roman rite are under a discipline to not marry is entirely different than a doctrine to not marry. that discipline is in place for practical reasons but could change.... who knows. regarless, the church doesn't teach not to marry.

Those in charge of the church must be the husband of one wife, AND must have raised obedient children. This is not talking about a sacrament, this is talking about having a family. Are you saying the church does not teach that their priesthood cannot marry?
If they change this doctrine, you are calling discipline, then it was flawed. Flawed doctrine cannot be tolerated. So it is unlikely to be changed, if it is I am sure they will put a spin on it, to sell it to the people.

i think the issue of pedophile priests is horrible and i also don't think it has anything to do with celibacy, i also think that there is a great need for reform in this matter,,,, but even if this issue goes all the way to the pope it still would not make the pope infallible, it would only show that he too is a sinner.

It shows that because they followed a flawed doctrine that those running the Church cannot be married. They did not address the issue responsibly. Because those that operate the church are to be married with children the Pope IS NOT QUALIFIED to lead the church.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Timothy 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Timothy 3:4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Timothy 3:5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The word bishop means overseer.
From Strong’s
episcopes
1) an overseer
1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent
1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

Where?

John

[ollie]

"Why so Many?"

Matthew 7:13.  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
 14.  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[blainefabin]

I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.

Why?
Salvation is dependent on Gods work. He can use even those that are unsaved, and those that teach false doctrine to save. The tool God uses is the word. Any church or witness that quotes the bible can be used by God.

God can truly use any means he wants to lead us to salvation, and to truth. I don't see how infallibility is in conflict with this, especially if this gift is truly from Him.

God can use imperfect doctrine to bring salvation.
The bible tells us we will not have perfect understanding. We are fallible.

again this concept is not in conflict with infallibility... if God can use imperfect doctrine I see no reason why having perfect doctrine could not be used. further I don't think that God would leave us without correct knowledge.

1 Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

right. infallibility doesn't mean that the pope knows everything.... It really does mean that we know in part.

I understand what Catholic infallibility is, problem is it fails. And it is unnecessary.

I believe it is. I believe that a correct understanding of what it is, it's very biblical roots, and how it has defined essential christian doctrine would in a very real way to end the constant splitting and dividing in the church. The topic of this thread is "why so many". the answer is at it's most practical is a lack of authority. by removing the pope we are left with no option but assuming that we are infallible in and of ourselves and thus the domino effect begins.. and it did begin right with the reformers themselves scquabbling over their new doctrines.

Catholic infallibility imprisons your church.

I can say from personal experience that this is not true. after spending about 15 years in evangelical/charismatic church I can honestly say i am experiencing freedom in christ for the first time as a catholic christian.  with all it's seeming rules and doctrines that seem so binding I am finally breathing deep that breath of God that was lacking in the protestant world.

In some ways it is good because they stick to some good moral points. However because they cannot admit they could have made a mistake on doctrine they are forced to maintain doctrines that are not true. It is discouraged to even consider the possibility doctrinal error because then the Pope would no longer be infallible.

i have found that catholicism deals with history... the good the bad and the ugly. though there have been bad popes I have yet to find anything that i would consider a mistake in doctrine. what is interesting is that while there seems to be a healthy criticism and historical outlook in catholicism, I find your charge would be better fit for the bible believing protestant. I have found more discouragement there questioning the bible than i have as a catholic questioning the infallibility.

actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome.

What is this evidence? Your argument sounds like I would have to prove someone didn’t commit the crime. Guilty until proven innocent. Why would I have to prove he wasn’t at the scene?

what I am getting at is that there are written statements from the first century that make the claim that peter was at rome... what is lacking is someone from that time period challenging the claim.  some people question whether or not there was ever a custom of letting a prisoner free at  passover as claimed in the gospel, but no one living when the gospels were written seems to have claimed differently... ultimately your argument is one of silence but I believe that there is nothing silent about it.

as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...

2 Thessalonians 2:11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

how convenient. and yet it could actually be you under this delusion.. really though unless you were infallible it would not be wise to hack away with scriptures in this manner.

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..

He is not referring to himself as Father the one who has leadership. It is a metaphor. As in the originator. It would be more fitting of a missionary to be referred to as a father because they planted the seed.

sorry but it shouldn't matter... he is in conflict with what christ says about calling no man father.

Jesus was not a Nazarite, He was a Nazarene.

i wasn't making that claim only that people did have long hair in jewish culture and it was not a shame.. there is the chance that paul is speaking to the gentile culture in his comment about hair...

While someone was performing the vow they would obviously be exempt from the command to cut their hair. If they were not a Nazarite and had long hair it was a shame to them. It was a sin. A Jesus with long hair would be a sinner.

is this your definition or eastons?

Those in charge of the church must be the husband of one wife, AND must have raised obedient children. This is not talking about a sacrament, this is talking about having a family. Are you saying the church does not teach that their priesthood cannot marry?
If they change this doctrine, you are calling discipline, then it was flawed. Flawed doctrine cannot be tolerated. So it is unlikely to be changed, if it is I am sure they will put a spin on it, to sell it to the people.

priests in the roman rite are required to remain celebate. priests in easter rite churches are not under this discipline. a discipline is not a doctrine and so it can be changed... this discipline was in place for several reasons. one it was practical, and two Christ and paul speak of it in a beneficial way.

oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

Where?

message 34

Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.

mike

[Left Coast]

Mike
Thank you for your reply.
Let me address your last point first.
I said:

Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.

This is not saying that the church had fallen away because of the Schism as you seem to have understood me.
I am saying they were off track before the great Schism.
Throughout their history they have had significant flaws in doctrine.

1. As early as at least the 3rd century the Church had taken the stand that if you were separated from the Church you were joined with an adultress. You couldn’t have God for your Father if you didn’t have the Church for your Mother. That is not biblical.

Luke 9:49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

2. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to all his People, AD 251, in Jurgens, 1970: 229).
This doctrine was established by a misunderstanding of Mat 16:18.
By the way the first “Pope”, Peter, was married.

3. In the 4th century the $$$ of the church began to be paraded. Gold and silver and color vestments, candles and incense, added to the pomp and pageantry of worship.
A much different church than the church of the apostles.

4. St. Ambrose (340-397) introduced the so called mysteries. Twisting the scripture to add magic to water.

“The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away.”

John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

All our sins are washed clean.
This is also the problem with purgatory. A totally invented concept with no real scriptural support. Consuming fire in the bible always represents judgment, not purging.
I am not sure when purgatory became a Church doctrine but I bet it was before the Great Schism.

I believe it is. I believe that a correct understanding of what it is, it's very biblical roots, and how it has defined essential christian doctrine would in a very real way to end the constant splitting and dividing in the church. The topic of this thread is "why so many". the answer is at it's most practical is a lack of authority. by removing the pope we are left with no option but assuming that we are infallible in and of ourselves and thus the domino effect begins.. and it did begin right with the reformers themselves scquabbling over their new doctrines.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm
The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or "those among the Phrygians" (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm
Novatian was a schismatic of the third century, and founder of the sect of the Novatians; he was a Roman priest, and made himself antipope. His name is given as Novatus (Noouatos, Eusebius; Nauatos, Socrates) by Greek writers, and also in the verses of Damasus and Prudentius, on account of the metre.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01650a.htm
The adherents of a heresy which sprang up in the third century and spread through the western and southern parts of Asia Minor. What little we know of this obscure sect we owe to the writings of St. Epiphanius. He tells us that they called themselves Apotactics (i.e. renunciators) because they scrupulously renounced all private property; they also affected the name of Apostolics, because they pretended to follow the manner of life of the Apostles.

There are more.
Consider the antipopes.
Hippolytus (?), III century
Novatian, 251
Felix II, 355-365
Ursicinus, 366-367
Eulalius, 418-419
Laurentius, 498-501
Constantine II, 767
Philip, VIII century
Anastasius, 855
Leo VIII, 956-963
Boniface VII, 974
John XVI, X century
Gregory, 1012
Sylvester III, 1044
Benedict X, 1058
Honorius II, 1061-72
Guibert or Clement III, 1080-1100
Theodoric, 1100
Aleric, 1102
Maginulf, 1105
Burdin (Gregory VIII), 1118
Anacletus II,1130-38
Victor IV, 1159-64
Pascal III, 1164-68
Calixtus III, 1168-77
Innocent III, 1178-80
Nicholas V, 1328-30
Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), 20 September, 1378 to 16 September, 1394
Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V), November, 1439 to April, 1449

This is already getting long.
God does not promise an infallible church with infallible doctrine. That doctrine is not founded on scripture. It is in itself a flawed doctrine.
There is no need for an infallible church with infallible doctrine except for wielding power and control over others.
Concerning:

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

It is not a hack at scripture. Charismatics believe that God speaks directly to them. I am not a Charismatic. This is part of the signs and wonders movement the bible warns about as we reach the end.
I rely on the scripture. That is where God speaks to us.
Dreams and visions, if they come from God, are by definition adding to the word of God.

Revelation 22:18  For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:21  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

God seals the book. Up until the bible was finished there were visions and such, but no more. Satan can crossover, and he does cause visions. God allows it. For those people that need more than the bible God will allow them to be lead astray.
Paul calling himself father has a different intent than the definition of the RCC. The RCC has put a definition on the word that is not allowed by scripture.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Help me out here. How do you understand Matthew 23:9?

John

[Left Coast]

Mike
It was bothering me that I didn’t cover one of your statements.

priests in the roman rite are required to remain celebate. priests in easter rite churches are not under this discipline. a discipline is not a doctrine and so it can be changed... this discipline was in place for several reasons. one it was practical, and two Christ and paul speak of it in a beneficial way.

There are churches that rejoined the RCC, their priests were married, and so ‘grand fathered in’ to the Church.
It is not practical, and the bible clearly says so.

1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The proof that it was not practical was shown in how the church dealt with the issue of the child abuse. Those in charge did not have the practical training of running a family. So they did not respond to the issue in a responsible manner.
It is a requirement for those that operate the church to be married. Therefore it is God’s doctrine.
Your church wants to call it a discipline, Paul tells Timothy it is doctrine.
Because it is a requirement, those that are in the positions of Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest, (if they have not been married, with obedient children), are not qualified to be in their positions.

John

[Tibby]

Mike
It was bothering me that I didn’t cover one of your statements.

priests in the roman rite are required to remain celebate. priests in easter rite churches are not under this discipline. a discipline is not a doctrine and so it can be changed... this discipline was in place for several reasons. one it was practical, and two Christ and paul speak of it in a beneficial way.

There are churches that rejoined the RCC, their priests were married, and so ‘grand fathered in’ to the Church.

I believe the number of married Preists in the RCC is very low. Perhaps about 80 of them. For al practical purposes, the Vast majority of Roman Priest are celibate.

It is not practical, and the bible clearly says so.

1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The proof that it was not practical was shown in how the church dealt with the issue of the child abuse. Those in charge did not have the practical training of running a family. So they did not respond to the issue in a responsible manner.
It is a requirement for those that operate the church to be married. Therefore it is God’s doctrine.
Your church wants to call it a discipline, Paul tells Timothy it is doctrine.
Because it is a requirement, those that are in the positions of Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest, (if they have not been married, with obedient children), are not qualified to be in their positions.

Now, that verse has some interesting pint, but a REQUIREMENT for Pastors to marry? I think you're reading far to much into the verse. I mean, do not forget, Paul  talked a lot about being unmarrried in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Like when he said:


27- Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

32- I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs–how he can please the Lord.


So, did Paul changed him mind or something?

[ebia]

Anecdote this morning at staff briefing from our Principal (a nun):

Student:  You always seem to be going overseas.
Principal:  Well, my mother advised me to join the convent and see the world.
Student:  So was your mother a nun too?  

[JudgeNot]

...the Vast majority of Roman Priest are celibate.

 

[Left Coast]

Tibby
I am not sure what translation you are using. This is talking about someone who has been divorced.

1 Corinthians 7:27:  
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--KJV

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.--NASB

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.--RSV

Hast thou been bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; hast thou been loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.--YLT

Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.--ASV

alligatus es uxori noli quaerere solutionem solutus es ab uxore noli quaerere uxorem--Vulgate --- I can’t understand it, just thought it would be fun to add.

One of the things the Catholic church has done better than a great many other churches is recognize marriage is until death do you part.
This is my condition. My wife left about 8 years ago. I am still bound to her by Gods law. I cannot seek another.

1 Corinthians 7:39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

I would love to be able to date and remarry but I can’t I am bound by the law of God.
I am also not qualified to run a church, because one of the qualifications is to be married. Another qualification is to not be a novice. A man whose wife has died is able to work in the ministry.
This would have been Paul’s condition. His wife had probably died and now he was able to devote his full time to the work of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:32  But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

There is no contradiction.

John

[Left Coast]

Anecdote this morning at staff briefing from our Principal (a nun):

Student:  You always seem to be going overseas.
Principal:  Well, my mother advised me to join the convent and see the world.
Student:  So was you mother a nun too.  

Cute.