Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
You're putting in the same category the execution of mass murderers, child rapists and felony perjurers with consensual practicing homosexuals. As if they are all as "dangerous" as one another.
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
They are merely elders, as opposed to the babes.
Titus 1:
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Elders get to be elders through mere survival. Bishops are ordained. See below.
The Catholic bishops convinced me.
Derf
Well-known member
Maybe more so.
Practicing murderers rarely recruit for their craft. Nor rapists.
Homosexuals almost always do, to feed their lusts. They do it through legislation aimed at children.
That child rapist you mentioned? Mostly they are homosexuals. So you recognize some of the problem.
There is a type of murderer that recruits. It's those that have murdered their own children in the womb. If others do the same it assuages their guilt.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Were they husbands of one wife, or simply impostors?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Then? They were one-woman-men. (iow not polygamists.)
Now? The Body of Christ can 'afford' celibate pastors. We are greatly blessed.
Derf
Well-known member
But the BOC can't afford one-woman-men now? Why is Paul's direction to allow marriage discarded in favor of someone's who's obviously less qualified to decide?
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
One-woman-men are cheap. Dime a dozen. I myself am one. We're everywhere and we always will be. There's always going to be some one-woman-men no matter the prevailing cultural morals, we don't care about them, that doesn't make sense to us, it never made sense to us, so we just ignore it and we're one-woman-men anyway.
Paul just told Titus, Look, look for one-woman-men, they're out there. You'll find them. These were the pastors of the first Church.
It's not a tradition of man but of God. The tradition I'm talking about is the one where the bishops upon the bodily departure of the Apostles 'get to' administrate the Church including the requirements for new and existing priests and bishops. And deacons. Deacons are married.
Right in the passage you're complaining about as being in conflict with Catholicism, you can see the great power that Titus the bishop has. What is Paul telling him, if we were to just note the genre of this passage, or this whole letter? Paul's the Apostle who made Titus a bishop. Either that or another Apostle did. Either that or another bishop made him, who was made by Paul or one of the other of the Twelve Apostles. Either that, or the bishop who made Titus a bishop was made by another bishop, and not by an Apostle.
Paul's instructing Titus. Where is he setting out absolute principles, and where is this really somebody else's mail? Where do we draw that line? MADs here have no conceptual trouble with what "cast away", "fell", "stumbled", was "broken off", was "cut off" means. They apply it to these bishops that Paul himself was so actively involved in that he not only made bishops (ask MADs if Paul ever for example baptized anybody with his own hands) but he also instructed them in letters, personal letters, three of which we actually still have.
Somehow this office of bishop (1st Timothy 3:1) as far as MADs are concerned has been cast away, has fallen and stumbled, was broken off and cut off, somewhere in history. It's gone. Whereas Paul only ambiguously and vaguely and obliquely strove to promulgate MAD, Paul very unequivocally strove to establish the office of a bishop (1Ti3:1), but MAD has abandoned the office of a bishop, instead of abandoning MAD. That is their judgment to make and they have made it. It's their own interpretation of the Bible MAD that they support, over Paul's objectively verified and confirmed and proven office of a bishop.
And the office of a bishop is the same office that has provided us ancient confirmation that our understanding of the Trinity according to how we read the Scripture today is the same as it was all the way back in the Apostolic era and immediately following. We know other concrete beliefs the earliest Church held through the same pathway, but I'll just leave it at that it confirms what every educated mainstream Protestant believes about God wrt the Trinity. That's an incredibly good fruit.
And when your pastors and priests are celibate (I mean actually celibate, which means no 'auto' anything either, no M word, no "if your hand causes you to sin") that's incredibly good fruit too. Their whole life is devoted to us the parishioners. It's not that we don't want them to be married, it's if they are called to be celibate we are sure happy to have them as our pastors.
One-woman-men are everywhere. We have families. We're distracted from pastoring. You don't want us as your pastor. Not if you know how good the fruit of truly celibate churchmen is.
Right Divider
Body part
The common law definition of rape is a man having sex by force with a woman not his wife. Wives could not be raped by their husbands. Women could not be rapists, and men could not be raped.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
@Heterodoxical
This old thread's about (don't click the link before reading on because I'm quoting a post that's on page four of the thread, not page one) a troll of some sort who wants to ask if there's any reason to not convert to Catholicism. The notable thing for me is this user's appearance above. He or she or neither he nor she (e.g. 'they' if there is more than one party 'attached' to the account) confronts AMR (of happy memory) directly with a very good question, and it applies to all of us I think, in basically every one of our disagreements.
AMR (of happy memory) imo could not "make Rome's arguments", my proof? his 'sacramental treadmill' comment. That's not Rome's argument and no one who can make Rome's argument thinks that is what Rome's argument is.
I know AMR converted from Catholicism, and I know that AMR was a Jesuit, so what I believe happened with AMR (of happy memory) is that he fell in love with his eventual wife and so he broke his Jesuit vows in order to marry his love. He didn't enter into his vows with informed consent, since he based his determination that he had been called to celibacy on that he had not yet met the love of his life, and didn't figure on it happening, and so his vows were not made with informed consent, it was not voluntary on his part, so it would have been unjust to enforce his vows against him, since they had been made without his informed consent.
I think that AMR and Martin Luther actually have a similar biography on this score. (Martin Luther got married after leaving the Catholic Church too.)
This old thread's about (don't click the link before reading on because I'm quoting a post that's on page four of the thread, not page one) a troll of some sort who wants to ask if there's any reason to not convert to Catholicism. The notable thing for me is this user's appearance above. He or she or neither he nor she (e.g. 'they' if there is more than one party 'attached' to the account) confronts AMR (of happy memory) directly with a very good question, and it applies to all of us I think, in basically every one of our disagreements.
AMR (of happy memory) imo could not "make Rome's arguments", my proof? his 'sacramental treadmill' comment. That's not Rome's argument and no one who can make Rome's argument thinks that is what Rome's argument is.
I know AMR converted from Catholicism, and I know that AMR was a Jesuit, so what I believe happened with AMR (of happy memory) is that he fell in love with his eventual wife and so he broke his Jesuit vows in order to marry his love. He didn't enter into his vows with informed consent, since he based his determination that he had been called to celibacy on that he had not yet met the love of his life, and didn't figure on it happening, and so his vows were not made with informed consent, it was not voluntary on his part, so it would have been unjust to enforce his vows against him, since they had been made without his informed consent.
I think that AMR and Martin Luther actually have a similar biography on this score. (Martin Luther got married after leaving the Catholic Church too.)
Derf
Well-known member
Are you justifying breaking a vow? God didn't allow that, even without full informed consent. See David's fix of Saul's breaking of Joshua's treaty with the Gibeonites.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I offered up a theory.
Are you denying that it is a breech of justice if a contract is enforced upon a party with exculpatory evidence that they did not enter into the contract with informed consent? Like for instance with coercion like holding your loved ones hostage? Or threatening your life? Or just tricking you by lying or deliberately withholding facts, which is fraud? Which one of these situations would you claim is me "justifying 'breaking a vow'"?
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Did you read about the Gibeonites? They gave false testimony to the Israelites, who made a treaty with them under the false pretenses, but God held them to that treaty. He sent famine in David's time because Saul violated that treaty many years later.
All will receive the same judgement, eventually.
I don't think your qualifications for being a bishop agree with the bible's.
It is written..."A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Tim 3:2-7)
Do you also feel that being blameless, apt to teach, and sober are undesirable qualities for church leadership?
No. God did. You have no idea of the enormity and power of sin, of how it destroys the human beings that practice it. God does and that's why He set up the punishments He did. That was God protecting His own people from the consequences of sin.
I know that means nothing to you, but it's the truth
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I mean yes, in times of emergency, in times of stress (exigency but not just expediency), being so unforgiving is, or can be justified anyway. But I don't think the Church is right now, or was recently, even going back to the lead up to the Reformation, in such a situation, so if we find that someone took a vow but was for example concussed, and not in his right mind when he did so, I suspect that maybe there can be an understanding there.
I just don't want people to look bad unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm pushing back, that depicting Martin Luther and AMR as unconditional and unequivocal solemn vow breakers is necessary. I'm pushing back on that. This is in the light of my understanding of the Scripture, and the Apostolic Tradition expressed in our Catechism, combined with logic and reason.
I could be wrong, and it won't be the last time. But it's not just, all other things being equal, to hold a party responsible for their end of a deal that they only made while under duress for example.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Now combine all that with this: 1st Corinthians 7:32 " He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."
Simple as that. What's the problem? Both are the Apostle Paul.
No, but being promiscuous is. That is the opposite of a one-woman-man.