Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Your hate and lack of knowledge are scary
ECT All Things the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church'
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Your hate and lack of knowledge are scary
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Pope Saint John Paul II, pray for us!
Red Wave Rising
Yuge
Pope Saint John Paul II, pray for us!
Amen.
Last edited:
Red Wave Rising
Yuge
It is sad that extremists believe such nonsense
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
As a former Protty, one thing I had to learn as I brought my biblical interpretative abilities to bear on the Catechism, is that the divisions in the Catechism, including the table of contents itself, is all designed to teach.
By comparison the Scripture, its order, its table of contents, its chapter and verse divisions, and its 'subtitles' and other insertions, are not divinely inspired, just the text is.
So you have to remember the order of things in the Catechism. The first (of four) major division in the Catechism is what we believe, our statement of faith and its tenets. The second section is about what the Church does (basically the sacraments). And then the third section is about life in Christ.
So when you read something in section three, bear in mind what we believe and what the Church does first of all, it all is connected together and the things presented first are presented first for a reason.
The "central" and "crowning" article of our faith is the death and Resurrection of Christ.
The "source" and "summit" of our Christian life is the sacrament of the Eucharist, called a "memorial of the death and Resurrection".
So understand all of Catholicism in the light of this train of thought. First of all the death and Resurrection of Christ are central and crowning, and secondly that licitly partaking of the Eucharist is the source and summit of your life in Christ.
Everything else in Catholicism points to and emanates from the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Founder and only begotten Son of God, Who is seated at the right hand of the Father.
By comparison the Scripture, its order, its table of contents, its chapter and verse divisions, and its 'subtitles' and other insertions, are not divinely inspired, just the text is.
So you have to remember the order of things in the Catechism. The first (of four) major division in the Catechism is what we believe, our statement of faith and its tenets. The second section is about what the Church does (basically the sacraments). And then the third section is about life in Christ.
So when you read something in section three, bear in mind what we believe and what the Church does first of all, it all is connected together and the things presented first are presented first for a reason.
The "central" and "crowning" article of our faith is the death and Resurrection of Christ.
The "source" and "summit" of our Christian life is the sacrament of the Eucharist, called a "memorial of the death and Resurrection".
So understand all of Catholicism in the light of this train of thought. First of all the death and Resurrection of Christ are central and crowning, and secondly that licitly partaking of the Eucharist is the source and summit of your life in Christ.
Everything else in Catholicism points to and emanates from the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Founder and only begotten Son of God, Who is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I used to be a Calvinist. In truth I still am. I believe in what the Calvinists call 'sovereignty' but what the Catechism calls 'providence'. The Catechism's teaching on providence satisfied me as a Calvinist that Catholicism was as fully Calvinist as I was and still am.
What makes the Catechism so genius is its articulation of the idea here. It's an idea that Jesuits have taken to mean "Coincidences are how God remains anonymous". It is a good saying. And I can immediately now see how the late, great AMR (of happy memory) a former Jesuit, would immediately gravitate to Calvinism since it is the next best thing to the Catholic conception of what Calvinists call 'sovereignty'.
Coincidences are how God remains anonymous.
What makes the Catechism so genius is its articulation of the idea here. It's an idea that Jesuits have taken to mean "Coincidences are how God remains anonymous". It is a good saying. And I can immediately now see how the late, great AMR (of happy memory) a former Jesuit, would immediately gravitate to Calvinism since it is the next best thing to the Catholic conception of what Calvinists call 'sovereignty'.
Coincidences are how God remains anonymous.
The Catechism is the greatest work of systematic theology there is.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Interesting thought. Not bad. I've read a number of systematic theologies (all Protty) and the main difference is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually talks about the office of a bishop, which is of course named in the Scripture.
As they say, the Church of the Bible has deacons, priests, and bishops. So does ours.
I actually heard that from a protestant pastor
Right Divider
Body part
The church which is His body (i.e., the body of Christ) has NO priests. If it did, Paul would have told us.As they say, the Church of the Bible has deacons, priests, and bishops. So does ours.
The bible also says he who desires to be a bishop must be blameless and the husband of a wife. (1 Tim 3:2)As they say, the Church of the Bible has deacons, priests, and bishops. So does ours.
1. Even the Evangelical scripture scholar Dr. Ralph Earle, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says that St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3 is not requiring bishops to be married. In stating his reasons, he first offers the most ancient position—which we know as Catholics to be apostolic in origin and found in written form in the late second century—that would say this text is placing a limitation on the number of marriages a bishop could have in his lifetime. He could only have been married once. This is the position of the Catholic Church today. If a man has been married more than once, even if licitly, he cannot be admitted to the episcopacy.
2. Earle writes, “Most commentators agree that [the text] means monogamy—only one wife at one time.” This interpretation is unlikely for reasons we’ll mention below, but we should first take note that both Catholic and Protestant scholars generally agree St. Paul is not making marriage a requirement for the bishopric.
3. In that same Bible commentary, this time commenting on Titus 1:6, which makes to both elders and bishops the same prohibition against multiple marriages, another Evangelical scholar, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, adds, “If Paul had meant that the elder must be married, the reading would have been ‘a’ not ‘one’ wife.” I would go further and say it would most likely simply say, “The bishop must be married.” The term one indicates that he is limiting the number, not mandating marriage.
For those who would be inclined to argue the position that St. Paul is simply prohibiting polygamy to the clergy, I would add these five points:
1. The lists of disqualifications to the ministry in both Timothy and Titus were not consisting of things that would exclude a person from being a Christian at all, like polygamy would. They were things that would ensure the candidate in question was living an exemplary Christian life. Illicit “marital” situations were condemned at the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49 and declared to be deal-breakers for one to be a Christian at all (see Acts 15:1-3; 24-28). Though polygamy is not mentioned there verbatim, it would certainly be condemned implicitly in the condemnation of illicit conjugal situations.
2. There was not a single place in the Greco-Roman world where polygamy was being practiced in the first century A.D. It is unlikely St. Paul would speak of something directly like this that was simply not a problem at the time.
3. In the case of St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he would go on to declare that a widow who was “enrolled,” or consecrated, as a celibate and married again to have sinned gravely. There is nothing wrong with a widow remarrying. That is licit and clearly so elsewhere in Scripture, specifically in St. Paul’s own writings (see Romans 7:2-3; I Cor. 7:27-28, 39-40). But it is wrong for the one who has been consecrated for service in the Church. It is interesting that St. Paul uses the same language of limiting the widow to having been the wife “of one husband.” Obviously this was not meant to say “one husband at a time”:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-12).
It is more than fitting that those consecrated as bishops, elders, and deacons would make a similar commitment.
4. St. Paul’s repeated recommendations to all to remain celibate, remain single after having lost a spouse (I Cor. 7:1; 7-8; 25-28; 32-35; 38; 39-40), or even to live a celibate life within marriage (I Cor. 7:29), are consistent with his prohibition to remarriage to those called to holy orders. St. Paul seems to speak a great deal about second marriages but never about polygamy.
5. I find it interesting that the Protestant New International Version of the Bible translates I Tim. 3:2, “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife.” While I do not necessarily agree with translating the text with the “but” in there, there is no doubt where the Protestant translators of the NIV stand on the question. St. Paul is limiting the candidate for the bishopric to “but” one wife.
source link
Then he is a heretic.
It is not likely that one apostle will counter another apostle.
Paul was an apostle, and he wrote that bishops are to be married, and why..."(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim 3:5)
I suggest you flee from the dire situation you are entrapped in.
I did.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I would say impossible. We have the record of all Apostolic disagreement right in Acts and Galatians. They were all resolved.
So now understand that Paul was writing 1st Timothy at the very start of the Church age, in fact during the Apostolic era. She was just getting started, just finding her feet. She didn't then have centuries and generations of patterns and templates for pastors to be made and then developed. Now that the Church is well established (understatement), the pattern and model and template is that, before becoming a diocesan bishop, first (typically) a man must be ordained a deacon, then a priest, and then (typically) an auxiliary bishop. Priests spend years being priests, auxiliary bishops spend years being auxiliary bishops. Don't you think that this path provides us with a good record and predictor of whether a man will be able to "take care of the Church" (i.e. become a diocesan bishop)?
You should return to your home fold, being one of our Shepherd's sheep.
Right Divider
Body part
One was resolved by separating their ministries.
Right Divider
Body part
Why does Paul NEVER call believers "sheep" in ANY of his epistles?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I know you're a Dispensationalist.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's your argument from silence, not mine.
Right Divider
Body part
And a Bible believer.
Gal 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.