Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

Pope Benedict XVI Marks 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council (Plus: A Brief History)

Oct. 11, 2012 5:57am Billy Hallowell

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday marked the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council — the church meetings he attended as a young priest that brought the Catholic Church into the modern world but whose true meaning is still hotly debated.

Benedict celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s Square, accompanied by patriarchs, cardinals, bishops and a dozen elderly churchmen who participated in the council, and later will greet the faithful, re-enacting the great procession into St. Peter’s that launched the council in 1962.

Pope Benedict XVI Marks the 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council

Pope Benedict XVI leads a mass to announce a new global 'Year of Faith' on October 10, 2012 at St. Peter's square at the Vatican. (Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

The anniversary comes as the church is fighting what it sees as a wave of secularism erasing the Christian heritage of the West, and competition for souls from rival evangelical churches in Latin America and Africa. Clerical sex abuse scandals, debates over celibacy for priests, open dissent among some priests and a recent Vatican crackdown on liberal nuns in the U.S. have also contributed to erode the church’s place in the world.

The pope has spent much of his pontificate seeking to correct what he considers the misinterpretation of Vatican II, insisting that it wasn’t a revolutionary break from the past as liberal Catholics paint it but rather a renewal of the best traditions of the ancient church.

Encyclopedia.com has more about Vatican II:

Second Vatican Council popularly called Vatican II, 1962–65, the 21st ecumenical council (see council, ecumenical) of the Roman Catholic Church, convened by Pope John XXIII and continued under Paul VI. Its announced purpose was spiritual renewal of the church and reconsideration of the position of the church in the modern world. The most spectacular innovation of the council, which convened Oct. 11, 1962, was the invitation extended to Protestant and Orthodox Eastern churches to send observers; the meetings were attended by representatives from many of those churches. Another obvious feature was the diversity of national and cultural origins shown among those who attended from all over the world.

One of the announced aims of the conference was to consider reform of the liturgy, primarily to bring the layman into closer participation in the church services and therefore to encourage some diversity in language and practice. Great emphasis was also laid from the beginning upon the pastoral duties of the bishops, as distinguished from administrative duties. The procedure at the conference accorded with democratic practice, and there was lively debate between the “progressive” and “conservative” groups. By the time of its adjournment the council had issued four constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations. The nature of these statements was conciliatory, avoiding rigid definitions and condemning anathemas.

In that vein, he decided to mark the anniversary of the council with the launch of a “Year of Faith,” precisely to remind Christians of what the council truly taught and seek to “re-evangelize” those Catholics who have fallen away from their faith in the decades since.

Pope Benedict XVI (Photo Credit: AP)

It’s necessary, he told his general audience this week, to return to the original documents of Vatican II and “free them from the mass of publications which, rather than making them known, has hidden them.”

Benedict was a young priest when Vatican II began, a theological consultant to German Cardinal Joseph Frings, and he has recently reminisced about what the council sought to accomplish, where it succeeded and where it erred.

“It was a splendid day on 11 October, 1962,” Benedict wrote in a forward to a commemorative book about the anniversary published this week by the Vatican newspaper. “It was a moment of extraordinary expectation. Great things were about to happen.”

Over the following three years, he wrote, the council fathers adopted a series of documents confronting the great questions of the day: liturgical renewal, religious liberty, relations with people of other faiths. Many of those documents, he wrote, carried an importance that the council couldn’t have known at the time, such as the one revolutionizing the church’s relations with Jews, Muslims and people of other faith.

Yet as great as that document was, Benedict wrote, a “weakness” has emerged in the ensuing years in that “it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion” that have become all too apparent.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (165)

tradcatholicgirl
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:35pm
@Berean,

Thank you for quoting Dominus.

We as Catholics DO believe in no salvation outside of Christ. After all, that is in the scripture. However, the gorgeous thing about true Catholicism is true humility. If truly humble before the Lord, we can never be sure to know the Mind of God. God knows intimately and judges each soul individually. In other words: no one can say you are banned from Heaven except God.

If you read my reply to your query about “how to get to Heaven” you would know that what I was really saying is that Heaven is obtained by more than the statement “I believe Christ died for my sins.”

Your whole life, your actions, your thoughts, also need to cry out with that belief!! Once saved, always saved is not the Catholic dogma! In any case, I am sure there are many not properly acquainted with the RCC who have lived holy lives. God will judge those souls accordingly.

Catholic Doctrine should be followed by Catholics absolutely. It is not my place or yours to place judgement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:51pm
  P.S.
  ………and Berean What is up with all the disrespect to Joey8? It doesn’t help YOUR arguments either when you insult.
  
  Report this comment
- razhunter100
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:59pm
  “”Catholic Doctrine should be followed by Catholics absolutely. It is not my place or yours to place judgement.”"
  
  bs…everyone should ask why, who ,where…
  
  because it is written means nothing…understand.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:49pm
  @TRAD
  
  Thanks again for your sincere reply.
  
  You said: “We as Catholics DO believe in no salvation outside of Christ.”
  
  That was not my argument. Christians certainly know and believe there is no salvation outside of Christ. My reason for posting the article was to make the point that the RCC insists there is no salvation outside of the “Catholic” Church. Respectfully, how could you miss that?
  
  I don’t know if there is any “crying out with belief” going on in my sinful life, but I do know that as a believer in Jesus Christ, and before the foundation of the world, God chose me, one of the elect in Christ, for salvation, and Jesus holds us in His hand and no one can snatch us out of His hand. He and the Father are One. Eph 1:4, John 10:27 – 29.
  
  This is not due to my own works, so no one can boast, but it is the free gift of God; Eph 2:9, Rom 5:15;
  
  “he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” Titus 3:5
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:03pm
  Oh, I forgot that you asked about JOEY8
  
  We give respect, then we get respect. JOEY8 hasn’t figured that out yet.
  
  He’s one of those gung ho Mormon argue-bots, wannabe missionary, who insist everyone who questions their religion to be just a Mormon basher. If you click on his name in one of his posts, you can see that he has taken it upon himself to follow me around and cap every one of my posts with mostly unbecoming trash talk aimed at my person. To discredit me, and therefore in his immature mind, my argument.
  
  The problem is, he’s a rookie. I’ve been doing this since the inception of USENET, and many of you probably have no idea what that even is. That was before browsers. I’ve learned that trolls like JOEY8 aren’t interested in discussion or the truth, this is sport for them and it’s all about winning. If JOEY8 would treat others with dignity and respect, others would probably respond in kind.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:23pm
  @theother
  The pharisees were the pros of their time while Peter and the apostles were the rookies, so no offense taken.
  I don’t say anything of your character because this is the internet and an anonymous chat room, nobody knows who you are and nobody can claim to know who you are. You can claim to be whoever you want, so nobody is worried about your character. I’m only commenting on the things you write. If I bug you so much, you don’t have to reply.
  You seem to be upset at ” RCC insists there is no salvation outside of the “Catholic” Church.
  Why would that upset you? Surely, God is a God of order. If i decide to make my own drivers license and use it to drive, does the state recognize that? What authority did I have to do that? God is the same, He gave authority to Peter to bind things in heaven and earth, and to unbind as well. Nobody can take that upon themselves. We are told in Hebrews that no man can take this honor unto themselves, that they have to be called of God like Aaron was.
  In Acts 10, Peter says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord”
  Did Peter have authority to command people to be baptized? I believe he did. God told Him to go forth and teach the world and baptize. Authority is a serious question.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:31pm
  @theother
  Continued…
  In regards to this authority Peter and the Apostles had, here is a great scripture to teach us more about God’s authority
  “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the aword of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
  15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
  16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
  17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
  18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
  19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
  20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”
  You can’t get the gift of the Holy Ghost through money, nor can you purchase the ability to give people the gift of the Holy Ghost. The scriptures are very clear on who has this authority to baptize and give the gift of the Holy Ghost, they must be called of God as was Aaron, as was Peter, as was James and John.
  The Catholic church would be dishonest if they didn’t claim that they had the authority from God to perform ordinances since Peter had it and supposedly passed it down. Protestant churches don’t make the claim because they can’t
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:59pm
  JOEY8
  
  If you are intimating that you are like the apostles and I am like the pharisees, that is laughable. Why does it always have to be about insults with you? It’s because your arguments don’t stand, that’s why.
  
  If you bash my screen name, that is no different than bashing me.
  
  I don’t reply because you bug me, I reply to correct you. What you say about me is mostly untrue. You use circular reasoning and set up little straw men arguments, then sit back and laugh while I try to defend them. That’s dishonest and that’s all it becomes. In fact, I’ve had this same discussion with you at least half a dozen times.
  
  You argued that it’s Biblical for the RCC and others to have authority on earth, but the Scripture clearly teaches something different. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matt 28:18
  
  Jesus laid hands on and “gave” His “Power and Authority,” specifically to the 12, plus the 70 and at least 2 others, to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. Matt 10:8. No one else, had, or has had since, the ability to exercise that specific “Authority.” It was not passed down through Peter, which can be witnessed in the fact that there are no miracle workers since the Apostle age. No one has raised a dead person, with that same “Authority,” since. That is one of the tests of an Apostle.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:21pm
  @theother
  Now we are getting somewhere!
  Since Jesus didn’t lay His hands on Paul because Paul was called AFTER Jesus’ death, how did Paul have authority to teach and baptize? Where did he get it from? How could he do this?
  “And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”
  If Peter didn’t have authority to pass on Apostleship, why did they call someone to replace Judas? What was the purpose of that?
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:34pm
  @theother
  “No one has raised a dead person, with that same “Authority,” since. That is one of the tests of an Apostle.”
  I wasn’t aware that to be an Apostle, someone had to raise the dead. I won’t ask you to cite that in the Bible.
  There are many recorded instances of Joseph Smith and LDS Apostles performing miracles, I don’t expect you to believe them, but there are witnesses to them.
  http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles
  Be careful though, Jesus warns us many times in the Bible about seeking signs.
  “When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judæa into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
  Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.”
  “an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign”
  Again, God’s Spirit will teach truth. Put your faith in God, not in your own wisdom.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 2:54pm
  JOEY8
  
  Answers to your questions about Paul and Judas’ Apostleship, can be found here: http://www.gotquestions.org/
  
  All of Jesus’ Apostles performed miracles, signs and wonders, as a sign of their Spiritual “Authority.
  John 10:37If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
  
  Evidence of this “Authority” without fail, resulted in the ability to perform miracles, signs and wonders, and was given for no other reason than as a sign of Christ’s “Authority.”
  
  On the other hand, the link you posted even says of Smith, “such events are mainly for the comfort and blessing of the Saints, and are not intended to convince others or act as a “sign.” It goes on to say: this promise of the miraculous gifts enumerated was not made that servants of God in the new dispensation might have evidence of what are commonly looked upon as miracles to point to in attestation of their divine authority; but are blessings given to the saints for their profit and salvation. For the very reasons that they were not given as evidence of divine authority, but as a promise of blessing to the saints, they will become all the stronger proof of divine authority in the ministry of the new dispensation, provided it can be proven that they follow those who believe.”
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 4:21pm
  So consequently JOEY8, your argument fails.
  
  Report this comment
razhunter100
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:17pm
why is nobody asking the questions…?
if …jesus , god , yaweh, allah , etc etc is supposedly coming back to the earth…then why do 5billion people get to go to he77…?
because they are not taught the beliefs…?what about the followers of the 10,000+ gods before jesus…they all get to go to hell too…?

what about all those men and women who have killed to protect this country’s so called freedom…you know they are going to hell…thou shall not kill…remember…ooops.

quit believing in bs…if GOD wanted his presence known would be lit up in fires in the sky…wtf…
not some man written ,re-written bs…

btw, 75million babies dead since roe vs wade…where is your limp azsed god…? right , free will…
fargin’ bs beyond belief.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:17pm
  Don’t worry. He’ll be back. If we’re wrong, we’ve probably lived better lives. If you’re wrong, then you’re toast. LoL
  
  It’s your choice.
  
  Report this comment
- razhunter100
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:48pm
  i am asking questions…you answered none…
  
  next.
  
  Report this comment
- razhunter100
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:49pm
  if my choice…you are toast, and we are just worm bait…next.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:07pm
  @razhunter
  If you really want answers to those questions, I’d be happy to help. Shoot me an email wrastler8(at)juno
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:52pm
  If you want the Mormon version of the truth, contact JOEY8. If you want the Christian version and the truth, look here: http://www.gotquestions.org/
  
  Report this comment
- DEFCON4
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:44pm
  test 123
  
  Report this comment
tradcatholicgirl
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:01am
@Okie,

RE: the following you quoted from scripture:

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence …………………………………………………………….

QUESTION: What does that have to do with a person CHOOSING to become a chaste Catholic priest? No one is forcing anyone to take vows to become a priest. Why does it bother you so much that some choose a chaste life???

You may need to pray on that one. It seems a real problem for you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:08am
  It is a direct opposite teaching of JESUS CHRIST, thus, it is a problem for those of us who follow Him and not man and his perverted teachings for power.
  
  If I said I represented you and taught something totally oppposite of what you teach, should your followers be “upset” with me?
  
  Have a wonderful day.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:39am
  Okie,
  
  How is it opposite to his teaching? There is no where in the bible where it says that a every single person HAS to be married, MUST have sex, or MUST have kids. It does not say a person cannot choose a chaste life. It does not follow that every human being on earth who does not marry, have sex and have a family is going against the Lord.
  
  By your estimation, there must be a lot of people in hell due their lack of married status.
  
  That is ridiculous.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:52am
  Why not make it an option? That’s what the first church taught.
  
  1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:53am
  Nice twist but we all can see you are deflecting.
  
  Do you have to get married, NO, but for a Church to forbid their leaders from marriage saying it is based on God and Christ’s teachings is a flat out LIE and perversion.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:02am
  @theotherberean,
  
  That quote is not talking specifically about priests. Again, no one is forcing any person to take vows of chastity. If a guy takes final vows, then he is supposedly completely understanding of WHY he is doing that. If he wanted the “option” you suggest, there are thousands of denominations where he could live a perfectly beautiful Christian life and be married. The Catholic “option” is a chaste one.
  
  On the wisdom of chaste priests, you might want to read my reply farther down regarding my friend, the episcopal (protestant and married) priest I cited. It is a perfect example of why married family life and priestly vocations are often at odds with one another.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:24am
  Okie,
  
  The Church is not saying it is based on Christ’s teaching. It is a CHOICE that a man makes when he considers the priesthood. It is the TRADITION of our faith. A man who considers the priesthood goes through years of contemplation, training and vetting before he takes those final vows. You need to trust that most of them know what they are doing and getting into.
  
  A soldier chooses a possible life of danger, that he may have to kill. It is a VOCATION, just like being a priest is. No one says we should give the soldier an “OPTION” to be a pacifist.
  
  A doctor chooses to go through a decade of training and spend untold amounts of money to practice his or her vocation. Do we give them an OPTION of six months at community college?
  
  And please…..
  
  Please don’t give me that tired argument that pedophilia is a result of celibacy. I will say this over and over, if need be: The percentage* of molestations by public school teachers simply dwarfs the percentage* of priests who have been accused. Celibacy has nothing to do with the mental disorder that leads people to sexually desire children.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:44am
  TradCatholic
  
  OH, so now you are saying forbidding of marriage isn’t a Godly teaching but a tradition of man, correct? Whom are we to follow, man or God? I’m gonna stick with God…Doesn’t the Bible say something about not to follow traditions of man? Yup, it sure does….
  
  All those priest molesting young boys were mentally ill? Is the Catholic Church that incompetant that it cannot identify mentally ill folks before turning them loose with little boys? If it is simply a case of mental illness, why cover it up?
  
  Yes, forbidding the natural creates perversion, thus, jails are full of men locked up with other men who suddenly become homosexuals when before were married heterosexuals.
  
  Stop digging that hole and be honest with yourself by admitting that teaching is wrong That following man’s “traditions” has led you away from God’s teachings.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:50am
  @TRAD said: “That quote is not talking specifically about priests.”
  
  So? It doesn’t exclude them either. In fact, nowhere does the Scriptures exclude priests from marrying. Mandatory celibacy is a man-made tradition. It does not come from God.
  
  And your argument that those are our rules and if you don’t like them go somewhere else, is exactly why I’m not a RC anymore. I finally read the Bible and tested out. LoL
  
  Matt 23:5″But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, 6and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi, Rabbi’ by men. 8But don’t you be called ‘Rabbi,’ for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. 9Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.”
  
  Read the entire chapter of Matthew 23. It speaks to pharisees. Might do you some good to listen too.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:29pm
  @Theotherberean,
  
  Let me say I am enjoying our debate and do not hold any negativity about any point you make.
  
  But, my argument is still this: no one is forcing anyone to do anything. If you don’t want to be Catholic, don’t be. If you don’t want to choose a vocation which is ASKING of you to CHOOSE celibacy, then don’t choose that vocation.
  
  And, I do listen. I said here how I made the effort to understand Sola Scriptura. I respect it and see why it gives solace and nurturing to my protestant friends. But I CHOOSE to live in another faith that includes tradition. So do 410,000 or so priests around the world. They can and do leave when not committed to what their faith asks of them. And if non-Catholics don’t like our traditions, they can lead happy and holy lives in any of the 30,000 Christian denominations. What is the problem?
  
  I am mystified by the intense need of people to change what is working just fine without outside approval. Sola Scriptura does not guide ALL the choices of the Catholic faith. So what? To each his own.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:34pm
  @TRAD, but how can I get to heaven without the RCC?
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:52pm
  @BEREAN
  
  How can you get to heaven? You mean besides believing Christ is the Savior of the World?
  
  Living your every moment by the ten commandments is a good place to start.
  
  THEN: It is important to pray, read the scriptures, practice the virtues, give selflessly of the gifts God gave you, go to church, admit your sin, and make every effort to not sin again,,but if you fail, get up and try again. Love others more than yourself, don’t make idols of material goods, or other people. Figure out what it is God wants you to do with your life and then do it.
  
  The list of what Christ told us to do in scripture is pretty long, but I think you get where I am going with this.
  
  My own spiritual director, who is a priest, would not tell you that you are barred from heaven because you have rejected the RCC.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:03pm
  @theother
  “Mandatory celibacy is a man-made tradition”
  How do you decide what is a man-made tradition? By your very definition, the doctrine of the trinity would be considered a man-made tradition, yet you choose to follow that tenet of the Catholic faith. I think the real issue would be, does the Catholic church have the authority to make those kind of declarations. I find it interesting that certain Christians like to get on the Catholic church for certain doctrines or teachings, but they don’t hesitate to follow the doctrine of the trinity that the Catholic church created at their councils. Also, why would you question their practice of celibacy but not question how they came to organize our currently accepted Bible? It seems strange to pick and choose what we want to accept from the Catholic church, when the real issue is, did they and do they still have God’s authority starting from Peter? If the answer is yes, then celibacy wouldn’t be an issue, for God directed it through His church and spokesman.
  
  Report this comment
- GUNBLADE_POWER
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:15pm
  @theotherberean
  
  You quoted 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. If you continue reading the verses that follow you will get a surprise.
  
  “I say this by way of concession, NOT OF COMMAND. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” 1 Corinthians 7:6-7
  
  So, Paul seems to ENDORSE AND RECOMMEND celibacy (but no command it).
  
  “8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is GOOD for them to STAY UNMARRIED, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
  
  “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:27-34)
  
  It seems like Paul has no problem with celibacy.
  
  Also I would like to clarify something. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, priests CAN MARRY but, they must marry before being ordained. So the Western Church (RCC) decided to follow Paul’s recommendation and the Eastern Church decided not to follow it.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:16pm
  JOEY8, please try and keep both hands on the keyboard when typing, I realize you have a fetish for my leg, and that’s why you keep following me around trying to hump it. LoL.
  
  The RCC did not give us the Bible, nor the doctrine of the Trinity. Both were self evident.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:23pm
  Hey @GUN, great points. Thanks for pointing them out.
  
  My rebuttal would be that Paul sets the example, but still makes celibacy a matter of choice for others. Doctrinally it is not required by Scripture.
  
  PS what is a gunblade?
  
  Report this comment
- GUNBLADE_POWER
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:40pm
  @theotherberean
  
  “Hey @GUN, great points. Thanks for pointing them out.
  
  My rebuttal would be that Paul sets the example, but still makes celibacy a matter of choice for others. Doctrinally it is not required by Scripture.”
  —————————————————————————————————————————————————
  
  I agree with you that it is a matter of choice. The Church also agrees. If a man wants to be a priest and marry he can join any of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. If a man wants to be a celibate he join any of Churches that make up the Catholic Church. That’s a lot of choices.
  
  The Catholic Church does not consider celibacy a Doctrine. It is considered a discipline. Disciplines can change. Doctrines do not change because they come from Jesus Christ.
  
  PS: A gunblade is a weapon that is half sword and half gun. They appear mainly in fantasy movies and videogames but they have been made in real life.
  
  http://realgunblades.blogspot.com/2008/01/pictures-of-real-gunblades.html
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:46pm
  @TRAD, I keep trying to get a reply to you to take, but the server must reject it for some reason. I’ll try rewording it…
  
  Dominus Iesus (English: Lord Jesus) is a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was approved in a Plenary meeting of the Congregation, and bears the signature of its then Prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and of its then Secretary, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, now Cardinal Secretary of State. The declaration was approved by Pope John Paul II and was published on August 6, 2000. It is subtitled “On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church”. It is most widely known for its recapitulation of the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church is the sole true Church of Christ. More… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:51pm
  @GUN
  
  I think we agree in essence.
  
  My problem is still that it is “mandatory.” I know there are choices within the mandate, but it is still a mandate which “goes beyond” the Scriptures.
  
  Thanks for the link. Interesting gun. Do you have one? Can I shoot it? LoL
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:07pm
  @TRAD,
  
  I can’t get the server to accept the rest of the quote for some reason. Go to the link if you want more info. Essentially is says that besides the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having validly ordained bishops, all other churches are not churches in the proper sense.
  
  Report this comment
- HelloWorld22
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 3:18pm
  Both Jesus and Paul speak of the virtue of remaining unmarried. The discipline of celibacy practiced by Catholic priests is in line with this.
  
  Matthew 19:11-12
  Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 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 7:7-9
  I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
  
  1 Cor 7:32-35
  I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lords affair show he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world how he can please his wife and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lords affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 3:24pm
  @the other
  do you really not know how we got the Bible? It wasn’t hand wrapped by God and delivered by angels on chariots. You really don’t know? What does “self evident” mean? How can something be “self evident” when people understand it thousands of different ways.
  You can’t argue history and fact as to how we have the Bible as we know it now. Since you like Wikipedia so much, do a search for the Bible in there
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:07pm
  @HELLO
  
  No one is arguing that. The problem is that it is a mandate, with the word “man” being the key ingredient.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:16pm
  JOEY8 I see you haven’t been back to the temple for your reindoctrination yet. And, it sounds like you either have a noisy lifter or you’re a quart low on snake oil. LoL
  
  Look, when you’re read everything here, http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html including all the links, and have gained at least a rudimentary understanding of Greek, come back and talk to me and I’ll point you to some advanced study materials. Until then, go ride your bicycle or something and let the adults here talk.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:14pm
  @theother
  I looked at that website, here’s what it said
  “The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.”
  So first off, if you believe that God guided them to choose the answers, why did protestants remove the apocrypha? Was that divine too? Who was divine here?
  That website agreed that it was council’s of Catholics or as the website describes them, “early Christians”, that organized the books. So if God inspired these men to make the correct selection, how were they fallen or apostate? Did God remove their free will and force them to choose all of the books He wanted, or were they vessels of the Lord? If they never had apostolic succession as you claim, how can they have authority to organize and compile the Bible.
  Here’s a website for you to look at. Its a website on the internet and I don’t know who the author is, so that must mean that it is all 100% factual and true. Don’t fight history and facts
  http://www.protestanterrors.com/
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:29pm
  JOEY8
  
  When are you going to the temple for your reboot? LoL Go get your snake oil fix and you’ll feel much better. Your hands are shaking. LoL
  
  They should have some sort of automatic “return” mode for the bots, when their snake oil gets low and your thinking is clouded. ha ha
  
  And did you do all the chores I gave you already? (hands on hips, tapping foot) You were to read everything on that page and follow and read all the links. Then, take Greek 101 and you’ll be ready to learn some advanced doctrines. Like the Trinity and Sola Scriptura and how to recognize false prophets, Jesus’, Gods, Gospels, etc. I’m not going to do your homework for you and you’re so! not up to speed on those issues.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:11pm
  @theother
  So a requirement to understand God’s truth is to know Greek? Man, Jesus makes us jump through loops to be saved doesn’t He?
  I already read that website, and like I said, they seem to say the same thing I’m saying. How is the early Catholic Church inspired by God to organize the Bible, but at the same time, not able to have God’s authority? There seems to be a real problem here and I don’t know how you or the website you provided plan on solving it. Maybe just ignoring it? Calling me a robot and laughing hysterically at your own attempts at a joke (old people can be awkward when they’re allowed on the internet)?
  Do these websites speak for you, as in, can I take every word on these websites and every link on there to represent what you believe?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:34pm
  JOEY8
  
  I was making the point that fallacious arguments and ad hominems are pretty stupid all around and you’re not as good at that as you think you are. If you stop being a jerk, I’ll stop treating you like one.
  
  Your arguments are all laced with “gotcha’s.” I know it’s tough defending your religion, but Christianity is quite easy. I just point you back to Jesus Christ and the Bible. Who, incidentally, are both referred to as “the Word.” That fact is my most tangible asset in a discussion, and never lets me down. I don’t need to bob, dodge and weave around anything to prove who Jesus Christ is or what God said. If it’s not in there somewhere, (and there is an awfully lot in there) then God didn’t say it to me as far as I am concerned.
  
  I mentioned Greek, because if you can accurately use an Interlinear, the Bible really comes alive. You can learn that much on line, for free, in a couple months. That, and you will have learned how cultural aspects help shape and define the doctrines. They will jump right out at you. That’s what I meant by self-evident.
  
  Agreed, that web site won’t answer all of your questions, but links to other sites and books, certainly will.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:51pm
  @theother
  “Your arguments are all laced with “gotcha’s.”
  Are you going to try and tell me that your question to me “am I a Mormon?” wasn’t a gotcha question? You spend too much time crying, try answering the questions.
  I don’t depend on my own wisdom or knowledge of Greek to understand God’s word, and I think that is the wrong message to send to people. You should teach people that it is God’s Spirit that will teach them the truth and testify to them that Jesus is the Christ and that the Bible is His word. God doesn’t have a minimum IQ requirement you have to meet before He answers prayers.
  “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”
  I don’t need Greek to understand that, nor do I need Greek to understand that God gave authority to men like Peter, and no man can take that honor unto himself, he has to be called of God as was Aaron.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:02pm
  No, that is not true. Once again you mischaracterize me. I’m not in that box. I’m going to watch the debate. I will respond later.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 4:04pm
  JOEY8
  
  My question sought to cause you to ponder a thought, while yours are intended to misdirect from the thought, and down theological rabbit trails. You avoided the answer to the question “Am I a Mormon,” because the logical answer is no. The implication of that is, if I’m not a Mormon, you’re not a Christian.
  
  I never said people should “depend on [their] own wisdom or knowledge of Greek to understand God’s word,” I said learning Greek, (and Hebrew) will enhance your ability to comprehend the Bible. It’s a tool.
  
  I have said there is only one way to understand God’s Word, and that is to read the Bible. God then imparts knowledge to you as you read. God will give you the “spirit of wisdom and understanding.” Eph 1:17
  
  “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” Rom 10:17
  
  This is different than reading the Book of Mormon, then praying to know if it is true, and relying on a subjective feeling, a “burning in the bosom,” to tell you yes or no.
  
  By contrast, Christians are not asked to pray about the truthfulness of a book, yes or no. By reading the Bible and praying for wisdom, we are imparted with knowledge and understanding of God’s Word. This is not accompanied by a “feeling” which one may rely on to insure oneself that the book is true, yes or no.
  
  Mormons use James to argue that it’s good to pray about everything, but is it? Would you pray whether or not it’s ok to
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 4:24pm
  (ahem) Would you “pray” that it’s ok to kill someone? So it’s not necessarily a good thing to pray about everything.
  
  Report this comment
joboww
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:54am
Mr. Jack

Perhaps its hard for you to understand but the obelisk has a cross on the top and was placed in the square as a sign of the conquering of Christ over the pagan world. If you cant understand that there is nothing I can do to help you. As for your Dracula comment maintain your ignorance you look so unbelievably smart.

Cheers Kiddo

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:17am
Was this the event in which the Pope prayed in Arabic?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BrotherJJSaint
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:11am
  Do you know how many Christians pray in Arabic every day?
  
  What language should he pray in?
  
  Report this comment
- greggo
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:20am
  St. Michael the Archangel,
  defend us in battle.
  Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.
  May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,
  and do thou,
  O Prince of the heavenly hosts,
  by the power of God,
  thrust into hell Satan,
  and all the evil spirits,
  who prowl about the world
  seeking the ruin of souls. Amen..
  
  Read more: http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/michael.htm#ixzz2904gB36e
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:44am
  Kudos, brotherjjsaint!
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:56am
  Many pray in Arabic. I simply was asking if this was the event in which the pope prayed in Arabic.
  
  I can speak Arabic, along with several other languages. So what?
  
  Oh, you assumed i was making him speak in arabic a big deal. I forgive you.
  
  Report this comment
marybethelizabeth
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:08am
From the article: “In that vein, he decided to mark the anniversary of the council with the launch of a “Year of Faith,“ precisely to remind Christians of what the council truly taught and seek to ”re-evangelize” those Catholics who have fallen away from their faith in the decades since”

Mr. Beck. Give up your flirtation with that ruinous cult and come back to the Church.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:40am
  @MARY I’ve been praying for Beck to do just that.
  
  Report this comment
tradcatholicgirl
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:01am
Oh, yeah, Rightwhereithurts…..

Another thing for you to consider: priests take a vow of poverty along with chastity and obedience. That poverty wouldn’t work so well with a wife and kids, huh?

Being a Catholic priest is about sacrifice and humility for the sake of others in emulation of Christ’s sacrifice.

Married priests would NOT save the Catholic Church, but serve to destroy its very fabric.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:15am
  The only sacrifice needed is one by Jesus Christ…
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:44am
  Jesus didn’t call us to sacrifice for one another? I think maybe have different ideas of sacrifice. I am not suggesting Christians climb on a literal cross. READ ON:
  
  Mark 10:44-45
  and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
  
  Romans 12:1 (KJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
  
  Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
  
  Colossians 3:23-24 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:11am
  I do not need a Priest to sacrifice anything for me. We should serve others and live by example, yes.
  
  Why leave off the Biblical verse saying a Priest should have one wife and a steady household?
  
  Report this comment
- BrotherJJSaint
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:20am
  “Why leave off the Biblical verse saying a Priest should have one wife and a steady household?”
  
  Because these is no verse which says they “should” have a wife.
  
  Report this comment
- BrotherJJSaint
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:22am
  Some priest in religious orders take a vow of poverty, however diocesan priest do not take vow of poverty.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:41am
  @Brother Read 1 Timothy 3
  
  This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:47am
  Brotherjjsaint:
  
  Some priests may not take a vow of poverty, but their stipends are not enough to support a family. The “poverty” is inherent in the job.
  
  I know a woman whose husband is an episcopal (protestant) priest. He would dearly love to have a parish of his own. But they have massive debt because of their kids college educations plus his education to become a priest. He must keep his well-paying secular job and she must work part-time. He is a part-time assistant pastor. Neither one of them has the time to give to the parish whose priest is very sickly, and the parish is down by 2/3 of its population.
  
  That is the reality.
  
  There may some wisdom in the chaste life for Catholic priests.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:48am
  @TRAD I thought God didn’t need money…
  
  Report this comment
- joboww
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:06am
  hey did Paul reject money?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:56am
  @JOB, my point is that he was “married,” duh yourself.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:03pm
  @JOB, perhaps. But God still doesn’t.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:16pm
  @Trad
  When I was a Mormon missionary in England, I made a good friend who was a Catholic priest in charge of a large group of congregations ( I don’t know the proper term or title for him). We had many respectful discussions and I know that I admired his life story of sacrifice. That is a lot to sacrifice for God, and he had no regrets and I have no doubt that he does a lot of good over there. You always hear about the Catholic priests that mess up, but you never hear about the ones who give their life in service. I’m inspired by people of all faiths that sacrifice so much to help others and to serve. I’ll always remember Father John, and his services in Latin were pretty cool.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:08pm
  What a bunch of hooey! Yeah right. You were a missionary. LoL You’re not even 15 yet.
  
  And even if this fantasy were true, obviously he didn’t tell you the truth about your religion, or you would hate him for being a Mormon basher like you hate me.
  
  Now quick, scurry to the temple like a good little bot.
tradcatholicgirl
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:53am
Right,

Are you Catholic? Catholics know that priests are married to the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Priests are His apostolic representatives on earth. So they follow him by giving all to their Bride.

But a married priest can only give part of himself to the Church and reserve the rest for his family.

Theology of Catholicism is for people who are willing to study and think deeply about it. Not for those who surf the wave of cultural change.

God Bless You.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:12am
  You are saying Priests do not marry because married Priests cannot give their all to Christ? Uhm, wrong. That also contradicts the very beginning Apostles who were directly granted representation for Christ by Christ. Peter was married.
  
  So if the Church is Christ’s bride, and in order to give your all to Christ you cannot be married, then we should all strive not to be married?
  
  Can you show any teaching of God or by Christ that says Priests should not be married?
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:56am
  Okie,
  
  I am NOT saying we all should remain unmarried to be a good Christian. I am not saying that protestant ministers should not get married. I am not saying that marriage is not a life of sacrifice to another. I am saying that a Catholic priest, by definition, by vow, is married to the Church. His vocation is a chaste one by definition. Why does that offend people of other faiths? Most priests report great joy in this choice.
  
  Being married is something holy. Anyone who has ever been married and strove to be a good spouse knows it is a vocation filled with sacrifice for the other, filled with service to a spouse and children. In the Catholic faith, teh beauty of that kind of love is expanded and used in the priesthood. It is not a negative thing.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:05am
  It is offensive because it is a direct opposite teaching of Jesus Christ and God, along with Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham, and every other leader found in the Bible whom was married, had children and were HOLY men.
  
  Why teach opposite of God? Should Priests not lead their flock by example?
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:28am
  Peter was married, the key word here is was.
  In the Bible we are introduced to Peter’s mother-in-law. But where is Peter’s wife?
  Was she alive during Peter’s 3 years with Jesus?
  Was she traveling with Peter during the early days of the Church?
  
  Just because Peter’s mother-in-law is metioned in the Bible doesnot prove he was married at the time.
  It proves he was once married.
  
  If a mans wife dies today, and his wifes mother is still alive, is she not still his mother-in-law?
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:32am
  Okie,
  
  Offensive to whom????? If the priest finds it a joyful choice, and the Church finds it an acceptable vocation of service, and the majority of Catholics find it non-offensive…..well, with all due respect, Okie, why is that a problem for you?
  
  I not only understand the protestant idea of SOLA SCRIPTURA, but I respect the protestant belief in it. That took some effort on my part to try and understand my devout protestant friends insistence that it is the ONLY way.
  
  As a Catholic, I believe that there is tradition as well as Scripture. That doesn’t make my religion a cult or evil or wrong. We as Catholics have a tradition of priests taking a vow or poverty, chastity and obedience. That vow has NOTHING to do with YOU and how you serve Our Lord. Why does it offend????
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:00am
  Bi Faith
  Can you show where Peter’s wife died?
  
  TradCatholic
  Well, it is offensive to those of us whom follow Jesus Christ’s teachings and not man’s. Where did this recent tradititon of not getting married come from? Why did all the other leaders in the Bible marry? If my wife and I are part of the bride to Christ as a married couple, why would Christ think Priests shouldn’t be married. Makes 0 sense, especially since Jesus is married to the Church and not Priests and the Shepard is to be an example to his flock and lead them.
  
  It doesn’t take much common sense, and I know, it is lacking today, to conclude that maybe, just maybe, the opposite teaching of Christ found in your Church that says Priests should not marry caused so many Priests still today to molest little boys. You may not like to face that reality, but it is still reality and you owe it to yourself to be honest with yourself.
  
  Yes, every Church has perverts but the only Church to have a massive scale molestation problem is the Church whom bans their leaders from marriage. hmmmmmm…..
  
  Have a wonderful day.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:16am
  Okie
  I don’t have to prove she is dead. I asked you a question.
  I’m not asking you to prove she is alive…I am just pointing out that you are making statements that are not in the Bible.
  
  The Bible proves Peter had a mother-in-law. It does not prove his wife is still alive.
  What is it you people like to say about “if its not in the Bible?”
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:17am
  Okie
  Stop following the teachings of man.
  Peter’s wife is not in the Bible, you are believing a tradition of man
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:20am
  Okie
  You seem to imply that unmarried priest leads to child molesting.
  
  Do you honestly believe only unmarried men molest children?
  Ever heard of Penn State?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:45am
  The problem is that the RC makes celibacy mandatory for priests, when it’s clearly a God given personal choice.
  
  1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:07am
  If you don’t want to be celibate, then don’t become a Catholic priest.
  As Catholicgirl said, why does this offend you so much?
  You are not Catholic, it has no barring on your life at all.
  
  The Catholic Church has existed just fine for 2,000 years without your approval.
  I think she will be just fine going forward. She does have the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail against Her
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:14am
  Bi Faith
  The Bible says Peter had a mother-n-law, yes. Doesn’t say anything about Peter’s wife being dead as you suggest. Could it be Peter’s wife stayed home?
  
  I am not suggesting only unmarried men molest children, turn off your selective reading as i said all Churches have perverts. I am saying doctrine of forbidding marriage highly increases the odds of some sexual perversion such as molestations will occur. See massive Catholic molestation problem and cover up then look at any jail. Is it any wonder that men locked up with other men suddenly become homosexuals and perverts? Shouldn’t surprise you that Priests locked up with other Priests during school and forbidden from a wife suddenly become perverts and prey on innocent little boys when no one is looking.
  
  Forbidding of marriage is a perversion and results in perversion. That is reality. Deal with it. Have a great day!
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:24am
  Bi Faith
  
  It is insulting and offensive for us who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and all other leaders found in the Bible for the Catholic Church to say they represent God and then teach opposite of His teachings. We will not stay silent about your perversions any longer.
  
  Those that teach opposite of Christ are anti-Christ, right? 1 Timothy 3 clearly shows forbidding marriage among priests is opposite of God’s teachings. Take a long hard thought over that.
  
  Have a wonderful day, By Faith.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:37am
  I am not suggesting Peter’s wife was dead.
  I am asking you to show me in the Bible were she is. I see his mother-in-law, but not her.
  You are the if it’s not in the Bible, then it is a tradition of man crowd…practice what you preach
  Selective reading? Coming from you? Now that’s rich.
  Proven fact more child molesters in public schools and protestants churches (all 41,000 denominations) They are allowed to get married.
  Forbidding of marriage is a perversion practiced, by Jesus, Paul and the Catholic Church for 2,000 years and that’s not going to change because you think its wrong. Deal with it.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:40am
  @BY FAITH said: “If you don’t want to be celibate, then don’t become a Catholic priest.
  As Catholicgirl said, why does this offend you so much?”
  
  Because that statement makes you an intolerant bigot
  
  The point is, a “man” made that rule, not God.
  
  That’s the problem with all of the man-made traditions. They are not from God.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:42am
  I’ll see your one quote and raise you 4
  Mt 22:23-30
  1 Cor 7:32-35
  1 Cor 7:7
  2 Tm 2:3-4
  
  Teaching opposite of Christ are anti-Christ, I agree with you on that.
  So maybe you should stop doing that
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:56am
  Bi Faith
  
  I have no need to show “where” Peter’s wife is at.
  
  Now instead of being RESPONSIBLE and OWN the actions of the Catholic molesters, you choose to defelct and blame Protestants and school teachers. Nice work.
  
  I do not deny every faith and institution has molesters, but none have them on the scale of the Catholic Church, except prisons. That is just the harsh reality.
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:02pm
  Bi Faith says
  “I’ll see your one quote and raise you 4
  Mt 22:23-30
  1 Cor 7:32-35
  1 Cor 7:7
  2 Tm 2:3-4″
  
  You just proved my “selective reading” comment to be 100% accurate. None of those verses have anything to do with a Church banning marriage and it being a doctrine of God. NONE. Please try again.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:05pm
  Otherbrain
  Jesus gave us his church, His church gave you the collection of books called the Bible.
  Yes, simpeton the Bible is the inspired word of God. But there were dozens of books left out of the Bible because the Catholic Church said so. Jesus gave her that authority. You do follow the Bible don’t you…well by your “logic” it is a man-made book.
  And don’t try quoting scripture to me, scripture specifically the New Testement did not exist until the Catholic Church authorized which books belonged. So like it or not, Your welcome
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:07pm
  @BY FAITH
  
  Matt 8:14″When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.”
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:09pm
  since you can not be civil Opie, I will call you Opie
  
  Let me “think” like you: Jesus was celebate…Jesus molested children
  
  If I want advise on how to impregnate a horse or when is the bst time to slop the pigs, I’ll ask you.
  Until then go back to having no affect on the election
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:11pm
  Other,
  are you trying to prove my point?
  Matt 8:14″When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.”
  
  Wife’s mother is not WIFE.
  Where is the wife? The Bible does not say. You are following the traditions of man.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:14pm
  @FAITH
  
  Nope. You are wrong. Just the fact that you resort to ad hominems tells me that you know you don’t have the truth.
  
  http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:15pm
  http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/celibacy-isn%E2%80%99t-the-problem
  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood
  
  If you want to learn, read
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:21pm
  @FAITH
  
  LoL step back from the Roman Catholic cool aid and read these words very, very slowly, one at a time…
  
  “his wife ['s"] mother.
  
  Get it now? LoL
  
  There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
  
  And you better stop with the personal insults or we’ll have to slap you down, beach boy. LoL
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:22pm
  Other
  thanks again for proving me right
  In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
  
  These were Catholic Councils…DUH
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:23pm
  Catholic Counsils headed by Catholic Popes
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:23pm
  @FAITH
  
  Give us meat! We’re way past that milk.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:33pm
  @FAITH
  
  Selective reading again?
  
  And reporting too? Tsk tsk
  
  All the Councils did was put stamps on the MSS which were already known to be authentic. The RCC did not give us the Bible. Constantine wasn’t even a Christian.
  
  “Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.” http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:35pm
  Other
  once again proving your ignorance.
  Wife’s mother? does not prove the wife is alive. that is a tradition of man. Get it.
  
  If my wife dies is her mother still not her mother?
  Although that would explain protestant disrespect of Jesus’ mother. See he died so she stopped being his mother. WoW thinking like a protestant make my head hurt.
  
  “And you better stop with the personal insults or we’ll have to slap you down, beach boy.”
  what you gonna do type in capital letters?
  
  I’m shaking in my little space boots,
  
  Report this comment
- Okie from Muskogee
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:39pm
  Bi Faith
  
  Your Alinsky tactics only show you cannot properly defend your position. Ironic you are using tactics by a person who devoted a book to Satan.
  
  You have a lot of anger, sad…Shouldnt you pray for your enemies, instead of speak like a devil with that tongue?
  
  Oh wait, you’ll just force us to yield to your teachings whether we like it or not…. Just like in the past. Maybe if I give you a little money you can remove my sin…
  
  Goodbye Bi Faith. I’ll pray for you.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:41pm
  Other
  your ignorance is profound, however you make up for it by being compleatly closed minded
  
  I’ll wait for you to prove anything you said.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:50pm
  @FAITH
  
  Here’s another kicker for you. Are you aware that in your alleged “progression” of alleged “Popes,” from Peter on, at least one of those “Popes” did not even profess a faith in Jesus Christ?
  
  So much for the RCC giving us the Bible. And no wonder the traditions of men are their foundation.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:58pm
  OK FAITH, this is my last civil comment to you. If you want to play in the gutter, I promise you will get dirty too. I would much prefer an intelligent, mature, adult discussion, but I can lower my standards if you insist.
  
  Anyone with any common sense realizes that for one to have a mother-in-law, and for her to be referred to as one’s wife’s mother, one must have at some time or other had a wife.
  
  It matters not if she is still living, the point is, the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law, alone, proves he had a wife.
  
  Are you really so stupid that you can’t comprehend that? LoL
  
  Once you tell a lie you have to keep telling lies, and eventually they catch up with you. And lying for Jesus is even worse. Give it a rest.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:48pm
  Yes Other
  I would prefer to have a intellegent conversation, but I am talking to you. So that is not possible.
  
  Get your facts straight.
  I never said Peter was never married. (you lie)
  I said the Bible does not say Peter was married at the time Jesus cured his wife’s mother
  You and Opie can call me names and make all the accusations you want, but facts prove you are following traditions of man if you believe Peter was married at that time.
  Simple stated the Bible is silent as to the condition of Peter’s wife.
  
  If a man’s wife dies, her mother is still the “Mother of his wife”
  
  At the time of the authorization and compiling of the Bible the was 1 Christian Church
  look it up
  
  Your accusations about a Pope who doesn’t believe in Jesus is laughably false
  
  I’ll wait here for you to come “slap me down”…physical violence? so Christian of you, and proof ov your stupidity
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:54pm
  Opie
  Your Alinsky tactics only show you cannot properly defend your position. Ironic you are using tactics by a person who devoted a book to Satan.
  
  So maybe you should stop doing that
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 3:12pm
  @the other
  Let’s see if we can get the truth out of you this time. Do you believe that the Catholic Church ever had God’s authority? If so, when did they lose it (since you aren’t a Catholic). You’ve claimed in the past that there wasn’t a ‘falling away’, but if there wasn’t, isn’t the Catholic church still God’s authority? If they did fall away, how can you still claim their doctrine of the trinity that they created as true, and also hold the Bible, that they organized, as a collection of everything God intended us to have? And your “self evident” stuff doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic church came up with the term ‘trinity’ and defined it how you use it today, or that they looked and decided which books were inspired and which werent
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 3:22pm
  Other
  The second Bishop of Antioch, Syria, this disciple of the beloved Disciple John was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. A holy man who was deeply loved by the Christian faithful, he always made it his special care to defend “orthodoxy” (right teaching) and “orthopraxy” (right practice) among the early Christians.
  In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle.
  It was Bishop Ignatius was the first to used the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning “universal”, “complete” and “whole” to describe the church.
  
  It is from the word katholikos (“according to the whole”) that the word catholic comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century.
  That is 3 centuries before your mytical story of Constantine
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 3:25pm
  Description of the mass as it was celebrated in his day.
  “All who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoir of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader is finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves…and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss [of peace]. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: Amen.” When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the ‘eucharisted’ bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.” Quoting Justin Martyr “First Apology” pages: 65-67 written: 155AD
  Sounds like a Catholic Mass to me. also 3 centuries before your myth/lie
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:11pm
  Joey8
  
  I think you scared him away. You and your logical well reasoned response.
  There is no room for that kind of talk when you are dealing with metally handicapped people like Other
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:29pm
  JOEY8
  
  When are you going to get that reboot at the Temple? You’re making an awful noise. What’s the matter, won’t they let you back in? LoL
  
  No “church” has “”authority.” All “Authority” rests with Jesus Christ.
  
  @BY FAITH in your first dissertation, by your own admission, a “man” redefined the teachings of Christ.
  
  Reject
  
  And for your second post, Jesus, the Apostles, nor the first church ever celebrated the “Mass” And I wish you guys would let Jesus out of that little box you keep Him in up their on your sacrificial alter. While we’re at it, when are you going to let Him down off that cross? Sheesh!
  
  And , oh yeah, Glenn said (in so many words) on his radio show today that people who attack other people’s character in a debate, don’t have real arguments. I’m just sayin…
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 4:53pm
  @FAITH
  
  Do you realize that when you show such disrespect for others by prefacing all of your arguments with an insult to their character, that is typically because you have no self respect? Your Mormon robot buddy, the JOEY8 Troll Unit, has the same problem. He needs to go in to the temple for a complete re indoctrination, but I don’t think they will let him in. Maybe if he sacrifices a few babies to BAAL they’ll reconsider. LoL
  
  I never said, that you said, Peter was never married. Then you called me a liar for saying that. So I guess that makes you a straw man.
  
  You started the name calling and I asked you to stop but you upped the anty. So hush up there, sonny boy. Liberals think rules are for all the dumb people, which is essentially everyone but them.
  
  I see you finally agree that Peter had a wife. Facts are some of the hardest things for a liberal to dispute, huh!?
  
  And the word “Catholic” does not mean “Roman Catholic.” Look it up.
  
  And finally, you started the verbal slapping, and to place that comment in a different context, is intellectually dishonest. And to accuse me of unChristian like behavior, when your entire delivery is one big vitriolic, ad hominem, is asinine. How old are you, 14 Like JOEY8?
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 5:57pm
  Other
  Are we just going to ignore your lie? What about your lack of comprehension skills in reference to Peter’s wife?
  A man did not redefine the teachings of Christ. A man gave a name to the group that followed His teachings. I would think that was self-evident.
  Second post is written proof that the first church celebrated “Mass”
  You have a problem with Jesus on the cross? Ever heard no cross no crown?
  You do know Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man, right?
  a statue of painting of that event does not harm Jesus. It signifies the importance of it.
  
  I’m glad you can finally admit you have no real argument…just sayin
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:15pm
  Now you are arguing with yourself?
  “I never said, that you said, Peter was never married” and in the same post “I see you finally agree that Peter had a wife”
  So yea you are a liar.
  Here is some more free education for your ignorance:
  Roman Catholic Church
  It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
  Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say “Catholic” without qualifying it or replacing it with an insult.
  
  I took nothing out of context, “And you better stop with the personal insults or we’ll have to slap you down, beach boy” sounds like you want to physically harm me. I’m so scared
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:25pm
  @theother
  you said “All ”Authority” rests with Jesus Christ”
  That’s a little different from what you said a few days ago
  “The Bible is the final authority”
  I guess that I got you thinking about the origins of the Bible, you’re welcome.
  So, if all authority rests with Jesus Christ, what do you make of him telling Peter:
  “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
  So if Jesus gives this kind of authority to someone, should it be taken seriously? What about when Jesus calls 12 men as Apostles? What about after Jesus’ death and the death of Judas, when the Apostles call someone to take the Apostles place? If Jesus is has all authority, what do you make of the “foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone”? It sounds like Jesus who has all authority, set up an organization and left people with His permission to act in His name.
  ” And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 8:20pm
  JOEY8
  
  Where are the insults? Where is the trash talk? Losing your “touch?”
  
  What, isn’t it good for you any more?
  
  Yes, Jesus has ALL Authority in heaven and on earth. Mat 28:18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  
  Got it?
  
  I told you to do your homework. You just don’t listen very well.
  
  Pride is our worst enemy.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:02pm
  @theother
  are you saying that Peter wasn’t given authority? That when Jesus was resurrected, that Jesus took back the power He gave to Peter to bind and unbind?
  “In Acts 10, Peter says “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord”
  How could Peter command people to be baptized?
  Nobody is arguing that Christ doesn’t have all authority, but you seem to be saying that He didn’t leave anybody with His authority. By authority, I mean the power and permission to act in His name, to do what He would do, as in teach and baptize. Jesus commands them to do this. I think you understand the bind you are putting yourself in, because authority is a serious issue. It should make you think “the people that teach me the word, where did they get their authority from? Were they called of God as was Aaron? What about myself? What authority do I have to interpret the word of God?”
  I’ll refer to my post at the top to tradcatholic where I explain God’s authority more.
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:58pm
  @theother
  And before you can try and claim that Peter didn’t pass on this authority he received, who gave Paul the authority to teach, baptize, and lay his hands on people to receive the Holy Ghost? Why did Peter and the Apostles choose Matthew to replace Judas? Did Matthew then have authority as an Apostle? What about the prophet Agabus that appears after Jesus’ death?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 4:19pm
  JOEY8
  
  There is no Scriptural evidence whatsoever that Peter passed his Apostolic Authority on to anyone. I typed apostolic authority in the search box here http://www.gotquestions.org/ and found 58 pages. Here is an excerpt from the first link listed:
  
  “Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2). http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html
  
  Now please stop wasting our time with these pointless questions. If you can’t find the answer there, then and only then may you ask.
  
  Report this comment
JACKTHETOAD
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:51am
I watched ‘Caligula 1400 Days Of Terror’ on the History Channel the other night, and I got the heebie-jeebies myself. I think Omonster wouldn’t mind that at all. You have to see it to believe it. Bob Guccione’s film was a Disney movie compared to the real thing. Good Lord.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:47am
Right now we are seeing a transition point in history – the Catholic church is one of the oldest, longest lasting institutions of world history. A transformation will culminate soon that will either see her head back to their traditional beliefs, or change with the modern world, or fade into the night.

Understand well people, a revived, dymanically led Catholic church can become in less than a human generation a force of dynamic change for good or bad. May the leaders of the Catholics make their choices with wisdom from Above and not of man.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JACKTHETOAD
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:53am
  Amen, Snow.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:42am
  Amen.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:11pm
  Actually Hinduism is the oldest organized religion. The RCC has only been around since Constantine. (300 AD)
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:18pm
  Constantine? Really HA HA
  First written evidence of the Catholic Church 107AD
  Please prove your Constantine ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:20pm
  more proof you follow the traditions of Man
  Constantine signed the Edit of Millan which allowed for religions tolerance.
  
  Try reading something not published by Chick
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:24pm
  @FAITH
  
  OK
  
  http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:09pm
  @theother
  That website is hardly proof of anything. The truth is, Jesus set up His church with a foundation of apostles and prophets. The Catholic church has a legitimate claim when they say Peter was the Pope, because Peter was given power and authority from Christ. I find it entertaining to read that protestants will claim the Catholic church is apostate and fallen, but at the same time, they don’t hesitate to follow word for word, the trinity doctrine that the Catholic church developed. Nor do protestants question that the Bible was organized through the power of God (which would be through the Catholic church). How do you claim the Bible to be exactly how God meant it to be, each book divinely chosen, but think that the vessel God used was apostate and acting without God’s authority? If they never fell away, then all protestant organizations are the apostates.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:30pm
  The RCC did not give us the Bible, nor the doctrine of the Trinity. Both are from God. The Bible became self evident in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and because God wanted us to have His Word.
  
  The doctrine of the Trinity became self evident in the Scriptures, and the Bible we have today is the same one the Apostles gave us. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:34pm
  As simple as I can make it.
  Jesus chose 12 men to be his Apostles. For approximately 3 years he taught and groomed these men. He taught them in more detail than when He spoke to the public.Not everything Jesus told them was recorded.He told Peter he wanted to build a church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.He gave Peter the “keys to the Kingdom”.He gave Peter and the remaining Apostles the power to bind and to loose.After His death and resurrection, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people but mostly to the Apostles.The Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles, opened their minds and gave them courage.As Jesus had instructed them, they went out and preached.
  He said to the disciples, “Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me.”
  
  The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church in existence today that can trace an unbroken lineage to these men and the Church Jesus promised.
  
  1 Christian church from 1st century to 431 (first schism – Assyrian Church), 451 (Oriental Orthodox)
  Then nothing for 600 years. 11th Century saw the Eastern Orthodoxy split
  From year 1 of Christianity and the following 1,500 years you had 4 Christian Churches in the world.
  In the 500 or so years since the “reformation” you now have 41,000 Christian Churches.
  Who is the God of unity and who is the god of division?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 5:01pm
  For crying out loud @FAITH, do a simple search before you call people names and make yourself look like an uneducated fool.
  
  Look up Pope Honorius I
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 5:06pm
  … and your alleged “unbroken lineage” was never claimed until 200 years after the last Apostle died. It was an afterthought. It was like… Oh yeah.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 5:17pm
  And I forgot to add… so much for the doctrine of infallibility.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:26pm
  Pope Honorius was much respected and died with an untarnished reputation. Few popes did more for the restoration and beautifying of churches of Rome, and he has left us his portrait in the apsidal mosaic of Sant Agnese fueri le mura. He cared also for the temporal needs of the Romans by repairing the aqueduct of Trajan. His extant letters show him engaged in much business. He supported the Lombard King Adalwald, who had been set aside as mad by an Arian rival. He succeeded, to some extent, with the emperor’s assistance, in reuniting the schismatic metropolitan See of Aquileia to the Roman Church. He wrote to stir up the zeal of the bishops of Spain, and St. Braulio of Saragossa replied.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:30pm
  doctrine of infallibility, yet one more topic you a ignorant of
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:18pm
  @FAITH, you must not be a Catholic.
  
  The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.” (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:40pm
  @theother
  Why don’t you correctly cite wikipedia as the source for that? It is obvious that you copied it from wikipedia who quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don’t think the way you cite (when you actually do cite) is honest at all. Give credit to the website who actually looked at the Catholic Encyclopedia, don’t try to make it appear as if you read it from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If I tried that while writing my research papers, I’d have some major problems.
  The wikipedia page you read continues to explain that in the first vatican council, it was decided that the issue with Pope Honorius I was “not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma (Papal infallibility). This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra) [2], and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.”
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:41pm
  @theother
  What do you know, two sides to every story. The honest truth seeker tries to look at all sides of a story.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 9:33am
  theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:50pm
  @FAITH
  
  Here’s another kicker for you. Are you aware that in your alleged “progression” of alleged “Popes,” from Peter on, at least one of those “Popes” did not even profess a faith in Jesus Christ?
  
  I know this is hard for you to do, but try stay on the same point you originally made.
  Still waiting on you to prove any “Pope who did not profess a faith in Jesus”
  
  If you would like, I could give you a list of Popes who did some really dispicable unchristian things.
  But I devy you to prove just one who did not profess a faith in Jesus
  
  The list of things you are wrong about keeps growing
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 12:38pm
  Hey Other,
  Where did you go. Truth repells your lies
  What did Pope Honorius do that was so bed
  He was teaching that Christ has only one will, the divine will, in contrast with the teaching that He has both a divine will and a human will.
  
  How does that coinside with “at least one of those “Popes” did not even profess a faith in Jesus Christ?”
  
  Pope Honorius defiantly believed Jesus Christ was divine.
  So which is it? Are you ignorant, or just a liar?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 4:44pm
  JOEY8 the honest truth seeker.
  
  If anything you’ve written on this board were submitted for a grade, I would pity the outcome.
  
  The quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I noted. I see no reason to give a citation to wikepedia for using the same words that I used.
  
  And in true Mormon attack/misdirect/lie/cheat/whatever mode, you will take off down a rabbit trail, looking for any reason to discredit me, therefore in your immature mind disqualifying my argument. Maybe we should call you JOEYBIDEN8, since Biden used that same intellectually dishonest tactic last night.
  
  And while mentioning Honorius, of course you perpetrate a lie by stopping short of the truth. This is an intrinsic problem with the Mormon thought process, and should be addressed at the temple level.
  
  Get it? Temple level?
  
  Wikepedia goes on to say that:
  
  “More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
  
  This was done to cover the error and preserve the tradition of infallibility and Apostolic progression of the Pope.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 5:30pm
  @FAITH
  
  Why must every one of your comments contain an attack on someone’s character? We point out error in your religious beliefs for discussion, which are clearly not Biblical, and that makes you so angry that you must resort to character assassinations? Maybe you should entertain yourself some other way.
  
  Did you watch Beck’s radio program today? He was talking about poor debaters, and even he agrees that’s immature. You might think being a jerk gives more weight to your argument but it just makes you look like a jerk.
  
  In all sincerity as my memory serves me, there was a Pope who did not profess a belief in Jesus Christ. I will concede that it may have been a Bishop, but there was at least one of either. But since I don’t have that info readily at my fingertips, and since it does not impact my argument either way, I’ll concede that particular argument for the moment, and I even apologize if you are genuinely insulted, but I will reserve the right to bring it up again if I find the time or ambition to do the research.
  
  Fair enough?
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 15, 2012 at 9:01am
  OTHER
  “We point out error in your religious beliefs for discussion, which are clearly not Biblical” Wrong
  It is clearly Biblical that Peter had a mother-in-law at the time of Jesus…the Bible is silent on the status of a wife. You are following the teachings of man if you state (as you did) that Peter had a wife during his time with Jesus.
  Secondly, you boldly and arrogantly posted that “at least one of those “Popes” did not even profess a faith in Jesus Christ”. Now you are not admitting you are wrong, just don’t have the information to defend your statement.
  Did I attack your faith? No. You did that.
  Did I point out you were spreading untruths and prove it? Yes I did.
  So what do you do? Result to passive aggressive whining. “why are you so mad, blah blah, all I did was ask a question blah blah.
  You find me angry? I didn’t threaten you, you did that.
  
  I did ask you a question, which are you?
  I’ll provide the definitions of each word so you will understand my context:
  Ignorance – 1- lack of knowledge or education. 2 – unawareness of something.
  Lie – to say something that is not true in a conscious effort to deceive somebody
  
  Report this comment
RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:19am
Umm, Mr. Pope sir, great things aren’t gonna happen until that MONUMENT TO FILTH, CALIGULA’S OBELISK, IS REMOVED FROM VATICAN SQUARE! Then, Priests must be allowed to marry (Women only, Mr. Pope, if you please) in order for the Catholic Church to get back to it’s rightful place in today’s World.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- chucksue351
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:09am
  if you remove all of the pagan traditions in the church there would be very little left
  
  Report this comment
- joboww
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:17am
  yeah like wearing a ring for marriage….wait oh dont mention that because protestants do that….
  The OBELISK is conquered by the cross, get over it, your eyes are apparently confused.
  IT is not a necessity to have married clergy, especially to take advice from the dying protestant communities. But thanks for the advice, and for your wonderful women ministers
  
  Report this comment
- JACKTHETOAD
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:40am
  The obelisk is conquered by the Cross? What the hell do you think this is? A Dracula movie? Ok, then. Take it down gently and put that obscene memorial somewhere else.
  
  Report this comment
- tradcatholicgirl
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:47am
  Righ,
  
  Are you Catholic? Catholics know that priests are married to the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Priests are His apostolic representatives on earth. So they follow him by giving all to their Bride.
  
  But a married priest can only give part of himself to the Church and reserve the rest for his family. A priest cannot have two spouses. He cannot be a good husband to both.
  
  Theology of Catholicism is for people who are willing to study and think deeply about it. Not for those who surf the wave of cultural change.
  
  God Bless You.
  
  Report this comment
- proliance
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:58am
  The obelisk predates Caligula by 2500 years. Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 9:21am
  Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
  Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: “Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage.”
  This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:38am
  Peter was married. Duh.
  
  Report this comment
- joboww
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 10:59am
  We dont dispute that duh…..so your point?….or is it just duh…..
  
  as to Jack
  
  the oblisk in the square is there as a reminder that Christ conquored the pagan world by his church (body) Now if you cant comprehend symbols there is no help for you. Got it? Not hard to understand, unless you yourself are upset that the pagans met there end when they were converted by Christ.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 11:13am
  The Bible says Peter had a mother-in-law
  It does not say he has a wife. Where is his wife mentioned in the Bible?
  
  If a mans wife dies today, and his wifes mother is still alive, is she not still his mother-in-law?
  
  Could you be following the traditions of man?
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:27pm
  Matt 8:14 says Peter’s “wife” [s] mother.
  
  Sheesh.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 12:37pm
  congradulations you have successfully proved Peter has a mother-in-law
  now try proving he has a living breathing wife at the same time
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 1:13pm
  Hey @FAITH, try proving to us that you have a brain. LoL
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 2:23pm
  That’s simple, I can type
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 5:07pm
  I’ll bet you can’t chew gum at the same time.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 6:16pm
  Just did,
  you are wrong again
  
  Report this comment
- Joey8
  Posted on October 11, 2012 at 7:28pm
  @theother
  Why do you feel it necessary to be rude and insulting when you fail at proving your point? Are we somehow at fault when you are wrong? Why do you take it out on other people when you fail? I’m disappointed that you would make assumptions on Peter having a living wife when the scriptures aren’t clear on it, you are usually pretty adamant on “if the Bible doesn’t say it, it didn’t happen”.
  I think the real argument is being missed. People can try and argue why Jesus added new commandments when He came (love one another) and changed the definition of adultery (not just the physical action, but in your heart), but the argument isn’t why He did it, it is did He have the authority to do it. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Great Jehovah (like I do), then you don’t question what He adds or changes. The same applies for the Catholic Church. Although I’m not Catholic, I believe they have a valid argument when it comes to having God’s authority that He gave to Peter. The question isn’t about anything added, it’s about if the authority is there to make changes or to implement teachings like priests being celibate. Protestants don’t have any footing when it comes to authority because none of the original reformers claimed to have been called of God.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on October 12, 2012 at 5:45pm
  JOEY8
  
  You certainly have a corner on the rude and condescending remarks. I noticed you stopped spewing them when it started coming back to you. Wise move. It spares us all that immature garbage.
  
  I think you are trying to make some point about “Authority” above, but I can’t figure out what it is. The Bible has told us that Jesus has all Authority in heaven and earth, and we haven’t seen it exercised by a man since the last Apostle died. So what’s your point? Do you have evidence of the “Authority” of Christ, that was used in Biblical times to perform miracles, signs and wonders, evident in someone today? If not, then you have no evidence of any “Authority.”
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.