News:

We have a new forums theme. This theme is mobile responsive and SEO compliant. The last one was not.
|CoR| Staff



Wiedmaier

Question About the Pope
« on: March 21, 2007, 09:39:07 AM »
How is it that Peter was the first Pope?  From what I read in acts, he lead the Jerusalem church, and Paul was the one who went to Rome.

And in Mark 1:30 it says "But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her."  So, Peter was married.  How come the Popes can't have wifes if Peter was the first pope and he had a wife?

I just don't get it, can someone explain this?

Guardian

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2007, 11:36:00 AM »
How is it that Peter was the first Pope?  From what I read in acts, he lead the Jerusalem church, and Paul was the one who went to Rome.

And in Mark 1:30 it says "But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her."  So, Peter was married.  How come the Popes can't have wifes if Peter was the first pope and he had a wife?

I just don't get it, can someone explain this?

Peter was the leader of the Jerusalem Church?  Where'd you get that?  The one that seems to exercise the authority as the leader of the Church of Jerusalem is James, the brother of Jesus.  Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13, 19, and Acts 21:18.

I believe even the Romans acknowledge James as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

Even in Galatians, Paul mentions James as the first of the three men named as pillars of the faith:
Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Peace and God Bless!
~Brandon D. Watts
~Guardian
~General of *FR*, |CoR|
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

Wiedmaier

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2007, 12:15:39 PM »
oops, your'e right, I got those two mixed up.  I always mix them up for some reason.

But the mother in law thing.  How can they advocate celibacy when the first pope was married?

|CoR| CrossFire

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2007, 01:38:27 PM »
there's probably one word that was translated as mother-in-law but that can also mean great-aunt, cousin's mother, uncle, and brother.

Guardian

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2007, 03:12:49 PM »
I believe the Catholics realize that the Bible does allow for "Bishops/Elders" to marry.  But the Roman Church has increased the requirements, appealing to:

1 Corinthians 7:7-9  For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.  -8-  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.  -9-  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

They say that it is good for them to be celibate like Paul in his ministry.  If they want to marry, they can focus on another aspect of ministry separate from that of what they refer to as "the priesthood."

You can dance with them all day long on it, but there simply is no requirement in scripture that a minister of the Gospel must be unmarried and celibate, quite the opposite.  The Roman church just asks that their priests be completely committed to the church and kingdom, and not be divided in their attentions between church and family.

Peace and God Bless!
~Brandon D. Watts
~Guardian
~General of *FR*, |CoR|
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

|CoR| Vette

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2007, 05:31:00 PM »
Answer: because they don't believe that the Bible is the only authority on matters of faith, therefore they can make up any rules and regulations that they see fit.  All they have to do is get one of their "infallible" popes to declare it to be so, and it is so.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!




Cletus

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2007, 06:05:23 PM »
In Claveau's last rant before he departed, he said Catholics were the only ones to take the Bible literally, but the requirements for a bishop say "a husband of one wife." A literal interpretation is a bishop must be married.
1 Picture = 1e3 words -Dr. Bowen

1 pferdestarke = 735.498 75 watts

1 crith = 0.000198163 pounds

1 momme  = 0.036 774 938 Newtons

Most awesomest website ever

|CoR| Crutch

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2007, 08:47:33 AM »
Not exactly appropriate Crutch, sorry buddy, had to delete this one.

-Guardian
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 10:24:05 AM by |CoR| Guardian »

|CoR| Crutch

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2007, 06:53:34 AM »
LOL, np man. I apologize, I thought it would be funny. On the other hand it was insensitive. So to anyone I offended, I apologize.

Thats the first post thats ever been deleted, that I have made. Whoa. =-O


|CoR| Smiley

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2007, 11:18:35 AM »
I seem to recall (and no disrespect intended, and correct me if I'm wrong) that the direction for priests to not marry came along sometime during the Middle Ages.
If memory serves, it had to do with several factors, including the costs to the church for priests to have families, the sexual dalliances of some priests, and the distractions of having a family to care for, and a "family" to shepherd with their churches.
Have you punted a gnome today?
-----------------------------------------------

datank

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2007, 12:52:28 AM »
What's interesting is that in the Eastern Orthodox Church if you want to be a bishop you are celibate.  If you want to be an elder (pastor) you have to be married before your ordained.  (If I remember my History I Course correctly)
"There is no real reason for half of the threads created on this forum." - me

|CoR| Teb:
Quote
I'm locking this.  There is no real reason for this thread.

Merlin

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2007, 08:15:13 PM »
Weidmeir,

 
Quote
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine[/i]—a central and irreformable part of the faith, believed by Catholics to come from Jesus and the apostles. Thus some Fundamentalists make a great deal of a biblical reference to Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30), apparently supposing that, if Catholics only knew that Peter had been married, they would be unable to regard him as the first pope. Again, Fundamentalist time lines of "Catholic inventions" (a popular literary form) assign "mandatory priestly celibacy" to this or that year in Church history, as if prior to this requirement the Church could not have been Catholic.

These Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.

Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.

The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.

 www.catholic.com NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 200

Dr. Wiggy

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2007, 10:46:15 AM »
Wait.............

It still doesn't make sense Biblically.......... Because they're enforcing a 'law' which has no scriptural base......


God Bless,
Doc
Chain of Command: God. Duty. Honor. Country. The honorable freak of nature; Dr. Wiggy presiding.

1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
(KJV)

*GI*'s Most Ruthless Forum Admin 2010
*GI*'s Most quotable Forum Admin 2010

Guardian

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2007, 02:20:56 PM »
Wait.............

It still doesn't make sense Biblically.......... Because they're enforcing a 'law' which has no scriptural base......


God Bless,
Doc

Lots of churches enforce "laws" which have no scriptural basis.  Though they like to call them different names when they're the ones making them, so not to sound too "catholic" probably.  How about this one:  "Go to church every Sunday and Wednesday night if you want to be a member"  Now I know the scriptures say don't forsake the gathering of yourselves, don't forsake the body, etc.  But, I don't recall it saying be at church twice a week.  Certainly its a good thing, but for some churches its a "law" of membership.

In the same way, the Catholics go by a Biblical principle "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," and they make it a standard.  There are plenty of positions from which a person can serve in the Catholic church, but those that go into the priesthood they expect to be completely undistractedly dedicated to the church.  It may not be necessary, but it is admirable that so many men have willingly done so to serve the Lord, and many of those priests will tell you what a blessing it has been.  And considering so many have been willing, I think its a good way to weed out the truly dedicated from the only partially so.  The life of the Catholic priest is sacrifice.  It is one area I do respect the Roman church on.  Not one I'd want to implement into my own church or life, but an admirable thing nonetheless.

Peace and God Bless!
~Brandon D. Watts
~Guardian
~General of *FR*, |CoR|
When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing anything. - G.K. Chesterton

|CoR| Xphile

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2007, 02:39:16 PM »
Paul didn't seem to like the idea of celibacy as a requirement:

Quote from: 1 Corinthians 9:5 - NIV
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife with us when we travel? The other apostles do. The Lord's brothers do. Peter does.
Always have your stuff when you need it with @Dropbox. 2GB account is free! http://db.tt/f9OzdnS

Merlin

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2007, 04:54:27 AM »
Yes it does not sound like it :),  I can't remember if it was Peter or Paul who said
Quote
1 Corinthians 7 Found 6

9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.
  Pretty much I feel it is saying if you can not be celibate then you should be married.

Stain.

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2007, 10:15:41 AM »
Quote from: 1 corinthians 7:1-11
   1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

    8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Context says NOTHING about celebacy.  Again, you have NOTHING to support your argument.
Evga 680i A1 | e6600 @ (testing oc's) | 7900gs ko | G.Skill 2x2gb 800mhz 4.5.4.15 | antec trio 550w | zalman 9500at | WD se16 250GB | WD 500gb | Seagate 500gb | p180b (modded) (1.25tb)
Just gestimate where the bomb-site is, and hold the action button - R4nger
I dropped my stupid phone in the toilet.... - R4nger
**Eleet computer builder club - Master builder**
Need a PC, send me a pm/email.  I'll build it for ya.
1TB Club | 80gb club
Need someone prank'd?  Hit me up.
crutch - All you gotta do is throw a twinkie on the ground and I'm done.
Anti DB Squad.
I flirt.

Neoinarien

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2007, 06:48:13 PM »
It was an established fact in the early Church that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, martyred around the same time as Paul in the mid 60's. Early tradition and modern tradition alike holds that he was crucified upside down, because he did not feel himself worthy to die in the same way as Jesus.

This is also the reason why you see an upside down cross associated with the Episcopacy of Rome/Pope.

|CoR| Whyte Horseman

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2007, 01:04:19 AM »
The Early Roman Catholic Church's tradition mean nothing to me.  I believe Peter was crucified upside down, but not that he was the first pope.  There is no sufficient evidence for this, besides Catholic tradition and that one verse that doesn't say peter was the first pope. 
Ranger "Just guesstimate where the bombsite is and hold the action button."  the action button... silly noob

FightingFat

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2007, 04:01:46 AM »
The Early Roman Catholic Church's tradition mean nothing to me.  I believe Peter was crucified upside down, but not that he was the first pope.  There is no sufficient evidence for this, besides Catholic tradition and that one verse that doesn't say peter was the first pope. 

What about the defference shown by all the early councils to the Bishop of Rome?
"Social justice can never be attained through violence, violence only destroys what it intends to create" ~Pope John Paul II

Merlin

Re: Question About the Pope
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2007, 09:41:43 AM »
*takes on his trucker cb voice* Here's the deal:  I would like to invite you guys over to the Catholic Forum, that way we can discuss whatever you wish and we can hear other Catholic opinions then my own.  Here is the link, and I believe the appropriate board would be the inter-religious board I think it is called?  Anyways post back what board you started in so I can follow it over there! http://forums.catholic.com/index.php?

Black Knight

Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2007, 02:00:43 PM »
Wait.............

It still doesn't make sense Biblically.......... Because they're enforcing a 'law' which has no scriptural base......


God Bless,
Doc
Really? I beg to differ...

How do you figure unBiblical?
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
"6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt."

Revelation 14:1-5

1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
2: And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
3: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
5: and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

...And just what's unhistorical about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe.

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn...

1st Corinthians 9:5 "5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Paul certainly had the right...but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were married... this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scriptural reasons for celibate clergy regardless of the change that the deformers brought about in the 1500's because some of them couldn't hack it... This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers...this still does NOT negate Christ's own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier...Nor St.Paul's own statement to that effect that I also cited.

If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn't made these statements, then we'd have nothing to discuss...but your flat refusal to even acknowledge that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just "cherry picking". I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married...we have some married priests today and that is fine...

Titus 1:6 "6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly"
Same as above...

1st Timothy 4:1-3 "1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 "Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats"... He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) "unBiblical" as I hope is apparent from my posts.

Blackie
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum
The Peace of the Lord be always with you.
Matthew 10:11 And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. 12 And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. 13 And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.