Grand Jury report on Catholic Church sex abuse in Pennsylvania

Because they were busy creating the bible that why. They are the ones who put the New Testament together out of many many books and letters that were written. They were the inspired minds that had the insight to KNOW which books were worthy to be included in the New Testament.

But you know-- who cares what they said-- most of them were celibates anyway.

If you say that these geezer put the bible together and I'm full of shit, show me where they refute my interpretation of 1 Timothy 3. Remember, they were the ones who created the bible, that includes 1 Timothy 3.
 
The point is though man that there are positions upon which good sincere people and Christians will disagree on even after consulting scripture. We have not and will not all agree on this no matter how much we argue about it.
Nope we're not all going to get along nor will we agree all the time even within our ingroups. To show such a facade seldom passes the sniff test.
 
I guess it's safe to assume these child molester priests don't believe in heaven and hell. The Pope should make a death penalty exception for them.
 
If you say that these geezer put the bible together and I'm full of shit, show me where they refute my interpretation of 1 Timothy 3. Remember, they were the ones who created the bible, that includes 1 Timothy 3.


Dude-- they were celibate priests...... that's what many of these geezers as you so disrespectfully call them were. The ones who compiled the new testament.

"Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times. While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century."
 
Nope we're not all going to get along nor will we agree all the time even within our ingroups. To show such a facade seldom passes the sniff test.[/QUOTE


Agreed and since we cannot always agree and seldom change one another minds and since there are points where reasonable people will disagree I choose not to put focus on those areas over and above love for one another.
 
Dude-- they were celibate priests...... that's what many of these geezers as you so disrespectfully call them were. The ones who compiled the new testament.

"Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times. While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century."

And? How's that overturn Paul's letter to Timothy? Were Augustine, Cyril, and Jerome more qualified on determining the qualifications of leading the church as opposed to Paul?
 
And? How's that overturn Paul's letter to Timothy? Were Augustine, Cyril, and Jerome more qualified on determining the qualifications of leading the church as opposed to Paul?


It overturns your wrong understanding of that one single scripture -- obviously. The new testament was compiled by celibate priests man..... how can you not see the connection?
 
It overturns your wrong understanding of that one single scripture -- obviously. The new testament was compiled by celibate priests man..... how can you not see the connection?

Then show me where they refute me! Is that so hard?
 
While you are looking up Sola Scriptura because you did not even know that your entire understanding rests upon an unbiblical position here are some foot notes to help you out.

Where do Protestants get the idea that the Bible alone is the highest authority for Christians? Is this taught anywhere in the Bible?

Actually, no. Pretty much all of the verses to which Protestants usually point to answer this question indeed speak highly of the authority of Scripture and its importance for the people of God (e.g. Psalm 119, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, et al), but none of them say that the Bible alone is the only authority.

No only that, but the Bible upholds the authority of oral tradition alongside Scripture in contradiction of sola scriptura. In 2 Thessalonians 2.15, St. Paul writes: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” St. Paul is saying that his teachings are authoritative, whether he gave them by speaking (oral tradition) or writing (Scripture).

2) It can’t explain where we got the Bible
If the Bible is the only authority for Christians, then where did Christians get the Bible in the first place? Who determined what books should be in the Bible?

God did not hand Christians a fully compiled Bible out of the sky. Rather, God inspired many different writers over the course of many centuries to write the various books of the Bible. And then God inspired the Catholic Church, wielding apostolic authority and relying on oral tradition of what books are inspired, to definitively compile the biblical canon in the 4th century.

This means that the biblical canon itself depends on the very authority of oral tradition and ecclesiastical authority that Protestants reject.

3) It doesn’t work
The Bible has to be interpreted. Even when people think it’s clear what the Bible is saying, they are interpreting it. The problem is different Christians often interpret the Bible in contradictory, mutually exclusive ways. When that happens (and it happens constantly), how does the Christian church settle disagreements and safeguard the Gospel truth God has revealed in Jesus Christ?

Because if Christians can’t agree on what the Gospel is, they can’t fulfill their responsibility to preach it.

Sola scriptura offers no way out of these disagreements, except for Christians to split and go their separate ways – hence, myriad denominations. But this is a problem, too, because the Bible teaches that division among Christians is a sin (cf. 1 Cor 1.10ff, et al)!

The way out of this problem is the way of the very Catholic Church that Protestants reject, the way dating back to the early Church established by Jesus: Christ gave the Apostles authority to teach and govern the Church, authority which they passed on to bishops all the way to the present day in succession. This apostolic authority doesn’t trump the Word of God (passed down in written Scripture and oral Tradition), but rather is guided by the Holy Spirit to safeguar
d it for every generation.

@babycart
 
I dont need to because Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine and your whole argument rests on it.

LOL! Now you backtrack. You said the geezers have refuted my interpretation as full of shit. Where is it now?

Funny thing: if Sola Scriptula (FYI of those not in the know: it's basing on the bible alone) is a man-made argument, the teachings of the old geezers are not? Then way back then, when they were writing their obras, where the hell did they get the basis of their doctrine if not relying on Sola Scriptula. Or are you saying they got their teachings pulled out from their asses? Or the pagan traditions appropriated by the geezers themselves? Why the double-standard?
 
LOL! Now you backtrack. You said the geezers have refuted my interpretation as full of shit. Where is it now?

Funny thing: if Sola Scriptula (FYI of those not in the know: it's basing on the bible alone) is a man-made argument, the teachings of the old geezers are not? Then way back then, when they were writing their obras, where the hell did they get the basis of their doctrine if not relying on Sola Scriptula. Or are you saying they got their teachings pulled out from their asses? Or the pagan traditions appropriated by the geezers themselves? Why the double-standard?

Just READ the post on Sola Scriptura. It answers very clearly the questions you just asked after clearly not reading the post.

But just for fun man-- how could these evil celibate priests rely on sola scriptura while creating the new testament? Think about this one man-- its important.
 
LOL, even your own resources support me!

While you are looking up Sola Scriptura because you did not even know that your entire understanding rests upon an unbiblical position here are some foot notes to help you out.

… No only that, but the Bible upholds the authority of oral tradition alongside Scripture in contradiction of sola scriptura. In 2 Thessalonians 2.15, St. Paul writes: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” St. Paul is saying that his teachings are authoritative, whether he gave them by speaking (oral tradition) or writing (Scripture).

Now show me where Paul refuted HIMSELF on this matter. Then show me where the geezers refuted Paul on this matter.
 
LOL, even your own resources support me!





Now show me where Paul refuted HIMSELF on this matter. Then show me where the geezers refuted Paul on this matter.[/QUOTE

How could these evil celibate priests rely on sola scriptura before and while compiling the new testament? How?
 
LOL, even your own resources support me!



Now show me where Paul refuted HIMSELF on this matter. Then show me where the geezers refuted Paul on this matter.




How could these evil celibate priests rely on sola scriptura before and while compiling the new testament? How?

Or-- where is the sola scriptura support for ONLY using scripture? Where?
 
I guess it's safe to assume these child molester priests don't believe in heaven and hell. The Pope should make a death penalty exception for them.
The pope knows about all this, he’s the head of the damn cult. That’s why the last pope retired and can’t leave Vatacin City without being arrested
He’s the third pope to retire, the last was in 1415
 
But just for fun man-- how could these evil celibate priests rely on sola scriptura while creating the new testament? Think about this one man-- its important.

Simple.

Validity. If it's written, it exists. With all the various churches spread out over the Mediterranean, local traditions can create friction (something Paul berated Peter on). A concrete letter is material evidence.

To be able to bind and gather Christians, the geezers need validity as an authority (provided by the scriptures) and appeal by combining the local customs, that's why we have sunday church and Christmas in December.
 
How could these evil celibate priests rely on sola scriptura before and while compiling the new testament? How?

Or-- where is the sola scriptura support for ONLY using scripture? Where?

Nope, I am not using 'scripture only' as my authority, I'm using Paul as my authority. Now show me where he (and I) is refuted. I'm waiting...
 
Simple.

Validity. If it's written, it exists. With all the various churches spread out over the Mediterranean, local traditions can create friction (something Paul berated Peter on). A concrete letter is material evidence.

To be able to bind and gather Christians, the geezers need validity as an authority (provided by the scriptures) and appeal by combining the local customs, that's why we have sunday church and Christmas in December.


So you resort to arguments from outside of scripture to support your position that I must only make points by quoting scripture? One of us already knew this at the beginning of this whole conversation. It was not you.

Now man I have allowed you to take up too much of my time. I dont even care if you keep your unbiblical sola scriptura position. I really dont. I dont think it means you are an idiot or not saved or anything like that. I hope it creates room in you to see things from other peoples perspectives and not just your own though. You are very rigid.
 
So you resort to arguments from outside of scripture to support your position that I must only make points by quoting scripture? One of us already knew this at the beginning of this whole conversation. It was not you.

Where did I argue from outside the scripture? I only used Paul's writings. You were the one bringing in the teachings of the geezers, not me. I asked you to show me where the geezers refuted Paul's letter. You failed to show.

Now man I have allowed you to take up too much of my time. I dont even care if you keep your unbiblical sola scriptura position. I really dont. I dont think it means you are an idiot or not saved or anything like that. I hope it creates room in you to see things from other peoples perspectives and not just your own though. You are very rigid.

LOL. Dicktuck.
 
Back
Top