Electing a new Pope

[newstart2380]

Can we vote for Julia ? she seems to think she is G almighty.

[godsandmen]

Actually Meep, the Bible teaches that a bishop (overseer, elder) MUST be married! One can argue that this does not include priests, but let's fact it, "priests", in the Catholic sense, are not found at all in the New Testament.

I Timothy 3:1-2

This a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

Don't forget, even Peter was married.

While it's true that Paul encouraged people to remain as he was - unmarried - this was NOT directed at any priesthood, but to everyday believers. And it was not a "requirement", but merely a suggestion. Paul did NOT forbid marriage.

I'm no fan of fundagelical Christianity, but at least they try to follow the Bible, not the teachings of men. There is no actual scriptural justification for "priests" at all. The biggest mistake of Catholicism is that they give equal authority to the Pope and to Catholic tradition and decrees as they do the Bible. Many, if not most, of this "stuff added to the Bible" that the Catholics have instituted actually contradicts the Bible. Who are you going to believe? Some Pope, or the Bible? At least fundagelicals try stick to the Bible. I give them credit for that at least.

Having said that, I should also add that, though I quoted from 1 Timothy, I do not think that book should even be in the New Testament. All of the pastoral epistles, which claim to be written by Paul, are VERY late, and were NOT written by Paul. The pastorals reflect a much later proto-catholic state of the church, when authoritarian hierarchy was already creeping in. It's nowhere near as bad in that respect as what later became Catholicism, but you can see the roots beginning to develop in the pastorals. The pastorals were written well into the second century.

Paul's view of church hierarchy is very different from that of the pastorals. His churches had no pastors or priests or any kind of authoritarian structure. His churches were like the church at Corinth, where the only structure was one of each person contributing to the church via their particular gifts of the spirit. Paul believed Jesus was going to come during his lifetime, so he saw no need for any kind of authoritarian structure besides the Holy Spirit.

Paul would not have agreed with the author of the pastorals, in that he saw no need for this kind of church organization. He saw no need for bishops or elders at all, so the fact that Paul would have disagreed with the pastorals doesn't mean he would have wanted MORE structure than that found in those epistles, but LESS.

[azureline**]

why do you want priests to be married?

[godsandmen]

why do you want priests to be married?

Not sure if that question was directed at me, but I'll answer it.

Why do I want priests to be married? I don't. The author of 1 Timothy did. I don't think there's anything wrong with a priest choosing to remain celibate, but I think it's wrong to make that a requirement. Let's fact it, mandatory celibacy hasn't worked out so well in the Catholic church, and it certainly isn't biblical. They went against the Bible, requiring priests to be celibate, thus no doubt attracting gays who feel guilty about their gayness. They join the priesthood as a sort of penance for their "sinful" urges. And now all this pedophilia stuff. It could have all been avoided if they simply made celibacy optional, like Paul did.

[godsandmen]

On an unrelated note, I love reading the many books that didn't make it into the New Testament. Well, another book was found in 1910, the translation of which is only now being made public. It's a book that goes back about 1200 years, which is still pretty late. It wasn't even written until after the New Testament canon was already in place. Still, it has some pretty interesting elements. In this version of the life of Jesus, Jesus is a shape-shifter and could become invisible at will!

Link

[**meep**]

It will come as no surprise to you Gods that I disagree with you.  I can clearly see the Church's justification for celibacy of the clergy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm   

Celibacy = pedophilia?  This would make for an interesting topic..  How do  Buddhist monks cope?

[**meep**]

Leonardo da Vinci's 'The Last Supper': A newly deciphered manuscript claims Jesus could change shape at will and in fact had his last supper with Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect who sentenced him to death

Shape shifting Jesus. Sure, why not.....

[azureline**]

It will come as no surprise to you Gods that I disagree with you.  I can clearly see the Church's justification for celibacy of the clergy:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm   

Celibacy = pedophilia?  This would make for an interesting topic..  How do  Buddhist monks cope?

I disagree too..... seriously, how could any thinking person suppose that it is connected in any way?

Married men also commit these crimes..... single men......

[**meep**]

I'm no fan of fundagelical Christianity, but at least they try to follow the Bible

:^O  Funny you should say that.  I have recently been told that by a friend who left the Catholic Church to join one of the 'fundagelicals' and now I get this "at least we follow the Bible"   

I don't get into discussions because I am not interested (i get my fix here :-D)  She converted because of her new partner.  He was recently baptised because that is what Jesus did.  baptized as an adult.   According to my friend, that is when their lives change.  After Baptism.  So what happens before then?  For the first 30  yrs of their lives?  

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Eve, from your link: "a vow of chastity...... any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege."

So, any transgression against the vow of chastity is 'sin' and 'sacrilege' - I would think 'child abuse' would be a transgression against the vow of chastity and therefore sacrilege. what's the punishment for sacrilege again??

PS I was going to leave it as you suggested .... but since you answered godsandmen :-x

This must be something of a first . I actually agree with something that godsandmen has written.

"Actually Meep, the Bible teaches that a bishop (overseer, elder) MUST be married! One can argue that this does not include priests, but let's fact it, "priests", in the Catholic sense, are not found at all in the New Testament.

I Timothy 3:1-2

This a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.

Don't forget, even Peter was married."

Who is this Peter? I remember, the one the Catholic Church claims was the first Pope - so even Pope's used to marry by that logic.

[godsandmen]

Celibacy = pedophilia?  This would make for an interesting topic..  How do  Buddhist monks cope?

That's a good point, and you might be right. Maybe celibacy and pedophilia are unrelated, but I doubt it. I have a hard time believing there is no connection. The difference between gay Catholics and gay Buddhists is that Buddhists are not conditioned from birth to see homosexuality as sinful and evil, whereas Catholics are. A gay Catholic, who has guilt because of his sexuality, might be inclined to enter the priesthood a) to force themselves into a lifestyle where expressing their "sinful" sexuality is forbidden, thereby "overcoming" it, and 2) a guilt-ridden gay Catholic might choose that path out of guilt, feeling perhaps that his he must devote his life to God as a sort of penance for their sexuality. Buddhists on the other hand, have no such concept of sin and guilt, and therefore none of these motivations would drive a Buddhist into becoming a Buddhist monk.