Bible 1 Yr – Day 288 – Pass it on

Simple stuff today. But often the most simple is the most profound.

… and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

So Paul instructs Timothy to pass on the Gospel. Simple right? Of course he must do that. Duh!

But notice the simple and plain details. We must assume that the Holy Spirit phrased it this way for a reason (after all this is scripture).

Paul says, to pass on “what you have HEARD from ME”. Now, of course, that does not exclude passing on his letters or other writings but it goes again back to a theme we have seen throughout the Bible. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles to PREACH and TEACH. The Gospel comes from Jesus THROUGH THEM.

Paul says to entrust this teaching to “faithful men”. Who are these people?
Sometimes we know who to go to by knowing who to avoid.

Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.

2 Timothy 2:16-18

Recall that Hymenaeus was kicked out of the Church in the First letter to Timothy for heresy. Again, simple right, avoid heretics.

But notice Paul does not just warn against full blown heresy, he warns against ALL godless chatter. He is warning against speculation. He is warning against trying to figure it out on your own. He is warning against believing things apart from what the Apostles and their successors teach. This is apparently what Hymenaeus did and it acted like gangrene, until his faith was eaten away and he ended up denying the fullness of the resurrection and leaving the Church. (As an aside, consider Hymenaeus’ point of view. Do you think he thought he was doing anything wrong? Do you think he decided, “I know the Church is right but I am going to do what I want.” Or do you think he said to himself, “I prayed about it and X seems right TO ME. I disagree with Paul and Timothy, for good reasons, like A, B, and C. I think the Holy Spirit is guiding me. I’m going to start a church over here and teach what I think is right.” But to Paul, all that is irrelevant. Paul says nothing about Hymenaeus’ motives. He still is out of the Church because he is not conforming his beliefs to the teachings of the Church.)

Do you think this can’t happen today? What then of the Mormons or the Jehovah Witness, both who consider themselves Christians, but do this very thing, deny the fullness of the resurrection. What “chatter” do you participate in? Paul makes no distinction. He doesn’t say that a little bit of heresy is OK. Which denomination has just the right amount of truth? Hasn’t exactly what Paul warned about happened within the last 500 years of Protestantism? Are we not being led into more and more ungodliness? Now there are Christian churches that accept abortion, that support gay marriage. Need I go on?

Show me the passage in the Bible where Paul, or anyone else, says it is OK for you to believe some things that the Apostles teach but that you don’t have to believe others. Show me the passage in the Bible where Paul, or anyone else, says that it is OK to believe whatever you want as long as you hold to a few “essential” truths that everyone agrees on. Show me the passage in the Bible where Paul, or anyone else, says it is OK to leave the Church because you disagree with the teachings or think their interpretation is wrong?

Of course, you won’t find such a passage.

In fact, you only find the opposite. Over and over again the Scripture affirms certain truths. The Apostles and their successors speak for God. The Church is Jesus’ physical presence in the world until He returns. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. The Apostles have authority to Teach. The Church has authority to interpret scripture and settle controversies over what it means. What the Apostles bind on earth is bound in heaven and therefore cannot be error. To be outside the Church is to be in grave danger.

Hard lessons from such simple passages today. But notice, Paul tells Timothy, these hard things come from Love.

So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2 Timothy 2:22-26

Do you see what Paul is saying? He’s telling Timothy, “Look, try to correct these people but don’t get into a lengthy debate with them. You do what you have to do. You go forward in love. Keep teaching the truth and hope (and of course pray) that these people find their way back.”

This is why I write these posts. I would never consider myself equal to Timothy or Paul but we are all called to teach the truth in love. And the truth is that there is one Church founded by Jesus Christ. That is a historical fact and a spiritual reality. Paul tells us to be apart from that Church is to be in grave danger of eternal separation from God. That is because that one Church holds within it infinitely greater value than any other Church – truth free from error. It is my most sincere desire that by repeatedly showing this Truth to you that you might come to know it. That you might for one moment open you heart, and mind, and soul to this great Truth. That you might put aside your prejudices, false notions, and fears. That you might know what is true and in faith, follow it where it leads.

BONUS Footnote:

This passage is one of my favorite in Scripture:

10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

Does this passage not suggest that what we suffer can benefit others even to the point of assisting them to obtain salvation? If I suffer, say from an illness, and I offer that suffering as penance for the sins of another and so that they might convert and be saved. And if that person does ultimately convert, where they saved by faith alone? Again, God is creating a family, a body. Our actions can affect the salvation of others. What we do can, through the grace of God, be merit for others, even merit that aids in salvation.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bible Study, Catholic, Catholicism, Christianity and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Bible 1 Yr – Day 288 – Pass it on

  1. Chris Daley says:

    “Show me the passage in the Bible where Paul, or anyone else, says it is OK for you to believe some things that the Apostles teach but that you don’t have to believe others. Show me the passage in the Bible where Paul, or anyone else, says that it is OK to believe whatever you want as long as you hold to a few “essential” truths that everyone agrees on.”

    Romans 14:5King James Version (KJV)
    5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

    Romans 14:1-4King James Version (KJV)
    14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
    2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
    3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
    4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

    1 John 2:27King James Version (KJV)
    27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    Acts 15:28-29King James Version (KJV)
    28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
    29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

    Philippians 2:12King James Version (KJV)
    12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

  2. These verses suggest a role for conscience and I’ll grant you that there is a role for conscience. Jesus himself says, “when I had not spoken to them they had no sin but now that I have spoken to them their sin remains.”

    However, what Paul is talking about is rejection. People who are in the Church and despite having been taught the truth speculate about the meaning of the scripture and ultimately argue themselves out of faith in the Church.

    In this situation it is much more difficult to argue that out of ignorance that you have a clear conscience. When you are in the Church – you can ask. Yes, it is the duty of the pastors to teach but it is also the duty of the faithful to seek the truth from the Church – which Paul calls the “pillar and foundation” of truth.

    As some point speculation about novel interpretations of the scripture must give way to the overwhelming evidence that the Church has authority to teach.

    • Chris Daley says:

      “People who are in the Church and despite having been taught the truth speculate about the meaning of the scripture and ultimately argue themselves out of faith in the Church.”

      So I’m not supposed to “speculate” what scripture means, I’m just supposed to take the word of the church on what it means. If that’s the case, why even read it for ourselves? The church can just tell us what it says and what it means.

  3. You constantly set up false choices where there are none. Everyone should read and interpret the scriptures for themselves. However, sometimes your analysis will generate conclusions that you will suspect may be problematic. When that happens you should check what the Church has taught about the subject.

    That is exactly what Hymenaeus did NOT do. He read and speculated about the scripture and determined for himself that Jesus was not God so he ended up leaving the Church. In his case the danger was obvious.

    Other examples might be less obvious. Musso and I go round and round about single v. double predestination. It’s a mind numbingly complex subject. Either answer could be right. How do we determine which one is? We look to the Church and the great teachers and bishops who are authorized to preach and teach.

    You might be surprised to learn that the Church actually defines very little of what scripture actually means. I recall hearing once that the Church has only definitively declared the meaning of 20 verses of scripture. (I remember the number b/c that’s 1 verse a century). Even when the Church defines what a verse means it never says that that is the ONLY thing the verse means. You can still interpret it any way that you want provided that you interpretation is consistent with the official teaching.

    For example, I believe the Church defines that the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 means that the Bread and Wine is the actual body and blood of Jesus. You could read that and determine for yourself that it is ALSO a symbol but you could not personally interpret it to mean that it is ONLY a symbol. You could read it and determine that Jesus is ALSO talking about the scripture being the bread of life but you couldn’t interpret it to mean that Jesus is saying ONLY scripture is the bread of life.

    Although the Church has dogmas it is not as dogmatic as people assume. Dogma, which is just proper teaching, is like the rules of the road. Because we have rules we can reach our destination more quickly and assuredly. If we had no rules (and everyone could drive whichever way they wanted) we would have chaos and disorder. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what we see in Protestantism – who can barely agree on what’s essential to the faith let alone the meaning of those essentials resulting in – by some estimates – 30k denominations. Could the Holy Spirit really be the source of such great disorder? Did Jesus really come to found 30k different systems each claiming to be the correct interpretation of the bible? Of course not.

    Jesus founded a Church to which he gave authority to preach and teach. That teaching has been passed down faithfully for 2,000 years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We can confirm this by looking at the extra-biblical writings of the first Christians, which are remarkably consistent with the teaching of today’s Church. Those teachings and that Church are the road signs, the guideposts, the markers on the road to salvation that give us the clearest and most consistent way to reach our destination.

  4. Chris Daley says:

    “You can still interpret it any way that you want provided that you interpretation is consistent with the official teaching.”

    That’s like saying you can do it however you want, as long as you do it this way.

    Case in point, I believe that when Christ told us to call no man father,

    Matthew 23:8-10King James Version (KJV)
    8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
    9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
    10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

    , He was commanding us to not use it as a title, ie, Father Bob, but we could use it in a description of a family relationship ie “Bill Daley is my father” . I look at it as a simple command. I look at it that since the Apostles listened to Jesus continually refer to God as “Father”, why would they start calling themselves, Father Peter, or Father James, or Father John, with them knowing full well what Jesus taught them about who the Father truly is.

    But my interpretation is wrong, because the church doesn’t see it like that and they have all these explanations why they choose to call the priests “father”. And you have given me all the explanations of why the church feels like it can go against this simple command. This is something I will never understand. You want me to believe when Christ said this My flesh and blood, He meant His real flesh and blood, but don’t believe Christ when He told us to call no man father, because He really didn’t mean it. Then why did he say it?

  5. “Call no man father” is an excellent example.

    First, in Matthew 18 Jesus said when 2 people dispute you “go tell it to the Church and if they fail to listen to the Church let them be as a gentile and a tax collector.” We see this play out in Acts 15 when the deacon Nicholas disagrees with how the OT commandment to circumcise is to be interpreted. Nicholas thought that “this was a simple command” and why it wasn’t being enforced was “something he will never understand”. But the Apostles ruled that it was no longer necessary for Christians to follow this simple clear rule. But Nicholas continued to disagree so he left the church and founded a sect called the Nicolaitans. After all, God command it in the OT. If the Father didn’t mean it “why did he say it”? Well we find out what Jesus thinks of all this in Revelations 2 when He says, “I HATE the works of the Nicolatians”. He says “hate”. So ask yourself aren’t you reasoning exactly like Nicholas and what would Jesus think about it?

    Second, notice how you write an exception into this “simple command”. No where does it say natural fathers are excepted. You right that in b/c you have to b/c you call your natural father “father”. But Jesus says call NO man father. A simple command, right? From the outset your interpretation is suspect. Plus we know that Paul, who was an Apostle and met the resurrected Jesus called himself father to his converts, his spiritual children. Was he wrong? Finally, no Christian – none – interpreted the call no man father verse the way you do until AFTER the reformation. So for 1,500 years everyone else just missed it? All this is to say you are not being objective. You are not arguing from evidence and logic. You are arguing form feeling and emotion. You have something that you “don’t like”. Its probably related to what we have discussed before. But as an exercise of whether you position is defensible biblically, logically or historically it simply isn’t

    Which again brings us back to Nicholas and Hymenaeus. Both didn’t like what the Church decided so they stamped their feet and took their ball and went home. In both cases we see the bible telling us this was the wrong thing to do. When you say, “This is something I will never understand.” How is that any different form Nicholas and Hymenaeus. Its time to stop stamping your feet.

    Finally, how to interpret things like the Bread of Life discourse is exactly the the reason for the Church. After 2,000 years how do we know when Jesus was speaking figuratively or literally? Paul has already told us how. He says to “hold fast to the traditions that I have passed onto you whether by word of mouth or written epistle.” That simple and plain there is the written AND THE ORAL tradition. And if you read the passage closely you see the Paul was most directly speaking of always adhering to the TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION of Scripture. So the traditional interpretation of “call no man father” is that it is not a “simple command” not to use the title father but a simple command to give no man the honor due to the Father alone (remember the Roman emperors wanted this honor and the Catholics refusal unto death to deify him was based in part on this command of Jesus). The traditional interpretation of the Bread of Life discourse is that Jesus was speaking literally. The Church studies this tradition and knows it like song, it lives it, it breathes it, it is an organic part of the Church and guided by the Holy Spirit it keeps it safe and true.

    Yes, “call no man father” is a perfect example. It reveals how despite all the evidence to the contrary in the bible, in history and in logic the human ego can still (as Peter says) “twist scripture to their own destruction”. Jesus didn’t set it up this. He prayed in the garden for unity among Christians to be the same as the unity between Him and the Father. He founded one Church. He gave it authority. He gave example after example after example. He begs, he pleads, he says he “longs” to eat his Passover Supper with you. I beg, I plead, I apologize for all the short comings of the Church. Stop being stubborn. Let go of the skepticism, the hurt feelings and the anger over mistakes of the past. There is one Church. God’s Church. One faith.

    Peace be with you.

  6. Chris Daley says:

    And also with you.

  7. Chris Daley says:

    There is no sense in arguing with you over any of this, you have your beliefs and I have mine, so we’ll just keep it at that. As Paul said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

  8. Chris Daley says:

    “Finally, no Christian – none – interpreted the call no man father verse the way you do until AFTER the reformation.” Do you think it’s because it was only after the reformation that the scriptures were available to the general public, being that the first bible wasn’t printed until 1455? Until then, the Word, was held by the church and only the church could tell you what It said and what it meant, correct? The early church leaders could have never talked about that particular verse, right? Unless you have copies of every sermon ever preached by every catholic priest, that shows that it was discussed. And there was corruption in the “pillar and foundation” of truth before the reformation, right?

  9. Its not a problem.

    The first bible was PRINTED in 1455 but that doesn’t mean there were no bibles there were thousands of them hand copied. Back then MOST people were illiterate. The Church read the bible to them. I honestly don’t know what parts were read but I do know that long passages were read. I can’t see how a Church spread world wide would hide one passage from all the people for 2,000 years. And since the Church was so powerful why not take it out? It could be done. The Church claims to have full authority and Luther took out whole books.

    There is thousands of pages of writings from everyone from Augustine to Aquinas. If these great men are anything they were passionate slave to the Lord. Many died for him. Do you think someone like them who dedicated their lives to the Lord, who is Truth itself would have come across the “call no man father” passage and just blithely accepted error? Frankly, the suggestion is ridiculous and does not do justice to our brothers in the faith.

    Finally, of course their was corruption. There is corruption in every age. Jesus did not say that there would be no corruption. In fact, he said the opposite. He said the weeds would grow up with the wheat and the He would separate them at the ends of day. Notice, he did not say you are obligated to separate yourself. You are to stay with him in the Church and he will judge the wicked. In fact, He says that those that take on the role of teacher and are wicked will be judged more harshly. Perhaps the greatest example of this – Jesus himself selected Judas. What if the first converts said, “I’m not going to follow Peter, he had the Judas guy among them. He just a men, I know Jesus’ teaching. I can get by without the Church.”

  10. Chris Daley says:

    “What if the first converts said, “I’m not going to follow Peter, he had the Judas guy among them. He just a men, I know Jesus’ teaching. I can get by without the Church.”

    The key word is “had”, He didn’t remain in it. When Ananias and Sapphira lied about how much they sold a piece of property for, they were struck down immediately by the Holy Spirit. Yet, today we still have priests in the church who have committed atrocities towards children and ones who have covered it up. Those priests lied to everyone about who they were and nothing was done to them. They were allowed to stay. It a big reason why I don’t trust them. The church is supposed to be a safe place, the elders who run it are supposed to be above reproach, yet we still don’t know the scope and how many people were affected by it. The church seems very reluctant to open up about it. They want to sweep it under the rug and tell us not to worry about it, they have it under control. If they had it under control, they would have removed those priests immediately and told the whole church about it. What’s the use in hiding sins?

  11. Look carefully at Ananias and Sapphira, what happened with them. They sold that property and presented the money to PETER and kept some back. What did Peter say? Exactly what you pointed out – that they lied to the Holy Spirit. Thus again, the example that the Holy Spirit inspired you to choose to question about proves that lying to the minister of the Church is the same as lying to the Holy Spirit. The Church and God are so closely bound together that they are inseparable. That’s the reason the HS struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, so you and I would understand this lesson going forward.

    As to the scandals about priests / pedophiles. First, in discussing it every Catholic acknowledges things happened were wrong. As I said early in this chain, we are taught that those that teach and commit sin will have more to answer for. They have a lot to answer for.

    That being said we should understand accurately what happened. The number of priests who were involved in any such scandal was very small. In fact, a child or young man was 10x more likely to be abused by any other group you can name including a religious leader from another denomination, a boy scout leader, a public school teacher or a police officer. That doesn’t excuse what priests did but it shows that is a societal problem, not uniquely a church problem.

    In addition, while there were priests who were moved around it wasn’t truly a cover up in the strict sense of the word. This time period was a time when psychiatrists were telling the Bishops that these priests were “cured”. That with counseling they could re-enter ministry. In general, Bishops who moved priests were doing so after consulting doctors and following their recommendations for therapy.

    As of today, no one has done more to correct the problem than the Catholic Church. I teach CCD. I had to have a back ground check. Every teacher has to have to have an assistant teacher so that no one is alone with children. I had to attend a seminar where we watch videos of actual pedophiles confess to the techniques they used so that we can spot that behavior in others. Its an excellent program, I learned how to protect my own children.

    The bottom line on the pedophilia scandal is this. You reference to it again proves to much. You again said it yourself – “The church is supposed to be a safe place, the elders who run it are supposed to be above reproach..” Why? Why is it that a scandal – certainly awful in substance but relatively small in scope – garnered so much attention and so much visceral outrage? Growing up I was a Boy Scout there was a similar scandal but societies reaction was less. When I was a DA in Brooklyn there was a big scandal about a pedophilia ring run by Hasiddic Rabbis. It was on the front page for a few days and then faded. What’s the difference?

    The difference is that you know, I know, and everybody knows that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It retains with in it His very authority and speaks for God. IT is not SUPPOSED to be like that and when it fails we react to it VISCERALLY b/c the mistakes have a different character and thus we react to it failing differently – our very souls cry out.

    We see this difference all the time. When we want to know if embryonic stem cell research is moral the local news doesn’t call up the pastor of the baptist church, they call a priest and ask him what the Church says. When Pope Francis says that the world needs to use military force to stop ISIS the world takes notice.

  12. Chris Daley says:

    All of the earthly institutions that you mentioned where a child was 10x more likely to be abused are not “the Body of Christ”. The Church is. It’s run by men, who according to you, have had authority passed down to them directly from Jesus Christ. How does one hide the fact that he is a pedophile from the Holy Spirit? How do people who are supposedly guided by the Spirit not see the evil in these men and allow them to serve? How does one receive “holy orders’ and hide from the church that he is a pedophile?

    “This time period was a time when psychiatrists were telling the Bishops that these priests were “cured”.” Why would the church believe that anybody can be “cured” from sin? And if anybody could be “cured” from sin, wouldn’t the Church be the ones to do it?

    “When Pope Francis says that the world needs to use military force to stop ISIS the world takes notice.”
    How does that mesh with:

    Matthew 5:43-44King James Version (KJV)
    43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    or
    Matthew 10:28King James Version (KJV)
    28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
    or
    Romans 8:35-36King James Version (KJV)
    35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
    36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
    or
    Romans 12:19King James Version (KJV)
    19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

    Would the pope kill someone or have somebody killed to save his own life or those around him?

  13. I wish it were so easy that a Bishop or Priest could look at someone and say, “that is person commits this specific sin and therefore X”. Nowhere does the bible or the Church say that every bishop or priest will know every sin. That a very high standard you arbitrarily impose on the Church. All I here about is how Protestant Pastors have the Holy Spirit in their lives. Can they “see” people’s sins and know what to do about them? You wouldn’t even think to oppose that standard on them.

    Meanwhile we have discussed the “body of Christ” at length. I’ve never said that it makes every person in the church some kink of super saint with special powers. In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite (that Jesus will sift the weeds from the wheat). How did Judas hide his sins from his brother Apostles? The Church’s authority is to teach and preach and convey grace in the sacraments. It can do this bc it is the body of Christ. It does not discern the status of every soul that walks through the door.

    That said there have been priests who had the ability to discern souls. Google Padre Pio and St John Vianney.

    The Pope has armed guards and they would defend him and kill an assailant if necessary. Nothing in the bible requires complete pacifism, self defense is entirely legitimate. Jesus didn’t say to the centurion that he had to give up his job as a soldier and it was Jesus who told the Apostles to bring the sword to the Mt. of Olives. Since you seem to be suggesting that pacifism is called for I’ll ask you – are you a pacifist. I think I recall hearing that you own a small arsenal of weapons. Which is it? Don’t you claim to be a Christian? Part of the Body of Christ?

    You seem to me to have given up on trying to ask rational questions. You switch wildly from one subject to another and disregard anything I have said previously and make no attempt to limit your presumptions to the outlines i have repeatedly established. My i suggest a different course for you – that visceral reaction – where you question and doubt everything about the Church – that’s you conscience and your soul doing battle with your ego. Your soul recognizes truth but you ego, fulled by pride seeks to refute truth and justify error. Instead of asking me questions you know are fallacious go back and reread the answers I have previously given you or do further research on Catholic.com

  14. Chris Daley says:

    “That a very high standard you arbitrarily impose on the Church. All I here about is how Protestant Pastors have the Holy Spirit in their lives. Can they “see” people’s sins and know what to do about them? You wouldn’t even think to oppose that standard on them.”
    I don’t impose that standard on them, because they aren’t saying they are the only True church, They aren’t saying we have 2,000 years of continuity all the way back to Jesus Christ. They aren’t saying that the hands that were laid on them can be traced back to Jesus.

    How did Judas hide his sins from his brother Apostles? The Church’s authority is to teach and preach and convey grace in the sacraments. It can do this bc it is the body of Christ. It does not discern the status of every soul that walks through the door.
    Hebrews 4:12King James Version (KJV)
    12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
    True, but it should be able to discern the souls of those it is entrusting with a sacred duty. I’m sure when somebody comes in and says I have received “holy orders” that there some sort of vetting process. You go through years of training so how does that slip through? Plus somebody was destined to betray Jesus. Somebody had to do it, right? and It turns out, it was Judas. These pedophile priests didn’t have to do what they did.

    The Pope has armed guards and they would defend him and kill an assailant if necessary. Nothing in the bible requires complete pacifism, self defense is entirely legitimate. Jesus didn’t say to the centurion that he had to give up his job as a soldier and it was Jesus who told the Apostles to bring the sword to the Mt. of Olives. Since you seem to be suggesting that pacifism is called for I’ll ask you – are you a pacifist. I think I recall hearing that you own a small arsenal of weapons. Which is it? Don’t you claim to be a Christian? Part of the Body of Christ?
    Its a question I wrestle with. If we are supposed to emulate Christ, people are supposed to see Christ in us. Christ didn’t kill anyone when his cousin’s head was cut off and brought to the palace (Mark 6:24-31). Christ didn’t kill anyone when he captured and crucified (every Gospel). Jesus told the disciples to put up the sword that they brought. (Matthew26:52) The church didn’t kill anyone when Stephen was killed (Acts 7:59) or when James was killed (Acts 12:2). Paul didn’t kill anyone when he was stoned to death (Acts 14:19). The church didn’t kill anyone when Peter was crucified.(http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5358) We have all these examples of pacifism, yet from a young age in the church, I was taught that it was my right to defend myself. Please show me where Christ said it is ok for us to take a life. And as for how many weapons I own, that’s really now of your business.

    You seem to me to have given up on trying to ask rational questions. You switch wildly from one subject to another and disregard anything I have said previously and make no attempt to limit your presumptions to the outlines i have repeatedly established.
    I don’t see how my questions aren’t rational. If you are going to take the position that the catholic church is the one true church, then I’m going to take the position to find out why you believe that and continue to poke and prod until get an answer that I can accept. The only reason I brought up the pope and pacifism is because you brought it up.

  15. Chris Daley says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3293357/The-Church-making-life-hell-millions-gay-Catholics-clergy-homosexuals-says-priest-fired-Vatican-coming-out.html

    This guy is a perfect example. Is this guys standing up for human rights or is he promoting a sinful lifestyle? He’s an ordained priest, had hands laid on him, separated out to be a leader in the church, yet living a lifestyle in directly opposed to what the Word of God says. How does he become a priest?

  16. Again, you are making an assumption that Church is not supposed to have sinners in it. Again, it is the exact opposite. Again, JESUS SAID, that He will separate the good from the bad. The Church ONLY has sinners in it. Every single one of us. Its you whose making a presumption that somehow b/c that is true that the Church might not still be the one true Church. That is an unbiblical assumption. It was sinners, who under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the Gospels. Paul, a sinner, wrote scripture. If God can use fallible sinners to create infallible scripture then it is easy for him to use lots of fallible sinners to create his perfect body on earth. You know, as well as I, that Peter himself, was a sinner but wrote scripture, but still had to be rebuked by Paul for not living up to his own preaching. You clearly know the bible to well to be asking questions that have such shaky foundations.

  17. Chris Daley says:

    I know we are all sinners, every last one of us, including the priests, bishops and the pope. But when I read this

    Ignatius of Antioch
    “In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him” (ibid., 3:1–2). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bishop-priest-and-deacon

    I’m supposed to respect somebody like he was Jesus Christ because has a robe? I’m supposed to treat someone as a type of “the Father”. Is this saying that the bishop is like God, Our Father? Every bible I read that has father spelled with a capital “F” is referring to God, our Father. If we are all sinners and all fall short of the glory of God, why does the church promote these men and say to treat them like I would Jesus Christ or God?

  18. First, I would point out the irony that you select a quote from the very early 2nd century when you see that one of the great bishops who was a martyr for the Lord Jesus Christ tells everyone that bishops are fathers to the congregations. As I recollect Ignatius learned form Peter yet he clearly is comfortable using this term despite Jesus having said “call no man father”. Clearly, the Church’s understanding of that verse has a well established 2,000 year pedigree.

    Second, it is Paul, who says in Galatians (i believe) that the instructions that he writes in his letters are “the same as the commandments of the Lord”. I wrote a post on it, I encourage you to go back and read it. If you recollect it was when a group of people, clearly filled with the Holy Spirit, was speaking in tongues and creating a disturbance in church. His point was that if the people really had the Holy Spirit they would IMMEDIATELY recognize that he had authority to run the Church and since his authority was the same as Jesus and since the Holy Spirit and Jesus could never be in conflict they would acquiesce to his authority immediately. That doesn’t leave much doubt as to whose authority a bishop speaks with.

    Jesus himself said that everyone had to do what the Pharisees said but not to do what they do b/c they taught with authority of God even though they didn’t live up to their own teaching. At his trial Jesus refused to answer the questions of the high priest UNTIL the high priest invoked that authority, then Jesus answered. So Jesus teaches us that God works through the authority of his representatives even when they are awful people. When Jesus said that the Jews had to obey the pharisees he knew those very same pharisees would conspire to murder him. Yet, He didn’t say, “they are immoral people don’t listen to them”. He said, “do as they say not as they do bc the teach with authority from God.”

    So you HAVE A CHOICE. Jesus presents it to you.

  19. Chris Daley says:

    Yes, He said listen to them and obey what they said. He never said respect them as you would God. In fact, He railed against how they acted and lived. (Matthew 23) He took from them what they had tried to kept for themselves and made Himself accessible to the common man. You didn’t have to be born into the priestly line to become Jesus’s priest.

  20. Which is of course exactly what we do. The NT says to give “double honor” to those that are over you in the Lord. We honor our priests and bishops with the respect they deserve but we don’t worship them like the Lord.

    Further, I would point out that whatever disrespect you rightly have for the small number of priests and bishops who did things wrong, that doesn’t give you or anyone else, the right to judge the 100k+ other priests and bishops. The vast majority of priests and bishops are good men, striving for holiness who have forgone most of the pleasures of normal life and have dedicated themselves to the service of the body of Christ. You “general disrespect” of all things Catholic is not appropriately aimed at them.

    Further, your disrespect for a few priests doesn’t give you the right to disrespect (with your absence) the Church in general, which is also referred to as the Bride of Christ, into which was places the living soul of the Holy Spirit, and we are told that heaven is the wedding feast of this union. Jesus will judge those priests worthy of disrespect. He also will judge us on how we treated others, most particularly the poor and the downtrodden. It seems to me that our role is to forgive, and to pray for them that they might truly repent and to pray for the leaders of the Church that they might have learned from this experience and humble themselves to grow closer to the Lord Jesus.

    Your right to point out that he took from the Pharisees the priesthood and clearly he placed in within his Church. Who has authority to take the priesthood from the Church? Clearly not you or I, nor Luther or Calvin, nor Rick Warren or Joel Osteen has that authority. Only Jesus can remove authority from the priesthood. Did he come back and do that? I must have missed it.

    In the end, your objections are obviously emotional and not substantive. Again, I’m sorry you were hurt in anyway as a young Catholic, things like that should never happen. But just as much the responsibility is on the people that wronged you to repent, so the onus is now on you, a grown man and a Christian, to forgive, to reconcile yourself with the Church and to work from within to strengthen and purify her.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s