RCC Priest says Jesus may have been married

I challenge you to post a thread that finds 1/10th of the difference between Grant, Carson, Ron, Mike, CatholicConvert, myself, and any other Catholic who posts on this board that is anywhere near the contradiction in belief that 10 of you Protestants hold. Just go to the birth control thread. There are no two of you that agree completely that I can see. But you all have something negative to say about Catholicism and are all buddy budddy with eachother. We are separated by many miles yet I can go to any Church in the world and find people who believe nearly identically to me. Most of the differences I find are just where they are at in life and understanding rather than contradiction. Further those who don't agree with me I can tell reject the papacy at least partially.

Blessings

 

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that all you can do is to cast stones. State your beliefs. What sect do you belong to and what do the teach. I know. You believe in Jesus. So does the devil. I think I saw the other day that you belong to either the UCOC or the COC. One is a cult and the other is as liberal as the day is long.

Blessings

 

Are you trying to say that the Catholics who post here are a good cross section of American Catholics? It seems to me that there are more liberal Catholics out there. There are those Catholics who reject church teachings but still claim to be Catholic. Those kinds of Catholics generally don't make it to this site.

 

Yes, I attend Church of Christ. The biggest gripes most people have against them are that they generally don't allow instrumental music in their worship service and believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin.

I believe there are two kinds of Church of Christ. I have never attended the one that is considered the cult. I think it is back east.

 

One who doesn't submit to the Pope ain't really a Catholic in my book, unless it is out of ignorance. I think I made that clear in my post. My point still stands. Different states. Different backgrounds. A unity that no two of you Protestants even from the same denomination can match. Did I neglect to mention Kathryn. Sorry.

 

Eladar,

You use a lot of fluff language. "It seems to me," "I have come to the conclusion," or "It is obvious to anyone." And yet you don't back it up. In the clip you thought you heard him say something or other. Really, well, I see Stephen posting quotations, and you refuting him with, "Well, that's not what I heard," and then not stating anything close to a quotation, and then saying that he is a heretic.

You don't back up your statements at all.

And you don't understand the concept of catholicity, because if you did, you wouldn't make the comment that the Church is not One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic simply because some of its members, even those in places of authority, spout off incorrect information from time to time. Unless its a professed doctrine of the Church, you have no case for attacking the Church's oneness.

 

Well, the church being Jesus' bride is a simile, so I don't think that the description is meant to rule out that Jesus had a spouse. However, I do agree with you, that, for Jesus to make the church his priority, a spouse would have hindered that.

Interestingly, I've said in other threads (regarding women and submission) the very same thing you're saying here: that husbands are to submit to their wives as Christ submits to the church, and I got called a wide variety of names. So to hear you say it is quite reassuring.

 

If this sentence reflects your own thoughts then by the standard which you set earlier you are a heretic.

If this sentence is meant to be a summary of your perception of some other person's thoughts, I would ask you...

Are not all things possible for God? Are you saying that it is impossible to Jesus to have been married even if that was the will of God?

Now do you see how easy it is to take another person's words and make them mean something other than what the author intended?

I would suggest that you back off a little here.

Labeling another person as a heretic and condemning them to hell based on a little promo clip that you saw on TV is silly, to say the very least.

TV doesn't edit clips to make them as provocative as possible to get people all fired up do they?

Nahhhh... everything you see on TV is accurate and true to life - right?

 

Is it the official RCC position that Jesus may have been married?

 

Is it the official RCC position that Jesus may have been married? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely not.

But of course, you already know this.

Now that you have taken my words out of context, how about responding to the point that I was actually making.

 

Could it perhaps have something to do with vain pride and infatuation with a false sense of one's own intellectualism?

Just speculation on my part.

[ November 06, 2003, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

I was trying to summarize his view. This is not my view at all.

Here is what I understand to be an entire list of Catholics who are openly against church teachings:
Dissenting Authors and Speakers

 

"Thess. Isn't Mary's perpetual virginity a doctrine or dogma. At least it is official teaching, right? OK, my question is, would it be OK for Jesus to be married and have normal marital relations but not OK for Mary to do the same? Second point I was making was that if the CC taeching is clear why did the prist leave room for the possibility. Why did he not stand firm?"


I looked at the good Fathers book in Barns and Noble on Catholicism yesterday. It would never sell in an orthodox Catholic book store. He does a Fr. Wilhelm (of Christ Among us fame) esk job of underminng Catholic moral theology after presenting the Churches position.

IC? It is dogma and I must believe it. But Mary did not HAVE TO SUBMIT TO ANY COMMAND BY GOD is my point. She had free will to have relations wither Joseph but by her divine calling as the Mother of the Son of God did not. Joseph under his divine calling as protector of the Holy Family did not. Jesus had the call of celibacy as spoken of in Matt 19. Therefore he, by God's will for him did not. None were forced to do these things but recognized the divine call within them and lived the life God had planned for them. They did not have to live this call but had the grace do to so and fullfilled it.

Yes, the non-denominational thingy is popular today because of man's disobedience in following proper authority. If you don't like the pastor you as a non-denominational guy can just find another Church. I just don't know how you can make Mt. 18 (among many other verses) work. I don't know how you can possibly have Heb 13:17 in your bible.

Blessings though.

 

But you can see how easy it is to take the words of another and turn them into something they are not?

Dosen't feel to good when it is done to your words does it?

What's your point?

To be Catholic, one must be in union with the teachings of the Church. If one ceases to be in union with the teachings of the Church, one ceases to be Catholic.

I can claim to be five years old everyday of my life. When I cease to be five years old, continuing to claim it don't make it so.

BTW, you say that is the "entire list of Catholics who are openly against church teachings".

What brings you to that conclusion?

No doubt having jumped to that conclusion, you will point out that the priest in question is not on the list so he must be teaching Church doctrine.

Or some such nonsense.

Actually, that list is far from complete. There are over a billion people living today who identify themselves as Catholic. How can your list possibly be complete?

If it were though, that would make for a verrrrry small fraction of self identified Catholics who are not in union with the Church.

[ November 06, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

BTW, you say that is the "entire list of Catholics who are openly against church teachings".

What brings you to that conclusion?

This disclaimer in the link:

 

What part of this disclaimer tells you that the list is all comprehensive?

I'm not seeing it.

BTW, this is a perfect example of the sort of critical thinking by those who claim to be able to interpret Scripture without the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church that leaves me simply dumbfounded .

 

Does he claim to be innerrant ? Does his church claim to be the only true church of Christ ? Does his church claim to be protected from error by Christ himself ? Does his church claim that all others are missing the fullness of truth ?

 

Given our recent past, this means a lot to me, John.

 

Does he claim to be innerrant ? Does his church claim to be the only true church of Christ ? Does his church claim to be protected from error by Christ himself ? Does his church claim that all others are missing the fullness of truth ? </font>[/QUOTE]But is he a heretic?

He is not really saying anything different than the Catholic priest.

Why don't you call this Baptist pastor a heretic and demand that he be removed from his position as pastor?