I think we have long since passed this point (paragraphs 6 & 7) with Arch and Adam.

I agree completely, Nes.

Peace.

First I like the restate what I said earlier: "The Magisterium is also necessary....

Which is a direct admission that tradition and the Bible are in contradiction. Thank you. Oh, BTW, how does this Magisterium decide which is correct? You haven't solved anything, just pushed it back one level.

Not surprisingly, the Bible also teaches that Celibacy should be practiced...

Nice red herring, but not applicable to this particular passage. This particular passage specifically states that bishops must be married.

By the way, in the early Church, and still practiced today in the Eastern Catholic Churches, under the Pope, marriage does not exclude you from holy orders (Just like St. Peter who was married).

It shouldn't exclude for any sect of the Catholic Church (which BTW, you've just admitted that there are sects within Catholicism, which you denied in another thread, IIRC). It is a requirement to be celibate, however, which has already been shown by Ebon to be problematic for you.

But if you are not married and become a priest you can never get married. If you do, you will be going against the teachings of the Church, thereby excommunicating yourself.

Proving that the church is acting un-Biblically, thankyouverymuch.

This was already covered on: April 3, 2008, 7:21 am

And it has already been rebutted, I suggest you read all the subsequent comments to yours again.

In light of this, the following comment is in error.

No, it is not. You've simply asserted there is no contradiction when it is plain that there is, and it's been pointed out to you ad nauseum.

This is an ad hominen argument, all you're doing is calling the Church Anti-human.

The church is anti-human. The church places all the blame for everything wrong with the world squarely on the shoulders of humans, while giving all glory and credit for anything good to god. This is a clearly anti-human position to take. Further, it is not ad hominem to point out the tactics the church uses. You, on the other hand, are taking the easy way out. When confronted with the fact that church teachings and the actions of those who supposedly are holy are no more holy or moral than other teachings or other people, you claim that it's not because the church doesn't hold a favored place in the moral pantheon of existence, but it's because humans are horrible creatures. You wish to claim moral infallibility when it suits you and claim human fallibility when it suits you, thus having your cake and eating it too.

But if we do kill someone, murdering will still be morally wrong today, tomorrow, and forever...

Was it morally wrong when god commanded it of his people? Has it always been a teaching of the church to never murder (think crusades, inquisition, etc)?

This is actually the most amazing part of the Church. That it is run by normal people, like you and I, who are sinful and greedy and prideful, yet its Teachngs regarding faith and morals have never waivered.

This is nothing more than a lie, and you know it. It's already been pointed out to you numerous times with numerous examples that this is not true, yet you continue to repeat it. That makes it a lie.

You are dead wrong on this count. The Bible says that bishos must be the husband of one wife. How you can miss that is beyond me. If being married is optional, then I suppose all the other things on the list are optional? But, even if it isn't a requirement, the requirement that bishops be celibate is contra to the fact that the Bible allows bishops to marry. Period.

AND

Either way, denying that a contradiction is taking place is simply Orwellian.

First I like the restate what I said earlier: "The Magisterium is also necessary. It is needed as a living and infallible authority to determine the authentic meaning of both Scripture and Tradition. Such a living authority is necessary to settle disputes concerning both Scripture and Tradition. Tradition and Scripture alone would be insufficient to guarantee the unity of the faith and of the Church, for violent disagreements could arise over the content of Tradition as well as of Scripture. There can be no private judgment either of Scripture or of Tradition."

Yes, disputes happen.

Not surprisingly, the Bible also teaches that Celibacy should be practiced:

1 Corinthians, Chap. 7- “Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…

We also see this in the words of Jesus Himself:

Matthew 19: 11-12- “[Jesus] said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 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.”

The Church is given the responsibility to teach the Truth about what Christ reveals, not private interpretations because there is only one Truth...which leads right into the questions Arch is asking "How can one know truth?"

By the way, in the early Church, and still practiced today in the Eastern Catholic Churches, under the Pope, marriage does not exclude you from holy orders (Just like St. Peter who was married). If you are married then feel the call, you can still become a priest (but if your wife dies, you can not remarry; you must only have one wife) This statement is speaking on the sacredness of marriage, that marriage is only between ONE man and ONE woman...and Bishops "You MUST only have one Wife!! not two or three or seven, ONE.). But if you are not married and become a priest you can never get married. If you do, you will be going against the teachings of the Church, thereby excommunicating yourself. The local bishop is just there to hold you accountable; but the fact remains that you excommunicate yourself, because you are not living the way you said you would when you told God you wanted to become a priest.

The answers for you are that the Bible is an authority and the Church is another I take it? When one authority tells you one thing and another contradicts it, who is right?

This was already covered on: April 3, 2008, 7:21 am

I would encourage you to read it over again.

In light of this, the following comment is in error.

The Bible says X, the church says not X. One must overrule the other because they are diametrically opposed. But, that you think they somehow go with each other is not surprising in that you don't see the logical failure that I and others pointed out above about giving up what is good for god.

Finally it was stated that:

And here comes the get out of jail free card ploy. See, it doesn't matter what the church does or teaches because anything considered bad is man using his tainted free will to be bad, while anything good really came from the church, right? This is not only just another case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses, but it's also rather hateful and anti-human rhetoric.

This is an ad hominen argument, all you're doing is calling the Church Anti-human. Instead of addressing the claim, you instead just attack the Church. "infallibility does not apply to any individual's actions or personal moral decisions."

For example, you and I can live how we want to. We can murder someone if we want. But if we do kill someone, murdering will still be morally wrong today, tomorrow, and forever; Just as the Church and it's teachings on faith and morals have stood forever. There are Catholics that have decided to go against the teachings of the Church, but the fact remains that the teachings themselves are still true.

This is actually the most amazing part of the Church. That it is run by normal people, like you and I, who are sinful and greedy and prideful, yet its Teachngs regarding faith and morals have never waivered.

Just as a Mathematician can not change the truths of his discipline no matter how he acts, so to goes the Church.

Authority is given to those in power. Those in power usually have vast wealth. It is a materialistic macrosocial system that we live in. I will give an example. Of the 3 US Presidential Candidates, all are millionaires. I think Obama is the poorest with only a little over a million. Clinton and McCain (through his wife) are worth over 100 million.

The Church also has money and wields power, vast money and vast power.

The truth is that money is proportional to power. One can know this truth by research.

Since this doesn't pertain to the thread, I understand if Ebon deletes it.

Peace.

The Bible saying that bishops should have one wife does not give any moral commandment that bishops must be married or that celibacy is wrong. It is false to say that this Scripture passage means that celibacy is contrary to the Scriptures.

You are dead wrong on this count. The Bible says that bishos must be the husband of one wife. How you can miss that is beyond me. If being married is optional, then I suppose all the other things on the list are optional? But, even if it isn't a requirement, the requirement that bishops be celibate is contra to the fact that the Bible allows bishops to marry. Period.

I find it important to pose these questions now to which I would appreciate an answer: How can one know truth? What or who is an authority in our world and why does this thing, person, or group have authority?

What do your questions have to do with the price of tea in China? The answers for you are that the Bible is an authority and the Church is another I take it? When one authority tells you one thing and another contradicts it, who is right? I, personally, would go with the Bible, since it is god's word, but you Catholics think the pope speaks for god, so maybe you go with his word. Either way, denying that a contradiction is taking place is simply Orwellian.

The Church's teaching sexual ethics will only make sense in the context of what love, freedom, and vocation are. Recognizing the covenant of marriage is also essential here. Starting at that base, sexual morality, family, vocation, and the priesthood will all draw deeper meaning.

That's a load and you know it. Can one only love someone that one is married to? Why is it more moral to have sex inside marriage (with someone you may or may not love) than to have sex with another consenting adult that you love (provided there are no other spouses in the mix?) And, for pity's sake don't start spouting off about how god wants marriage between one man and one woman and all that crap and pretend that it comes from the Bible, because that's also a load of garbage. Marriage was never "ordained by god" or anything like that. It was first and foremost a way of establishing alliances among different peoples and the Bible never denies polygamy.