Hi Tim
I appreciate your appreciation of the time and energy spent. I am glad you are being challenged too. We may not agree on everything but we, at least, agree on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. We should not forget that.
I’ll try to address the responses, not in any particular order. I do hope you address the issues I raised in posts 681-683 as you said you would.
“Paul not speaking doctrinally”:
If you look at 1 Cor 7 v40 – Paul says it is his opinion. Doctrine is not a matter of opinion. The CC maintains that celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline. Paul clearly believes this too. If you take so seriously Paul’s speaking about not depriving each other, then you better look at what else he says. He also says you are to live as though you have no wife V29. V8-11. Paul says, if you are a widow, remain a widow, but allows remarriage if you can’t control yourself. He also says to the married, if you leave each other, do not remarry unless to be reconciled to your husband. Once again, texts that support the Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage.
“Preconceived ideas”:
I am not being presumptuous. Tim you come to the bible with 20/21st century influences. No one can read scripture and come to correct interpretation without having some knowledge of the times in which it was written. Sure, our understanding of marriage is a husband and wife, then the kids. This, however, was not a ‘normal’ family. We have to think spiritually about these things, not with our flesh. I will try to nut out a little further along the practice of celibate marriages.
Protoevangelium:
This ancient writing is used not as scripture is, but as an ancient document. There are many non-canonical writings that confirm certain truths found either explicitly or implicitly in scripture and are not considered authoritative, in the same way scripture is. These writings confirm the belief and practices of the early church and so are invaluable in determining how scripture was interpreted. The dating of this document is not precise. As to whether the “suspicious time gap” and “curious silence” are valid arguments is debatable. Just because we only seem to have reference to it firstly from Origen, does not mean it was not accepted by other church fathers earlier on or the ‘story’ was not known of. There is also a time gap from the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection to when anything was written as scripture. You also object to the hearsay of Justin Martyr. Do you also object to the hearsay that we have in the NT. How many apostles wrote scripture Tim? Did Peter write his letters? Some question whether Paul wrote Galatians. In fact, many of the books of the NT were disputed because of authorship not being apostolic. There are also many epistles by Paul, Peter, James, that are not in the canon. Who can we trust? Whilst I understand your uneasiness with the Protoevangelium, I think your arguments need to be consistent with what you already take for granted i.e. the canon of the bible to be correct.
The curious silence proves nothing. I don’t wake up every morning and say “good morning everyone, you are my family, I am your mother”. Some things are taken for granted, or perhaps weren’t up for question, in the case of Mary’s virginity. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
..cont..
“Purity in Perpetual Chastity”:
You seem to be shocked at this statement. Remember I quoted Rev 14:4. The wording is ..those who have not been DEFILED…for they are celibates..” I could quote several texts which highlight the honour virgins receive, but I think this is adequate enough.
Tim read Origen in context. He is not saying sexual relations within marriage are unholy. He, like Paul, says virginity is a higher state. It requires a denial of the flesh (which we are all called to do in some form)
“Reverse Argument”:
I am not conducting a reverse argument. Nor would I be conducting a reverse argument if I quoted Clement on the Eucharist, baptism, the resurrection etc.
“Bible does not flat out deny…:”
Good. A small concession. So I assume you don’t have a real problem with my analysis on the piecing together the ‘brothers’ of Jesus etc. Or, at least, there has been some doubt cast upon the fact that it should not be taken for granted, i.e. brothers always meaning blood brothers.
Now to the Nativity:
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that, in the early 1st century there were Jewish Essene communities at Qumran, where a custom of permanent celibate marriages took place. If you look at 1Cor 7:29 – Paul says live as though you were not married. This could only mean that some people are called to live chaste lives although still married. I use this to highlight that, whilst it is not the norm, there is evidence that such marriages took place. Can I refer you to a paper written by Br Anthony Opisso, M.D. on The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. He covers the Jewish traditions concerning marriage, celibacy and the virginity of Mary. He gives OT examples of being chaste after marriage. If you google the title, it should come up.
The angel greeted Mary and told her that she WOULD conceive. Now Mary’s response is interesting. Mary knew she was betrothed to Joseph so her “how can this be, I know not man” only makes sense if she had already consecrated herself to God. If Mary was to live a ‘normal’ life as a wife, then her becoming pregnant, in the future, would not cause her puzzlement. If she had not consecrated herself, then her response should have been “of course, I will conceive when we are married”. Joseph did not plan to divorce Mary because he was wronged but because he did not want to disgrace her. How would the Jewish community believe in the virgin birth if Mary was not already known to have consecrated herself to God. Surely it was more believable if the community knew Mary as a consecrated virgin.
Think of it this way. You are told that you will conceive the second person of the trinity. The Son of God! Do you really think that anything earthly would be that attractive to you. You’ve reached the ultimate. You get to bring up the son of God. Did you ever wonder whether these ‘siblings’ were jealous of Jesus, or how the family operated considering they had the son of God as their blood relation? This was a miraculous event so we need to think spiritually not earthly Tim.
Regards
Donna
(PS, I think you were a little hard on Robert)
If you look at 1Cor 7:29 – Paul says live as though you were not married. This could only mean that some people are called to live chaste lives although still married.
Hi Donna
Doesn’t work when you look back at the beginning of the chapter. And aren’t married people who enjoy their own spouses still being chaste?
Paul gives us the clue on what he means by married people living as if not married, if you read the whole sentence
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who are married should live as if they were not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
He is not saying that people shouldn’t buy things, shouldn’t marry, shouldn’t mourn or shouldn’t be happy.
He says we shouldn’t be so engrossed by our things, our sadness, happiness or marriage that we forget that they are temporary.
Hi David
Firstly, being chaste, by definition, is not to have sexual relations. So your definition cannot be correct. Fidelity within marriage would be a better word.
Secondly, I think when you read the whole chapter, my original comment still stands. I agree that it also means not to be engrossed in the things of this life. So why not the conclusion I first said. Don’t be engrossed with your wife, live like you don’t have one. Remember, Paul is not commanding something here. He is suggesting a disciplinary action. Likewise, I am not suggesting that we all leave our spouses. If you would look at the paper I suggested, it may shed some light on celibacy within marriage issue.
Firstly, being chaste, by definition, is not to have sexual relations. So your definition cannot be correct. Fidelity within marriage would be a better word.
1. maintaining the integrity of the powers of life and love placed within the person and opposing any behavior that would violate one’s personal dignity or the dignity of another.
2. (sometimes considered incorrect) abstaining from sexual intercourse
Note: chaste is often confused with abstinence. Strictly speaking, chaste means pure and not “abstaining from sex”, because married couples are often exhorted to have “chaste sex"--compare the Vatican encyclical Casti Connubii (Of Chaste Wedlock).
To answer your question, the Pope is not regarded as infallible in everything he says and does. His infallibility is limited to the following circumstances:
(1) When he speaks from the chair of Peter (i.e. ex Cathedra);
What does this mean, in practice? When he says anything when sitting in a particular chair? When he says, “I am about to speak ex Cathedra”? How do we determine when a pope is doing this, and why is it limited to this case (i.e. why is he not infallible at other times”?
Joshua Aldersley - 05 September 2008 12:30 PM
(2) When he speaks on issues of faith and/or morals;
Why when he speaks on these issues? Why not when he speaks on other issues? Who gets to decide if the issue he is speaking on is one of faith or morals, or not?
Joshua Aldersley - 05 September 2008 12:30 PM
(3) When he is intending to bind the entire Church to his statements.
Again, why when this is his intent, and not when it is not his intent? I would really like to see some biblical justification for the idea that the office of apostolic teaching would continue in some sort of successsion after the Apostles died - and that it would only come from just one Apostle.
Joshua Aldersley - 05 September 2008 12:30 PM
Personally, I think you’d have a pretty hard time making a case that Peter satisfied all three criteria in the confrontation between Peter and Paul.
I agree! Especially when the “confrontation” was really Paul rebuking Peter, with no reported response from Peter either accepting or rejecting Paul’s correction.
Joshua Aldersley - 05 September 2008 12:30 PM
Tim, could I make the suggestion that some of the questions you have are easily resolved through a careful reading of the Catechism? It does neither the Catholic, nor the Protestant position any credit to attack a series of strawmen.
Well, as I am not well versed with the Catechism, perhpas it would be best if when I do construct or attack a strawman, you or one of your fellow Roman Catholics then used the Catechism to show where I have got my understanding wrong?
I am not trying to be evasive, but from some of the sections of the Catechism I have seen posted here, the meaning I would infer after reading them carefully is quite different from what the Roman Catholic poster interprets it to mean. It becomes a problem of semantics, where what you might mean by a particular term is not what I understand that term to mean, such that my reading of the Catechism is going to raise just as many (if not more) questions fo rme than you think it may answer for me. I’m happy to take a peek at them, though, if you can provide a link for me.
I’ll try to address the responses, not in any particular order. I do hope you address the issues I raised in posts 681-683 as you said you would.
Yep, I certainly will - but you’ll need to cut me up to a week’s breathing space at least. I’ve got some pretty busy times on at the moment. Get back tou you on these issues as soon as I can - you give me plenty to chew over!
Hi Kevin
With all due respect, the wikipedia (wikdictionary) do have a reputation for not always getting things correct.
Oxford dictionary says: abstaining from extramarital or from all sexual relations.
Collins dictionary says: not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal; pure, decent..
I did quick opinion poll on a few people, and their understanding is as mine. Chaste means pure, virginal.
Paul uses chaste when referring to a virgin. 2 Co 11:2. It is fair to say that you can be chaste in your conversation amongst other things and I would agree that you can be chaste within your marriage.
Well, as I am not well versed with the Catechism, perhpas it would be best if when I do construct or attack a strawman, you or one of your fellow Roman Catholics then used the Catechism to show where I have got my understanding wrong?
I don’t speak about Rastafarianism, because I haven’t gone to the trouble of researching the religion. However, I speak about Protestantism because I have gone to the trouble of studying Protestant history and doctrine. It seems to me that you should follow suit. I find it entirely bizarre that you confess your almost total ignorance about Catholicism, yet still presume to make an assessment of our belief system!
I must admit that the approach you suggest of waiting for us to correct your strawmen seems to be inappropriate, not to mention completely impracticable. For a start, Catholicism needs to be understand as a framework of beliefs, rather than a series of isolated doctrines. If you really want to learn about Catholicism, rather than pursue a seemingly fruitless argument, it seems to me that you would go to the trouble of going to the primary sources of Catholicism in order to learn what we actually believe. If you are truly interested in understanding Catholicism, I’d suggest you start with the compendium to the Catechism, which is little more than a hundred pages long.
I don’t speak about Rastafarianism, because I haven’t gone to the trouble of researching the religion. However, I speak about Protestantism because I have gone to the trouble of studying Protestant history and doctrine. It seems to me that you should follow suit.
That may be how it seems to you, but it seems to me to be a very high entrance requirement to begin any discussion. Why can’t a discussion involve learning as we go, which is what Donna, Robert and others and I have been doing so far? I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t really think it’s for you to decide how much background reading anyone here should do before they can discuss a topic. Nevertheless, I’l take it on board as a helpful suggestion from you to me.
Just to note, I have done some study of the Bible, so that when anyone comes to me and says “I believe in xxxx, and the Bible supports my belief”, I do feel reasonably equipped to discuss their belief. Given that many of the Roman Catholic people I have been in discussion with have been appealing to scripture to support their beliefs, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to engage in discussing that belief based on our common interest in the Bible, despite my lack of study of Roman Catholic history and doctrine.
Joshua Aldersley - 08 September 2008 04:53 PM
I find it entirely bizarre that you confess your almost total ignorance about Catholicism, yet still presume to make an assessment of our belief system!
What I am trying to do is make an assessment of the particular beliefs that have been raised in this discussion, based on the evidence cited to support those beliefs. As an “evangelical Protestant”, for want of a better term, that largely involves discussing those beliefs in the light of the scriptures. If my approach seems entirely bizarre to you, that may mean you find a lot of the discussion on these threads equally bizarre.
Joshua Aldersley - 08 September 2008 04:53 PM
I must admit that the approach you suggest of waiting for us to correct your strawmen seems to be inappropriate, not to mention completely impracticable.
Well, how else do you propose they get corrected? By myself? What if after carefully reading the Catechism as you suggest, I still fail to identify and self-correct these strawmen? Surely it would make more sense (as well as be a useful example of brotherly Christian love) if you could point out to me the error in my thinking and why it is an error?
Why would it be completely impracticable for you or any other Roman Catholic believer to correct any strawmen I have erected, given that you are in the best position to identify them?
Joshua Aldersley - 08 September 2008 04:53 PM
If you really want to learn about Catholicism, rather than pursue a seemingly fruitless argument, it seems to me that you would go to the trouble of going to the primary sources of Catholicism in order to learn what we actually believe.
Or we could discuss the primary sources of Catholicism here and now as the need arises. These discussions may seem a fruitless argument to you, but I feel that I am actually learning a lot about Catholicism, couretsy of people such as Donna Green, Robert ian Williams and John Charles Storer.
Joshua Aldersley - 08 September 2008 04:53 PM
If you are truly interested in understanding Catholicism, I’d suggest you start with the compendium to the Catechism, which is little more than a hundred pages long.
OK, and the Catechism itself is how many pages? Again, I’m happy to take a look at these documents in order to broaden my understanding, if you would care to provide a link for me.
So, any chance of answering any of the questions I raised with you? Or do I need to fulfill your prerequisite reading requirements before you’ll discuss those issues with me?
That may be how it seems to you, but it seems to me to be a very high entrance requirement to begin any discussion. Why can’t a discussion involve learning as we go, which is what Donna, Robert and others and I have been doing so far? I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t really think it’s for you to decide how much background reading anyone here should do before they can discuss a topic.
Of course not, but I’m simply stating that:
1. If I have a real interest in a subject or a belief then I go to the trouble I reading the primary sources thereof; and
2. If one hasn’t done so, then the quality of the enquiry into said subject or belief will be much lower.
Make of my suggestion what you will.
Tim Allen - 08 September 2008 05:41 PM
Just to note, I have done some study of the Bible, so that when anyone comes to me and says “I believe in xxxx, and the Bible supports my belief”, I do feel reasonably equipped to discuss their belief. Given that many of the Roman Catholic people I have been in discussion with have been appealing to scripture to support their beliefs, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to engage in discussing that belief based on our common interest in the Bible, despite my lack of study of Roman Catholic history and doctrine.
Not intrinsically, but I find your methodology lacking, for reasons I shall discuss below.
Tim Allen - 08 September 2008 05:41 PM
What I am trying to do is make an assessment of the particular beliefs that have been raised in this discussion, based on the evidence cited to support those beliefs.
As I previously pointed out, a piecemeal approach to investigating Catholicism is going to be terribly problematic, considering that it should be assessed as a framework of belief, rather than a series of isolated doctrines.
Tim Allen - 08 September 2008 05:41 PM
As an “evangelical Protestant”, for want of a better term, that largely involves discussing those beliefs in the light of the scriptures. If my approach seems entirely bizarre to you, that may mean you find a lot of the discussion on these threads equally bizarre.
I understand what you believe you are doing when you believe you are assessing Catholicism according to the Scriptures, and I understand why you believe you are assessing these beliefs according to the Scriptures, but this doesn’t necessary mean you are doing so.
Tim Allen - 08 September 2008 05:41 PM
Well, how else do you propose they get corrected? By myself? What if after carefully reading the Catechism as you suggest, I still fail to identify and self-correct these strawmen? Surely it would make more sense (as well as be a useful example of brotherly Christian love) if you could point out to me the error in my thinking and why it is an error?
Why would it be completely impracticable for you or any other Roman Catholic believer to correct any strawmen I have erected, given that you are in the best position to identify them?
A lot of questions Timbo. You certainly are the inquisitive type. But it would be unloving of me if I were to suggest that I could get you to cross the Tiber by arguing with you. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit that works in the heart of people to overcome “invincible ignorance”. Much the same as you Calvinists believe, I believe.
Tim Allen - 08 September 2008 05:41 PM
So, any chance of answering any of the questions I raised with you? Or do I need to fulfill your prerequisite reading requirements before you’ll discuss those issues with me?
Surely before we assess any beliefs in light of Scripture, we should consider the following:
1. What do we mean by Scripture? On what basis?
2. How do we know what is Scripture? On what basis?
3. What interpretative principles should we apply when reading Scripture? On what basis?
4. How do we understand the role of tradition in relation to Scripture? On what basis?
5. How does our worldview interact with our understanding of Scripture?
A quick consideration of these questions should indicate to you why I believe that while you claim to have cut through the haze and have distilled Scripture to its unambiguous and authoritative interpretation, what you have done could not be any further removed from your self-understanding thereof.
I did it about 34 years ago and dismissed it as being nothing like scripture.
I had read the gospels, and thought there was no difference between my Anglican background (which i had dismissed because of the formality of the services) and Catholics. But after reading the Catholic beliefs, I could see no relationship between what Jesus taught and RCC dogma. I was dismayed.
It took another 13 years to find an evangelist Christian church with Phillip Jensen at its headship, which truly taught scripture in an honest, Christ centred way to bring me to join a church. Praise to God AMEN
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
