Maronite Icon of the Pentecost with Mary and the Apostles
Brother Arganiosa:
I am not sure if I can call myself your brother since you have indirectly called me a HERETIC so many times that I can't count them.
Brother Castro:
Jorge, I do not remember calling you heretic; instead I applied it to the Evangelical Doctrine denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which is unbiblical and historically invented by Helvidius. My refutation is directed on the doctrine not on your person whom I respect and consider a fellow Christian, thus a brother in Christ. If ever I have hurt you I offer my apology.
But that is OK as I was the one that first wrote in your website that is read by many people. It was perhaps a rushed thing to do that I shouldn't have. This is why I have made my replies directly to you. I don't mind if you want to place your replies in your website. After all, in real life brothers and sisters do insult each other every now and then and that doesn't mean that they hate each other. So, I am not offended by the HERETIC remarks.
I used the word heretical because the doctrine is truly invented by heretics and it was not part of the Biblical Data handed to us by the apostles. Then the early Christians denounced it. Once again I want to enumerate the strong words that they used against the stand of Helvidius against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
The position of Helvidius is called:
That word heretical, referring not to your person but to the doctrine, is not mine. It was Augustine, Bishop of Hippo who was the champion of Orthodoxy against the Manichaean Heresy. And Augustine is so well loved by the Evangelical scholars who are trying to use his treatises for their beloved doctrine on Predestination: “Once Saved Will Always Be Saved” which is also Unbiblical and definitely not espoused by Augustine himself.
It is not my intention to attack your person or to hurt your sensitivities. And, I thank you for your understanding. Jorge, you must have noticed that the topics that we are discussing are very dear to us Catholics because we took into our hearts the Words of the Lord Jesus on the Cross saying: “Behold your Mother!” [John 19:27]. Thus, your criticism of our devotion to the Blessed Mother is personally painful for us Catholics too. But as you have stated no offense made because we Catholics are used being insulted on our Faith despite the fact that we are convinced of the Biblical Foundation of our doctrines.
One of my intentions was to indirectly seek reasons for why you (or the Catholic Church) believe in certain things. I have achieved that (I think).
Praise the Lord then if these exchanges have given you reasons why Catholics are doing certain things and that your expectations have been met.
I will tell you though, don't be deceived by my superficial answers. I am not trying to make a formal theological discussion for various reasons; the main ones being that I don't have any formal biblical training, I don't have the time to actually reply with such details and I am not a strong writer anyway.
I am not downgrading you Jorge because as I have stated in the previous exchange I consider you as an educated gentleman. However, I myself am demanding reasons from you for the things that your churches and fellowships and pastors are doing. I also demand deeper explanations on why you do such things. As you want to know from me I also want to know from you. The flow of reasons must be mutual and the giving of knowledge must be reciprocated.
I am very aware that Saints are very alive and well in heaven and everything that happens there. I also try at times to imagine what else happens that is not mentioned in the bible. I certainly share all you views on that as well.
Thanks be to God if you are aware of that. I stated that ‘you don’t know’ because you gave that impression to me; not only impression but you categorically stated it. You said that you prefer to ask the prayer of your pastor because you know that he can hear you and on the other hand, that you do not know if the saints can.
Following that statement I presented to you the Biblical passages showing that the Saints are conscious, they can hear, they can speak, they can communicate, they know what is happening on earth and that they gather the prayers of the saints on earth then the Angels bring them in front of the Most High in heaven like Incense.
Praise the Lord if you share these views with me. But, I refuted you on that because you stated that “you don’t know if the saints in heaven can hear”. If you told me that you know that they can hear and are aware and are alive then there was no need for me to quote those verses.
On the other hand Jorge, I want to stress once again that many Evangelicals are not accepting that. They are teaching the Doctrine of Soul-Sleep. So, when you said that you were not sure if they could hear you then I presuppose that you are applying Soul Sleep also just likes the other Evangelicals that I have encountered.
The problem with Evangelicalism Jorge is that you don’t have official manual that can give us your theology in an official and definitive manner. Almost every pastor that I speak provides different answers and even different meaning on your doctrines. It is therefore both surprising for me that you do not adhere to the Soul-Sleep Doctrine and at the same time I expect that when I exchange ideas with you new interpretations of Evangelicalism will arise.
I have previously read all the passages that you presented to support your view multiple times. I also expected that you would mentioned them.
Ok Jorge. I believe you on that. So then please refrain from telling me that you don’t know a thing while in fact you do know them.
I can also see that what I said could be viewed as supporting what Jehovah witnesses say but that was not my intention. Just sloppy writing.
Ha, ha, ha... Of course I didn’t think that you are espousing the Jehovah Witnesses doctrine but your choice of words led me to see the connection and I am glad to be confirmed that it is not your position although you really admit that it was open to that interpretation.
My point was that I wanted to actually see evidence in the bible of people addressing prayers directly to anyone other than Jesus, the Father etc or analogously of people in heaven (again other than the persons of the Holy Trinity) receiving prayers or playing an intercessory role.
Actually Jorge when we have proven by our presentations of Biblical passages that the Saints in Heaven are alive and you have recognized that it is true and that you are aware of them it already negates the assertion that we cannot pray to them. Since they are alive then we can pray to them as the believers of their time asked their intercessions and as we do to our pastors and to our friends.
Now St. Paul testified that making supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving thanks for the good of others is pleasing to God. The holy people on earth are doing so. They pray for others and they are asking one another to pray for them.
1 Timothy 2:1-4 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
In heaven, since they are still alive, conscious, and capable of seeing and hearing and are actually praying then the doctrine and the pious practice is valid.
If the pastor is in New York and the devotee asking him to pray God to heal his cancer is in the Philippines, is it alright to do so? Yes, by Evangelical standard. If a friend is in Mexico and the friend he is asking to pray for him is in Australia, is it permissible to request his intercession from Sydney? Of course it is, by Evangelical standard. HOW COME THEY ARE POSING DIFFICULTIY WHEN WE HAVE TO ASK THE INTERCESSION OF THE LIVING SOULS IN HEAVEN? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? AREN’T CHRISTIANS PERMITTED TO INVOKE GOD AND INTERCEDE FOR OTHERS WHEREVER THEY ARE? WHY IS IT THAT EVANGELICALS ARE OPPOSING THE INTERCESSIONS OF THE LIVING JUST MEN AND WOMEN MADE PERFECT BY THE GRACE OF GOD IN THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM? IS IT BECAUSE THEY CAN’T HEAR THEM? OR THEY CAN’T SEE THEM?
It is on this light that I couldn’t see the logic of opposition to the Catholic Doctrine. Your position is creating a distance between heaven and earth using physical criteria while the Catholics believes that The Saints in Heaven and the Saints on Earth are SPIRITUALLY UNITED BY COMMON FAITH IN GOD AS WE ARE UNITED IN FAITH IN THE CHURCH ON EARTH.
I do think that Rev 5:8-9 presents an interesting view with respect to this that could perhaps be seen as an intercessory role (even if it is within a clearly symbolic context).
The Book of Revelation is symbolic in its presentation, it is true but it is not only symbolic because it is a Vision of Heaven. St. John presented to us what heaven is as he saw it through divine revelation. We believe that Rev 5:8-9 is indeed showing the intercessory role of the saints and the angels.
Even if we view it in a symbolic way we can say that it symbolizes intercessory role of the spirits of the just and the angels in heaven. It is not the other way around; that they don’t care about or have nothing to do with the life of the Church on earth. Whether it is a symbol or a real presentation of what is actually happening in Heaven, it is still in favour of the Catholic position not of the Evangelical position.
The other verses you quoted, while demonstrating that people are alive, fully aware, and engaged in worship, etc. in heaven don't directly demonstrate the issue of prayer to the Saints.
As I have stated the fact that they are alive then we can treat them the way we treat our friends and relatives and fellow believers here on earth. We can ask their favour, i.e., to pray for us and since it is Biblical that they are in front of God praying and worshipping then we believe that they are incorporating our prayers and intentions in their petitions in front of the Almighty.
I do agree with you in your conclusion that it is a question of assumptions.
The one who stated that is the Protestant Bible scholar Randy Alcorn not me. He agreed with the positions of the Catholic Church though.
It is not just an assumption for the Catholic Church, it is manifested that there is no prohibitions of praying to the saints and it is established that they are alive and they are still believers of God in heaven, meaning they are still Christians in Heaven so we can still relate to them as brothers and sisters in Christ and we still belong to the same Church even though they are already in Life After Death.
The Evangelical Doctrine of Soul Sleep is solidly debunked and the argument that the saints cannot hear us is thoroughly refuted. Thus, the opposition to the intercessory role of saints has no foundation to hold on to. The Catholic position is strengthened while the Evangelical position is demolished.
As for the issue of me not sharing the views of other protestants, etc. My point is very simple. I don't represent any group; I only represent myself. I am not saying that I want to show the Beauty, Splendor and Truth of the Holy Evangelical Church. I don't share views of some groups and I have at times directly commented on their websites just like I did on yours.
I got it Jorge. So, you do not belong to any denomination, fellowship, or any group in Evangelical Christianity. Well, in American parlance: you are a lone ranger in your faith. It is not a church that determines your faith but you yourself.
I respect your position Jorge although as a Catholic I find it strange and I think it is alien to the life of the Church as found in the New Testament. Christians are not alone, market-shopping for doctrines and ideas, but a member of One True Church with One God, One Lord, One Faith, One Church, One Baptism and One Bread.
I don't see much reason to defend them. To be honest, your view of saying that I can't separate myself from them because them and me belong to the same group is irrelevant and even offensive as well.
It is not my intention to offend your person Jorge but I do recognize that due to the sensitivity of our topic our impassioned replies are penetrating our hearts to the point that it hurts from time to time.
Here comes another essential difference between Catholics and Evangelicals Jorge. We Catholics are united into one Church so that we can truly say that the other member is our own; that we are responsible for each other. We are spiritually and ecclesiastically united as One. It is strange for us Catholics to be lone rangers in faith. I believe that the Apostles are not lone rangers they are united as one. If there are disagreements in Faith they settle it by going to the higher leadership like in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. There are rules governing the Christian Communities and no Christian was allowed to invent a doctrine.
Our faith just like the Apostolic Faith is not only personal but COMMUNAL. We are a Community of Believers. That is what the Church is all about. It is PERSONAL and COMMUNAL, INDIVIDUAL and COLLECTIVE. Much more, each Community is joined together so that it formed a One Universal Church.
BESIDES, YOUR POSITION JORGE IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY. YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU HAVE A PASTOR THEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE 'ON YOUR OWN'. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL. IT WILL MAKE YOUR PASTOR A USELESS PERSON IN YOUR LIFE.
I don't consider myself part of them in the same way that I don't think that when a priest is caught doing terrible things (you know what I mean); I don't consider that as the normal or tipical behavior of all other priests.
When a priest is caught committing terrible things it is that particular priest who must face the full force of the law because he is the one who committed the crime. But, we cannot say that we have nothing to do with him. He is our brother priest, thus, he is duty bound to appear before our canonical courts as well, we must penalized him according to our Canon Law and we have to extend our helping hand on him as well. Thus, even though only few priests committed those terrible crimes the local Church paid millions for the victims. The sins of few have become wounds in the entire Body of Christ as Judas did.
When our priests are doing a lot of good works the entire Church rejoices with them but when some have committed evil all of us are hurt as well. And we are ready to face the consequences whether ecclesiastically, socially and legally. Thus, when you questioned the practices of Latin American Catholics I didn’t distance myself to them instead I offered vigorous supporting arguments from Scriptures and from logical reasoning to defend them. Although I am open to ideas that some Catholics may have indeed committed mistakes in their practices of faith but the official teachings and practices of the Catholic Church can stand scrutiny.
The problem that you I have as far as the Scriptures is concerned is that there is no way for us to have a productive dialogue because if I quote the scripture; your view will always be that the vast majority of scholars... agree with you and therefore it must be correct. From that point of view; then comes the HERECY conclusion. Since, if I don't agree with your long list of scholars; I am therefore a HERETIC.
Let us put it into context Jorge. It is the doctrine that Mary Lost Her Virginity After the Birth of Jesus that I called heretical. Not you. I never called you heretic. I said your position is heretical.
My basis for that judgment is not simply the list of scholars but the historical fact that your position is invented by Helvidius who was unanimously declared heretic by early Christians. My point is that the recognized Champions of Orthodoxies believed and declared and defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary while Helvidius’ denial of it was condemned as heretical.
That declaration against Helvidius as heretic and his denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as heretical was made when Christianity was still One and Undivided. I am simply saying that I am following the unanimous decisions of the early Christians rather than accept the heretical view of Helvidius. And I cannot accept that what is heresy in the 3rd to 5th centuries of Christianity is already acceptable now as orthodox because some pastors teach it. O No, No, No.
The problem with your position Jorge is that you are alone. Thus, the Church is YOU. The ultimate authority in your faith is YOU. You are your own Pope and your own Pastor. Thus, even if the Historical Church and the early Christians already condemned the denial of Perpetual Virginity it is becoming an Orthodox Doctrine because of your own authority declaring it acceptable for you. THUS, THE SUPREME AUTHORITY IS NO LONGER THE BIBLE [WHICH IS CATEGORICALLY SILENT ON THE MATTER] BUT YOU. AND, IN THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURES IT IS NO LONGER THE CHURCH'S INTERPRETATION THAT MUST BE FOLLOWED BUT YOURS. AND, THE TESTIMONIES OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS CLOSEST TO THE APOSTLES ARE NO LONGER BELIEVABLE BECAUSE YOU REJECTED THEM.
WHO IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN FAITH THEN? YOU.
You are claiming that our position is not clearly supported by the Bible yet your own position is ABSENT IN THE BIBLE. There is no statement there that Mary lost her Virginity later on. There is no mention of Mary becoming pregnant again and of her conceiving and delivering babies later.
My point on this is that we should limit our discussions to what the bible actually says otherwise there is not much to say from that point.
Exactly, I agree that we should limit ourselves with what the Bible says and nothing more. The Bible says these about Mary:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [The Old Testament called the Mother of the Messiah ‘VIRGIN’. Virgin in conceiving the Messiah, Virgin in giving birth to Jesus. That is a continuous virginity.]
Then in Matthew 1:23 this is further upheld as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus and Mary. Luke 1:27 once again referred to Mary as Virgin. THUS, THE BIBLE STATES THAT MARY IS VIRGIN BUT NEVER IS THERE ANY STATEMENT THAT MARY IS ‘NO LONGER A VIRGIN’. Thus, she is VIRGIN MARY IN BIBLICAL LANGUAGE, forever...
I was trying to say to you that on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity; the text (in a superficial view0 doesn't seem to support your view (without bringing in all these external references to scholars). Or put another way, what would a greek of the time of writing the gospels would say the text means if he were asked who had not been previously told/teached that Mary was or wasn't a virgin forever.
The superficial view of the Gospel also attests to Mary’s Virginity and that is the reason why the early Greek speaking Christians never believed Tertulian and Helvidius on that issue. Instead, the denial of Mary’s Virginity was condemned. And these are the Christians closest to the Apostolic Age. The superficial and scholarly readings of the Gospel texts support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that is why for more than 1,500 years that heresy is on the background only. It is only the newly invented religions of Protestantism and Evangelicalism which thoroughly permitted it. Yet, even among them there are sporadic groups of believers, scholars who supported the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Then the great majority of Christians: Catholics and Orthodox combined upheld the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
You cannot claim that you position is Biblical while ours is not. While the historical and scholarly views on the topic are overwhelmingly unanimous for us. Well, you can reject our scholars and we can also reject your opinion and the rest of the Evangelicals who do so. The earliest records of Christian faith on the topic are also in favour of Perpetual Virginity.
What would be their objective conclusion if given all of the new Testament to read. I don't know the answer to that but according to you if I am not in 100% agreement with you I am a HERETIC.
The fact that you don’t know the answer to your question is a proof that your Sola Scriptura is ineffective and not leading the believers to the true faith. The Lord Jesus didn’t teach Sola Scriptura but He established the Church to be the guide of the believers in matters of faith and morals. As St. Paul said “the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth.” [1 Timothy 3:15]. Now, being alone you are hampered in determining the orthodox faith when the Sacred Scriptures are silent on a certain topic. The early Christians settled matters like these through a Council of Bishops as done in Acts 15. How can you call a Council of Bishops if you are alone?
O NO JORGE. I never stated that if you are not in 100% agreement with ME you are a heretic. I didn’t say that. IT IS NOT ME WHO IS THE CRITERIA FOR ORTHODOXY but the CHURCH. It is the Church who will decide if a doctrine is heretical or not. It is the Church who will decide how to interpret the passages of Scriptures definitively if there is clash of opinions among the believers. It is not me who is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. It is not me that the Lord established with a promise that “The Gate of Hell shall not Prevail Against It” [Matthew 16:18-19] but the Church - The One and Only Church founded by Jesus.
IF IT IS NOT ME... IT IS NOT YOU ALSO JORGE. YOU ARE ALSO NOT THE ULTIMATE CRITERIA OF ORTHODOXY. AND, NOT YOUR PASTOR AS WELL.
Concerning heresy, once again I didn’t call you heretic. Then, I stand that the denial of Perpetual Virginity is heretical because it is condemned by the Church and by Christians for centuries since it was brought into light by Helvidius. Unfortunately some Evangelicals have chosen the stand of this heretic over Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome and Augustine.
You are pointing on my scholars Jorge. Well, I’m proud of my chosen scholars and I don’t think you are fond of Helvidius. The Evangelicals have chosen the invented doctrine of heretic Helvidius which is heretical.
This is why, I wanted you to give me some other evidence, as opposed to quotes from the first 5-6 centuries of the Church. Don't get me wrong; I find those interesting and do read them but that is where our differences arise. More on that at the end of this reply.
If you are having problems with my quotes from 5-6 centuries the more I have problem with your quotes from 20-21 centuries. It is much, much further from Apostolic Heritage. I still consider the testimonies of the early Greek speaking Christians, the Bishops and teachers of the faith from Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem, etc. than the claims of 21st century pastors from Germany, Switzerland, Holland and USA. Just using the legal parlance the further you are from the historical event the less credible you are as a witness.
Athanasius is ranging from 3rd to 4th centuries Jorge. My quotes are not just from 5-6 centuries. Much more the Greek and the Latin Fathers didn’t claim that they were the inventor of the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity instead they referred to such doctrine as a constant teaching of the Church. That is how the Church from the Apostolic Times viewed the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This belief is not simply an invention out of nothing. The early Christians accepted and believed it based on the testimony of those who came ahead of them and also from their own analyses of the Sacred Scriptures. Here is one from the 3rd century:
"For if Mary, as those who declare with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, yet Jesus says to His mother, 'Woman, behold thy son,'and not 'Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually says to her, 'Lo,this is Jesus whom thou didst bear.' It is not the case that everyone who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him, and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary: 'Behold, thy son Christ.' " ---Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6 (232 A.D.)
My point here is that the Perpetual Virginity is believed throughout the history of the Church while the denial is a recent invention. Then, the foundation of the doctrine is not simply Apostolic Tradition but also the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by the early Christians who were Greek speaking while the recently invented ‘denial’ of the Evangelicals is invented by non-Greek speaking Protestants. WE PUT OUR TRUST IN THE CONSTANT TEACHING OF THE CHURCH AND THE TESTIMONIES OF THE GREEK CHRISTIANS OF THE EARLY CENTURIES RATHER THAN THE RECENT INVENTORS OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS WHO LACK CREDIBILITY ON THE MATTER.
I do like the reference you made about the sussecion of David argument. That is an interesting one that I can certainly consider as supporting the concept of perpetual virginity. I'll have to study it more but at least is more direct evidence.
I have another point to give you Jorge: THE BIBLICAL TITLE OF JESUS AS ‘THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON’! If Jesus had biological brothers and sisters then HE IS NO LONGER ‘ONLY BEGOTTEN SON’ whether in Heaven or on Earth. By having siblings Jesus can no longer claim being Monogenes because by flesh and blood He would not be ‘The One and Only Son’. Having physical siblings will destroy the Spiritual Truth of Jesus’ being ‘One and Only Son’.
Look at this passage:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
The Strong Bible Dictionary explained that term as:
G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).
The Robertson Word Picture Bible Commentary explained:
The only begotten Son (ho monogenēs huios). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after hōs monogenous para patros in Joh_1:14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to ho monogenēs huios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like Joh_3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called theos in Joh_1:1. The Incarnation is stated in Joh_1:14, where he is also termed monogenēs. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is “God only begotten,” “the Eternal Generation of the Son” of Origen’s phrase.
SO, JESUS IS ‘GOD ONLY BEGOTTEN’. IF JESUS HAS BLOOD BROTHERS AND SISTERS HE WILL BE ‘GOD, ONCE ONLY BEGOTTEN’ or 'GOD, ONLY BEGOTTEN BEFORE... NOW NO MORE.' Ha, ha, ha... very funny. What hilarity will be the effects on the faith of Helvidian Doctrine.
I don't have a bible with me but I will look for the quotes later and reply back. As for the requirements of elders/presbiters/pastors/priests (this is just based on memory), etc. both Paul and Peter talk about these men needing to be of good conduct, not given to wine, not greedy (on something like that), married only once (or husband of only one wife), with children that are under subjection, etc.
We know that that is why there are a lot of Lay Leaders in the Catholic Church. My father is married to my mother yet he was an active leader in our parish as lay minister and other organizations then.
That passage doesn’t do any harm to the Catholic practice of celibacy because it is not imperative that the clergy should get married. If you will insist then JESUS, Paul, John and the rest of the Apostles are disqualified because they never get married: Biblically, Historically and by Tradition. At least our stand is better. You are following one of the advises of St. Paul but WE ARE FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE OF THE DIVINE MASTER, JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND GOD. You are following one of the advices of Paul but we are following the personal choice of Paul, of John, of Andrew, of Philip, of Thomas, of Simon and Jude, of James, of Timothy and Titus, of Barnabas, of Stephen and many others.
I AM CONVINCED THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MADE A BETTER DECISION THAN YOU. AND WE WILL NOT CHANGE THIS WONDERFUL PREFERENCE OVER THE CHOICE OF YOUR PASTORS WHO DOESN'T WANT TO ABANDON THE COMFORT OF MARITAL BEDROOM WHILE CLAIMING TO BE THE NEXT APOSTLES OF THE LAMB.
By the way, are you a Pastor? Do you have a flock of believers? Just asking because some friends informed me that you are an Evangelical Pastor in Peru. Is this correct? Are you a Filipino, American or Peruvian?
This clearly shows that it is OK to be both married and a pastor and to continue having a family relationship.
Yeah, it is Ok. BUT IT IS BETTER AND THE BEST TO REMAIN VIRGIN FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. It is the best because THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF HAD CHOSEN IT. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD CHOSEN THE BEST NOT JUST THE 'OK'.
ALSO, ST. PAUL DIDN’T PERSONALLY FOLLOW HIS ADVICE THAT YOU ARE QUOTING BUT HE CHOSE THE CATHOLIC WAY.
ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE DID THE SAME... AND THE REST OF THE APOSTLES.
Why do we have to follow an advice that St. Paul himself didn’t practice? Actions speak lauder than words. There are lot of passages I gave you about being Virgin for the sake of the Kingdom and then they are supported by DIRECT AND EXPLICIT LIFESTYLE OF THE APOSTLES AND OF THE DIVINE MASTER.
Definitely, we have chosen the best position on this one.
I don't have the quotes now but I you know what I am talking about. And by the way, I was aware of your point about some beign married and then becoming priests. The point that I am making is that according to Scripture; the practice of the Church wasn't to prohibit being married and at the same time be a pastor/priest. This became (in my opinnion) a posterior requirement.
The Catholic Church studied the Bible thoroughly for centuries and she came to a conclusion that the best manner of following Christ the High Priest is to follow His example. The Apostles of the Lamb followed His example by being celibate themselves, so She simply tells her candidates for priesthood that if they want to be priests in the Roman Rite then they have to follow the example of the Apostles. If they don’t want that they can serve the Lord as a married lay. They can become teachers of the faith as permanent deacons, catechists, president of parish pastoral councils, lay preachers, authorS of books, educators, president and chairpersons of Catholic Institutions, etc. Or they can become a married priest in the Eastern Rites of the Church.
This is a Biblical practice and those who cannot accept it are free to refuse it.
I agree that the celibacy rule has many benefits and practical reasons and see many merits in it. However, I consider it a tradition of man instead of an apostolic tradition.
CELIBACY IS A DIVINE TRADITION BECAUSE THE LORD JESUS PRACTICED IT.
CELIBACY IS AN APOSTOLIC TRADITION BECAUSE THE APOSTLES PRACTICED IT.
For us this is the meaning of leaving our BOAT and NET and FAMILY behind TO FOLLOW JESUS.
This is indeed the central point of our differences. You talk about tradition and quote verses that mention tradition.
On the contrary, Jorge you are quoting the Bible to provide support for positions that were newly invented by Evangelicals and a position invented by Heretic Helvidius.
You are reading the Bible through the lense of the heretical teaching of Helvidius. And, you are reading the Bible through the Tradition of Man such as the doctrine of Luther, THE SOLA SCRIPTURA.
BOTH, THE SOLA SCRIPTURA AND THE DENIAL OF PERPETUAL VIRGINITY ARE TRADITION OF MEN, NAMELY HELVIDIUS AND MARTIN LUTHER. SO, SPEAKING OF TRADITION OF MEN it fits more to your position Jorge than ours. I THINK YOU SHOULD EXAMINE FIRST YOUR DOCTRINES BEFORE YOU POINT THE WORD TRADITION OF MAN UNTO US BECAUSE YOUR DOTRINES ARE TRADITION OF MEN AND WE CAN POINT OUT WHO ARE THESE MEN AND WHEN THEY WERE INVENTED.
I personally like to divide tradition as follows: apostolic tradition, bible interpretation and tradition of men. Hence, when I see the verses in the bible that talk about tradition, I believe that it refers to apostolic tradition and not the other two. Indeed, this is probably the main source of contention between the different groups within Christianity. I also think that the older the tradition is, the more relevancy it should be given. A corollary of this is that later arguments would be of lesser weight to earlier ones.
WHEN WE SAY APOSTOLIC TRADITION IT REFERS TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE SACRED TRADITION OF THE CHURCH. THE BIBLE IS A FRUIT OF SACRED TRADITION BECAUSE IT TOOK MANY YEARS BEFORE THE BOOKS AND EPISTLES WERE ENSCRIPTURATED. BEFORE THEY WERE WRITTEN AND COLLECTED INTO ONE BOOK THE APOSTLES WERE EMPLOYING ORAL TRADITION, VERBAL PROCLAMATIONS OF THE GOSPEL. Then, it took centuries before these texts were finally collected and decided upon by the Church with the list of Canonical Books.
The texts of the Scriptures are the Word of God but the List of Books is not. It was Sacred Tradition who decided it. It was the Council of Bishops of the Catholic Church. There were no Evangelical groups then yet because these religions are newly invented. Then, there were some books that bear no Title like the Gospel of Matthew. The Greek text bears no signature or claim of name like that of John yet we call it Matthew because the Fathers of the Church called it as such.
That is why we don’t minimize the importance of Apostolic Tradition and we treasure it.
Now, concerning the weight of earlier arguments with the newer arguments Jorge, we are referring here to THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY wherein the Bible doesn’t explicitly say: Mary remained a Virgin until her death and Mary lost her Virginity after the Birth of Jesus, she got more children, she became pregnant again. How can we settle it? We have to go back to History, to the earliest testimonies of the early Christians. How the early leaders of the Church believed and interpreted the Bible. That is what the Catholic Church did.
On your part, you followed the heretic Helvidius and the anti-Catholic biased of the recent Protestants. I say recent because the major founders of Protestantism taught Mary’s being Ever-Virgin. Yours is not new arguments, yours is old heresy made new.
Once again, I am simply giving my personal view and not trying to represent anybody or any organization. One thing is clear; there is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church divided. Something happened and I think that it is related to the same point. Which of the traditions is apostolic tradition versus personal interpretation vs simply a rule of men...
I am sure that you are wrong on that Jorge. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both believe and teach the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. So, if you are referring to Tradition of Men and Apostolic Tradition to pit the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church it will not rub on us because WE UNANIMOUSLY PROCLAIM TOGETHER THAT MARY IS EVER-VIRGIN.
The Orthodox are very strong on this and just like the Catholic Church they treasure the testimonies of the Church Fathers.
Besides we are also agreeing that INTERCESSIONS OF SAINTS AND ASKING THE SAINTS TO PRAY FOR US ARE BOTH APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
We have some disagreements on matters of Doctrines but in general we almost have everything in common. The division I believe is more political than doctrinal. Anyway, now the two groups are on the process of Theological Dialogue with specific aim of Restoring Ecclesial Communion.
I guess my point on this is that My view is that The Roman Catholic Church of today is not necessarily the same as The Church of the first two centuries.
Jorge, being a lone ranger in faith is definitely not being the Church of the First Two centuries. And the Doctrinal Babel of Evangelicalism with its divisions in ecclesial life, in theology and in worship is definitely not being the Church of the First Two centuries. Definitely THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND WOMEN PASTORS & BISHOPS IN PROTESTANTISM AND IN EVANGELICAL CHURCHES ARE NOT BEING THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.
I THINK THE ROCK CONCERT STYLE OF WORSHIP WITH ALL ITS THEATRICS AND DRAMATIZATIONS IN EVANGELICALISM IS NOT BEING THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.
The Catholic Church is definitely the Church of the First Two Centuries. She simply grew in size and number and has been enriched by her two Millennia of Historical heritage but she is still the same Church founded on the Apostles. The historical line is unbroken and the doctrines substantially unchanging.
How many things have changed since then is indeed the point of contention...
Change is a normal part of life. All of us are changing and the Church has changed through the course of time. Her leaders are dying and new ones rising but she is still governed by a universal leader, by Bishops, priests and deacons. There are still consecrated Virgins. She is still commemorating the Last Supper of the Lord every Sunday using unleavened bread and grape wine. She is still honouring the Blessed Virgin and the Saints and she is still united in having ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE CHURCH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE BREAD.
On the part of the Protestants and Evangelicals it is documented and historically proven that LUTHER, CALVIN, ZWINGLI and the original Reformers or Protestant Founders were TEACHING THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY. Thus, THE DENIAL OF THAT VIRGINITY IS SOMETHING NEWLY INVENTED EVEN IN PROTESTANT AND EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY. So, speaking of Change I think it doesn’t support you at all Jorge. On the contrary it will sink your arguments.
I do believe that in Heaven there will be surprises for everyone and we realize on how many things we got it wrong!!!
Yeah, I think Evangelical pastors and their followers will be surprised that Catholics will be in heaven too despite the fact that they were preaching that we will go to hell. Catholics will not be surprised to see Evangelicals in heaven because we are teaching that they can go to heaven too.
I believe that they will be surprised that Mary and the Saints can hear them in heaven and that they are alive contrary to the Doctrine of Soul Sleep that they had invented. The Catholics will not be surprised by that because we are teaching that fact.
I think that they will be surprised that souls are saved in Heaven not just by faith alone but by good works also contrary to the dogma of Sola Fide that they have invented. Catholics will not be surprised and so you are Jorge because we both accepted the explanation of James in his Epistle.
I think they will be surprised that not all Evangelicals will be saved despite their claim that Once Saved Will Always Be Saved. Catholics will not be surprised that not all Catholics will go to heaven because we know that Salvation is not a one-event reality.
I think there will be a lot of surprises indeed.
God Bless you!
Jorge
God bless you too, Jorge!
Rev. Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
Thank you, Father Abe.
ReplyDeleteDear Titov,
ReplyDeleteGrace and Peace!
You're welcome, Bro. God bless you. Please include us and our apostolates in your prayers.