Both Peter and Paul are attributed to building the foundations of the Catholic Church of Rome. The very scripture that the Church Fathers chose to be part of the cannon through the seven ecumenical councils was a difficult process of judgement.
I would like to know when it was deemed irrefutable that the Rome Church decided to go against Paul's teaching to in Titus 1 v5 - 9. This clearly states the Church Fathers' position on the character and choice of 'overseers' on the Church. Say no more, this is why I do not agree with Celiabate Preists serving a congregational church.
This is wikipedia info on it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy
This seems too harsh a directive, and I am sure that if one's spouce dies, one should be free to re-marry. This is good as the marriage vows state 'until death do us part'. There is no provision for divorce in this ceremony and vow before God however! So a priest who becomes single through widowhood in my opinion shouldn't be excluded from joining with another. Now to get totally liberal over this, and blow everyone away, I would argue there is a case for Homosexual partnerships provided they are of the same status as the Heterosexual ones with all the same exacting vows as the standard scriptural undertaking dictates. This means Gay from top to toe, which in my opinion is the 'naked and shameless' aspect of demanding un-natural calibacy from priests 'for the sake of the 'Kingdom of Heaven'.
In my reasoning, there is little point in promoting something as un-natural and un-livable, at the expense of putting temptation into harms way by demanding such a high price from those who are called to minister to the flock of the Church.
Seems to me the entity most likely to gain from discrediting Paul's writings is the Church of Rome. There has always been the hint of an inner circle of 'knowers'. That is why the so called Gnostic movement was such a threat. I think that when Origen collated all the first manuscripts, and set them out as a common cannon, he was wise to leave in what the Church of Rome did not want seen by the common man. He wrapped up the kernals in snippets of scripture, that would be their undoing if they created a different church on Earth to the one Paul and Peter founded. The anti-dote patches to outright heresies!
Pehaps intecession as a form of prayer, both illuminates and creates the penumbric space between God and ourselves? This is where the 'ring of confidence' must be positioned in order that this margin protects ourselves and God from annihilism.
So we may well have seen the effects of God bouncing off the walls of 'our manufactured reality'. Good thing we put a lot of magnets up as a containment field in that Hadron Collider, I can't imagine anything else withstanding such a 'shock wave'. It's all imaginary! You may as well have it wrapped in a cotton wool blanket.
I would like to know when it was deemed irrefutable that the Rome Church decided to go against Paul's teaching to in Titus 1 v5 - 9. This clearly states the Church Fathers' position on the character and choice of 'overseers' on the Church. Say no more, this is why I do not agree with Celiabate Preists serving a congregational church.
This is wikipedia info on it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy
This seems too harsh a directive, and I am sure that if one's spouce dies, one should be free to re-marry. This is good as the marriage vows state 'until death do us part'. There is no provision for divorce in this ceremony and vow before God however! So a priest who becomes single through widowhood in my opinion shouldn't be excluded from joining with another. Now to get totally liberal over this, and blow everyone away, I would argue there is a case for Homosexual partnerships provided they are of the same status as the Heterosexual ones with all the same exacting vows as the standard scriptural undertaking dictates. This means Gay from top to toe, which in my opinion is the 'naked and shameless' aspect of demanding un-natural calibacy from priests 'for the sake of the 'Kingdom of Heaven'.
In my reasoning, there is little point in promoting something as un-natural and un-livable, at the expense of putting temptation into harms way by demanding such a high price from those who are called to minister to the flock of the Church.
Seems to me the entity most likely to gain from discrediting Paul's writings is the Church of Rome. There has always been the hint of an inner circle of 'knowers'. That is why the so called Gnostic movement was such a threat. I think that when Origen collated all the first manuscripts, and set them out as a common cannon, he was wise to leave in what the Church of Rome did not want seen by the common man. He wrapped up the kernals in snippets of scripture, that would be their undoing if they created a different church on Earth to the one Paul and Peter founded. The anti-dote patches to outright heresies!
Pehaps intecession as a form of prayer, both illuminates and creates the penumbric space between God and ourselves? This is where the 'ring of confidence' must be positioned in order that this margin protects ourselves and God from annihilism.
So we may well have seen the effects of God bouncing off the walls of 'our manufactured reality'. Good thing we put a lot of magnets up as a containment field in that Hadron Collider, I can't imagine anything else withstanding such a 'shock wave'. It's all imaginary! You may as well have it wrapped in a cotton wool blanket.
RSS Feed