accountable:


Yes, if they wrote contrary to scripture. Period.

If they wrote contrary to scripture, how come they still chose the books that they were writing contrary to as the NT?

They could have easily made a different list.

accountable:


When James said 'simon had related' he spoke in reference to happened at the house of Cornelius ( how God at first did visit the gentiles) not what peter had just spoken . he was not in any way acknowledging peters authority.

hahaha, what simon related/said is written right there in acts 15 and that put an end to d argument even James went on to refer to it.

Bobbysworld28:

Teaching can be oral, in writing or in actions. Peter acted in error and Paul called him out. Cheers

people can teach on thing and behave differently, infallibity is an issue of outright teaching whether in words or in letter. Actions and behaviours are totally different issues. JESUS once said to obey d pharisee but not follow their example, there is a difference btw a weakness in character and an error in teaching, it is the later that we discuss under infallibility.

accountable:

No, what started in 1870 is
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

juliano has already shown sevaral documents that shows d teaching predate vatican 1, but strangely enough you don't care. That show u are not honest.

The last line places a curse. That is dogmatic definition. U r not longer free to disbelieve the pope.... Even when it is contrary to scripture. Before then a catholic could choose not to believe in papal infallibility. That is when u were no longer free to question papal teachings. But The apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised

it seems u didnt read d declaration well, when d pope speaks ex cathedra he cannot contradict d scripture, he like d apostles and councils before are guided by the holyspirit and cant teach error.
As i said earlier apostolic teaching arent subject to pick and chose either u accept or u dont.

Ubenedictus:
people can teach on thing and behave differently, infallibity is an issue of outright teaching whether in words or in letter. Actions and behaviours are totally different issues. JESUS once said to obey d pharisee but not follow their example, there is a difference btw a weakness in character and an error in teaching, it is the later that we discuss under infallibility.

From previous discourse I am not at all surprised at this ur answer. U can even pass for all these new age Pastors with some sly answers! So whatever Peter taught ppl by his action to d Gentiles, u r excusing it as long as he did not pen it down. Pls produce a document showing dt attitude and behaviours are excluded in d 'infallibility list'

Scholar8200:
What Peter said agreed with Paul and Barnabas' testimony and also agreed with the earlier prophecies! No sweeping fiat from any man was final!

Besides, James reference to Peter does not suggest a belittling of the testimony of others. If Peter had said something contrary to scripture, he would have been corrected like Paul had to do when Peter acted contrary to the truth! Whither your unique authority!

actually what peter said was contrary to d know scriptures, d know scripture was d old testament and it proscribes circumcision, peter said lay no burden! He said that without alluding to any scripture and james certainly did not try to correct him instead he said 'as peter has spoken'!
Pauls own contribution was interesting because he didnt try to instruct anyone he and barnabas simply went on relating their experiences! It was peter who decleared "we believe". And brought d heated debate to an end. D pharisee didnt ask him were is dat in d bible? D bible is d only authority how dare u teach doctrine without it.

The tenor of your post suggests that Paul had no right rebuking Peter because the latter had a unique authority when even Paul said

i never infered d above, when someone practice wat is different frm what he teaches then he has to be called to order irrespective of wu he is. Dat takes nothing away from his teaching authority.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

how does this concern d discussion? Paul went to jerusalem to ensure his teaching was in tandem with others, he was approved.


On a different not it is interest dat paul call peter an apostle to d jews even though d said peter was d one who opened d door for d gentiles.

[quote author=Scholar8200 post=40009778] In vain do we find Paul alluding to ANY unique authority handed to ANY apostle over the others! In fact Peter was even the one who mentioned that Paul was given some revelations which were hard to be understood!!! Now if he was the 'head' (whatever you mean by that), we should shudder that he was bypassed at this point![/quotd] did peter imply he was ignorant of those revelation? He simply told people to be careful as some ignorant people like misinterpreting d writtings of Christ they find hard to understand.

Rather I will say it was because they were with one accord under the Spirit's headship and they could therefore say:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts 15;28a

they were in one acord after they had debated heatedly.

And that they were in one accord see:
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, Again, NOBODY is singled out like you are doing!

how did they get to be of one accord? At the bging there was no one accord! The agreements only flowed after peter spoke!

Shed more light on this piece stating clearly:
Where Peter acted alone and the others recognising that authority respected sans questioning.

i already explain this, in d council peter said "we believe..." in a place where people had varied opinion, he claimed to speak for all! Nobody stood up to say i disagree, not euen d pharisees! He ended d debate, James said as symeon has spoken! His teaching is unchallenged an form d basis for whatever will b james judgement. Peter didnt need to conduct a census or ask 4 agreement b4 saying "we believe...".

P.S. The scenario below does not agree with Peter having a 'unique authority'

Now the apostles (special messengers) and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard [with astonishment] that the Gentiles (heathen) also had received and accepted and welcomed the Word of God [the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God].
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party [certain Jewish Christians] found fault with him [separating themselves from him in a hostile spirit, opposing and disputing and contending with him],
3 Saying, Why did you go to uncircumcised men and [even] eat with them?
4 But Peter began [at the beginning] and narrated and explained to them step by step [the whole list of events]. He said:
5 I was in the town of Joppa praying, and [falling] in a trance I saw a vision of something coming down from heaven, like a huge sheet lowered by the four corners; and it descended until it came to me.
Acts 11:1-5

He had to explain himself and thankfully he was led by the Spirit - the One that truly represents and reveals Christ to, in and through the believers

good peter just ate wit d jews and baptised them even though some seemed against it, he had recieve a new revelation and even d xtians came that he might explain and teach d new directive he is following. He immediately did. His revelation is correct whether or not they assent to it.

Ubenedictus:
actually what peter said was contrary to d know scriptures, d know scripture was d old testament and it proscribes circumcision, peter said lay no burden! He said that without alluding to any scripture and james certainly did not try to correct him instead he said 'as peter has spoken'!

What Peter said was that salvation is not by circumcision hence why burden the gentiles with what is not their business (since they are not Abraham's biological descendants) this is in agreement with the Word:Jesus NEVER alluded to keeping the law as a prerequisite for salvation and that was Peter's stress!

Pauls own contribution was interesting because he didnt try to instruct anyone he and barnabas simply went on relating their experiences!

Just as Peter related his. Besides, to show that the Spirit is the principal Figure, Paul had already opposed the error before Acts 15. Think of it!!! Paul a hardcore pharisee but was converted and did not attempt to circumcise the gentiles!!! It was not as though Peter was correcting a mistake Paul was making, rather, it was a confirmation of what the Spirit had already Inspired Paul to forbid because: SALVATION IS BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH! So, the letter would not really be a surprise to Paul's converts because he had already taught them the centrality of faith in salvation.

It was peter who decleared "we believe". And brought d heated debate to an end. D pharisee didnt ask him were is dat in d bible? D bible is d only authority how dare u teach doctrine without it.

The pharisees were new to the concept of salvation by faith but they obtained it so. Besides, can you show me what portion of the Scriptures commands free Gentiles (not Israelites) to be circumcised which Peter contradicted? And, did Israel attempt circumcising the men of those nations that they did not kill but brought to subjection?

how does this concern d discussion? Paul went to jerusalem to ensure his teaching was in tandem with others, he was approved.


On a different not it is interest dat paul call peter an apostle to d jews even though d said peter was d one who opened d door for d gentiles.

That was their perception. Philip had preached and baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch before Peter went to Cornelius' house!

Scholar8200:
The dissenters were mentioned:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:5
Not the apostles but some pharisees! They had believed but like Simon the sorcerer still had issues!

and their debate was brought to an end

Besides, you may make fun but thank God they sans your bias knew where the Inspiration for their decision came from- not ANY man but the Spirit!

i never disputed d fact that d spirit is in charge, when catholic discuss infalibility they must as a rule admit that d holy spirit is in charge. I do not dispute it, it is a fact. D question is how did d holyspirit put an end to d debate? It is thru peter.

The passage James referred to was to buttress the fact that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too:
Acts 15:14,15a
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

now u are confirming my points

Yes and none of those experiences were relayed in the letter!

The bone of contention was - NO CIRCUMCISION AS A CONDITION FOR SALVATION and Paul already knew this (also by Inspiration Galatians 2:4-6) hence the contention with those who said so (Acts 15:2)

letter to d galatians and d council in jerusalem which happened first?

Ubenedictus:


they were in one acord after they had debated heatedly.

The pharisees were the opposing side, not the apostles and elders. That has been shown to you already.

how did they get to be of one accord? At the bging there was no one accord! The agreements only flowed after peter spoke!

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Those were the dissenters.

i already explain this, in d council peter said "we believe..." in a place where people had varied opinion, he claimed to speak for all! Nobody stood up to say i disagree, not euen d pharisees! He ended d debate, James said as symeon has spoken! His teaching is unchallenged an form d basis for whatever will b james judgement. Peter didnt need to conduct a census or ask 4 agreement b4 saying "we believe...".

Peter said what he said because he knew the other apostles and elders already believed this!

Else why did Paul and Barnabas oppose them sans the council? In fact Paul called the purveyors of that teaching false brethren and from the tone of 2 Corinth and Galatians, you can tell there were some of the sect of the Pharisees that still continued the error!

good peter just ate wit d jews and baptised them even though some seemed against it, he had recieve a new revelation and even d xtians came that he might explain and teach d new directive he is following. He immediately did. His revelation is correct whether or not they assent to it.

They did not come to be tutored, they confronted him and he had to explain himself.

Ubenedictus:
and their debate was brought to an end

Thanks to the Spirit Who leads into all truth, and the unity among the apostles, elders and church against the error of the sect of the pharisees.

i never disputed d fact that d spirit is in charge, when catholic discuss infalibility they must as a rule admit that d holy spirit is in charge. I do not dispute it, it is a fact. D question is how did d holyspirit put an end to d debate? It is thru peter.

Through the Apostles and elders.

letter to d galatians and d council in jerusalem which happened first?

Of course the letter to the Galatians else why did Paul not quote the communique to the pharisees? Besides, the scenario described by Paul in Galatians 2:1-5 fits perfectly with Acts 15:1,2

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you
Galatians 2:1-5

One of the reasons they went to Jerusalem is the second highlighted but already, by Revelation of the Spirit (not Peter's instruction), they opposed the error.

Ubenedictus:
juliano has already shown sevaral documents that shows d teaching predate vatican 1, but strangely enough you don't care. That show u are not honest.

it seems u didnt read d declaration well, when d pope speaks ex cathedra he cannot contradict d scripture, he like d apostles and councils before are guided by the holyspirit and cant teach error.
As i said earlier apostolic teaching arent subject to pick and chose either u accept or u dont.

Joliano's documents didn't show any reference to infallibility.they talked only about 'president' etc. And they are not scripture. Can u show me in the bible where it says that peter or any of the apostles was infallible.
what is the yardstick for truth and error? How do we know that the pope is not speaking error? by comparing his teaching with scripture. Dogma of infallibility is deceit and guise to propagate falsehood. All the apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised why should the pope be different?

Let us think for a moment.. If truly I have no ulterior motives, I would not ask you to believe that I am infallible. I would tell u to look to the scripture as a vindication of my doctrine because I know u will never find anything it contrary to my teaching. That is what the apostles did.

''the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless'' Garth Hallett..

"There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it."Brian Tierney

Both of them are catholics.

The opinion of the church fathers differ regarding the interpretation of matt 16:18. Notably Augustine of hippo and john Chrysostom."On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built...St Augustine

God did not confine any important doctrine of the christian faith to a single passage of scripture. Every valid doctrine of the christian faith has at least a tripod of scripture. That is a simple principle of hermeneutic. To allow scripture to interprete scripture. Can u find other passage that agree with ur interpretation of matt 16:18. Anywhere else peter is called a foundation?. The overwhelming evidence from other scripture point to Christ as the rock and the foundation.1 Corinth 3:11, Ephesian 2:20

Ubenedictus:

it seems u didnt read d declaration well, when d pope speaks ex cathedra he cannot contradict d scripture, he like d apostles and councils before are guided by the holyspirit and cant teach error.

Let the scriptures be the judge.note that The dogma would be completely unnecessary if the pope were truly infallible. The many instances when the pope has spoken both counter-scriptural and extra scriptural teachings is the subject of another thread.

accountable:

Let the scriptures be the judge.note that The dogma would be completely unnecessary if the pope were truly infallible. The many instances when the pope has spoken both counter-scriptural and extra scriptural teachings is the subject of another thread.

It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA.

accountable:


Joliano's documents didn't show any reference to infallibility.they talked only about 'president' etc. And they are not scripture. Can u show me in the bible where it says that peter or any of the apostles was infallible.
what is the yardstick for truth and error? How do we know that the pope is not speaking error? by comparing his teaching with scripture. Dogma of infallibility is deceit and guise to propagate falsehood. All the apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised why should the pope be different?

Let us think for a moment.. If truly I have no ulterior motives, I would not ask you to believe that I am infallible. I would tell u to look to the scripture as a vindication of my doctrine because I know u will never find anything it contrary to my teaching. That is what the apostles did.

''the dogma of infallibility is neither true nor false but meaningless'' Garth Hallett..

"There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it."Brian Tierney

Both of them are catholics.

The way we know that the bible is infallible is the way we know that the Pope is infallible. They are both inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Pope doesn't ask you not to scrutinize. An enormous amount of scrutiny, study and discussion that is carried out before A Pope teaches.

A Person who is Catholic is a person who accepts the faith fully. One who chooses and picks doctrine or fights against an already defined doctrine is A PROTESTANT.

accountable:
The opinion of the church fathers differ regarding the interpretation of matt 16:18. Notably Augustine of hippo and john Chrysostom."On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built...St Augustine

God did not confine any important doctrine of the christian faith to a single passage of scripture. Every valid doctrine of the christian faith has at least a tripod of scripture. That is a simple principle of hermeneutic. To allow scripture to interprete scripture. Can u find other passage that agree with ur interpretation of matt 16:18. Anywhere else peter is called a foundation?. The overwhelming evidence from other scripture point to Christ as the rock and the foundation.1 Corinth 3:11, Ephesian 2:20

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On
him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very
frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said:
‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’
that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter
confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the
person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has
received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art
Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the
rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole
Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader
decide which of these two opinions is the more probable
(Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter
20.1).

Saint Augustine as a Catholic and just like the Catholic Church teaches an AND situation. The authority to bind was given to all Apostles but firstly to Peter. So they are like Peter but Peter still maintains his primacy.

You use an OR mentality. Pitching what is combined together as being opposite each other.

watching in 4k 3d, its quite nice here discussing without throwing blows and punches, am enjoying it.

Jolliano:


It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA.

No sir, not everyone knew that. The definition even as at late as 1870 caused much discontent in the church. till date some catholics still disagree.

A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know. Source wikipedia

Jolliano:


It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA.

How do U defend an argument by simply restating it? Except you decide to accept ur tradition which is not scripture, there is no tenable prove of peter been pope or any of the apostles been infallible or claiming such. We have seen scripture after scripture that neither Paul nor any of the desciples accepted peter as pope.

Jolliano:


It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA.

Come to think of it, there was not catholic in the days of Jesus. In fact there was no denomination in the early church, and u r seeing a ' pope'. Isn't that absurd?

Aizenosa:
watching in 4k 3d, its quite nice here discussing without throwing blows and punches, am enjoying it.

Nice to know u r there. How was church? Abi u no go?

Jolliano:


The way we know that the bible is infallible is the way we know that the Pope is infallible. They are both inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Pope doesn't ask you not to scrutinize. An enormous amount of scrutiny, study and discussion that is carried out before A Pope teaches.

A Person who is Catholic is a person who accepts the faith fully. One who chooses and picks doctrine or fights against an already defined doctrine is A PROTESTANT.

I want to believe the second sentence a mistake. U don't equate God's holy word to a mere mortal:
*[[1Pe 1:24-25/KJV]]For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The pope is flesh and like grass will wither. But the word abides forever. Don't equate or even compare them.

Jolliano:


The way we know that the bible is infallible is the way we know that the Pope is infallible. They are both inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Pope doesn't ask you not to scrutinize. An enormous amount of scrutiny, study and discussion that is carried out before A Pope teaches.

A Person who is Catholic is a person who accepts the faith fully. One who chooses and picks doctrine or fights against an already defined doctrine is A PROTESTANT.

No sir, from ur argument a catholic is one who accepts the primacy of the pope and takes his word as law wiout question. He is one who blindly accepts the teaching of the pope as infallible. One who does not bother to read the bible for himself but is spoonfed by the priest with tradition.
Jesus told us that when the holy spirit comes he will guide us into all truths. The holy spirit guides the individual believer. Not tradition. Any doctrine that contradicts scripture ought not be accepted on the bill of papal infallibility.

accountable:


No sir, from ur argument a catholic is one who accepts the primacy of the pope and takes his word as law wiout question. He is one who blindly accepts the teaching of the pope as infallible. One who does not bother to read the bible for himself but is spoonfed by the priest with tradition.
Jesus told us that when the holy spirit comes he will guide us into all truths. The holy spirit guides the individual believer. Not tradition. Any doctrine that contradicts scripture ought not be accepted on the bill of papal infallibility.

list the doctrine that contradicts the Bible.

accountable:


I want to believe the second sentence a mistake. U don't equate God's holy word to a mere mortal:
*[[1Pe 1:24-25/KJV]]For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The pope is flesh and like grass will wither. But the word abides forever. Don't equate or even compare them.

what is the meaning of this sentence? "Christ :Peter do u love me? Peter :yes u know I love you. Jesus:keep my sheep" then who is the sheep?

*[[1Pe 5:1]] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.

accountable:
And peter had a wife (1 Corinth 9:5, Matthew. 8 : 14). When did popes stop having wives?
If the Bible says that a bishop MUST be the husband of one wife( Timo 3:2). And the pope is the bishop of Rome...... And the catholic leadership stems from the early church. When did it become forbidden for bishop and priest to marry?
Just thinking..........

read "1 corinthians 7:32-34, Mattew 19:12, my bro it's an advice and also a way to cut distraction from the problem caused by family.

Empredboy:
read "1 corinthians 7:32-34, Mattew 19:12, my bro it's an advice and also a way to cut distraction from the problem caused by family.

*

[[1Co 7:1-3]* Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Did u see the 'every man'. The bishops aren't hermaphrodites. Are they?

Contextually, the chapter is answering a question which the Corinthians had asked Paul in writing. But the question certainly did not pertain particularly to bishops. It concerned the whole church. It cannot be used as a ground for celibacy for an apostle or bishop.

Secondly in both 1 Corinth 7 and matt 19. Bringing obligation or compulsion into the passages will be cruel and completely against the sense of the passage. Both Paul and Jesus left presented it as a choice that may be taken by 'those to whom it is given' strictly for those who are so endowed. Except u choose to be insincere u would agree that to make it a requirement for an office is cruel, to say the least.

Thirdly, an overwhelming larger percentage of scripture extol the virtue of marriage. Notably. Gen 2:18. etc

Empredboy:
read "1 corinthians 7:32-34, Mattew 19:12, my bro it's an advice and also a way to cut distraction from the problem caused by family.

'An advice' uhm?

Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.

Doesn't sound like an advice to me, does it to u?

accountable:


No sir, not everyone knew that. The definition even as at late as 1870 caused much discontent in the church. till date some catholics still disagree.

A 1989–1992 survey of young people of the 15 to 25 age group (81% of whom were Catholics, 84% were younger than 19, and 62% were male) chiefly from the United States, but also from Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland, found that 36.9% affirmed that, "The Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility," 36.9% (exactly the same proportion) denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know. Source wikipedia

A lot of christians still disagree with the belief that Jesus is God. That does not make Jesus not to be God. Neither does it make the belief a lie.

accountable:


Come to think of it, there was not catholic in the days of Jesus. In fact there was no denomination in the early church, and u r seeing a ' pope'. Isn't that absurd?

Ignatius of antioch (Disciple of Saint John The Apostle) wrote this about 97AD:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus
Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you
would the apostles; and reverence the deacons,
as being the institution of God. Let no man do
anything connected with the Church without the
bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
which is administered either by the bishop, or by
one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the
bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the
people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is,
there is the Catholic Church. — Letter to the
Smyrnaeans, Ch 8.

He is the first person to call the church CATHOLIC and CATHOLIC means universal. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church does not even have a name. It was anglicans who even started calling us "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH".