In condemning priestly celibacy as unbiblical, you seem to be unaware of the Bible verses by Our Lord and Saint Paul praising celibacy (1 Cor. 7:32-38, Matthew 19:12). No doubt you will probably interpret those verses to mean something different.
Not what I said. It's one thing to praise something, quite another to make it a requirement.
And what I called unbiblical was the idea that sex was only allowed for procreation.
However, given the indeterminacy of language, we will not be able to agree on interpretation until we go beyond text and appeal to something extra-biblical, like the Church Fathers. That you put them in scare quotes suggests you believe yourself to be a wiser and more thoughtful Christian than they, or that you don't think they are the founders of the church. That's a bit arrogant, I suppose, but nothing out of the ordinary for a modernist.
Don't call me a "modernist" and then complain about lack of charity.
As for whether you or I are wiser people than the Church Fathers(tm), if the matter must be put in those terms, I could argue that both of us are, in fact, wiser than they.
- We are not suffering from brain-damage caused by lead poisoning.
- We have access to vastly more information than they did.
Remember, all that Thomistic stuff you bring up about ends, and accidents, and so on? Centuries after their time.
I am interested in hearing how you fixing the problems of
Sola Scriptura, in particular:
- How one can use Scripture alone to tell you what counts as Scripture.
- How Scripture alone can tell you how best to interpret Scripture.
- How Scripture alone can give us a procedure for deriving consequences from scripture and applying it to new circumstances.
I am not doing this to be hateful to Protestants. I know some very intelligent and persuasive Protestants over the years that have led to me to seriously reconsider my Catholicism. But what I notice from them is that they, to a man, appeal to the Church Fathers (especially the pre-Nicean ones) in their arguments.
That looks like it's based on a fairly standard misunderstanding. The Protestant doctrine of
Sola Scriptura is not supposed to be "All Truth Is In The Bible".
It's "All teaching
necessary for salvation is in the Bible".
No, the Bible does not define it's own canon. It doesn't even contain that concept. But it does tell us that salvation is found through faith in Christ.
So it's not "if you can't prove it from the Bible, it isn't true" - it's "if you can't prove from the Bible that it's necessary for salvation, then it isn't necessary for salvation."
John 20:30-31:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
If you wish to argue with me, I suggest you DM me. I won't turn this thread into another religious debate.
That comes across as wanting to make your arguments in public, but not be answered in public.
