RCC ignores Paul

balshan

Well-known member
Paul states very clearly in his writings that sexual sinners should be removed from the community of believers.

1 Cor 5

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, a b so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

1 Cor 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body

It seems Paul had strong views on sexual sin. But RCs always quote Matt 13:30 to defend their doing nothing at all.

Let the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest time. At the harvest time I will tell the workers this: First, gather the weeds and tie them together to be burned. Then gather the wheat and bring it to my barn.’”

But don't some weeds strangle the plants if not removed. Is the RC saying that Paul's writings should be removed from scripture because they don't like what he writes?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Paul states very clearly in his writings that sexual sinners should be removed from the community of believers.

1 Cor 5

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, a b so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

1 Cor 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body

It seems Paul had strong views on sexual sin. But RCs always quote Matt 13:30 to defend their doing nothing at all.

Let the weeds and the wheat grow together until the harvest time. At the harvest time I will tell the workers this: First, gather the weeds and tie them together to be burned. Then gather the wheat and bring it to my barn.’”

But don't some weeds strangle the plants if not removed. Is the RC saying that Paul's writings should be removed from scripture because they don't like what he writes?
The weeds reference in Matthew is about the judgement - God will do this. As for Paul's writings, should Catholics - or Christians generally - always remove believers who engage in sexual sin today from the Church, I suspect very few people will be left. This kind of thing is always a pastoral decision and sometimes Church leaders (bishops, ministers, etc.) get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
 

PeanutGallery

Active member
The weeds reference in Matthew is about the judgement - God will do this. As for Paul's writings, should Catholics - or Christians generally - always remove believers who engage in sexual sin today from the Church, I suspect very few people will be left. This kind of thing is always a pastoral decision and sometimes Church leaders (bishops, ministers, etc.) get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
Pragmatism rules, not 1Cor 5:2?
 

balshan

Well-known member
The weeds reference in Matthew is about the judgement - God will do this. As for Paul's writings, should Catholics - or Christians generally - always remove believers who engage in sexual sin today from the Church, I suspect very few people will be left. This kind of thing is always a pastoral decision and sometimes Church leaders (bishops, ministers, etc.) get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
So that is why leaders who commit sexual sin are allowed to stay. Isn't it worse when a leader commits a sexual sin? Shouldn't Paul be followed. So what I am getting from this than very few of your leaders are following the oath they took re celibacy.

Matt 5:33-37

Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

James 5:12

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Before we have a word war over vow or oath they are synonyms.
 

balshan

Well-known member
The weeds reference in Matthew is about the judgement - God will do this. As for Paul's writings, should Catholics - or Christians generally - always remove believers who engage in sexual sin today from the Church, I suspect very few people will be left. This kind of thing is always a pastoral decision and sometimes Church leaders (bishops, ministers, etc.) get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
If you ignore Paul especially in relation to your leaders, then you are not following the apostles' teachings. Also you are saying that your institution cannot make a judgement call, when they claim they are infallible in such matters as morals and truth.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Pragmatism rules, not 1Cor 5:2?
Not pragmatism: pastoral concern. If you believe throwing someone out of the church will make the situation worse, then maybe a different tactic might be needed. Just because Paul gave pastoral advice here, he might have been wrong, you know. Every individual case is different.

Think about the way Jesus went about his ministry: he ate with very grave sinners out of pastoral concern. He even forgave the woman who committed adultery. Jesus knew what would work with them to bring them to repentance and return to love of God and neighbour. Maybe Paul did too in this specific case. However, one size doesn't fit all.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
So that is why leaders who commit sexual sin are allowed to stay. Isn't it worse when a leader commits a sexual sin? Shouldn't Paul be followed. So what I am getting from this than very few of your leaders are following the oath they took re celibacy.

Matt 5:33-37

Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

James 5:12

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Before we have a word war over vow or oath they are synonyms.
I'm not the judge of who is in and who is out. There have been some priests who have been excommunicated and laicised for sexual sins, there have been some who haven't. It's a judgement call and sometimes these are right, and sometimes these are wrong. I don't think we can take Paul's advice (which is for the specific church he is writing to) and universalise it. Jesus didn't cast out sexual sinners. These pastoral decisions need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I mean, look at someone as influential as Ravi Zacharias. We're all prone to these kinds of temptations and sins.
 

ding

Member
Paul states very clearly in his writings that sexual sinners should be removed from the community of believers.

1 Cor 5

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, a b so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
Paul wants them to hand the man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord???? I thought salvation was a done deal at the moment of conversion. What is Paul trying to say here??
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
If you ignore Paul especially in relation to your leaders, then you are not following the apostles' teachings. Also you are saying that your institution cannot make a judgement call, when they claim they are infallible in such matters as morals and truth.
There's a difference between doctrine and practice. Paul is offered pastoral advice or direction here to a particular church.

Do you think women should have their head covered in church?
 

PeanutGallery

Active member
Not pragmatism: pastoral concern.
For whom, the pedophiles or the children?

... Just because Paul gave pastoral advice here, he might have been wrong, you know.
Where was Paul corrected by the then so-called Pope Peter?


...
Think about the way Jesus went about his ministry:
Rather, this is how God's inspired written word went about his ministry; 1Cor 5:2[/QUOTE]
 

balshan

Well-known member
Not pragmatism: pastoral concern. If you believe throwing someone out of the church will make the situation worse, then maybe a different tactic might be needed. Just because Paul gave pastoral advice here, he might have been wrong, you know. Every individual case is different.

Think about the way Jesus went about his ministry: he ate with very grave sinners out of pastoral concern. He even forgave the woman who committed adultery. Jesus knew what would work with them to bring them to repentance and return to love of God and neighbour. Maybe Paul did too in this specific case. However, one size doesn't fit all.
Pragmatism. A rose by any other name still smells the same. Your institution is not Jesus, it does not do as Jesus does. It makes false claims about how moral it is. If it is moral then it would do something about the sexual sin, especially the sexual sin of its leaders.
 

mica

Well-known member
Not pragmatism: pastoral concern. If you believe throwing someone out of the church will make the situation worse, then maybe a different tactic might be needed. Just because Paul gave pastoral advice here, he might have been wrong, you know. Every individual case is different.
so scripture written by Paul is wrong? incorrect? that which he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Think about the way Jesus went about his ministry: he ate with very grave sinners out of pastoral concern. He even forgave the woman who committed adultery. Jesus knew what would work with them to bring them to repentance and return to love of God and neighbour. Maybe Paul did too in this specific case. However, one size doesn't fit all.
He could do that, He knew her heart.

He also knew the hearts of the 'disciples' in John 6 who walked away from Him. He knew they weren't believers.
 

balshan

Well-known member
T
For whom, the pedophiles or the children?


Where was Paul corrected by the then so-called Pope Peter?



Rather, this is how God's inspired written word went about his ministry; 1Cor 5:2
[/QUOTE]
The paedophiles they had institution support when going to the courts. The victims were on their own.
 

balshan

Well-known member
There's a difference between doctrine and practice. Paul is offered pastoral advice or direction here to a particular church.

Do you think women should have their head covered in church?
So you defence of not obeying the order to put sexual sinners out, is that women should cover their head. I see that is the same. Yet Jewish men even today cover their head. I am sure even Paul covered his head at certain times.

Again the LORD spoke to Moses saying, "Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the LORD and do them…and be holy for your God"
(Numbers 15:37-40)
You shall make tassels on the four corners of the clothing with which you cover yourself
(Deuteronomy 22:12)
 
Last edited:

balshan

Well-known member
I'm not the judge of who is in and who is out. There have been some priests who have been excommunicated and laicised for sexual sins, there have been some who haven't. It's a judgement call and sometimes these are right, and sometimes these are wrong. I don't think we can take Paul's advice (which is for the specific church he is writing to) and universalise it. Jesus didn't cast out sexual sinners. These pastoral decisions need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I mean, look at someone as influential as Ravi Zacharias. We're all prone to these kinds of temptations and sins.
Hypocrisy is noted. Is Ravi Zacharias the inspired word of God? Is that noted in the catechism? I do not sexual sins tempting at all, please speak for yourself.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Paul wants them to hand the man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord???? I thought salvation was a done deal at the moment of conversion. What is Paul trying to say here??
Well ding - no this could be used by the OSAS camp to support their belief. They believe you cannot lose your salvation, no matter what you do. It could be seen that Paul is applying a Jewish punishment for sin or it could be seen as a protection that the evil will not draw others in.

Do we know that the people were true believers?
 
The weeds reference in Matthew is about the judgement - God will do this. As for Paul's writings, should Catholics - or Christians generally - always remove believers who engage in sexual sin today from the Church, I suspect very few people will be left. This kind of thing is always a pastoral decision and sometimes Church leaders (bishops, ministers, etc.) get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.
Based on history, the leadership of the rcc always gets it wrong. The rcc would rather cover up the wrong doing of its "priests" than to come clean and protect innocent children. As far as I am concerned, every rc is guilty of conspiring to cover up the truth. I also think there is enough evidence to charge the entire organization under the RICO statutes for organized corruption. All of this does not come close to being equal with the loss of so many souls that will never again trust anyone or anything associated with a church. Any church.
 
Last edited:

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
For whom, the pedophiles or the children?
For whoever needs it. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. Excommunication is supposed to help towards bringing someone back to their spiritual senses.
Where was Paul corrected by the then so-called Pope Peter?
??? Why should he be?
Rather, this is how God's inspired written word went about his ministry; 1Cor 5:2
How does this challenge the way Jesus ministered?

So, would you remove from the Church anyone guilty of sexual sin?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
so scripture written by Paul is wrong? incorrect? that which he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Paul isn't writing doctrine here - it's a pastoral directive. If he had to be right here and this rule must be applied at all times, must women wear head coverings in church?
He could do that, He knew her heart.
Exactly. Jesus knew what would work with her to bring her back to God.
He also knew the hearts of the 'disciples' in John 6 who walked away from Him. He knew they weren't believers.
Where does the text say that they weren't believers?
 

balshan

Well-known member
For whoever needs it. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance. Excommunication is supposed to help towards bringing someone back to their spiritual senses.

??? Why should he be?

How does this challenge the way Jesus ministered?

So, would you remove from the Church anyone guilty of sexual sin?
Well I would start with the abuser/rapists of children.
 
Top