There are now transgender, lesbians and non binary ministering in the church. And all against the teaching in the BIBLE!
Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church? If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members?
Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed?
There are now transgender, lesbians and non binary ministering in the church. And all against the teaching in the BIBLE!You're right, but not in the Catholic Church. The Church holds that only men can recieve the laying on of hands (which is necessary in order to become a priest).
Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church? If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members?The Catholic Church understands marriage both as a natural institution and, for baptized Christians, as a sacrament. When non-Catholic Christians marry each other—following the norms of their own community—Rome usually recognizes that union as a valid (and if both are baptized, a sacramental) marriage, no additional ceremony required. If at least one of the spouses is Catholic and marries outside the Church without official permission, that marriage is not considered valid according to Catholic law. To rectify this, the couple can seek a convalidation—a simple ceremony that validates their vows under Church jurisdiction. It’s not a “new” wedding but a recognition that now the marriage meets the Catholic form.
Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed?The East–West Schism, often dated to 1054, was a complex, centuries-long rift fueled by differences in language, culture, theology, and governance, culminating in mutual excommunications. Key flashpoints included disputes over the Pope’s authority—viewed in the West as a unique Petrine primacy and in the East as an overreach—and the West’s unilateral addition of “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Though it’s sometimes simplified as Rome excommunicating the Orthodox for rejecting papal claims and the Creed’s alteration, deeper issues—such as differing liturgical customs and broader political pressures—had been straining East–West relations long before the final break.
Marriage
Schism
MarriageIn Catholic teaching, any two validly baptized Christians—including Presbyterians—who freely exchange consent are understood to enter a genuine, sacramental marriage, even if their own community doesn’t label marriage a sacrament. The Church does require Catholics to marry according to “canonical form” (in a Catholic ceremony or with official dispensation), so if a Catholic marries outside these norms, that marriage may be deemed invalid until it’s “convalidated” under Church jurisdiction. Regarding annulments, they differ from divorce: a divorce attempts to dissolve a valid bond, whereas an annulment states, after careful investigation, that a fundamental requirement—like free consent or the capacity to undertake marriage—was absent from the very start, meaning the couple never had a valid sacramental marriage in the Church’s eyes, even if they appeared happily wed and raised a family.
SchismDespite the gradual, centuries-long development of the papacy’s external structures and its articulation in ecclesial law, the Catholic tradition holds that its core reality traces back to Christ’s designation of Peter as the “rock” (Matthew 16:18) and His command to “feed my sheep” (John 21:17). The apostles, while each holding their own authority, remained in communion with Peter, whose unique role is evident not only in the Gospel accounts—where he’s consistently named first—but also in Acts, where he often speaks or acts on behalf of the nascent Church. From this vantage, the papacy, as Peter’s successor in the See of Rome, is understood to be more than a mere organizational convenience: it’s the visible sign of unity in faith and communion for the universal Church. Even though historical circumstances shaped the way the papacy functioned over time, the Catholic conviction is that the essential Petrine office—established by Christ and recognized in the apostolic community—remains genuine and binds the faithful in one visible fellowship.
Marriage
Schism
If Jesus claimed that only dead Jews could forgive sins using himself as an example. Then the Holocaust was totally justified.
I'm not familiar with Christ saying only the dead can forgive [Jews, or otherwise], but I'm very familiar with a repeating theme of our necessity to forgive others, and to do so repeatedly
There are only male priests in Catholicism. On the other hand, other denomations (such as some Protestants) have women priests, for example.
I'm not familiar with Christ saying only the dead can forgive [Jews, or otherwise], but I'm very familiar with a repeating theme of our necessity to forgive others, and to do so repeatedlyDoes the Bible say Jesus died for everyone's sins?He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2). John's language here is unmistakable.If you believe Jesus a Jew died for your sins and the Bible tells us the Jews were Gods chosen people. Then we know Gods mission for the Jews. Like Jesus to die for our sins. Therefore as Gods chosen people dead Jews can forgive sins.
Under a 2007 decree from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both the bishop who attempts to ordain a woman and the woman who seeks ordination incur latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.
Yes, the Bible tells us in very clear language that Jesus died for us, but also resurrected for us. All of us.But God's chosen were not just Jews, but the whole of the House of Israel - all twelve tribes, not just one of them; Judah. The other tribes are among us, but they mostly have no idea of their heritage and ancestry. They will, one day, have the knowledge, and all will, on that day of known reunion, be joyful.
For more imformation on the topic and a more scriptural/historical defense of the papacy, see the debate I'm currently participating in: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5931-the-bible-and-early-church-tradition-affirm-the-papacy-as-a-divinely-established-officeThis sacred renaming is not a matter of happenstance but a definitive sign of Peter's foundational role in the establishment of the Church
Moreover, the incident recorded in Galatians 2:11, where Paul declares, "I opposed him to his face," does not in any way detract from Peter's Primacy. Rather, Paul's stern rebuke was aimed at Peter's inconsistent conduct—a conduct which, given his high authority, risked undermining the freedom from the Old Law that had been granted to those who had turned away from Paganism. Peter, fully aware of this cherished freedom, consistently upheld it.I've addressed most of those objections. Give R1 a read.
Read R1, go to the section "PROOF FROM TRADITION" and read the second paragraph.
