What are some substantial differences between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism?

What are some substantial differences between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism?

This reply is rather long, and supplemental links more fully answer the question, (see http://peacebyjesus.net/eovs.rome.html which more directly answers this question) but there is much to this issue, and this reply may leave you better informed than some others.

First and mainly to be considered is the largest single church, Roman Catholicism, which is a religion that developed over time as a deformation of the NT church. It officially (if not all effectually) affirms valid Scripturally Truth (though not all) but progressively added mere traditions of men, these being distinctive Catholic beliefs (many of which are shared by the Eastern Orthodox) which are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

For Catholicism exalted herself as the sure and supreme authority on faith and morals, effectively being superior over Scripture.

Pope Leo_xiii in Providentissimus Deus presumes,

“ Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church,” but which is a false premise. For the only substantive source of express public Divine revelation is Scripture. And both men and writings of God were being recognized as being so by common souls before a church presumed she was essential for this as conditionally incapable of error, which Catholicism does presume.

And rather than being subject to Scripture as supreme, Rome began to use the sword of men for ecclesiastical discipline and to achieve power (something early Protestantism, had to unlearn).

By the 4th century, we have a pope, Damasus 1, employing murderous thugs in order to secure his throne from his rival, and the beginning of the Caesario-papacy.

Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College) reports:

Damasus’ grass-roots supporters included squads of the notoriously hard-boiled Roman fossores, and they massacred 137 followers of the rival Pope Ursinus in street-fighting that ended in a bloody siege of what is now the church of Santa Maria Maggiore...”

In addition, the conversion of Constantine, “propelled the bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment. Already powerful and influential men, they now became grandees on a par with the wealthiest senators in the city. Bishops all over the Roman world would now be expected to take on the role of judges, governors, great servants of state..” (Saints and Sinners,” New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001, pp. 37-38)

J. N. D. (1989 confirms the carnal means of the ascendancy of Damasus, and also records that he was,

indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope. In 378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate... In tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion in that form…for Damasus this primacy was not based on decisions of synods, as were the claims of Constantinople, but exclusively on his [presumption of] being the direct successor of St. Peter...” Upon which false premise he presumed “judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. (Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34)

This would later result in the the formal declaration of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual papal infallibility by Vatican 1. For Rome has presumed to formally “infallibly” declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her (scope and subject-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

However, while men such as the manifest (2Co. 6:4–10) New Testament apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public Divine revelation thereby - which Catholic “fathers” and popes and prelates did and do not do - Catholic researchers themselves, among others, provide testimony against the New Testament church even looking to Peter (a true apostle) himself as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning as the exalted head of the church from Rome.

**Klaus SchatzJesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy,” finds: “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." **

Moreover, by teaching such things as “It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” (Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906) then when leadership overall goes “South” then so do those who follow them, or they are left looking for salvation, versus finding that via Scripture, which never falls into immorality or false doctrine.

Being overall not grounded in this sure foundation, then as Cardinal Ratzinger observed, referring to the 14th century,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“ (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196)

And presently Roman Catholics are part of a church which consists of different brands of Catholics, more so more so than in typical evangelical churches. The most extreme on the “right” are those who espouse the medieval Catholic position of implicit obedience to most everything the pope publicly teaches, but reject modern popes. And those who reject some of the modern Catholic teachings based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching consists of and means, and attack the present pope. As well as those who affirm that modern teaching is not in contradiction to historical Catholic teaching, which are clarifications of it, and are not be submitted and (at the least) not publicly objected to. Then there are the very liberal members such as publicly reject even modern Catholic moral positions. But all of whom (except the first class described) are manifestly considered, in life and in death, to be members in communion with “the Church.”

As for Eastern Orthodoxy, while typically less technical in its theology, and somewhat prone to appeal to mysticism, as said, they hold to many of the same distinctive beliefs which are not not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including subscribing to the premise that the church is the supreme sure standard for what is of God:

It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood...The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church (http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx)

However, while it is true that as seen in Acts 15, magisterial church office is to be the supreme authority in determining what it is to be taught, and as the Westminster Confession states, “It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission,” (Chapter XXXI) the issue is that of the sure infallible status that Catholicism ascribes to its magisterial church office in formally teaching by her ecumenical councils on faith and morals for the whole church.

Which is never seen or promised (or necessary in Scripture. Instead, contrary to the premise that being the magisterial authority over the cooperate body from which Scripture came, and which affirms what it is, means that it possesses ensured infallibility, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher (as far as those who sat in the seat of Moses was concerned) whom the historical magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And despite both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox both laying claim to the title “Catholic” and as being the One True Apostolic Church, after over 1,000 years they remain divided due to irreconcilable differences. (see EO_vs_Rome)

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." (Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135)

The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. (Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), p. 26)

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."…On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)

Finally we have Protestantism, but which as typically defined is far too diverse to be meaningful, often encompassing everything from evangelical Christian churches to so-called “Christian science” to Swedenborgism. Therefore it cannot be critically examined as one single church. However, based upon its most basic distinctive, that of Scripture being the sure and supreme sufficient standard for faith and morals, as the wholly God-inspired word of God, with its basically literal hermeneutic, then its members attest to being both the most strongly unified major religious group in many core beliefs as well as being a diverse community.

And rather than adopting such unScriptural Catholics beliefs, from prayer to created beings in Heaven, including the virtual worship of its unScriptural Mary by many Catholics, to her mistaken belief in the Lord’s supper, to compelled clerical celibacy, evangelical Bible faith overall tends to be more Scriptural (with some exceptions such as women pastors).

However, the prophesied overall later-day spiritual declension of the church is being seen today, first by lessened commitment to Scripture and its integrity.

And while Catholicism presumes too much of an office and thereby what it promulgates, and to the expense of the authority of Scripture, evangelicalism presumes too much of Scripture as far as practical authority is concerned, and too little of the magisterial office established thereby, as mentioned before

In addition, while Scripture requires separation from false believers, (1 Corinthians 5:9; 2 Corinthians 6:14–18) and dissent from corrupt tyrannical authority when the latter is contrary to the word of God (Acts 4:19) and rejects those who validly dissent (which again, is how the NT church began), yet in Protestantism this too much became the standard recourse in dealing with differences, and fails to pursue a central magisterium. The fact that the church of Rome has effectively rendered that as something to be avoided, in principle a central magisterium of Godly men is Scriptural.

The basic unity of the NT church church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) And who, unlike what is typically seen today, could say that they, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)

In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:5-7)

And today Christianity (and I) fail of the degree of holiness and faith the prima NT church exampled and is needed for the church of the living God to manifest itself as being so, and as grounded in and supporting the Truth.

And besides Catholicism, the rest of what is called Protestantism fails more , being liberal.

However, God does not change, and Scripture is His sure established word, and teaches the way of salvation. In which the redeemed have come to God as souls damned by their works of sin - not saved because of works - and as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God.

But who, with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him, being baptized under water and led by the Spirit of Christ in living according to the word of God (and repenting when convicted by conscience of not doing so).

To God be the glory in Jesus Christ.

Will unconfessed sin send me to Hell?

It depends. If they are of saving faith, which trusts/believes in the resurrected Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that as He will save them on His account, since He is Divine and paid the price for their forgiveness by His crucifixion on the cross, then all his past sins are forgiven in conversion, whether he remembered and named them or not.

The believer is now accepted in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6) on His account, with His faith being counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5), and is in a covenant with His Lord, a relationship. Therefore this faith, if it is Biblically real, will result in obedience, “things that accompany salvation,” (Hebrews 6:9) including asking forgiveness for sins once one is convicted in his heart of them.

For although he is saved as a believer, the believer is still accountable to God with whom he is in a relationship with, and sin is displeasing to God, but who deals with the believer as a son. (Hebrews 12)

Therefore the believer will have a contrite, penitent heart over sins in general, and confess them when convicted in his conscience of them. (This does not mean one cannot subdue his conscience for a time, placing conviction in the background as David must have done until fingered by Nathan), but when enlightened and he is convicted of his guilty then he will confess and repent from the sin.

If not, then he is acting contrary to saving faith. denying the faith, as he would be if he impenitently consciously practiced sin, including omission, such as not providing for dependents of his family. (1 Timothy 5:8)

However, the key here is faith, as faith in the Lord Jesus is how one is made accepted by God, not on the basis of how good the person is, (Ephesian 2:8,9) but saving faith is only that will effects obedience by the Holy Spirit. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

Therefore if unconfessed sin is the result of one hardening one’s heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, which can even include attributing the evidence behind the conviction to the devil, as did certain of the scribes in the days of Christ on the earth; and or continues impenitently in known sin, then that would be a denial of faith, and thus an “evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God,” (Hebrews 3:12) making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, (Galatians 5:1–4) drawing back unto perdition, (Hebrews 10:25–39) forfeiting what faith had appropriated.

However, if the unconfessed sin is due to ignorance - which are much the reality in the life of believers, or or forgetfulness, then this does not impugn the faith of the believer, for he would live out his pious faith if he was conscious of these sins, and convicted of his guilt. And which faith renders the believer washed, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

And wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff’; 1Thess. 4:17)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord’s return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord’s displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

Catholicism against the Jews

The harsh and often regrettable remarks and counsel of (an exasperated) Luther in his latter days against the Jews of Judaism (for a Protestant response, see Luther And The Jews) are often invoked by Catholic apologists in order to impugn the Reformation and Protestants. However, they usually indicate ignorance of the foundation he had in Catholicism for such, even from popes against the Jews of Judaism. And contrary to Evangelicals, she also has a history of opposing the modern state of Israel, while bending over backwards to compliment Muslims.

Any emphasis throughout is mine.

►Canons of the 4th Lateran Council (convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213)

CANON 67

Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses...

Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

CANON 68

Summary. Jews and Saracens [a generic term for Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.

Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

[Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]

CANON 70

Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.

Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

(From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296) — http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344latj.html

► Popes Against the Jews

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

“the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

“When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

► Pope Leo XII

As cardinal vicar of Rome, Della Genga [the new Pope Leo XII] had been outraged to discover that not all of the Holy City’s Jews had returned to their ghetto following the restoration of the papal regime. One of his major projects as cardinal vicar had been to oversee a modest enlargement of the ghetto, to undermine the Jews’ complaint that it was impossible for them all to fit in the densely packed space within the old ghetto walls. Now, as pope, he redoubled these efforts. In 1823, in one of his first pontifical acts [which the Church can officially dismiss as if it were nothing], Leo XII ordered the Jews back into the ghetto, “to overcome the evil consequences of the freedom that [they] have enjoyed…

In the first year of his papacy, he had the Holy Office investigate the extent to which the old restrictions on the Jews in the Papal States were still being enforced. The goal as an internal Inquisition report expressed it, was “to contain the wickedness of the obstinate Jews so that the danger of perversion of the Catholic faithful” could be avoided. The report expressed dismay that some Jews lived outside the ghettoes, some traveled from place to place without the special permits they were required to get from the local office of the bishop or the inquisitor, and some had opened stores and businesses beyond the ghetto’s walls...

The new Pope’s efforts to enforce these restrictions on the Jews relied on the bureaucracy of control provided by the Inquisition and by various other agencies of the Papal States. — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-5-you-will.html

Note that according to the Catechism:

2032 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-3-positing-big.html

What follows falls under judgments on human affairs which is justified as being necessary for the salvation of souls.

►Cum nimis absurdum

Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555 [after Luther]. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

►Cum nimis absurdum text

Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the [very] name Christian...

1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit,

2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves...

§ 3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity...

7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians...

9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

11.And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians...

14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime:..just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

►Inquisition

In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32

One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See [but the prior Fourth Lateran Council did require Christians leaders to exterminate all the heretics its prelates convicted under his rule, or else Catholics were not bound to obey him]. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition.— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

►The Inquisition

While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492...

The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance [or else].

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved. — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html:

► Goa Inquisition

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

►Portuguese Inquisition

...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

Spanish Inquisition

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition

►Tomás de Torquemada

The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

Related: A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium. (http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm)

• In addition is The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.

► Papal–Israel relations

Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]

On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...

If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]

The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:

"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]

by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]

On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]

Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]

Relations since 1993[edit]

The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:

• A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.

• A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.

The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.

Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations

► Evangelical support for Jews.

In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. — http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-13%20Foreign%20Policy%20Release.pdf

Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/

► Egregious ecumenism

In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)

Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.

Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965

And,

We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.

“I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...

“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981

“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985

We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985

Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm

Some so-called "Church Fathers" on virginity versus marriage

Virginity versus marriage  according to some so-called" "Church Fathers."  

 

Note that these were not founders or founders of the NT church in Scripture, but while pious, the uninspired writings of such men overall stand in   contrast to the quality and power of  wholly inspired-of-God Scripture, (2Tim. 3:16) and they too often evidence additions and a erroneous contrast to the teachings of Scripture, and which accretion of errors and traditions of men increased as years went on, that of distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels.

While Catholicism does not consider itself bound to believe all that those she deems to be church fathers taught,  here I will briefly document the views of a primary church "father, Jerome on virginity versus marriage, and statements of Augustine and Tertullian that relate to this which influenced the unscriptural Catholic position on required clerical celibacy (see last section on this page, by the grace of God.).  

Jerome saw marriage as so inferior (at the least) to virginity, celibacy and continence, that he engaged in specious reasoning and abused Scripture to support his  imbalanced views, teaching,

If ‘it is good for a man not to touch a woman,’ then it is bad for him to touch one, for bad, and bad only, is the opposite of good.   (''Letter'' 22).  

 

In "Against Jovinianus," book 1, on First Corinthians 7 he again  perversely reasons,  

 

“It is good,” he says, “for a man not to touch a woman.” If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness...

If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour. 
  

However, this is what is called a “false dilemma,” a fallacious “either/or dichotomy,” in which a statement as (to turn his reasoning around)

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate,” (Psalms 127:3-5)

must mean that having no children is necessarily bad and sad, since Jerome reasons that “there is no opposite to goodness but badness” yet Jerome makes marriage bad.

Instead, unless something is actually good or bad, as you either or you worship God or idols, and go to Heaven or Hell, then a choice is not necessarily right or wrong, while aside from clear moral choices then the right choice is relative to its purpose and effects.

“You can either have milk or orange juice” does not mean one is good or bad, but in the case of lactose intolerance then milk might be the wrong choice.

And as regards celibacy of marriage, the Bible commends both, but in the context of spiritual focus then celibacy is advocated, yet so is marriage as the norm in order to void fornication, as 1 Corinthians 7 teaches.

Next, we have another false dilemma from pious Jerome:

"If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. 

 Yet by that logic he could not eat or sleep or minister to others in preaching, nor otherwise serve his fellow man, and thus presume to be more consecrated than the apostles themselves, most of whom were married, as well OT priests (though they were apart from their wives during their shift in the temple).

Thus while marriage is good and the bed undefiled, (Hebrews 13:4) and celibacy is spiritually advantageous in personal holiness and purely spiritual work, the status of both is not either good or bad, but what is best according to the call of God, and which is what the apostle proceeds to teach in 1 Corinthians 7 (which is much in response to a question about fathers and their marriageable daughters.

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. (1 Corinthians 7:7) Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. (1 Corinthians 7:24)

Meanwhile, holy focus is esp. enjoined as “the time is short,” this meaning before an event occurs that will change things, and in which I suspect that the “time is short” context may have been prophetically warning of the 70 AD catastrophic events and change ):

Going back to Jerome, he adds to his erroneous, biased reasoning by misapprehending Scripture and wrongly employing it to serve his purpose:

This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. And yet by the double number is represented another mystery: that not even in beasts and unclean birds is second marriage approved.

So much for Jesus sending out disciples 2 x 2 to minister and peach, (Mark 6:7) while "if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew" as Jerome says then we can see that "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31) 

Jerome further vainly attempts to make Genesis support him  in asserting:

 

The command to increase and multiply first finds fulfilment after the expulsion from paradise, after the nakedness and the fig-leaves which speak of sexual passion.    (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)

 

Yet besides the fact that nowhere are the fig-leaves shown to  speak of sexual passion, the command to  increase and multiply came before the Fall and its later fulfillment:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:27-28)

 

Below  will be some more in this subject by so-called “church fathers” - pious men but who progressively added extrascriptural traditions, not that Catholicism agrees with all such taught, yet they look to their accretions for support of distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)

 

Next we have Augustine who taught that one cannot engage in marital relations without sinful lust:

the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm 

For the belief was, as Harding (below) holds, "before they sinned, Adam and Eve had perfect command of their passions (reproductive actions]." But having lost that due to the Fall, then men as Augustine held that martial relations must involve carnal sinful lust, and even interprets Heb. 13:4 which states that the marriage bed is undefiled (unlike under the Law) to simply mean if it is free from adultery!

However, the idea that  martial relations must be that of lust (though it often can be) due to it providing pleasure is not correct, else all that provides pleasure must be consider iniquitous. And as per the logic that a function which at the last is uncontrollable is sinful, perhaps another daily bodily function of relief which can uncontrollable (if you cannot find a bathroom) is also sin. 

Then we have Tertullian who argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication," partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]

Also regarding some strange views on the issue of Adam and Eve and sexual relations, RC priest John A. Hardon, S.J stated, 

 

"some of the Fathers [as Athanasius and John Damascene] were so firmly persuaded of the natural integrity of our first parents that they derived marriage from original sin." (Harding: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm) 

For as "John of Damascus" wrote,

 

In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed416 . But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves417 . And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return418 , when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed419 . So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children420. 

...God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” — John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XXIV; http://www.trueorthodoxy.info/cat_stjohndamascus_exact_exposition_Orthodox_Faith_bk04.s

html 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, as shown before, the command to be"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28) was given in paradise before the Fall. And nowhere is it even inferred that the sin of Adam and Eve was  that of having sexual relations. 

 

And while abstaining from any pleasure out of faith and love for God and service to Him will be rewarded, including continent celibacy, and which indeed has its advantages in focused spiritual endeavor as 1 Co. 7 teaches, yet the ancients cited above go beyond what Scripture teaches in promoting celibacy. 

1 Co. 7 teaches that in general the solution to fornication is to marry, and in which the bodies of the man and wife belong to each other, and commands marital relations in the context of avoiding sin. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) 

 

However, the apostle counsels a man not to seek a wife and to choose celibacy if he has that gift (v. 7, which I think has much to do with self-control) and a father to choose that for his  daughter in his home, unless burning with desire for a man feeling likewise.  (vs. 8,9) 

 

And the apostle moreover  urges  Christians   to be temperate in business with this world  and (using hyperbole) that "they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not." (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)  

And while this focus is to apply thru all time, yet as Paul prefaces this exhortation with"the time is short"  (1 Corinthians 7:29) then I think he was prophetically, even if unknowingly, preparing the people for the dramatic stresses and changes resulting from the destruction of the temple that would occur in 70AD.  

However, Scripture simply does not support the manner of denigration of martial relations and the married as second-class citizens they way men as Jerome did beginning with Genesis.  

And besides the reality that  nowhere in the New Testament are there any Catholic priests,  required clerical celibacy is not what Scripture teaches. The norm for both apostles and pastors was to be married. All but Paul and Barabas were married, and they had freedom to take a wife, versus being under a vow of celibacy. 1 Corinthians 9:1-5) 

 

And the requirements for pastors shows that the norm was such were married,  with being a father providing positive credentials for being a pastor, being "the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:2-5) Likewise it was expected that deacons be married. (v. 11)

 

And as referenced before, celibacy is a gift that not all have, and to require almost all  (Rome makes exceptions for some married ordained converts) clergy to have that gift is a unscriptural and foolish presumption.

 

Note also that RCs argue for  required celibacy for their priests based upon  the Hebrew Scriptures requiring that their Jewish priests refrain from intercourse before serving at the altar. (Leviticus 22:3 - 6) 

 

Yet  while Old Testament priests abstained from their wives while actually serving at the altar, they served in rotating shifts and could have sexual relations when not serving, as seen by Luke 1:5-13 (here is one explanation on the details of priestly service). Moreover, the text quoted (Leviticus 22:3-6) forbids any priest ministering in the holy things "having his uncleanness upon him," but being married did not render one to be in a state of continual uncleanness; only that one was unclean regarding such until the evening, after marital relations or any discharge of semen, and then washing. (Lv. 15:16-18) 

But contrary to Catholicism, the New Testament states that "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4). Moreover, NT presbyteros are never even distinctively called priests (as "hiereus," the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal  class of persons) nor shown uniquely exercising any sacerdotal function, which all believers are to do, (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church.

   

And whose unique sacrificial function was not that of confecting the Eucharist, turning bread and wine into the "true" (but akin to docetism, one whose appearance does not confirm to what He manifestly materially was)  body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food (according to the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper), but that preaching the word being their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) eeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28)

 

 Which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) 

 

Hope this helps. http://peacebyjesus.net