Posted on 07/13/2014 4:52:15 PM PDT by yosephdaviyd
The third installment in Pope Francis’ series of interviews with atheist reporter Eugenio Scalfari took place on Thursday, July 10, 2014, and was published the following Sunday (07/13/14) in La Repubblica daily. Being that Scalfari doesn’t record these interviews on tape, but, rather, re-prints the dialogue based upon his memory of the interview, we can only say what the Pope Francis ‘allegedly’ said in them. One of the things that the Pope allegedly told Scalfari is that he wants to continue these interviews is because he “believes that an interview with a non-believer is mutually stimulating.” Typical of Scalfari’s interviews, Catholic bloggers will be spending the next few weeks talking about what Pope Francis meant to say in this one also. In the instant case, what Pope Francis allegedly said about the origin of priestly celibacy is sure to cause Catholic apologists to beat their head against a steel wall.
For centuries Protestants have been claiming and publishing tracts that say that the Catholic Church didn’t start teaching priestly celibacy until around 1079 A.D., and in refutations Catholic apologist have been pointing to Church documents, as far back as to the the second century, to prove that celibacy for the clergy has always been a discipline of Catholic Church in the West. Now comes along Pope Francis to give Protestant anti-Catholics the proof of what they have been telling Catholics along – that priestly celibacy is a modern innovation. Below is my translated text of that portion of the interview:
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlgray.info ...
Sorry to be Sola Scriptura again but:
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Quote, not my interpretation.
Once again the Pope’s words need interpretation.
Yes and it is based on memory so they have more leeway than Lois Lerners hard drive if there’s a flare-up.
I am glad he is at least talking about the pediophile problem in the Catholic Church, 2% or 8000 priests are pediophiles? I had not heard that estimate and despite problems previously reported over the years I had no idea it was that bad.
How's that?
This pope must be the most misinterpreted, mistranslated, misquoted religious leader in all of human history.
Every time I turn around there are threads about what the Pope actually meant/said versus what was written in an article.
I understand this happens from time to time, and that maybe this Pope is doing more interviews with folks that might not ordinarily get the time of day, but maybe the Pope generally means what he says and many of the faithful are just looking for ways to excuse some of his statements.
When it comes to economics at least, I don’t think there can be any question anymore that Pope Francis is very far to the left. Despite all the “well he didn’t really mean that” posts, it is clear that this Pope is essentially a socialist - which is no surprise at all considering he is a South American Jesuit.
They essentially have no choice but to support him.
That's what happens when you believe that your magisterium is infallible and the pope is God's vicar on earth.
You're stuck.
They have no recourse if they don't like him or if he's wrong. Speak up and your eternal destiny is on the line. Believing as they do that their priests have the power to forgive or RETAIN a person's sin, or that the church can ex-communicate them, they're in a really tough spot.
Is it true that priestly celibacy was established in the tenth century; that is, 900 years after the death of Christ Jesus? Absolutely not! Despite what the Pope said, you are still on very solid ground to defend the Church teaching as always being part of Catholic tradition.
Pope Gregory VII: what Pope Francis probably meant to say was that celibacy for the clergy was officially mandated as a discipline in the 12th century by an ecumenical council for the first time.(by Pope Gregory VII)
Anybody on your ping list want to comment on this: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3179796/posts
Other early statements concerning the disciple of celibacy for the clergy include:
· Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): “It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.”
· Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): “It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.”
· St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)
“Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the deaconate, the priesthood or the episcopate, nor even to the subdeaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.”
What ping list would that be?
The creepy one that brings all those that embarrass me as a Protestant.
Not responsible for your embarrassment.
As far as your link, have you done anything other than post on FR to keep us safe from the Muzzies?
Oh you are certainly responsible for both my embarrassment and my amusement. Give yourself a pat on the back. Cheers! Now that all three little ones are finally asleep and there’s rain on my steel roof, I’m popping a cap off of a Black and Tan. Mmm. From Americas oldest brewery.
Not gonna answer I see.
Enjoy your Black and Tan.
Nope. I’ve done as much as you, so your question is meaningless. I will enjoy the brew.
Keep posting on FR, thanks for keeping us safe from the Muzzies.
Don't fall for the media's "spin" that the incidents of Catholic priests abusing minors was part of a "pedophile scandal." Although prosecuted for sexual abuse of minors, the vast majority of the priests in that scandal were not actual pedophiles, but simply homosexuals. Didn't you wonder why almost all the victims were adolescent males, and why almost none of them girls? It's because it was not their young age that was the attractor (very few were less than 13 or 14) but the fact that they were boys. The offenders were motivated not by pedophilia, but by homosexuality.
Of course, I'm sure this makes little difference to the victims, nor should it. But that's not the point. The point is that while the Church (and to some extent society) busy themselves looking under every bush for pedophiles, gay predators end up being overlooked. When society hides its head in the sand, it becomes harder to prevent FUTURE crimes.
Lol! You do the same!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.