Posted on 03/15/2013 3:07:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
Married priests are a possibility. Some of the apostles were married and many priests were married for the first thousand years or so of the church. This is not church dogma. One day that MIGHT change, but no other social stance will change. It is all Catholic established doctrine. Popes do not have the authority to change what Christ instituted. End of story. They safeguard the truth, the Word of God.
These leftist Bozos think that something they profess to belong to is like the Dean’s office in 1970. You can storm it, have a sit in and they will change to your demands. So darned immature and naive (even though many are my age, 60 something)
If you don’t like the Catholoc church, become a Unitarian. For Christ’s sake (pun intended).
-—— In my lifetime I have seen the Catholic practice of no meat consump-tion on Fridays go by the wayside but I can’t say that the origin of that edict came from the highest of sources in the first place. -——
There are about seven levels of teaching. The highest is “de fide” dogma, which requires the belief of the faithful. These are teachings declared by Church Councils, or by the Pope, when invoking his infallible teaching authority.
The next level down is teachings that follow with logical necessity from “de fide” dogmas. These also require belief.
And so on, to the lowest two non-binding levels, theological consensus, and theological speculation (an example would be Limbo).
Eating meat on Fridays is a Church discipline, which is an entirely different category. These are obligations Holy Mother Church imposes upon the faithful for their spiritual good. Disciplines may change in consideration of existing circumstances.
The purpose of meatless Fridays was simply to remind us of Christ’s Self-sacrifice on Good Friday, an attempt to imitate Him in a very small way, and to unite our small sacrifice to His, as members of His Body.
Contrary to popular belief, the rule is still in effect. It has been qualified, however, since in many parts of the world people go without meat on a regular basis. Catholics may simply choose another form of sacrifice.
“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, is a great reference work for Church teaching.
“an end to the bans on divorce, abortion.”
So she thinks the church should be ok with killing babies? Having it completely legal is not enough for them. They won’t be content unless if the church helps ease their conscious by saying it’s ok.
I learned one thing from this article: Rangel is Catholic.
Dear God.
It hasn’t gone by the wayside.
Not to kick a hornet’s nest, but since Unitarians do not believe and confess The Holy Trinity I’d much rather see a conservative infiltration of the United Church of Christ.
Allow me.
No meat on Fridays is about mortification. We at least consider what we eat, even if a fish feast is no punishment but rather a treat
In any case, this rule never did go by the wayside. The rule never did go away, it is a suggested mortification which, if not adhered to, can be made up in another manner any day of the week, though on Sundays, feasting, remembrance of the Resurrection, is the rule.
This, along with a lot of things, is simply not instructed by the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)and then the priests in the pulpit.
We don’t eat meat on Fridays under normal circumstances, and certainly not during Lent.
I’m not Catholic, but it’s my understand that the fasting from meat rule was not on the same level as the stuff she’s talking about. It was more of a voluntary observation of piety, well voluntary instituted by the church, even if it was supposed to be a mandatory observance.
So, something like taking your hat off before you enter a church. You’re not going to hell for not taking your hat off, and they could change the rule if they wanted, but until then, it’s a kind of mandatory act of respect that you’re expected to observe.
The only one of the Catholic practices that liberals gripe about which I think is actually changeable by the church is the celibacy of priests. That rule is also a pious exercise, not strictly a moral one, so they could change it, but it is such an old tradition that I doubt they will.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people do not have to be Catholic. It is recognized that those who have been baptized, and have received the sacraments will be judged as Catholic, in the real Judgment, the one that counts, so, out of Charity, its members, in regarding the spiritual work of mercy that they would recognize, undergo, often, the abuse and anger in admonishing the sinner - a cousin or a sister, perhaps, but would never in keeping with the teachings of the Church, force Catholicism on anyone, never.
So, Ms. Kramer will never bother the conscience of a pious Catholic, and would never disturb their peace. they disturb her peace, just by BEING, and she feels that it goes the other way.
It doesn’t.
She does not have to be Catholic.
Thank God, indeed. After they ravage even football, it will be the only place for men and boys to congregate.
I like your explanation better than mine.
I specifically cited the most liberal and least orthodox "church" to come out of Christianity for that reason, so conservative Christians can take over and then DEMAND they do something they're 100% opposed to. We can demand they HAVE TO accept the traditional concept of the trinity to "reach out" to conservative members.
The United Church of Christ isn't remotely Christian either, but they at least, PRETEND to be nominally "Christian". The Unitarians don't, and I think only 20% of their members claim to be Christian. If they indeed only have 160,000 members in North America, it would be extremely easy to take them over simply by using the name
You're right though, just the thought of a real Christian having to publicly call themselves "Unitarian" makes me feel icky though. But it would be just desserts since I wouldn't be surprised that many of the self-proclaimed "Catholics" calling on the Vatican to embrace gay marriage and discard centuries of Christian doctrines are actually atheists or agnostics at best.
Eating meet on Fridays is an ‘external’, and is not a core belief, and never was. People can still abstain from meat on Fridays, if they wish. It should be done in a spirit of sacrifice, not just because the Church said so.
I’m referring to the New Yorker magazine. Sorry, this wasn’t clear.
Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.
Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
The point on clerical celibacy excepted, THANK GOD!!!
Time for you both to brush up on Scripture.
"Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:11-12
"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30
"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment." 1 Corinthians 7:32-35
The question you need to pose to yourselves is not why Priests in the Latin Rite are celibate but why aren't so called "Bible believing" ministers in other denominations following the examples of Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul.
“It is recognized that those who have been baptized, and have received the sacraments will be judged as Catholic”
The only Christians that have received the sacraments of the Catholic Church are Catholics. 99% of protestants make fun of sacraments.
Oh, I meant Catholics who have received . . .
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.