Pope wants to scrap centuries-old ban on priests marrying

The Daily Mail ^ | 3/12/2015 | Matt Roper

[Legatus]

A childhood friend of Pope Francis has claimed that he intends to overturn the centuries-old ban on Catholic priests from getting married and that he told a divorcee 'living in sin' that she could receive Holy Communion.

The Pope considers the law on priestly celibacy 'archaic' and 'not part of the doctrine of the Church', according to the confidante.

The friend also claimed the Argentinian-born pope also vowed to reform another Catholic rule which bars divorced people in new relationships from taking the Holy Communion, MailOnline can reveal.

[NRx]

Unfortunately Arthur is wrong, as was pointed out in this piece by Dr. Anthony Dragani. While clerical celibacy is frequently claimed to be of Apostolic Origin, especially among trad Catholics, the actual evidence does not support that conclusion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3259705/posts

[Mrs. Don-o]

NYer, would you weigh in on this with that graphic of yours?

Here's the big picture:

Meanwhile, here's a pretty good article:

The Other Catholics: A Short Guide to the Eastern Catholic Churches

These are not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox, who are closely and dearly related to us but do not accept the jurisdiction of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome.)

Interestingly, Pope Francis just canonized and named as Doctor of the Church St, Gregry of Narek, who was evidently not "jurisdictionally" Catholic although his beliefs were Catholic, who was "jurisdictionally" a member of the very ancient Armenian Apostolic Church.

[Arthur McGowan]

Dr. Edward Peters has written some good stuff on this issue. Easy to Bing (which I prefer) or Google.

Fundamentally, clerical CONTINENCE is directly linked to Eucharistic Realism.

ALL clerics (deacons, priests, bishops) in the Roman Rite are bound by canon law to the obligation of perpetual, perfect continence.

[FredZarguna]

One is enough to blow up the theory.

[goodwithagun]

I know. It was a rhetorical question to Dagnabitt.

[Arthur McGowan]

You have things a bit garbled, because, I think, you are using “celibacy” where you mean “continence.”

In the Roman Rite, all deacons promise celibacy at their ordination. This means they promise never to marry.

Since all priests and bishops are also deacons, this means that ALL clerics are bound to perfect, perpetual continence.

The obligation to perfect, perpetual continence is over and above the obligation of ALL unmarried Christians to obey the Sixth Commandment by practicing perfect continence.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Wow! Moving in line with Scripture!

How can you complain?

You, my friend, are very naive.

Let me know when he condemns higher criticism and teaches creationism.

[Arthur McGowan]

You are referring, no doubt, to the Scripture where Saint Paul urges Christians to be virgins until death.

In which case, your comment makes no sense.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Are the Orthodox recruiting?

No. In my experience all the ancient churches (including the Catholic) do not recruit. They simply reproduce sexually.

Fundamentalist Protestants are very missionary (white on white, Black on Black) but will not cross the color line. And in fact most of these Fundamentalist Protestant "converts" are lifelong believers who are experiencing what in any other tradition would be called a mark of passage.

[Dagnabitt]

A celibacy requirement is an obvious filter against men who marry and in favor of men who don’t (homosexuals). It doesn’t directly cause homosexual child molestation, but it serves to bring in more homosexuals, some of whom are child molesters / pederasts.

[terycarl]

I thought that the pope’s decisions were infallible on doctrinal issues. Therefore, by reversing the church’s position regarding priests marriage, he is saying that the previous popes were all wrong when they required priests to be single.

Not correct...unmarried clergy is merely a rule, the Pope can, indeed, revoke the rule....I don't think that he will....no good reason whatsoever.

[FredZarguna]

And by the way, it's actually likely that most of them were. We only have a direct reference in the case of Peter. But had they been adult Jewish males in 30 or so AD, they would have been quite UNUSUAL not to have been married.

And we have this implication from Paul [1 Cor 9:5] "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

[piusv]

I think that is why Arthur refers to continence not whether married or not.

[terycarl]

Yeah. Lots of those “priests” play for the other team. And I’m not talking about the Protestants!

inane statement....at best

[FredZarguna]

He “explain” it until he’s blue in the face. It doesn’t mean he’s right.

[piusv]

Yes, you once provided me with a link. I should go look at my older posts. Sorry, I’m being lazy.

[piusv]

You do know he is a priest, right?

[Arthur McGowan]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=peters+continence+canon&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=peters+continence+canon&sc=0-7&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=9f5cdfd4f5e34701ad4d6b65e93ce272

[Arthur McGowan]

http://www.bing.com/search?q=peters+continence+canon&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=peters+continence+canon&sc=0-7&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=9f5cdfd4f5e34701ad4d6b65e93ce272

[FredZarguna]

So what?