Posted on 03/12/2015 12:31:53 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I know your rationalizations. I am an apostate of that church.
It has NOTHING to do with iit at all...Ministers are allowed to be married and the incidencw of abuse is higher in the Protestant church, teachers, scout programs Etc...The cause of the problem is homosexuality....Period.
Oh you’re an apostate? Nevermind.
Francis said: 'Just tell her the Pope said that she can'.
Ms Larumbe, 39, told MailOnline she was 'speechless and emotional' after receiving the Holy Father's personal dispensation to partake in the key Catholic sacraments.
There was no report of the Pope ordering the adulteress to cease her fornication. Otherwise, it would not be called a "dispensation".
If the Pope had told her the proper course of reconciliation with the Catholic Church, Lombardi would be shouting it from the rooftops, not playing cat and mouse about "private conversations" are not Church doctrine.
And finally, why did the adulteress state:
'I've decided to wait until it's official for every Catholic, not just for me. I don't want it to be allowed just for me, I want it to be allowed for everyone.'
I’m sorry to do this to you. I have been perusing those links. Where does Peters address the connection of perpetual continence with doctrine? As far as I can see this is Canon Law and Canon Law typically deals with discipline (which can change).
Of course, having said that, I also know that Canon Law that addresses the receipt of communion deals with more than “just discipline” (and connected to doctrine). This is why the Church has never allowed non-Catholics to receive communion (that is, before Vatican II and JPII’s 1983 Code).
And the Catholic Church stands out foir it's long and sordid history of hushing up crimes against children and shielding their "problem" priests from deserved prison.
It will be coming.....and soon.
Orthodox Churches refer to themselves as of Eastern Catholicism:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church
You know they were the same united in the first few centuries AD?
Divorce lawyers will NOT be stealing from the CHURCH thank you.
Very dubious.
He’s done it before.
What’s dubious is your preposterous supposition that the woman renounced her illicit sexual relationship.
They can all drop dead if they mention same sex marriage
You don't gain any credibility when you ignore key words like "could" or "should".
Arthur,
Please post the passage and we can discuss it.
“You, my friend, are very naive. Let me know when he condemns higher criticism and teaches creationism. “
And perhaps you do not understand context...
I’m only posting about priests not marrying.
Source: History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church
The author, Henry Charles Lea, was a rabid anti-Catholic. This is not a reliable source.
“...a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices...”
Source: Herbert Thurston “Celibacy of the Clergy” Catholic encyclopedia.
Interesting where you put the ellipses. The full quote gives quite a different spin:
Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church.Since you quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Celibacy of the Clergy," I take it that you consider it a good source. That article shows that clerical celibacy in the West dates from no later than the Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302). It then lists a number of later councils that confirm this discipline. It even quotes from Dr. John Wordsworth, a bishop of the Church of England, and no fan of celibacy:
"As a rule", remarks Bishop Wordsworth from his anti-celibate standpoint, "the great writers of the fourth and fifth century pressed celibacy as the more excellent way with an unfair and misleading emphasis which led to the gravest and moral mischief and loss of power in the Church." (The Ministry of Grace, 1902, p. 223).Even if one were not to accept Fr. Cochini's position that clerical celibacy dates back to the Apostles, it is clear that in the West it goes back at least to the 3rd century and that the motivation was spiritual, not financial or as a reply to corruption. The idea that clerical celibacy dates only to the Middle Ages cannot be supported by the facts.
Oh this will open up a whole new field for divorce lawyers... it'll make the tobacco settlements look like chump change when they're done.
Nevermind that this will create a caste system in the Catholic clergy where it'll be the celibates doing all the work because the married men won't have time to dedicate every waking moment to the care of souls outside of their families (which will be their primary responsibility).
“Since all priests and bishops are also deacons, this means that ALL clerics are bound to perfect, perpetual continence.”
Amazing how many unbiblical things are in that one sentence.
Then why do so many Catholics go ballistic when it is even suggested?
I think it would be the best thing going for the Catholic church as it would open up a whole pool of eligible men for the priesthood and go a long way to keeping a celibate priesthood from becoming a safe haven for pedophiles.
Just let the me decide whether they can handle the celibacy and make the decision themselves.
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.