Posted on 11/22/2005 11:31:08 PM PST by jec1ny
Guess that's why I like it.
Have a Blessed Thanksgiving.
,,, I bet they do.
I hope that speeds up even more. I moved east, still in the diocese of Cleveland, and lets just say the tightening can not happen soon enough.
I posted links to quotes and canonical lists from early Church councils and yet you still have the gumption to post that Trent quote with a straigh face as though it's factually supportive of your position. You are most clearly ignorant of Church history and the purpose of declarations by Church councils. That quote from the Council of Trent is merely a reaffirmation of the official canon of the Church which had been in existence for well over a thousand years. Like virtually every decree of every council throughout history, it was a response to challenges to the faith--in this case from Luther and the forces of Reformation in regards to their canon.
You can, of course, feel free to put your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la I don't want to hear your historical facts all you want, but that won't make facts out of your fiction.
At any rate, I'm not interested in debating it on this thread.
Funny, given that you started this debate on this thread when you posted your demonstrably false claims about the Church's scriptural canon. If you can't stand the heat ...
I don't have a clue. I also don't have a clue as to why it demands that its priests be celibate - Paul made it clear that celibacy was a plus (I would imagine that is because Jesus was celibate) even as he declared that that was his position, not necessarily the Lord's. Even Jesus mentioned that it was a sure-fire way to keep from sexual immorality, but conceded that, if one was so inclined to cater to the flesh, marriage was the one thing that made sex OK.
Like many religions, the Catholics decided to add some of their own conditions which are not necessary and may be prone to causing some of the very problems they were designed to alleviate. If priests could marry, there would most likely be less problems like the ones that were so prominent in the news over the last few years.
I'm not as ignorant as you would have me. I come from a long line of Catholics and my Dad was an altar boy. The article alludes to problems that had been arising, because like so many of the religions, Catholicism has those that would interpret the Bible to suit their own beliefs and allow that which the canons prohibit. My point was that, if they had been consistently aggressive, and censured the Bishops and others that would go against the canons, the reaffirmation would not be necessary. When they get lax, and don't hammer those in the Church that act in contradiction to it, problems grow and fester. Do you suppose that the Church would have suffered all the scandal from the homosexual pedophilia cases if the Church had been on the ball and slapped them down from the get-go instead of either leaving the offenders in place, or merely moving them to other parishes?
Letting priests marry would lessen the problems of predatory homosexual pederasts among the clergy? And that opinion is based on what empirical evidence?
Protestant Christianity is an example to which we can look regarding the impact of celibacy on the priesthood. The churches that allow marriage aren't anymore holy, don't suffer less scandalous behavior from their pastors; it doesn't make being a Christian any easier, it doesn't better hold their churches together, make the preaching of the gospel any easier, etc. The Sacrament of Marriage itself is itself in profound crises in the Western world today and yet it's not as frequently argued that marriage should be modified or eliminated. The problems with marriage and the celibate priesthood aren't due to inherent flaws in these sacramental institutions but flaws in the fallen human condition.
"The poorer the age is in faith, the more frequent the falls," Pope Benedict XVI has said. When priests or married persons live these sacraments badly or hypocritically they create grave scandal and cynicism, often with the resulting impression among the public that something is somehow fundamentally wrong with the sacrament instead of with those who are failing to live up to their vows.
Presumably the one He founded.
To find that Church, look at history.
You're dancing around the question.?.. Prevaricating..
Which church.?...
[The Catholic church ]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
I see, so, you Don't mean the Roman Catholic Church is "THE" church, right?.. but "A" church.. merely an organization in the "Body of Christ".. as other churches are?..
No, because if Christ's Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth," then it can't be composed of various churches teaching contradictory doctrines.
Similarly, Christ wouldn't tell us to take our disputes "to the Church" if one church taught one thing, and one church another. His command would be meaningless and void.
Other churches may possess varying degrees of truth, but no other church possesses the fullness of truth.
Pardon me, I was WRONG THEN.. You ARE saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the "THE" church and all other "churches" are merely imitators and are "protesting" or at least at variance with Gods true "mouth piece" on this planet. the RCC..
And that its the "other churches" providing schism to the body of christ and are standing in the way to true unity to what God is doing on this planet..
O.K. I just wanted to understand you completely or even partially.. We may indeed have different God's.. even though there is only one God.. The sheep MUST be separated from the goats.. Thats just the way that it is.. I suppose..
Is God COOL or WHAT.?.
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.