Posted on 05/25/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
THE leader of Scotland's Catholics has risked reigniting a row over married priests by predicting the Vatican will eventually relent and allow the practice.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, said the success of married deacons in the church means the change is likely.
The church leader has upset traditional Catholics in the past with his views on celibacy, homosexuality and the priesthood.
His latest comments were made in an interview with the Catholic Times, which will be published on Sunday,
Asked if he believed married priests will become a reality, he said: "Having seen something of the apostolate of married deacons, I can foresee the day when there will be married priests."
The Cardinal has angered conservative Catholics in the past with his acceptance of gay priests, as long as they remained celibate.
However, since being elevated to the College of Cardinals he has espoused views more in line with Vatican teachings. Cardinal O'Brien's latest comments drew criticism from the right-wing Catholic Truth movement.
A spokesman for the group said: "He is trying to say that he is not necessarily personally in favour of this but we can debate it. It's a sleekit way of trying to have his cake and eat it."
However, a poll of 80 Catholic priests in Scotland conducted only last month suggested 40 per cent believed they should be allowed to marry, but the issue remains thorny to many conservative Catholics.
Cardinal O'Brien gained a reputation as a liberal after he said in 2002, before he became a cardinal, that he saw no end to theological argument against celibacy within the priesthood.
A day later he issued a joint statement with Mario Conti, the archbishop of Glasgow, in which the pair said: "While no-one would suggest clerical celibacy is an unchangeable discipline, we believe it has an enormous value."
The following year he risked angering conservatives again when he broached the subject of married priests.
He said in a thanksgiving mass that the church should have "at every level" a discussion about clerical celibacy.
He said the argument for married priests was supported by the case of married Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism and been allowed to continue their ministries.
However, at the ecclesiastical senate in Rome in October 2003, he made a statement at the end of the Nicene Creed in which he affirmed support of the church's teachings on celibacy, contraception and homosexuality.
It was claimed at the time, but denied, that the added words were said under pressure from the Vatican.
Since then the Cardinal has been careful not to speak out on any of the issues that caused so much controversy.
A spokesman for the Church said today that the Cardinal's comments were not incompatible with his profession of faith in 2003.
He said: "It is a neutral comment on the issue, it is neither a ringing endorsement of the concept, neither is it an outright denunciation."
Yes the one final real event what was pictured by all of the earlier events. Then it was finished. No more sacrifices. No more priesthood. Just a priesthood of ALL believers and the one High Priest, Jesus.
The Eucharist is instituted at the Last Supper and its sacrificial character is clear from John 6, although all accounts of the Eucharist (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11) make reference to the body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist. The word "sacrifice" may not be there, but the reference to the sacrifice at Calgary is, I think, clear.
The fact that a priest, and not just anyone, offers sacrifice is clear from the Old Testament. This tradition was filled with a new meaning and continued in the Christian Church. We know that historically (for example, the 1 Nicean Council in AD 325 mentions the established liturgical practice and rectifies abuses). I am not aware of any New Testament verse that specifically makes the distinction between priests and laymen, although priests and their function of providing sacraments is clear from James 5:14-15, which also indicates that at least for the annointing of the sick a layman won't do. Since the distinction between priests and laymen was clear to all Jews, there was no pastoral need to put it down on paper.
Ordination by laying of hands is mentioned numerous times, as you know. Timothy's position of bishop, as well as existence of priests is in 1 Tim 5. Also see Titus 1:5.
I'm aware that there are several Catholic factions on FR, so I imagine there are several opinions on this.
What is the official position of the Catholic Church? Can a celibate homosexual be a priest?
Every time you are tempted to declare upon what you think "the words say" in Scripture, remember the proper preface: what those who are "reformed" LIKE TO THINK the words say.
The Catholic Church is as wonderful a Church as you would expect once you recognize that it is divinely instituted among fallen men. Instead of attacking it, you should come home to the Church of your ancestors. If not, not. You have the same free will as the rest of us for good or for ill.
In any event, unless and until you are a practicing and believing Roman Catholic, MYOB.
Does any of this contradict Sacred Scripture?
Well, you are telling me more Catholic details but in doing so you are drifting farther and farther from the scriptures. Can you show me anything about confecting and Sacrament from the bible. We still haven't seen any scripture defining the position of "Christian Priest" let along that a "Christian Priest must be celebate unlike the Jewish Priests". Now you have thrown more ritual and rite but not even addressed scripturally the first things I asked about. So it almost seems that you are defaulting to "There is no scripture establishing a Christian Priesthood as it exists in the Catholic church but can you find a place in the scriptures that says we shouldn't"
No. Church law forbids homosexuals from becoming priests. This includes those who insist they will remain celibate.
Just another "ships passing in the night" situation masquerading as an argument.
You are clueless as to Catholicism. Why should any Catholic settle for the Gospel according to Schmidlap or whomever was distorting Scripture through a "reform" prism lately. The Teaching Magisterium trumps Schmidlap or whomever anytime. If you prefer the Scxhmidlap interpretation or your own, have a nice day but don't expect Catholics to be impressed by your presumptions of Scriptural competence to declare Scriptural meaning to those who know better.
A good percentage of "Catholic" voters, perhaps, but not of Catholic voters.
Strange, but not surprising response to a question about the scriptures.
Do bacteria exist?????
Can man survive travel at the speed of sound?????
Are communists immoral monsters????
Is abortion a moral crime?????
How can biblewonk be REALLY sure? Where are the bible sources? Where, oh where, in Scripture can the answers be found? Poor biblewonk, soooooo many questions and so verrrry few SCRIPTURAL answers!!!!! What is a poor biblewonk to do?
BTW, Biblewonk, you trespassed on matters Catholic by inserting your utterly unsolicited and unwanted "reformed" opinions on matters of internal Catholic Church governance and then doing the "reformed" mantra of: Where is that in Scripture? Caveat trespassor!
Strange only to those who have rejected the Catholic Church established, founded and guaranteed by Jesus Christ Who gave the keys to Peter and his successors.
You may know well the parts of our Bible you deign fit to read, but you could stand to brush up on your etymology. What does "priest" mean?
Middle English preist, from Old English prEost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go
I really think it would help you to learn that a priest is not at all an elder.
Priest
The Heb. kohen, Gr. hierus, Lat. sacerdos, always denote one who offers sacrifices.
At first every man was his own priest, and presented his own sacrifices before God. Afterwards that office devolved on the head of the family, as in the cases of Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (12:7; 13:4), Isaac (26:25), Jacob (31:54), and Job (Job 1:5).
The name first occurs as applied to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). Under the Levitical arrangements the office of the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, and to only one family of that tribe, the family of Aaron. Certain laws respecting the qualifications of priests are given in Lev. 21:16-23. There are ordinances also regarding the priests' dress (Ex. 28:40-43) and the manner of their consecration to the office (29:1-37).
Their duties were manifold (Ex. 27:20, 21; 29:38-44; Lev. 6:12; 10:11; 24:8; Num. 10:1-10; Deut. 17:8-13; 33:10; Mal. 2:7). They represented the people before God, and offered the various sacrifices prescribed in the law.
In the time of David the priests were divided into twenty-four courses or classes (1 Chr. 24:7-18). This number was retained after the Captivity (Ezra 2:36-39; Neh. 7:39-42).
"The priests were not distributed over the country, but lived together in certain cities [forty-eight in number, of which six were cities of refuge, q.v.], which had been assigned to their use. From thence they went up by turns to minister in the temple at Jerusalem. Thus the religious instruction of the people in the country generally was left to the heads of families, until the establishment of synagogues, an event which did not take place till the return from the Captivity, and which was the main source of the freedom from idolatry that became as marked a feature of the Jewish people thenceforward as its practice had been hitherto their great national sin."
The whole priestly system of the Jews was typical. It was a shadow of which the body is Christ. The priests all prefigured the great Priest who offered "one sacrifice for sins" "once for all" (Heb. 10:10, 12). There is now no human priesthood. (See Epistle to the Hebrews throughout.) The term "priest" is indeed applied to believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6), but in these cases it implies no sacerdotal functions. All true believers are now "kings and priests unto God." As priests they have free access into the holiest of all, and offer up the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, and the sacrifices of grateful service from day to day.
Strange, you never posted anything from Scripture to show us that we should expect Scripture to describe and teach us every iota of Christian practice.
Yes that verse is very nice, but I'm completely missing the part about a priesthood. Where is the scripture about the Christian Priesthood, other that the priesthood of the believers. Where is the part where these Christian Priests make sacrifices and interceed on behalf of the other Christian priests, which we all are. Where does it say that this scarificing priesthood must also be celebate(sp)
I can see Jesus's sacrifice there in John 6 but I'm missing the part about any Eucharist at all. When you say Eucharist what are you saying that I might actually fine in the bible?
Yes it is very very very clear there in the OT regarding a Jewish priest. You are right, I can find that in the bible and am with you 100 percent. This is all part of the definition of a priest which is certainly not an Elder as we see in the NT.
This tradition was filled with a new meaning and continued in the Christian Church.
Yes in two ways, Jesus is now our High Priest and all Christians are priests so I agree up to this point.
We know that historically (for example, the 1 Nicean Council in AD 325 mentions the established liturgical practice and rectifies abuses).
You lost me here. We've left the bible.
I am not aware of any New Testament verse that specifically makes the distinction between priests and laymen, although priests and their function of providing sacraments is clear from James 5:14-15, which also indicates that at least for the annointing of the sick a layman won't do.
I'm still hoping for even the merest mention of a priest in the NT let along any details about their pay grades.
Since the distinction between priests and laymen was clear to all Jews, there was no pastoral need to put it down on paper.
Ofcourse it was clear because it was a position established by the Law and help by blood. It was a blood lineage.
So you don't even want to try and answer any questions about biblical basis for RC beliefs do you? I understand but I admire the patience and courage of those who try.
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.