Skip to comments.
Cardinal says Priests will marry
The Scotsman ^
| 5/26/2005
Posted on 05/25/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 521-527 next last
To: annalex
I gave you a number of New Testament references to priests in relation to the laity and to the bishops in #185. I thought I pointed out that Elders/Bishops are not in any way priests. I pointed it out to someone. That is still the case. That accounts for your references to Timothy and Titus.
221
posted on
05/27/2005 1:06:21 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Socialism isn't all bad.)
To: biblewonk
You did not point it out to me. Bishops ordain and defrock priests as is clear from Titus and Timothy, and priests effect sacraments, as is clear form James. Also, bishops come from the ranks of priests and can effect sacraments. Where do you think bishops come from?
222
posted on
05/27/2005 1:14:29 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: annalex
How nasty of you. I suspect you are getting frustrated because the bible doesn't say what you wish it said about priests. I knew that going into this and now I hope that you can see that too, although, I'd never expect to see an RC admit that publicly. Let us all conclude that the bible does not in any way define the position of priest in the Church.
223
posted on
05/27/2005 1:16:01 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Socialism isn't all bad.)
To: annalex
You did not point it out to me. Bishops ordain and defrock priests as is clear from Titus and Timothy, and priests effect sacraments, as is clear form James. Also, bishops come from the ranks of priests and can effect sacraments. Where do you think bishops come from? Titus and Timothy made no mention of defrocking priests at all. James 5 14 and 15 says absolutely nothing about priests either. You are so accustomed to seeing the word confession and relating that to the RC priesthood you can't seem to see that there is no mention of a priesthood there in James.
224
posted on
05/27/2005 1:21:05 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Socialism isn't all bad.)
To: biblewonk
You're casting pearls, brother.
225
posted on
05/27/2005 1:27:13 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
To: newgeezer
You're casting pearls, brother. But I'm not stooping to name calling. So I got that going for me.
226
posted on
05/27/2005 1:28:36 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Socialism isn't all bad.)
To: BlackElk
If it were not for the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have a BibleIf it were not for Israel, you would not have an Old Testament. Israel is an "enemy of the gospel" (Rom. 11:28).
227
posted on
05/27/2005 1:51:03 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
To: biblewonk
Regarding priests in 1 Timothy (note disposition of accusations against priests; we can argue if the public rebuking amounted to defrocking):
17 Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin reprove before all that the rest also may have fear.
This is ordainment of priests in Titus 1:
5 For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
This is the priests needed to perform the annointing of the sick in James 5:
14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
228
posted on
05/27/2005 1:59:00 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: biblewonk
I'd never expect to see an RC admit that publicly. Any Catholic who knows his faith will admit to you that the scripture alone does not inform our faith or regulate our liturgical practice. I give your scriptural references where they exist; some aspects of Christian practice indeed are not to be found in the scripture. The pillar and the foundation of truth is the Church, not the scripture (and you can look that up).
229
posted on
05/27/2005 2:04:51 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: biblewonk
Re: "I just simply can not find the priesthood anywhere in this whole chapter"
You are off topic yet again //sigh//
What is the point in arguing the topic you wish to hijack this thread into if you can not understand the simplest of statements. You will chose not to see it. You will change the topic into one on divorce (off topic), the creation of the sexes (off topic), divorce part II the Moses edition (off topic), little children and the proper approach to Christian life (off topic), a guide to salvation (off topic), the rich man who puts riches before Christ (close but not quite on topic), and on and on it goes with you. Not one of these passages have your related their significance to the topic at hand which is (in case you missed it) Celibacy in the priesthood.
Now I grant you they are all fine topics and we would all love to converse with you about them if you like but let us keep on track here shall we.
You asked for a Biblical passage justifying celibacy in the priesthood (my fingers are getting weary from repeating myself) I cited Matthew 19:12. You repeated it but you did not identify who said it as you offered to do (or so I gathered you would). I offered that passage as evidence of Christ's recommendation to celibacy (specifically to the future priests of His Church) yet you have offered no counter argument to this and have tried and struggled and fanagaled ever which-a-way to do anything but offer a rebuttal. You repeated the passage but have yet to offer a differing opinion as to the relevance of the passage.
You have not because you can not. You are used to arguments with Catholics who are weak in Scripture and try to twist the conservation your way but with intellectual honesty. As soon as your back senses the wall you are looking for the next escape (via changing the topic). Alas you are dealing with a former Protestant now and I know the tricks that SOME play and I am calling YOU on it.
Stay on topic. What do you offer as a counter argument to Matthew 19:12?
To: newgeezer
Come now! Even you must see the fella has been changing the subject with everyone he can. Are you suggesting he offered an alternative interpretation to my passage AND expecting to be taken seriously?
If so what is his interpretation of that passage? Cite the post number and quote the statement that explains his view.
To: sinkspur
I expect the Vatican will one day restore the original church doctrine that allowed priests to marry. If it occurs, parishes requesting married priests be assigned them will take on fashionable flair, but it wouldn't surprise me to find the single-celebant priests will be the more effective for their parishioners. In the long run, allowing married priests may show the actual worth of single-celebant priests.
Where I expect the church to remain firm is not on church doctrine, but the law of God. There will be no bending on issues regarding sexual orientation, birth control, or same sex marriage, to name a few.
To: biblewonk
The uninvited trespass. Laugh as you like.
233
posted on
05/27/2005 3:13:10 PM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
Comment #234 Removed by Moderator
Comment #235 Removed by Moderator
To: BlackElk; biblewonk
The uninvited trespass. Laugh as you like.'Wonk, didn't you know? This is the Catholic forum on Free Republic.
236
posted on
05/27/2005 4:14:04 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
To: newgeezer; ninenot; sittnick
oday's Israel the nation was not around in Old Testament times. If, by Israel, you mean Jews, obviously, without, them there would have been no Old Testament, no Gospels and no New Testament. There would have been no Mary. There would have been no Jesus. You might have had a harder time as to the survival of the Scroptures without CATHOLIC monks scribbling copies for many centuries during the Age of Faith. Luther could not save Scriptures by copying them eight or nine centuries before he and his "ism" were whelped.
What's your frequency, Kenneth?
237
posted on
05/27/2005 4:18:52 PM PDT
by
BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
To: seamole
1 Timothy 5:22 "... Keep thyself chaste".
238
posted on
05/27/2005 5:07:49 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: Mrs. Don-o
How about meat on Friday? Suppose I, following in the footsteps of our own Deacon One Note Samba, kept a continuous drumbeat of clamor about discontinuing the discipline of refraining from meat on Friday. I wouldn't be bucking doctrine.
Where is obedience and humility to Holy Mother Church?
239
posted on
05/27/2005 5:32:34 PM PDT
by
jobim
To: jobim
You wrote:
"Suppose I...(continuously)clamor about discontinuing the discipline of refraining from meat on Friday. I wouldn't be bucking doctrine....Where is obedience and humility to Holy Mother Church? You're right about that. I don't think Cardinal Whatsizname or deacon Whatsizname are wise or prudent or fair or humble in pushing their opinions in a way that gives scandal.
It's particularly unfair to give the impression that "someday soon" the church is going to be recruiting married men to the priesthood, which could have the effect of (1) dismaying the men who, sometimes with great inner struggle, have already vowed themselves to celibacy, and (2) wrongly encouraging men who actually have a priestly vocation to get married now, on the assumption that the Church is going to change and they'll be able to be priests sometime in the future, anyway.
It's a bad business. But it's not heresy. That was my point.
BTW, I think the Church was very unwise to drop the abstinence from meat-eating on Fridays. It was a tiny bit of self-denial which was good for all of us; and it gave us a kind of group identity thing which reminded us who we were.
240
posted on
05/27/2005 6:07:27 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Make love. Accept no substitutes.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 521-527 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson