LOL
Wow, that's all you got left?
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."
LOL
Wow, that's all you got left?
This might be unwise. While miles ahead of the modern dumbed-down translations, King James has the Protestant obfuscating language in numerous key points. "Kecharetomene" in Luke 1, for example, is normatively translated as "gratia plena" -- "full of grace", but King James has the tortured "most favoured one" instead. When John is instructed to take Mary as mother, the original says "elaven auten o mathethes eis ta idia [end of verse]", "the disciple took her to his own", but King James inserts "home", which twists the meaning into a trivial economic arrangement.
Use Douay. It is not free of errors (notably, Genesis 3:15 incorrectly uses feminine, "she will crush [the serpent's] head", when "he" is correct), but it is much cleaner overall.
You never cease to amaze me, BlackElk. LOL
I don't have my historical sources at hand, but I know Igantius Press has published a book on this subject. I'll try to cite you something specific if I get a chance this evening.
My hope is that one day the Mass for the Ages will again be the norm, and the Novus Ordo, purufied from the abuse, will be a separate rite.
If it were not for the Roman Catholic Church giving the Bible
Need I remind you this is what you said which compelled me to respond to you in the first place? (GRIN)
At any rate, it seems you're real proud of that heritage. So, I'll just mention again that Israel could easily make the same claim. God used Israel, an "enemy of the gospel," to give us the Bible. Surely you're not ready to say that gives Israel claim to being the one true church.
(Oh, and just so you don't fall into the same confusion as happened the last time we covered this ground, I'll just mention that "Israel" is a Biblical term.)
I see you persist in this line of "reasoning." And, you pinged more of your friends.
So, what's this thread about, and why do you keep posting this stuff?
Two differences. First, Judaism is, self-admittedly, a religion of the book, so a claim that if something is not in the Jewish scripture, then it should not be Judaism, is easier to make.
Second, the Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic not because it produced the Christian Canon, but because it historically and dogmatically is. The fact that it produced the Christian Canon is merely a refutation of the "since X is not in the New Testament, the Chruch should not practice X" assertion.
You never cease to amaze me, BlackElk. LOL
Ditto that JP. LOL. BE is amazing. I love him.
As to your second point: 1) That's special; and 2) what good does it do you to misread Scripture, ignore its origin, reject its Church, etc.
I don't doubt that many "reformed" find their way to heaven not by the magic incantation of accepting, etc., but because they obey so much of what Christ demanded whatever their probably innocent deviations, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross has been accessed by them despite the difficulties of lacking graces available through Masses and the sacraments. If you disagree with the last sentence, I really don't care.
For me to be vindicated as a Catholic, I don't need to make a fool of myself by imagining that you must be going to hell unless you surrender to my views or those of my Church. If you believe that I am going to hell for not agreeing with you, seek help. I might go to hell and so might you (as long as I live or you live, each of us is eligible) but it won't be for denominational disagreements.
The best Christian I ever knew was my mother's best friend, Hilda, a verrrrrrry old-fashioned, no nonsense old school Methodist. Some Catholics take the asinine tack that Hilda must be in hell because in 93 years she had plenty of opportunity to become Catholic and did not. After all, outside the Roman Catholic Church (as this particular belief goes) there is NO salvation. The PRE-VATICAN II (for the benefit of Catholics who disagree) hierarchy excommunicated Leonard Feeney, SJ, for that particular error. The Church may just be wide enough to include Hilda and, maybe, just maybe many of the "reformed" here whether they think so or not. Objective reality trumps subjective error anytime. God's plan just has to be better than yours or mine.
If Hilda is in heaven, she is in heaven because of the facts of her life, her passionate love of God, her fervent obedience of Him. She no doubt accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. After all, who else would have or could have been her personal Lord and Savior?
Hilda and my mother had a great agreement not to argue politics or religion. My mother voted Democrat most of her life and Hilda was a very Republican and conservative woman. Eventually, my mother became (gasp) a registered Republican and never voted for another Democrat. Then she and Hilda talked politics, but not before. They never risked a great relationship by trying to convert each other on religion. After Hilda died, she got a lot of those indulgences that she did not believe in. No problem. Objective reality will trump subjective error anytime. As long as I live, Hilda will be remembered and she will be in my prayers whether she would have thught them useful or not.
BTW, (John 6:50-71) I posted Scripture earlier but got NO Scriptural responses.
As to your second point: 1) That's special; and 2) what good does it do you to misread Scripture, ignore its origin, reject its Church, etc.
I don't doubt that many "reformed" find their way to heaven not by the magic incantation of accepting, etc., but because they obey so much of what Christ demanded whatever their probably innocent deviations, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross has been accessed by them despite the difficulties of lacking graces available through Masses and the sacraments. If you disagree with the last sentence, I really don't care.
For me to be vindicated as a Catholic, I don't need to make a fool of myself by imagining that you must be going to hell unless you surrender to my views or those of my Church. If you believe that I am going to hell for not agreeing with you, seek help. I might go to hell and so might you (as long as I live or you live, each of us is eligible) but it won't be for denominational disagreements.
The best Christian I ever knew was my mother's best friend, Hilda, a verrrrrrry old-fashioned, no nonsense old school Methodist. Some Catholics take the asinine tack that Hilda must be in hell because in 93 years she had plenty of opportunity to become Catholic and did not. After all, outside the Roman Catholic Church (as this particular belief goes) there is NO salvation. The PRE-VATICAN II (for the benefit of Catholics who disagree) hierarchy excommunicated Leonard Feeney, SJ, for that particular error. The Church may just be wide enough to include Hilda and, maybe, just maybe many of the "reformed" here whether they think so or not. Objective reality trumps subjective error anytime. God's plan just has to be better than yours or mine.
If Hilda is in heaven, she is in heaven because of the facts of her life, her passionate love of God, her fervent obedience of Him. She no doubt accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. After all, who else would have or could have been her personal Lord and Savior?
Hilda and my mother had a great agreement not to argue politics or religion. My mother voted Democrat most of her life and Hilda was a very Republican and conservative woman. Eventually, my mother became (gasp) a registered Republican and never voted for another Democrat. Then she and Hilda talked politics, but not before. They never risked a great relationship by trying to convert each other on religion. After Hilda died, she got a lot of those indulgences that she did not believe in. No problem. Objective reality will trump subjective error anytime. As long as I live, Hilda will be remembered and she will be in my prayers whether she would have thught them useful or not.
BTW, (John 6:50-71) I posted Scripture earlier but got NO Scriptural responses.
When did Israel collect and promulgate the New Testament?
This thread is about the misbehavior of a Roman Catholic cardinal in Scotland and, in case I neglected to say so, therefore none of your anti-Catholic bidness.
Oh, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS which I am likely to continue posting until you take the hint and get some manners.
As to your first point, I ping as I please. The words of my posts (and every one else's posts) speak for themselves. The volume of pingees has nothing to do with impressing anyone. Many of us summon allies to chime in and sometimes they do. Sometimes, opponents are pinged for a wide variety of reasons. Why should you care whom I ping?
FOTFL. Biblewonk, BE pings as he pleases and I am always glad when he pings me. It's not like he's calling in the calvary. He needs no help or back up.
If you'd care to cut to the chase, I'll be happy to respond. As it stands, you're coming across as just another puffed-up smart-aleck.
You said: "So, I'll just mention again that Israel could easily make the same claim" about giving us the bible.
I said: "When did Israel collect and promulgate the New Testament?"
Already clear as a bell.
If it were not for the Roman Catholic Church giving yiou the Bible, you would not have a Bible to truncate and mangle.
Is there some reason why I should give a rat's patoot why you responded to me?
I also take it that the incredibly self-satisfied and erroneous church of newgeezer has problems with Jews as well as with Catholics. Why am I not surprised? Jews should take as a compliment your attitude towards them, considering the source.
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Maybe they don't actually read the Bible but just play people who do when they post on the Internet.
Pope Leo the Great writes to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (458/9):The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so. [Epist. ad Rusticum Narbonensem episcopum, Inquis, III., Resp. PL 54, 1 204a.]Introduced here is the technical expression ‘law of continence’ (lex continentiae). It can also be called the law of celibacy in a ‘wide’ sense. Early Western legislation tends to focus on clerical continence as specifically applied to married clergy: the discipline of abstinence from marital relations. If a bishop, priest or deacon (and subdeacon from the fifth century onwards) was prohibited from having sexual relations once in orders, then it is obvious that his commitment to continence would be the major impediment to subsequent marriage (quite apart from the general disfavour shown towards second marriage). For there could be no real marriage unless it was potentially open to sexual consummation. The same law of continence would also impede the unmarried deacon or priest from marrying. The laws, so clearly expressed in the East, prohibiting marriage to the already ordained may thus be reasonably understood to be but the reverse expression of this more basic discipline of continence. This possibility needs to be taken into account when reconstructing the history of clerical celibacy.
This thread seems to have digressed into apologetics because the discussion was hijacked by an obnoxious poster who is both biblically and historically illiterate. But I would like to get back to this question of whether we have someone impersonating a deacon. Was this question ever resolved?
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.