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 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520, 521-527 next last
To: annalex
If you followed any Catholic threads here dealing with the effects of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesiology, you probably noticed that among the complaints that the traditionalists have is that the new order of Mass diluted the role of the priest. More prayers formerly said by the priest alone are now said by the congregation; Latin (in which the Priest is more likely to be fluent than the congregation) is rarely used; extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion (who take the Eucharist consecrated by the priest to the congregation to speed up the communion) are used liberally; the communicants don't kneel, often take Communion in their hands rather than letting the priest put it in their mouth; the communion rail is gone; the priest's vestments are simpler. On the other hand, in the new order the priest faces away from the Crucifix and toward the congregation, which has the effect of separating him from the laity. I mention these things to illustrate the brackets between which Catholicism is willing to go in the degree of separation between the priest and the congregation; as you can see, despite the innovations, priesthood is indeed very special. Thank you for the summary. I see mention of that 2nd vatican thing all the time. I must point out though I know you are tired of hearing it, that this is all RC tradition since my point all along has been that there is no RC type priesthood in the bible nor in Christianity for a the Church/Body of Christ.
Yes the RC defined priesthood is a very important thing to the RC ...um...faith. Hence my continuing complaint. It just shouldn't be so.
501
posted on
06/02/2005 10:02:20 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Yes I think I am a bible worshipper.)
To: biblewonk
there is no other scripture telling us about Peter's popehood In Mt 16:18 and Jn 1:42 Simon Peter is renamed Rock and in Mt 16:18 te reason for the name is given, to become the foundation of Christ's Church.
In Mt 16:10 Peter alone is given the keys with which to bind and loose things on earth. Christ promises that what Peter legislates on earth will be followed in heaven.
In Jn 21:15-18 Peter alone receives the pastoral duty to feed and guide Christ's sheep.
502
posted on
06/02/2005 10:06:06 AM PDT
by
annalex
To: biblewonk
an ambiguous statement about a rock and another rock. Please. Where is the other rock? The episode starts with Peter's profession of faith, Christ in return calls him rock, and the foundation of the Church because of his faith, and give him the keys. Your interpretation is extra-scriptural.
503
posted on
06/02/2005 10:10:06 AM PDT
by
annalex
To: annalex
In Mt 16:10 Should be Mt 16:19.
504
posted on
06/02/2005 10:19:16 AM PDT
by
annalex
To: annalex; biblewonk
Baptism ... in an emergency.This reminds me of my pre-believing days when my wife and I were typical ELCA Lutherans (going through the motions on Sunday mornings). We actually came very close to taking our infant nephew to be baptized (to save his soul, LOL). His atheist parents would have had a cow.
505
posted on
06/02/2005 8:20:13 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
To: newgeezer
A Catholic priest would not have allowed that. The requirement is that at least one parent should desire the baptism. That is because it is the will of the parent, not of the baby, that presents the child to Christ.
506
posted on
06/02/2005 9:01:31 PM PDT
by
annalex
To: annalex
not of the babyI'll add my 'amen' to that. ;)
507
posted on
06/03/2005 5:54:26 AM PDT
by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
Comment #508 Removed by Moderator
Comment #509 Removed by Moderator
Comment #510 Removed by Moderator
Comment #511 Removed by Moderator
Comment #512 Removed by Moderator
To: newgeezer
Regarding
Comment #508 Removed by Moderator
Comment #509 Removed by Moderator
Comment #510 Removed by Moderator
Comment #511 Removed by Moderator
Comment #512 Removed by Moderator
I guess I missed something, eh? I did notice we have some suspended or banned Freepers around here.
Oh, well, gotta go mow the yard. God bless us every one.
To: sockmonkey
I guess I missed something, eh?Until this moment, I was totally oblivious to it. If I had to guess, it's the usual suspect(s) of late.
514
posted on
06/06/2005 11:49:28 AM PDT
by
newgeezer
(America, bless God.)
To: sockmonkey
I did notice we have some suspended or banned Freepers around here. "Around here" as in "in this thread"?
I give up. Who's been suspended or banned?
515
posted on
06/06/2005 12:00:49 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(America, bless God.)
To: biblewonk
516
posted on
06/07/2005 6:28:43 AM PDT
by
newgeezer
(America, bless God.)
To: newgeezer
I'm sure curious as to what kind of comments were removed.
517
posted on
06/09/2005 5:09:22 AM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Yes I think I am a bible worshipper.)
Comment #518 Removed by Moderator
Comment #519 Removed by Moderator
Comment #520 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480, 481-500, 501-520, 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