Posted on 03/09/2010 12:13:22 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
Married or single priests from the early stages of Christianity practiced celibacy, according to a Vatican archaeologist.
During the first four centuries, married priests would renounce having intimate relationships with their wives, but they needed their the approval of their spouse.
Probably only engaged in oral acts since Bill Clinton explained that "oral sex" really isn't sex.
May I add, what the heck does a Vatican archaeologist know about sexuality?
Because you misunderstand my screen name is your fault not mine. it has nothing to do with communism or Mao. So go pound sand.
“Now, don’t make it personal.”
What?
I repeat: Manifestly, you have no idea what you are saying.
What the hell was I thinking? Imagine confusing your screen name with one of the more widely recorded accomplishments of history's greatest mass murder. I should have known it was some obscure reference. Do you mind if I use the sand you have your head in?
The Long March does NOT exclusively belong to the Red Chinese ( anymore than a term like ‘gay’ belongs to homosexuals). That you don’t know this says more about the sand in your own head
Obviously a lot more than you know about archeology.
Yeah, I suppose I should have assumed that it might have meant a month with 32 days, too. There might be many long marches but "The Long march is a singularly recognized event in world history. Screen names, like jokes, are bad when you have to explain them.
And if you knew anything about the history of the southwest perhaps you would not make such a stupid comment. The name is in honor of my father and his people ——The long march ( referred to by such as you as the long walk) was a time of trial and challenge to survive.
The fact that you know so little about your country’s history and yet so much about the history of a modern communist state says more about you than me
Manifestly you have no idea what you are saying when you say that I have no idea what I’m saying.
As a matter of fact, I know quite well what I’m saying.
How do you know that I don’t?
That’s mind-reading. But I guess breaking the rules is okay if you break them in the right cause.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I am fully aware of the Long Walk endured by the Navajo people and am ashamed for my country for such episodes, but you cannot fault me for not knowing it by the name you call it. The history of this nation is replete with instances of suffering and injustice.
My family arrived in chains in 1704 with a 10 year indenture for daring to unsuccessfully challenge the crown in the Jacobite rebellion. All of our ancestral lands were seized by the crown and many of my family members were given the gallows. My family members defended the frontiers in the French and Indian Wars, suffered at Valley Forge, and again fought the British in the War of 1812. My grandfather's grandfather marched into Mexico in 1849 and succumbed to injuries and disease as a POW at Andersonville. His grandson, my grandfather fought in Cuba, chased Poncho Villa into Mexico with Pershing and was wounded in combat in WWI. My father fought in the Pacific in WWII earning two Purple Hearts and Silver Star and I am a Vietnam combat vet. There are many things about the history of this country that you do not know, but it will suffice that to say that level of continuous warfare, conditions of slavery, human sacrifice and cannibalism encountered by the Europeans upon arrival in the New World clearly prove that what ever suffering our ancestors endured at the hands of the United States pales in comparison to what would have been without it.
I shouldn't indulge such crassness on a religious thread but LOL.
First of all, I have tried to abide by the rules of FR always. You should have access to everything I’ve ever written on it, so I leave it to you to verify one way or the other. I have even broken off several discussions when I perceived they were going in a pointless and personal direction.
Second, just because someone deems something to be “personal, “ doesn’t mean it is. Today, for example, Nancy Pelosi was talking about the House leadership “deeming” the Senate Health Care bill as having been passed by the House and so now ready to be returned to the Senate for reconciliation. Most people, on hearing her tortured reasoning, found themselves thinking, “Well, she can deem the bill as being passed by the House, but that doesn’t make it so.” She may even genuinely think her position to be responsible and honest. All that makes her is genuinely, sincerely wrong.
Third, the phrase Houghton M. seems to be worked up about had a context ... one clearly given. In replying to him I wrote the following, providing him the context of his own remark (which, it seems to me, is far more personal and judgmental than anything I wrote:
Houghton M. also wrote:
“Well, go ahead. What you believe in is cheap grace.”
Cheap? Hardly. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 26:47) Manifestly, you have no idea what you are saying.
My point was simply that Houghton M. had no cause to say of the person he was writing to that he or she believed in “cheap grace.” What was manifest, i.e., plain to see, from the argument of the person to whom he was writing that that person believed that the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ covered all sins of all people, a not remotely unknown theological, scriptural position. I merely pointed out that “cheap grace” is not cheap, given the price paid at Calvary by Christ, as evidenced in His own words.
Houghton M. can say and think that I was getting personal, but that doesn’t make it so. I do read what people say, and try very diligently to take note of the actual context of their remarks.
By requoting my own words, I was pointing out to him that he hadn’t even bothered to read what I said, and was simply crying, “personal.” I would suggest, with all due respect to FR and its moderators, as well as to Houghton M. and all of FR’s users, that before one cries “personal,” one should ascertain whether he is in fact reading the other person rightly. Civility should prompt one to inquire a little bit first when there is some possibility of uncertainty.
That being said, I will take your admonition to heart even though I am having a lot of trouble seeing the reason for it. Issues are what are to be discussed here, and that with reason, not emotion.
Thank you for making my point!
The vast majority of Americans (67%) are not Catholic.
Catholics may makeup a majority of Christians, and be the most populous denomination of Christians, as you state, but they are not the majority of Americans, as I stipulate.
Have you shared your thoughts on that subject with the Pope? He seems to disagree with that position.
Putting aside, for a moment, the rites which have historically allowed married priests (for example, the Marionites), you are aware, aren’t you, that there are several hundred married Latin rite priests in this country, with an expected influx of many more into the larger church under the Anglican use provisions (Anglicanorum Coetibus)established several months ago. So if you think all Catholic priests should be unmarried, you appear to have a disagreement with the Bishop of Rome.
ONCE AGAIN you didn't post ANYTHING from the pope, you are just speculating.
It’s somewhat of a shame when folks have to learn about the Roman church from a Calvinist.
“In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1. “
BENEDICT XVI
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS
PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS
ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION
WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
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.