Posted on 04/05/2012 10:40:02 AM PDT by marshmallow
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI denounced priests who have questioned church teaching on celibacy and ordaining women, saying Thursday they were disobeying his authority to try to impose their own ideas on the church.
Benedict made the rare and explicit criticism from the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in his homily on Holy Thursday, when priests recall the promises they made when ordained.
In 2006, a group of Austrian priests launched the Pfarrer Initiative, or pastor initiative, a call to disobedience aimed at abolishing priestly celibacy and opening up the clergy to women to relieve the shortages of priests.
Last June, the group's members essentially threatened a schism, saying the Vatican's refusal to hear their complaints left them no choice but to "follow our conscience and act independently."
They issued a revised call to disobedience in which they said parishes would celebrate Eucharistic services without priests, that they would let women preach, and they pledged to speak out publicly and frequently for female and married priests.
The group now claims more than 300 Austrian priests and deacons as well as supporters in other countries, and its influence has grown to such an extent that top Austrian bishops met with Vatican officials in January to discuss how to handle them, Italian news reports said.
So far, neither the Vatican nor the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn have imposed any canonical penalties on them.
In his homily, Benedict said the dissidents claim to be motivated by concern for the church. But he suggested that in reality they were just making "a desperate push to do something to change the church in accordance with (their) own preferences and ideas."
"We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the church, that they are.......
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
for example we know for a fact that the first Pope, Jesus’ personally designated rock, Peter was married. the bible very specifically mentions his “mother-in-law”
Humor does not always translate well over the internet. With that said, I do not know if you're being facetious or not. Jesus did NOT designate Peter as Pope. The word pope is not in the Bible. Jesus was declaring to Peter that He Himself(Jesus) was the Rock of ages. Jesus is the Rock upon Whom the Church is founded. It can be no other way. Peter denied His Lord three times. And yet you would have this man as the foundation? Talk about sand for a foundation, you found it. Jesus is the cornerstone whom the builders (and apparently many churches) rejected.
you wrote:
“Rev. Hellmut Schueller should join the Orthodox Church where married men can become priests.”
Too late. He’s already a priest so the Eastern Orthodox wouldn’t allow him to marry.
You are right.
That doctrine has only been held for 150 years?
Yep. While it was batted around and sometimes claimed by popes before that, it was only officially formalized during the First Vatican Council in 1870 and with the limitations that the Pope speaks Ex cathedra and is speaking on a matter of faith and morals only
——God has that authority.——
And He gave authority to His Church, if you believe Him.
______________________________________________________________________________
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
______________________________________________________________________________
The only debatable question is whether the Catholic Church is the visible (you can’t take disputes to an invisible church), authoritative Church that He established, which the gates of hell would not prevail against.
The answer to this question is a matter of historical analysis. There is only one Candidate. As Cardinal Newman said, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
-—Nothing in scripture construes the issue as either-or.——
And where in Scripture does Jesus establish the Scriptures as His ONLY earthly authority?
Nowhere.
Where does He establish His Church, which the gates of hell will not prevail against, as His earthly authority?
Right here:
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
Tell the Bible? No! Listen to the Scriptures? No! Listen to His Church.
Jesus’ Church is a visible, earthly Church, because it’s impossible to take disputes to an invisible church.
Analysis, to be accurate, must be unbiased. The Catholic Church does indeed have some history behind it. The list of grievances is long. Enough to fill books. There probably are books on this very subject but I do not seek them out. The Catholic Church does not meet the criteria to be Gods authoritative church. Teaching the traditions of man instead of the commandments of God is just one.
Neither are the words Bible, Trinity or Incarnation. A fact which doesn't seem to bother linguistic literalists like you.
As for the rest of your comments:
"Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21
Which other visible Church has existed since Apostolic times, with a non-contradictory body of teaching and an unbroken line of Apostolic and Petrine successors?
The Lutherans? Methodists? Presbyterians? Episcopelians? Evangelicals? Fundamentalists?
The Priests in question are in the Latin Rite, therefore, Benny(sic) is not incorrect. Also how many Rites are there in the Catholic Church?
IF we had more of them we wouldn’t have such a crisis in vocations in the US
A specious, at best, assertion, that is refuted by the actual shortage of Priests in all 21 of the Churches in the Eastern Rites.
By the way are you as upset with the DA in Boston who chose not to seek an indictment of Bernard Law or is your contempt reserved solely for the Pontiff?
What was his wife's name, since Scripture never mentions it?
Here are a few other things that the Bible mentions, which you most likely have never read.
"Then Peter answering, said to Him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30
"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed Thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30
(emphasis added for your edification)
Thanks for the cereal picture. It always brings a smile to my face and elevates the discussion.
In your unlearned opinion. You need to stop omitting that caveat.
The Jewish Churches which accepted Christ. Jesus was a Jew as well as His disciples. As far as "with a non-contradictory body of teaching and an unbroken line of Apostolic and Petrine successors", I'm not sure what that means (it's certainly not a Biblical concept) but when you show me 12 Catholics going out in the world (from town to town) healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind and bringing the dead back to life we'll reopen this discussion.
If Christ COMMANDS us to take our disputes “to the church,” the Church must speak for Him, must’t it? It must teach Truth, and It must do so infallibility.
Since Jesus is Truth Itself, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to COMMAND us to take our disputes to an ERRONEOUS Church.
Now, when we look for an infallible, visible Church, in existence from Apostolic times, then AT THE VERY LEAST, the teaching of this Church must be non-contradictory.
Regarding Apostolic succession, see Acts, where Judas’ OFFICE, or bishopric (KJV), is filled by Matthias. The Apostles appoint their successors. And this line of successors exists unbroken, until today, in the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Churches).
Peter’s office as leader of the Apostles, he who holds the key of the eternal Davidic Kingdom (Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7), exists today in the papacy.
Regarding Apostolic miracles, the bishops are not Apostles, because Apostles walked with Jesus. They are the successors to the Apostles. But there are certainly miraculous healings within the Church to this day. I have personally met two people cured of terminal cancer through the ministry of a priest, given the gift of healing, Fr. Aniello Salicone. He has laid hands on me, and I was overwhelmed with a sense of peace which I had never experienced before.
Send him an email. He answers every one.
http://www.catholicseniors.com/aniello.html
If you’re looking for documented, miraculous healings, do some research on Lourdes.
It’s strictly a personnel issue. God himself said that celibacy is desirable. The church listens to that counsel. There is no sin in marriage, nor has the church ever said that there was. But if the church uses the Word of God to discern whom the most qualified to be priests are, who are you to criticize them for it?
And, for the record, the Church does address the issue of priestly marriage as an issue of personnel, not as morality. Priests who are released from their vocations before seeking out a wife are not condemned; priests who were married outside the discipline of the Roman Patriarch (which is a seperate office from the Pope, although occupied by the same person) are recognized as holy men. The moral issue arises only when a priest has taken a solemn vow to remain celibate and to obey his patriarch, and then breaks that vow.
>> for example we know for a fact that the first Pope, Jesus’ personally designated rock, Peter was married. the bible very specifically mentions his “mother-in-law” <<
Yes, and not his wife. Don’t you think it odd that Peter was there, with his mother-in-law, but no mention is made of his wife, whose mother he was attending? Don’t you think it odd that no mention is made of his children? Jesus accepts the discipleship of those who leave their mother and father, but what of a wife? It would be exceptionally cruel to leave her as if widowed.
The presumption is that Peter’s wife had died, which, in those days, would hardly be unusual.
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.