Posted on 07/13/2014 6:35:41 AM PDT by marshmallow
Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican
VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican.
Interviewed by Italy's La Repubblica daily, Francis also condemned child sex abuse as a "leprosy" in the Church and cited his aides as saying that "the level of paedophilia in the Church is at two per cent".
"That two per cent includes priests and even bishops and cardinals," the pope was quoted as saying.
Asked whether priests might one day be allowed to marry, Francis pointed out that celibacy was instituted "900 years after Our Lord's death" and that clerics can marry in some Eastern Churches under Vatican tutelage.
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
Why? Isn't Scripture good enough?
Or can't you provide the support from it alone?
Just imagine WHAT they DIDN'T include.
Who cares what they didn't include? If God didn't see fit to include it in Scripture, then it's not something to make an issue of later.
Making up stuff and then claiming it's truth is no way to decide what truth is. Just because Scripture doesn't say that something didn't happen, doesn't give anyone the right to make it up and claim that it did.
Way to head into error.
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Seriously? Never married but with children was what they meant? Do Catholics even read scripture before posting?
Does it make sense to you that Jesus and St. Paul would commend celibacy to all Christians and exclude the priesthood?
It doesn't make sense to me.
Especially since St. Paul was a bishop.
We know that Paul was a bishop because he speaks of laying hands (conferring the priesthood) on Timothy, which is the role of the bishop.
2 Tim 1: 6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood
So you're interpretation of Paul's statement can't be correct.
What you're doing is reading Protestant doctrine into Scripture. It does not follow with logical necessity from Paul's statement that priests must be married.
While this statement may appear to you to be a prescription for men entering the priesthood to be married, it is actually a proscription for those men who desired to enter the priestly state as married men.
Paul was requiring that married men, who were considering Holy Orders, to be married no more than once, and to have a well-ordered household.
Well!! Perhaps I should direct the question to you. If scripture and tradition are in harmony would you please show where the apostles taught the veneration and assumption of Mary?
41,000 now?
Is that the latest number du jour?
Sure thing!
Matthew 16:18 --> Luke 10:16 --> 2 Timothy 2:2 --> John 16:13 --> First Vatican Council pronouncement on the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility --> Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII on the Dogma of the Assumption.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.
You must have this particular interrogatory saved to your desktop. By my count I've asked two questions which you've chosen to ignore. One being on whether you reject free will, and the second to explain why your interpreation of Sacred Scripture is not extra biblical. I'll await your reply.
So now we judge what the truth of scripture is by determining if it makes sense to us or not? Seriously?
>> 1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood elderhood.<<
There, fixed that for you. The Greek word used there is presbyteriou which cannot in any way be translated “priesthood”. There is no “priesthood” in the New Testament other than the “priesthood” of all believers. You really need to get rid of that corrupted Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.
Now, back to the topic. Paul laid out specific requirements for leadership in the assembly of believers and it included having raised a family.
It's a pretty good deal for someone who's selfish. They don't know what their married parishioners are going through then. There's nothing like experiencing something to give you compassion and understanding for others in the same situation.
Nobody said a single person couldn't be in a good position to serve.
OTOH, that does not by default mean that a married person is not in a good position to serve.
God Himself said that it is not good for man to be alone.
All your rationalizations as to why celibacy is superior are just that. Rationalizations.
And a pastor/priest should have to worry about fund raising? Really?
The doctor need not have the disease to cure it
But it does serve to highlight an important concept within the protestant mind. The relativistic notion that experience = truth. An individual cannot know the truth of a thing unless they've experienced a thing. A rather relativistic and rationalistic notion.
Scripture says that all people are slaves to sin until they are saved.
So, no, I do not believe that people have *free will* because no one is a free moral agent.
The second question makes no sense. Depending on extra Biblical revelation for truth is not the same as someone's interpretation of Scripture.
So why are you trying to persuade people of anything?
No. Truth is truth and stands alone, outside of anyone's experience of it.
It is objective and not subjective. You either line up with it or not.
Because people has a choice to make.
2 Corinthians 5:1-11 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.
Not one of those verses from scripture shows the teaching of the assumption or veneration of Mary by the apostles. Since you still have not shown an infallible source other than scripture for what the apostles taught then I have to consider what you teach that they didn’t to be “accursed” and all other should also.
No?
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)
If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water: stretch out your hand for whichever you wish. (Sirach 15:15-16).
So, no, I do not believe that people have *free will* because no one is a free moral agent.
Okay. And just so we understand each other, you do realize that if humanity lacks moral agency then anyone with a calling to the priesthood is therefore predestined to do so by God since to serve God is a moral choice, It certainly doesn't fall under the rubric of free choice (Coke vs. Pepsi). Ergo the Catholic Church is obligated to accept all applications for entry into the priesthood with no exceptions under the Calvinistic understanding of agency.
The second question makes no sense. Depending on extra Biblical revelation for truth is not the same as someone's interpretation of Scripture.
Sure it is. For this construct assumes that an individual's interpretation of scripture is devoid of any extrabiblical influence. That Sacred Scripture is self-interpreting. Which as we can see from the last 500 years of history it is not.
We don’t “OWN” the Scriptures. But in view of your own church -— whatever it is -— wouldn’t you call it a Church document?
Neither does it show the teaching of the Trinity or the Christological doctrines and yet you believe them, do you not? So let us not pretend that the protestant arrives at its belief and understanding of Divine Revelation solely from scripture.
Besides, doesn't sola scriptura (as opposed to solo scriptura ) allow for the development of doctrine? I mean, after all, that's what protestants tell me.
Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, 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 inherit everlasting life.
Did you look at the previous verse??? I doubt that it will probably mean much to you guys but here it is anyways...
Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Aren't any apostles sitting upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, yet...
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And we know that hasn't happened yet...
But here's a companion verse with a little addition:
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Jesus is not telling anyone to leave a believing wife or family...This is unbelieving family...
Just as when Jesus basically rejected his mother and told the crowd that they were his mother and brethren, Jesus is saying the same thing here...
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Who ever leaves his unbelieving family and home will get a new, much larger family and houses, in that time...They will gain believing families; a hundred fold...
However, Paul tells us not to leave an unbelieving spouse...
Those doctrines are indeed found in scripture.
>> Besides, doesn't sola scriptura (as opposed to solo scriptura ) allow for the development of doctrine?<<
Yes it does. All doctrines must be provable by scripture. Now prove the assumption and veneration of Mary from scripture and not some addition to scripture. Catholics, Mormons and Muslims start with scripture and add to it or change it.
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.