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 ...
He was referring to our flesh. Not His own. And does that mean the flesh of Jesus' profit us nothing? Was the Crucifixtion a sham? What then, was the whole point of God becoming Man?
Say what? One can easily come to a belief in a triune God today simply by reading scripture with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Oh yes, the mythical plain sense of scripture with the Holy Spirit leading the charge of so many people to different understandings of the Truths of the Faith found in scripture. You'll forgive me if I "say what" to that one. Incidentally, I find it interesting that even protestants acknowledge multiple senses of scripture. So then, if it's plain I should never hear the word exegesis or hermenutics out of the mouth of a protestant ever again, right?
Now prove that the “traditions” talked about in that verse are the “traditions” taught by the Catholic Church.
I already did. There was a failure to recognize it. The Holy Spirit leads the Catholic Church into all Truth. The Roman Catholic Church is preserved from teaching error. Simple as that. We have the promise of Christ and its in Sacred Scripture. It simply cannot happen.
ROFL Steve Ray fell for a lot of wrong interpretation by the Catholic Church evidenced by his words at that site. First off, John taking care of Mary was directed by Jesus from the cross not some “oral tradition”. Then he goes into total speculation about Mary being assumed just as the RCC does in that there is no grave etc. Finally, and where I quit reading, was how they knew she was in heaven because they believe she is the woman in Revelation. That “woman” is the nation of Israel. Steve has fallen for the errors of the Catholic Church and their mistranslation of scripture. If you took that as some sort of gotcha guess again. His simply repeating what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the issue simply means he fell for their propaganda.
Of course it does...And Paul tells you why...But it's like they say, common sense isn't all that common...
HaHaHa...Is that what your (current) popes say to Jesus when they read 1Tim 3???
Jesus' words here alone preclude *free will*.
That doesn't mean that men can't or don't choose.
But being given the opportunity to choose, does not by default mean that a person has free will.
The entire conversation is about eating His flesh and all at once He changes the subject to talk about our flesh. Suuuuuurrrrrreeee He did. You may have fallen for that Catholic meme but not anyone who studies scripture looking for truth.
>>And does that mean the flesh of Jesus' profit us nothing?<<
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
I’m not even going to address that nonsense about the Catholic Church not teaching error. Christ did not promise that the Catholic Church would not teach error. It’s history of atrocities is well documented.
But address the doctrine of sola Scriptura and it's dismissed off the cuff by Catholics because the exact words of *Scripture alone* are not found in the Bible.
So why, all of a sudden, is doctrinal development not legitimate in THAT case?
Let me guess.....
If it supports Catholic doctrine, it's valid. If it supports non-Catholic doctrine, it's not valid.
Rules for thee but not for me.
It's called *hypocrisy*.
Indeed it is. We deal with it and duplicity every day from Catholics.
No, CynicalBear, you are misreading the article already. The Bible says that Jesus gave that directive from the cross. Steve Ray is saying in that article that the way we know that John followed that directive was by extra-Biblical tradition. (Not every person follows the directives of Jesus.)
I'd advise you to read the article again, slowly and prayerfully, so you understand what the author is actually saying.
(That is how you should read the Bible too.)
If they are secret, the straight guys don't know about them, do they???
That's backwards.
Valuing chastity and virginity does not lead by default to valuing marriage. It's a society which values marriage that would value chastity and virginity.
It is not recommended by Jesus. He mentioned it and that it was not a hindrance. That is not recommending it or encouraging it.
And a calling to celibacy is a calling to celibacy but to make it mandatory for priests so that a priest cannot marry, is not supported in the context.
SOME are called to celibacy. Not all. Those who can bear it are free to do so.
That does not mean it's to be the norm for everyone.
The thing that denigrates marriage is the constant harping on how special virginity is and how much more honorable it is.
God said it was not good for man to be alone.
The Catholic church teaches that if a man wants to be a priest, he better count on it or find some other line of work.
I don't know how much plainer this could be said and Catholics will still deny it with their dying breath because the RCC told them differently.
Dude! He is simply repeating the mantra of the RCC. I went back and read the entire thing. He was obviously not well based in scripture to start with. No one who understands prophecy from scripture would fall for the woman in Revelation to be Mary. No one who understands scripture would allow dogma to be based on an assumption that because there are no remains of Mary to be found that she must have been assumed. My “slowly and prayerfully” has been, and is done by sincerely asking the Holy Spirit for guidance while studying what Jesus and the apostles taught.
You could ask St. Paul. After all, he wrote it as instruction from a bishop while not being married.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.<<
But Catholics say. NO, NO, it’s the flesh. We have to change the cracker into Jesus real flesh.
Who to believe? Catholics or Jesus?
I went on a "FOOTSTEPS OF GOD" tour with Steve and Janet Ray three years ago --to the Holy Land. Steve knows his Bible backwards and forwards. It was a fabulous tour.
We had a priest with us and heard Mass every day.
I took the opportunity to place my rosary on Jesus' Sepulchre. I still feel EXTREMELY blessed to have been able to do that and travel in the footsteps of Jesus.
EVERY Christian ought to try to go there ONCE in his life.
I am our lector during the week and do love reading Paul's letters.
I think your definition and my definition of drawn are different. Drawn is not a guarantee. After all John 12:32 says, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. This certainly implies that all men will be saved which contradicts the calvinistic idea of predestination and absence of free will.
But being given the opportunity to choose, does not by default mean that a person has free will.
I agree with that. Which is why I differentiated between moral agency, which is the ability of a person to choose the good, which is a violation of the calvinistic understanding of free will, and free choice.
Paul was Christ’s apostle to the Gentiles. There was no “Catholic Church” until hundreds of years later.
It's interesting that you use the word breath in your response. Does not the breath of God breathe life into the world. From Genesis to Pentecost. It is the Spirit of God that breathes life into the Eucharist which is what Christ was saying.
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.