Posted on 07/13/2014 4:52:15 PM PDT by yosephdaviyd
The third installment in Pope Francis’ series of interviews with atheist reporter Eugenio Scalfari took place on Thursday, July 10, 2014, and was published the following Sunday (07/13/14) in La Repubblica daily. Being that Scalfari doesn’t record these interviews on tape, but, rather, re-prints the dialogue based upon his memory of the interview, we can only say what the Pope Francis ‘allegedly’ said in them. One of the things that the Pope allegedly told Scalfari is that he wants to continue these interviews is because he “believes that an interview with a non-believer is mutually stimulating.” Typical of Scalfari’s interviews, Catholic bloggers will be spending the next few weeks talking about what Pope Francis meant to say in this one also. In the instant case, what Pope Francis allegedly said about the origin of priestly celibacy is sure to cause Catholic apologists to beat their head against a steel wall.
For centuries Protestants have been claiming and publishing tracts that say that the Catholic Church didn’t start teaching priestly celibacy until around 1079 A.D., and in refutations Catholic apologist have been pointing to Church documents, as far back as to the the second century, to prove that celibacy for the clergy has always been a discipline of Catholic Church in the West. Now comes along Pope Francis to give Protestant anti-Catholics the proof of what they have been telling Catholics along – that priestly celibacy is a modern innovation. Below is my translated text of that portion of the interview:
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlgray.info ...
Why? Were their words mistranslated/misrepresented too?
goodwithagun:
Oh I am well aware of the bible thumpers, lived amongst them all my life as I have lived in 3 Southern states over my almost 50 years on this earth. Well, well, well, aware of them. To be honest, have a few of the more reasonable ones as friends. Had dinner Saturday night with a strong Calvinist who just got back from Knoxville TENN from some Presbyterian Convention. Now, I would not put him as a Bible Thumper in the sense of the independent fundamentalist Pentecostal or Baptist types, just a solid Reformed guy who I have some friendly theological differences with. So I don’t lump all protestants into the anti intellectual bible thumper type theological groups.
Some Catholics wrongly believe that only "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are infallible.
piusv:
ex cathedra is just a metaphor meaning from the Chair of Saint Peter and the authority of the Church of Rome. So in substance, the Pope teaches “ex cathedra” through several means. For example, the Pope teaches infallibly thru a Papal Statement issued via a Apostolic Constitution or Papal Encyclical, both of which could be issued thru a Papal Bull which is the most formal way of issueing a Letter [for it has the Current Pope’s seal on it and the Seals of SS Peter and Paul on the other side]. A Church Council is obviously another way and expresses what I guess is called a Supreme Act of the Magisterium.
That was the point, dear piusv.
My purpose in posting that was to show that some anti-Catholic (I’m Protestant) FReepers spend their time here almost exclusively ranting about Catholicism. If they are not doing that they are hallelujah-ing Joel Osteen. They rarely engage in politics or other discussions. While politics and religion are intertwined, they use this site to spew anti-Catholicism. Jim Rob has even personally told some of them to knock it off (anybody remember jodyel posting that Catholics aren’t Christian and others posting on this very thread agreeing with her?). I just wish they would keyboard crusade on a site of their own creation instead of hijacking reasonable religious discussions. I’ve actually asked permission to post on Catholic caucus threads because I want to rationally discuss something without their presence muddling the discussion.
So? That doesn’t change the fact that Catholics who think that only “ex cathedra” Papal Statements are infallible are wrong.
What was the point?
As I posted in #66, I really enjoy religious discussions but rarely get a chance to engage since the anti-Catholics show up and turn it into an HTML scripture posting frenzy about how their brand of Christianity is better than everybody else’s. Perhaps we need a Reasonable Religious Discussion Caucus?
Ex Cathedra is not the only time the Pope and the Church is infallible. Granted, the Pope is not infallible every time he speaks, but I wish Catholics would stop pushing this error.
Yes, there are other times, like the canonization of saints, but these are generally of a different quality and are not usually as relevant to the conversation. When people are arguing that we treat every word of the pope as if it were direct from God, as was done in the post, then it is the instance of the charism which is most germane.
I understand why you posted what you posted, but I think we should be accurate. To say something along the lines of only “ex cathedra” is misleading.
And I guess you didn’t find my post so “cryptic”....lol.
Salvation had remarked in 38 that there was no written word before 50 A.D. That was a mistake since it overlooked the Old Testament. While I was composing my reply (40) to point out the omission, Salvation had already qualified her remark to the New Testament Gospels only in post 39.
Thank you for that acknowledgement. What a true Christian manner you have.
Which is arguably the same thing as saying it was "established" 900 years ago.
Do I hate all these debates about what the Pope said and didn't say? Yes, and I'm disappointed that he again, with even the same "reporter" as last time, didn't ask that the session be recorded. Didn't be learn anything from last time?
With that said, it strikes me that this instance in particular, if not the other times, are all debates about semantics. Which are stupid and childish.
Those who want to hate him for whatever reason will do so, and use his ambiguity (which of course is his fault but still), they will use that against him, assuming he means the worst when in fact, at least in this instance, he's just trying to speak to as many people as possible.
People who aren't theologians and don't really care *when* the discipline started but just about the issue *today*. That's to whom his words here are obviously intended. Obviously, to anyone without an agenda against him.
Again though, it doesn't help that he isn't careful with his words and also apparently, not careful how they are recorded. That does bug me. It only bugs me though, ultimately, because if gives the "usual suspects" (here and elsewhere) another toy to chew with, to bludgeon the Church with in sardonic sadism. Which is apparently their mission in life.
Maybe I shouldn't let that bug me so much; we all have pet peeves I guess.
piusv:
Again, only infallible teachings are “infallible” There are many statements that the Pope makes that are non-infallible statements, but given they are taught via ordinary magisterium require assent of the will and would require me, even if I disagree with it, to at least keep it silent and not cause schism and division. Clearly the normative teaching is that men who are ordained to Holy Orders come from among non-married men. That is the current teaching, and since it is taught via ordinary magisterium, that is what it is. Nevertheless, one can hold the view that the Church should follow the practice of the Eastern Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church and ordain married men to serve as Parish priests, Hospital chaplains, etc for to hold such view is not a rejection of a dogma.
Now, there are teachings that are infallible even though there has never been a papal statement issued via an Apostolic Constitution. Humanae vitae, while being an Encyclical, which is not the most definitive Papal Letter or Document, does contain infallible teachings in it on say abortion. That teaching itself is infallible and does not require a Papal Apostolic Constitution issued in a manner similar to the one that defined the Assumption.
It seems we are splitting hairs, it is when the Pope sets out to definitively define an article of faith or morals as definitively to be held as part of the Apostolic Faith that something becomes a Doctrine/Dogma to be held as part of the faith. There are papal statements via ordinary magisterium that reflect the teaching of the Church and reflect the Church’s position on the question or issue at this time, but since the papal statements on such teaching are not expressed with definitely to held as binding, etc, etc, such teachings can be further developed and defined or in some cases, done away with. Celibacy is one of those “teachings that relates to a Discipline” that could be done away with. To say otherwise is to be dishonest.
Gotcha.
And of course, none of them would LIE to get in, now would they?
When someone can come up with a fool proof way of keeping them out, the Catholic church might be able to convince someone that they are doing just that.
Until then, it's just damage control because while they're claiming they're trying to keep them out, I don't see much action being taken on those already IN.
When the RCC starts living what it preaches, then it might have some credibility.
Stats?
Why don’t you start commenting on all the sex abuse cases involving protestant pastors and let Catholics worry about the Catholic Church?
Ping me to the threads about them when you see them, then.
Personally, I'd just as soon see all the choir and worship team stuff gone as it's pretty poor quality not to mention becoming too much of a show and focusing too much attention on the *worship leaders*.
But that's just me, I guess cause it looks like they're here to stay.
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.