Pontifical Council For Culture Supports Women Priests? -- The "Erotic Buddhist", Whom Francis...

Eponymous Flower ^ | 11/10/14 | Giuseppe Nardi

[BlatherNaut]

Unabridged title: "Pontifical Council For Culture Supports Women Priests? -- The "Erotic Buddhist", Whom Francis Appointed as Consultor"

-------------------------

"Last July 1, Pope Francis appointed Pablo d'Ors as Consultor of the Pontifical Council for Culture ."

"Father Pablo d'Ors describes himself as "erotic, mystical and weird"."

[BlatherNaut]

Ping

[Buckeye McFrog]

When the priest shortage finally gets bad enough to where they can no longer pass the collection basket, they will start ordaining women priests.

And married priests. And possibly chimpanzees of above-average intellect.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"F d'Ors describes himself as "erotic, mystical and weird." "

[Jim from C-Town]

They would certainly go back to married priests. They will never ordain women as priests.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

There is nothing in the Bible which requires celibacy as a requirement for service in the priesthood. As a matter of fact, priests were married men in the Bible. Even the current Pope has stated that the celibacy requirement was instituted hundreds of year after the founding of the Church. The Pope has also said the policy is a discipline, not a dogma or a doctrine, and therefore subject to change.

[Jim from C-Town]

Yes, I know that. That is why i stated that they would may go BACK to married priests. They will never ordain women as priests. This has been stated over and over.

[kosciusko51]

And possibly chimpanzees of above-average intellect.

Ah, the primate Primate...

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Exactly. Going BACK to married priests, because most priests and bishops were married men before the Middle Ages.

[I-ambush]

In the Orthdox church, bishops are always selected from among the celibate clergy.,

[Boogieman]

“It was necessary to adjust, stop trying to be an “alternative”, but a Christianity in “dialogue” with the living world.”

That doesn’t sound much like anything that Jesus said about Christians and the world.

[MrEdd]

And they will never have Mary as Co-redeemer (Christ optional) ...
No, wait...

[pleasenotcalifornia]

The homosexuals who are priests and bishops are against married men(with women) in the priesthood according to my former pastor.

[Arthur McGowan]

Never.

Perfect, perpetual continence for priests and deacons goes WAY back. The current practice of non-continence for deacons is an abuse, and will eventually be stopped.

The non-continence of married deacons, and the resulting widespread belief that continence for priests is only a discipline, has thrown a gigantic monkey wrench in the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist.

[Arthur McGowan]

“Pontifical Council for Culture”?

And sports?

There’s a little bureaucratic fiefdom, along with dozens of others, that could be suppressed without doing any harm—and would save the Vatican millions.

[GeronL]

lol.

so wrong and funny.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Nonsense.

Mandatory clerical celibacy is something which was imposed around the time of the Middle Ages.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible requiring such a draconian policy.

The policy was implemented as a reform to fight rampant corruption in the Church, primarily nepotism and simony.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia.com:

” The tenth century is claimed to be the high point of clerical marriage in the Latin Communion (western Catholic Church). Most rural priests were married and many urban clergy and bishops had wives and children.”

Under subject heading: Clerical Celibacy

[Arthur McGowan]

Mandatory clerical celibacy is something which was imposed around the time of the Middle Ages. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible requiring such a draconian policy.

"Mandatory"? "Draconian"? Those are peculiar words to apply to something that is 100% voluntary.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

The real question is why the need for such a policy to begin with. The current Pope is on record stating that celibacy:

1) Was instituted many centuries after the founding of the Church.

2) Is regarded as a discipline, not a dogma or a doctrine etched into stone.

3) Subject to change.

4) Not universally applied.

I agree.

[Arthur McGowan]

It is intimately connected with the nature of the Eucharist.

It goes back much farther than most people—including the Pope, apparently—realize.

http://www.canonlaw.info/a_deacons.htm

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/clergy-continence-and-custom/

I have always found it fascinating how exercised so many people can get against a practice that: a) is 100% voluntary for those who do practice it; b) has absolutely no effect on anyone else.