Posted on 10/23/2016 1:31:43 PM PDT by marshmallow
I know we were all expecting the crack to come from a completely different corner of the Church, and that hardly anyone has been paying attention to the eagerness of the Francis Vatican to throw the Catholic Church in China to the communist wolves.
As with every jurisdictional Vatican compromise with Communist governments the one in the offing smells of betrayal. There have been four secret meetings between Vatican representatives and Chinese government officials in the past two years, the most recent being at the end of April. Cardinal Zen, retired Bishop of Hong Kong, is not at all optimistic. He does not trust anything that Beijing would offer:
“We do not see any sign that would encourage the hope that the Chinese Communists are about to change their restrictive religious policy…..It is unthinkable to leave the initial proposal in the hands of an atheist government who cannot possibly judge the suitability of a candidate to be a bishop.”
The gist seems to be that the Vatican is working on a deal with the Chinese communists to “ratify” the government’s picks for Catholic bishops, essentially, placing the faithful into the care of those kinds of bishops that their brutal communist bully-boy government thinks are suitable.
But here it is: the first Cardinal of the Catholic Church who has finally confronted Francis.
Cardinal Zen – who has been one of the most outspoken defenders of the Faith in the worst possible circumstances – has said it: Do not follow this pope into his evil designs to destroy Holy Mother Church.
Zen to Chinese Catholics: If agreement with China is signed, do not follow the Pope
Should an agreement be reached between China and the Holy See, this will certainly have “the Pope’s approval”. But China’s Catholics will not be obliged to take......
(Excerpt) Read more at whatisupwiththesynod.com ...
We Catholics need a leader for a coup. It’s become past obvious this man is not a pope but an infiltrator.
I’m sure God would give us the nod on this one.
But who are our highest up allies.
First thing is annihilate the gay mafia in the vatican.
Take a second look at that priest not being able to get married thing. That WAS NOT the deal since day 1. Didn’t happen till many centuries later. 1139, to be exact.
I’ll be honest. I’m not sure what to make of this situation.
I believe you're mistake about this Hang on now, it;s not just a technicality From Day One married men were eligible to be ordained priests. BUT priests, once ordained, were not to get married.
It was the sequence pf thing.
Married --> priest OK
Priest --> married never OK
Like for the Permanent Deacons in our day.
But now a married person CANT become a priest, right?
Speaking as a man, asking a man to give up marital relations is asking for YUGE trouble.
It is a driving force that is like no other.
I am for priests being allowed to marry.
Or at least BE married :)
it’s one thing for a Pope’s pronouncements on Catholic doctrine to happen to align with a political view.
It’s another thing altogether for a Pope’s pronouncements to align with political views at odds with Catholic doctrine.
However, if you're alluding to the hope that a married priesthood would cut down on homosexuality, check out Episcopalianism.
I rest my case.
Re: Post #7 ~ Another excellent post. ~
*Well, the canon on celibate clergy is only in the Western church. And even then, there are exceptions.
However, if you’re alluding to the hope that a married priesthood would cut down on homosexuality, check out Episcopalianism.*
I rest my case.
In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The reasons Latin rite priests can’t marry is both theological and canonical.
Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ. As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.
Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one’s attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from “civilian affairs” (2 Tm 2:3–4).
Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: “Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage.”
This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See.
I think the adjective, "evil", may have been misplaced during the translation.
Do not follow this evil pope into his evil designs to destroy Holy Mother Church.
From 2014:
Hong Kong's Cardinal Joseph Zen asks Pope Francis not to visit China
Guess what? Cardinal Zen was told he was not invited to Bergoglio's recent secondbecause of his age.
Whoops, posted too soon by accident.
Cardinal Zen was not invited to Bergoglio’s second synod, supposedly due to his age. Yet the heretic Cardinal Danneels, also the same age, was invited.
Priests were married for the first 1,100 years after Christ died.They can be married again. Orthodox priests are.
You should know better than that. "From Day One" no one was ever ordained as a "priest" in the NT church, since all believers are priests (which word is otherwise used exclusively for Jewish or pagan priests) and NT clergy are never distinctively titled "priest" despite the abundance occurrences of that word, but instead they are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which describes one office, (Titus 1:5-7).
And do not try to pass off that presbuteros means priest or indulge in etymological fallacy, which you should also know better than to try.
As for "once ordained, were not to get married" that is another addition to Scripture, and contrary to the declaration of the only 2 celibate apostles, that they had "the power/authority to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." (1 Corinthians 9:5)
And who also taught that being married was the norm for pastors (1Tim. 3:1-7) and that being celibate was a gift that not all had. (1Co. 7:7)
It is thus presumptuous to suppose virtually all who are called to the pastorate have that gift, and that this is to be the norm.
You honestly should give attribution (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry) to your pasted post, while in reality you impugn both the married apostles and Paul. See 12 above.
Non-sequitur. Nobody denies that there were married Apostles. Many men were married before ordination (the laying on of hands described in the NT). I know of no record of a man getting married *after* ordination, unless he had apostatized from the Faith during one of the persecutions. (This was an issue at the time of the Donatist controversy.)
But if you know of such a record, I’d be much obliged if you’d post your information.
“Non-sequitur. Nobody denies that there were married Apostles. Many men were married before ordination (the laying on of hands described in the NT). I know of no record of a man getting married *after* ordination, unless he had apostatized from the Faith during one of the persecutions. (This was an issue at the time of the Donatist controversy.)”
Since Scripture never commands pastor/teachers not to marry, there is no need for any example.
You basically ignored most of my post. It is not up to me to show a man getting married after ordination, for even the apostles had that freedom, but it is up to you show your novel restriction in the life of the NT church, and that pastors were ordained distinctly as priests, and who normatively had the gift of celibacy.
Yes, I ignored most of your post because it did not relate to the question at hand.
You —— correct me if I’m wrong —— do not recognize that the Sacred Scriptures are an essential part, yet only a part, of the larger Apostolic Tradition. That makes issues like parsing the word *presbuteros* kind of off-topic.
A Scripture Sola perspective makes all questions concerning the hierarchical structure of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century Church literally unanswerable.
As far as anybody would know or care, the whole shebang “petered out” about 100 AD. Went dark. Went kaput. You couldn’t prove anything different from Scripture.
But that is blinkered ignorance.
At any rate, the question is, “In actual historic fact, in the early Church period or at any other time, did any of the ranks of deacons, presbyteroi, episcopoi, get married *after* their laying on of hands?
Far as I know, the answer is No.
I sense a disruption in the Force...
I do not reject that some things can be passed on orally, but not passed as the wholly inspired of God, and unlike the apostles Rome does not speak as wholly inspired of God, while even the preaching of the apostles was subject to testing by the established wholly inspired of God. Thus how much more must the veracity and validity of the non-inspired words of Rome as well as the truth claims of SS preachers by subject to Scripture.
Thus your appeal to purported "Apostolic Tradition" is in vain, for it is not supported by Scripture. Zero occurrences of NT pastors being called priests, zero occurrences of them engaging in the unique sacerdotal function of changing bread and wine and offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, or being charged with doing so in the life of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels). And despite the charges and exhortations given to them, and examples thereof, and with their primary active function being that of preaching the word, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) with the word of God, which uniquely is called "milk" and "meat" by which they are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Zero occurrences of celibacy being required of NT pastors, despite the stated requirements for such, in which physical fatherhood is set forth as credentials for caring for the flock of God. While in contrast most pastors and apostles were married, or free to be so.
Zero occurrences in all of Scripture of anyone but pagans praying to created beings in Heaven, despite prayer being a most basic common practice and thus the Spirit provides approx 200 prayers in Scripture. And the list goes on.
Therefore appeal to later church tradition to support what is not seen in the life of the NT church and militates against ip impugns the Holy Spirit and testify to the progressive accretion of traditions of men.
A Scripture Sola perspective makes all questions concerning the hierarchical structure of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century Church literally unanswerable. To the contrary, the answer is to "prove all things" by the wholly inspired word of God. God did not wholly inspire 28 chapters to Acts and 22 other books after that so that later churches can invent all sort of things in things the Scripture clearly deals with.
As far as anybody would know or care, the whole shebang “petered out” about 100 AD. Went dark. Went kaput. You couldn’t prove anything different from Scripture. But that is blinkered ignorance.
Wrong again, for by doing as the noble Bearans did, then we can see salvific Scriptural truths being kept as well as the adoption of unScriptural traditions.
The response of Rome and RCs is to resort to one of said traditions, that only what Rome says Scripture, tradition and valid history consists of and means is true in any conflict!
At any rate, the question is, “In actual historic fact, in the early Church period or at any other time, did any of the ranks of deacons, presbyteroi, episcopoi, get married *after* their laying on of hands?
>At any rate, the question is why should what extra-scriptural, post-apostolic non-inspired men did be the standard for Truth? Far as Scripture knows, the answer is No.
A circular argument. Your appeal to purported Scriptura Sola is in vain, for it is not supported by Apostolic Tradition. (Sola Scriptura isn't even supported by Scripture.)
Out of the 1st-2nd century book-bazaar of purported scriptural books written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, you wouldn't even know how to pick out the 27 books of the NT were it not for Apostolic Tradition and, of course, the "custom of the Church".
Apostolic Tradition is the source of the NT canon.
Otherwise, be prepared to build you some extra bookshelves and expand your canon. Let's put our hands together, people, and give a great big welcome to:
Myself, I'm not looking into all that. Seriously, life is short. I think it's a good bet to stick with the 27 NT books + the 46 OT books according to Apostolic Tradition.
It's like that Old Time Religion. Good enough for Athanasius, good enough for Jerome, good enough for the "custom of the Church", good enough for me.
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.