When one decides to throw dung, one SHOULD try and hit the intended target.
Posted on 12/09/2010 8:20:52 AM PST by restornu
The ban on marriage was codified near the end of the first millennium AD. In the 11th century it was established that marriage was not allowed for the clergy. In the Lateran Councils of the 12th century it was ruled that clergy who illicitly got married were not married, that they could not receive the sacrament of marriage validly.
I don’t know if you realize that Cardinal Wolsey never married, but did have two children out of wedlock.
Well, I am not Catholic. And people are sinners.
‘The Catholic Church claims to be infallible’
In the way you have stated it, this is not true. The Church makes no claim of never failing.
Proof of the Church’s infallibility
That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Hell did you even read the link you posted? LCS is correct.
‘That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma’
That is true, in certain limited circumstances, but it is not what you said originally.
I knew that Rabbis were expected to be married (which is one of the lesser-known ways that Jesus was a counter-cultural figure), but I didn't realize that the community would go to such lengths to find a wife for him. This is a very beautiful tradition - but one utterly foreign to Latin Rite Catholicism even from its earliest days.
A missionary pastor sojourning [...] Most of the members of the church they started in their neighborhood were met through family-centric activities.
The Catholic priest does the same thing... but he does not do it through his natural children, he does it through his spiritual children. Indeed, part of the particular role of the Laity is to assist the priest and bishop in the work of evangelization by reaching out to people who the clergy are unable to reach directly. And not having a natural family allows the priest to give his complete attention to his ministry.
Celibacy is named after the earth goddess Celebe, whose priests castrated themselves during the hilarion, the "festival of joy." They believed that the sacrifice of their fertility made possible the fertility of the fields.
Perhaps so; however, Jesus Himself says that "there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it]" (cf. Matthew 19:12 KJV). Certainly, Jesus was not speaking of literally mutilating oneself and becoming a eunuch - rather He spoke of renouncing marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. Thus the concept is not foreign to Christianity in general - East or West.
The default setting for maximum human happiness and productivity is -- the normal family.
Speaking now from a purely psychological perspective - the default setting for maximum human happiness is what was termed by the psychologist Erikson as "generativity" - contributing to the welfare of the next and future generations. Often this is accomplished through marriage and children, though not exclusively. The priest accomplishes it by providing for the welfare of his spiritual children. Incidentally, it is exactly because of this that priests who work in chancery offices are also assigned to some sort of pastoral ministry - it allows for this generativity.
have you looked into non-Roman rites?
I find the Eastern rites interesting and beautiful - but haven't considered switching to one of them. On a practical level, switching between rites in the Catholic Church is a complicated process. On a personal one, based on my own experiences and spirituality, I am quite certain that I belong in the Latin Rite.
Outside of those particular conditions, there is no claim that any one person is infallible. And certainly, there is no claim at all that any clergy or laity are without sin - there have been many sinful priests, bishops, and popes (to the shame of Christ and His Church) just as there have been many holy ones.
This has been going on since the beginning of the Church: even Jesus chose a Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him, a Simon Peter who denied Him, a Thomas who doubted that He was resurrected - and the other nine weren't without their own shortcomings either.
---
But Jesus preached a message of repentance and mercy: Jesus forgave Peter's denial and restored him to the position of feeding His flock; Thomas went on to preach Christ Crucified and Resurrected in India and was martyred for the Faith, and the others went on to preach the Gospel as well. The opportunity is there for people to become great Saints - we simply don't always take it.
When one decides to throw dung, one SHOULD try and hit the intended target.
?
You Hateful, bigotted ANTIs just don't GET it; do you!?
When the C's & the P's fight; they leave us MORMONs alone!
--MormonDude(Learn a little TACTICs; why don't you!!!!)
This wasn’t about Catholic or even the mainstream it was to remind the anti LDS to stop throwing stones you rememeber that saying
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
or what Jesus said
He who is without sin cast the first stone...
This reminds me of that great Chinese philosopher, who wrote the reknowned book: Brown Spots on the Wall, by Who Flung Poo
This is common practice among Mormon apologists here. Chapter after chapter, verse after verse from their own literature and teachings and yet citing it some how makes the "citer" a hater and a bigot.
I could understand the charges of hate and bigotry if anti mormonism posters were pulling statements out of thin air.
Exactly. One would have to be deaf and blind to think that posting reams of allegations against Christians would possibly wash the stain of Joseph Smith from the world, along with his accomplices in the practice of polygamy.
NONE OF THESE YOU NOTED ARE CONSIDERED A "MARTYR" OR A "PROPHET", nor are idolized by brainwashed innocents and compared to Jesus Christ.
Those who rant against the "antis" and the Religion Moderator for the facts of mormonism being shown on FR seem to be unable to accept the fact that we are all fallible, but thanks to Christ, those who accept Him are saved. Joseph Smith never saved anyone, nor will he ever.
Once again, you are our "Player of the Week".
Congratulations Resty!!!
| Galatians 5 |
|
| 12 | I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves! |
By all means, Resty, let's REALLY pray for the victims & perps mentioned in this thread -- the many criminal culprits, the scandal jumpstarters, & if there's a few innocent among them falsely accused, them as well.
Here's, though, what I find interesting.
If any of you go to this thread posted today -- Diary of LDS apostle includes tales of bribing a Supreme Court justice...
...Here's the MAJOR difference between the corrupt (largely Christian) church leaders Resty has posted about --
--And the Mormon church leaders mentioned in the 1890s in the thread I've just linked to:
In that thread, it discusses how the highest Lds hierarchical church leaders were engaged in illegal polygamy, bribery of a Supreme Court justice, embezzlements, "chicanery," and cover-up of these crimes by its members of its top 15 leaders (what they call their "quorum").
So...do past or contemporary Mormons treat these men as scandalous corrupt leaders? Or are they almost "heroes" of their faith -- men who "stood up" to the govt. "imposing" upon "religious freedom"?
Answer? The Mormons tend to treat them as in the latter category!
You see Resty...when a Christian leader has been arrested w/enough evidence (& usually eventually convicted), do I rush in to defend them? (No)
How does that compare to Mormon criminals & frauds & the like? (What I've observed on these threads is how Mormon FREEPERS will suddenly become the perp's advocate!)
Historically, the Christian church has indeed been full of wheat & tares...& the tares have included:
* Inside heretics & errorists;
* Schism-kings;
* Scandal-mongers;
* Admin Abusers;
* People abusers;
* Violence-mongers, etc.
95-99% of those so accused (depending upon which era of history you're talking about) haven't been worth defending -- nor were most (or almost all) to be regarded as "heroes" of the faith.
Yet look at Lds "apostle" Abraham Cannon:
From the column posted @ above link: The diaries reveal how federal attorneys were routinely bribed through third parties. Church leaders spent considerable energies covering up the crime of an embezzler because that man — sympathetic to the church — was in a position to be a receiver of assets the church needed. In fact, Cannon records entries where the apostles were counseled to “keep secrets” from their enemies.... Cannon’s diary entry of Dec. 17, 1892, records that at the apostles’ meeting “… the brethren were told that our success in the Church suits was in a great measure due to the fact that we have a partner of Justice {Stephen J.} Field of the Supreme Court of the United States in our employ, who is to receive a percentage of the money if the suits go in our favor, and the property is returned to us.”...Justice Field was not the only person of influence tempted by the church.
So here's the challenge Resty: I repudiate the criminals mentioned in this source you posted.
Furthermore, I challenge you to do the same ... starting with Lds "apostle" Abraham Cannon. Do you repudiate Lds "apostle" Abraham Cannon for his bribery & other chicanery -- & his fellow "apostles" & First Presidents -- for what they did in the 1880s & 1890s?
By all means, take the time to investigate.
* You already know they were illegal polygamists.
* Cannon's diary admits they had a Supreme Court justice on the payroll.
* His diaries show fed attorneys were routinely bribed by third parties representing the Mormon hierarchically quorum.
(So really, what's left to investigate that Cannon has not already "confessed" via his own hand?)
Therefore, my challenge will not go away.
I will remind you of it over & over again until you respond in a manner that doesn't sluff it off.
I understand you challenged Resty but I will openly and freely denounce the sins (if they are real) in your post committed by Mormon leaders.
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.