Posted on 03/12/2015 12:31:53 PM PDT by Legatus
A childhood friend of Pope Francis has claimed that he intends to overturn the centuries-old ban on Catholic priests from getting married and that he told a divorcee 'living in sin' that she could receive Holy Communion.
The Pope considers the law on priestly celibacy 'archaic' and 'not part of the doctrine of the Church', according to the confidante.
The friend also claimed the Argentinian-born pope also vowed to reform another Catholic rule which bars divorced people in new relationships from taking the Holy Communion, MailOnline can reveal.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Will never happen.
Of the 22 Churches (Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Chaldean, Greek Byzantine, etc) which make up the Catholic Church, only one of them (the Latin one) chooses not to ordain married men, and even this is not true in every case. For instance, married Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are accepted as Catholic (Latin) priests, can keep their wives! If they were widowed, though, they may not remarry.
1. This is unconfirmed third-hand news. For this pope, a large number of ‘third-hand news’ stories have not panned out. Change your religion at your own risk.
2. The Pope is not king.
3. Married priests are not a matter of papal infallibility.
4. Just to be clear: being divorced is NOT a sin in itself...but until a Church annulment of the marriage is given, the divorcee is considered to be married and the divorcee is expected to conduct themselves as appropriate to a married person.
In fact it said she could go to CONFESSION and Holy Communion, which is worded ambiguously but at least implies that she should confess and renounce her sins. That would include renouncing the illicit sexual relationship.
Wrong!!!!!
“The tenth century is claimed to be the high point of clerical marriage in the Latin Communion (Catholic Church). Most rural priests were married and many urban clergy and bishops had wives and children.”
Source: History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church
As to why compulsory clerical celibacy was gradually institutionalized:
“...a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices...”
Source: Herbert Thurston “Celibacy of the Clergy” Catholic encyclopedia.
The Orthodox Christian Church allows for priests to marry and have children. Many of those children become Monastics.
But there is a higher priestly caste of Orthodox Christians known as monks. Bishops and others in high ranks of the Orthodox come from the Monks and they never marry. The monks do not marry.
Bishops and monks of the Orthodox usually associate with priests and other clergy. Priests are the ones that relate on a day-to-day week-to-week basis to parishioners.
The Roman Catholic rules seem more strict but both are in a sense never changing. The fact that they stay the same is what attracts protestants from Churches such as the Epicopal Church. Women priests and normalization of homosexuality among some protestant Churches have driven many Christians to seek Church with customs that are preserved. That would be the Orthodox Church which has maintained the same liturgy for 2000 years.
I have not seen many Orthodox (Eastern Catholics) that are disgruntled with the Orthodox traditions or the imposition of the Church itself. I have seen many who are disgruntled with a particular priest or other member but not with the customs and traditions themselves.
I have seen many persons disgruntled with the Roman Catholic Church in general but not with a particular person or priest. The stories I hear from the disgruntled seem illogical or based on some sort of emotional reaction. Not changing and being strict can be a good thing as it is for the Orthodox. But I never hear Roman Catholics complain about particular people, only in general about the ‘Church’.
I wonder if these two great Churches have a difference in how they relate to their members? Do married priests with children make a difference personally in the lives of the Orthodox? Are Roman Catholic Priests too far removed and segregated from members? Are they cold because of Church doctrine in relating to the laity? The questions here are addressed to the average and not particular cases.
Sometimes I wonder if the difference is similar to the difference between public and private school. In relating to school teachers in either setting, the public school teacher seems bound by a legalism that restricts friendships. Whereas in private school settings, especially Waldorf Schools, the teaching faculty become like extended family; legalism seems remote.
I have great respect for both the Roman Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Christian Churches. Both have had a profoundly positive effect on people globally. Whatever makes people more at peace with their Church and the faithful and accurate teachings of Jesus can only be a good thing.
Read the full article. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, and not even universal in all rites of the Roman Catholic church.
Allowing divorced and remarried people who have not had an annulment to have Communion is changing a dogma.
Because priests can’t get nun?
openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices...”
And that was the problem. The church wanted all the church’s riches to stay in the church.
A priest explained that to me long ago.
More preciesly, a married man can become a Orthodox priest. A priest, deacon, and some cases a man in some lower orders, cannot marry. A widowed priest may not remarry, and some widowed priests have become bishops: for example, the Albanian Bishop Ilya, and the late Serbian Metropoliitan Christopher.
I did read the full article. I’m talking about the priestly celibacy issue, not about communion without an annulment.
The Pope is only talking about Gay Marriage
Orthodox priests are allowed to marry. But if you want to be a bishop you must be celibate.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
LOL! Then we talked past each other.
Something I do here a lot.
The Church had some legitimate reasons for implementing the policy back in the Middle Ages. I don’t quarrel with that for a moment. However, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible requiring compulsory clerical celibacy. Quite the opposite is true. The Lord created Eve because he did not want Adam to be alone. The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply. We are supposed to celebrate life, not celibate life. Priests were married men in the Bible in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Married clergy is specifically permitted in the Bible:
” A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
If there were legitimate reasons for the “policy” what are the legitimate reasons for changing it at this time in history?
Thank you for the clarification.
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.