Only "hot?" Not...
"Hot hot hot!"?
Posted on 05/25/2005 10:35:49 PM PDT by sinkspur
THE leader of Scotland's Catholics has risked reigniting a row over married priests by predicting the Vatican will eventually relent and allow the practice.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, said the success of married deacons in the church means the change is likely.
The church leader has upset traditional Catholics in the past with his views on celibacy, homosexuality and the priesthood.
His latest comments were made in an interview with the Catholic Times, which will be published on Sunday,
Asked if he believed married priests will become a reality, he said: "Having seen something of the apostolate of married deacons, I can foresee the day when there will be married priests."
The Cardinal has angered conservative Catholics in the past with his acceptance of gay priests, as long as they remained celibate.
However, since being elevated to the College of Cardinals he has espoused views more in line with Vatican teachings. Cardinal O'Brien's latest comments drew criticism from the right-wing Catholic Truth movement.
A spokesman for the group said: "He is trying to say that he is not necessarily personally in favour of this but we can debate it. It's a sleekit way of trying to have his cake and eat it."
However, a poll of 80 Catholic priests in Scotland conducted only last month suggested 40 per cent believed they should be allowed to marry, but the issue remains thorny to many conservative Catholics.
Cardinal O'Brien gained a reputation as a liberal after he said in 2002, before he became a cardinal, that he saw no end to theological argument against celibacy within the priesthood.
A day later he issued a joint statement with Mario Conti, the archbishop of Glasgow, in which the pair said: "While no-one would suggest clerical celibacy is an unchangeable discipline, we believe it has an enormous value."
The following year he risked angering conservatives again when he broached the subject of married priests.
He said in a thanksgiving mass that the church should have "at every level" a discussion about clerical celibacy.
He said the argument for married priests was supported by the case of married Anglican priests who have converted to Catholicism and been allowed to continue their ministries.
However, at the ecclesiastical senate in Rome in October 2003, he made a statement at the end of the Nicene Creed in which he affirmed support of the church's teachings on celibacy, contraception and homosexuality.
It was claimed at the time, but denied, that the added words were said under pressure from the Vatican.
Since then the Cardinal has been careful not to speak out on any of the issues that caused so much controversy.
A spokesman for the Church said today that the Cardinal's comments were not incompatible with his profession of faith in 2003.
He said: "It is a neutral comment on the issue, it is neither a ringing endorsement of the concept, neither is it an outright denunciation."
As to your second point: 1) That's special; and 2) what good does it do you to misread Scripture, ignore its origin, reject its Church, etc.
I don't doubt that many "reformed" find their way to heaven not by the magic incantation of accepting, etc., but because they obey so much of what Christ demanded whatever their probably innocent deviations, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross has been accessed by them despite the difficulties of lacking graces available through Masses and the sacraments. If you disagree with the last sentence, I really don't care.
For me to be vindicated as a Catholic, I don't need to make a fool of myself by imagining that you must be going to hell unless you surrender to my views or those of my Church. If you believe that I am going to hell for not agreeing with you, seek help. I might go to hell and so might you (as long as I live or you live, each of us is eligible) but it won't be for denominational disagreements.
The best Christian I ever knew was my mother's best friend, Hilda, a verrrrrrry old-fashioned, no nonsense old school Methodist. Some Catholics take the asinine tack that Hilda must be in hell because in 93 years she had plenty of opportunity to become Catholic and did not. After all, outside the Roman Catholic Church (as this particular belief goes) there is NO salvation. The PRE-VATICAN II (for the benefit of Catholics who disagree) hierarchy excommunicated Leonard Feeney, SJ, for that particular error. The Church may just be wide enough to include Hilda and, maybe, just maybe many of the "reformed" here whether they think so or not. Objective reality trumps subjective error anytime. God's plan just has to be better than yours or mine.
If Hilda is in heaven, she is in heaven because of the facts of her life, her passionate love of God, her fervent obedience of Him. She no doubt accepted Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. After all, who else would have or could have been her personal Lord and Savior?
Hilda and my mother had a great agreement not to argue politics or religion. My mother voted Democrat most of her life and Hilda was a very Republican and conservative woman. Eventually, my mother became (gasp) a registered Republican and never voted for another Democrat. Then she and Hilda talked politics, but not before. They never risked a great relationship by trying to convert each other on religion. After Hilda died, she got a lot of those indulgences that she did not believe in. No problem. Objective reality will trump subjective error anytime. As long as I live, Hilda will be remembered and she will be in my prayers whether she would have thught them useful or not.
BTW, (John 6:50-71) I posted Scripture earlier but got NO Scriptural responses.
When did Israel collect and promulgate the New Testament?
This thread is about the misbehavior of a Roman Catholic cardinal in Scotland and, in case I neglected to say so, therefore none of your anti-Catholic bidness.
Oh, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS which I am likely to continue posting until you take the hint and get some manners.
As to your first point, I ping as I please. The words of my posts (and every one else's posts) speak for themselves. The volume of pingees has nothing to do with impressing anyone. Many of us summon allies to chime in and sometimes they do. Sometimes, opponents are pinged for a wide variety of reasons. Why should you care whom I ping?
FOTFL. Biblewonk, BE pings as he pleases and I am always glad when he pings me. It's not like he's calling in the calvary. He needs no help or back up.
If you'd care to cut to the chase, I'll be happy to respond. As it stands, you're coming across as just another puffed-up smart-aleck.
You said: "So, I'll just mention again that Israel could easily make the same claim" about giving us the bible.
I said: "When did Israel collect and promulgate the New Testament?"
Already clear as a bell.
If it were not for the Roman Catholic Church giving yiou the Bible, you would not have a Bible to truncate and mangle.
Is there some reason why I should give a rat's patoot why you responded to me?
I also take it that the incredibly self-satisfied and erroneous church of newgeezer has problems with Jews as well as with Catholics. Why am I not surprised? Jews should take as a compliment your attitude towards them, considering the source.
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Maybe they don't actually read the Bible but just play people who do when they post on the Internet.
Pope Leo the Great writes to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (458/9):The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so. [Epist. ad Rusticum Narbonensem episcopum, Inquis, III., Resp. PL 54, 1 204a.]Introduced here is the technical expression ‘law of continence’ (lex continentiae). It can also be called the law of celibacy in a ‘wide’ sense. Early Western legislation tends to focus on clerical continence as specifically applied to married clergy: the discipline of abstinence from marital relations. If a bishop, priest or deacon (and subdeacon from the fifth century onwards) was prohibited from having sexual relations once in orders, then it is obvious that his commitment to continence would be the major impediment to subsequent marriage (quite apart from the general disfavour shown towards second marriage). For there could be no real marriage unless it was potentially open to sexual consummation. The same law of continence would also impede the unmarried deacon or priest from marrying. The laws, so clearly expressed in the East, prohibiting marriage to the already ordained may thus be reasonably understood to be but the reverse expression of this more basic discipline of continence. This possibility needs to be taken into account when reconstructing the history of clerical celibacy.
This thread seems to have digressed into apologetics because the discussion was hijacked by an obnoxious poster who is both biblically and historically illiterate. But I would like to get back to this question of whether we have someone impersonating a deacon. Was this question ever resolved?
God gave us the Old Testament by way of Israel. God used the RCC to canonize the Bible. God spoke to Balaam by way of a donkey.
God uses whomever and whatever pleases Him. The mere fact that they are used by Him does not endow them with any justification or right to boast.
Sorry I wasn't clearer about it earlier.
Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church.
Good question. I don't think it was resolved, unless some conclusion can be drawn from sinky's silence.
Of course. I didn't say or imply otherwise. The point is, you're just trying to impress them. From what I've seen, it's working. You and they are feeding your flesh. Likewise, I've also been guilty of letting mine get the better of me.
This thread is about the misbehavior of a Roman Catholic cardinal in Scotland and, in case I neglected to say so, therefore none of your anti-Catholic bidness.
Oh, I was under the impression this thread was a discussion of (among other things) what is or is not any of my business, and/or where I am (not) allowed to post. At least, it sure seems that's what you've been posting about.
Oh, and MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS which I am likely to continue posting until you take the hint and get some manners.
Manners? Precisely how am I not minding my own business? Am I not allowed to reply to those (including yourself) who post TO me?
Because, as I recall, I made exactly THREE posts in this thread where it was not a case of my replying to someone who posted to me, #225 (complimenting a friend), #227 (countering the "if it weren't for the RCC" line), and #236 (commenting on your assertion that there can be such a thing as an "uninvited trespass" on this public forum). Anyone with even the slightest amount of objectivity can see how every one of those subjects was either personal enough or broad enough to have been MY business.
After those three, all of my other posts have been replies to posts addressed TO me, and most if not all of those have been to reply to your incessant and ridiculous demands to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS."
Thus, I trust you can see the facts show that I have been minding my own business throughout my participation on this thread.
Well yes, as I've said all along, we are all priests. But never once does the bible talk about a Priesthood as the Catholics have established. You have made a priesthood within a priesthood. Surely you knew this was what I was talking about since I've said it about 10 times.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
As long as your friends continue to engage me in conversation, I'll probably hang around.
That's why the layer is called presbuteros and not hiereus in the Greek, presbyter and not sacerdos in the Latin, and priest and not...priest...in the English. You see where the problem is?
The only layers I see are Elders/bishops then everyone else and each and everyone at both layers is a "royal priest". But I don't see an additional layer of priests at all, as I've stated.
Well, hold it...
We are called to witness our Christian faith to apostates and unbelievers. It is indeed inconvenient to deal with obnoxious posters who do not come here to learn, but to disrupt. At the same time, one clear answer should be given to clear questions they pose, even if they themselves have no intention to comprehend or even acknowledge the answer. Often what they ask on the thread, many readers ask inwardly, and for their benefit we should respond.
There is also a tactic used by anti-Catholics, and generally by those who do not have the intellectual upper hand in a dispute. That tactic is to create grounds for a complaint that the Catholics (in this case) want to stick to themselves and shun debate. Let us not play into their hands.
Yes they were very special. So special that there are 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem with their names on them. So special that they have almost nothing to do with the conversation about the Catholic Priesthood.
By the way, regarding my last post, it is interesting to note that there is no mention of any popes or of the seat of pope or the seat if vicar of Christ there in Revelation. The 12 foundations are the 12 apostles only. It's really as if it were just the 12 with no successors isn't it? Actually there is no mention of any successors anywhere in the bible only a verse about a rock which is more than just a little arguably the profession and not the person. But I'm drifting off topic.
TEXTBOOK projection case.
Silence indeed. I suppose we can't infer guilt from that alone, but if someone accused me of impersonating a member of the clergy, I sure would answer the charge.
Where did this come from? All I said about Israel ("Jews" if you insist) is that (1) God used Israel for His good purpose and (2) Israel is an enemy of the gospel (that's from the Bible).
(Now he tries to label me an anti-Semite. It gets sillier with each passing hour.)
LOL
That case is good enough for the COVER of the textbook. ;O)
I know you'd like to think so.
Well, if it'll make you feel any better, I don't think you're an anti-Semite; I just think you're a fool.
Have fun reading this thread.
Agreed. And very applicable, since I do not believe in, and am apostate from, the church run by Pope Newgeezer AND the church run by Pope Biblewonk. Thus, they might reasonably feel compelled to witness to me.
But I will never follow their own personal interpretation of scripture, and they both understand that. Given that understanding, the appropriate reaction for them is to bug off.
Yet, like mosquitoes at the picnic, they keep buzzing around, looking for carrion.
Do you see Catholics jumping onto your protestant threads and hijacking the conversation? Go pretend that Pastor Billy Bob from whatever fruitcake nondenominational church you belong to has all the answers. Feel free to believe that the bible was dropped from heaven into the hands of Martin Luther. Go tell all your friends at your bible study that the "papists" are going to hell. Go do all of this.
Excellent point(s). I can't recall a Prot thread wherein we have jumped in on them, although I'm all but certain someone will find one.
Agreed. That's why I've taken to insulting them with the hope that they'll finally take the hint. You know the saying, mock the devil and he'll flee from you...
Thanks again for your thoughtful input. But, with all due respect, I couldn't care less what your kind thinks about me.
"Get behind me, pitiful picnic mosquitoes!"
:-)
Well, if they keep doing this to ours, I say it's open season. Heck, we should bring in the Eastern Orthodox folks too.
Cripes. Another soul saver? Good grief. Why not leave us Catholics to our own damnation? We can't be right... I mean who founded our Church? Oh yeah, Him.
I was just regretting not pinging you on that one.
We're in sync, baby.
(No, not in sink, in sync.) ;O)
ROTFLMAO!!!
Absolutely. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters might as well join in.
LOL! That's hot.
When it comes to Patristics and the history of the early Church, they're second to none! The poor prots will run screaming.
Only "hot?" Not...
"Hot hot hot!"?
Get behind me, pitiful picnic mosquitoes!"
FOTFL! What? How did I miss that the first time? LOL-LOL-LOL
That's right! LOL
You've pinged one, huh? HIGH FIVE!
LOL!! Can I hear an Amen, brother?!
*giggle* That still makes me double over in laughter.
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.