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."
Not true at all, but have you noticed their tone as of late?
If everyone called everyone priest that you might have something like this. But this is not the case. Your priests are professionals and do most of the ministering. They are the only ones known as priests and they are probably the only ones that are allowed to perform your various sacrements. I think there are seven sacrements and there may be cases where a non priest can perform them.
No there were not.
They're such a noble bunch.
But, but, but...Well I wouldn't use such terminology because that never causes anyone to see the light and leave the RCC. ;-) But there is that continuing nagging question, if we have this many differences about so many doctrines, can we think of both groups as Christian? Clearly there are different Christs preached at different "churches". I would not consider Mormons to be preaching the same Jesus Christ but with RC's it's much harder to discern.
The translation is "You are a pebble and on this boulder I'll build my Church". That boulder was "You are the Christ". It makes infinitely more sense that the Lord was talking about the "You are the Christ" and not one single apostle of 12 and then a continuing succession(sp) of apostles which is never once mentioned in the bible. This is why the whole Peter/pope thing is rejected by NonRC Christians.
Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction.
A layman, even a non-Christian can perform Baptism as an emergency when the baptised is about to die. The valid trinitarian formula must be used, as well as, of course, water, and the celebrant must intend that to be Christian baptism. I am not aware of other exceptions.
“The most recent contribution [to the study of eatly Christian celibacy] is that of the German priest and scholar Stefan Heid, Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West, trans. M. J. Miller, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.
The institutional forms of the Church took shape in the first centuries of her existence, and it would seem natural that this was also the time when the discipline of clerical life was laid down. There can be no doubt that from the beginning there were clergymen, both married and unmarried, who after receiving holy orders renounced all sexual relations. The question is to what extent this was a purely personal decision made by individuals. How can we make sense of the fact that married bishops, priests and deacons, too, observed continence? Was there something like an obligation for clerics to lead a continent life? What are the historical roots of the present discipline of clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church?
It turns out that to speak of celibacy is not an adequate notion, since the early Church did not have an obligation for the clergy to be unmarried, as meant by the Latin word (caelebs). From this fact the conclusion is sometimes drawn that mandatory celibacy was an invention of the Papal Church in the Middle Ages. Those who pursue this line of argument often point to the Second Lateran Council in 1193, which declared marriages contracted after the reception of holy orders invalid. As a matter of fact, well into the Middle Ages no bishop, priest or deacon was required to be unmarried. The exclusive discipline of celibacy, in the strict sense of the word, according to canon law came into force only after the Council of Trent (1545-1563). In the first millennium, an unmarried clergyman was not exactly the exception, but he was not the rule either.
However, to concentrate on the question of married or unmarried clergy misses the point. Ecclesiastical legislation from as early as the fourth century was much concerned with regulating the life of the clergy, especially in matters of sexual conduct. Recent scholarship suggests that a discipline of clerical continence, more comprehensive than what we understand today as celibacy, was established from the very beginning. Not only the unmarried clergy were affected by such a rule; the married clergy (and their wives) were, too, for they were required to renounce all sexual relations after their ordination. The early Church knew of an obligation for all higher clerics, that is, bishops, deacons and priests, to abstain from sexual intercourse. Thus the present discipline of the Latin Church would appear to be in continuity with the original discipline of clerical continence.
No, the translation is "rock" in both cases.
"Petras" is rock, feminine noun.
"Petros" is masculine form corresponding to "Petras". Simon could not be called "Petras" because he is a man; no other gradation of meaning is in the text.
God giving a new name to someone is a sign of spiritual regeneration when an important historical role is given. It is used throughout the Bible, witness Abram - Abraham, Jacob - Israel.
Thank you. These are even more restricted to the "priesthood" than I suspected making them all the more special. As a side note, doesn't the performance of each sacrament by the standard non-Priest RC get grace for him?
"Petras" is rock, feminine noun.
"Petros" is masculine form corresponding to "Petras". Simon could not be called "Petras" because he is a man; no other gradation of meaning is in the text.
God giving a new name to someone is a sign of spiritual regeneration when an important historical role is given. It is used throughout the Bible, witness Abram - Abraham, Jacob - Israel.
Thanks again. I wish I had my concordance here. My rule of thumb is that English is pretty much all I need because the single most important rule of interpretation is "Let Scripture interpret scripture". Since there is no other scripture telling us about Peter's popehood, I don't see a popehood. Otherwise, we could have made a big thing out of "sons of thunder".
"Use the [Internet], Luke."
Chances are, the concordance you want is online. If this isn't it, Google the one you want. ;)
In our bible study last night, it was noted that the Lord did not have a "special formula" for raising the dead. In one case, He touched the dead person. In another, He touched the bier (coffin). In yet another, He simply gave a verbal command.
I found that at least mildly interesting.
Interesting - thanks!
I am only aware of the permissibility of Baptism performed by a lay man, and even non-Christian in an emergency. The example is a Jewish doctor delivering a baby of Christian parents, who is about to die. The doctor can baptize then and the baptism will be valid. I don't know if a partucular grace goes to the celebrant in this case. He would be, of course, doing work of great charity by bringing a soul to Christ.
Other sacraments have a detailed rite associated with them. That would include prayers that the priest says, some of them are said silently. I would assume that among these are prayers for the special grace to effect the sacrament, but I don't know for sure, and I don't have the missal (where rites are described) handy.
A special permission is required for an ordained priest to preach and to hear confessions. On occasion, a priest is allowed to say a private mass only. Padre Pio, when miracles attributed to him were investigated by the Vatican, was forbidden to hear confessions as people flocked to him in great numbers.
If you followed any Catholic threads here dealing with the effects of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesiology, you probably noticed that among the complaints that the traditionalists have is that the new order of Mass diluted the role of the priest. More prayers formerly said by the priest alone are now said by the congregation; Latin (in which the Priest is more likely to be fluent than the congregation) is rarely used; extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion (who take the Eucharist consecrated by the priest to the congregation to speed up the communion) are used liberally; the communicants don't kneel, often take Communion in their hands rather than letting the priest put it in their mouth; the communion rail is gone; the priest's vestments are simpler. On the other hand, in the new order the priest faces away from the Crucifix and toward the congregation, which has the effect of separating him from the laity. I mention these things to illustrate the brackets between which Catholicism is willing to go in the degree of separation between the priest and the congregation; as you can see, despite the innovations, priesthood is indeed very special.
The commission of Peter is self-explanatory in his relation to the Church, -- he is given a new name and called the foundation of the Church. It would be extra-scriptural to assume some other meaning in that verse. In Acts, it is rather clear that while others disagree with him, Peter is the one giving the final approval to the doctrine they jointly developed. This is functionally papacy, although the degree of authority the the Pope has among the bishops is matter of debate and interpretation, and it changed through the ages.
When John is named Son of Thunder, there is no particular reason given in the scripture, this is why we don't speculate on any ecclesiastical role of John.
Thanks! Yer the man.
I disagree, as you well know. The RC tradition is self explaintory after you've been an RC and had it explained to you. It may be a bit of reflex to see all of that but scripture alone does not give you a pope at all. Just an ambiguous statement about a rock and another rock. That other rock, the profession not Peter, is the foundation. That interpretation fits with the rest of scripture. The pope explination does not.
Thanks annalex.
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.