LOL... great analogy!!!
Posted on 03/07/2013 3:20:53 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The outspoken atheist Penn Jillette destroys the modernist Piers Morgan in a debate on Catholicism and the papacy.
Absolutely. Bright guy, but horribly wrong on some issues.
Yes but if all athiests were like Penn Jillette, I would want to live in that world.
Piers makes a career out of getting destroyed. The only reason anyone watches him is to see him jumping off the cliff once again.
Exactly! I don’t get people who do that. It’s like joining the chess club then bringing a pack of cards and trying to start a poker game.
LOL... great analogy!!!
Worse, people like Morgan want the chess club to say “poker has always been part of playing chess or should have been.”
ain't that the truth...
First, Penn recognizes that the Pope does not always speak at the highest level of infallibility. Then, he accepts Piers’ misrepresentation of the church’s social teachings as being at the highest level of infallibility. In fact, several of the things Piers throws out there, e.g., celibate priesthood, have been described as honored traditions of the church. I don’t hold Penn responsible either for knowing the difference between honored traditions and infallible teachings, or for knowing the nuance between degrees of infallibility. It could be that Penn was simply engaging Piers in banter on Piers’ terms.
I think it is entirely acceptable for Catholics to pray for the church in matters that are merely tradition, as long as they also pray for patience. Possibly one Pope will discuss celibacy as a honored tradition so that a subsequent Pope, a century later, might make some exceptions to the rule of celibacy in certain extraordinary condition, so that yet another Pope might regularize the matter. When you’re in the church business for a couple thousand years, you don’t have to rush into anything.
I think it is also acceptable for Catholic to pray for the church in matters that have a less than the highest level of infallibility. Through two thousand years, there are only a small number of pronouncements deemed to have this highest level of infallibility. For example, the doctrine that Jesus was fully man and was fully God. Interestingly, none of these involve the social teachings of the church, upon which Piers dwells.
But Piers is not showing any consideration for the importance of tradition in leading a flock of a billion people, of wide ranging education and economic circumstances. People who don’t need the church, personally, to lead happy and productive lives should not be so critical of the church. Rather, they should be helpful.
Getting back to Penn, he kind of misrepresented Luther by ascribing to him an individual interpretation of the Bible. Luther did indeed support the widespread dissemination of the Bible, and the teaching of reading to every child capable of learning. But, he also taught disobedience to the state was a mortal sin. His freedom of consciousness was, shall we say, limited.
Thanks NKP_Vet.
I heard a story once where when Teller was signing autographs or some such thing a man walked up to him and told him he was a big fan and a christian and asked if he did not mind if he could give him a gospel tract that detailed his christan testimony. Teller said that no he did not mind and in fact according to the story Teller said he does not mind people who are christians who believe Christ is the only way to God sharing their testimony.
Wow
Beck has been working on him. He said that when they first met, Penn was very hostile. Now, not so much.
Here is Penn’s take on that story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w
When Morgan said Jesus never said anything about women not being ordained he was showing his ignorance again of the faith, if he has any at all. JP2 was asked the same thing a few years ago ago; was asked why there are no women priests, and could he might change that doctrine. His answer was he could not change what Christ had started. He said Christ chose 12 men to be the his first apostles, and the church has no authority to change what Christ has instituted. End of discussion.
“I avoid Morgan religiously.”
Your unintentional pun made me chuckle.
More on interview. Read the comments.
http://blog.newadvent.org/2013/03/watch-this-outspoken-atheist-penn.html
And among these 12, at least one was a married men. Thus, a celibate priesthood is only an honored tradition in the Catholic Church. John Paul II affirmed both that the unmarried priest helps to represent Christ who was himself unmarried, and that this being unmarried is not essential to the priesthood.
As to whether the reservation of priesthood to male is inviolate, it is a matter of church doctrine and, hence, a much more serious matter, and no movement can be expected any time soon. But, it is not the highest level of church law. Conceivably, the issue might be addressed in the future. But, it would be wrong to be anxious about the matter.
“And among these 12, at least one was a married men”
I didn’t mention this. Priests could intend be married and many Catholic priests are, depending on the circumstances. This is not dogma of the Church, just a determination made hundreds of years ago. But there will be no women priests, for the reason that JP2 articulated.
I’m praying that a “Little Bird” is working on Penn Jillette. And maybe the scales will fall from his eyes.
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.
