Posted on 07/13/2014 4:52:15 PM PDT by yosephdaviyd
The third installment in Pope Francis’ series of interviews with atheist reporter Eugenio Scalfari took place on Thursday, July 10, 2014, and was published the following Sunday (07/13/14) in La Repubblica daily. Being that Scalfari doesn’t record these interviews on tape, but, rather, re-prints the dialogue based upon his memory of the interview, we can only say what the Pope Francis ‘allegedly’ said in them. One of the things that the Pope allegedly told Scalfari is that he wants to continue these interviews is because he “believes that an interview with a non-believer is mutually stimulating.” Typical of Scalfari’s interviews, Catholic bloggers will be spending the next few weeks talking about what Pope Francis meant to say in this one also. In the instant case, what Pope Francis allegedly said about the origin of priestly celibacy is sure to cause Catholic apologists to beat their head against a steel wall.
For centuries Protestants have been claiming and publishing tracts that say that the Catholic Church didn’t start teaching priestly celibacy until around 1079 A.D., and in refutations Catholic apologist have been pointing to Church documents, as far back as to the the second century, to prove that celibacy for the clergy has always been a discipline of Catholic Church in the West. Now comes along Pope Francis to give Protestant anti-Catholics the proof of what they have been telling Catholics along – that priestly celibacy is a modern innovation. Below is my translated text of that portion of the interview:
(Excerpt) Read more at davidlgray.info ...
[This pope must be the most misinterpreted, mistranslated, misquoted religious leader in all of human history.]
Possibly so, but for the parts...misinterpreted and mistranslated; I give you the Monk who was translating some of the stone tablets of the church.
He discovered that what they had translated as Celibate the Monk discovered that they had missed seeing the letter “R”. Pandemonium and hand wringing must have ensued.
He was talking about history. Not the Bible.
Nothing but Catholic heresies that contradict the Bible.
And sending to “All” does not work anymore and not for a very long time.
What is history but traditions of men?
Sorry that you don’t understand the facts of early Church history....people who knew Christ and people who knew them.
They essentially have no choice but to support him.That's what happens when you believe that your magisterium is infallible and the pope is God's vicar on earth.
I think you will find simply by reading the posts of Catholics here on FR that many feel no such compulsion as you imply. They are quite comfortable pointing out when he says something ridiculous, and I am confident it causes no trouble with their faith. That is because there is nothing in the Catholic faith which maintains that any pope is necessarily right in anything he says, outside of a very tiny sliver of very specific teachings. Consider this. In the time since Vatican I and its specific exposition of Papal Infallibility, i.e. about 144 years, there have been a grand total of two infallible statements from popes. Two. That amounts to some several sentences out of the what, millions, that popes have written or spoken in that time. So, no, there is essentially no requirement to support any erroneous papal statements whatsoever.
This is not heresy. I will pray for you.
Salvation:
You are indeed correct, Celibacy is only a discipline and has been taught, in different degrees since the 4th century, at various councils and was clearly taught as a normative discipline at the Council of Chalcedon
Here is an article from a Reformed cite ccel which is entirely consistent with the Catholic article.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.vi.ccxx.htm
In summary, celibacy has always been a discipline so no Council or Pope can make it dogma, it is not. What you find is the level of teaching on celibacy and to what degree did Pope’s stress it. It is a fact that one Pope as late as the 6th century was married and his son would succeed him as Pope. The last married Pope was Hadrian in the 9th century. So what the Pope Francis said is true in that it was in the 11th century that the Church finally made celibacy the norm for all clergy in the West, but even now, with Anglicans becoming Catholic and ordained as Married priest, we again have a lax in the discipline of celibacy.
Nothing new, northing controversial here except for a certain type of FR protestant here wanting to make something out it so they can entertain themselves, One would think on Sunday, most would be watching their preacher handle snakes and hold their hands in the air and grasp talking in tongues.
Well, it's easy when it's the internet and anonymous.
Can Catholics vote out a bad pope? Can they do ANYTHING about a bad pope?
I know of non-Catholic denominations where the pastor started teaching stuff that was off base and he was GONE.
Not an option for Catholics.....
What's no big deal to you is sacrilege to another Catholic.
Seems to me that the non-Catholics are on the same page about a married priesthood, that is that they see no need for it, there is no Scriptural support for it, and that it's only hurting the Catholic church by drastically cutting into the pool of men who could be priests.
It's the Catholics who have the division over it. They simply can't agree with their take on how, when, where, why, and by whom, the whole priestly celibacy thing came into being.
We see it as a useless convention at best.
With Catholics bemoaning the dearth of priests, the easiest solution which has no moral issues attached to it is to allow a married priesthood.
But nooooooooooo.......
Can't go against *sacred tradition* or whatever they're using to justify it.
You're shooting yourselves in your own collective foot.
The whole idea won't be accepted until it comes from a Catholic source.
>One would think on Sunday, most would be watching their preacher handle snakes and hold their hands in the air and grasp talking in tongues.
Like the Apostles? Your jest seems to border on blasphemy.
Interesting how the personal preference of a protestant in the need vs. not need (i.e, useless) aspect of the question precedes scriptural support. I declare that is not needed, therefore I will find scriptural warrant for my stated policy position.
>Sorry that you don’t understand the facts of early Church history....people who knew Christ and people who knew them.
I know the Bible. What have you got?
I have the Bible too. But I also have Holy Tradition. You don’t seem to have that, or am I misreading your lack of knowledge?
Can Catholics vote out a bad pope? Can they do ANYTHING about a bad pope?
Huh? I don't follow. What does that have to do with having to support the statements of popes when they are wrong?
I know of non-Catholic denominations where the pastor started teaching stuff that was off base and he was GONE.Not an option for Catholics.....
No, not an option for us, but neither does it mean what you said above. There is no compulsion on any Catholic to defend erroneous statements from popes. It just isn't so. Our faith doesn't include that kind of cult of personality.
Oh, and by the way, this from above is also way off base:
Speak up and your eternal destiny is on the line. Believing as they do that their priests have the power to forgive or RETAIN a person's sin, or that the church can ex-communicate them, they're in a really tough spot.
Where do you even come up with that? Do you think that priests have to call to Rome and ask the pope personally whether they can give absolution in confession because the penitent had criticised the pope's comments in an interview? And how would any priest, who doesn't see your face or usually know who you are in confession even know you didn't agree with a comment from the pope? What kind of clerical network do you think is in place, and what do you think happens in confession? Just to clarify for you there is actually no oath that we believe every statement made by the pope, even in private or in off the cuff interviews, is straight from God. You list your sins by type and number and he prays for you and absolves you. Period. No hotlines to Rome, and no clerical spy rings to monitor whether people are properly supporting the popes interview comments.
I have no tradition that contradicts the Bible, which I’ve quoted several times and you have ignored. The Pharisees were exactly the same way, uphold the tradition and ignore the scripture.
If there is a lack of knowledge, it is your inability to explain the reason why scripture is to be set aside.
Catholic tradition does not contradict the Bible. How did people learn about Christ when there was no Bible in his day? By Holy Tradition — people talking with one another face to face.
I don’t see why non-Catholics can’t understand that.
As I said above — from the people who knew Jesus....and then the people who knew those who knew Jesus. And so it continued because there was no written word until 50 AD.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3179804/posts?page=38#38
This refers to the Gospels. Actually the first account of the Eucharist is in Paul.
Jesus said all three times in response to Satan's temptations "it is written."
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.