Posted on 01/26/2005 8:45:26 AM PST by tvn
TONY EASTLEY: With their numbers in radical decline, Australia's Catholic Priests are urging the Vatican to overturn its ban on married clergy. The National Council of Priests has written to Rome urging it to re-consider the rules on celibacy. There's concern that sex and marriage have become an obstacle to recruitment.
Priests argue that their dwindling ranks could be boosted if they were allowed to marry and have families. Presently, only Priests who convert to Catholicism from other churches are allowed to be married.
The parish priest of Melbourne St Simon's Church, Father Martin Dixon, sits on the executive committee of the National Council of Priests.
AM's Nick Grimm spoke to Father Dixon.
MARTIN DIXON: Well, I think the issue of married Priests can be an issue that should be looked at and can be looked at. Marriage is not a bar to Priesthood, there are a large number of married men who are Priests in Australia already.
Melbourne has two of them here already, so it is happening, and I suppose we're saying, why just restrict it to particularly men who are Anglican Priests who have now become Catholics? It should be open to all men.
NICK GRIMM: The vow of celibacy has long been one of the defining features of the Catholic Priesthood though, hasn't it?
MARTIN DIXON: It has been, but it hasn't been for the whole history of the church. Half the history of the church has been married clergy, and the clergy in the beginning were married. Peter had his wife – the first Apostle. So, it's never been a restrictor for a long time within the church.
NICK GRIMM: So you would argue that this is a tradition which shouldn't be considered a sacred tradition?
MARTIN DIXON: No, I think it's one of the traditions we have to look at in the light of the present situation of the world we live in. It's not an unchangeable thing. The practice has been shown now that we can ordain married men. It therefore is not unchangeable.
NICK GRIMM: It is argued at times, isn't it, that there's a view that Priests can't really minister effectively if they live a life which is still quite remote from the everyday experience of many people?
MARTIN DIXON: If you live in the Parish and you're working among the people, you're not remote. You know the feelings, you know the pains, and you know the joys of it. You don't have to be married to know what it's like.
TONY EASTLEY: The parish priest of Melbourne St Simon's Church, Father Martin Dixon, speaking with AM's Nick Grimm.
My Bible doesn't contain Maccabees. The other verses you mention say nothing of purgatory. When I went to Church, eating meat on Friday was considered a sin. Limbo was definitely taught as a place where babies that died with original sin went if they weren't baptised.
Different churches may interpret different doctrine differently, but when basic tenets are contradicted, then there's a problem.
Most people would agree that murder and stealing are different, but God looks at all sin the same. His Holyness is too great to allow any sin to be in His presence. The wages of sin is death- not just the really bad sins.
The problem is that if these men marry, then the Church has to worry about support of the wives and children and the Church will be taken into divorce courts around the world for support as well.
The priests are supposed to live in near poverty and the women and kids thing just isn't that workable.
As it is, the Church has been through a ton of lawsuits lately because they have assets and Real Estate.
The problems in the Church with homosexual predators who lied to become priests happens equally throughout the different versions of faith/religion, but the Catholic Church's assets is a carrot on a stick for plaintiffs and lawyers.
Priests marrying will split the priest's time, will cause problems and the wives will claim they were due payments over everything.
Too tough to do IMO.
Can. 33. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and all other clerics having a position in the ministry, are ordered to abstain completely from their wives and not have children. Whoever, in fact, does this shall be expelled from the dignity of the clerical state. (Council of Elvira, 309 AD)
The bottom line is a belief that one is more holy if one does not marry. Balderdash.
Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman ... But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment ... Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better. A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7:1,32-35,38-40)
How do you know? I'm asking honestly.
I'm speaking of the original church, the disciples and the writers of the New Testament.
This does not speak to the ongoing universal situation of priests and/or leaders. The Corinthian church struggled perhaps more than other churches with sexual issues. Thus, Paul's strong rebuke in 1 Cor 5.
Because they've never let me down and the words speak the truth.
I didn't think St. Augustine was there.
IOW, it's entirely subjective, the way Mormons talk of a "burning in the bosom" when they read the BoM.
What, exactly, has "never let you down" in the Epistle to Philemon? 2 John?
Historically speaking, how was the decision made as to what books belonged in the NT, and by whom was that decision made, and when?
That's ok if you don't know, I'll try to explain better. Sola Scriptura is basically the belief that everything needed for Salvation is found in the Bible. Catholics believe that the Bible and apolistolic tradition are both needed.
Well Protestants and Catholics now agree that the Bible is infallible, but Protestants do not have the link to Peter, just as they are missing the link to much of the Church's tradition. Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible on matters concerning faith and morals involving the whole Church. In fact, it is strange how the Protestants can determine what books in the Bible are infallible, because they are missing the link to Peter, the rock. Also strange is how they can ridicule Catholics for believing the Pope is infallible when they themselves also believe certain things are free from error.
Protestantism naturally leads to a divergence of opinion on key doctrinal matters (like sola fide-salvation by faith alone which most but not all Protestans agree on, and also Calvin's ideas of predestination). Martin Luther cut seven books from the Old Testament and parts of two others. Is he infallible?
Peter's primacy comes from both the Bible and tradition. In the early Church writers were not sure about many of the books in the New Testament. (Now Catholics and Protestans agree on the New Testament but not the Old Testament.) Even famous and learned writers such as Tertullian were not sure what books were infallible. But what they were sure on was that the Pope's decision was final, through apostolic tradition.
So Peter did not pot the Bible together, but his sucessors (the Popes) did. Even the Protestants agree on the Popes decisions regarding the New Testament books. Martin Luther said so himself. I hope this answers your questions.
Council of Carthage, 419 AD
Canon 24
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ii. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ii. books.
Macchabees, ii. books.THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, i. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ii.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iii.
The Epistle of James the Apostle, i.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, i.
The Revelation of John, i. book.Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop [of Rome], Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
They want to change the contract.
It's like the renegade military guys who signed up and then didn't want to stand by their word and do their duty.
Punks all.
Before this goes any further, I want to clarify my beliefs.
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe in the Trinity, and that salvation comes through faith in God the Son Jesus Christ. I believe I'm going to heaven based on this faith. It's really that simple.
I come from a Roman Catholic background, and it was because of my disallusion with the church that I became an agnostic for 15 years. I am now a Bible thumping, close-minded believer. My faith is unshakeable. I'm a Christian. I don't belong to a sect.
I have no idea who put the Bible together. I don't know much about the good folks mentioned that came after the writers of the Bible (the one I use, that is). And if I die today and I find I'm mistaken in all my beliefs- then so be it.
The Catholic belief that the Pope is infallible is one of their silliest doctrines and most easy to disbelieve. I used to be a Catholic; it's stuff like this that caused me to leave the church. How you can say anyone is infallible but Christ is beyond me. How about when there were 3 Popes...were they all infallible?
I like you tagline.
There were never three popes. There was one real pope and two false claimants.
So....Stop Catholic bashing and return to the subject at hand. I don't want to hear your life's story.
Indulgences? Was that a mistake? The Pope can NEVER make a mistake? Preposterous.
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.