Posted on 05/27/2014 5:18:07 AM PDT by GIdget2004
It was an elite All Girl Catholic High School at the time.
So glad to hear it was elite.
Rome obviously felt the political access or whatever else they got in the bargain was worth overlooking said unfaithfulness.
In Wolsey's case, he still kept his church office as Archbishop of York even after Henry VIII stripped him of all political power.
In Richelieu's case, which was far more blatant as it involved multiple mistresses, nothing was done either. In fact, it could be reasonably argued that Richelieu enjoyed far more influence with Rome than Wolsey ever enjoyed.
By most accounts, Wolsey was at least faithful to one woman and, for all his faults, was no serial philanderer in the mold of Cardinal Richelieu. Not even close.
The above notwithstanding, I am not arguing that Roman Catholicism is wrong either in doctrine or biblical interpretation on this particular issue. In fact, I would put it on my short list of three brands most likely to be favored by Jesus Christ if, indeed, he has a favored brand.
My arguments are simply that (1)Celibate priesthood is a tradition, not a doctrine and (2)It is always a mistake to combine ecclesiastical and political authority among men.
He means, as you know, Extraordinary Minister, but is ill informed.
Extraordinary ministers, for anyone who might be reading and does not know, were instated by the Navy, when the problem arose that at sea, sailors were unable to receive communion.
From there, we have come to, what I witnessed just this sunday, for instance, 15 Extraordinary Ministers bounce up to the Altar and take up about ten minutes to take Communion while we waited for them, then come up to the back of the church distributing as if it were melting sno cones. One woman’s hair was hanging over the Precious Blood, threateningly, another was wearing shorts. They are all clad in sleeveless. THe men wear shorts...with sandals. We have to see their toes.
We were not on a ship out at sea.
In another Church across town, the priest distributes Eucharist along with other deacons. On the tongue, with tinctured Precious Blood. The congregation kneels.
It takes less time to do this than what they do with all the silly people in the other church. There has never been a woman on that altar. Oh, the priest is married. Goes to the Vatican every other year. To see the Pope.
I sent a note to a priest just after the Boston bombing. this priest was one who ran toward the burning Twin Towers.
The reaction was to a story in the WSJ, noting that priests were prohibited from reaching the mortally wounded, to ensure their eternal salvation, last rites. They couldn’t get in as it was a crime scene.
I sent him the article, and he wrote me back. A very well published theologian. He said much of the problem is the lack of respect given to the Eucharist, traceable to the presence of Extraordinary Ministers in ordinary circumstances.
I attended a Catholic high school. Very affluent, if that could be considered elite.
The clergy was wild. There was a wonderful sister, a nun. She wore her habit. everyone else was clad in terrible polyester and bad comb-overs.
biggest illicit drug distribution center in a fifty mile radius of the Bronx.
I managed to make discerned judgements re people SYING they were Catholic.
I think sticking truth is VERY important. And here is the truth:
1) There is no mention of mandatory clerical celibacy in the Bible. This was a policy instituted much later in the Church for reasons relating to rampant corruption within the Church.
2) Only Jesus was conceived of Immaculate Conception in the Bible. No mention of other Biblical persons conceived this way.
3) Mary and Joseph had other children mentioned in the Bible.
As Sgt. Joe Friday would say, “just the facts, please”
Don’t make things up.
Saying they were Catholic.
There’s a difference. Duh
Mine are that:
1. Celibate priesthood is a discipline, well-founded in doctrine.
2. It is always a mistake to ask a man to be answerable to two competing interests.
OK, I’m gonna guess you went to Sacred Heart in Greenwich. Say no more.
Unintentional Irony Alert.
Well, point to, cut and paste, where I or the Church said that those tenets are in the Bible. You are arguing with nothing. I have no argument with this.
Nor does the Pope, if you glance at the headline, or, forbid, read the article, or the Catechism.
The Church, founded by Jesus, does not get all of its tenets form the Bible.
Plenty of people who prefer not to go along with that simply change religions.
Your protestant influences are making you follow, without thinking.
If you don’t like the Church, you don’t have to practice the Church teaching, so don’t.
But you will lead others to sin and misconception by stating that you are Catholic and then teaching a heretical idea.
And be careful, because those who are baptized Catholic and who receive the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are bound to be judged as Catholic on Judgment Day.
That’s true whether you want it to be or not.
Hot off the presses:
Pope Francis is open to change on the policy of mandatory clerical celibacy.
Not a big fan of this particular Pope, but I do agree the policy of mandatory celibacy should be open to change.
Same radius, same economics, not the very one.
For those who might be reading but don’t know, Catholic SSPX parishes avoid both problems you’ve described — communion carnival freakshow and orgasmic (married) priests.
I love my Church and have no intention of leaving it.
Fortunately not all Catholics think the same way on everything.
I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible Study class taught by a Catholic priest.
I agree with nearly all of what the Church teaches.
Some policies are not etched in stone and are subject to change as the Pope indicated in the article above.
I’ll take that as an admission that your historical representations about clerical marriage are fabrications.
Stanne is right: for the good of your soul you need to gain some integrity about either being a real Catholic or else leaving. We have to live in the truth.
OUr Latin Mass is one of a few, and it is not Pius X.
And it is so reverent. It is Roman Catholic. We take the trip when necessary, or desirable.
It is not outside the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or the Vatican/the Holy See, to be reverent at Mass.
Fact is the first 39 Popes at least were married men. Look it up in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
Few popes were truly chaste until more recently. Many kept mistresses and had affairs.
I love my Church, but let us acknowledge we are ALL sinners and are capable of making mistakes and errors-—and that INCLUDES the Church. It has made mistakes. We have had wicked popes and wicked priests-—and not in the too distant past especially here in the US.
The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is one of those things carved in stone. It is unalterable fact. If you wish, you may adhere to a theory that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are half-siblings, from a (hypothetical) previous marriage of Joseph. It’s not a well-founded theory however, in view of Biblical testimony to the names of both parents of the “brothers” of Jesus.
BTW, did the learned Catholic priest who taught you these heresies teach you also that ancient Aramaic refers to remote male relatives as “brother” because it has no word for cousin?
Finally, you do not understand what the term Immaculate Conception means. You should. It’s important.
What did I say which was incorrect?
Even the current Pope is open to changing the current policy.
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.