Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says
CNA ^ | 6/13/2010

Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley

Vatican City, Jun 13, 2010 / 10:58 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.

“The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth,” proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. “One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.”

The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by “the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.”

“Therefore,” he continued, “priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.”

Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the “Act of Love,” was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and “continues to fuel our dialogue with God.”

The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized “the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.”

The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a “day of priestly holiness,” but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.

Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, “one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests.” These were inspired “only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.”

“So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart,” he exclaimed.

The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; priests
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,321-2,3402,341-2,3602,361-2,380 ... 2,421-2,436 next last
To: boatbums
Dear BB,I thought this was a very good post and you're coming very close to sounding Catholic :)

So the traditions Irenaeus spoke of are all found in the Bible, he even iterates what the truths were that the barbarians would be taught.

If you read the Bible alone you would not come to explicate wording for things like Infant Baptism,the Trinity, etc...

The ECF's were in agreement on these things and held councils to make them concrete and dogmatic after heretics challenged them and after Christianity was legalized by Constantine

Here are a few ECF writings on Infant Baptism and the Trinity

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

""Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,--a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods.” Pope Dionysius [regn. 260-268], to Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius' Nicene Definition 26 (A.D. 262).

Sola scriptura, to me, means that the scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrines of the faith and, on that, every early "church father" agreed.

This is not what they believed dear sister.They believed in the three legged stool-if you take one out the stool collapses-The three legged stool is Sacred Scripture,Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium(councils etc..)

Some examples...

"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).

" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

Again,dear sister,. The Early Church understood God’s Revelation is given to us in three ways: 1. The Scripture, God’s Word in writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God’s Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It is living in that it is practiced, thus we also call Tradition “living”. Sometimes, it takes the Church some self-examination to determine whether something is Divine or not. 3. The teaching office of the Church, the Magesterium. It is God’s desire that men are able to interpret God’s Revelation to us in Scriptures and Tradition. It is the responsibility of the Apostles’ successors to present this for belief to God’s People. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are from the same source, God.

You're posts does lead me to think you're on the right track. I will be praying for Our Blessed Lord to reveal more truth to you

I wish you a Blessed evening!

2,341 posted on 06/30/2010 6:30:35 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2247 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

corection
You’re posts = Your post


2,342 posted on 06/30/2010 6:32:12 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2341 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

If you feel like you just really really MUST have the last word, then you’ve had it, no problem, but I’m done with your endless nonsensical assertions. Tossing pearls in the mud and all that, you see.


2,343 posted on 06/30/2010 6:36:02 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2340 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; count-your-change
I am not all that confident in your knowledge of ancient historic Jewish inheritance laws, sorry. The genealogies that are quite prevalent in the OT - some people jokingly say that's all the OT has is the “begats” - sure sound like they are important. That they are included for Jesus, and no one else in the NT, sure imply they are important, too. They are not included just for grins, I am sure. Jesus had legal and genetic rights to the throne of David. That is why they were included.
2,344 posted on 06/30/2010 6:40:07 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2330 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
I don't think any true Christian, Catholic or not, would ever deny that the early church had certain traditions that were not specifically spelled out in Scripture. That they did not hold traditions in contradiction to scripture is what the point is. Irenaeus' quote I gave certainly spelled out specific PRIMARY Christian doctrine that he said even a barbarian - who couldn't read - would have illuminated to him through the Holy Spirit. These docrines are all from Scripture. His statement sounds a lot like what the Nicene Creed describes as well.

I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism. He said:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."

Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved. We are baptised in the Holy Spirit when we believe. Water baptism is an outward sign after this that a believer professes to be a follower of Christ and to rise up in newness of life. It is an outward sign of an inward condition, but the act itself does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ's payment for our sins.

I appreciate any prayers I can get so please feel free to lift them up for me anytime you feel led. I do for you. :o)

2,345 posted on 06/30/2010 7:15:23 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2341 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I am not all that confident in your knowledge of ancient historic Jewish inheritance laws, sorry

It's public knowledge. You are more than welcom to do your own research, but the New testament is not an authority on Jewish law. Jewish Encyclopedia is a good start.

That they are included for Jesus, and no one else in the NT, sure imply they are important, too

Sure they are. They were included to convince the Greeks, who knew nothing of Jewish laws.

You are forgetitng (or neglecting) that the New Testament was written for Greeks, not Jews. Those who knew Jewish custom and law (the Jews), rejected the whole Christian idea because it is as un-Jewish as Mormonism is un-Christian.

2,346 posted on 06/30/2010 7:56:14 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2344 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
STF quoted Irenaues-"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."

BB said-I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism.....Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved

Here is clear evidence that Blessed Irenaues taught Infant Baptism by water

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

So,you see the Church KNEW John 3:5 included infants and there is GREAT evidance of that because Saint Irenaues knew Saint Polycarp who was a direct Disciple of Saint John himself.Dear Sister ,when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.

We see UNITED continuation of infant baptism from other ECF's and Church coucils as well

Examples...

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" Origin(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema." Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418

2,347 posted on 07/01/2010 6:00:46 AM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2345 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; boatbums
Very good post SFA insofar as showing that the Church believed in infant baptism from the earliest. Apropos this, there are early 2nd century Roman infant grave stones which show inscription “Servant of the Lord [and the name of the infant who died]” indicating that they were baptized. The Protestants seem to think they understand not only the Christian scriptures better than the Church which selected them, but also better than the Jews understand their own. What a haughty and tiresome bunch they are!
2,348 posted on 07/01/2010 6:57:51 AM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2347 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Who put it there?


2,349 posted on 07/01/2010 12:46:21 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2323 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

What makes you think it was a “who?” Someone said “the Sun if falling” and the others, expecting a miracle, “saw” the sun “falling.”


2,350 posted on 07/01/2010 1:45:36 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2349 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Can you cite anywhere in the N.T. that speaks of infant baptism?


2,351 posted on 07/01/2010 2:22:32 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2347 | View Replies]

To: small voice in the wilderness

I don’t worry about my salvation. I trust in Christ’s Mercy.

I just don’t believe that Scripture can be ignored in regards to our actions as Christians. We have obligations, even as sinners, to live as He taught us.


2,352 posted on 07/01/2010 3:31:19 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (A loud band of PaulBots, Isolationists, Protectionists, 911Inside Jobnuts, 3rdParty Loud Irrelevants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2289 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
.Their doctrine also implies that the spiritual is of less benefit than the physical.

I came across an interesting passage today.

Rom.11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

IOW it is either by grace or it is by works but not both. I know where I fall. I recognized a long time ago that I can't possibly do enough to make up for all the sin I've committed. Thank you Jesus, without you I'm lost.

2,353 posted on 07/01/2010 4:12:14 PM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2312 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Can you cite anywhere in the N.T. that speaks of infant baptism?

Can you cite anywhere in the N.T that says Baptism is limited to adults ONLY and says never to Baptize infants?

Don't bother quoting me from the error filled KJV's or NIV's.

Infant Baptism was Christianity 101 to the early Christian's.It's much like the Trinity that is not spelled out EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It was a given because the early Christians taught it EXPLICITLY through Apostolic Tradition and we see it in the ECF's writings

Examples...

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

"[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." Origen, First Principles, 4:28 (A.D. 230).

2,354 posted on 07/01/2010 4:37:12 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2351 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
there are early 2nd century Roman infant grave stones which show inscription “Servant of the Lord [and the name of the infant who died]” indicating that they were baptized.

I did not know this ,thanks.

Where do you find this information and are there pictures of the inscriptions anywhere?

2,355 posted on 07/01/2010 4:40:33 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2348 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Mtt. 28:16, Jesus said to “make disciples” then the baptizing came. One has to be old enought o become a “discple” one who embraces the teachings another. In NO CASE in the Scriptures is an infant or very young child baptized.
Justin Martyr and Origen were NOT writers of Scripture.

Disciple first, baptize second.

2,356 posted on 07/01/2010 4:51:28 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2354 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Mtt. 28:16, Jesus said to “make disciples” then the baptizing came. One has to be old enought o become a “discple” one who embraces the teachings another.

Oh brother! What book are you reading and self interpreting? Matthew 28:16 says nothing of the sort.

From Matthew 28:16-20 Douay-Rheims

16And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Admit you're a modernist and move on.This topic has been discussed many times here and the Infant Baptize deniers lose every time.

2,357 posted on 07/01/2010 5:08:42 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2356 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Justin Martyr and Origen were NOT writers of Scripture

I posted Justin and Origin in Regards to the Trinity Do you deny the Trinity as well?If so,all I can say is what a mess of individualistic theology

2,358 posted on 07/01/2010 5:13:00 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2356 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Teach, make a disciple of, make a pupil, instruct, no infants. Want to try again? Matt. 28:19, 19, yes I hit the 6 instead of 9!!!

In no instance does the N.T. speak of infants being baptized.


2,359 posted on 07/01/2010 6:29:20 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2357 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
I believe it was in the book The Mass of the early Christians by Mike Aquilina, but I would have to look it up. Another one is this document http://www.redeemerfw.org/resources/infantbapt.doc, which logically argues that, since Christianity evolved from Judaism and since the early Church looked at baptism as a new circumcision, early Christians baptized their infants the way Jews circumcise them on the 7th day.

There is also this testament to ancient Christian infant baptism

A very compelling case can be made by the fact that even heretical Christians did not object to infant baptism and this was apparently the Christian practice no matter which Chrisotlogical or Triniatrian twist a particular Church took.

Thus, it can safely be concluded that infant baptism was and is part of the early Church and that there was no outwardly opposition to it by anyone except one recorded instance by Tertullian (160 - 215) because he believed that one is better off being baptized later on in life when they could avoid sinning (emphasis added):

Apparently, either apostles themselves approved of the practice or did not censure their (apostolic) successors for doing it. There is simply no record, no indication that any of the Apostles or Apostolic or Church Father or any Christian apologetic criticized infant baptism as contrary to what the Church believed everywhere and always.

2,360 posted on 07/01/2010 7:05:55 PM PDT by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,321-2,3402,341-2,3602,361-2,380 ... 2,421-2,436 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson