Posted on 08/31/2013 3:38:44 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
“Vladimir, it was Manning, not I, who stated “I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness,” “
Again, you did not post what else Manning said:
“And from this a fourth truth immediately follows, that the doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive.”
"Screed" is an apt description, and he did not even make clear what his objection was so i could address it better.
“The problem is that the RCC will not let them be married and serve as priests at the same time.”
Maybe you should tell that to two priests I know. One is married with five kids. The other is married with three kids. They’re both former Protestant ministers who thankfully discovered the truth and became Catholics.
Looks to me like they do,P. In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. (CCC 1579-1580)
“Looks to me like they do,”
So much for your eyes then.
Gee, Religion Moderator, I’m sure you were just about to tell the author of post 162 that he is “making it personal,” like you did to me earlier, right? I’m just saying...
So the statement in the CCC “can no longer marry. means something different to you?
Both posts claim ambiguity.
“So the statement in the CCC “can no longer marry. means something different to you?”
Why do you care if they have chosen to not marry? To be ordained in the West, most men take a vow to not marry. That’s their choice. No one forces them to make it. Why is that a problem for you? Jesus chose to not marry. Does that bother you?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4X.HTM
1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72
1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
What does “can no longer marry” mean to you? Please don’t try to insult our intelligence by suggesting that the RCC doesn’t disallow those who have been ordained to get married. It’s rather plain that they don’t.
What does “can no longer marry” mean to you?
Well, it m,eans very simply the same thin g it always has, if you have a vow that prevents marriage, you “can no longer marry” - a prior marriage to a living woman, for example. Or a vow of celibacy. But that is not at all your claim, as it is IDENTICAL to the Eastern Church view. But you knew that, right?
What does “can no longer marry” mean to you?
Well, it means very simply the same thing it always has, if you have a vow that prevents marriage, “can no longer marry” - a prior marriage to a living woman, for example. Or a vow of celibacy. But that is not at all your claim, as it is IDENTICAL to the Eastern Church view. But you knew that, right?
And yet they try to twist it somehow to make it look like the RCC would allow those already ordained to get married but they “choose” not to. The obfuscation is stunning.
No twisting is taking place.
Truth conquers all.
In many dioceses formerly married Protestants ministers who had families, have become priests. If their wives should die, then they cannot re-marry. They understand that when they are ordained.
If a priest wants to marry, he has to leave the priesthood. I know a man that happened with.
The Catholic church would not allow him to remain a priest if he married.
So, no, the church does not really allow married priests.
If they were allowed, I would presume that people would be seeing them somewhere.
The requirement of celibacy is a man made construct not supported by Scripture. Of course, the whole concept of an official priesthood in the church is a man-made construct. Not referring to the priesthood of the believer, but as a separate clergy, unsupported by Scripture.
It is MUCH worse to be a blind follower of a religious institution that has as its primary demand to the "faithful" to leave reason at the door and just swallow whatever you are told as if Jesus, Himself, were speaking to you. I praise the Lord that He answered my diligent search for the truth by showing me by His holy word what the TRUE gospel of the grace of God was and rescued me from the false religious system that preached an accursed gospel.
This is not the first time this has happened, as RCs see what they want in both Scripture and elsewhere, and an apology is in order, but i have yet to see one.
I'd say don't hold your breath. Rarely does anyone see any effort towards speaking the truth in love and respect from certain people much less apologies when false accusations are made or when a broad brush is used to impugn and insult all those not in the same religion. The silver lining is that objective lurkers will see the contrast between abject nastiness because one has no better argument and those who sincerely put forth efforts to back up what they say with research and who present it without the accompanying viciousness and snark. Believe me, people DO notice and we shouldn't forget our obligation to the Lord to speak as we would have others speak to us. I appreciate the work you put into your posts.
I pretty much ignore the insults as feeble gasps of a dying argument, but I'll give it a try. I read that just as you presented it, daniel1212. It's pretty obvious that some of the dogmas and doctrines that the Roman Catholic Church had adopted by the time the Reformation began had NO ancient witness, NO scriptural basis and NO "unanimous consent of the fathers" to rely upon. That is the EXACT reason why Newman invented the Doctrine of Development in the first place. He had to think up some way to explain that what they claimed they believed and taught (what was always and everywhere believed) was undeniably false. The acorn growing into a mature oak tree was one of the metaphors he created to explain how the church needed to figure it all out over time.
That the Roman Catholic did not need to rest on antiquity, but instead could base his faith on whatever his infallible magesterium told him was the rule of faith, was seen as the way out of the legitimate and truthful charge of the Reformers. If the Catholic's faith rests upon his Church's "own supernatural and perpetual consciousness" rather than what was always and everywhere believed from the start, then this was all the wiggle room they needed to settle the issue (or so they erroneously thought).
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.