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 ...
When you start posting on threads about abortion, homosexual “marriage”, women clergy, and the rest of the moral absolutes that are not changing in the Catholic Church. When you start giving credit where credit is due, instead of only posting negative comments about Catholics, then YOU will start having some credibility.
Thank you so much, dear sister in Christ, I see the same in you!
I don’t.
I see Christ in you, dear BlueDragon!
~Matthew 5:44-45.
You need to get out more.....
Alamo:
Salvation was referring to the NT, the earliest NT writing was Saint Paul’s 1 Thessalonians written around 49-50AD. Salvation in the context of the NT is 100% correct. Saint John’s Gospel was not written till 90-95AD so the first 3 generations of Christians did not even see what would become the 27 Book NT canon. that is historically a fact.
Thank you for sharing your observations, dear CTrent1564!
Roger that.
The fallibility of infallible Popes is one of the reasons I became an evangelical Christian as a young man after 8 years of Catholic education and an upbringing as a Catholic.
I think Francis will have a positive influence on the world given his accessibility and transparency. I’m still not convinced, however, that he’s conservative enough, as most Popes are.
Infallibility only goes with matters of faith and morals. The two major infallible pronouncement (ex cathedra) have to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The Magisterium is also involved in some infallible truths about faith and morals. So it’s not just the Pope.
These interviews have nothing to do about infallibility.
Alamo-Girl:
Well, my speculation is your use of “dear” is pure patronizing, but again, I am only speculating. Your suggestion about me “sharing my observations” implies that I am making an observation that is a subjective evaluation of the discussion at hand. The only subjective evaluation would be “the context” that Salvation was making regarding the statements made, i.e., the New Testament. That was indeed an observation that could be incorrect. Maybe Salvation was not talking about the New Testament. Salvation can answer that directly if need be.
Now as for the historical dates and context of my post, [1 Thessalonians 49-50AD, Saint John’s Gospel 90-95 AD, etc] are you suggesting that I was incorrect?
She does it with almost everyone. It's just her style. Check out her posting history. A-G is anything but patronizing.
Your other observations are most likely projecting. Looks like you're reading way more into what she wrote than is warranted.
Unwind a little.
Dear CTrent1564, my reply was brief but appreciative because the issue had already been raised, discussed and answered. There is no need to debate it further.
metmom:
Well, I haven’t had the pleasure of Alamo pinging me before. If that is here style so be it.
The same could be said for you.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thanks.
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.