Church must be open to change, say priests [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would respond to this with:

“Change? Absolutely! God is always calling His Church to change. Change from rebellious and sinful to obediant and holy of course. We’ve got to get holy or die trying!” 😃

🙂
 
Didn’t the Roman Missal just change?

:hmmm:

Now that’s Change you can believe in!
 
DaddyGirl said:
This priest isn’t exactly suggesting the Catholic church perform same sex marriages or anything.
The article doesn’t say what he means by “change”, does it?
(I couldn’t find any details, if so).
Click to expand...
Did you read the full article?
…Discussion topics are likely to include marriage and the role of women in the church…
Click to expand...
What would there be to “discuss” outside of the changes you say they aren’t suggesting?
 
DaddyGirl said:
Yeah, I read it.
And I quoted the same sentence you did in my post.
Changes in “marriage and the role of women” doesn’t necessarily have to only mean performing same sex marriages.
There are dozens of other topics on women and marriage that can be discussed, such as birth control, alter servers, divorce, annulment, deacons, the role of Mary, the wording of the marriage vows, the marriage rituals, more work in church hierarchy for women and girls, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...
birth control 🍿
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
I would respond to this with:

“Change? Absolutely! God is always calling His Church to change. Change from rebellious and sinful to obediant and holy of course. We’ve got to get holy or die trying!” 😃

🙂
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me ! 👍
 
DaddyGirl said:
Yeah, I read it.
And I quoted the same sentence you did in my post.
Changes in “marriage and the role of women” doesn’t necessarily have to only mean performing same sex marriages.
There are dozens of other topics on women and marriage that can be discussed, such as birth control, alter servers, divorce, annulment, deacons, the role of Mary, the wording of the marriage vows, the marriage rituals, more work in church hierarchy for women and girls, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
Click to expand...
Birth control is not open for discussion. It has been taught authoritatively by the ordinary and universal magesterium.
 
I recently visited someone I haven’t seen in 15 years, he is a respected professional, as I hope I am. The wonderful thing that we discussed was our growing faith among the professional community. I actually wanted to say “Praise the Lord!”. Our conversation was doing that instead of just saying it. We are using our high tech religion to praise and glorify Our Lord by showing how to apply the Gospels to today’s lifestyles.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Aren’t priests considered “mainstream clergy”?
This is an actual Catholic priest who said these words, non?

There are easily many nuances and aspects of NFP, just to use one example of what could be discussed under the topic of “the role of women and marriage”, that the Church could bring up for discussion for revising.
Click to expand...
Yes, priests are mainstream clergy. What’s your point? You were the one who said that a change topic would be birth control, and that NFP would fit into that subject (as if it’s “new”). No, not new.
 
DaddyGirl said:
My initial point–which is my only point, actually–was that it is fabulous that this priest is encouraging church officials to look at the subject of “the role of women and marriage” in the church.
Finito.

The rest evolved when someone wrote that there’s nothing under those topics that could possibly be discussed…so I gave a few examples of possibilities.

Not understanding why this Catholic priest suggests topics can be looked at again, and some say there is nothing that can possibly be talked about?
Discussion is good, not something to be afraid of.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately when a priest says role of women and marriage it is code for accepting gay marriage and women priests. If he meant otherwise he should o have clarified so as not to cause scandal. Every organisation has its own language, to get into a debate without understanding that would be naive to say the least.

liberals always want discussion and when they get there way it no longer can be discussed.
 
You see, my mind didn’t read that as gay marriage and female priests. I read it as more of a debate on whether or not priests should be permitted to marry. The number of priests in the Church is dwindling, and many believe there is nothing in the Bible that would actually ban a priest from marrying. Most of the apostles had wives and the priests in the early church were permitted to marry.
 
It seems to me the “fact” there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit a priest from marrying is not the issue. The issue is the Church’s tradition.
 
Priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, not doctrine. Eastern Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and now the Anglican Use/Ordinariate Parishes all have priests who are married, though none have married bishops.

Therefore, it seems to me that one can have varying opinions as to the wisdom having, or not having, this discipline. This of course implies that whether or not one agrees with the discipline as it currently stands, the acceptance of the decision of the Holy See on the matter is still binding in practice.

Peace,
 
knotanes said:
After seeing this and that nun on NPR today, I’m so irritated and sad for the faithful who remain, well, faithful.

I’ve tried so hard for years to get my whole family converted… not because I want to marry a Catholic man, not because I just want my kids in Catholic school, and not to please a family member who wanted me to convert. I’m trying to convert because it is the faith of my heart. I kneel during the Eucharist while others go up, as I have for nearly 7 years now.

To see religious people disrespect the Church this way breaks my heart and angers me more than I can properly articulate. Don’t they understand they are arming the enemies of the Church with their words and demoralizing their brothers and sisters?

Disgusting. :mad:
Click to expand...
What is disrespecting the Church? You think every saint was a conservative? You think Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, and Leo the Great were conservatives? You think Aquinas was a conservative?

Change isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Maybe the west should consider the married priesthood as an option. It would certainly help with lack of vocations. Regardless, they must do something to show people that they are sincere about being sorry for the scandals. Maintaining the status quo will not work. They lost most peoples trust, and telling everyone they are sorry isn’t gonna work to regain trust. Why should anyone follow and trust a church whose leaders are just as disgusting as the rest of the world (Consider that they did the exact same thing as Penn State)? Sometimes change is necessary, and retrenching will only make things worse.

Frankly, I don’t care what the bishops opinions are on anything if they don’t have the courage to make some changes to prevent any future scandals or to report them when they do occur. Why should I trust their opinions on issues like contraception if they are gonna cover up sexual abuse, and then make empty apologies?
 
Peter_habeo said:
It seems to me the “fact” there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit a priest from marrying is not the issue. The issue is the Church’s tradition.
Click to expand...
What is the Church’s tradition? The fact is that the eastern Churches allow married priests, which is the more ancient practice by far. The mandatory celibate priesthood is a development of the last millenium. It doesn’t go back to the early church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top