C
Chellow
Guest
If I am not mistaken but wasn’t some of the churches early bishops married, and if this is true can their not be some exceptions given to the Anglo-Bishops.
- Status
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
Now digitonomy you are scratching the bottom of the barrel, so I guess we have to leave it that we disagree.
I understand priesthood differently than you do. I understand priesthood as a divine initiative and requires divine call because of the nature of its labour. You see it as just another job with side benefits. Again sorry I understand priesthood far differently than you do.
Cheers from OZ
GraceAngel.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
That’s all it takes to get people back into Catholicism…the acceptance of women and homosexuals as equals within a faith community?
What a victory for the RCC!
What a victory for the RCC!
O
onetimeposter
Guest
…and a pension.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Instead of making assumptions about how I view the priesthood, and uncharitably implying that others don’t think the priesthood requires a divine calling and don’t want “a priesthood according to Jesus Christ,” can you please get down to nuts and bolts and spell out how your concept of priesthood differs from that of the Church, and why you don’t feel that the married Apostles and married Eastern and Latin Catholic priests can be considered members of the priesthood according to Jesus Christ. Or if I’m wrong about that, please set me straight - we are left to guess since you’ve so far refused to answer specific questions.
C
catharina
Guest
Rather, the victory belongs to Truth.That’s all it takes to get people back into Catholicism…the acceptance of women and homosexuals as equals within a faith community?
What a victory for the RCC!
Jesus Christ is the Truth.
That some can finally see the Truth and know the error of their prior faith is a great grace.
Since their prior beliefs came from error, those have led to more error.
What a wonder that people can leave those errors behind them forever.
Of course the RCC will welcome them.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
You must have been a riot back in junior high eh? You know…all those days of comments without much thought, they don’t reverberate as well in places like this though where more thought goes in to commentsThat’s all it takes to get people back into Catholicism…the acceptance of women and homosexuals as equals within a faith community?
What a victory for the RCC!
‘Acceptance of women’
- Clearly the 500 million catholic women didn’t notice !
L
Layman
Guest
Not sure what is going on with OneTimePoster:
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=90752
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1829167
forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=90752
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1829167
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
Again was Jesus Christ married?
GraceAngel.
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
further digitonomy Married priesthood, female priesthood, homosexual priesthood are not what our church calls for. Indeed both of these types of priesthood, stand on the outside of the ambit of authentic priesthood in the form of Jesus. Eunachs (priests) for the Kingdom.
Married priesthood, female priesthood, homosexual priesthood fails in its authentic understanding of priesthood because the true ordained priesthood acts as mediator between God and his people and between people and God. This priest’s work is the work of salvation. This priest’s works is the same as Jesus’ work. The authentic priest mirrors Jesus in all aspects of life. The church is the “bride” of christ (groom). The priest (in persona christi) is “groom” Therefore a married priest is in effect living with a wife, whilst maintaining another “bride” Does this sound adultrous to you.
Female priesthood is equally wrong because Jesus (male) is high priest (male) It is the male ness which conveys Jesus Christ. A female priest is in fact abberrant. Homosexual priest (sinful priesthood) cannot mediate between God and Man and offer God the sacrifice of His Son Jesus whilst proclaiming disordered sexuality GraceAngel.
C
Cobbfmly
Guest
Jesus choose a married man as the first pope!
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Thank you for spelling that out a little more clearly. So it appears you don’t consider several of the Apostles, and countless married priests of Western and Eastern Churches to be authentic members of the priesthood. Fair enough, I can respect that.
The concept that a priest should mirror Jesus in some respects is one that nearly everyone would agree with. But your declaration that a priest must mirror Jesus in all aspects of life is much bolder, and more interesting.
First, are there levels of authenticity? Does a priest whose life more closely mirrors that of Jesus possess more authenticity, or is it black and white; you’re either authentic or not?
Next, I’m curious about where you draw the line. Clearly a priest can’t duplicate every action and event in the life of Jesus. Tying back into this thread, could the national origin of the priest impact this? - an English Christian’s upbringing doesn’t mirror that of a Palestinian Jew very well. I think Jesus is believed to have generally been itinerant - that speaks well of a jet-setter like John Paul, but must a priest mirror that, or can one who never travels also be an authentic member of the priesthood?
I could ramble on with similar examples, but for now that probably illustrates the holes in my understanding of your approach.
P
piperspop
Guest
I’m new here, but it seems this got a bit off topic.
Here is the latest from ROME, if anyone is interested:
25th July 2008
From the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion
Subject: Unity with the Holy See
His Grace, Archbishop John Hepworth has released the following message to the College of Bishops, Vicars General and those assisting the TAC to achieve unity with the Holy See.
“My Dear Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,
It is my great pleasure to be able to attach a copy of a letter I received this morning (25 July 2008) from Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, via the Apostolic Nuncio in Australia. It is a letter of warmth and encouragement. I have responded, expressing my gratitude on behalf of “my brother bishops”, reaffirming our determination to achieve the unity for which Jesus prayed with such intensity at the Last Supper, no matter what the personal cost this might mean in our discipleship.
This letter should encourage our entire Communion, and those friends who have been assisting us. It should also spur us to renewed prayer for the Holy Father, for Cardinal Levada and his staff at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for all our clergy and people as we move to ever closer communion in Christ with the Holy See.
I am particularly thankful to the Cardinal Prefect for his generous mention of “corporate reunion”, a pathway seldom travelled in the past, but essential for bringing about the plea of our Master to His Father “May they be completely one”’.
The Traditional Anglican Communion
Archbishop John Hepworth
Primate
the letter:
themessenger.com.au/News/20080725.htm
Here is the latest from ROME, if anyone is interested:
25th July 2008
From the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion
Subject: Unity with the Holy See
His Grace, Archbishop John Hepworth has released the following message to the College of Bishops, Vicars General and those assisting the TAC to achieve unity with the Holy See.
“My Dear Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,
It is my great pleasure to be able to attach a copy of a letter I received this morning (25 July 2008) from Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, via the Apostolic Nuncio in Australia. It is a letter of warmth and encouragement. I have responded, expressing my gratitude on behalf of “my brother bishops”, reaffirming our determination to achieve the unity for which Jesus prayed with such intensity at the Last Supper, no matter what the personal cost this might mean in our discipleship.
This letter should encourage our entire Communion, and those friends who have been assisting us. It should also spur us to renewed prayer for the Holy Father, for Cardinal Levada and his staff at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for all our clergy and people as we move to ever closer communion in Christ with the Holy See.
I am particularly thankful to the Cardinal Prefect for his generous mention of “corporate reunion”, a pathway seldom travelled in the past, but essential for bringing about the plea of our Master to His Father “May they be completely one”’.
The Traditional Anglican Communion
Archbishop John Hepworth
Primate
the letter:
themessenger.com.au/News/20080725.htm
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
So I guess that means that the Pope should be married. Doesnt it?
We can have celibate priesthood and married Pope. Your reasoning seems to say that.
GraceAngel.
A
Aramis
Guest
It was good enough for the Apostles… both married and celibate men made deacons, priests, bishops, and even patriarchs.
There is no scriptural prohibition on married men in the clergy.
There is a longstanding disciplinary restriction on married bishops (ca 300 or so), and starting in about 600, continence by roman priests, and later celibacy.
H
Harmony1988
Guest
I guess you haven’t read too much in Scripture. Read St. Paul. There is nothing wrong with getting married, but it’s strongly recommended by St. Paul to remain celibate, for those who follow in similar footsteps to him, and most of his disciples (Jesus’) were just that, celibate.
Not to mention the problems now in reintroducing marriage for priests
Problems such as money issues, what’s to stop priests leeching money when they have family monetary issues and such. These things are topics that haven’t been fully solved, and won’t in the near future. Also priests are meant to be available to the general public who needs their pastoral care. Being a married man and a father is a big demand and also puts unnecessary strain on the priest when he has to live a double life.Many may think a priest is upto it, maybe some are, but the celibate priesthood is a full time job in itself.
What St. Paul taught:
newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
C
Cobbfmly
Guest
Dito. Also, I was not saying that the pope must be married. I was try to show that the claim that the priesthood according to Jesus is not necessarily a celibate priesthood, as Jesus included married men among the first priests. From these men he selected the first pope, who happened to be one of the married priest. If Jesus did not want to leave open the possibility of married priest, all the men would have been single men. Jesus did this with the sex of the priesthood. He did not select women to be among the first priest, thereby NOT leaving open the possibility of women priest.
The Church has said the Pope can allow some Latin rite married men to become priests (I believe the Pope approves all Latin rite married men that become priests). The Church has also allowed the other 20 rites in the church to ordain married men. To say that any of the men do not have the priesthood according to Jesus is to say that you, as a “Catholic”, know better than the Church. There are plenty of other people, who are “Catholic” that think they know better than the Church (i.e. birth control advocates, woman priest advocates, abortion advocates and homosexual activists).
C
Cobbfmly
Guest
These are valid concerns. Due to these concern, I believe that the Church is likely to continue allow married priest in the Latin rite on a case by case basis, rather than allow it outright, like the Eastern rites do.Not to mention the problems now in reintroducing marriage for priests
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
I thought “eunachs for the kingdom” was somehow realted. Oh goodness got that one wrong too
GraceAngel.
P
piperspop
Guest
Trying to get off the subject of married priests, what if the Vatican accepted an Anglican Rite Church, with its own discipline and order, which, at the highest level, their Primate, recognized the authority of the Pope?
This would look like the Maronite churches or the Greek Melkite-Eastern catholic Churches, with married priests, their own liturgy and property rules.
It would seem this would encourage more churches to be “united not absorbed” with Rome.
This would look like the Maronite churches or the Greek Melkite-Eastern catholic Churches, with married priests, their own liturgy and property rules.
It would seem this would encourage more churches to be “united not absorbed” with Rome.
- Status