Scottish Cardinal Suggests Priests Should Marry

  • Thread starter Thread starter braidwood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RevDon said:
A married clergy would certainly pose economic problems for the church. In fact, it was because of the economics that celibacy was imposed originally.
Click to expand...
I thought it was primarily a means to gain control of bishop investiture (from the Holy Roman Emporer) and to put a stop to simony…one of several measures put in place by Hildebrand (Gregory VII) and other 11th century reformers.

Many of the reformers, I’ve read, were former monks, and put a high value on celebacy in its own right.
 
trapper1 said:
I thought it was primarily a means to gain control of bishop investiture (from the Holy Roman Emporer) and to put a stop to simony…one of several measures put in place by Hildebrand (Gregory VII) and other 11th century reformers.

Many of the reformers, I’ve read, were former monks, and put a high value on celebacy in its own right.
Click to expand...
And I would agree that a spiritualization of clergy was also, with the economic focus, part of that period’s reform.
 
RevDon said:
I am on the best of terms with my bishop, personally and theologically.
Click to expand...
CopticChristian,
Dex noted your propensity for ad hominem arguments. I feel this line of questioning is an attempt to use that tactic. I have given you a response because I have nothing to hide, but I think you are avoiding the direction of this string in asking those questions and have violated the spirit of this forum. Please address your comments to the question.
 
RevDon said:
Yes. Abandonment of family is a good thing for the sake of the Kingdom.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that I would agree with that. For example, there have been reports of complaints by women who have had to raise a child fathered by a priest without any support. Why would it be healthful for the child to be raised without a father?
 
Tomdstone said:
I am not sure that I would agree with that. For example, there have been reports of complaints by women who have had to raise a child fathered by a priest without any support. Why would it be healthful for the child to be raised without a father?
Click to expand...
that’s a cheap shot…

obviously that is wrong… (fathering children)

obviously priests are human… fallen… and subject to attack from the preying lions far greater than we can probably or possibly imagine,

i think we need to lighten up on the relentless attack on the priesthood…

again as with so many other things, what are the statistics…

60,000 priests in the u.s. … 97% no problem… that’s an A+…

we need to clean up and purge the 3%
 
RevDon said:
CopticChristian,
Dex noted your propensity for ad hominem arguments. I feel this line of questioning is an attempt to use that tactic. I have given you a response because I have nothing to hide, but I think you are avoiding the direction of this string in asking those questions and have violated the spirit of this forum. Please address your comments to the question.
Click to expand...
Don,

Dex unfortunately posts beyond his pay scale…

You have posted such things as

The mass is not historical
The Masoretic text
Future Church

While you say RevDon, you say you are a priest…it has happened that some post on this thread “as if”…

This is not ad hominen…just want to know where you stand…🙂
 
Coptic, and RevDon,

I did understand Coptic myself. He has a particular style of “interrogation,” shall we say. 😉 It’s very direct and meant to get specific answers so that he can structure a logical argument based on established facts. That’s all. I do not believe he meant it in a confrontational or uncharitable manner.
🙂
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Coptic, and RevDon,

I did understand Coptic myself. He has a particular style of “interrogation,” shall we say. 😉 It’s very direct and meant to get specific answers so that he can structure a logical argument based on established facts. That’s all. I do not believe he meant it in a confrontational or uncharitable manner.
🙂
Click to expand...
Elizabeth,

It is called “chunking down”…asking questions as I do…🙂
 
You see, folks? He’s even very direct with me, and I’m a friend. 😉
 
A good resource when discussing the topic of priestly celibacy might very well be the Vatican II document “Presbyterorum Ordinis” which speaks to the value of celibacy in the priesthood.

And , of course , it is always fruitful to seek out the wisdom of the Venerable Fulton Sheen in complex matters such as this. He wrote in his book " The Priest Is Not His Own " : " Consecrated virginity is the highest form of sacral or sacrificial love ; it seeks nothing for itself but seeks only the will of the beloved…God has allowed creatures to share in His creation…the ambassador of Christ ( the priest ) is called to another type of creativeness–he begets souls."

The real focus should always be on fidelity , rather than celibacy. That fact seems much too easily overlooked.
 
Tomdstone said:
I am not sure that I would agree with that. For example, there have been reports of complaints by women who have had to raise a child fathered by a priest without any support. Why would it be healthful for the child to be raised without a father?
Click to expand...
Please accept my apology, Tomdstone. I was being sarcastic. I do not believe abandonment of one’s family to be a good thing. A previous poster had cited the example of St. Peter as an Apostle who did that.
 
CopticChristian said:
Don,

Dex unfortunately posts beyond his pay scale…

You have posted such things as

The mass is not historical
The Masoretic text
Future Church

While you say RevDon, you say you are a priest…it has happened that some post on this thread “as if”…

This is not ad hominen…just want to know where you stand…🙂
Click to expand...
Historical would suggest appearing in history. I don’t deny that. What I claim is that in its earliest forms it was not what we would recognize as the Mass. For goodness sake, there are posters on this forum who would claim that worship in any form other than Pius X is not the Mass. I believe that the complex celebration that we call the Mass evolved from Jewish worship into a form that accommodated Gentiles in the first century and continued to evolve until it became the central focus of Christian worship. I also believe that in a living Church, it will continue to evolve. At its center it always was and always will be the sacred meal. But not every mention of bread in the New Testament is the Mass.

The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.

I am not aware of posting about Future Church. I don’t even know what that means.

It appears that you may be reaching above your pay scale. You have identified yourself as a medical professional. From the information in your posts, I would judge veterinarian. Why don’t you inform us of your professional qualifications so that we may see where you are coming from.
 
RevDon said:
Historical would suggest appearing in history. I don’t deny that. What I claim is that in its earliest forms it was not what we would recognize as the Mass. For goodness sake, there are posters on this forum who would claim that worship in any form other than Pius X is not the Mass. I believe that the complex celebration that we call the Mass evolved from Jewish worship into a form that accommodated Gentiles in the first century and continued to evolve until it became the central focus of Christian worship. I also believe that in a living Church, it will continue to evolve. At its center it always was and always will be the sacred meal. But not every mention of bread in the New Testament is the Mass.

The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.

I am not aware of posting about Future Church. I don’t even know what that means.

It appears that you may be reaching above your pay scale. You have identified yourself as a medical professional. From the information in your posts, I would judge veterinarian. Why don’t you inform us of your professional qualifications so that we may see where you are coming from.
Click to expand...
Don,

Post 60,

here is your post…
I think you’ll find this link very interesting
futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
Click to expand...
This is a link to “Future Church”…what was the purpose in posting this link, if you did not know what it had in it…you say you know nothing about the Future Church…this causes me to wonder about this posting…don’t you?

I appreciate your sarcasm and langour relative to the questions. I am satisfied with who I am and am able to satisfy any medical question you offer.

You asked this question, that on this thread is commonly understood as the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…OHCAC…and the Deuterocanonicals, as DC…perhaps as a priest you may not have known this…I had to pause at your not knowing this…
Sorry, I don’t get your acronyms. What do you mean by DC and OHCAC?
Click to expand...
you responded…honestly, I have never heard this and you point out something I should look into…
Is this what you mean?
The term deuterocanonical is sometimes used to describe the canonical antilegomena, those books of the New Testament which, like the deuterocanonicals of the Old Testament, were not universally accepted by the early Church, but which are now included in the 27 books of the New Testament recognized by almost all Christians. The deuterocanonicals of the New Testament are as follows:
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle of James
The Second Epistle of Peter
The Second Epistle of John
The Third Epistle of John
The Epistle of Jude
The Apocalypse of John (also known as the Book of Revelation)
I accept these.
What’s your point?
Click to expand...
When I see someone posturing for the Masoretic text, I think Protocanonicals and thus the questions.

Do you really think my preaching is that bad:shrug::cool:

take two aspirin and post on this in the morning…🙂
 
CopticChristian said:
Don,

Post 60,

here is your post…

This is a link to “Future Church”…what was the purpose in posting this link, if you did not know what it had in it…you say you know nothing about the Future Church…this causes me to wonder about this posting…don’t you?

I appreciate your sarcasm and langour relative to the questions. I am satisfied with who I am and am able to satisfy any medical question you offer.

You asked this question, that on this thread is commonly understood as the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…OHCAC…and the Deuterocanonicals, as DC…perhaps as a priest you may not have known this…I had to pause at your not knowing this…

you responded…honestly, I have never heard this and you point out something I should look into…

When I see someone posturing for the Masoretic text, I think Protocanonicals and thus the questions.

Do you really think my preaching is that bad:shrug::cool:

take two aspirin and post on this in the morning…🙂
Click to expand...
The Future Church posting is a chronology. I believe that the chronology cites facts that can be established by reference to individual documents, but in itself forms an image of a trend. I found this by googling and offered it, not to tout its source, but rather its content.
Do you have a license to preach?
I’m still mystified by the questions you posed that seem like a litmus test of orthodoxy.
 
[QUOTE said:
RevDon;10402228]QUOTE]
Click to expand...
RevDon,
The Future Church posting is a chronology. I believe that the chronology cites facts that can be established by reference to individual documents, but in itself forms an image of a trend. I found this by googling and offered it, not to tout its source, but rather its content.
Click to expand...
You posted nothing about the Future Church and when someone posts a link, I examine the content and if it strays or is unusual unusual thoughts come into my head about the person posting. I would suggest you point out your reasons for posting it. Mea Culpa.
Do you have a license to preach?
Click to expand...
You will not believe this, but I am a licensed minister…got it on the internet…official and everything…now you did not tell me if my preaching was that bad. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.
I’m still mystified by the questions you posed that seem like a litmus test of orthodoxy
Click to expand...
Just part of the mystical body you know and all members in that regard are somewhat mystical. You may not know that it has happened that these threads have people showing up and they say they are Catholic and are not, say they are Christian and they are not, say they are searching and they are not…just the nature of the thread…

You came on board in January…lots happens here…I understand your mystification…🙂
 
_Abyssinia said:
I am sure there are many great married priests but a married priest has a wife and perhaps children to be concerned about, and considering that, can they give themselves entirely to their vocation?

I am skeptical if it should be changed
Click to expand...
I’m with you…
 
RevDon said:
Please accept my apology, Tomdstone. I was being sarcastic. I do not believe abandonment of one’s family to be a good thing. A previous poster had cited the example of St. Peter as an Apostle who did that.
Click to expand...
And yet that is exactly what Christ expected of St Peter. Would you be sarcastic with Christ for asking that of Peter, our first Pope?

I can understand the human reaction to that…that it sounds like an awful thing to do… but that is in fact what Christ asked of his followers.
 
Lucky7 said:
And yet that is exactly what Christ expected of St Peter. Would you be sarcastic with Christ for asking that of Peter, our first Pope?

I can understand the human reaction to that…that it sounds like an awful thing to do… but that is in fact what Christ asked of his followers.
Click to expand...
Catholic Almanac states:
The wife of Peter is never expressly mentioned in the Gospels. St Jerome conjectured that she may have died early. Perhaps it is for this very reason that Peter’s mother-in-law, after her miraculous cure, was so busy and zealous in her work, serving the Guest, since there was no other woman in the house to see after the home affairs. Other commentators, however, propose that the “wife” of Peter should be understood as his “sister,” whom Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians mentioned as a servant of Peter, helping him on his apostolic journeys. Clement of Alexandria reported that Peter accompanied his wife even to martyrdom, exhorting and encouraging, “Remember the Lord!” Jerome also wrote about the growing children of Peter. Very specifically, the conversions of a daughter of Petronilla also related this. The actual account is to be found in the “Acts of the Martyrs Sts. Nereus and Achilles.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top