Were all the apostles married?

[PRmerger]

Chaste more than celibate.

This is also incorrect.

The chastity of a particular man is irrelevant to his ability to confect the sacraments.

The magisterium has made it clear that we need not be worried about any priest’s particular sinfulness/sinlessness in discerning whether the sacraments were properly confected.

If he is a priest, and has the faculties from the bishop, he can administer the sacraments, and his chastity, sinfulness, belief/disbelief will not affect us.

 

[PRmerger]

This is also incorrect.

The chastity of a particular man is irrelevant to his ability to confect the sacraments.

The magisterium has made it clear that we need not be worried about any priest’s particular sinfulness/sinlessness in discerning whether the sacraments were properly confected.

If he is a priest, and has the faculties from the bishop, he can administer the sacraments, and his chastity, sinfulness, belief/disbelief will not affect us.

More…

What friardchips was asserting–that it’s ESSENTIAL for a priest to be chaste in order to administer the sacraments–is the heresy of DONATISM.

A priest may be an adulterer, murderer, thief, drunkard…but it is no matter when he confects the Eucharist (and other sacraments). It is not he who is present during the sacrament but Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if he is incontinent, that doesn’t change the fact that his faculties to administer the sacraments are not affected.

 

[friardchips]

This is also incorrect.

The chastity of a particular man is irrelevant to his ability to confect the sacraments.

The magisterium has made it clear that we need not be worried about any priest’s particular sinfulness/sinlessness in discerning whether the sacraments were properly confected.

If he is a priest, and has the faculties from the bishop, he can administer the sacraments, and his chastity, sinfulness, belief/disbelief will not affect us.

Please state clearly the document which states your opinion as correct (in the RCC!). I will say why the RCC in a bit.

 

[friardchips]

More…

What friardchips was asserting–that it’s ESSENTIAL for a priest to be chaste in order to administer the sacraments–is the heresy of DONATISM.

A priest may be an adulterer, murderer, thief, drunkard…but it is no matter when he confects the Eucharist (and other sacraments). It is not he who is present during the sacrament but Christ.

So you are saying here that CANON LAW IS WRONG?

Please provide examples instead of making wild accusations.

 

[friardchips]

Even if he is incontinent, that doesn’t change the fact that his faculties to administer the sacraments are not affected.

Please provide evidence citing as such otherwise the content of your posts is conjecture only also. Until you do so.

 

[friardchips]

You haven’t proved anything apart from stating that you a Deacon!

 

[friardchips]

Also, going back to the subject of the difference between different ‘Churches’ (not Rites!), I think I am correct in understanding that St. Peter went to Rome, and from there, the Papacy continued. So while all ‘Catholic’ Churches may be in league with Rome, my assertion, despite you all being pedantic, that actually the Latin Church is the original Church and so too the original Catholic Church, is indeed correct. Even though the name Roman was a later addition.

Name some Popes who were not of the “Latin” Church, please…sounds silly, doesn’t it.

 

[PRmerger]

Please state clearly the document which states your opinion as correct (in the RCC!). I will say why the RCC in a bit.

From our Catechism
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm

This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Please note the bolded section (mine).

Whether the priest is engaging in chaste sex, unchaste sex, lying, stealing, drunkeness, or even if he doesn’t even believe in God, the sacraments are validly confected.

Ex opere operato.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying here that CANON LAW IS WRONG?

I am saying that there are exceptions.

Married priests in the Roman Catholic Church:

dwightlongenecker.com/about-fr-longenecker/
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WCRB.htm

 

[friardchips]

From our Catechism
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm

This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Please note the bolded section (mine).

Whether the priest is engaging in chaste sex, unchaste sex, lying, stealing, drunkeness, or even if he doesn’t even believe in God, the sacraments are validly confected.

Ex opere operato.

IN BOLD - out of context. Your posts talks about the power of a priest not being his own power but power attached to the Church from the source of all love.

The examples you have given are of excommunicated priests - there are specific rules applied for the licit administering of the Sacraments by those who have been formally excommunicated.

 

[PRmerger]

Please provide evidence citing as such otherwise the content of your posts is conjecture only also. Until you do so.

I already gave you the Catechism source.

Here’s the Council of Trent on Ex Opere Operato.

Council of Trent (1547): DS 1605; DS 1606.

Did you ever hear of the Donatists? They were heretics who insisted that some people needed to be re-baptized because the priests who baptized these folks were apparently sinful heretics.

The Church came down quite heavily on these Donatists and, ironically, called them heretics for asserting such a thing.

The sinfulness of a priest is irrelevant.

We don’t need to be worrying, as flock, whether the sacraments we receive are invalid because our priest had lustful thoughts, drank a bit too many cocktails, doubts the existence of hell, etc etc etc.

Thank goodness Holy Mother Church can give us the assurance: * there, there, child. Do not worry your pretty little head about whether your sacraments are valid. They are! Regardless of the sinful status of your priest. It is not about him anyway. It’s about Christ!*

 

[PRmerger]

IN BOLD - out of context. Your posts talks about the power of a priest not being his own power but power attached to the Church from the source of all love.

The examples you have given are of excommunicated priests - there are specific rules applied for the licit administering of the Sacraments by those who have been formally excommunicated.

Ex Opere Operato.

A standard paradigm for our Catholic faith.

 

[friardchips]

I already gave you the Catechism source.

Here’s the Council of Trent on Ex Opere Operato.

Council of Trent (1547): DS 1605; DS 1606.

Did you ever hear of the Donatists? They were heretics who insisted that some people needed to be re-baptized because the priests who baptized these folks were apparently sinful heretics.

Well, then I do not suufer their fate of heresy seeing as I did not mention getting rebaptised.

The Church came down quite heavily on these Donatists and, ironically, called them heretics for asserting such a thing.

Oh dear. Well, then they should have behaved.

The sinfulness of a priest is irrelevant.

It is not just sinfulness though is it, it is a way of life on the cards.

We don’t need to be worrying, as flock, whether the sacraments we receive are invalid because our priest had lustful thoughts, drank a bit too many cocktails, doubts the existence of hell, etc etc etc.

None of this is hardly the same as the state of living in sin.

Thank goodness Holy Mother Church can give us the assurance: * there, there, child. Do not worry your pretty little head about whether your sacraments are valid. They are! Regardless of the sinful status of your priest. It is not about him anyway. It’s about Christ!*

Maybe. But excommunication is more of an issue than a few sins which we wouldn’t know about anyway.

 

[friardchips]

Bar excommunicated priests, and the Ordinariate, or having away moved from the marital state, every priest from the RCC will be celibate. If anyone thinks there are examples of dispensations then feel free to cite them otherwise stop claiming things are in existence that you cannot prove. And furthermore, until anyone can state reasons for dispensation, then this is an abstract argument only.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, then I do not suufer their fate of heresy seeing as I did not mention getting rebaptised.

Try to think in the abstract here, chips.

We are talking about the ability of a sinful priest to confect the sacraments. Plural.

Are these not your words here below:

My opinion, and I’m sure many would agree, is that celibacy is absolutely essential for administering the Sacraments and so the heart-felt and truly well discerned option is to not be a priest if one intends to engage in physical union with another.

Do you wish to retract?

It seems pretty clear that you were talking about Sacraments, plural.

Do you not believe baptism to be a Sacrament?

So baptism, it seems, is part of the universe of discourse here.

 

[friardchips]

Try to think in the abstract here, chips.

We are talking about the ability of a sinful priest to confect the sacraments. Plural.

Are these not your words here below:

Do you wish to retract?

It seems pretty clear that you were talking about Sacraments, plural.

Do you not believe baptism to be a Sacrament.

So baptism, it seems, is part of the universe of discourse here.

Sorry, but this is nonsense, because again you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said rebaptised and I never said sinful (only in reiterating your own claim).

You are simply failing to answer my posts.

 

[friardchips]

As with all threads, when the posters doesn’t wish to admit their part in the confusion, the true purpose of content in any opposing post is either misinterpreted or diverted around. Maybe you don’t mean to, but it is a little annoying. So far, you have put words I did not say in my mouth, misinterpreting my angle in most areas, and continually ignored any sensible reasoning on a host of topics whilst providing less than satisfactory links.

One last time: We are not merely talking about the temporary sinful state - getting drunk on the odd occasion or whatever is sinful according to the position of the priest.

We are concerning ourselves with perpetual sin until confessed: cases for formal excommunication.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, but this is nonsense, because again you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said rebaptised and I never said sinful (only in reiterating your own claim).

You are simply failing to answer my posts.

You do understand now that the chastity/celibacy/continence/sinfulness of a priest is NOT ESSENTIAL to administering the sacraments, yes?

A simple yes or no would be satisfactory.

 

[adrift]

‘Catholic’ is an abbreviated form of ‘Roman Catholic’ or rather Roman Catholic is an extension due to opposition to Papal leadership ( papal service)…

No, (it is known to be) an abbreviated form of Roman Catholic, for the sake of evangelisation and being inclusive…

.

Incorrect I see very few churches although there are some with the adj roman in their names. From the article How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
Emphasis mine

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included. Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church.,
Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of**, many loyal Catholics **have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary “Christian denomination”–not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

The origin of the term Roman is from the Anglican circles so it is not surprising that the British dictionary would carry on with a dubious definition.