Wow..... I can only hope this isn’t true

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConcernedConvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. I never directly called him anything. What I said is that it’s obvious that what is occurring contradicts past practices and teachings, which it does…
  2. I know I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. I understand the papacy and the limits of papal infallibility. Just because a pope makes a change doesn’t make it automatically correct. Unfortunately only time and future popes can determine that.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
Just because a pope makes a change doesn’t make it automatically correct. Unfortunately only time and future popes can determine that.
Click to expand...
But speaking in terms of “correct” on this issue isn’t the right way to frame the issue. If Pope Francis changes the discipline, that will automatically be correct because (1) priestly celibacy is not unchanging doctrine, and (2) the pope has the authority to make such a change.

Future generations might look back and say that it wasn’t wise or that it had negative effects. But it wouldn’t be “incorrect”.
 
Tabloids… Many of the (tabloids) have been factual. Obviously I will wait to see what officially comes out. Do you think the official document will actually be different than what is being reported here?
 
Mary888 said:
St. Peter was married!
Click to expand...
There is no evidence in the Bible that St. Peter was married at the time he met Our Lord. There is evidence that he had a mother in law at that time only. He may have been a widower and I think that his wife would have ministered to Our Lord when he visited and that this would have been recorded. The absence of such detail suggests to me that no wife was present and was the result of her being dead.
 
Mary888 said:
Holy Church Fathers such as St John Chrysosthom are with Pope Francis. Also celibate, all 3 of them, St. John admonished those who admonish married priests for being married.
St. Peter was married! Priestly celibacy is an offstretch of a situation that isn’t summed up too well with the amount of priestly sexual misbehaviors. Let us admit priests have their own temptations and being married helps.
PS last year when I came back to the Church if the priest wasn’t married I wouldn’t have trusted him. Too many cases of improper behavior, only an ordained married priest could be trusted in my case. Women gossip and the wife of an abusive priest would not be quiet. So yes, it takes a woman sometimes, just not up front but in the background.
The case against married priests is what sent me away from Card Sarah and made me realize that mysticism is not always revelation.
Click to expand...
I have known married priests. My son was baptized by one.

I appreciate the value of celibacy — not least because of 13 years of living it as a layman — but I do not oppose at least some priests being married. Married priests are already being “brought in through the back door” by convert ministers from other denominations being ordained as Catholic priests if they wish, and by the Eastern rites being once again allowed to have married priests in the United States — a fairly quiet liberalization, in that American Catholics, in the main, are only vaguely aware of Eastern Rite Catholicism, if indeed they are aware of it at all.

This comment may be disliked by some, but I have wondered if the sex abuse crisis in the Church could have been kept under wraps as long as it was, if celibacy had been optional, and if a significant percentage of priests had been married. Having the eyes of many heterosexual married men on the clergy in general, working beside them, could have acted as a strong disinfectant.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
What I said is that it’s obvious that what is occurring contradicts past practices and teachings, which it does…
Click to expand...
No, what you said is that it’s heterodox. I asked you if that was your position and you said yes.

It’s not heterodox.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
I understand the papacy and the limits of papal infallibility. Just because a pope makes a change doesn’t make it automatically correct.
Click to expand...
What you don’t seem to understand is the difference between doctrine and discipline.

There is no exercise of papal infallibility involved in allowed the ordination of married men.
 
“Pope Francis opens the door to “abolish” celibacy”

What a crock.

The Church for 2,000 yea;rs has had married priests. They are in the Eastern rites of the Church.

Celibacy was not abolished by such - they also have celibate priests.

The Roman rite has had married priests for about the first 10 centuries; celibacy was not abolished by that, as celibacy also goes back to the earliest Church - as well as married priests.

The Roman rite currently has married priests -from converted ministers of mainline Protestant churches - and that did not abolish celibacy.

That headline alone is enough to indicate the kind of chin chatter emanating from Life Site News, and is a prime example as to why they should be avoided.
 
Last edited:
I never take anything seriously from lifesitenews until it shows up in other more recognized catho!ic news sites…
 
Last edited:
Well, actually, you are picking and choosing which traditions and which definition (and by whom) you are defining orthodoxy.
 
Isn’t there a little bit of joy in your heart that the Catholics in the Amazon who don’t see Priests or receive the Sacraments for months and years at a time, may be receiving a wonderful gift from God by way of a solution? I do. When I first heard about the situation of isolated people and their lack of Sacraments, I felt instantly that this is intolerable in our day. It drives us to pray for a God given solution with urgency!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top