cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589 
|
Post by cibwr on Mar 17, 2013 8:09:35 GMT
]Yeah, I think instead of the papal scull cap we should have outrageous sticking up fans of hair! Now, has there ever been a Pope G'Kar...? Mmmmm Londo before or after he had his keeper? Now Pope G'Kar, Id vote for that.... |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 4, 2017 20:42:20 GMT
I was under the impression that at least one lot of defecting priests from the Church of England were allowed to be Roman Catholic priests whilst staying married. So the principle is established. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,714
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Nov 4, 2017 23:28:07 GMT
Yet again, a headline not reflecting the story. Far from requesting a discussion, he is asking for the Brazilian Boshops' Conference to give a valid reason for the discussion to be had.
He has actually been fairly conservative on this issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 16:59:04 GMT
Yet again, a headline not reflecting the story. Far from requesting a discussion, he is asking for the Brazilian Boshops' Conference to give a valid reason for the discussion to be had. He has actually been fairly conservative on this issue. Wheres the scriptural basis for preventing Priests from marrying? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 23, 2017 11:48:32 GMT
Yet again, a headline not reflecting the story. Far from requesting a discussion, he is asking for the Brazilian Boshops' Conference to give a valid reason for the discussion to be had. He has actually been fairly conservative on this issue. Wheres the scriptural basis for preventing Priests from marrying? There isn't one. The doctrine is based on church tradition. In terms of what the Bible says, 1 Timothy 3 says that Overseers (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" and talks about how they should manage their household, including their children. Titus 1 gives the same qualifications for Elders (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Priests). My understanding (though I'm not 100% certain about it) is that the Catholic practice that Priests may not marry developed in their doctrine of the mass, beginning with a requirement for priests to abstain from sex for a period prior to conducting mass, which then developed into a requirement for celibacy (and, hence, a ban on marriage). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 12:06:26 GMT
Wheres the scriptural basis for preventing Priests from marrying? There isn't one. The doctrine is based on church tradition. In terms of what the Bible says, 1 Timothy 3 says that Overseers (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" and talks about how they should manage their household, including their children. Titus 1 gives the same qualifications for Elders (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Priests). My understanding (though I'm not 100% certain about it) is that the Catholic practice that Priests may not marry developed in their doctrine of the mass, beginning with a requirement for priests to abstain from sex for a period prior to conducting mass, which then developed into a requirement for celibacy (and, hence, a ban on marriage). The early church always had a rather negative attitude to sexuality, as exemplified by St Paul's grudging attitude to marriage - 1 Corinthians 7:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn*.The Second Coming being regarded as imminent, it was better for the faithful to put aside fleshly desires and prepare themselves. We've now been waiting almost 2,000 years for the παρουσία and, as time went by, the Church became somewhat more positive toward marriage. However, it continued to be regarded as a second-best option, with celibacy regarded as the ideal. Celibacy for the clergy did not become absolutely mandatory until the second millennium. It is said that one reason was to prevent the development of clerical dynasties, or the looting of dioceses by bishops to enrich their families. This was not an idle fear - my own relatives include two early Protestant Archbishops of Dublin (Adam Loftus and Thomas Jones) who were accused of doing just that. *That is, to burn with frustrated lust, which is a distraction from the things of the spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 23, 2017 12:20:35 GMT
There isn't one. The doctrine is based on church tradition. In terms of what the Bible says, 1 Timothy 3 says that Overseers (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" and talks about how they should manage their household, including their children. Titus 1 gives the same qualifications for Elders (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Priests). My understanding (though I'm not 100% certain about it) is that the Catholic practice that Priests may not marry developed in their doctrine of the mass, beginning with a requirement for priests to abstain from sex for a period prior to conducting mass, which then developed into a requirement for celibacy (and, hence, a ban on marriage). The early church always had a rather negative attitude to sexuality, as exemplified by St Paul's grudging attitude to marriage - 1 Corinthians 7:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn*.The Second Coming being regarded as imminent, it was better for the faithful to put aside fleshly desires and prepare themselves. We've now been waiting almost 2,000 years for the παρουσία and, as time went by, the Church became somewhat more positive toward marriage. However, it continued to be regarded as a second-best option, with celibacy regarded as the ideal. Celibacy for the clergy did not become absolutely mandatory until the second millennium. It is said that one reason was to prevent the development of clerical dynasties, or the looting of dioceses by bishops to enrich their families. This was not an idle fear - my own relatives include two early Protestant Archbishops of Dublin (Adam Loftus and Thomas Jones) who were accused of doing just that. *That is, to burn with frustrated lust, which is a distraction from the things of the spirit.On the other hand, in Ephesians 5, Paul talks about how married couples should conduct their marriages, comparing the role of husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the church, and then says " This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (I'm quoting the ESV). There seems to have been all sorts of attitudes to both marriage (and the accompanying sex) and celibacy throughout church history, but I don't see the early church's view as being negative. Yes, in the passage you cite Paul clearly states that celibacy makes it easier to serve God, but his other comments on the matter have a positive attitude to marriage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 12:32:04 GMT
The early church always had a rather negative attitude to sexuality, as exemplified by St Paul's grudging attitude to marriage - 1 Corinthians 7:8-9King James Version (KJV)
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn*.The Second Coming being regarded as imminent, it was better for the faithful to put aside fleshly desires and prepare themselves. We've now been waiting almost 2,000 years for the παρουσία and, as time went by, the Church became somewhat more positive toward marriage. However, it continued to be regarded as a second-best option, with celibacy regarded as the ideal. Celibacy for the clergy did not become absolutely mandatory until the second millennium. It is said that one reason was to prevent the development of clerical dynasties, or the looting of dioceses by bishops to enrich their families. This was not an idle fear - my own relatives include two early Protestant Archbishops of Dublin (Adam Loftus and Thomas Jones) who were accused of doing just that. *That is, to burn with frustrated lust, which is a distraction from the things of the spirit.On the other hand, in Ephesians 5, Paul talks about how married couples should conduct their marriages, comparing the role of husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the church, and then says " This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (I'm quoting the ESV). There seems to have been all sorts of attitudes to both marriage (and the accompanying sex) and celibacy throughout church history, but I don't see the early church's view as being negative. Yes, in the passage you cite Paul clearly states that celibacy makes it easier to serve God, but his other comments on the matter have a positive attitude to marriage. from the Vatican website, may be of interest in clarifying the Catholic perspective on this issue (and, of course, before about 1520, all western Christians were Catholic). |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 23, 2017 13:09:36 GMT
On the other hand, in Ephesians 5, Paul talks about how married couples should conduct their marriages, comparing the role of husband and wife to the relationship between Christ and the church, and then says " This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (I'm quoting the ESV). There seems to have been all sorts of attitudes to both marriage (and the accompanying sex) and celibacy throughout church history, but I don't see the early church's view as being negative. Yes, in the passage you cite Paul clearly states that celibacy makes it easier to serve God, but his other comments on the matter have a positive attitude to marriage. from the Vatican website, may be of interest in clarifying the Catholic perspective on this issue (and, of course, before about 1520, all western Christians were Catholic). Interesting. Especially the way it tries to build a case that before priests were banned from marrying they were expected to abstain from sex within marriage whilst utterly ignoring 1 Corinthians 7:5 (which unambiguously tells married couples not to abstain for long periods of time). The article does confirm my initial comments that this particular Catholic belief is primarily derived from church tradition, rather than having a solid scriptural basis. Which I guess shouldn't be surprising given that this is an issue where Protestants universally disagree with Catholics. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,714
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Dec 23, 2017 17:14:43 GMT
Wheres the scriptural basis for preventing Priests from marrying? There isn't one. The doctrine is based on church tradition. In terms of what the Bible says, 1 Timothy 3 says that Overseers (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" and talks about how they should manage their household, including their children. Titus 1 gives the same qualifications for Elders (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Priests). My understanding (though I'm not 100% certain about it) is that the Catholic practice that Priests may not marry developed in their doctrine of the mass, beginning with a requirement for priests to abstain from sex for a period prior to conducting mass, which then developed into a requirement for celibacy (and, hence, a ban on marriage). Nope, nothing as prosaic as that. I will respond when I am not so busy. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,714
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Nov 7, 2021 19:24:28 GMT
Nope, nothing as prosaic as that. I will respond when I am not so busy. yes, it has been a busy time [/quote] Wow, I thought fht I had reponded to this at another time on another thread. Yeah, busy mind. |
|
dundas
Non-Aligned
Hope Not Hate is Lumpen MI5
Posts: 998
|
Post by dundas on Nov 13, 2021 21:54:52 GMT
There isn't one. The doctrine is based on church tradition. In terms of what the Bible says, 1 Timothy 3 says that Overseers (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Bishops) should be "the husband of one wife" and talks about how they should manage their household, including their children. Titus 1 gives the same qualifications for Elders (the New Testament office that Catholics equate with Priests). My understanding (though I'm not 100% certain about it) is that the Catholic practice that Priests may not marry developed in their doctrine of the mass, beginning with a requirement for priests to abstain from sex for a period prior to conducting mass, which then developed into a requirement for celibacy (and, hence, a ban on marriage). Nope, nothing as prosaic as that. I will respond when I am not so busy. To prevent Nepotism and/or Simony I thought. The Catholic Church wouldn't need a scriptural reason for any doctrine as solo scriptura is heresy, in any event. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 13, 2021 22:12:41 GMT
Nope, nothing as prosaic as that. I will respond when I am not so busy. The Catholic Church wouldn't need a scriptural reason for any doctrine as solo scriptura is heresy, in any event. Almost certainly, given what happened with Pope Alexander VI (Cesare Borgia). |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 4, 2023 3:07:54 GMT
Annuncio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam! (1939, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1978, 2005, 2013)
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 4, 2023 3:27:26 GMT
The voting figures in the election of the Pope are theoretically supposed to be secret, but inevitably they tend to leak out anyway. Wikipedia lists the voting figures reported for the first conclave of 1978; it is interesting that some of the figures are substantially different according to different sources. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1978_papal_conclave |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 4, 2023 19:33:00 GMT
Just out of curiosity, I googled “next Pope betting” and the first suggestion was www.olbg.com/blogs/next-pope-betting-oddswhich says: Peter Turkson (Ghana) 20.0% Oscar Maradiaga (Honduras) 16.7% Luis Tagle (Philippines) 14.3% Christoph Schönborn (Austria) 11.8% Raymond Burke (USA) 11.8% Angelo Scola (Italy) 10.0% Marc Ouellette (Canada) 10.0% Angelo De Donatis (Italy) 9.1% Timothy Dolan (USA) 7.7% Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy) 6.7% Odilo Scherer (Brazil) 5.9% but Maradiaga is 80, and Scola is 81, so I guess that the people betting (or updating the list) haven’t thought much recently about who it’s likely to be - and the list has got out of date. The second thing suggested by Google is www.thesportsgeek.com/blog/next-pope-odds-papal-name-odds/which says: +400 Marc Ouellet Canada +500 Luis Antonio Tagle Philippines +600 Christoph Schonborn Austria +650 Angelo De Donatis Italy +700 Peter Turkson Ghana +900 Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga Honduras +900 Raymond Leo Burke United States +1200 Peter Erdo Hungary +1400 Matteo Zuppi Italy +1400 Pietro Parolin Italy +2500 Timothy Dolan United States +2500 Gianfranco Ravasi Italy but I don’t even know what those numbers mean. Presumably “+400” means 4/1 (20%) or 3/1 (25%). |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 4, 2023 22:18:25 GMT
Annuncio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam! (1939, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1978, 2005, 2013) If only it were this easy to appoint a pastor. Maybe we should lock our deacons in the pastor's room until they appoint one. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 4, 2023 22:33:14 GMT
Annuncio vobis gaudium magnum: habemus Papam! (1939, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1978, 2005, 2013) If only it were this easy to appoint a pastor. Maybe we should lock our deacons in the pastor's room until they appoint one. Could be expensive though as you might have to take the roof off eventually.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,447
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jan 4, 2023 22:36:37 GMT
The title of this thread keeps making me think of the Blazing Saddles scene where Hedy Lamarr is trying to round up all the cutthroats/outlaws in the West for an attack on Rock Ridge and one man in the queue says his crime was rustling cattle, when told by Lamarr t'thats not much of a crime', he replies 'In the Vatican' to which Lamarr replies 'kinky'
|
|
greyfriar
Non-Aligned
Posts: 883
Member is Online
|
Post by greyfriar on Jan 4, 2023 22:46:30 GMT
The title of this thread keeps making me think of the Blazing Saddles scene where Hedy Lamarr is trying to round up all the cutthroats/outlaws in the West for an attack on Rock Ridge and one man in the queue says his crime was rustling cattle, when told by Lamarr t'thats not much of a crime', he replies 'In the Vatican' to which Lamarr replies 'kinky' It’s Hedley! |
|
