Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Plotting Nicea III Could Be Pope Francis's Masterstroke

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    Citing the Daily Beast is honestly, as close to blasphemy as you can get, without it actually being blasphemy.

    Still, I wonder if he will do anything about the various complaints of Vatican 2's "Dignatious Humanus" contradicting earlier Church teaching (As even he admits, it does)? That's pretty much the only major problem I have with that council.
    I studied various aspects of Dignitatis Humanae in at least 4 courses from my time at college (classes on Catholicism and Politics, The Second Vatican Council, Politics and Conscience, and a class on 1st Amendment jurisprudence). If you think Dignitiatis Humanae is problematic from a Catholic perspective, you're wrong... but that's not the topic of this thread, now is it?
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      I brought it up because it's relevant with regards to what Francis might do there. Maybe he wants to do something good like ending priest celibacy or banning gays from the priesthood, but I'm fairly skeptical.
      Why would ending priest celibacy be good?
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
        Why would ending priest celibacy be good?
        It brings us closer to the East, for one thing. It has pros and cons. If nothing else, a married priest's ministry is probably going to look a lot different than your typical celibate priest's work.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          It brings us closer to the East, for one thing. It has pros and cons. If nothing else, a married priest's ministry is probably going to look a lot different than your typical celibate priest's work.
          I don't think changing Church tradition to appease schisimers is ever justified. No matter how nice Pope Francis is to them, the fact is that he, and the Church, still knows that they are in the wrong. The same would be said by the Orthodox Churches, Jews, Muslims, ect.

          Pope Leo X was nice to the Jews, however he never changed tradition or doctrine to appease them.
          Last edited by TimelessTheist; 06-08-2014, 01:34 PM.
          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

          -Thomas Aquinas

          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

          -Hernando Cortez

          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            I don't think changing Church tradition to appease schisimers is ever justified. No matter how nice Pope Francis is to them, the fact is that he, and the Church, still knows that they are in the wrong. The same would be said by the Orthodox Churches, Jews, Muslims, ect.
            schismatics.

            It's not a part of the big-t tradition. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. There are married priests in the West (though they're rare), and there could be more. Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though-- it would mark a fundamental shift in the way we see the priesthood on a practical (but not theological) level.
            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              schismatics.

              It's not a part of the big-t tradition. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. There are married priests in the West (though they're rare), and there could be more. Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though-- it would mark a fundamental shift in the way we see the priesthood on a practical (but not theological) level.
              I know it's not a dogma, however, it is a tradition. It's meant to show discipline, and meant as a self-sacrifice to God. It is also meant as an eschatology sign of the eternal celibacy of the saints in heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

              They're not forcing anyone to take the vow, those who do so, do so voluntarily.

              Ordaining married men wouldn't be an appeasement, though
              Then why did you say "It would bring us closer to the East"? That seemed to imply such.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                I know it's not a dogma, however, it is a tradition. It's meant to show discipline, and meant as a self-sacrifice to God. It is also meant as an eschatology sign of the eternal celibacy of the saints in heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

                They're not forcing anyone to take the vow, those who do so, do so voluntarily.
                Ending the discipline of mandatory celibacy for secular priests certainly doesn't mean that this witness will be lost, and it doesn't mean that your parish priest will suddenly become an eligible bachelor. More likely, it means that married men who are already deeply engaged in parish life will have the opportunity to receive special pastoral training and priestly ordination, instead of just the permanent diaconate, which is open to such men in at least a few dioceses.

                Then why did you say "It would bring us closer to the East"? That seemed to imply such.[/QUOTE]

                I was analyzing reasons for discussing priestly celibacy in the context of east-west ecumenical dialogue. That's not to say that that is the only reason to end the discipline of mandatory celibacy, but it's one good thing that may come from it.
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  Why would ending priest celibacy be good?
                  Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.
                    So you're saying that you find the idea of the priesthood attractive, then?
                    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      So you're saying that you find the idea of the priesthood attractive, then?
                      No, I'd have to sing.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        Because it puts off normal men (this can be good but usually isn't) and attracts degenerates.
                        How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?
                        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                        -Thomas Aquinas

                        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                        -Hernando Cortez

                        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          No, I'd have to sing.
                          Not in Ireland.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                            How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?
                            I think he means homosexuals, and therefore a higher liklihood of ephebophiles,* those who prey on postpubescent but underage members of their own sex. This differs from pedophiles who are attracted to prepubescent children. The latter may not be any more common among celibte priests, but many suspect that priestly celibacy lived in isolation might engender some homosexual priests to engage in the former. I don't know if that's true but it makes some sense. In general, I would say that there does seem to be a higher incidence for personal and sexual immaturity among those attracted to a celibate priesthood. We try to weed them out but, especially with the crisis in vocations, some dioceases seem to be much less discriminating. I worry more about those who have no apparent sexuality than those who might be gay but mature and ethical. The option for marriage among diocesan priests is not a cure-all, but it is surely a move in the right direction in my opinion.

                            *I wish I did not know of such distasteful information, but, unfortunately, I learned about this from my experience living among celibate priests.
                            Last edited by robrecht; 06-08-2014, 02:44 PM.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                              How the hell does it "attract degenerates"?
                              You can get a high status job without having to fake normalcy with a sham wife.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I think he means homosexuals, and therefore a higher liklihood of ephebophiles,* those who prey on postpubescent but underage members of their own sex. This differs from pedophiles who are attracted to prepubescent children. The latter may not be any more common among celibte priests, but many suspect that priestly celibacy lived in isolation might engender some homosexual priests to engage in the former. I don't know if that's true but it makes some sense. In general, I would say that there does seem to be a higher incidence for personal and sexual immaturity among those attracted to a celibate priesthood. We try to weed them out but, especially with the crisis in vocations, some dioceases seem to be much less discriminating. I worry more about those who have no apparent sexuality than those who might be gay but mature and ethical. The option for marriage among diocesan priests is not a cure-all, but it is surely a move in the right direction in my opinion.

                                *I wish I did not know of such distasteful information, but, unfortunately, I learned about this from my experience living among celibate priests.
                                1) Well, yes, the post-pubescent pedophilia scandal was present in the Church during the sexual revolution. Then again, I would say the sexual revolution, leading to deviants infiltrating the priesthood, was responsible for that one, not priestly celibacy.

                                2) Unless you can actually find a correlation, I would say no. In the meantime, I could list a couple studies that shows there 'is' no correlation.
                                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                                -Thomas Aquinas

                                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                                -Hernando Cortez

                                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Physiocrat, 10-16-2017, 08:55 AM
                                59 responses
                                28,605 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X