Pope Francis Raises Idea of ‘Solutions’ to Clergy Celibacy

[Katzndogz]

Wow...this Pope is shaking some shit up! He's rocking the joint and I'm loving it. Go Frankie Go!!!

Pope Francis Raises Idea of ‘Solutions’ to Clergy Celibacy

Pope Francis reportedly called the Catholic Church’s requirement that its clergy remain celibate a “problem” for which “there are solutions,” during a controversial interview with an Italian newspaper.​

Let priests marry, that's your solution.

A celibate Clergy is the result of the political situation of the late dark ages/medieval period. It allowed families to shunt sons into something that would support them, but prevent them from having progeny requiring inheritances.

If you think this will lead to other changes of position, I hate to dash your hopes. Positions against homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, etc are doctrines based on the bible. Celibate priests are not.

Francis is a traditionalist, he isn't going to be allowing the clergy to marry anytime soon.

If he's a traditionalist, he will let priests marry. Historically 39 Popes were married.

39 Popes Were Married!

History fully supports a married priesthood. For the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married.3 Celibacy existed in the first century among hermits and monks, but it was considered an optional, alternative lifestyle. Medieval politics brought about the discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Wrong again.

If you are an expert on New Testament textual criticism why don't you mention Q? Q is considered the source for Mathew and mar among scholars, not Mark.

Feel free to keep spouting nonsense though.

I could have worked the Q Gospel into my critique, but I was trying to keep it simple enough for slack jawed Red State morons to follow.

What is believed is that Matthew and Luke compiled their Gospels combining Mark and the Q gospel (which contains many of the sayings of Jesus which are not in Mark but are in Luke and Matthew).

But even if you accept that the Q gospel is real, then what you are saying is all the later gospels cribbed off of it, which proves my original point that none of the Gospel Writers had ever met Jesus personally.

If you had worked Q into your critique you would have proven yourself wrong, idiot. Mark is clearly different form Mathew and Luke, just like John is different from all three.

FYI, the person who is generally considered the author of Mark was in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus, and later became a disciple of Mark. Not to mention that very few authorities even try to argue that John was not written by John when he was in exile on Patmos. Not sure how that stacks up with your claim that none of the Gospel writers met Jesus, but I will let you deal with your misconceptions.

Maybe you should stick to arguing with idiots that don't have a Th.D. and actual knowledge of the subject, you might have a chance of scoring a point.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If you had worked Q into your critique you would have proven yourself wrong, idiot. Mark is clearly different form Mathew and Luke, just like John is different from all three.

FYI, the person who is generally considered the author of Mark was in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus, and later became a disciple of Mark. Not to mention that very few authorities even try to argue that John was not written by John when he was in exile on Patmos. Not sure how that stacks up with your claim that none of the Gospel writers met Jesus, but I will let you deal with your misconceptions.

Maybe you should stick to arguing with idiots that don't have a Th.D. and actual knowledge of the subject, you might have a chance of scoring a point.

Oh, you got a Doctorate in Horseshit from Talking Snake U and I'm supposed to be impressed? I'm not.

According to the Bible Text, Jesus was all alone in the Garden when He begged Himself not to crucify Himself.

The bigger problem, of course, is that Mark gets a lot of things wrong that a true resident of first century Judea wouldn't get wrong.





John's Gospel was the last one written. Written when the schism between the Jewish community and Christianity was irreconcilable. (Which is why the Author of John writes of "The Jews" negatively and in the third person.)

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,[4] although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris, and Martin Hengel[5] hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.[6][7]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

If you had worked Q into your critique you would have proven yourself wrong, idiot. Mark is clearly different form Mathew and Luke, just like John is different from all three.

FYI, the person who is generally considered the author of Mark was in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus, and later became a disciple of Mark. Not to mention that very few authorities even try to argue that John was not written by John when he was in exile on Patmos. Not sure how that stacks up with your claim that none of the Gospel writers met Jesus, but I will let you deal with your misconceptions.

Maybe you should stick to arguing with idiots that don't have a Th.D. and actual knowledge of the subject, you might have a chance of scoring a point.

Oh, you got a Doctorate in Horseshit from Talking Snake U and I'm supposed to be impressed? I'm not.

According to the Bible Text, Jesus was all alone in the Garden when He begged Himself not to crucify Himself.

The bigger problem, of course, is that Mark gets a lot of things wrong that a true resident of first century Judea wouldn't get wrong.





John's Gospel was the last one written. Written when the schism between the Jewish community and Christianity was irreconcilable. (Which is why the Author of John writes of "The Jews" negatively and in the third person.)

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many modern scholars conclude that the apostle John wrote none of these works,[4] although others, notably J.A.T. Robinson, F. F. Bruce, Leon Morris, and Martin Hengel[5] hold the apostle to be behind at least some, in particular the gospel.[6][7]

According to every account of that even he walked away from his disciples to pray, but they were with him when he was arrested. The author of Mark was one of those disciples that were there.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

According to every account of that even he walked away from his disciples to pray, but they were with him when he was arrested. The author of Mark was one of those disciples that were there.

Except none of the Gospels specifically names Mark. Including the Gospel of Mark.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[q

According to every account of that even he walked away from his disciples to pray, but they were with him when he was arrested. The author of Mark was one of those disciples that were there.

Except none of the Gospels specifically names Mark. Including the Gospel of Mark.

I don't recall saying that the Gospel said Mark was there, what I said is that the author of Mark was there.

Funny how you keep getting confused.

 

[Kondor3]

There is Francis' signature piece for his papacy... an end to clerical celibacy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is Francis' signature piece for his papacy... an end to clerical celibacy.

That would be popular in Western countries, but we are not the center of the church any more.

Why should this Pope alienate the Third World, where the real future is, in order to appease people who live in spiritually sick and degenerate societies?

 

[Kondor3]

There is Francis' signature piece for his papacy... an end to clerical celibacy.

That would be popular in Western countries, but we are not the center of the church any more.

Why should this Pope alienate the Third World, where the real future is, in order to appease people who live in spiritually sick and degenerate societies?

Hmmmmmm.....

Do you think that the Catholic Church, dropping its clerical celibacy rule, would offend, on such a scale, in the Third World?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There is Francis' signature piece for his papacy... an end to clerical celibacy.

That would be popular in Western countries, but we are not the center of the church any more.

Why should this Pope alienate the Third World, where the real future is, in order to appease people who live in spiritually sick and degenerate societies?

Hmmmmmm.....

Do you think that the Catholic Church, dropping its clerical celibacy rule, would offend, on such a scale, in the Third World?

As I understand it, the Third World has been getting the straight Catholic dogma for decades now, unlike most westerners who get much of the churches teachings distorted via ethnic leaders and media personalities. Take the spini on Vatican 2 for example, the western press portrayed it as the triumph of everything liberal., when it was not. Vatican 2 enabled the Third World conversion on massive scales by removing European cultural elements from the dogma and liturgy of the church. It was not wholesale revision as depicted in the press.

Third world Catholicism has to be compelling, provoking people to leave their native tribal religions, Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, etc and defend its own members against proselytizing efforts of other faiths as well. Western liberal concepts are very ecumenical by comparison and passive, avoiding the perceived sin of triumphalism.

I have talked to Christian ministers to Third World countries over the years and they all say that if they were as liberal as things in the West 'the Muslims would eat us alive.' as one minister put it.

The marriage of some priests might come but they would have to give up something in trade as a sort of a 'lesser' version of the priesthood or else simpler Third World perspectives would summarize the Catholic teachings they have been given up to now as 'lies'. Pope Francis knows this and wont risk the future in order to placate the church of the past.

 

[Kondor3]

That would be popular in Western countries, but we are not the center of the church any more.

Why should this Pope alienate the Third World, where the real future is, in order to appease people who live in spiritually sick and degenerate societies?

Hmmmmmm.....

Do you think that the Catholic Church, dropping its clerical celibacy rule, would offend, on such a scale, in the Third World?

As I understand it, the Third World has been getting the straight Catholic dogma for decades now, unlike most westerners who get much of the churches teachings distorted via ethnic leaders and media personalities. Take the spini on Vatican 2 for example, the western press portrayed it as the triumph of everything liberal., when it was not. Vatican 2 enabled the Third World conversion on massive scales by removing European cultural elements from the dogma and liturgy of the church. It was not wholesale revision as depicted in the press.

Third world Catholicism has to be compelling, provoking people to leave their native tribal religions, Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, etc and defend its own members against proselytizing efforts of other faiths as well. Western liberal concepts are very ecumenical by comparison and passive, avoiding the perceived sin of triumphalism.

I have talked to Christian ministers to Third World countries over the years and they all say that if they were as liberal as things in the West 'the Muslims would eat us alive.' as one minister put it.

The marriage of some priests might come but they would have to give up something in trade as a sort of a 'lesser' version of the priesthood or else simpler Third World perspectives would summarize the Catholic teachings they have been given up to now as 'lies'. Pope Francis knows this and wont risk the future in order to placate the church of the past.

Then again...

With some serious reform in the Catholic Church, with respect to clerical celibacy, etc...

The Church suddenly becomes far more viable in its OLD stomping grounds, as well...

I'm guessing that any 'departure from tradition' likely to rattle cages in the Third World, could be papered-over by pitching it as merely joining their Protestant collagues, or, better yet, returning to the way it used to be, during the earliest centuries of Church life...

Thus negating any progress made in the Third World, while re-energizing The Church in the West, and making it far more likely that an eventual rapproachment can be reached between The Church and some of its long-lost Protestant offshoots...

Maybe I'm just so intrigued by the idea of a very long overdue return to sanity, with respect to marriage for the Catholic clergy, that I'm seeing something that's not there...

Happens to all of us, every once-in-a-while...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hmmmmmm.....

Do you think that the Catholic Church, dropping its clerical celibacy rule, would offend, on such a scale, in the Third World?

As I understand it, the Third World has been getting the straight Catholic dogma for decades now, unlike most westerners who get much of the churches teachings distorted via ethnic leaders and media personalities. Take the spini on Vatican 2 for example, the western press portrayed it as the triumph of everything liberal., when it was not. Vatican 2 enabled the Third World conversion on massive scales by removing European cultural elements from the dogma and liturgy of the church. It was not wholesale revision as depicted in the press.

Third world Catholicism has to be compelling, provoking people to leave their native tribal religions, Hinduism, Islam, Protestantism, etc and defend its own members against proselytizing efforts of other faiths as well. Western liberal concepts are very ecumenical by comparison and passive, avoiding the perceived sin of triumphalism.

I have talked to Christian ministers to Third World countries over the years and they all say that if they were as liberal as things in the West 'the Muslims would eat us alive.' as one minister put it.

The marriage of some priests might come but they would have to give up something in trade as a sort of a 'lesser' version of the priesthood or else simpler Third World perspectives would summarize the Catholic teachings they have been given up to now as 'lies'. Pope Francis knows this and wont risk the future in order to placate the church of the past.

Then again...

With some serious reform in the Catholic Church, with respect to clerical celibacy, etc...

The Church suddenly becomes far more viable in its OLD stomping grounds, as well...

I'm guessing that any 'departure from tradition' likely to rattle cages in the Third World, could be papered-over by pitching it as merely joining their Protestant collagues, or, better yet, returning to the way it used to be, during the earliest centuries of Church life...

Thus negating any progress made in the Third World, while re-energizing The Church in the West, and making it far more likely that an eventual rapproachment can be reached between The Church and some of its long-lost Protestant offshoots...

Maybe I'm just so intrigued by the idea of a very long overdue return to sanity, with respect to marriage for the Catholic clergy, that I'm seeing something that's not there...

Happens to all of us, every once-in-a-while...

Responding to the liberal media in that way is counter-productive in the West as well, is my bet. Most conservative diocese that make heavy and strict demands on its young priests in entry criteria (not using psychologist evals any more), and the few lax seminaries are still largely empty. Liberal Catholicism is a failure, turning the faith against its own teachings and dogmatic framework of calling for SACRIFICE to atone for our SIN. This calls for the priests to make the parish members feel a little guilty now and then, and to set the example of a person who has made huge personal sacrifices themselves.

Married priests have always existed in the Catholic church, and the ones using church teaching as an excuse when essplaining things to their paramours are cowards, wanting to have their cake and eat it too. There are ways to get into the church as a married priest, or to get the education and service of a deacon while married. Plenty of priests have given up their roles in the church in order to be with a woman they loved, and there is no shame to it, but you might have to get a paying job.

And imagine the slap in the face to those priests who HAVE given up affairs with women they deeply loved in order to serve Christ. What does the church say to them? "Woops, well that was then, this is now?" That would be enraging if you ask me and liberals never really pay much mind to those who respect and obey the law because almost all of the real liberals I know violate the law on a regular basis; dope smokers, tax dodgers, adulterers, etc. In fact, my theory is that behind every liberal there is a law or vow or oath or moral principle trodden over.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

According to every account of that even he walked away from his disciples to pray, but they were with him when he was arrested. The author of Mark was one of those disciples that were there.

Except none of the Gospels specifically names Mark. Including the Gospel of Mark.

I don't recall saying that the Gospel said Mark was there, what I said is that the author of Mark was there.

Funny how you keep getting confused.

Yeah, when something is called "The Gospel According to Mark", i have some notion a dude named Mark wrote it.

 

[longknife]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again when the time has come.

I DO NOT believe in most organized churches and teachings from things written second or even third hand. There is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WRITTEN AT THE TIME WHEN CHRIST LIVED.

The closest they have are some documents kept in Rome that were reports from Judea and other areas that such a person of Jesus of Nazareth lived and had many followers.

The Old Testament is a similar document. Not even Orthodox scholars will say that is contents were actually handed down from the time of the events - except for the Psalms of David. And many of those were re-written when King James ordered the Bible re-translated and written in poetic form so the common people would seek to learn it.

 

[sealybobo]

Wow...this Pope is shaking some shit up! He's rocking the joint and I'm loving it. Go Frankie Go!!!

Pope Francis Raises Idea of ‘Solutions’ to Clergy Celibacy

Pope Francis reportedly called the Catholic Church’s requirement that its clergy remain celibate a “problem” for which “there are solutions,” during a controversial interview with an Italian newspaper.​

Let priests marry, that's your solution.

It is one of the reasons the Greek Orthodox left the Catholics a long time ago. That and they worship a Pope. We worship god not a Pope.

Oh yea, and how stupid is it they made those two popes into saints? Sure they were

 

[sealybobo]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again when the time has come.

I DO NOT believe in most organized churches and teachings from things written second or even third hand. There is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WRITTEN AT THE TIME WHEN CHRIST LIVED.

The closest they have are some documents kept in Rome that were reports from Judea and other areas that such a person of Jesus of Nazareth lived and had many followers.

The Old Testament is a similar document. Not even Orthodox scholars will say that is contents were actually handed down from the time of the events - except for the Psalms of David. And many of those were re-written when King James ordered the Bible re-translated and written in poetic form so the common people would seek to learn it.

Are you a Mormon? Because this is the Mormon's schtick. They say the link from when God talked to Joseph Smith to the leaders of the LDS church today has never been broken. So they still have the authority from God.

But the Catholics and all other Christians do not have that authority because it wasn't directly passed down from Jesus to the current leader of their churches today.

I may not believe god talked to Joseph Smith, but he is right about one thing. Jesus' 11 deciples didn't write the bible. It was written 80 plus years after Jesus by unknown authors. Completely made up.

Why do you believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again? If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn’t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?

If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow...this Pope is shaking some shit up! He's rocking the joint and I'm loving it. Go Frankie Go!!!

Pope Francis Raises Idea of ‘Solutions’ to Clergy Celibacy

Pope Francis reportedly called the Catholic Church’s requirement that its clergy remain celibate a “problem” for which “there are solutions,” during a controversial interview with an Italian newspaper.​

Let priests marry, that's your solution.

It is one of the reasons the Greek Orthodox left the Catholics a long time ago. That and they worship a Pope. We worship god not a Pope.

Oh yea, and how stupid is it they made those two popes into saints? Sure they were

No one worships the Pope, dude, and you obviously do not understand what 'making a person a saint' means. The members of the early church were ALL referred to as saints, so the word is used with a different meaning than its original meaning.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again when the time has come.

I DO NOT believe in most organized churches and teachings from things written second or even third hand. There is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WRITTEN AT THE TIME WHEN CHRIST LIVED.

And there is no such manuscript of any other ancient personality like Julius Caesar, Homer or Alexander the Great. So what?

The closest they have are some documents kept in Rome that were reports from Judea and other areas that such a person of Jesus of Nazareth lived and had many followers.

Which makes the life of Christ being a myth much much less likely as there is precious little time for that to evolve.

The Old Testament is a similar document. Not even Orthodox scholars will say that is contents were actually handed down from the time of the events - except for the Psalms of David. And many of those were re-written when King James ordered the Bible re-translated and written in poetic form so the common people would seek to learn it.

That depends on the 'scholar'. Modern textual critics are generally of the Frankfurt School of thought regarding history and culture, and for these people taking a hyperskeptical view of ones own faith and culture is a laudable thing that demonstrates veracity and integrity, when it is merely a different form of bias.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again when the time has come.

I DO NOT believe in most organized churches and teachings from things written second or even third hand. There is NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WRITTEN AT THE TIME WHEN CHRIST LIVED.

The closest they have are some documents kept in Rome that were reports from Judea and other areas that such a person of Jesus of Nazareth lived and had many followers.

The Old Testament is a similar document. Not even Orthodox scholars will say that is contents were actually handed down from the time of the events - except for the Psalms of David. And many of those were re-written when King James ordered the Bible re-translated and written in poetic form so the common people would seek to learn it.

Are you a Mormon? Because this is the Mormon's schtick. They say the link from when God talked to Joseph Smith to the leaders of the LDS church today has never been broken. So they still have the authority from God.

But the Catholics and all other Christians do not have that authority because it wasn't directly passed down from Jesus to the current leader of their churches today.

I may not believe god talked to Joseph Smith, but he is right about one thing. Jesus' 11 deciples didn't write the bible. It was written 80 plus years after Jesus by unknown authors. Completely made up.

Why do you believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and died so that we can rise again? If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn’t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?

If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.

roflmao

Those are the simplest quandaries regarding Christ that in the old days any school kid could answer.

You have zilch concept of the most basic assertions and axioms of Christian theology, nor do you apparently have any motivation to learn any of it before running your ignorant mouth about it.

Waste of time.

 

[Silhouette]

Well they know they've got a huge percentage of gays in their seminaries so 2% peds is no surprise.

They better figure something out before all those formerly abused little boys end up owning Vatican City.

Don't they already? Their group helped unseat the 1st Pope in 700 years last year. I'm surprised there hasn't been an official redaction of Jude 1 by now. Of course redactions are difficult after public education taught everybody to read. Runs in my mind that public education was a no-no. Probably for just the reason of unfettered redaction power..when convenient...or politically expedient...