Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Hans Kung's Open Letter
Topic Started: Saturday, 17. April 2010, 00:19 (4,280 Views)
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gerard
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 20:32
Quote:
 
And no response to your man Kung proven a heretic?


See post number 142 above.

Gerry
Quote:
 
Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Clare
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 18:20
Gerard
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 13:24
Compulsory celibacy was introduced for worldy reasons - to protect the church's money.


Evidence for this assertion, please?
I'm still waiting for this piece of evidence. Have I missed it?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Clare,

Here is some:

Quote:
 
Already in the sixth century, Emperor Justinian realized the danger of the property of the Church being alienated through the inheritance of priests’ children who were themselves not-priests. Thus he issued decrees which were the first steps towards obligatory celibate priesthood. He demanded that «a person who had children could not be a bishop, and a married cleric must live with his wife as with a sister» (cf J.M. Ford, ‘Celibacy’ in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology). In fact, Emperor Justinian was continuing, perhaps in a more diplomatic way, the efforts already visible during the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) to try to make celibacy obligatory among clerics.

The Gregorian reforms in the eleventh century on this question of priestly celibacy can also be partly understood in the same economic perspective.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_prob_en.html

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gerard
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 10:56
Clare,

Here is some:

Quote:
 
Already in the sixth century, Emperor Justinian realized the danger of the property of the Church being alienated through the inheritance of priests’ children who were themselves not-priests. Thus he issued decrees which were the first steps towards obligatory celibate priesthood. He demanded that «a person who had children could not be a bishop, and a married cleric must live with his wife as with a sister» (cf J.M. Ford, ‘Celibacy’ in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology). In fact, Emperor Justinian was continuing, perhaps in a more diplomatic way, the efforts already visible during the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) to try to make celibacy obligatory among clerics.

The Gregorian reforms in the eleventh century on this question of priestly celibacy can also be partly understood in the same economic perspective.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_prob_en.html

Gerry
Quote:
 
The law of celibacy has repeatedly been made the object of attack, especially of recent years, and it is important at the outset to correct certain prejudices thus created. Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matthew 19:12, Christ clearly commends those who, "for the sake of the kingdom of God", have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: "he who can accept it, let him accept it". St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35)


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 20:50
Clare
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 20:14
Yes, and Pope John Paul II declared that women's ordination isn't up for discussion, but that doesn't stop you discussing it, Gerry.
Pope John Paul II may have meant it was not up for discussion as a possible change.
That tends to be what discussion of it is!

I've not noticed that those who want to discuss it agree with the Church's teaching in the matter.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Gerard
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 10:56
Clare,

Here is some:

Quote:
 
Already in the sixth century, Emperor Justinian realized the danger of the property of the Church being alienated through the inheritance of priests’ children who were themselves not-priests. Thus he issued decrees which were the first steps towards obligatory celibate priesthood. He demanded that «a person who had children could not be a bishop, and a married cleric must live with his wife as with a sister» (cf J.M. Ford, ‘Celibacy’ in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology). In fact, Emperor Justinian was continuing, perhaps in a more diplomatic way, the efforts already visible during the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) to try to make celibacy obligatory among clerics.

The Gregorian reforms in the eleventh century on this question of priestly celibacy can also be partly understood in the same economic perspective.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_prob_en.html
So, it wasn't a case of the Church adopting celibacy in response to worldly pressure then.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 12:38
Rose of York
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 20:50
Clare
Wednesday, 18. August 2010, 20:14
Yes, and Pope John Paul II declared that women's ordination isn't up for discussion, but that doesn't stop you discussing it, Gerry.
Pope John Paul II may have meant it was not up for discussion as a possible change.
That tends to be what discussion of it is!

I've not noticed that those who want to discuss it agree with the Church's teaching in the matter.
To clarify:

Pope John Paul II may have meant ordination of women was not up for discussion at official level, by persons in authority in the Church.

Quote:
 
I've not noticed that those who want to discuss it agree with the Church's teaching in the matter.
I don't agree with Communism, fascism, atheism or materialism, but I discuss them.

Clare, you have discussed female ordination. You agree with the Church's teaching in the matter.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 14:09
Clare, you have discussed female ordination.
Only to defend Church teaching against those who reject it. Someone has to!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 15:31
Rose of York
Thursday, 19. August 2010, 14:09
Clare, you have discussed female ordination.
Only to defend Church teaching against those who reject it. Someone has to!
Clare
 
Yes, and Pope John Paul II declared that women's ordination isn't up for discussion, but that doesn't stop you discussing it, Gerry.


Now, now, Clare, you can't have your cake and eat it. Pope John Paul declared that women's ordination isn't up for discussion, but that doesn't stop you discussing it, Clare. ;) I am not aware of His Holiness having made exceptions for people who discuss it only to defend Church teaching against those who reject it. That puts you in a fix.

Agreed, someone has to, if you want to be obedient you'll have to leave it to the Pope.
:wh:
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Oh dear.... Lol! :wacko:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
It's a fair cop!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

If virginity is "the higher call" how come Our Lord made St Peter the rock on which our Church would be built? ;)
I think the clue is in the "everyone has their own proper gift from God" part, and the: "This is not given to everyone..."

Which is an indication that God has also selected some of His followers for marriage.

St Zelie, the mother of St Therese heard an internal voice when she first met her husband St Therese's father St Louis. It said: "This is the man I have prepared for you."

It is evident that God selects some to remain single while He quite clearly also has a Plan for others to marry.

He would also have planned for Sts Anne and Joachim to marry, Sts Elizabeth and Zachariah (a priest of his time) to marry, and so on throughout the whole of history, in order that certain babies critical to the salvation of the world may have been born...

St Paul had certain views on marriage, but we can see clearly from the above that marriage has also proven crucially important over the years, so we should never denigrate it as a second class choice. None of us should ever be made to feel ashamed of being either married or single because "everyone has their own gift". We cannot all be "this" and we cannot all be "that"; we cannot all be an arm and we cannot all be a leg - that is plain.

Isn't that obvious?? It makes perfect sense to me...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomais

Anatomical structures / endocrinological systems too may not be so very well defined " in utero"., and hence lead to some living confusions..
That being an observable condition - conditions.

AND I am not sneaking cross sexual activities in around any mulberry bush.

Most in these well described conditions lead difficult lives,at least in western styled cultures.

This of course raises that essential question,which is to be seen in ancient philosopical texts- "who am I"
Doubtless there are academic and pratising jesuit specialists who would offer an opinion/ opinions on this delema, for sure a delema it is when faced having a Higher leaving Certificate with excellent higher grades and thinking of entering a seminary, once of course having found one.
Finally,( yes) there may already be such examples in recorded church histories.
What harm?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply