Francis-Bergoglio's Recent Appointee as His No. 2 Guy, Pietro Parolin
 Has Told a Newspaper of Communist-Socialist Venezuela
 That He and Bergoglio Are Contemplating Dumping
 Catholic and Apostolic Celibacy for Clergy
 "... because It Would "Reflect the Democratic Spirit of the Time"




 
 Francis-Bergoglio Chats with Monsignor Battista Ricca
 Whom He Appointed to Head the Vatican Bank

What do you mean, "gonna be"?

Paul the Sick never suggested for a minute that he wasn't (in his own mind), or didn't want to be, the Pope.

Quote from: Stephen Francis

What do you mean, "gonna be"?

Paul the Sick never suggested for a minute that he wasn't (in his own mind), or didn't want to be, the Pope.

Francis has yet to do anything as bad as Vatican II or taking away the Mass and replacing it with a sacrilege.

So far what he says/doesn't say and his actions/ inactions, just seem in line with Vatican II.  However, he does seem to be more obvious and he also seems to have done m a lot more questionable things in a shorter span of time than any of his predecessors.  The fact that his pontificate has just begun really worries me.  

As I mentioned on the other thread in "General", priestly celibacy would be the least of my concerns.  I'm more worried about his overall heresies.  Eastern Rites have always allowed marries priests.

I think this by itself wouldn't bother me, but I happen to believe that this is just another ecuмenical step towards the Orthodox.  In other words, this has more to do with pleasing (and making nice-nice with) another religion than making (disciplinary) changes that are best for the one, true religion.

As I mentioned on the other thread in "General", priestly celibacy would be the least of my concerns.  I'm more worried about his overall heresies.  Eastern Rites have always allowed marries priests.

You are aware that the Church permitted married clergy so that the Eastern's would not become fully Schismatic much before 1054 A.D. .  In fact from Nicea to the Schism of Photius most of the East during that period of time was in Schism with the Roman Church. Approximately 300 hundred of those 500+ years the East was in schism with the Pope. I will later post some dates and figures to prove my claim, but for now just take my assertion with a grain of salt until I present my evidence. So that this was more about not allowing the whole East to go Schismatic at a much earlier date then it did in reality at 1054 A.D.

The Council of Nicea said with the unanimous consent of the Bishops present, that celibacy was of apostolic origin... That means that this is not a matter of discipline, but doctrine despite what any liberal might tell you or argue.

The Canons of Council of Chalcedon surprisingly contradicted Nicea! Now of course the Roman Pontiff did not accept those Canons which the schismatics accepted as legitimate especially those dealing with "Married" clergy and the whole celibacy issue. Some will point out how in certain parts of Europe during the Middle Ages there were priest who had nepotism, several children outside of wedlock etc... So that for all practical purposes the priestly celibacy issue was totally ignored... Well the good thing when it comes to Catholic Dogma and Doctrine, is you don't need numbers to make your argument coherent. Just because certain individuals ignore the teaching of the Church, does not make it "right" even if it is in some cases a majority.

I hope that this makes the issue crystal clear for you, I would definitely not treat this as a non-issue. This would be another infallible way of knowing that the men seating in the Vatican are false claimants with zilch of authority over Catholics.

Just because celibacy as a recommendation has Apostolic origin does NOT mean that it was required.

Quote from: 1 Timothy 3

[2] It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, [3] Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but [4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. [5] But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

To say that allowing married priests would be an argument for sedevacantism is just plain silly.

The Council of Nicea was not "a recommendation" it is a unanimous opinion of all the Eastern Father's with the consent of the Roman Pontiff and on top of that it is well known how none of the Apostles went back with their wives after having met the Lord and went into the ministry. It was an Ecuмenical Council and all of its Canons were approved by the Roman Church, I simply can't see how you think its just a "recommendation." In addition to that St. Jerome writes in his commentary along with some other Fathers of the Church, how being the husband of one wife is understood "married to the Church." It was the opinion of the Father's that a Bishop should not move into other Diocese's and that is what was meant by "one" wife. I don't think I have read all of the Father's on that particular verse but might serve well is to look at St. Thomas of Aquinas Catena Aurea as a good starter. There has been bloody wars over issues lesser then this, and yes this would prove without a doubt the Sedevacantist stance.

If priestly celibacy was just Ecclesiastical faith, in fact one of the most ANCIENT proposed teachings from the Church. Stemming back to the Apostles themselves, and formally defined at Nicea. It definitely falls under several different categories for theological censures, but lets take the one that is least harmful for your soul... Heresy...

Msgr. Caterchini Theological Notes:
(b) Theological Note:    Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term:    De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation:    A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example:    The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition:    Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.

It is part of a Canon of the first Council of the Church, how is it not required? Please tell me whatever sophistry you might come up with that will defend a heretical opinion. I have already explained to you already, that the reason the Roman Church the mother and mistress of all Churches has authoritatively taught WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt that it is not disciplinary but to deny that would be a mortal sin against faith. There is a Novus Ordo "Cardinal" that wrote about this topic very well, I believe it was Fr. Stickler. I will later post his book as I don't have it scanned it might take me a while to quote the relevant parts of his book. Quite a masterpiece of a work I must say.

It is interesting how the Eastern Church believes that it can dissolve marriages, now this is not surprising to me because they already accepted heresy on the subject of priestly celibacy since they are both intimately connected. It is also interesting that even in the Eastern Church married priest are reduced to second class priest, the faithful generally go for spiritual direction and confession to the unmarried priest etc... That is the work of heretics and this was one of those big things that they were unwilling to budge on, so the Roman Church in its mercy permitted for the sake of their souls to have a very strict policy on married priest. It is well known that we generally discourage married priest, and that the % of married Eastern Rite priest are very few when compared % to the Orthodox. All of these things put together make it pretty clear that it was something that the Roman Church did out of Mercy and it was a concession to heretics.

Take the case of the Hussites particularly with receiving communion with both species, bread and wine. Now I just quoted to you that to deny this is Heresy against Ecclesiastical Faith. Despite that Rome permitted them to receive under both kinds because they would not budge on that one particular issue, so in order to prevent a GREATER schism it was permissible for the sake of their eternal souls to have special permission to do otherwise. This was also done at the Council of Florence with the Eastern's, this is something that is done especially when the root cause of the problem are a few propositions.

It is interesting to see how one heresy leads to many other's, because to deny ONE just one thing proposed by the Church leads to disaster:  

The distinctive tenet of the Hussites is the necessity, alike for priest and layman of Communion under both kinds, sub utraque specie whence the term Utraquists. Hus himself never preached Utraquism. During his presence at the Council of Constance, his successor in influence at the university of Prague Jacobellus von Mies, taking His stand on the Bible as the supreme rule of faith and practice in the Church, persuaded the people that partaking of the chalice was of absolute necessity for salvation, this being expressly taught by Christ: "Amen amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (John 6:54)

...Here Utraquism entered upon a new development. The priests of Austi, starting from the principle that the Bible contained the whole teaching of Christ, abolished every traditional rite and liturgy. There were to be no more churches, altars, vestments, sacred vessels, chants, or ceremonies. The Lord's Prayer was the only liturgical prayer; the communion table was a common table with common bread and common appointments, the celebrant wore his everyday clothes and was untonsured. Children were baptized with the first water at hand and without any further ceremony they received Communion in both kinds immediately after Baptism. Extreme unction and auricular confession were abolished; mortal sins were to be confessed in public. Purgatory and the worship of saints were suppressed, likewise all feasts and fasts. Such a creed accounts for the fury of destruction which possessed the Hussites.

...Among the Taborites, a new sect arose about this time. The priest Martin Loquis taught these rabid levellers of monasteries and murderers of priests that Christ was not really present in the Eucharist; consequently, that worshipping the sacrament was idolatry. Sacrilegious profanations became the order of the day. Proceedings were taken by the Utraquist authorities, advised by the university, against the innovators. Loquis and another were taken prisoners, dragged through the country, cruelly tortured and finally burnt in a barrel. His four hundred followers were expelled from Tabor. For some time they roamed through the country "as avenging angels", robbing, burning, and killing. Ziska, in disgust, had twenty-four (some say fifty) of the worst put to death by fire. The remainder, reinforced by some fanatical Chiliasts, formed a sect of Adamites subject to no law and possessing their women in common. Ziska surrounded them on their island in the River Nezárka and exterminated them to the last man (October, 1421). The summer of 1421 was employed by the Hussites in consolidating their new power. Successful expeditions penetrated to the northwestern border, burned more monasteries, killed more monks, priests, and inoffensive citizens; but here also they suffered their first serious defeat at the hands of Catholic knights and the troops of Meissen (5 August, 1421).

.... In 1431 a fourth crusade, sent by the unbending Martin V, entered Bohemia. The crusaders numbered 90,000 foot and 40,000 horse; they were accompanied by the papal legate and commanded by the Electoral Prince Frederick of Brandenburg. They met a strong army of Hussites at Taus. The wild war-songs of the enemy filled the soldiers of the Cross with uncontrollable fear; once more they fled in disorder, losing many men and 300 wagons of stores (14 August, 1431). After so many reverses the Catholics realized that peace was only to be attained by concessions to the Hussites. Advances were made by Emperor Sigismund and by the Council of Basle, which was then sitting. A meeting of the contending parties' delegates took place at Eger, where preliminaries for further discussion at Basle were agreed upon.

...The council, chiefly bent on safeguarding the dogma, consented to the following disciplinary articles, known as the Compactata of Basle:

    In Bohemia and Moravia, communion under both kinds is to be given to all adults who desire it,
    All mortal sins, especially public ones, shall be publicly punished by the lawful authorities;
    The Word of God may be freely preached by approved preachers but without infringing papal authority;
    Secular power shall not be exercised by the clergy bound by vows to the contrary; other clergy, and the Church itself may acquire and hold temporal goods, but merely as administrators and such."

...Judging by its results this was a step in the right direction. By degrees the Utraquists conformed to the Roman rites so as to be hardly distinguishable from them, except through the chalice for the laity. In the sixteenth century they resisted Lutheran inroads even better than the Subunists.

Now I quoted a lot so that others might be able to see, that the Church in Her wisdom saw that to safeguard from the heretics it made a concession... This was the same CASE as it was with the Eastern Schismatics at the Council of Chalcedon, most especially after the heretics Nestorius and Eutychius were bringing the entire East with them. So the Roman Church decided similarly to the case of the Hussites to make a concession for the good of their eternal salvation. However, notice how dogma was kept in tact and it was only a concession to a certain group for the hardness of their heart. The Church wisely knows that once they are in communion over time the radical tendencies will be kept in check and the novelty will cease to have its destructive effects. Even though the Eastern Rite Catholics can have married clergy the majority of them do not recourse to it, because it is generally discouraged. This is something that the Ecuмeniacs would complain a lot about the "pressure" the Roman Church would bring upon them about married priest. Also don't forget that Eastern Rite priest were not permitted to bring their family with them in the United States because of the scandal it would cause to the faithful, similar rules were put in place in other Western countries.

It is the talk of heretics to defend error, and although you might still believe in priestly celibacy that is how all errors start. Through the downgrading of Catholic doctrine as "unimportant" or "unnecessary." If you know your history of the Church well enough you can very easily detect the tendencies of heretics and the argumentation used before. That is why when you quoted the Letter to Timothy from St. Paul, you are using like the Protestants the Sacred Scriptures against the authority of the Church... Just like the Hussites would quote "Unless you eat the flesh..." against the Church... The Sacred Scriptures are a subset within tradition, which is both oral and written. The written is not greater then the oral and vice-versa it is the prerogative of the Church to decide matters that deal with faith and morals. The Church through her Council's, apostolic tradition and many other ways taught CLEARLY priestly celibacy is not just "recommended" but mandatory under pain of mortal sin. Just because it makes concessions to certain groups does not lessen any more its Universal teaching. Especially if you understand it from its historical roots and why is it that they did something like that.

+Pax vobis+

And the best argument, from a homeschooling mom:

Why I don't think the married priesthood is a good idea, in general.... I think a lot of parishioners would be judging the pastor and his wife's family size... too big ("why should what WE put in the plate go to support all those kids?!? Oh, and he tells US to use NFP?!?") or too small ("they must be contracepting! Well, if Father and his Mrs. can limit their family size that way, why not US?!?") I'd hate to see the pastor's marital intimacies subjected to such close scrutiny, but I believe this would be the case. In this day and age, THAT is what it would look like.

:)

Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:

'It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her: "O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God's will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.

But now I shall tell you God's will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself. You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circuмcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son's blessed Body.

For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jєωs, this had pleased him in the case of Jєωιѕн priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.
But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hateful to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jєωs had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself- namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.

After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.

And therefore, through God's preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body's blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death."'