quote:

I agree that celibate priests are not a problem. I was merely commenting on the fact that your comment implied that some can, and do, perceive a problem with celibate priests in regards to counseling families.

I'm sorry, but I did not intend to imply a problem with celibate priests.
I'm merely open to the possibility of married priests in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I agree that celibate priests are not a problem. I was merely commenting on the fact that your comment implied that some can, and do, perceive a problem with celibate priests in regards to counseling families.

I'm sorry, but I did not intend to imply a problem with celibate priests.
I'm merely open to the possibility of married priests in the future.

Married priests are not a good idea. Priestly celibacy allows a man to imitate Christ more closely, devote himself completely to God's people, and become a living sign that eternal life with God is the ultimate goal of every Christian.

The problem in the church is the infiltration by Marxists and homosexuals; not celibacy. Fr.Perricone had a great interview on Pints with Aquinas recently in which he described the seminaries. Open homosexuality. Not just moving away from but hostility toward traditional Catholicism. Luckily, as mentioned before, there is a significant swing toward conservatism and traditionalism in the Church. Things are looking better.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

Married priests are not a good idea. Priestly celibacy allows a man to imitate Christ more closely, devote himself completely to God's people, and become a living sign that eternal life with God is the ultimate goal of every Christian.

While I agree that some folks who are celibate can use this to gain a deeper devotion, I have seen nearly the opposite side. Priest are human men, often alone and greatly tempted.

Raised Catholic, rural small town, alter boy... Priest also covered a nearby town. He had a severe alcohol problem and was forced to retire (he ultimately died in a house fire, where he left a candle burning).

His replacement was much younger and was a breath of fresh air. He ended up leaving the priesthood to marry someone.

After that, his replacement (I was not living in the area any longer) was 'living with his house keeper', well known in the small town.

I have always seen the idea of celibacy to be purely theoretical, not something that is a truly positive distinguishing ideal.

quote:

Married priests are not a good idea. Priestly celibacy allows a man to imitate Christ more closely, ...

Yeah, I can understand that, in theory... but as billpocz points out above, and I have witnessed as well, it doesn't always work out that way.

I can also understand why the church allowed married priests for about the first thousand years. I believe St. Peter was a married man. Perhaps he wasn't the greatest spouse as he was surely away from his wife much of the time.

What is the Roman Catholic position on the apostle Peter's marital status? It seems like there's disagreement among Catholics. I think it's clear from scripture, but I realize that church authority and tradition are what many/most Catholics go by.

I know it was said here that God didn't leave us a Bible, he left a church. But it sure would be nice for God to have given some sort of a book to refer to that gives qualifications for overseers (bishops) and deacons and if they can be married.

A question for all:

How do you define the word "ecumenism"? How do you define the motivations and goals of "ecumenical movements"?

There is more to the discussion, but I am curious as to folks' outlook on that initial prompt, before elaboration.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
... this is a perfect example of why the Church's authority is necessary.

Cous2492, after having at least skimmed through most of this thread and read some parts carefully, I believe I’m correct in believing that you have stressed the point about the importance of the Catholic Church’s authority several times.

Something that has caught my attention in several YouTube videos is the controversy surrounding the “SSPX” movement (if that’s the proper way of describing it). I haven’t tried to follow it in exhaustive detail, but I have watched most of a couple of videos that attempted to explain why its members believe that the current Pope and his followers are (literally) heretics. As I understand it, they believe that ever since Vatican II, and especially since the election of recent Popes, including Leo XIV, the Church hierarchy has abandoned, even corrupted, proper Church doctrine and practices to the point that Leo is a completely illegitimate occupier of the papal throne.

But without necessarily getting into a deep discussion of their position versus the position of Leo and most (some?) Catholics, my question is this: Is it possible to speak of the “Church’s authority” if understanding of that authority varies among people who strongly believe that their interpretation of Church doctrine is correct and others’ is deeply flawed and heretical?

Many scholars and even some religious leaders point out that if someone mentions the Bible’s authority, it’s possible to ask, “The authority of which Bible?” because of all the differences in the old manuscripts that have come down to us. That can also be a basis for appealing to and relying on the Catholic Church’s authority for the establishment of proper doctrine rather than the concept of sola scriptura.

If you choose to discuss my question, please understand it is prompted purely by curiosity, and not as a challenge to anything you may believe. It’s also not some sort of dishonest way of looking for support of why I am not a theist; none of the discussion in this thread relates to the reasons for my unbelief. That does not, however, lessen my interest in the topics.
As I’ve said before, I’ve learned a lot from this thread, and I respect the level of commitment you have shown to your beliefs. That’s why I’m posing the question to you.

Thank you.

KSGM, I think some of the issue with going to a non-married priest, is a problem for the member of the congregation.

I’m sure there are young priests who can speak with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But I also know it was easier talking to our retired pastor, a grandfather in his 80s, about family stuff than it would have been talking to our pastor, who is about the same age as I am.

(Being told “I’ve been a pastor for XX years,” - since I was a toddler, got me to open up to him.)

God created Eve, for Adam. And marriage was permitted to priests, for the first… 1400 years of the church?

TMK celibacy was a response to Rome’s corruption.

The response to the sexual abuse seems to show that it still suffers from significant levels of corruption- the current pope does seem to be actually trying to hold people accountable, to his credit.

quote:

controversy surrounding the “SSPX” movement

This is actually part of the motivation for my question concerning the meaning of "ecumenism".

An excerpt from a National Catholic Reporter article about the SSPX situation...

Among the "modern errors" the society noted was ecumenism, which it said was predicated on the "idea that the Holy Ghost would not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation."

The SSPX also rejected "the idea that non-Christian religions might reflect a ray of truth which illumines every man, or might be legitimate paths by which God positively leads men to salvation."

The first sentence indicates that SSPX members believe that a united Catholic church is the only means of salvation. I'd say it also indicates that they may hold that salvation is currently exclusive even to their organization.

I tend to mostly agree with SSPX on the second point. However, I wouldn't say that "rays of truth" can't be reflected in those circumstances. Can God? God can. I believe God can use all manner of paths to lead someone to the salvation found only in Christ. To deny the possibility is to deny the reality of salvation at all. Salvation is the point at which someone understands their need for Christ and trusts in Him as the only means of reconciliation unto the Father. Obviously, this can happen outside the Catholic or even broader Christian church. Logically it often does, and precedes attendance and participation in any sort of Christian congregation.

The way I understand it is the SSPX folks are of the Latin Mass persuasion. When we talk of continuing the traditions of the church fathers, as conveyed in the Apostolic succession, I think it's logical to perform Mass in a language known by the laity. I think it's safe to assume that meetings or worship services in the early church were conducted in a language known to most in attendance.

On the meaning of ecumenism:
I had long held it to mean something like ways we can soften doctrine without wholly compromising it, in an effort to appeal to the largely lost world. That is to say I considered it a dangerous method provoked by a genuine desire to see souls saved.

However, I recently began to see it in a different, and seemingly more accurate light. Defined now thusly...

Ecumenism is the principle and movement that seeks to promote cooperation, understanding, and unity among different Christian denominations. The ultimate goal of ecumenism is to repair historical and theological divisions so Christians can manifest greater visible unity.

It is still ultimately motivated by the desire to appeal to the lost and save souls, which is a great motivation. We all know that division in the greater Christian church is something that the secular world leverages against our credibility.

However, we need to proceed with caution and wisdom. Scripture makes it clear that ultimately only a minority will be saved. As much as we desire a great victory for Christ in the way of saved souls as a result of our zeal for evangelism, and perhaps ecumenism, we need to keep the truth in mind. It seems logical that ecumenical efforts could ultimately lead to the end times one-world religion. Some say Islam is poised to be that religion. Some perverted Christianity is just as likely. It seems, to me, that scripture makes it clear that if we start seeing an amazing unification and growth of Christianity, we should be potentially quite concerned because there is likely a lack of critical truth in it.

Oh, and concerning the SSPX' view on ecumenism:
I disagree with them. I do believe that the Holy Ghost will not refuse to use separated communities as means of salvation.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,