Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Shaker

Catholics priests should be able to marry

according to Cardinal Keith O'Brien:

Quote:
Britain's most senior Roman Catholic has said he believes priests should be able to marry if they wish to do so.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien said it was clear many priests struggled to cope with celibacy, and should be able to marry and have children.

The cardinal will be part of the conclave that will choose the next Pope.


A couple of weeks after the current (but not for much longer) Pope's resignation, is it possible that there are some tentative nudges towards a more liberal and modernised Catholicism? I've always (justifiably in my opinion) accused the RCC of being at least a century behind GMT, and one cardinal's opinion does not a broad movement make. But is it possible that we might see some signs of a more modernised Catholicism?
Lexilogio

I hope so.
Paul

I doubt it. On the question of modernity, as with any Christian group the RC needs to address it but that is a world away from conforming to it. On the question of married priests no, the RC will never allow priests to marry (note that I am referring to men who are already priests). I can, however, foresee a day when they might adopt something like the practice of the East, which is the ancient practice of the Church. In the East married men are allowed to enter the priesthood but those who enter the priesthood unmarried must remain so (but then such are usually monks and so already bound to celibacy).
JamesJah

Some one was saying it is all down to expenses, a married priest would cost too much, then I always thought that church had plenty of stipend.

Do churches feel the pinch the same as their flock?
cyberman

JamesJah wrote:
I always thought that church had plenty of stipend.

Do churches feel the pinch the same as their flock?


MOst Catholic clergy don't get a stipend as such (Anglican-style), but depend upon income from within the parish. Typically, the Christmas and Easter collections form their income for the year. So they feel the pinch every bit as much as their flock. If you're the priest of a poor parish, then you are not going to get much income.

Their are other remuneration arrangements for some priests, but that is the typical parish priest's situation.

Married priests would require a different set-up, probably more like the anglican system, which is a factor in planning any such change.
JamesJah

So it is down to money then cyberman and not scripture, how sad.
cyberman

JamesJah wrote:
So it is down to money then cyberman and not scripture, how sad.


No. Changes in the financial arrangements would be necessary and so would have to be planned for if a change was to be implemented. That does not mean it is 'down to money'.
JamesJah

OK tin man which scripture would it be down to?

The one I find on this subject just says an overseer must be a husband of one wife, he just must cut back a little from the days norm.

1 Timothy 3:2-4
The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness;
Paul

It doesn't mean that such a person must be married, only that they not be married more than once.
JamesJah

No Paul they can only have one wife at a time, if one died there is nothing to stop them taking a second wife.

The Apostle Paul suggested celibacy would be a good idea for a full time servant of God but it was not compulsory.

1 Corinthians 7:37, 38
But if anyone stands settled in his heart, having no necessity, but has authority over his own will and has made this decision in his own heart, to keep his own virginity, he will do well. Consequently he also that gives his virginity in marriage does well, but he that does not give it in marriage will do better.

He also spoke for the woman.


1 Corinthians 7:39, 40
A wife is bound during all the time her husband is alive. But if her husband should fall asleep [in death], she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in [the] Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my opinion. I certainly think I also have God’s spirit.
cyberman

JamesJah wrote:
OK tin man which scripture would it be down to?

The one I find on this subject just says an overseer must be a husband of one wife, he just must cut back a little from the days norm.

1 Timothy 3:2-4
The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness;


What are you talking about? I never said the policy was sriptural.
cyberman

Paul wrote:
It doesn't mean that such a person must be married, only that they not be married more than once.


You are guessing that that is what it means. A findamentalist like James will not indulge in such a guess. The verse clearly says that he must be married.
Paul

cyberman wrote:
Paul wrote:
It doesn't mean that such a person must be married, only that they not be married more than once.


You are guessing that that is what it means. A findamentalist like James will not indulge in such a guess. The verse clearly says that he must be married.


No, it's not a guess of mine. Rather it is how the Church has always understood it which is reflected in its practice.
JamesJah

Must only have one wife as against the two or three that a Jew could have.

NOT he must have a wife..
cyberman

JamesJah wrote:
Must only have one wife as against the two or three that a Jew could have.

NOT he must have a wife..


How do you know that what St Paul wrote is not what he meant?

If he meant to say "must have no more than one wife" why didn't he say so? He said "must have one wife".

Are you a context and interpretation kind of guy when it comes to scripture? Me too!
JamesJah

Exactly keep within the context tin man, because what Paul next recommended, that some would do well staying as he was, , did he not?
bnabernard

Strange ole thing marrige, adam became two and then after that everybody is looking for their other half.

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

Hallow Bernard

Where have you been hiding?

Do most men today think the other half should like foot ball?

What do women think their other half should be like?
bnabernard

This skype thing seems to be giving me freeze problems,


bernard (hug)
JamesJah

Mine does not work properly yet either Bernard, which could be a good thing for some¿¿¿  
bnabernard

Yup, did you get my little ditty  

back to the board on marridge

If Adam was created neither male or female but both male and female then seperated to become two that are one, a soul mate, then it would have been natural for Eve to have twins when giving birth, (imo) so that the soul mates are identified as two but of one flesh.
It also follows that the angels, who it would seem are one flesh one flesh, could easily be tempted to procreate with this new found 'other half' given to man. (in fact there is quite a bit of deep thinking here that answers a number of problems)

However without the birth of twins given over to both sexes problems seem to arise about 'finding ones other half'?  

bernard (hug)
JamesJah

Yes I did Bernard, me I am still plink, plink, plunk,

On the other point you raised, I often wonder what prevents the spirits from materializing now; they are still able to impose their personalities on people easy enough.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum