Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sriram on February 15, 2016, 09:03:32 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an interesting article about Pope John Paul II before he became a pope... and his relationship with a married woman. There are photographs of the pope in shorts at a camping site.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35552997
************
Pope John Paul II was one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century, revered by millions and made a saint in record time, just nine years after he died. The BBC has seen letters he wrote to a married woman, the Polish-born philosopher Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, that shed new light on his emotional life.
After her death, a huge cache of photographs was found among her possessions. We are used to seeing John Paul in formal papal clothing amid the grandeur of the Vatican, and yet here he is on the ski slopes, wearing shorts on a lake-side camping trip, and, in old age, entertaining privately in his rather sparse-looking living quarters.
When the two met in 1973, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla - as he then was - was the Archbishop of Krakow. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka was Polish by birth, and, like him, had endured the searing experience of the Nazi occupation during World War Two. After the war she left to study abroad and eventually pursued an academic career as a philosopher in the United States, where she married and had three children.
So the first hint of any real intimacy comes in a letter sent not from Krakow, but from Rome, where Cardinal Wojtyla spent more than a month attending a meeting of Catholic bishops in the autumn of 1974. He took several of her letters with him so that he could answer them "without using the mail", and writes that they are "so meaningful and deeply personal, even if they are written in philosophical 'code'".
Towards the end of the letter he adds that "there are issues which are too difficult for me to write about".
I have only seen one side of the correspondence - his letters to her - and it is, of course, sometimes impossible to know what the cardinal is referring to. But I have done some old-fashioned journalistic sleuthing, and I believe that at an early stage of the relationship - probably in the summer of 1975 - Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka told Karol Wojtyla that she was in love with him.
Carl Bernstein, the veteran investigative journalist of Watergate fame, was the first writer to get some sense of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka's importance in John Paul's life. He interviewed her for the book His Holiness in the 1990s.
"We are talking about Saint John Paul. This is an extraordinary relationship," he says. "It's not illicit, nonetheless it's fascinating. It changes our perception of him."
**************
Heart warming!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I heard that story on the news this morning. I am glad J-P2 had a significant other, even if their friendship was platonic. It was so sad that the Catholic Church expects their clergy to be celibate, UNLESS of course they are an Anglican priest who changes sides. I can't understand how they can accept a non celibate Anglican priest, but not allow their home grown variety to get married!
-
I heard that story on the news this morning. I am glad J-P2 had a significant other, even if their friendship was platonic. It was so sad that the Catholic Church expects their clergy to be celibate, UNLESS of course they are an Anglican priest who changes sides. I can't understand how they can accept a non celibate Anglican priest, but not allow their home grown variety to get married!
It's called a dodge, Floo ;)
-
Thomas Merton famously wrote of his love affair with a nurse in his journals. Such a stupidly wrong thing to expect and impose, celibacy.
Concelebration early. I stood there among all the others, soberly aware of myself as a priest who has a woman… Before God I think we have been conscientious and have kept our love good. Yet is it reasonable for me to be writing her love poems – even a song?
True as our love may be, we have to be perfectly realistic about it. Today especially I was thinking we must be realistic in our expectations for the future. There just is no real future for our love as a real 'love' affair. In heaven maybe we will be one. It is perhaps true that she loves me more than she ever loved anyone and that she wants to give herself totally to me for life. But we cannot do anything about it. I see clearly that we are both torn by contradictions… I see that I have to really 'love her' and not just love love or love her body. It is a training in realism and in love of 'the person' she is (a person inexhaustibly beautiful and lovable to me).
From Learning to Love.
-
I had some of the volumes of Merton's journals and remember reading about this.
An ultimately tragic business all round :(
-
Yes. Very much so. :(
-
And of course there is John Henry Newman's attachment to Ambrose St John; one that lead to them being buried side by side. That burial was, of course, disinterred in order to allow JHN's relics t be venerated more 'appropriately ' but the old chap had dissolved.
-
Thomas Merton famously wrote of his love affair with a nurse in his journals. Such a stupidly wrong thing to expect and impose, celibacy.
Concelebration early. I stood there among all the others, soberly aware of myself as a priest who has a woman… Before God I think we have been conscientious and have kept our love good. Yet is it reasonable for me to be writing her love poems – even a song?
True as our love may be, we have to be perfectly realistic about it. Today especially I was thinking we must be realistic in our expectations for the future. There just is no real future for our love as a real 'love' affair. In heaven maybe we will be one. It is perhaps true that she loves me more than she ever loved anyone and that she wants to give herself totally to me for life. But we cannot do anything about it. I see clearly that we are both torn by contradictions… I see that I have to really 'love her' and not just love love or love her body. It is a training in realism and in love of 'the person' she is (a person inexhaustibly beautiful and lovable to me).
From Learning to Love.
Men enter the priesthood freely knowing thr requirements. No one is forced to become a priest. One can freely leave the priesthood. Don't see the problem or what is "wrong".
-
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, ad-o.
-
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, ad-o.
I'm sure it doesn't. Maybe you can address my points and tell me why you think I'm wrong?
1. Isn't the priesthood entered freely?
2. Does not the person entering the priesthood know the requirements?
3. Isn't one free to leave the priesthood?
4. If the answer to all the above is "yes", what's the problem?
-
Men enter the priesthood freely knowing thr requirements. No one is forced to become a priest. One can freely leave the priesthood. Don't see the problem or what is "wrong".
Merely saying "Them's the rules" is no answer if a rule is a bloody stupid one in the first place.
-
Merely saying "Them's the rules" is no answer if a rule is a bloody stupid one in the first place.
Stupid according to whom? Purely subjective on your part.
-
I'm sure it doesn't. Maybe you can address my points and tell me why you think I'm wrong?
1. Isn't the priesthood entered freely?
2. Does not the person entering the priesthood know the requirements?
3. Isn't one free to leave the priesthood?
4. If the answer to all the above is "yes", what's the problem?
Many people feel called to the priesthood by God, or so I am told. So points 1 and 3 may not apply, at least not as far as they are concerned.
-
I'm sure it doesn't. Maybe you can address my points and tell me why you think I'm wrong?
Because by its approach it creates a pointless gender division and hierarchy that has been used by morons throughout the centuries to abuse and mistreat women, and in its treatment of sex as somehow dirty meant that people have suffered and died because of the dread of even talking about something akin to eating.
You, of course, will put this down to the activities of a mythological creature called Satan but then that would just underline how your omni god cannot even come up with a basic administration structure that doesn't lead to easy abuse by another one of his creations and which he is omnimax is all part of the grand plan and cannot be any different. So that abuse is his intention, his choice, his creation. He is a fatuous creation of dic kwads who wouldn't know logic if it had a twelve inch dic k stuck in the cesspools that are their minds.
-
People have feelings, and feelings change. A man can sign up to the priesthood honestly not expecting to fall in love and then find himself doing so quite unexpectedly. In Merton's case he had back surgery and fell in love with a nurse who cared for him. This cost both of them hugely.
Individual suffering and tragedy aside, what has to be remembered is that love, sex, intimacy and partnership are all part of the human make-up and we deny them at our peril. Yes, some will genuinely not have a need for them as a part of their make-up but most of us do. Priests are asked to deny that part of themselves and in doing so they shut off something that could enable them to do their jobs better, not just through a greater understanding of the lives of their parishioners but because having a fulfilling and loving intimate relationship brings out the best in all of us.
And this is without considering whether the screwed up attitude to sex and celibacy has led to some of the catalogue of abuse we have seen.
-
Stupid according to whom?
According to normally-constituted people who think that there's little enough love and the happiness it brings in the world as it is and that anything that puts barriers in its way is to be deplored.
-
People have feelings, and feelings change. A man can sign up to the priesthood honestly not expecting to fall in love and then find himself doing so quite unexpectedly. In Merton's case he had back surgery and fell in love with a nurse who cared for him. This cost both of them hugely.
The truly odious thing about the Merton business is that his obedience to his vows made not just one person desperately unhappy but two; it brought deep pain and grief not just to himself but to the nurse concerned. So chalk up an addition to the unhappiness of the world to the tune of two good people.
-
Stupid according to whom? Purely subjective on your part.
Stupid is essentially a subjective claim. As is 'right' in this context. I have no idea why you absolutists think playing the 'relativity game' helps you. It merely means you reduce all your attempts at objective claims to digital mush.
-
The truly odious thing about the Merton business is that his obedience to his vows made not just one person desperately unhappy but two; it brought deep pain and grief not just to himself but to the nurse concerned. So chalk up an addition to the unhappiness of the world to the tune of two good people.
Absolutely. And if he'd been an Episcopalian there wouldn't have been a problem.
What an utter mess.
-
Because by its approach it creates a pointless gender division and hierarchy that has been used by morons throughout the centuries to abuse and mistreat women, and in its treatment of sex as somehow dirty meant that people have suffered and died because of the dread of even talking about something akin to eating.
You, of course, will put this down to the activities of a mythological creature called Satan but then that would just underline how your omni god cannot even come up with a basic administration structure that doesn't lead to easy abuse by another one of his creations and which he is omnimax is all part of the grand plan and cannot be any different. So that abuse is his intention, his choice, his creation. He is a fatuous creation of dic kwads who wouldn't know logic if it had a twelve inch dic k stuck in the cesspools that are their minds.
Eh? If a man feels he cannot commit to celibacy then he obviously is not called to the priesthood.
-
People have feelings, and feelings change. A man can sign up to the priesthood honestly not expecting to fall in love and then find himself doing so quite unexpectedly. In Merton's case he had back surgery and fell in love with a nurse who cared for him. This cost both of them hugely.
Individual suffering and tragedy aside, what has to be remembered is that love, sex, intimacy and partnership are all part of the human make-up and we deny them at our peril. Yes, some will genuinely not have a need for them as a part of their make-up but most of us do. Priests are asked to deny that part of themselves and in doing so they shut off something that could enable them to do their jobs better, not just through a greater understanding of the lives of their parishioners but because having a fulfilling and loving intimate relationship brings out the best in all of us.
And this is without considering whether the screwed up attitude to sex and celibacy has led to some of the catalogue of abuse we have seen.
As I said, if a man cannot commit to celibacy then he obviously isn't called to the priesthood.
-
As I said, if a man cannot commit to celibacy then he obviously isn't called to the priesthood.
Doesn't work like that. A man is called, commits and then quite unexpectedly falls in love. It's no different from somebody marrying and making vows in all sincerity and then falling out of love, or in love with someone else.
-
Hi everyone,
1. The sex need is considered the most powerful (even more than hunger and sleep) of our basic urges. It directly links us to our animal past.....and among all those urges that we share with animals, sex is the most powerful.
2. Even many people who can control their eating and sleeping....find it difficult to control their sexual urge.
3. Sex has more of the mental element than the physical and out thoughts and imagination can contribute considerably to our sexual urge. This is another reason why controlling the sex urge is important.
4. Also, unlike hunger and sleep, sex can contribute to very powerful jealousies, anger, possessiveness etc. Even murder can be a result of strong sexual urges.
5. One might share ones last piece of bread with someone but no one will share his woman. If anyone shares a woman he is considered a horrible and brutal person.
6. Unlike hunger, sex involves the likes and dislikes, approval and disapproval of another person...so it needs to be kept in check more carefully. Rapes and molestation happen for sex...not for food.
7. Society has sought to control this very important animal urge through various ways. First through a system of marriage, then monogamy....and in special instances, celibacy.
8. We can see from our own lives that if a person eats too much we don't necessarily dislike that person (we even like such people often), but if a person is a sex maniac he is usually shunned as a pervert and a psychopath.
9. Controlling the sex urge is therefore a direct link to our civilized nature. It separates the human from the animal-like most significantly.
No wonder celibacy is considered an important sign of ones advancement from the animal nature.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Many people feel called to the priesthood by God, or so I am told. So points 1 and 3 may not apply, at least not as far as they are concerned.
Oh no more God as tyrant bollocks?
-
Doesn't work like that. A man is called, commits and then quite unexpectedly falls in love. It's no different from somebody marrying and making vows in all sincerity and then falling out of love, or in love with someone else.
Then such is free to leave the priesthood.
-
Hi everyone,
1. The sex need is considered the most powerful (even more than hunger and sleep) of our basic urges.
No...that would be the urge to post on message board forums.
-
Eh? If a man feels he cannot commit to celibacy then he obviously is not called to the priesthood.
And the prize for random non sequitur answer goes to ad_orientem. Whenever you want to approach within shouting distance of discussion, get back to me.
-
Hi everyone,
1. The sex need is considered the most powerful (even more than hunger and sleep) of our basic urges. It directly links us to our animal past.....and among all those urges that we share with animals, sex is the most powerful.
2. Even many people who can control their eating and sleeping....find it difficult to control their sexual urge.
3. Sex has more of the mental element than the physical and out thoughts and imagination can contribute considerably to our sexual urge. This is another reason why controlling the sex urge is important.
4. Also, unlike hunger and sleep, sex can contribute to very powerful jealousies, anger, possessiveness etc. Even murder can be
5. One might share ones last piece of bread but no one will share his woman. If anyone shares a woman he is considered a horrible and brutal person.
6. Unlike hunger, sex involves the likes and dislikes, approval and disapproval of another person...so it needs to be kept in check more carefully. Rapes and molestation happen for sex...not for food.
7. Society has sought to control this very important animal urge through various ways. First through a system of marriage, then monogamy....and in special instances, celibacy.
8. We can see from our own lives that if a person eats too much we don't necessarily dislike that person (we even like such people often), but if a person is a sex maniac he is usually shunned as a pervert and a psychopath.
9. Controlling the sex urge is therefore a direct link to our civilized nature. It separates the human from the animal-like most significantly.
No wonder celibacy is considered an important sign of ones advancement from the animal nature.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fasting is important. That and controlling one's sexual urges go hand-in-hand. Christians, especially western Christians, have forgotten the importance of fasting.
-
Then such is free to leave the priesthood.
And yet they feel called by God to be a priest and so they aren't free to do anything of the kind.
See the problem?
-
And the prize for random non sequitur answer goes to ad_orientem. Whenever you want to approach within shouting distance of discussion, get back to me.
No, it's not a non sequitur, it's the logical conclusion.
-
1. Alongside CAPITALIZATION
and
2. boldening
3. Numbering one's assertions makes them valid.
-
And yet they feel called by God to be a priest and so they aren't free to do anything of the kind.
See the problem?
As I said, there is no problem. Cannot commit equals not called.
-
As I said, there is no problem. Cannot commit equals not called.
You know this how?
-
No, it's not a non sequitur, it's the logical conclusion.
In what way did it address my post that your gender specific hierarchy with its fucked up attitude to sex has lead to people being mistreated because of their gender, dying because condom is a naughty word. Read the posts don't just speak your weight pablum.
-
Fasting is important. That and controlling one's sexual urges go hand-in-hand. Christians, especially western Christians, have forgotten the importance of fasting.
Yes...I agree. All religions insist on fasting too as a form of self control. These are all means of self discipline....that make us develop beyond our animal urges.
My point was that the sex urge is more powerful than even eating.....and also involves greater chances of causing harm. That is why it is more 'immoral' than even gluttony.
-
Yes...I agree. All religions insist on fasting too as a form of self control. These are all means of self discipline....that make us develop beyond our animal urges.
My point was that the sex urge is more powerful than even eating.....and also involves greater chances of causing harm. That is why it is more 'immoral' than even gluttony.
Sex is immoral? Really?
-
As I said, there is no problem. Cannot commit equals not called.
A distinct whiff of No True Scotsmanism hangs over this one.
-
I like a good fuck as much anyone but if anyone thinks it trumps eating as a desire, then they have never been starving.
-
I like a good fuck as much anyone
And to be fair, even the bad ones are still pretty good ;)
-
Yes...I agree. All religions insist on fasting too as a form of self control. These are all means of self discipline....that make us develop beyond our animal urges.
My point was that the sex urge is more powerful than even eating.....and also involves greater chances of causing harm. That is why it is more 'immoral' than even gluttony.
You are using apples and oranges here since you talk about the sex urge and gluttony. It would need to be the eating urge and the sex urge. That you do this is, I suggest, because you have an even more powerful urge, the illogic urge.
-
In what way did it address my post that your gender specific hierarchy with its fucked up attitude to sex has lead to people being mistreated because of their gender, dying because condom is a naughty word. Read the posts don't just speak your weight pablum.
The problem isn't what the Church teaches. If people practiced what the Church teaches there would be no problem. Not using a condom but sleeping around is not what the Church teaches.
-
I like a good fuck as much anyone
You need to keep up with my demolitions of Bluehillside and Shaker then. ;)
-
You know this how?
From personal experience. I once thought I was called to the priesthood. I very nearly entered seminary.
-
And to be fair, even the bad ones are still pretty good ;)
You know the more I read posts on here about sex, I think Woody Allen was wrong. The line 'Is sex dirty? Only if you are doing it right.'; needs 'doing it right' replaced with 'religious'
-
The problem isn't what the Church teaches. If people practiced what the Church teaches there would be no problem. Not using a condom but sleeping around is not what the Church teaches.
Does this mean you at least admit that your previous answer was a ridiculous non sequitur?
And why having done that, you now essentially quote mine and ignore institutional sexism that I raised first both times which has led to the church teaching chattelism of women through the ages.
-
Sex is immoral? Really?
If that is what you have understood after reading all my posts here...you have a problem. You are just understanding it the way you want to understand it (misunderstand it in other words).
The issue is about discipline. Indiscipline is immoral....in eating and more so in sex.
The entire emphasis is on discipline, regulation and control.
-
You need to keep up with my demolitions of Bluehillside and Shaker then. ;)
Where did this occur?
-
Where did this occur?
Every time you use your key board........................Back of the net.
-
Every time you use your key board........................Back of the net.
There's confidence and then there's arrant delusion.
-
If that is what you have understood after reading all my posts here...you have a problem. You are just understanding it the way you want to understand it (misunderstand it in other words).
The issue is about discipline. Indiscipline is immoral....in eating and more so in sex.
The entire emphasis is on discipline, regulation and control.
Except you, in your typically lesser developed way, have either been unable to understand Rhiannon, or chosen to lie about it, when she picked you up for your confusion between gluttony/eating urge. But I suppose given your lack of development, as a better developed being I should forgive you - but I think that bit of development is the next life but one.
-
From personal experience. I once thought I was called to the priesthood. I very nearly entered seminary.
I suppose it would have been a seminal experience.
Be that as it may or may it not be as it may be not, your own experience does not confer the right to extend it universally.
-
Dear ad o,
Help me out old son I am a tad confused about all this celibacy nonsense, in our few exchanges on this forum you seem to hold the Apostles in high regard, Peter, the guy who got the keys, the one who Jesus said,
Mathew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
He was a married man, he could appreciate a good mother in law joke, in fact I think quite a few Apostles were married, what's all the fuss about celibacy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ad o,
Help me out old son I am a tad confused about all this celibacy nonsense, in our few exchanges on this forum you seem to hold the Apostles in high regard, Peter, the guy who got the keys, the one who Jesus said,
Mathew 16:18
He was a married man, he could appreciate a good mother in law joke, in fact I think quite a few Apostles were married, what's all the fuss about celibacy.
Gonnagle.
https://www.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
https://www.youtube.com/?hl=en-GB&gl=GB#/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA
-
Does this mean you at least admit that your previous answer was a ridiculous non sequitur?
And why having done that, you now essentially quote mine and ignore institutional sexism that I raised first both times which has led to the church teaching chattelism of women through the ages.
Again, eh? I said Church teaching isn't the problem. There is no "institutional sexism".
-
Dear ad o,
Help me out old son I am a tad confused about all this celibacy nonsense, in our few exchanges on this forum you seem to hold the Apostles in high regard, Peter, the guy who got the keys, the one who Jesus said,
Mathew 16:18
He was a married man, he could appreciate a good mother in law joke, in fact I think quite a few Apostles were married, what's all the fuss about celibacy.
Gonnagle.
There have always been married priests. There question isn't can a married man become a priest. The answer to that is clearly "yes". The question is can a priest get married. The answer to that always has been "no".
If you can't immediately work out the difference, take your time.
-
Again, eh? I said Church teaching isn't the problem. There is no "institutional sexism".
So lots of women priests then?
-
There have always been married priests. There question isn't can a married man become a priest. The answer to that is clearly "yes". The question is can a priest get married. The answer to that always has been "no".
If you can't immediately work out the difference, take your time.
Ni, he's worked out the details, it's just the entire hatred of women that it is based on that with which he is having the problem. The huge throbbing, pulsing, ejaculating inability to deal with sex as normal rather than so dirty that you have a wanksock called Daphne into which you have spunked countless generations of potentials
-
So lots of women priests then?
No. Our Lord desired that only men be ordained to the priesthood.
-
Ni, he's worked out the details, it's just the entire hatred of women that it is based on that with which he is having the problem. The huge throbbing, pulsing, ejaculating inability to deal with sex as normal rather than so dirty that you have a wanksock called Daphne into which you have spunked countless generations of potentials
You many have convinced yourself that that's the case but as usual you're deluded.
-
You many have convinced yourself that that's the case but as usual you're deluded.
Ok, I admit it, your wanksock is called Scooby.
-
No. Our Lord desired that only men be ordained to the priesthood.
and the winner of the definition of 'institutionally sexist' award is ...
-
Dear ad o,
If you can't immediately work out the difference, take your time.
Aye, yer a funny man, but then I am forgetting it is old ad orientem I am conversing with, the man who would never challenge his Church or the way it thinks.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ad o,
Aye, yer a funny man, but then I am forgetting it is old ad orientem I am conversing with, the man who would never challenge his Church or the way it thinks.
Gonnagle.
You did see the distnction, did you not? Married men have always been accepted into the priesthood but single men who enter the priesthood many no longer marry. This is still the practice in the East.
-
You did see the distnction, did you not? Married men have always been accepted into the priesthood but single men who enter the priesthood many no longer marry. This is still the practice in the East.
'The previous week a Cleese sketch had been broadcast in which accountancy was ridiculed as a boring, soul- destroying profession. When Cleese asked the accountant if he had minded the sketch, he looked blank and asked why he should have. Because it poked fun at accountants, explained Cleese. "Oh no," smiled the accountant, "you see, the man in the sketch was a Chartered accountant, and I'm Certified."
-
Zzzz!
-
Zzzz!
is that you expressing the attitude after another big load into Scooby?
-
What?
-
What?
Sane's posts always end up with his opponents shooting their load.......
He's a more developed person after all.
I can always see it "cumming" though.
-
What?
your wanksock. You know, your version of the Miller-Urey experiment, just waiting to be struck by lightning, to do full abiogenesis and scrabble onto to dry land from the spunksea that is your floor.
-
your wanksock. You know, your version of the Miller-Urey experiment, just waiting to be struck by lightning, to do full abiogenesis and scrabble onto to dry land from the spunksea that is your floor.
I said, what? You're obviously the one obsessed with man juice.
-
I said, what? You're obviously the one obsessed with man juice.
not the one touting celibacy as something that's worthwhile, shiny shiny miroor
-
not the one touting celibacy as something that's worthwhile, shiny shiny miroor
You've definitely lost it, pal!
-
I can't understand how they can accept a non celibate Anglican priest, but not allow their home grown variety to get married!
I think kit has to do with another issue that the RCC don't agree with - divorce. It can't be seen to be promoting it!! ;)
-
I think kit has to do with another issue that the RCC don't agree with - divorce. It can't be seen to be promoting it!! ;)
Not at all. The Uniate Churches (eastern rite Churches in communion with Rome) have married priests too. As I said, the problem isn't with martied men becoming priests, it's just that the custom in the western rite came to be that only unmarried men were accepted into the priesthood and once ordained, that person may no longer get married. Umarried priests have never, as a general rule, been allowed to marry both East and West.
-
Dear ad o,
Help me out old son I am a tad confused about all this celibacy nonsense, in our few exchanges on this forum you seem to hold the Apostles in high regard, Peter, the guy who got the keys, the one who Jesus said,
Mathew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
He was a married man, he could appreciate a good mother in law joke, in fact I think quite a few Apostles were married, what's all the fuss about celibacy.
Gonnagle.
Dear Gonnagle,
The quote you make is the reason we support celibacy in our church. Jesus assigned Peter to be the foundation of His church on earth, so the direct successor to Peter (our Pope) will have the authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, to define how the church must act on spiritual matters. If I question the authority of the Pope, I am questioning the foundation set up by Jesus Himself. I firmly believe that the devil delights in the divisions and splits which have occured in the last millenia.
-
He was a married man, he could appreciate a good mother in law joke, in fact I think quite a few Apostles were married, what's all the fuss about celibacy.
Gonnagle.
Dear Gonnagle,
The quote you make is the reason we support celibacy in our church. Jesus assigned Peter to be the foundation of His church on earth, so the direct successor to Peter (our Pope) will have the authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, to define how the church must act on spiritual matters. If I question the authority of the Pope, I am questioning the foundation set up by Jesus Himself. I firmly believe that the devil delights in the divisions and splits which have occured in the last millenia.
OH DEAR! Of course you should question the mere human Pope and any other Catholic priest! The reason why the RCC has got away with its many crimes over the centuries is because the gullible faithful have allowed them to get away with murder! >:(
As for celibacy, as I have asked before, how come it is ok for a married Anglican to practise as a priest the RCC? Talk about hypocritical! >:(
-
As for celibacy, as I have asked before, how come it is ok for a married Anglican to practise as a priest the RCC? Talk about hypocritical! >:(
Because as I've already explained, the problem isn't about married men becoming priests. You do understand the difference between a married man being allowed to become a priest but a priest not being allowed to marry?
-
Because as I've already explained, the problem isn't about married men becoming priests. You do understand the difference between a married man being allowed to become a priest but a priest not being allowed to marry?
Which is totally crazy! >:( For all we know Jesus could have been married/gay and had a full sex life!
-
Which is totally crazy! >:( For all we know Jesus could have been married/gay and had a full sex life!
Crazy according to whom? You? Doesn't count for much. As for our Lord, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
-
Dear ad o and Alan,
Sorry but just can't get my head around all the fuss about married men, Our Lord chooses a married man to be the rock which he will build his Church, but putting that aside, if we go all the way back to the beginning, Adam was a sour faced sod until Eve came on the picture.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Just me, but I think both your Churches would benefit from doing away with all this nonsense about marriage, see the thread about the Pope having a girlfriend, then again, the Pope and the Patriarch with wives, they do have a way of taking over :o
Gonnagle.
-
Crazy according to whom? You? Doesn't count for much. As for our Lord, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
It's crazy according to anybody with a clear understanding of human nature.
-
Crazy according to whom? You? Doesn't count for much. As for our Lord, that's just wishful thinking on your part.
You have no idea what Jesus got up to in his private life as it isn't recorded!
-
Gonners,
The "rock" is the faith of the Apostles, as one of the oldest prayers in the ancient Roman liturgy shows us.
"We beseech Thee, almighty God, that Thou suffer no disturbance to shake us, whom Thou hast firmly established on the rock of apostolic confession. Through our Lord..." (collect for the vigil of the blessed Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul)
Lex orandi lex credendi!
In the East we allow married men to be ordained. Unmarried men who are ordained may not marry and this has always been the custom in both East and West. That the custom in the West is to ordain only unmarried men is a different issue, a legitimate one, and something entered into freely. No problem.
-
It's crazy according to anybody with a clear understanding of human nature.
No, the spiritual man is governed by the Spirit, not by his penis, thus his human nature under control.
-
You have no idea what Jesus got up to in his private life as it isn't recorded!
You say that because you do not have the faith of the Apostles.
-
No, the spiritual man is governed by the Spirit, not by his penis, thus his human nature under control.
HA! HA! Then why have there been so many paedophile priests who are definitely dominated by their dangly bits? >:(
-
You say that because you do not have the faith of the Apostles.
No, Floo says it because she hasn't swallowed the story lock, stock and barrel.
-
No, the spiritual man is governed by the Spirit, not by his penis, thus his human nature under control.
You don't have a clear understanding of human nature, it's warped by your religious beliefs.
The drive to have sex is often extremely strong, naturally so because the species would die out if not, and therefore trying to deny it can lead to all sorts of issues such as paedophile priests.
This idea that priests need to be celibate has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible. It's time to forget about it.
-
HA! HA! Then why have their been so many paedophile priests who are definitely dominated by their dangly bits? >:(
Because they are not spiritual men but perverts who seek out places, including the priesthood, to defile children.
-
Because they are not spiritual men but perverts who seek out places, including the priesthood, to defile children.
No True Scotsman... House!
-
No True Scotsman... House!
He did it back in #31 as well.
-
I have to say it, presumably A o is at work, so how can he be giving his job the full attention it requires, whilst spending quite a lot of time posting on this forum? Those who claim their employers don't mind them posting at work, are probably in cloud cuckoo land! ::)
-
You don't have a clear understanding of human nature, it's warped by your religious beliefs.
The drive to have sex is often extremely strong, naturally so because the species would die out if not, and therefore trying to deny it can lead to all sorts of issues such as paedophile priests.
This idea that priests need to be celibate has nothing to do with Jesus or the Bible. It's time to forget about it.
Celibacy goes hand-in-hand with fasting. Infact, if anyone says that Christians have no need for fasting the. they do not know the Christian faith. Fasting and prayer helps subdue the passions.
It is simply the height of stupidity to suggest that celibacy is linked to paedophile priests, as if a man otherwise not attracted to children will all of a sudden want to defile them because he has not had sex. Completely idiotic. If the sexual urge is too much then he mus be aware that he has a hand. The natural option isn't to molest children.
-
Celibacy goes hand-in-hand with fasting.
Fine. But you wouldn't attempt to fast for your entire adult life would you?
It is simply the height of stupidity to suggest that celibacy is linked to paedophile priests, as if a man otherwise not attracted to children will all of a sudden want to defile them because he has not had sex. Completely idiotic. If the sexual urge is too much then he mus be aware that he has a hand. The natural option isn't to molest children.
Tell that to the paedophile priests.
-
I have to say it, presumably A o is at work, so how can he be giving his job the full attention it requires, whilst spending quite a lot of time posting on this forum? Those who claim their employers don't mind them posting at work, are probably in cloud cuckoo land! ::)
As I've said before, I'm glad you're nobody's boss, but it is indeed the case that many employers do allows their employees use the internet during work time, simply because the work they do allows them to. However, as it happens I'm on the morning shift this week so I already finished work an hour ago. At the end of the day, it's none of your business.
-
Dear ad o,
Fasting, have we ever had a thread on fasting, it seems to be a common theme that runs through a lot of religions, even our Lord was sent into the wilderness where he fasted.
Matthew 4:1-11
Gonnagle.
-
Fine. But you wouldn't attempt to fast for your entire adult life would you?
Tell that to the paedophile priests.
There is no evidence whatsover which suggests that celibacy causes paedophilia. Just stop and listen to yourself for a moment and you'll see just how stupid the suggestion is: that otherwise normal men all of a sudden are tempted to molest children because they have not had sex. It just doesn't make any sense. Surely they've heard of a hand? What we do know is that paedophiles seek out places of trust, including the priesthood, where they also have access to children. They were paedophiles before they entered the priesthood. They are not paedophiles because of celibacy.
-
As I've said before, I'm glad you're nobody's boss, but it is indeed the case that many employers do allows their employees use the internet during work time, simply because the work they do allows them to. However, as it happens I'm on the morning shift this week so I already finished work an hour ago. At the end of the day, it's none of your business.
Many employers don't and rightly so!
-
Many employers don't and rightly so!
Of course you think that but you're an old hag.
-
Feel the Christian love. Again.
-
Feel the Christian love. Again.
So very warm and loving, I am sure Jesus is really proud of him! ;D
-
Dear ad o,
Fasting, have we ever had a thread on fasting, it seems to be a common theme that runs through a lot of religions, even our Lord was sent into the wilderness where he fasted.
Matthew 4:1-11
Gonnagle.
Fasting, or at least dieting, is a good idea. Many humans, except the deprived, are overweight. I think it has something to do with our ability to dress food up so much to make it more appetising. :)
-
There is no evidence whatsover which suggests that celibacy causes paedophilia.
Paedophile priests.
Just stop and listen to yourself for a moment and you'll see just how stupid the suggestion is: that otherwise normal men all of a sudden are tempted to molest children because they have not had sex.
Paedophile priests.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Not to anybody who hasn't been driven crazy by denying themselves normal sexual release.
Surely they've heard of a hand?
Doesn't the church view masturbation as a sin too?
-
Feel the Christian love. Again.
Ad-o lets the mask slip so often I'm beginning to think he creams his face! :)
-
Fasting, or at least dieting, is a good idea. Many humans, except the deprived, are overweight. I think it has something to do with our ability to dress food up so much to make it more appetising. :)
More likely that it's because we have an evolutionarily planted yen for fat and sugar - high-calorie crap for when we need it to draw on the store of energy. Unfortunately lifestyles have changed somewhat in the past 200,000 years but the taste for fat and sugar hasn't.
-
More likely that it's because we have an evolutionarily planted yen for fat and sugar - high-calorie crap for when we need it to draw on the store of energy. Unfortunately lifestyles have changed somewhat in the past 200,000 years but the taste for fat and sugar hasn't.
Indeed! If we had to expend the energy to get our food that our forebears did, I don't think there would be so much obesity.
-
Paedophile priests.
Paedophile priests.
Not to anybody who hasn't been driven crazy by denying themselves normal sexual release.
Doesn't the church view masturbation as a sin too?
Keep on saying it. It might convince you but not to anyone who isn't an idiot. Saying celibacy causes paedophilia is like saying abstinence from from meat causes cannibalism. Yes, masturbation might well be a sin but it's the most natural choice, not paedophilia. Paedophiles sought out the priesthood just as they seek out any other place where they have easy access to children from a position of trust. Priestly celibacy didn't turn them into paedophiles.
-
Of course you think that but you're an old hag.
Oh come on. Is that really necessary?
-
Dear ad o,
Fasting, have we ever had a thread on fasting, it seems to be a common theme that runs through a lot of religions, even our Lord was sent into the wilderness where he fasted.
Matthew 4:1-11
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle,
Hindus, Jains and Buddhists believe in fasting too. Its a way of controlling the urge to eat and to develop mental strength. Fasting builds inner strength.
Gandhi was great at fasting and he attributed most of his strength of conviction to fasting.
-
Keep on saying it. It might convince you but not to anyone who isn't an idiot. Saying celibacy causes paedophilia is like saying abstinence from from meat causes cannibalism. Yes, masturbation might well be a sin but it's the most natural choice, not paedophilia. Paedophiles sought out the priesthood just as they seek out any other place where they have easy access to children from a position of trust. Priestly celibacy didn't turn them into paedophiles.
That's a valid point, I think.
-
Keep on saying it. It might convince you but not to anyone who isn't an idiot. Saying celibacy causes paedophilia is like saying abstinence from from meat causes cannibalism. Yes, masturbation might well be a sin but it's the most natural choice, not paedophilia. Paedophiles sought out the priesthood just as they seek out any other place where they have easy access to children from a position of trust. Priestly celibacy didn't turn them into paedophiles.
Whilst I agree with most of that, I am sure that celibacy must have a detrimental effect on a man unless he has a very low libido. It might well push him into sexual activity which he wouldn't think of in normal life.
-
Dear Floo,
You seem to bring out the best in us Christians, you are a shining light in a sea of darkness, the evil deity is looking down and smiling upon you. ;)
Gonnagle.
Dear Leonard,
Fasting, or at least dieting, is a good idea. Many humans, except the deprived, are overweight. I think it has something to do with our ability to dress food up so much to make it more appetising. :)
Eating, what could be more basic, we all need to eat, Wigs on the spiritual thread was asking
I do wonder if the term 'spirituality' is losing all meaning. I get the idea of beyond the physical, so looking at a painting does that, but then if I enjoy a meal, I am not simply registering taste and texture.
Is eating spiritual, listening to all those chefs on the telly, sounds spiritual to me :) but food seems to be a common theme in religion, breaking bread, loaves and five fishes, Disciples eating corn, fasting, saying grace before a meal, Eve and the apple.
I think their is something in this fasting thing, I get quite envious when I see Hindu's and Sikh's all sitting down to share a big common meal, food and drink does bring people together.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle,
Hindus, Jains and Buddhists believe in fasting too. Its a way of controlling the urge to eat...
IT IS controlling the urge to eat!
and to develop mental strength.
Why on earth do you think that?
Fasting builds inner strength.
What does that mean?
Gandhi was great at fasting and he attributed most of his strength of conviction to fasting.
I think he would have been a very stubborn man even if he had never fasted.
-
Whilst I agree with most of that, I am sure that celibacy must have a detrimental effect on a man unless he has a very low libido. It might well push him into sexual activity which he wouldn't think of in normal life.
I think pedophilia is an abnormal urge. A small percentage of people have it.
It has nothing to do with restricting the sexual urge. Most pedophiles in society have no restrictions on their sexual activities(hetero or homo sexual).....but they indulge in pedophilia all the same.....even to the extent of trafficking children.
So....it is unfair to blame religious celibacy as the reason for pedophilia in the church. And only a very small percentage of priests are said to be pedophiles anyway.
It reflects on the individual and not on the principle of celibacy.
-
Whilst I agree with most of that, I am sure that celibacy must have a detrimental effect on a man unless he has a very low libido. It might well push him into sexual activity which he wouldn't think of in normal life.
But nobody is forced into celibacy in the romantic delusion that somehow people are forced into the priesthood.
Celibacy of an enforced nature as with everything else religion is uniquely supposedly guilty of is more likely outside the church and for reasons yer average antitheist can't be arsed to bother about. Namely economic and social deprivation and not conforming to today's specifications for being a good shag.
-
Dear Leonard,
Eating, what could be more basic, we all need to eat, Wigs on the spiritual thread was asking
Is eating spiritual, listening to all those chefs on the telly, sounds spiritual to me :) but food seems to be a common theme in religion, breaking bread, loaves and five fishes, Disciples eating corn, fasting, saying grace before a meal, Eve and the apple.
I think their is something in this fasting thing, I get quite envious when I see Hindu's and Sikh's all sitting down to share a big common meal, food and drink does bring people together.
Gonnagle.
Yes, eating in company is not as boring as eating alone ... although I can be very content consuming chocolates on my own! :)
-
Dear Sriram,
Hindus, Jains and Buddhists believe in fasting too. Its a way of controlling the urge to eat and to develop mental strength. Fasting builds inner strength.
Gandhi was great at fasting and he attributed most of his strength of conviction to fasting.
Yes, fasting is a very interesting subject, but all this talk of food, I am now starving ;) ( Gonnagle you have never starved in your whole life )
Gonnagle.
-
Keep on saying it. It might convince you but not to anyone who isn't an idiot. Saying celibacy causes paedophilia is like saying abstinence from from meat causes cannibalism. Yes, masturbation might well be a sin but it's the most natural choice, not paedophilia. Paedophiles sought out the priesthood just as they seek out any other place where they have easy access to children from a position of trust. Priestly celibacy didn't turn them into paedophiles.
Nope - the point is that sexual urges are perfectly normal, including those who have taken a vow of celibacy. If you create a situation where any route to deal with those urges is seen as sinful, then all routes potentially become equivalent (all are 'sinful'), so for the celibate priest who really cannot control those urges the route with the least likelihood of being found out (i.e. your sin being revealed) may become the most attractive. And of course a child where there is a power relationship is much less likely to 'talk' than an adult.
Now of course there will be some (almost certainly most) for whom masturbation is the easiest (and safest route) but for others only actual sexual contact with another person will do and when consenting sex with an adult is considered off limits in the same manner as non consensual sex with a child, but the latter is less likely to be revealed, then the latter becomes a preferred option.
-
I think pedophilia is an abnormal urge. A small percentage of people have it.
Absolutely.
It has nothing to do with restricting the sexual urge.
It might do, you can't be sure of that.
Most pedophiles in society have no restrictions on their sexual activities(hetero or homo sexual).....but they indulge in pedophilia all the same.....even to the extent of trafficking children.
Yes, but you already covered those in your first sentence.
So....it is unfair to blame religious celibacy as the reason for pedophilia in the church. And only a very small percentage of priests are said to be pedophiles anyway.
I didn't! I merely said that celibacy was could affect a a man's behaviour.
It reflects on the individual and not on the principle of celibacy.
Now we're back to genes! :)
-
Keep on saying it. It might convince you but not to anyone who isn't an idiot. Saying celibacy causes paedophilia is like saying abstinence from from meat causes cannibalism. Yes, masturbation might well be a sin but it's the most natural choice, not paedophilia. Paedophiles sought out the priesthood just as they seek out any other place where they have easy access to children from a position of trust. Priestly celibacy didn't turn them into paedophiles.
So they have a choice of masturbating (sin status: yes) or sexually assaulting children (sin status: questionable, at least in the Catholic Church).
How about allowing them to have normal sexual relationships like everybody else. It's not as if the Bible says priests can't have spouses.
-
Len,
The point is that...some priests who are deprived of normal sexual release might feel attracted to nuns they come across or even to each other in homosexual relations....but pedophilia is abnormal and cannot be a direct effect of restrictions on sex.
-
... but for others only actual sexual contact with another person will do and when consenting sex with an adult is considered off limits in the same manner as non consensual sex with a child, but the latter is less likely to be revealed, then the latter becomes a preferred option.
And I'm sure that if minors are willing to engage in sexual activity with a man, as undoubtedly some are, it could become too much for the priest to resist.
-
Len,
The point is that...some priests who are deprived of normal sexual release might feel attracted to nuns they come across or even to each other in homosexual relations....but pedophilia is abnormal and cannot be a direct effect of restrictions on sex.
Nonsense! Sex with children is just as normal to paedophiles as homosexual activity is to me ... but some forms of sex are illegal, and rightly so.
-
So they have a choice of masturbating (sin status: yes) or sexually assaulting children (sin status: questionable, at least in the Catholic Church).
You see? I read that last part and now I know you really are an idiot.
How about allowing them to have normal sexual relationships like everybody else. It's not as if the Bible says priests can't have spouses.
If they are already married before they enter the priesthood (or diaconte) then yes. Otherwise, once having received orders it is not possible to receive the sacrament of marriage without ceasing to be a priest first.
-
Nonsense! Sex with children is just as normal to paedophiles as homosexual activity is to me ... but some forms of sex are illegal, and rightly so.
? ? ? ?
-
? ? ? ?
What exactly are you querying?
-
You see? I read that last part and now I know you really are an idiot.
It's called humour. I'm trying to avoid the pit of despair that your moronic posts are constantly in danger of dragging us into.
If they are already married before they enter the priesthood (or diaconte) then yes. Otherwise, once having received orders it is not possible to receive the sacrament of marriage without ceasing to be a priest first.
Why not? Can you cite the Biblical rule that says they can't?
-
Oh! I didn't know atheists were sola scriptura.
-
Oh! I didn't know atheists were sola scriptura.
I was just pointing out that the rule "priests cannot get married" is a law that post dates Jesus and the Bible and that there is therefore no reason not to repeal it.
-
I was just pointing out that the rule "priests cannot get married" is a law that post dates Jesus and the Bible and that there is therefore no reason not to repeal it.
On the contrary, the scriptures are not our only source but also tradition, which is apostolic in origin and ultimately from Christ.
-
On the contrary, the scriptures are not our only source but also tradition, which is apostolic in origin and ultimately from Christ.
"Because it has always been this way" is a very bad argument for not changing a terrible rule.
Tire's no evidence that Jesus or the apostles ever pronounced that priests should not be allowed to get married. In fact, let's be honest, they would be quite surprised that Christianity actually acquired a priesthood.
-
"Because it has always been this way" is a very bad argument for not changing a terrible rule.
Tire's no evidence that Jesus or the apostles ever pronounced that priests should not be allowed to get married. In fact, let's be honest, they would be quite surprised that Christianity actually acquired a priesthood.
Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.
-
Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.
How.
-
Not so, for Christ instituted the priesthood.
No he didn't. The priesthood did not arise for decades after his death. There was no priesthood at the time when Paul was active, for instance.
-
How.
Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me". This the Apostles and their successors have done to this age. We know this because Christ instructed his Apostles who in turn instructed other trustworthy men such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp and so on a so forth. The Holy Spirit ensured they did not stray, just as our Lord promised.
-
Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me". This the Apostles and their successors have done to this age. We know this because Christ instructed his Apostles who in turn instructed other trustworthy men such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp and so on a so forth. The Holy Spirit ensured they did not stray, just as our Lord promised.
That is FUNNY! ;D ;D ;D
-
Christ instituted the priesthood during the Last Supper when he instructed the Apostles concerning the manner Eucharist and telling them "Do ths for a commemoration of me".
That's not instituting a priesthood, it's instituting the Eucharist.
-
That's not instituting a priesthood.
Yes it is.
-
Yes it is.
Explain how telling people to break bread in remembrance of Jesus is creating a priesthood.
-
Explain how telling people to break bread in remembrance of Jesus is creating a priesthood.
Because by saying "Do this for a commemoration of me" he commisions his Apostles to continue the sacrifice, which is a priestly function Christ, of course, beng the high priest.
-
Because by saying "Do this for a commemoration of me" he commisions his Apostles to continue the sacrifice,
Yes but anybody can do that.
which is a priestly function
You mean the priests have made it their function. At the time Jesus was simply telling his friends to keep up and spread a particular ritual.
Christ, of course, beng the high priest.
Did he ever call himself that?
-
Yes but anybody can do that.
No they cannot and neither have they ever been able to. Such is not a Eucharist unless it be served by a priest of the Church of God.
You mean the priests have made it their function. At the time Jesus was simply telling his friends to keep up and spread a particular ritual.
No. He was ordaining his Apostles in order to serve the Eucharist.
Did he ever call himself that?
Christ himself says that David was speaking of him in the Psalm "The Lord said to my Lord etc". David goes on to say of Christ "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech". The Apostle also tells us what this means in his epistle to the Hebrews.
-
No they cannot and neither have they ever been able to. Such is not a Eucharist unless it be served by a priest of the Church of God.
Jesus never said that. It's bullshit. You have just been taken in by your priests who want to make themselves indispensable to your religion.
No. He was ordaining his Apostles in order to serve the Eucharist.
Evidence please.
Christ himself says that David was speaking of him in the Psalm "The Lord said to my Lord etc". David goes on to say of Christ
David never said anything about Jesus.
He didn't write the Psalms, by the way but the Psalms say nothing about Jesus either.
"Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech". The Apostle also tells us what this means in his epistle to the Hebrews.
Hebrews was written many years after Jesus died. It reflects the couch structure of its day, not that of the earliest churches.
-
I hav aleady givn you the evidence, both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!
-
I hav aleady givn you the evidence,
You quoted a bit from the Bible that doesn't support your case and you did some hand waving about tradition.
both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!
You are living in a fairy tale world. It's not even certain that David existed never mind wrote the psalms.
Next you'll be claiming the "Apostle" that wrote Hebrews was Paul. That is also pure fantasy.
-
When one refers to "the Apostle" one refers to St. Paul, as was the custom of the Fathers. St. Paul did indeed write the said epistle, as has always been believed in the East.
-
When one refers to "the Apostle" one refers to St. Paul, as was the custom of the Fathers. St. Paul did indeed write the said epistle, as has always been believed in the East.
In that case the East believed wrongly. It's simply false.
-
In that case the East believed wrongly. It's simply false.
The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.
-
The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.
Indeed. Why take the risk of finding out a belief is false?
-
Indeed. Why take the risk of finding out a belief is false?
The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.
-
The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.
You'll be able to prove this assertion, right?
-
I don't known what all the fuss is about, Catholics knew about the friendship between Pope John Paul ll and Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka 20-25 years back (even I did and I go around not noticing things most of the time), and thought it was 'lovely'. He mentioned it in one of his books, can't remember which one and I don't think he mentioned her by name. What is new is the publication of some of the correspondence between the two which appears to be quite touching but not a big deal. It's normal and healthy for two people of opposite sex to have a close, longstanding friendship; for JPll, who must have been fairly isolated a lot of the time, from choice of course but still difficult for a naturally gregarious person, it must have been extremely rewarding.
Edit: I re-read the op and note that Siriam was not making a big deal out of this and said he thought it was heartwarming. I concur.
-
You'll be able to prove this assertion, right?
Can you prove your assertion?
-
Can you prove your assertion?
Oh don't be daft AO - that could go on for ever.
You made an unsubstantiated assertion, namely that 'The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.' You were asked to prove your assertion, not an unreasonable request.
So either provide some evidence to back up your claim, or accept it to be unevidenced handwaving, or merely your personal opinion.
-
Can you prove your assertion?
Which is what?
-
Oh don't be daft AO - that could go on for ever.
You made an unsubstantiated assertion, namely that 'The only thing that is false are the said opinions of atheists and apostates concerning the sacred scriptures.' You were asked to prove your assertion, not an unreasonable request.
So either provide some evidence to back up your claim, or accept it to be unevidenced handwaving, or merely your personal opinion.
The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.
-
The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.
The words are just bald assertions of the same kind you're so fond of, with nothing to corroborate them. Testimony of the church is merely built on said assertions so is equally an evidence-free zone.
-
Then so are your opinions and those of other unbelievers on these matters.
-
The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.
No it isn't - you are merely using further unsubstantiated assertions in an attempt to justify your unsubstantiated assertion.
We understand this to be your belief, in effect your personal opinion, but that isn't proof any more than the opinions of atheists.
So come on then AO let's have some proper evidence please.
-
The claim is easily proven by the words of our Lord and the testimony of the Church which I have already given. The opinions of atheists are worth naught in such matters.
That sounds like an uncompromising argument from authority.
-
No it isn't - you are merely using further unsubstantiated assertions in an attempt to justify your unsubstantiated assertion.
We understand this to be your belief, in effect your personal opinion, but that isn't proof any more than the opinions of atheists.
So come on then AO let's have some proper evidence please.
Our Lord himself said that thr Psalms were written by David and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us. This we know through the Holy Spirit. The unbeliever is ignorant of these things.
-
The more you write the clearer it becomes that you base everything on one kind of fallacy or another - antiquity; authority; No True Scotsman, you name it. About the only one I haven't seen you use is the negative proof, although Hope has exclusive rights to that one it seems.
-
Our Lord himself said that thr Psalms were written by David and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us. This we know through the Holy Spirit. The unbeliever is ignorant of these things.
Step by step:
1. Firstly we have no evidence that 'Our Lord' actually exists so that's a pretty poor start.
2. Even if we assume (no proof merely an assumption) that there is a god we have no actual evidence what he said, merely what men have claimed (without evidence - see also point 1).
3. Just because some men might have claimed that god said that 'thr[sic] Psalms were written by David' that is no evidence that that claim is true and most proper scholars reject that claim.
4. We have no non partial independent verification of who wrote what in the bible in most cases. There is no credible evidence that the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul and most of the evidence (style, content etc) suggests it wasn't.
5. We have no evidence that the 'Holy Spirit' exists so relying on a non proven entity so justify claims is a pretty poor end. And you can then start again at number 1.
So no evidence whatsoever.
-
The more you write the clearer it becomes that you base everything on one kind of fallacy or another - antiquity; authority; No True Scotsman, you name it. About the only one I haven't seen you use is the negative proof, although Hope has exclusive rights to that one it seems.
Ah, I see! The double standards of the atheists.
-
Ah, I see! The double standards of the atheists.
What double standards?
-
Step by step:
1. Firstly we have no evidence that 'Our Lord' actually exists so that's a pretty poor start.
2. Even if we assume (no proof merely an assumption) that there is a god we have no actual evidence what he said, merely what men have claimed (without evidence - see also point 1).
3. Just because some men might have claimed that god said that 'thr[sic] Psalms were written by David' that is no evidence that that claim is true and most proper scholars reject that claim.
4. We have no non partial independent verification of who wrote what in the bible.
5. We have no evidence that the 'Holy Spirit' exists so relying on a non proven entity so justify claims is a pretty poor end. And you can then start again at number 1.
So no evidence whatsoever.
If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs. Alas, even "if one rise again from the dead" that would not be enough proof.
-
If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime.
How about no authority at all, and thinking things out for yourself?
The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs.
It isn't proof of any kind at all in any way whatever.
-
If that's the case then you have none whatsoever either when you say "He didn't write it" as fact. Given the choice of authority, that is between one that existed when the Apostles were still alive and an upstart 2000 years later, I'll choose the former everytime. The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs. Alas, even "if one rise again from the dead" that would not be enough proof.
I'm not making the assertion so the onus isn't on me to provide proof.
But ask proper scholars and there is a pretty clear consensus that Paul isn't the author of the epistle to the Hebrews and that David isn't the author of the psalms. Who is the author is of course much less clear, as is the case for most of the bible.
'The life of the Holy Spirit in the Church all the proof one needs.' - oh no, more hand waving assertions. You need to 'prove' that the Holy Spirit exists before you can use the 'life' of this unproven entity as proof of anything else.
You really aren't very good at constructing logical arguments are you AO.
-
I hav aleady givn you the evidence, both from the scriptures and the continuous practice of the Church. Both agree and prove beyond doubt that the priesthood was instituted by Christ. David wrote the Psalm and was speaking of Christ, as our Lord confirms in the Gospel. The epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle as prayer of the Church confirms. Lex orandi lex credendi!
That is NOT evidence!
-
That is NOT evidence!
He really doesn't get it does he.
-
An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.
-
An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.
Divine logic! ;D ;D ;D
-
A perfect contradictio in adjecto if ever there was one.
-
Divine logic! ;D ;D ;D
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=Kwh_yOzJ6AY
-
An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church.
That's the Poisoning the Well fallacy, I believe. Ad hominem too.
Have you ever tried putting fingers to keyboard and composing a post that isn't riddled with logical fallacies?
-
An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church.
I suspect many, if not most of those biblical scholars who do not believe your claims of authorship are Christians, who probably do not think they 'hate' Christ. Or is this a one true Scotsman moment.
Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.
Logic is logic - it matters not from whence is originates, it must be logically consistent - that's the point. And an unsubstantiated assertion that relies on another unsubstantiated assertion for justification, which linked back to the first unsubstantiated assertion and goes round, and round and round until you are dizzy from error in logical thinking sure doesn't fit that bill.
I have no problem with you telling us you 'believe' something to be true - I do have a problem with you claiming it is true without proof, which you don't have.
-
An unbeliever cannot be an authority on spiritual things, which includes authorship of the sacred scriptures, because such hates Christ and his Church. Divine logic is all that matters, not human logic.
The problem there is that 'divine logic' is an oxymoron since it can't be demonstrated using formal logic that is fallacy-free.
In addition these scriptures are the work of people, and people are fallible and make mistakes, exaggerate and even tell lies. Any claim that early Christians were exempt from this is, therefore, special pleading at the very least, that morphs into an argument from authority/tradition.
-
Oh no more God as tyrant bollocks?
You obviously have never read the not so good book!
-
The East believes rightly. It does not listen to the opinions of atheists or those on the edge of apostasy.
Your mind is closed. You are intellectually dead.
The fact is that a number of your beliefs regarding the New Testament and the early church are demonstrably wrong. If this is what religion does to you, it's not a great advert.
-
If this is what religion does to you, it's not a great advert.
In fairness I thought long ago that the general attitude toward other posters and the language used therein isn't exactly a shining recommendation of his preferred form of faith this month.
-
and we know that from the earliest of times that the epistle to the Hebrews was known to have been written by St. Paul, as Clement of Alexandria tell us.
Clement of Alexandria lived more than a hundred years after Paul. If this is the earliest of times, it is a joke.
-
Clement of Alexandria lived more than a hundred years after Paul. If this is the earliest of times, it is a joke.
AO's problem is he is unable to see the distinction between belief based on dogma (and orthodoxy) and actual evidence.
So even if everyone believed something to be true that still wouldn't provide any evidence that it is true. But in the case of his claims to authorship most scholars seem to disagree with him completely.
-
So even if everyone believed something to be true that still wouldn't provide any evidence that it is true.
In the case of Hebrews, they didn't. Several authors who are more or less contemporary with Clement of Alexandria (i.e. second half of the second century/first half of the third century) dispute the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews. AdO is cherry picking the evidence based on what he wants to be true.
-
In the case of Hebrews, they didn't. Several authors who are more or less contemporary with Clement of Alexandria (i.e. second half of the second century/first half of the third century) dispute the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews. AdO is cherry picking the evidence based on what he wants to be true.
Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.
-
Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.
But it doesn't make it 'true'!
-
Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.
There you go again - talking about 'belief' - when are you going to realise that 'belief' isn't evidence - well isn't evidence of anything except ... well ... belief.
You have no evidence to back up your assertion - you may believe it to be true, but so what, belief without evidence is nothing more than opinion.
-
Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi. In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.
Have you considered that the Church might be wrong?
-
Then the same goes for Jeremy when he says as fact that St. Paul didn't write the epistle to the Hebrews. He does not know that as fact, it is just an opinion.
-
Have you considered that the Church might be wrong?
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
-
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
Well, given that the church is composed of humans who over the centuries have made appalling mistakes in their treatment of other people, your HS doesn't seem to have much success does it?
-
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
How do you know your lord said that?
Someone once claimed he might have said that, but so what. It could be that it was never said.
-
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
What if there is uncertainty over the provenance over who wrote what or said what?
Surely then you'd recognise this as indicating there is at least scope for doubt and error, so that it is at least possible that your church might be wrong even if you don't currently think so personally.
-
How do you know your lord said that?
Someone once claimed he might have said that, but so what. It could be that it was never said.
Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.
-
Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.
I don't follow that ad_o. Let's look at it starting with a couple of familiar Saints: St Augustine of Hippo, St Teresa of Avila.
(I know I am going off the subject of JPll but never mind)
-
Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.
This is just confirmation bias and self delusion.
It is not objective evidence.
You just interpret it how you like.
-
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
So Galileo was sent by the Holy Spirit to correct the errors of his church?
-
Through the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, that is, by looking at the lives of its saints we see the truth of the Church's testimony.
Yeh right!
-
Yey the ancient liturgy, that is the prayer of the Church, still served today confesses that it was written by the Apostle. Lex orandi lex credendi.
When was this "ancient" liturgy written? Who was it written by? How do you know it is right?
In otherwords, if the Church did not believe it the Church wouldn't confess it.
I'm not disputing that your church believes it at all. I'm just telling you that the belief is wrong.
-
Then the same goes for Jeremy when he says as fact that St. Paul didn't write the epistle to the Hebrews. He does not know that as fact, it is just an opinion.
I have plenty of evidence that Paul didn't write Hebrews. Off the top of my head, some of the evidence is that:
There is no internal evidence to suggest Paul wrote it.
The style is not the same as the style of the real Pauline letters.
Even early sources dispute the authorship.
All you have, by contrast, is "my church says so!"
-
No, because our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would protect hus Church from error.
How do you explain the Great Schism then?
-
How do you explain the Great Schism then?
By the time of the schism the West was already no longer part of the Church. The Church still exists, the Holy Spirit still protects it from error, it's just the West ha no part in that.
-
By the time of the schism the West was already no longer part of the Church. The Church still exists, the Holy Spirit still protects it from error, it's just the West ha no part in that.
;D ;D ;D
-
By the time of the schism the West was already no longer part of the Church.
But how could that be? Why was the West not protected by the Holy Spirit from whatever errors made it "no longer part of the Church"?
See? Your assertions are undone by even a simple application of logic that a child can understand.
-
But how could that be? Why was the West not protected by the Holy Spirit from whatever errors made it "no longer part of the Church"?
See? Your assertions are undone by even a simple application of logic that a child can understand.
It seems that ad-o's god prefer exclusivity over compassion.
-
By the time of the schism the West was already no longer part of the Church. The Church still exists, the Holy Spirit still protects it from error, it's just the West ha no part in that.
I,m wondering about the widespread apostasy in much of the Orthodox East between 1917 and 1991.
-
By the time of the schism the West was already no longer part of the Church. The Church still exists, the Holy Spirit still protects it from error, it's just the West ha no part in that.
Looks like the Holy Spirit was remiss its duties. Otherwise there'd have been no schism in the forst place.
-
Looks like the Holy Spirit was remiss its duties. Otherwise there'd have been no schism in the forst place.
Atheism is merely unbelief in Gods one wonders therefore why you haven't STFU
-
Atheism is merely unbelief in Gods one wonders therefore why you haven't STFU
You made a mistake with that sentence - you should have used the lowercase "g".
-
You made a mistake with that sentence - you should have used the lowercase "g".
My apologies.
-
My apologies.
No probs - I forgive you.
-
It's the Christian thing to do.
-
I,m wondering about the widespread apostasy in much of the Orthodox East between 1917 and 1991.
Communism did not encourage Orthodox Christianity. Many, like Peter, denied Jesus. Others did not, an example being Father Arsenie Broca, who died under communist torture less than a month before the regime fell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArsenieBroca
I have visited Father Broca's grave, there was a two hour long queue of pilgrims.
-
Many, like Peter, denied Jesus.
What? Even though the Holy Spirit was protecting them from error?
-
What? Even though the Holy Spirit was protecting them from error?
I think the point is that truth will survive somewhere.
If it is somewhere in an institutional church then the implication is that it may not
Surface everywhere in that church similarly I think the Holy Spirit is omnipresent.
I think it was the chief Rabbi who remarked that there could not be a Judaism without Jews but that if true Christianity could be so with no Christians.
-
I think the point is that truth will survive somewhere.
No the point is that Ad O. said that the Holy Spirit would protect the church from error. The Great Schism shows that it manifestly failed in that task. Given that the HS failed to keep all the Christians on message, there is no reason to suppose that it was capable of making sure that Ad O's church's traditions are true.
-
No the point is that Ad O. said that the Holy Spirit would protect the church from error. The Great Schism shows that it manifestly failed in that task. Given that the HS failed to keep all the Christians on message, there is no reason to suppose that it was capable of making sure that Ad O's church's traditions are true.
Traditions are just things that have been assumed for a long time. Whether they are true or not is neither here nor there.
-
No the point is that Ad O. said that the Holy Spirit would protect the church from error. The Great Schism shows that it manifestly failed in that task. Given that the HS failed to keep all the Christians on message, there is no reason to suppose that it was capable of making sure that Ad O's church's traditions are true.
Indeed. The western pontiff thought that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Catholic Church in truth and that the Orthodox Church was in error. The eastern patriarch thought the reverse, naturally enough. The result was that the leaders of both churches excommunicated each other. What a farce!