Thread: A new Pope...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post
    1) Where is it said that he is a social conservative?

    2) I am glad he is a Jesuit. They need more of them in the church. And too see that upset liberals, makes it even sweeter ....

    3) There is a lot going to come out in the next couple of weeks, months.
    What makes him a social conservative is.....

    1) Anti-gay marriage and adoption. Personally, I think that allowing a kid to be raised by the state instead of allowing adoption is discrimination against children.

    2) Anti-abortion and even anti-contraception.

    3) I'm going to assume he believes that divorce isn't possible in the eyes of God.

    I'm not surprised by any of this stuff, but to call him a liberal is beyond silly. My mouth dropped when I read your post earlier.



    Why would liberals have a problem with Jesuits? They're about helping the poor and even leading by example (being poor themselves).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I was pretty sure he'd be a social conservative, had no other ideas about what "order" he'd be from.

    Have you not heard that there's a problem recruiting men to this vocation? I believe that if the church allowed priests to get married then more men would be willing to come to the vocation. How is the church supposed to grow if there aren't a lot of people wanting to become priests?

    There was *never* a rule before Christ that said that priests had to remain single. Why is there one now? I believe this rule is man made.
    No, genius. You said that you knew the pope would be Catholic so either you're joking or you're too stupid to know that the pope is the head of the Catholic church hence the pope is going to be Catholic. As for priests being able to marry, I take it you're not Catholic. There is a commitment in becoming a priest. Only in liberal land do the goalposts need to be reset in order to fit their worldview. And, finally, since you decided to be even more stupid with your last line, considering that there was no such thing as the Catholic Church before or during Christ's life, your statement is moot.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    I love that you put the term "order" in quotes meaning you don't have a clue about organized religions. There are countless orders in all religions. The Muslims have Shiites and Sunni's. Jews have Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Christianity has Catholics, Baptists, Lutheran, Methodist, among others. Even Catholics have different orders; Jesuit and Franciscan. So next time, if you don't have a clue, just shut up.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,287
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post

    2) I am glad he is a Jesuit. They need more of them in the church. And too see that upset liberals, makes it even sweeter ....
    Funny that he's a Jesuit and takes the name of a Franciscan...not any Franciscan, THE Franciscan.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I was pretty sure he'd be a social conservative, had no other ideas about what "order" he'd be from.

    Have you not heard that there's a problem recruiting men to this vocation? I believe that if the church allowed priests to get married then more men would be willing to come to the vocation. How is the church supposed to grow if there aren't a lot of people wanting to become priests?

    There was *never* a rule before Christ that said that priests had to remain single. Why is there one now? I believe this rule is man made.
    The rule is man made and the Catholic Church has never tried to make anyone believe that it wasn't. It is a condition of being a Priest that they must accept in order to be ordained. They know this going in into priesthood so why make a big issue out of it.

    There are several pieces of scripture that support a chaste life if one feels called to live it.
    The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
    Matthew 19:10-12


    Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
    1 Corinthians 7:8

    It seems that Christ thought that celibacy was a greater spiritual state and that Paul reflected that belief. If you read the context of both pieces of scripture you will find that celibacy is not a condition of Christian faith for all but a choice that can be made if the individual feels so inclined.

    When Priests accept their ordination they are apparently in agreement with the belief otherwise they would be discouraged from being ordained. The fact that they changed their mind after ordination does not imply that the requirement is bad, it just shows that the Priest didn't think the whole thing through before taking his vows.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,459
    If this is such a hard and fast rule, why are they allowing married Anglican priests to serve?
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,375
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    If this is such a hard and fast rule, why are they allowing married Anglican priests to serve?
    That is a hard and fast rule for The Roman Catholic ordination process, not for the Anglican Priests that they accept into the Catholic Church who are fleeing the heresy in some pockets of the Anglican Church, most specifically the Episcopalian heretics. The Catholic Church knows that it does not have the authority under God to desolve and existing marriage for the sake of recognizing the previous ordination of a Anglican Priest. In order to shelter the Priests and their flocks and abide by God's command they must either accept the Priests as is or not offer them sanctuary. The Roman Catholic Church chose the higher ethical ground.
    Last edited by FlaGator; 03-14-2013 at 09:36 AM.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28 A new Pope... 
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,977
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    I love that you put the term "order" in quotes meaning you don't have a clue about organized religions. There are countless orders in all religions. The Muslims have Shiites and Sunni's. Jews have Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Christianity has Catholics, Baptists, Lutheran, Methodist, among others. Even Catholics have different orders; Jesuit and Franciscan. So next time, if you don't have a clue, just shut up.
    I don't think that Lanie sharing an opinion warranted such a visceral reply, NJ. People here still have the right to be mistaken.
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,459
    Ah, the hairy voice of reason. It IS good to have the Ape back.
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    I don't think that Lanie sharing an opinion warranted such a visceral reply, NJ. People here still have the right to be mistaken.
    Lanie isn't being mistaken...she's just being her usual anti-religion hateful self.

    After this many years it's no accident she's this clueless about faith.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •