- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzimonastic priest are first monks and then priests. orthodox bishops are chosen from monks.
monastic priest are first monks and then priests. orthodox bishops are chosen from monks.
found out what the topic of this thread is or should i just shut up to end this off topic discussion?
Yes, but you said, "the orthodox on the contrary cannot be priest if they are not married." Do you mean to say that non-monastic men cannot become priests if they are not married? Is that even true?
found out what the topic of this thread is or should i just shut up to end this off topic discussion?
Well...you are claiming that the Catholic Church's prohibition against married priests has some relevance to its dogmatic declaration against the ordination of women. So questioning your knowledge on married priests is on topic.
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Ki also claim that as the church admitted kind of late that the earth is revolving around the sun it will also allow women to be priests. should we discuss giordano bruno as well?
[b]monastic priest are first monks and then priests. orthodox bishops are chosen from monks.
Yes, but you said, "the orthodox on the contrary cannot be priest if they are not married." Do you mean to say that non-monastic men cannot become priests if they are not married? Is that even true?
found out what the topic of this thread is or should ...[text shortened]... gainst the ordination of women. So questioning your knowledge on married priests is on topic.
08 Jul 08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_%28Catholic_Church%29
"In the West the law of celibacy was required by the 11th century. This law required that a man must not be married to become a candidate for ordination. This law remains in effect in the West until the present. While it has often been said that mandatory priestly celibacy was merely a reaction to priests passing on their pastoral responsibilities to their sons, it is actually rooted in the discipline of clerical continence, a discipline difficult for men already married to maintain."
happy now? the catholics have the rule. there are exceptions to every rule but it is still a rule. even if they wouldn't apply it would still be a rule. a pointless one but still a rule. now that we have settled this matter, can we go back to the topic at hand?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, there goes another simplistic historical reductionism.
i also claim that as the church admitted kind of late that the earth is revolving around the sun it will also allow women to be priests. should we discuss giordano bruno as well?
You also claimed a lot of other silly nonsense.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzithe catholics have the rule. there are exceptions to every rule but it is still a rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_%28Catholic_Church%29
"In the West the law of celibacy was required by the 11th century. This law required that a man must not be married to become a candidate for ordination. This law remains in effect in the West until the present. While it has often been said that mandatory priestly celibacy was merely a reactio ...[text shortened]... but still a rule. now that we have settled this matter, can we go back to the topic at hand?
It is a rule applied only to the Latin rite, and with some exceptions. It is not a 'catholic' rule; a more accurate characterisation would be 'a discipline confined to the Latin rite.'
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am not familiar with the inquisition 'justice' system. I know that the Church convicted Bruno of heresy; I merely want to ascertain whether these same Catholic authorites also decided the punitive consequences of heresy.
Yes, although I have no doubt that you can concoct some Simon Says scheme that frees the Church from responsibility, just like you do for all of its other acts of horror.
Did the Church carry out the execution?
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes, the catholicism that "matters". are the anglicans catholic?
[b]the catholics have the rule. there are exceptions to every rule but it is still a rule.
It is a rule applied only to the Latin rite, and with some exceptions. It is not a 'catholic' rule; a more accurate characterisation would be 'a discipline confined to the Latin rite.'[/b]
sects are sects. if they don't adhere to the vatican, they are not catholic
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes, the catholicism that "matters". are the anglicans catholic?
yes, the catholicism that "matters". are the anglicans catholic?
sects are sects. if they don't adhere to the vatican, they are not catholic
There are millions of Eastern Catholics. I suppose they do matter.
Anglicans are not Catholic.
sects are sects. if they don't adhere to the vatican, they are not catholic
The Eastern rites do adhere to the Vatican.
08 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't see what difference that makes. It was the fire, not them, that killed him.
Was the fire begun by Catholic authorities?
Or are you suggesting that whoever set the fire is responsible, even though that person used an intermediary to carry out the killing?