FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay (/showthread.php?tid=80576)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - prostrateinawe - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 04:20 PM)FultonFan Wrote: Homosexuality completely takes over the sodomite.  It seems to become a sort of manic obsession.

I'm yet to meet a homosexual who I KNEW was homosexual that didn't have that characteristic smartalec, show-off, melodramatic way about them.  They are truly the most annoying people on the planet.

Hi FultonFan: I can assure you that there are indeed homosexuals that you will encounter who are not show-offs and melodramatic in any way.  You see one must make a distinction between those who are ego-dystonic and those who are ego-syntonic.  For those who are ego-dystonic they reject their attractions to the same sex.  They fight against their internal impulses.  For many of them, they lead lives of quiet desperation.  Those who are ego-syntonic have come to embrace their attractions (as it appears the priest in the original post has done).  It is usually the ego-syntonic who make much ado about themselves.  We should all pray for those who daily take up their SSA Cross and follow Our Lord.  

For the record, I am not opposed to a truly celibate, continent priest having SSA as long as he is in control of his SSA Cross and embraces it only to the extent necessary to carry it but does not let it become his ruler to the point it (SSA attraction) dominates him and his ministry.


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - MagisterMusicae - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 09:09 AM)prostrateinawe Wrote: The early Church did not initially adapt the Levitical priesthood as a model but specifically rejected it. The Church began in small gatherings and they specifically called the celebrant the "President" initially rejecting even the notion of a priest.  It was only later that the Levitical structure was superimposed on the Church's liturgy.

I really hope you don't actually believe that?

For if one does he rejects a de fide dogma, making him a heretic :

From the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII)
Quote:Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Savior, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins.

...

Canon 1. If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or that there is not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all; let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If any one saith, that order, or sacred ordination, is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord; or, that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in ecclesiastical matters; or, that it is only a kind of rite for choosing ministers of the word of God and of the sacraments; let him be anathema.

...

Canon 5. If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.

Earlier, the Council said (Sess. XXI) that the power of offering Sacrifice, which is the fundamental element of the priesthood was conferred by Christ's command to "Do this in commemoration of Me," thus was the manner by which he ordained the Apostles as priests.

Since doctrine cannot change, and the Church is protected from error in such solemn teaching, we can dismiss out of hand the idea that a "presidency" and not a sacrificial priesthood was what Christ instituted, and somehow this later priesthood "developed".

Also it does not square with the actual history of the Early Church :

Pope St. Clement (died A.D. 99) makes clear in his Recognitions that there were ordinations of bishops, priests and deacons (Cf. VI, 15; X, 68). If this were a mere "presidency" then within 60 years of Christ things had radically changed and an ordained hierarchy imposed. Hardly acceptable if this were , since St. John was still alive, was still writing, and many other eyewitnesses of Christ and the happenings of the of the early Church still were living and active. If that was not the doctrine of the Church, we would clearly read of objections. Such a development would have been impossible.

If that's not enough, St. Ignatius of Antioch (in his Epistle to the Trallians, c. 2) is even more clear that priests are successors to the Apostles (who had the power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, so were priests) and even deacons played a hierarchical role in the administration of the sacraments :

Quote:It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God.

There's Sr. Iræneus of Lyon (ca. 150) who wrote "And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually." An altar is a place of sacrifice, not of "presidency".

Origen writes (On Prayer, c. 18) : "So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service of God, know under the Spirit’s teaching for which sins, and when, and how they ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so."

Sozoman in his Ecclesiastical History (II, 2), says that during the time of Pope St Silvester, the See of Antioch was vacant for a time because persecutions had prevented the ceremonies for ordaining a priest or bishop. If the priest were just a mere leader or "president", this statement makes no sense.

In Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 400), the following could be written : "You, therefore, O bishops, are to your people priests and Levites, ministering to the holy tabernacle, the holy Catholic Church; who stand at the altar of the Lord your God, and offer to Him reasonable and unbloody sacrifices through Jesus the great High Priest."

Dozens of other Patristic references could be made.

Also it does not square with scripture. Christ came to fulfill the law, not destroy it (Mt 5.17), so the very idea that the whole OT religion (based on the notion of a priestly cast who offers sacrifice for sin on behalf of men) when Christ, who is a priest (

Malachi (1.11) clearly shows that the New Testament will have a perpetual and continual sacrifice, offered by Gentiles, and a "clean oblation" meaning it is perfectly pleasing to God. In such wise, it exceeds the temple sacrifices, which means it is even more of a Sacrifice.

In 1 Cor. 10, St. Paul contrasts the "table of the Lord" with the "table of demons" and even mentions the sacrifices of the Old Law, assuming that priests and sacrifice are still operative in the New Testament.

In Rm 15.16, St. Paul says he is offering a "priestly service".

Altars (of sacrifice), which assumes priests offering sacrifice, are mentioned throughout the New Testament. St. Paul assumes the continued existence of altars (1 Cor 10.14ff), says we have such altars and compares them with the Old Testament altars (Hb 13.9-12)

We also know that Jesus is the high priest (Hb 8.1-2) according to Melchizedek, who (Gn 14.18) offered bread and wine, just as Christ did (changing it into his Body and Blood), and told his Apostles to continue to do. If the Apostles are to continue this, then they too must be priests according to the order of Melchizedek. And if that Sacrifice is to continue, certain men must be given this power by ordination.

Finally, it makes no logical sense. If the teaching of the Church is that Christ instituted the Mass as a Sacrifice and gave only to certain men the power of performing this Sacrifice and in doing so confecting the Eucharist (all de fide), then a mere "presidency" makes no sense. A "president" is a leader chosen from among a group with special powers only conferred by that group. But a man who can offer the Mass isn't given that power by the people, but by God, so there is a formal and essential difference.


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - prostrateinawe - 12-28-2017

Quote:Encyclopedia Britannica:

"A priesthood developed gradually in the early Christian church as first bishops and then elders, or “presbyters,” began to exercise certain priestly functions, mainly in connection with celebration of the Eucharist. By the end of the 2nd century, the church’s bishops were called priests (Latin: sacerdos). Although the priestly office was vested primarily in the bishop, a presbyter shared in his priestly functions and, in his absence, could exercise certain of them as his delegate. With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of parish churches, the presbyter, or parish priest, adopted more of the bishop’s functions and became the principal celebrant of the Eucharist. In this capacity, as well as by hearing confession and granting absolution, the priest eventually assumed the role of the church’s chief representative of God to the people. The development of eucharistic theology resulted in a further emphasis of the priest’s supernatural powers and qualities."

Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - jovan66102 - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 06:09 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

Quoting from a secular source, instead of a Catholic source that actually tells the truth, eh, PIA? Interesting!

From St Ignatius of Antioch, who studied at the feet of St John, Apostle and Evangelist,


Quote: Wrote:Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1



RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - In His Love - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 06:09 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

This sounds protestant.

As for the part I bolded, Our Lord never once said, "I am God." Does that mean He wasn't God? Of course not. He gave the Apostles the ability to forgive sin, they "recognized Him in the breaking of the bread," they baptized, they anointed sick people, etc. The entire Sacramental and priestly system is throughout Scripture.


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - angeltime - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 07:28 PM)In His Love Wrote:
(12-28-2017, 06:09 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

This sounds protestant.

As for the part I bolded, Our Lord never once said, "I am God." Does that mean He wasn't God? Of course not. He gave the Apostles the ability to forgive sin, they "recognized Him in the breaking of the bread," they baptized, they anointed sick people, etc. The entire Sacramental and priestly system is throughout Scripture.
Peace.....Christ knew everything that was going to happen in this Church from beginning to end - until His Second Coming; this includes Sacraments, Priests and corruption.  He is the Head, and He knew as Scripture says, "He has counted every hair on your head." - all knowing.....angeltime


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - Florus - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 06:09 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote:
Quote:Encyclopedia Britannica:

"A priesthood developed gradually in the early Christian church as first bishops and then elders, or “presbyters,” began to exercise certain priestly functions, mainly in connection with celebration of the Eucharist. By the end of the 2nd century, the church’s bishops were called priests (Latin: sacerdos). Although the priestly office was vested primarily in the bishop, a presbyter shared in his priestly functions and, in his absence, could exercise certain of them as his delegate. With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of parish churches, the presbyter, or parish priest, adopted more of the bishop’s functions and became the principal celebrant of the Eucharist. In this capacity, as well as by hearing confession and granting absolution, the priest eventually assumed the role of the church’s chief representative of God to the people. The development of eucharistic theology resulted in a further emphasis of the priest’s supernatural powers and qualities."

Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

Yeah working out all the details and theology of orders and such did take a bit to figure out, doesn't mean it wasn't there though, or that the earliest Christians didn't have the necessary fundamentals of it either. Another example is the Eucharist, the Church didn't suddenly make it up because they developed better ways of talking about it. 

And references to the Christian priesthood do exist in the New Testament, St. Paul tells Timothy (Chapter 3) of the type of man a bishop should be, and also deacons. He also tells him not to take the laying on of hands (what we know of as orders) lightly. In Corinthians we are admonished to treat the Eucharist with proper respect. The fundamentals are all seen to be there.


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - MagisterMusicae - 12-28-2017

(12-28-2017, 06:09 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote:
Quote:Encyclopedia Britannica:

"A priesthood developed gradually in the early Christian church as first bishops and then elders, or “presbyters,” began to exercise certain priestly functions, mainly in connection with celebration of the Eucharist. By the end of the 2nd century, the church’s bishops were called priests (Latin: sacerdos). Although the priestly office was vested primarily in the bishop, a presbyter shared in his priestly functions and, in his absence, could exercise certain of them as his delegate. With the spread of Christianity and the establishment of parish churches, the presbyter, or parish priest, adopted more of the bishop’s functions and became the principal celebrant of the Eucharist. In this capacity, as well as by hearing confession and granting absolution, the priest eventually assumed the role of the church’s chief representative of God to the people. The development of eucharistic theology resulted in a further emphasis of the priest’s supernatural powers and qualities."

Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

I'm sorry for you that Encylopædia Britannica is a better source that the Church Father and the Magisterium.

What you suggest is exactly what Modernists hold and was condemned in the strongest of terms in Lamentabili by Pope St. Pius X :

Quote:22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

...

40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.

...

49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

...

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
What you propose is neither true, nor is it the Catholic Faith. 
It does not match what is clear from Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, nor from the Magisterium, nor from Reason, nor from even reliable historical sources.
It is a mockery of the Faith, and you would do well to abandon such a false opinion and go back to what the Catholic Faith teaches, lest you fall into more than just a material heresy.


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - Trad Catholic27 - 12-28-2017

The homosexual priests should be defrocked from the priesthood and the Church leadership needs to take a very harsh stance against the radical homosexual community in the Church today that call for homosexual marriage to be legalized in the Church


RE: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay - prostrateinawe - 12-29-2017

Quote:What you propose is neither true, nor is it the Catholic Faith. 
It does not match what is clear from Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, nor from the Magisterium, nor from Reason, nor from even reliable historical sources.
It is a mockery of the Faith, and you would do well to abandon such a false opinion and go back to what the Catholic Faith teaches, lest you fall into more than just a material heresy.

"As regards the delineation of a second rank of the sacrament of order, the issue remains that the Greek New Testament expressions elder (presbyteros) and overseer or presiding elder (episcopos), in the earliest times did not univocally correspond to the later terms priest and bishop."  Paul Haffner, Mystery of the Church.  (Priest and professor of theology at Regina Apostolorum University in Rome)

MM it seems to me that your position is that the contrary to this statement is true, that from the earliest times the Church recognized presbyteros as priest and episcopos as bishop.  Thus, in light of your assertion, we can now analyze 1 Timothy 3.

1 Timothy 3: 1 -13 

Quote:Qualifications for Overseers
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.  It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,  Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.  But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?  Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 

Qualifications for Deacons

Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre:  Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.  And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.  The women in like manner chaste, not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things.  Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses.  For they that have ministered well, shall purchase to themselves a good degree, and much confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Douay-Rhiems Bible

2   δεῖ  οὖν  τὸν  ἐπίσκοπον  ἀνεπίλημπτον  εἶναι,  μιᾶς  γυναῖκος  ἄνδρα,  νηφάλιον  σώφρονα  κόσμιον  φιλόξενον  διδακτικόν,

Greek Bible


Thus, based upon your assertion, it is clear that bishops (who were also priests, according to your viewpoint) were not celibate. Moreover, the clear implication by the use of the word "chaste" rather than "continent" is that these married men, having been married only once, continued in their marriage in a chaste manner, not a continent manner.  Consequently, from the earliest times we have a history of bishops where were neither celibate nor continent.  

Compare other scripture verses:

Quote:Douay-Rheims Bible

1 Corinthians 7:9  But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 

English Revised Version

But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

American Standard Version

But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Greek Bible

9   εἰ  δὲ  οὐκ  ἐγκρατεύονται  γαμησάτωσαν,  κρεῖττον  γάρ  ἐστιν  γαμεῖν  ἢ  πυροῦσθαι.


Comparing the two operative greek words that were used by St. Paul:  σώφρονα - serious minded (translated chaste) and ἐγκρατεύονται
 - self-controlled (translated continent), we see a distinction that clearly indicates non-celibate overseers were to be chaste not continent.  


So if I have understood correctly, your position is that the Early Church understood from the very beginning that overseers (episkopos) were both bishops and priests in the sense of the Levitical priesthood, and that they were understood as offering sacrifice from the start.  

Then, it seems clear from 1 Timothy that bishops (and thus priests) in the Early Church were married and not continent.

Moreover, what I have proposed is completely in line with what you have quoted:

Quote:49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

It seems clear that there was a gradual increase of understanding as to what roles the overseers would have.  I would also like to see evidence that the greek words "episkopos" and "presbyteros" were applied to the Jewish "Levitical" priests.  (Which by the way had been replaced by the Zadokite priests by the time of Christ.)  I don't think this was the case at all.  Thus the more generic term "priest" that is now used to refer to Jewish priests, pagan priests, and Catholic priests alike, was not initially chosen.

What you have quoted says exactly what I was arguing: the presider eventually "acquired" the sacerdotal (priestly) character.  (Let's not get confused, what God was doing on a spiritual level, was not perhaps what was understood by the people at the time. Just because they were not understood to be priests as we understand a priest today, that does not mean that the overseer was not performing the same functions as a priest today.)

What is clear to me is that Christ did not want the Church to collapse back into Judaism.  Thus He and His Church chose new terms to describe the various offices.  Indeed it was a gradual process.  However, the Church, I believe did recognize the sacrificial nature of the liturgy immediately.  But, because the Church's growth was so rapid (5,000 in a day) there was a large immediate need for overseers.  If indeed all overseers were "priests" (whether in function or in name or both), then, based on 1 Timothy, I certainly maintain my view that the early priesthood consisted both of celibate, continent priests and non-celibate, chaste priests.