What Must the Catholic Church do...

[Protinus]

in the Third Millenium:

my opinion:

1) revise the seat of Rome and Roman Rule...move the seat of faith to the layity; become a tolerant albeit universal church- and that there is respect for "truth", let it be greater, embrace other religions and faith so that we may learn- install local rule to local and national churchs.

2) lose the stereotype of women as "lesser" and the male language. For there to be church partnership in Christ, alter the charism to accept women in all church ministries.

3) strive for openess; we are in an exclusive confessional funk at the hands of officialdom; let teh Church strive toward ecumenism internally as much as outwardly; that all excommunications are granted amnesty and that the Eucharist fellowship become the center of life in the church.

4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.


for starters...

[Cosmic Charlie]

5) Surrender its seperate statehood. The Vatican is not an earthly kingdom and Chruch is not ruled from a country.

[Protinus]

5) Surrender its seperate statehood. The Vatican is not an earthly kingdom and Chruch is not ruled from a country.

see point 1)

I agree

[UberLutheran]

6) Divest some of its wealth and give that money to the poor and needy, or to organizations which help the poor, women who choose not to have abortions, etc.

I'm not saying that the Vatican needs to sell off masterworks such as the Sistine Chapel or St. Peter's Basilica. I am saying the Church should strive for simplicity in how it decorates its churches: do we need statues of Christ and the Blessed Virgin covered in gold leaf? Does the Church need to hold as much non-church private property as it does?

7) Realize the unique gifts that some of the Church's marginalized groups (the divorced, gays and lesbians, the poor, women who have had abortions) can bring to the Church, and actively begin to use those gifts.

Few people can understand emotional pain like the divorced and women who have had abortions; and few people can understand the need for social justice like gays and lesbians and the poor. These are resources waiting to be tapped.

[Loki]

4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.



I'm very much a smells & bells, high tradition, ritual, all that sort of person, but respecting rites and traditions can co-exist with reexamination of dogma and direction. I hope.

[Protinus]

I'm very much a smells & bells, high tradition, ritual, all that sort of person, but respecting rites and traditions can co-exist with reexamination of dogma and direction. I hope.

I'm speaking of the dogma that priests be celibate, a 10th century change (and other points of "looking back") and not traditional points of worship that you and I hold dear. I'm working on a revision of historical architecture at my local Dominican church. How could I not embrace tradition?

Shameless plug:

Saint Ferrer, 63rd and Lexington, NYC...please worship there!! Fine Gothic!

[Loki]

Website? Do you attend a Dominican parish all the time? I do. Don't really see the difference besides the priests wear slightly different clothes most the time.

I understand about the celibacy bit, and personally... It's not a huge point for me, but I think I'd prefer the ordination of celibate men and women over married men, as I think that in the situation of a vocation like that and a family, one must take back seat, and it's unfair to both to ask them to be 2nd most important.

But if the priests were married, it would probably bring about vastly different thinking about sexuality.

[Protinus]

6) Divest some of its wealth and give that money to the poor and needy, or to organizations which help the poor, women who choose not to have abortions, etc.

I'm not saying that the Vatican needs to sell off masterworks such as the Sistine Chapel or St. Peter's Basilica. I am saying the Church should strive for simplicity in how it decorates its churches: do we need statues of Christ and the Blessed Virgin covered in gold leaf? Does the Church need to hold as much non-church private property as it does?[quote]

We should talk about this. I honestly do not think that problem is in the Church's financial holdings (less than you think) but in it's inability to handle finances, case in point, the sexual abuse crisis, and managing finaces to accomodate the crisis.

I am a so called "progressive Catholic" because of earth shaking events in 2002. There was much mismanagement, not only morally (my main concern) but financially.

[quote]7) Realize the unique gifts that some of the Church's marginalized groups (the divorced, gays and lesbians, the poor, women who have had abortions) can bring to the Church, and actively begin to use those gifts.[quote]

We are working on this as an integral theme. We welcome your input and we can only hope that this fellowship is realized to, not only embrace your views, but to enact them.

[quote]Few people can understand and women who have had abortions; and few peoemotional pain like the divorced ple can understand the need for social justice like gays and lesbians and the poor. These are resources waiting to be tapped.

bless you

[Protinus]

Website? Do you attend a Dominican parish all the time? I do. Don't really see the difference besides the priests wear slightly different clothes most the time.

I understand about the celibacy bit, and personally... It's not a huge point for me, but I think I'd prefer the ordination of celibate men and women over married men, as I think that in the situation of a vocation like that and a family, one must take back seat, and it's unfair to both to ask them to be 2nd most important.

But if the priests were married, it would probably bring about vastly different thinking about sexuality.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/UES038.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St._Vincent_Ferrer_(New_York)

http://ship-of-fools.com/Mystery/2004/878.html

voluntary celibacy..YES!! Involuntary celibacy...NO!!!

To your question, I belong to a Jesuit church...converted by the Jesuits, they are golden with me. I stand in awe of their contribution in the world, my life and the future of our Church.

[MikeK]

voluntary celibacy..YES!! Involuntary celibacy...NO!!!

Becoming a Priest is voluntary. Just like becoming a Catholic, just like recieving the Eucharist.

Beautiful Church you got there!

[JasonV]

But Mike, is it not possible that God would call a man to Holy Orders, and that man may also be called to the Married life as well?

I've known so many great Priests in the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches who were married, and tended both their families and their parishes.

Why must celibacy be mandatory? Why must a man choose between callings when God may be calling him to both?

[MikeK]

But Mike, is it not possible that God would call a man to Holy Orders, and that man may also be called to the Married life as well?

Right now it's impossible under most circumstances for a married man to become a RC Priest. I don't think God is calling on people to do the impossible. I do thin kthat there are probably alot of married men who would like to be Priests, and alot of Priests who would like to marry - but that's not what you're talking about. I don't know how common God's calls are, but I don't ever remember hearing one.

[JasonV]

Right now it's impossible under most circumstances for a married man to become a RC Priest. I don't think God is calling on people to do the impossible. I do thin kthat there are probably alot of married men who would like to be Priests, and alot of Priests who would like to marry - but that's not what you're talking about. I don't know how common God's calls are, but I don't ever remember hearing one.

The only Priests in the RC Church I know of are the one's who converted from an Anglican or Eastern Orthodox Church. And those by special permission of the Holy See.

Likewise, I have no idea just how common the "dual" calling is.

[QuantaCura]

Hi all. I think a lot of opposition to things comes from a misunderstanding of why they are as they are. I hope I can shed some light on those reasons. I'm sure you'll still disagree, but then, when you disagree with something, you will know why you are disagreeing and with what you are disagreeing. :)

1) revise the seat of Rome and Roman Rule...move the seat of faith to the layity; become a tolerant albeit universal church- and that there is respect for "truth", install local rule to local and national churchs.

This is maintained because we believe the Church's structure is divinely appointed. For those of us who embrace this as truth, it would be the greatest act of criminal pride to do away with it and put something else in its place. To keep it, even if it doesn't please the world, is a very humble act. And it is definitely true that there have been a few individuals, who, once placed over the Lord's household, abused their position. But our Blessed Lord told a parable to St. Peter that explained that this could happen, and He gave the consequences. (see Luke 12:41-46.) But for the most part, the servants of the servants of God have born this great burden with faithfulness, whether the world love them or hated them for it (as Our Lord promised, the world would not always be pleased by the truth He gave us).

There are also practical reasons which are born out through history. National churches have almost always fallen into shameless erastism, where the nation state assumes control over the Church. We saw this in England, the various nations of the Protestant Reformation, various Orthodox places like Russia, and various bloody attempts to do so as happened in France and are currently happening in China. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, the Church is not meant to be part of a temporal kingdom--it should be independent from the State. The Church holds this separation of Church and state as integral to her welfare, the welfare of souls (as history proves, when the state gets involved with Church affairs, things fall apart quickly; when popes exceed their sphere, which has happened on occasion, things can also turn sour). We do not advocate, however, separation of Truth and State. Anyway, the history of national churches is a very sad one.

Likewise, there are practical reasons for not democratizing the Church. If we look at the history of churches democratizing themselves after the Reformations, all we see is a sad history of schism after schism after schism--democracy doesn't create true unity, but factionalism. The current state of so many denominations is a direct result of this. Denominationalism, instead of authentic unity, is a great scandal. How great is this Christ, who is supposed to be Head of His Church, His Body, if members of His Body are going in all different directions, claiming to all be acting according to different messages from the Head. If yours or my head gave such conflicting messages to our body, we'd be taken in to have our head examined--and I think we can agree, Jesus Christ, as Head, needs no examining in that way.

There's a reason the Church and a ship are the last two societies where democratic rule has not set in. It is integral for both entities to have one person at the helm, or we run the grave risk of shipwreck, with the ship busting into many, many pieces. A whole ship can float, a shattered, disjointed ship sinks quickly, putting the lives of all aboard in danger.

5) Surrender its seperate statehood. The Vatican is not an earthly kingdom and Chruch is not ruled from a country.

Concerning this issue, it is not irrenouneable. But, one need only to look at the recent events concerning the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople to see why it is a good idea to retain it. The Turkish government has recently taken away his ecumenical status and has denied him any authority outside his particular jurisdiction. Vatican City prevents this from happening. It goes back to the righteous desire not to have nation-states control the Church.

2) lose the stereotype of women as "lesser" and the male language. For there to be church partnership in Christ, alter the charism to accept women in all church ministries.
Again, for those who believe the sacrament of Holy Orders to be instituted by Christ, this would be a betrayal of Our Lord. The same goes for changing the language He used to teach us about God. If it were possible for women to attain Holy Orders, they would have by now. One only needs to read John Paul II's writings on the dignity of women to see that. The Church was the first to make women heads of multi-national "corporations" (religious orders) and we even have been accused by some of making a mere human woman equal to the Divine King of kings, we put her on such a pedestal. There are so many ways we can humbly serve the Church, Christ, and our neighbors apart from Holy Orders. I can't see the reason why people are so focused on this issue, to be honest, except for the maxim that "women must do everything men do." I think that's why many of us unjustly see the pro-women's ordination folks as disingenuous. We think, "if you really want to serve, go do it and stop complaining and attacking the Church." I think, however, it's not about being disingenuous, but more about having been raised and immersed in a certain culture that holds certain principle values that were not really of value in the same way in Our Lord's mission. I think it's just a matter of understanding the difference between Christian values and cultural values.

3) strive for openess; we are in an exclusive confessional funk at the hands of officialdom let it be greater, embrace other religions and faith so that we may learn-; let the Church strive toward ecumenism internally as much as outwardly; that all excommunications are granted amnesty and that the Eucharist fellowship become the center of life in the church.

Concerning embracing other religions, this goes back again to the Church's desire to be faithful to Christ. He said to go and teach all nations, not to embrace and learn from their religions. Christ's truth is truly universal--it is for all people. To water it down, to embrace other religions as equal, would be a betrayal to both Christ and all people who have a right to His Truth. St. Paul spoke with many people of other religions. He always affirmed what is good and true, and corrected what was not. He did not embrace other religions. Neither did St. John, the Apostle of love, who had very, very strong words for those who did not embrace the true religion. Again, to do otherwise would be the height of pride on our parts. At least, that is how it is seen by those who do not embrace the traditional Catholic doctrine.

The same goes for excommunications. St. Paul excommunicated someone, not because he wanted to be mean and oppressive, but for the man's own good. So that he would repent of his sins and errors and rejoin the Church in the unity of faith and charity. Holy Communion is the sign of that unity of faith and charity. This is why St. Paul says those who have broken the unity of faith, by bringing false doctrines, are to be treated as "anathema" that is, as cast out from the community. St. John, the Apostle of love, says a similar thing--as does Our Blessed Lord, concerning those who should be cast out and treated as publicans and heathens. For the same reason, those in mortal sin (who have broken the bond of charity) are also not to receive Communion. If we accept this traditional understanding of Communion, then inviting non-Catholics or those in grave sin to partake of it, would be inviting them to profess a unity before God where that unity is broken--it would essentially be inviting them to lie before Our Heavenly Father. To those of us who accept this traditional doctrine, this is not an act of love, but of cruelty.


4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.

I'm not sure what you meant by love of the middle ages or the restoration movement. The Church always has her roots in the past and her eyes to the future. That creates that beautiful unity of all Christians through all time. We do not simple leave behind our spiritual forefathers. Social justice is not really the roots of Christian origin. It is more like a fruit. The roots are in eternal life and salvation of souls. Salvation is in its most basic understanding is partaking of the Divine nature--which is love, "God is love", or as St. Bernard says, love is the very substance of God. All human beings are designed to truly receive that love and to truly love.

This is why St. Paul says charity is the greatest, why St. John says those who love live in God, and why the two greatest commandments from Our Lord are to love God and love our neighbor. Faith is necessary first, as it is that initial surrender to Divine Love, but charity, the greatest, is partaking of it.

Sin, on the other hand is a choice not to partake in that love. In fact, some saints like St. Catherine of Siena and St. Robert Bellarmine, say that because man is so ordered towards love, that sin is essentially loving the wrong way. And this is always a danger because the world offers many counterfeit forms of love--love of self or material things over God and neighbor, or seeking to please men instead of loving them (and any parent knows the difference--you can just please your kids by giving them ice cream, but you can love them by making them eat their broccoli first! ).

Abiding in true love, therefore, is essentially salvation. Abiding outside it is mortal sin. To end this life obstinately remaining outside of love, is to choose not to partake of it, to choose not to partake of the Divine nature. Obstinately clinging to sin, rather than God who is love would be truly Hell.

Social justice is an integral aspect of that love (but not the totality of it), but if it is not rooted in truth, it can easily be counterfeited and actually take us away from love. This is why Jesus was adamant about coming to bear witness to truth. Without truth we cannot love to the depths that Our Lord calls us to. Our love will be at best, superficial or shallow, or at worst sinful. The Catholic Church has been traditionally a stickler about truth, because we understand that our love finds it's most profound and powerful potential in the truth.

continued...

[QuantaCura]

I'm speaking of the dogma that priests be celibate, a 10th century change

As you know, this is not a dogma, but something that can change. But for the sake of understanding, it would be a good idea to have our facts straight. This discipline existed well before the 10th century. And even when married men were ordained, they vowed to be celibate afterwards.

From the First Council of Nicea:

"3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion."

Notice no exception for "wife."

St. Jerome writes (AD 393 ):

"The apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) have either been virgins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) who are chosen to be bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), priests (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm), and deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) are either virgins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm) or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm), are vowed to perpetual chastity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm)."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm)

In 692, the Quinisext Council, a local council in the East, broke with this tradition. St. Bede, a contemporary, calls it a "reprobate council." The Easterners were permitted out of economy, to prevent an all out schism--for this same reason, those in the East have been permitted to keep this tradition--because when we take it away, they go into schism again--it's economy, not something that is necessarily best for the Church. The Married clergy is not something that is per se evil, but the overall tradition from the Apostles strongly supports celibacy. I don't think there is good enough reason to jettison this most venerable practice. Especially, when there are better remedies, like education. The arguments against celibacy are ancient too--they are nothing new to our age.



But Mike, is it not possible that God would call a man to Holy Orders, and that man may also be called to the Married life as well?
I've known so many great Priests in the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches who were married, and tended both their families and their parishes.

Why must celibacy be mandatory? Why must a man choose between callings when God may be calling him to both?

All men have a natural calling to married life. It's ingrained in our biology. But some also have a supernatural calling to the priesthood. If a man didn't feel some draw to the married life, he probably shouldn't be admitted to the priesthood anyway--all the priests you see in the in the papers in regards to molesting boys and children were not interested in the married life.

But priests offer that desire on the altar of sacrifice so that ‘they follow the Lamb wherever He goes, singing a new song before the throne which no one else can sing’. Celibacy is mandatory because it is important for priests to be able to do just that; and so that they may have a contemplative life apart from their other duties. Those who appreciate the Sacrifice of the Cross, make the best priests because their life is intimately intertwined with it in a unique way. They are a sign of the true Victim and the true High Priest, a sign which is at its fullest in the celibate life.


But if the priests were married, it would probably bring about vastly different thinking about sexuality.

I doubt it, but what it would do is maybe add more credibility to the Church's teaching on sexuality. Although, there are plenty of married couples who write books and tour the country explaining the beauty of these truths. Likewise, there are many who do so in a less conspicuous manner in their everyday lives :)

Anyway, I hope that helped. You probably still disagree, but at least now you might have a better understanding of why :)

[MikeK]

Some quality posting there, Quant.

[Fish and Bread]

I appreciate Quanta's postings as well. He explains things from a more traditional perspective very well, yet without malice towards those who aren't as traditional. It's also obvious that he's well-read and understands the history and theology of the church very well, which is something that is not always true of Internet apologists.

[Cosmic Charlie]

Hi all. I think {ssssnnnniiiiiiipppp - 2740 words later -} Bellimore.

Ok - we have to do something about the filibuster rules in the forum.

[drstevej]

in the Third Millenium:

my opinion:

1) revise the seat of Rome and Roman Rule...move the seat of faith to the layity; become a tolerant albeit universal church- and that there is respect for "truth", let it be greater, embrace other religions and faith so that we may learn- install local rule to local and national churchs.

2) lose the stereotype of women as "lesser" and the male language. For there to be church partnership in Christ, alter the charism to accept women in all church ministries.

3) strive for openess; we are in an exclusive confessional funk at the hands of officialdom; let teh Church strive toward ecumenism internally as much as outwardly; that all excommunications are granted amnesty and that the Eucharist fellowship become the center of life in the church.

4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.


for starters...

sounds like uberCatholic :idea:

[Tonks]

in the Third Millenium:

my opinion:

1) revise the seat of Rome and Roman Rule...move the seat of faith to the layity; become a tolerant albeit universal church- and that there is respect for "truth", let it be greater, embrace other religions and faith so that we may learn- install local rule to local and national churchs.

2) lose the stereotype of women as "lesser" and the male language. For there to be church partnership in Christ, alter the charism to accept women in all church ministries.

3) strive for openess; we are in an exclusive confessional funk at the hands of officialdom; let teh Church strive toward ecumenism internally as much as outwardly; that all excommunications are granted amnesty and that the Eucharist fellowship become the center of life in the church.

4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.


for starters...

Sounds rather simliar to the Anglican Communion.

[Protinus]

This is maintained because we believe the Church's structure is divinely appointed.

The Church must not be Eurocentric despite your proclamation. Roman imperialism must give way to tolerant Church that is universal (the very translation of Catholic, not "orthodoxy" as invoked by ZooMom and others). Our ability to commune and learn from other religions must be a cornerstone of the church...without worry that it would sacrifice our Catholicity.

And don't backhand remark of our ability to understand what we "are disagreeing" about.


One problem with Rome imperialism is dramatic rise in power of the Roman Curia. JPII, undeniably, used his celebrity to prop the Curia up as well a centuries of accumulated papal authority. JPII's papacy gave new credence and force to Augustine's, "Roma locuta est; causa finita est"..."Rome has spoken, the debate is over".

Rome's interfering ways might be deemed comical if they were not so harmful.

I am reminded of bishops in England and Wales that were revising the language of their standard wedding ceremony under JPII 's rule. They dutifully sent the document to Rome for approval. It came back to them officially 4 years later with over 400 lengthy objections. Archbishop Quinn, in that very diocese, could not even receive an award from his own Jesuit School of Theology without intense study by the Curia and a troika of 3 other Vatican offices as to his "suitability to accept the award". He is quoted as "what does it mean when a Catholic bishop can not even accept an honorary degree with without assurances from three Vatican offices that he is a sound man of faith?”

Theologians have been run rough shod by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (successor to the Holy Office of Inquisition)., even having written for decades under the approval and authority of local bishops or having been dead for an entire decade, like the late Jesuit, Anthony DeMello who was sharply criticized (after he passed) for his writings when he was living. The Congregation heresy detectives reviews letters while the authors are still living and moves to suppress them rapidly and surgically, especially under JPII and B16. In the case of Fr. DeMello, it moved to suppress after he was dead for ten years...a new twist of suppression.

The Congregation began to peruse popular books in 1998. It has long presided over its hapless "Index of Forbidden Books" Admittedly, the Curia official told the Catholic news service, that it is "much harder to control do-it-yourself spirituality" and take sup a lot of the Congregation's "resources".

Oh! And the case of Cardinal Lorsheider from Brazil. He was suppressed by the Curia and JPII when Vatican document was released in the 1990's that criticized "other Christian churches for being gravely deficient" in their role of the Holocaust, without warning the bishops of the world. There was massive fallout from non-Catholic Christians and local bishops had to deal with it on their own. The Cardinal was highly critical of the Vatican and said "We all suffer...from a distant bureaucracy that is increasingly deaf". The subsequent response from the Vatican to its error was uncanny: burying all the bishops with directives unprecedented in papal history.

Cardinal Meisner of Germany remarked about the above: "We must ask: Does paper bear fruit?". His diocese was split up and his authority undermined after the remark.

[Protinus]

Social justice is not really the roots of Christian origin.

No, it may be...and what is wrong with this website?? I haven't been able to log all day.

No, it may be THE root of salvation and distinctly proven by scripture as the "thread that binds us all":

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19)

This is how our Lord unnderstood HIS ministry...not your understanding of how to enact his message...but a template of understanding that is there for the discerning and exegete, that we would only understand the TRUE meaning of social justice in His ministry. Don't tell me about fruit...tell me about radical enactment of His message as it relates to social justice in our society!!

[JasonV]

Hi all. I think a lot of opposition to things comes from a misunderstanding of why they are as they are. I hope I can shed some light on those reasons. I'm sure you'll still disagree, but then, when you disagree with something, you will know why you are disagreeing and with what you are disagreeing.

I think it is rather foolish to presume that the members of LC are illiterate on the issues brought up here. Perhaps it grants some small amount of comfort to members of OBOB to think that if we were more educated, we would be just like you? At any rate, I do hope that in the future, our regular visitors from OBOB will cease apologizing for their remarks by announcing their intentions to educate, not criticize.

There are also practical reasons which are born out through history. National churches have almost always fallen into shameless erastism, where the nation state assumes control over the Church.

Even if this is true (which requires more data), it only serves to underscore the point that the protection of the "Deposit of Faith" is the responsibility of the Laity as much as the Clergy. My Eastern Orthodox friends will explain this point over and over again, that the Laity has done more to protect Orthodoxy that all the Patriarchs, Metropolitians, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Monastics combined! If the Laity are not orthodox, nobody is.

Likewise, there are practical reasons for not democratizing the Church. If we look at the history of churches democratizing themselves after the Reformations, all we see is a sad history of schism after schism after schism--democracy doesn't create true unity, but factionalism.

But all the Clergy in the Early Church were nominated by the Laity. It didn't seem to be an issue then. A nice balance is needed to restore the Church, not a one-sided hierarchy consisting of the Clergy.

Concerning this issue, it is not irrenouneable. But, one need only to look at the recent events concerning the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople to see why it is a good idea to retain it. The Turkish government has recently taken away his ecumenical status and has denied him any authority outside his particular jurisdiction. Vatican City prevents this from happening. It goes back to the righteous desire not to have nation-states control the Church.

My friend, the EP is not the head of the Orthodox Church. At best (granting some leniency) he may be the first among equals, but his status is not recognized as such by anyone in the East. The Local Bishop of any Eastern Church is the head of said Church. The Patriarchs are at the mercy of the lesser Clergy and Laity, just as they should be.

Again, for those who believe the sacrament of Holy Orders to be instituted by Christ, this would be a betrayal of Our Lord. The same goes for changing the language He used to teach us about God. If it were possible for women to attain Holy Orders, they would have by now.

Ah, but they have. The idea that Christ instituted the restriction against women is not found in the Gospels.

You might enjoy this from a Roman theologian, Fr. Schillebeeckx , who wrote:

"In 1976 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produced a declaration on the question of women in the ministry. The fact that this was not a motu proprio from the Pope but a document produced by a Congregation, albeit with the approval of the Pope, indicates a certain hesitation on the part of the Pope to make a 'definitive' pronouncement on the question; this is the Roman way of keeping a matter open, though provisionally a kind of 'magisterial statement' on the issue has been made. According to its own works, this document sets out to make a contribution to the struggle for women's liberation.
However, as long as women are left completely outside all decision-making authorities in the church, there can be no question of real women's liberation. Nevertheless, this document says that women are excluded from leadership in the church on grounds of their sex, because they are excluded form presiding at the eucharist. Here, in a pre-conciliar way, the connection between church and ministry is again broken in favour of the relationship between eucharist (sacred power) and ministry. In particular, all kinds of feminine 'impurities' have unmistakenably played a part throughout the history of the church in restricting women's role in worship, as also in the Levitical legislation and in many cultures. What were originally hygienic measures are later 'ritualized'. All this is in no way specifically Christian." (Ministry, 96-97.)

[_Shannon_]

I personally wish that if they won't allow a married priesthood that at least diocesan priests would have to take some kind of vow of poverty. I find it totally obnoxious that while I am scraping by on rice and beans and pasta in my hovel-- that nearly every priest I know eats the best food, drinks the best wine, goes on fantastic vacations, has the very latest in technological gizmos and home entertainment systems.

[MikeK]

I find it totally obnoxious that while I am scraping by on rice and beans and pasta in my hovel-- that nearly every priest I know eats the best food, drinks the best wine, goes on fantastic vacations, has the very latest in technological gizmos and home entertainment systems.


Why?

I mean, I get that you're tired of making one dollar do the work of two, I get that you're tired, I get that you need a break, I get that you wish things were easier for you and if I could I would make things easier for you because you're a good person who does a great deal of good...

But why be jealous of a Priest because he gets a few bones thrown his way? He (presuming he is a man that should be a Priest and isn't running from something) gave up alot of attractive things to follow his calling.

I don't know as many Priests as I'm sure you do, but I do know that my Priest doesn't have any material things that you would envy. I'm sure he does eat and drink pretty good though.

[_Shannon_]

We're good friends with lots of priests...and they all live well. I just don't understand how someone can counsel another person to make enormous sacrifices to fulfill their vocation and not model those sacrifices. I mean if they stand in the person of Christ--shouldn't their lives reflect that??

Many of the very traditional Catholics I know lead celibate lives despite being married (because of not being able to physically or financially have more children)- without the added perk of being single, and not having family responsibilities. So I don't see the sacrifice of being celibate as that huge of a thing...it is an awesome gift- but it doesn't entitl one to any special treatment.

[_Shannon_]

BTW- it's not jealousy...it's just what individual wealth says to those who are struggling within the flock---and there are people far, far worse off than we are :)

[Rochir]

It MUST listen to the lay people for THEY are the Church! NOT some stuffy, old men who live in an ivory tower!

[fragmentsofdreams]

Thank you QC for joining the discussion. I hope that we may grow in faith, love, understanding, and respect even if we do not come to agreement.

I think the papacy has expanded beyond its original role over the centuries, filling the vacuum left by the collapse of the Roman Empire and the lack of any other western patriarchs. The relationship between the pope and the bishops should be more a like the relationship between the metropolitan archbishop and the other bishops in his province. His influence should be exercised through spiritual and moral authority rather than bureaucratic coercion.

[Protinus]

"The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to his name. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief." -- Lumen Gentium from VII

The Church is not a democracy but the pope is not a king either...and this alludes to the infalliblity of the layity when there is a consensus!!!

[Caedmon]

I personally wish that if they won't allow a married priesthood that at least diocesan priests would have to take some kind of vow of poverty. I find it totally obnoxious that while I am scraping by on rice and beans and pasta in my hovel-- that nearly every priest I know eats the best food, drinks the best wine, goes on fantastic vacations, has the very latest in technological gizmos and home entertainment systems.
One of my Paulist priests just got back from 'serving' aboard an international cruise ship.:tutu:

[Loki]

I thought that part of the focus of Vatican II was the focus on the laity. Is this just not being realized, or in the opinions of those here, must more analysis of the role of the laity in the Church be conducted?

[Protinus]

I thought that part of the focus of Vatican II was the focus on the laity. Is this just not being realized, or in the opinions of those here, must more analysis of the role of the laity in the Church be conducted?

It was, that is the way that I interpret VII...and I'm worried that it's influence and mandate is being eroded.:(

[Rebekka]

I personally wish that if they won't allow a married priesthood that at least diocesan priests would have to take some kind of vow of poverty. I find it totally obnoxious that while I am scraping by on rice and beans and pasta in my hovel-- that nearly every priest I know eats the best food, drinks the best wine, goes on fantastic vacations, has the very latest in technological gizmos and home entertainment systems.
Wow - priests over here don't have these things. They have pretty hard lives, having to serve multiple parishes (huge shortage of priests).

I am praying for a better financial situation for you, Shannon. :hug: :crossrc:

I disagree with one church doctrine, and I'd like to see that revised a bit, but I can understand if the church doesn't change it, ever. Tradition is one of the church's fortes. Other than that one thing, I don't see the need for change. I am for the priestly celibacy. I have no problems with an all-male priesthood although I personally (as a feminist) would not mind female priests, either - but I see that this thing will most likely never change, and that's fine with me.

[Victrixa]

The parish priest we had wears quality clothing, buys signature perfume, nice books and other nice stuff and makes amazing trips overseas... It was hard for him to understand our difficult financial situation. He did help us with food though. He is a very sensitive spirit, but what I want to say is that he seems relatively well off. :scratch:

[Victrixa]

I have a hard time with obligatory priestly celibacy.... :scratch: Why can't priests marry? My pastor is married, has kids and pastors a whole church! It sure is nice to have a married man (with a wife) to lead us, his flock. You should see the smile on those faces! Complete joy...

Scripture talks about pastors and church leaders being married... :tutu:

Yeah, I also believe as was mentioned earlier that some men are called to both: ministry and marriage! Sure, as some are called to be prophets and teachers! Or artists and administrators... Many Christians have many callings. I know I do... :confused:

The parish priest we had often sighed (and confided to us) that he wish he were married and had kids... His pain made me sooo sad... :( He wish he were both priest and husband/father. :cry:

[Fantine]

In the industrialized world, I agree with Fr. Art Baranowski's view that parishes need to restructure into small church communities.

[Caedmon]

In the industrialized world, I agree with Fr. Art Baranowski's view that parishes need to restructure into small church communities.
I tend to agree. With some parishes having parishioners numbering in the thousands, it is virtually impossible to have a real community "where everybody knows your name." I'm telling you from personal experience, if I had not found my little group of friends at the Catholic Center, I think I would have died spiritually and emotionally long ago, in a sea of hi-and-bye Sunday-mass-Catholic anonymity.

[fragmentsofdreams]

I tend to agree. With some parishes having parishioners numbering in the thousands, it is virtually impossible to have a real community "where everybody knows your name." I'm telling you from personal experience, if I had not found my little group of friends at the Catholic Center, I think I would have died spiritually and emotionally long ago, in a sea of hi-and-bye Sunday-mass-Catholic anonymity.

We have small church groups where people get together to discuss the upcoming readings among other things. I'm looking forward to joining them when they start up again in the fall.

[JasonV]

Large parish groups is not a problem in my church. If you get twenty people together on Sunday, you've done well.

It's a wonderful blessing to have an overwhelming number of parishioners.

[Lel]

I tend to agree. With some parishes having parishioners numbering in the thousands, it is virtually impossible to have a real community "where everybody knows your name." I'm telling you from personal experience, if I had not found my little group of friends at the Catholic Center, I think I would have died spiritually and emotionally long ago, in a sea of hi-and-bye Sunday-mass-Catholic anonymity.

In my diocese, every parish I've been to has probably 2,000+ parishioners. A small group is 50-100 people. The whole diocese makes it too easy to just get lost in a crowd. I find more community on CF, it's smaller...

[BillH]

Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Rochir]

Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Too simplistic, my friend!;) We all have our own intrpretations of Him, none better than the other.!:wave:

[JasonV]

Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Indeed brother, the Gospel is the primary message of the Church, and, along with the spiritual power of the Sacraments, is exactly what She must do. What seems to cause us some difficulty is the way in which the message and Sacraments are sometimes presented by His servants.

+C. W. Leadbeater of the LCC wrote this in 1920:

The clergy exist for the benefit of the world; they are intended to act as channels for the distribution of God's grace. Priests and Bishops have sometimes forgotten that primary fact, and have yielded to the temptation to seek power for themselves and for the branch of the Church to which they belong. Their duty is to explain the truth as they see it and to offer guidance and advice where it is needed; never under any circumstances have they the right to attempt to dominate the minds of others, or to force them into any course of action. Any branch of the Church which entangles itself in politics thereby betrays its spiritual heritage and departs from the path which our Lord has marked out for it; and in so doing it lays itself open to the just condemnation of honest and right-thinking men. (The Science Of The Sacraments, 301-302.)

[Lel]

Sometimes the simplistic is what is needed.

[Victrixa]

Sometimes the simplistic is what is needed.

:thumbsup:

[Protinus]

Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
bless you!! Hey Bill!!

[BillH]

bless you!! Hey Bill!!

:wave:

It is simplistic, at least until you ask yourself how you're going to do it. But, I guess my point is that this is what the end of the Catholic Church *should* be. I'm not terribly fond of getting the church wrapped up in other agendas -- whether "liberal" or "conservative" -- as an end in itself.

Which of course, is not to deny that having the church engaged in the issues of the day might have an instrumental value in getting the Gospel message across. Just that we need to keep such things in the proper perspective. :)

[Rochir]

7) Realize the unique gifts that some of the Church's marginalized groups (the divorced, gays and lesbians, the poor, women who have had abortions) can bring to the Church, and actively begin to use those gifts.

AMEN!

[fragmentsofdreams]

:wave:

It is simplistic, at least until you ask yourself how you're going to do it. But, I guess my point is that this is what the end of the Catholic Church *should* be. I'm not terribly fond of getting the church wrapped up in other agendas -- whether "liberal" or "conservative" -- as an end in itself.

Which of course, is not to deny that having the church engaged in the issues of the day might have an instrumental value in getting the Gospel message across. Just that we need to keep such things in the proper perspective. :)

Very true. We must always be careful that we never reduce the Gospel to a tool to use to promote the Cause.

[Diane_Windsor]

Revise the Code of Canon Law.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by UberLutheran
7) Realize the unique gifts that some of the Church's marginalized groups (the divorced, gays and lesbians, the poor, women who have had abortions) can bring to the Church, and actively begin to use those gifts.

What gifts do these people have that are unique? If you're saying that it would be helpful to have mothers who have aborted children and since repented on board to council others who may be considering making the same mistake, I agree. similarily I can see the value of having a person who was previously in a sexual (an any-sexual) relationship outside of marriage around to tell parishioners what a grave error it was and help them to avoid similar evils, I agree with you. Beyond that, I'm not sure what "unique gifts" you might be speaking of. Care to elaborate?

[fragmentsofdreams]

Revise the Code of Canon Law.

Do you have any revisions in mind?

[fragmentsofdreams]

What gifts do these people have that are unique? If you're saying that it would be helpful to have mothers who have aborted children and since repented on board to council others who may be considering making the same mistake, I agree. similarily I can see the value of having a person who was previously in a sexual (an any-sexual) relationship outside of marriage around to tell parishioners what a grave error it was and help them to avoid similar evils, I agree with you. Beyond that, I'm not sure what "unique gifts" you might be speaking of. Care to elaborate?

I would guess it would be the perspective of the marginalized.

[Caedmon]

Require at least 5 minutes of complete silence immediately before and after mass, to allow people the courtesy of undistracted prayer and meditation. This includes, but is not limited to, chit-chat, musician solos, and stampedes to the parking lot. Pet peeve of mine, sorry.

[Fish and Bread]

Require at least 5 minutes of complete silence immediately before and after mass, to allow people the courtesy of undistracted prayer and meditation. This includes, but is not limited to, chit-chat, musician solos, and stampedes to the parking lot.

:clap::amen:

[Horizonol]

It MUST listen to the lay people for THEY are the Church! NOT some stuffy, old men who live in an ivory tower!

So the Church of Corinth should have been advising the apostle Paul and not the other way around?

We can't forget the fact that Jesus appointed apostles for this very reason- to instruct and lead the people. If humanity was capable on its own, it wouldn't need a High Priest to begin with. They lay people are indeed the Church, but they are the body- not the head. The body needs leadership.

It's those old stuffy men that gave up their lives, their homes, their children, for the chance to preserve the apostolic faith for all generations. I think they deserve a little more respect than what's given.

[Horizonol]

I tend to agree. With some parishes having parishioners numbering in the thousands, it is virtually impossible to have a real community "where everybody knows your name." I'm telling you from personal experience, if I had not found my little group of friends at the Catholic Center, I think I would have died spiritually and emotionally long ago, in a sea of hi-and-bye Sunday-mass-Catholic anonymity.

Well, have you considered seeing what small groups meet at your parish during the week? There are ways of finding community even in the largest of urban parishes. I've met with groups of just a dozen or two people in parishes with thousands of members.

-Interesting avatar of Sina, btw.

[Horizonol]

I have a hard time with obligatory priestly celibacy.... :scratch: Why can't priests marry? My pastor is married, has kids and pastors a whole church! It sure is nice to have a married man (with a wife) to lead us, his flock. You should see the smile on those faces! Complete joy...

Scripture talks about pastors and church leaders being married... :tutu:

Yeah, I also believe as was mentioned earlier that some men are called to both: ministry and marriage! Sure, as some are called to be prophets and teachers! Or artists and administrators... Many Christians have many callings. I know I do... :confused:

The parish priest we had often sighed (and confided to us) that he wish he were married and had kids... His pain made me sooo sad... :( He wish he were both priest and husband/father. :cry:

He may be in the wrong vocation then. A priest that wishes to be married and have kids is like a married man wishing he had another wife.


Celibacy is important because it always the priest to focus on his flock- the priesthood isn't a profession, it's a life calling. The Church is his bride and he can't have another woman on the side taking away his devotion and love for the Church.

[Horizonol]

In the industrialized world, I agree with Fr. Art Baranowski's view that parishes need to restructure into small church communities.

We need to have more priests before we can do that though...

[Horizonol]

We're good friends with lots of priests...and they all live well. I just don't understand how someone can counsel another person to make enormous sacrifices to fulfill their vocation and not model those sacrifices. I mean if they stand in the person of Christ--shouldn't their lives reflect that??

Many of the very traditional Catholics I know lead celibate lives despite being married (because of not being able to physically or financially have more children)- without the added perk of being single, and not having family responsibilities. So I don't see the sacrifice of being celibate as that huge of a thing...it is an awesome gift- but it doesn't entitl one to any special treatment.

Have you ever ministered in the burn ward at the hospital? Maybe worked with little kids in horrible pain day after day?

I think people often forget what priests do all day- much of it is enough to drive a normal person crazy. A priest coming back to a steak and a glass of wine at the end of the day, if you really knew what many of their days consisted of, is not really that big of a deal.

--what you will find out is that most priests eat a sandwich or something cheap most of the time because that's all they have time to make or eat and once in a while, will have something nice. I know of some priests that budget themselves $3 a day for food.

[Diane_Windsor]

I thought of something while reading about Cardinal Law and the sex-abuse scandal. I would make additional excommunicable offenses:

**Any bishop who knowingly moves around abusive priests will incure automatic excommunication and will be immediately defrocked.

**Any preist, deacon, or bishop who abuses children or teenagers will be immediately defrocked and excommunicated.

Etc., etc., etc.

[Fantine]

in the Third Millenium:

my opinion:

1) revise the seat of Rome and Roman Rule...move the seat of faith to the layity; become a tolerant albeit universal church- and that there is respect for "truth", let it be greater, embrace other religions and faith so that we may learn- install local rule to local and national churchs.

2) lose the stereotype of women as "lesser" and the male language. For there to be church partnership in Christ, alter the charism to accept women in all church ministries.

3) strive for openess; we are in an exclusive confessional funk at the hands of officialdom; let teh Church strive toward ecumenism internally as much as outwardly; that all excommunications are granted amnesty and that the Eucharist fellowship become the center of life in the church.

4) relinquish love of the middle ages and the current "restoration" movement; concentrate efforts on current tasks and social justice- the roots of Christian origin.


for starters...
In other words, remain faithful to all the goals of Vatican II (before the conservative revisionists started chipping away at them.)

[Fantine]

Originally Posted by RoseofLima http://www3.foru.ms/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=37007079#post37007079)
I personally wish that if they won't allow a married priesthood that at least diocesan priests would have to take some kind of vow of poverty. I find it totally obnoxious that while I am scraping by on rice and beans and pasta in my hovel-- that nearly every priest I know eats the best food, drinks the best wine, goes on fantastic vacations, has the very latest in technological gizmos and home entertainment systems.


God never prohibited us from having possessions--only from holding on to them too tightly or valuing them too highly.

In one parish where I lived the pastor came from a very, very wealthy family. He took his money and established foundations, donated huge sums of money to good causes. He drove a beat up old Ford but he had one luxury--his sailboat, which he dearly loved. No one would have begrudged him that.

Since we have a huge shortage of priests as it is, I don't know how adding the requirement of a poverty vow would help the situation. As long as priests have adopted the philosophy of not holding on to their possessions too tightly or valuing them too highly (something we should all follow) I am fine with them eating steak sometimes.

[JasonV]

-Open Communion for all Trinitarian Baptized Christians.

We all know that most Catholics don't seem to go to confession much anymore, but that doesn't stop them from communing. So why keep the rest of us out? (I say this because I have no Priest of my own denomination to commune with, and the Episcopal service I attend for the Eucharist is too "low church" for me.)

[Fish and Bread]

We all know that most Catholics don't seem to go to confession much anymore, but that doesn't stop them from communing. So why keep the rest of us out?

It's worth noting that Roman Catholics who do not ever go to confession are violating Church law, and are not supposed to be receiving the Eucharist. Sure, it's done. A lot of people ignore the rules, just as you probably could technically get away with if you tried to commune there. But you can't expect them to change the rules for one group as a consequence of another group ignoring the rules. The rule is not made invalid just because it isn't followed, according to their theology. From their perspective, the people violating it are in sin (Though they may not all be culpable for various reasons).

[JasonV]

I see your point. I'm just saying that for actual practice, if RC'ers can violate canon law to commune, why can't us non-RC'er's commune?

[Fish and Bread]

I'm just saying that for actual practice, if RC'ers can violate canon law to commune, why can't us non-RC'er's commune?

In both cases, the groups we are discussing are not supposed to commune according to canon law. I don't understand how one group violating the rules makes it also alright for the other group to and necessitates a rule change to formally allow it. Neither are permitted to do so any more than the other group.

[Caedmon]

It's worth noting that Roman Catholics who do not ever go to confession are violating Church law, and are not supposed to be receiving the Eucharist. Sure, it's done. A lot of people ignore the rules, just as you probably could technically get away with if you tried to commune there. But you can't expect them to change the rules for one group as a consequence of another group ignoring the rules. The rule is not made invalid just because it isn't followed, according to their theology. From their perspective, the people violating it are in sin (Though they may not all be culpable for various reasons).
I think it's mandatory to go to Reconciliation one time a year, usually right before Christmas is the practice that I've seen. The common counsel among the priests I've confessed to is that you shouldn't go to Reconciliation very often, i.e., you shouldn't go every week, but if you went on receiving communion year-in and year-out and never confessing, I'd say you were in the wrong.

[Fish and Bread]

I think it's mandatory to go to Reconciliation one time a year, usually right before Christmas is the practice that I've seen. The common counsel among the priests I've confessed to is that you shouldn't go to Reconciliation very often, i.e., you shouldn't go every week, but if you went on receiving communion year-in and year-out and never confessing, I'd say you were in the wrong.

Yup, that's my basic impression as well, with the caveat that the Vatican technically encourages frequent confession that could be on a weekly basis, even though many American priests do not nowadays (Also, I tend to hear of people making their yearly confession, if they only do it yearly, during Lent as opposed to Advent, but I'd imagine it could be Advent as well, since that's also a traditionally penitential season, and also time when people start to think about God more perhaps to an even greater degree than Lent, as Christmas is a bigger cultural event than Easter.).

There are definitely some real gaps in terms of how the Vatican views things and the way the American church sometimes operates, though in all fairness there could be some cultural issues that make it seem to be more the case than it really is. I know that John L. Allen seemed to make the case in one of his books that the Vatican tends to operate on the Italian cultural principle of setting standards as high as possible knowing that most will not be able to live up to them whereas the American church tends to operate more on the American cultural principle that rules should be set at what people will actually do. I don't know if he was right or not, but it was an interesting take on the situation I hadn't read before.

[Caedmon]

Yup, that's my basic impression as well, with the caveat that the Vatican technically encourages frequent confession that could be on a weekly basis, even though many American priests do not nowadays (Also, I tend to hear of people making their yearly confession, if they only do it yearly, during Lent as opposed to Advent, but I'd imagine it could be Advent as well, since that's also a traditionally penitential season, and also time when people start to think about God more perhaps to an even greater degree than Lent, as Christmas is a bigger cultural event than Easter.).

There are definitely some real gaps in terms of how the Vatican views things and the way the American church sometimes operates, though in all fairness there could be some cultural issues that make it seem to be more the case than it really is. I know that John L. Allen seemed to make the case in one of his books that the Vatican tends to operate on the Italian cultural principle of setting standards as high as possible knowing that most will not be able to live up to them whereas the American church tends to operate more on the American cultural principle that rules should be set at what people will actually do. I don't know if he was right or not, but it was an interesting take on the situation I hadn't read before.
Hmmm, I hadn't thought of it as a cultural issue. And I don't know if the American viewpoint is good or bad. I mean, is it good to have unrealistic, idealistic goals, or a lower bar with practical advice? *wince*

[SpiritMeadow]

Off thread, but I can't help it. So happy to have found some progressive Catholics. All I have found is "so liberal I left" types and fundamentalist Catholics (never knew such a type existed). I'm not alone!!!!

[fragmentsofdreams]

Hello :wave:

[SpiritMeadow]

Hello :wave:
lol...it doesnt not appear to have much of a following!