Exclusionism vs. Inclusionism
While many of the faithful hoped it wouldn’t come to this, including myself, it probably shouldn’t be surprising that it has. I speak of the sharpest language yet in the matter of official Church positioning against the ordination of women to the priesthood.
The exclusionary caste system of the male hierarchical priesthood dates back to the OT Judaic culture of patriarchal electionism of the priestly order in the line of Melchisedek. By birth, I am a Roman Catholic. I was early drawn to the Catholic priesthood and I entered the High School Seminary in preparation to become a priest. Eleven years later, at the age of 24, I opted to discontinue my pursuit of the institutional priesthood.
The call for Church "updating", formalized by Vatican II, confirmed me in my decision to opt out of the male priestly caste system. I am however, too confirmed in my belief in Roman Catholic Christianity to leave the Church of my childhood, even though I take exception to the dominion role of the male exclusionary hierarchy. I am convinced that cultural history prior to and after the time of Christ plays a stronger political role in priestly exclusionism than does anything Jesus said and did in his lifetime.
The continuing exclusion of women from the priesthood, if it is a mistake, is not the first mistake of institutional Catholicism. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the “right” of choice rests with those who have the “might” of choice, as has been the culture of Christian imperialism for the greater part of two millennia.
The priesthood of baptism vs. the priesthood of hierarchical electionism is a faith issue seeking resolution. It is likely that more than a few decades (more than a few centuries?) may yet be needed to find resolution. My choice is to continue within the Church and to advocate for the causes of inclusion.
What I expect to happen is that the Church will move forward in two directions simultaneously, one in which exclusionary priestly culture continues to affirm itself, and one in which inclusionary culture seeks affirmation.
The road into the future is likely to be increasingly rocky for both Churches. It won’t however, be the first time that internal power conflicts caused bitter anathemas to be hurled back and forth. In the early second millennium, the papacy backed itself into the unseemly situation of the Great Papal Schism. Fasten your seatbelts.
I do not lightly question
I do not lightly question the determination of Church to stake its credibility and future on its dominion mindset to keep women on the margins of Church life and Eucharistic celebration.
No more and no less than any other, I come to the Table with no purposes of arrogance but to speak the truth with sincerity as its been given to me to understand. Nor am I cavalier in taking liberties of thought.
I respect neither inferiority nor superiority but equality before God. With equal conviction I affirm the insights of truth given me, fully aware that they are hardly detectable flickers in creation’s vast display of Divinity, Who is Light.
My struggle to understand truth and to be faithful to Truth has not gone without the awareness of other persons of significant accomplishment, judgment, and sensitivity.
On August 1980, Father Leonard Kayser, Acting Director of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, speaking on behalf of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese, wrote to me: "I must thank you most sincerely for myself and Bishop Dingman for your patient explanation and attention. We are in full agreement that we need and want to continue a dialogue and whatever else will be supportive of your efforts. ...It is not often, if ever, that we meet with someone who has a vision and theological understanding of the Church as you have�.
On October 3, 1991, Monsignor C. Sepe, Assessor, Secretariat of State, First Section, General Affairs, Vatican City, wrote me on behalf of Pope John Paul II: "His holiness Pope John Paul II has directed me to thank you for the book of poetry that you sent him. He wishes you to know that he is grateful for your thoughtful gesture and that he appreciates the kindness which prompted it. His Holiness cordially invokes upon you and your family God's gifts of peace and joy."
In March of 1992, Bishop L. David Brown, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Northeastern Iowa Synod, Waverly, Iowa, wrote me: "It is the hope of the author that this book might be (used in) the syllabus of an interdisciplinary study in colleges and universities to stimulate wholeness in living and learning. Our specialized, fragmented and truncated approach to many disciplines cries out for a more comprehensive view of the learning enterprise. ...The subject matter is significant. The form of communication is creative. The book is worthy of study. Science and religion are far too important realms to leave only to scientists and theologians."
Father Thomas Berry, author “The DREAM of the EARTH�, wrote me: "Your own thought is a confirmation of my own. May all go well with this and all those other writings that are finding expression through you (Spring, 1992) You have indeed set forth the fundamental vision needed for effective entry into the future … I do hope that your vision will become effective on a broad scale throughout our society." (Fall, 1993).
On December 5, 1999, the late Very Reverend John Musinsky, SVD, the only American Superior General of the Society of the Divine Word, my Seminary Prefect and Theology Professor wrote me: “I would like to encourage you in your apostolate. The Church today does not know how to address modern man in such a way that she gets through to him. She will have to find new approaches. Modern man is certainly caught up in science and the approach from within his world is indeed promising�.
More recently, Sr Edith Matt, OSF, wrote me: “It is important for you lay people to remind the Church hierarchy that they are not seeing how women are alienated in the Church.�
Church and Sacrament become irrelevant except they speak to the truth of the times. This is the point of Vatican II and of my writing and why new “analysis and synthesis� are needed. The content of my writings isn’t about me but about God, Sacrament, Church and the times. By day, the crises of the time become more urgent, and yet there are those who fiddle to the tunes of past times while Planet Earth burns and the people melt down.
But now the Spirit is moving the hearts and the will of The People even as at the First Pentecost. Times are changing and it is the time for all to bring their light to the moment and to the "movement".
We frequently hear the
We frequently hear the pontification that the catholic church is the only true church and that in order to foster christian unity all other churches need to be brought into alingment with the catholic church's teachings. Unfortunately, this is error.
Each and every church that has branched off of the catholic church over the centuries has a valid claim to the same papal lineageas the catholic church. (This is the part the magisterium hopes you wont notice)
The anglican church has a valid claim as the true church because it was founded by peter and has an evolutionary commonality with the catholic church until the point where the catholic church seperated itself from them.
The protestant churches also have a valid claim as true churches because they too were founded by Peter and have an evolutionary commonality with the catholic and anglican churches until the point of seperation.
Each offshoot has the same valid claim that they are the one true church as the catholic church has, because all have the same common evolution, all were originally founded by Peter. The catholic church's claim is no more or no less valid. Neither are the doctrines that the catholic church added after the council of nicea any more or any less valid.
Even the catholic church is an offshoot of something. Prior to the era of constantine, the catholic church did not exist. After the council of nicea the catholic church of today became a conglemeration of numerous disciplines plus a liberal infusion of paganism ... yes Blessed Karl, the catholic church has incorporated paganistic rituals into its practices and principles.
Ex: Every time we celebrate Christmas, we are in fact practicing the rituals of the pagan pagent of Saturnalia. Presents, yule log, misletoe, etc. all predated the church, all are pagan in origin. Now, since according to the church doctrine, practicing paganism in any form is a violation of Gods laws, therefore, we must conclude that ....
Lest there be confusion: I love the mass, love the church, I love the rituals of the church, (even Christmas) but I have no affinity or tolerance for lies, deceptions, abuse or hypocrisy that are predicated in the name of God by those in supposed spiritual authority.
COL55, When I came
COL55,
When I came to this site I did not come here to be arrogant and impose my beliefs on people. I believe myself to be a simple Catholic who is just defending his faith and nothing more. The reply you have is fairly shocking and I now know where you are coming from. Ever hear of Steven Ray? He is a famous Catholic evangelist who converted from Protestantism. The following points you gave to me were the exact same points Protestant fundamentalists gave to him to halt him from converting to Catholicism. Quite an interesting coincidence that many liberal catholics and protestant fundamentalists have the same view of the Church.
1) In regards to pagan rituals I absolutely do not deny that. When Jesus instituted the sacrament of Baptism there were similiar pagan water ceremonies. In the book, Triumph, which is a history of the Church, the author (H.W. Crocker) says "Catholicism makes sacred what is profane." However, since you say paganism is a violation of God's law you appear to be making an arguement against the Church.
Well by that same arguement Jesus himself was practicing paganism via baptism. Thus it is safe to assume that Jesus was disobedient to himself as he was God? Again this proves Crocker's point.
2) You claim that the Catholic Church did not exist. Did you ever read the epistle of Clement, Eusebius' history of the Church, Ignatius of Antioch's letters, St. Irenaeus' books or any of the early Church fathers or pagans (like PLiny the Younger) who wrote at that time? Your claim is innerantly false that the Catholic Church did not exist. We know that from the time of Peter the Church had a pope. We know it had bishops and priests and deacons. Eusebius mentions many of these people individually and describes many of them in great detail using many primary documents that we no longer have access too.
3) In regards to other Churches being founded by Peter, I dispute this argument as well. Let us examine the history of these denominations. Anglicanism was made when Henry VIII split from the Church over the issue of divorce. That was 500 years ago. Luther split about 500 years ago as well. These denominations, and the other many thousands of others, differ in so many ways from the Church. I am in no way disparraging them but I do not believe that dialogue is endless altercations between various groups. My definition of dialogue is examining different claims and groups and listening to each in equal term and then deciding who is right and who is wrong. Protestantism, by nature, is schismatic and prone to theological anarchy with each sect claiming it is right. There is no authority. When it comes down to finding which Church was really founded by Jesus it comes down to this: Was the early Church Catholic or Protestant?
Blessed Karl, thank you for
Blessed Karl, thank you for your contributions.
In this post you stated " a simple Catholic who is just defending his faith and nothing more." I am curious about why you feel the faith needs to be defended.
Vigorous dialogue concerning pro's and con's of different topics and issues does not constitute a challenge to the faith. Quite the contrary, vigorous dialogue creates the forum where the truth can be seen more clearly and where error can be exposed. Rather than being an attack on Catholicism, these forums provide all of us with the oppoturnity to grow and expand in both our religious and our spiritual awareness and understanding, which is what I believe Jesus intended.
There are scriptures that imply that Jesus debated in the synagogue as well. In these debates, I believe these forums and the discussions withing them are following in the example Jesus set for us.
>>> It only takes one voice to transform a world <<<
.
--- "Was the early Church
--- "Was the early Church Catholic or Protestant?"
It was neither. What we call catholicism today, did not exist prior to the council of nicea. Prior to that time there were at least a dozen perhaps more differing sects with diverging beliefs about what christianity should be. Basically, Constantine locked up all the religious leaders in a room and refused to let them out until they came to agreement on something. That something was the beginning of catholicism. Before that, is did not exist as a single entity.
--- "Did you ever read the epistle of Clement, Eusebius' "
I'm working on it now. Prior to reading of it in one of your posts, I had never heard of it. Also, I never heard of Steven Ray either. The common root of western denominations was something that the Holy Spirit revealed to me as I was writing. The rest of it I made up as I wrote it.
My point is, in the same way that I and my cousins share the same lineage of my grandparents, so does almost every western denomination share the same lineage as catholicism. Where or how the schisms occurred doesnt change the fact that each and every one has the same root.
We have more in common than those with fundamentalist beliefs on both sides would like to admit. I believe that we have enough in common to come together and reach an agreement that will seve and benefit everyone.
However, as long as the mageristerium continues to proclaim themselves as "THE one and only true church" and DEMAND that everyone else "do it the catholic way or go to hell", then the only possiblity for the future is conflict, division and hate. That is not the way Jesus taught. That is not the way of love.
Col55, "do it the catholic
Col55, "do it the catholic way or go to hell", where did you get that quote or is it your own? You did not get that from the Catholic Church so where exactly did it come from? Please state your source for this quote.
That is a generic reduction
That is a generic reduction of many of the Church's teachings to a simple paraphrase. To elaborate:
doctrine ###, catechism ### and/or canon ### says "whatever it says"
then goes on to say:
--- if you disobey, then you have committed mortal sin and are in danger of hell or some variant of that. (canon 1329 is an example)
In other words:
--- do what the church teaches (do it the catholic way)
--- or (or)
--- you will end up in hell for your sin (go to hell).
(BTW, I agree with 1329 - thats why I used it as an example)
Q. "Was the early Church
Q. "Was the early Church Catholic or Protestant?"
A. (Trick question compounded by internal contradiction), it was "Christian".
"Anarchy" implies rulelessness, divisiveness, chaos. A church or any relationship that is ruled by the law of love implies and can tolerate differences. Respect, empathy, kindness, intelligence, patience, kindness, absence of envy, speak evil of noone, all of those virtues encapsulated in I Corinthians 13 are more important than being 'right',and more, they open the way to greater, deeper, wider understanding.
Thank you Dennis. Your
Thank you Dennis.
Your response illustrates how easy it is to succumb to our humanness and miss the obvious that is right in front of us.
"The early church was Christian." (as my son would say ... duh!)
Catholic means universal.
Catholic means universal. The early Church was the Universal or Catholic Church of Christ.
That is not what my 7+ bible
That is not what my 7+ bible (translations) say
"Go and make disciples of
"Go and make disciples of all nations."
Christianity was/is for all Men. All=universal=catholic.
The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." (source)
Sorry, I refuse to dumb down
Sorry, I refuse to dumb down writing to be politically correct, perhaps you can step up to realize that Man is used as a collective term for mankind (which doesn't have the same sound to it)
Does that refer to the
Does that refer to the Catholic chuch or to all the people of Christ?
In 110 AD, yes (they were
Hi Dennis! I will address
Hi Dennis! I will address your points first if I may.
1)
We must remember that the Catholic Church stands on three pillars: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. We know that Christianity quickly spread to other peoples. In which case the apostles did not have women as priestesses. The apostles were not governed by sexism. Origen opened a school for women (well he was about 200 years later) and had female copyists for the scripture. The Church tradition of the first few early centuries does not have women as priests. Heretical sects of gnostics do not count. Saying that "Jesus did not ordain women so ok we can have female priestesses!" is not a good arguement. The early traditions of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, did not ordain women. Jesus Christ fulfilled the old covenant. The Jews rejected God's son so God converted the Gentiles and made them his people too. Technically we are all God's people but the Jews being God's special elect were over because of their disobedience. Again if we are to believe in female priests we must also conclude that God has waited thousands of years until the advent of organizations such as We are Church, VOTF, Call to Action and others who dissent from many other Church tachings.
2)
Actually the Church never upheld slaver. Pope Eugene IV's papal bull "sicut didum" condemned slavery in the canary islands in 1435. In 1537 Pope Paul III issued another papal bull against slaver and mistreatment of Native Americans called sublimus Dei. The Church never declared ex catherdra that the earth was center of the universe. Gallileo was supported by various Jesuits and Cardinals and even the pope at the time, Urban VIII, was highly sympathetic to Gallileo (if thats what your refering to). That is until Gallileo wrote a book in which one of the main charachters, named Simplicianus, speaks out against the sun revolving around the earth. Simplicianus uses exact quotes from the pope whom Gallileo had personally spoken to. Couple this with the fact that Lutheranism was rapdily growing and Lutherans were declaring that Church support of Gallileo proved the Church was not Christian and you have a mess...
3)I don't understand what your point is.
4) You think the Cathars, Albigensians and other heretics were more than promoting heresies? There was no truth in what the promoted. The inquisition, while not being a badge of honor to the Church, was not the monster it was portrayted to be. In his book, The Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kamen, a leading authority on the matter for several decades, makes the claim that the inquisition killed a good 2000-2500 over a period of 300 years. The U.S kills more death row inmates in fifty years than that. More often than not torture and murder were rare in the inquisition. The inquisition was a relatively insignificant event. Its just that anti-Catholic Protestant writers in the 16th to 19th centuries made it appear worse than it was. Why do liberal Catholics, like anti-Catholic atheists and Protestants, always run to the inquisiton and/or crusades to prove a point about how the Church is evil and needs to be reformed from top to bottom?
Colcochk:
In regards to the inquisition burning gifted women at the stake. Read what I said to dennis please. Often nuns and sisters in medeival times were educated. Elanor of Aquitaine and Theodora (Greek princess who later become queen of the Holy Roman Empire) wielded enormous power. Women worked on the constructions of the great Cathedrals of Europe too. Joan of Arc and many other women have become saints today. Don't tell me the "Catholic Church burnt MILLIONS of women!" lie. It simply isn't true. The inquisitions did not kill alot of people and no they did not say that a woman who had intellect was of the devil.
In regards to other faiths that you mentioned: I am in no way implying that they are marxist. That is their faith tradition it is not ours. I am saying that the attitude towards women and the hiearachy in the Church is becoming more marxist. Look at how some, on this board, demonize the hiearchy and disparagingly call it a "caste system." We are talking about the Catholic faith which we recognize to be the faith created by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago.
Jesus did ordain men. Jesus was the supreme priest and his twelve apostles were the first priests of the New Covenant. Read Eusebius' history of the Church. Jesus most certainly did ordain the first apostles as seen in the Bible during the last supper. The apostles in turn ordained priests. St. Irenaeus of Lyon (BISHOP of lyon in second century), St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch were all 1st-2nd century bishops whose writings (some of them) we still have that validate what I have said.
Jesus may have had women preachin but again he never ordained them nor did the apostles nor did their successors. Preaching is one thing. But the celebration of the sacraments is another. A priest does all these things. There is nothing wrong with a lay person preaching (outside the mass). This goes the same for a women. As stated before there are three women who are currently Church doctors. As for the great female saints...note how the great saints were obedient to the Church. This includes both male and female saints. The Franciscan, Benedictan and Cistercian reforms were all started by lower tiered clergy. However, all of the reform movements were loyal to the Church and did not set themselves up in oppossition to the Church as the so-called "reformers" do now.
Blessed Karl, in your post
Blessed Karl, in your post you stated:
"the inquisition killed a good 2000-2500 over a period of 300 years ... anti-Catholic Protestant writers in the 16th to 19th centuries made it appear worse than it was"
You just stated that the murder of 2000-2500 people by the order of the papacy appeared worse than it was. Can there be anything worse than torture and murder that is sanctioned by papal authority?
Henry Kamen, a leading
Henry Kamen, a leading authority on the Spanish inquisition has made the following points in his book The Spanish Inquisition.
1) The inquisition only accused a good 40,000 people over its 300+ years of existence.
2) Few of them were tortured.
3) Even few of them were killed.
4) The Inquisition was not done by the government it was done by the state.
The Anglican Church, which you claim to be on the same level as that of the Catholic, killed many thousands of Catholics within the first thirty years of its existence. How many monasteries, Churches, convents and chapels were plundered by the crown? How many peasants were driven off lands that formerly belonged to monasteries so the rich nobles could suck up all the land for themselves? St. Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher were just two of the many martyrs slaughtered for being Catholic so King Henry could get divorced and get money from the Church lands. According to you the martyrs died for absolutely nothing.
BK, to continue the thread:
BK, to continue the thread:
There is a book "The Vatican Exposed", that presents very disturbing evidence about the Catholic Church. A few quotes:
p67: "Several commandants and officers at death camps were Catholic Priests"
p67: "Catholic priests...not only encouraged but also took an active part in the slaughter"
p71: "a large number of priests, clerics,... actively participated in all these crimes, but more terrible, even Catholic priests became camp and group commanders, and, as such ordered or tolerated the horrible tortures, murders and massacres"
p71-2: at the end of the war Archbishop ... was arrested for war crimes... the Archbishop was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Upon hearing the verdict, Pius XII ... ordered the excommunication of everyone who had taken part in the trial. Archbishop ... was presented as a champion of religious freedom"
According to the evidence presented, the pope sanctioned genocide! The doctrine of Papal Infallibility tells us the the pope cant make an error, that the pope speaks as Jesus. Therefore, we must conclude that either Jesus sanctioned genocide or that the pope was in grievous error.
Or, we can conclude that
Or, we can conclude that someone has decided to re-write History, which seems to be in vogue these days. "According to the evidence presented, the pope sanctioned genocide." COL55, what gives you the right to slander the Catholic Church based on heresay. It is simply amazing to me what people will say in order to try to compromise the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium. What exactly is your purpose in making such statements? Are you trying to demand individual interpretation of the Doctrine of the Faith? The Catholic Church is not Protestant.
Please explain how quoting
Please explain how quoting documented, historical evidence is slander.
Please explain how denying the truth is upholding the authority of the church.
Please explain how either of these constitutes "individual interpretation of the doctrine of faith".
Please explain what is "Protestant" about history.
QUESTION: what happened to the Nazi gold that was never found.
ANSWER: a lot of it ended up in the Vatican Bank
--- payment for smuggling Nazi war criminals into South America
It wasn't the "Anglican
It wasn't the "Anglican Church" that set up the change of religion in England - it was the Catholics. They were "the Church in England" and some of that English church wanted reform. I don't applaud or condone methods or (presumed) motives, but they were Catholics.
The Pope had even given the Catholic king the title "Defender of the Faith" and this title is still proudly claimed by the British Monarch. You can see this on our coinage; on the "heads" side the Queen's image is surrounded by the legend
ELIZABETH II D.G.REG..F.D. and the year of issue. (Dei Gratia, Regina. Fidei Defensor.2006)
Englishwoman
hmm, it seems that Eddie
hmm, it seems that Eddie Izzard's description is unacceptable, even through a link. Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife, a marriage that had required a dispensation from the Pope in the first place. The Pope said no, and Henry decided to do it anyway, forcing the bishops to swear allegiance to the Crown against the Church. One bishop refused, although his co-martyr is better known: St Thomas More and St John Cardinal Fisher. At this point their was a schismatic church (with valid sacraments). Henry went on to dissolve the monasteries (of course claiming the property for the crown), and declared anyone who gave religious allegiance to anyone outside England to be a traitor (that would be Catholics).
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
Good point
Good point BK.
Counterpoint:
read "The Vatican Exposed"
The events in the book are more recent.
I suspect you mean to say
I suspect you mean to say that the inquisition was not done by the church it was done by the state. But no less in error or in hyprocracy. The church executed its punishment through the state. Let's be at least honest to a modicum. Other sources, equally or more reliable would suggest that your "few" is/was too many even if it were one. Forty thousant? Sounds like a lot to me. Whitewash is worse than denial.
Edit: The inquisition was processed by church officials on mandate by the pope.
Some people's comments are
Some people's comments are disturbing. You know who you are.
Please enlighten me, which
Please enlighten me, which comments are you referring to?
To whom is this addressed?
To whom is this addressed? Where is the post to which you refer and what in its content disturbed you? What are your responses besides being disturbed?
Sometimes being disturbed is good. Remember that the healing came only when the waters were disturbed. Despite everything I hold fiercely to the possibility of healing.
Bless you Frannie, the
Bless you Frannie, the possiblity of healing. You have so eloquently illuminated the real issue, the need for healing within the church.
And as we all know from experience, healing cannot occur as long as one continues to be fed the same food that caused the illness.
But do they truthfully
But do they truthfully convey the conundrum the People Church has to deal with?
COL55, you have made several
COL55, you have made several mistakes:
1) You are thinking that the Vatican are made up of selfish beaurocrats who only do what they do for money. I am very sorry to hear that you think that. The hierarchy, and yes boy do they make mistakes, have been annointed by God my friend. Regardless of what mistakes they made to insinuate that they are just greedy and that they will probably get rid of "antiquatated doctrine" for money is absurd. Frankly the idea that some people think that Catholic doctrine can change in itself is heretical. This is called the modernist heresy. Be very careful. Whilst I think people who are for priestesses have good intentions I do believe they are being misled.
2) The Vatican has accepted a couple of priestesses into the Church from Anglicanism provided they are relegated back to lay status. This shows that your idea that if an Anglican priestess comes into the Church the hierarchs, who are greedy beyond belief of course (sarcasm intended), will permit them to come in so they can steal their wealth. Thus your point is incorrect.
3) You also apparently believe that once the Vatican prelates are either murdered or die off naturally things will get better. Surely a more younger, liberal, civil-rights campaigning clergy will come to power! I must also inform you that that too is incorrect. Let us begin:
a) I believe you have forgotten that a pope, when speaking ex cathedra, can not utter error. Either the Catholic Church is in error, after ordinatio sacerdotalis issued by JPII, or it is not. If JPII is in error then the Catholic Church is not the true Church.
b) FSSP, ICSK, Archdiocese of St. Louis are just a few that are growing. Yes there are Catholic orders and dioceses that are growing at ASTONISHING rates. The Fransiscan Friars of the Renewal went from 8 members to 108, most of them young, in just twenty years. FSSP had several dozen members and now have over 300 who are, once again, mostly young (average priest age is 33). St. Louis reported an increase of 50 % in their seminaries. Wiosconsin seminarians went from 5 to 30. Actually it has been proven, as ignatiusinsight.com has reported, taht the most Orthodox diocese' and orders are growing at a relatively nice rate. The ones that are more liberal are in utter decline. The number of priests is slowly going back up. And most of them are Orthodox to Catholic Church teachings. Even extreme liberals, like Fr. Reese, have admitted this.
c) We are all receptors to God. We must be receptive to God. Receptivity is a feminine attribute. So in a sense we the whole Church having a feminine role towards God, including men. Thus the bride of Christ.
In your post you stated: "I
In your post you stated: "I believe you have forgotten that a pope, when speaking ex cathedra, can not utter error."
--- no, I havent forgotten. Since I learned that in order to get the doctrine of papal infalliblity passed, the presiding pope had to resort to subterfuge and deception, at that moment I realized that the doctrine was a living testament to the fallibility of the papacy. I just dont believe it any more. Do I believe that the pope is inspired? Absolutely. Do I believe infallible? No.
In your post you also stated: "If JPII is in error then the Catholic Church is not the true Church."
Sounds to me like you just proclaimed the Catholic Church is not the true Church.
BTW, my steps on how to get a woman ordained was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek, as a jocular exposition, not to be taken seriously.
"Reality" is increasingly
"Reality" is increasingly difficult to deal with in these times. It shouldn't be surprising that increasing numbers choose to escape it; they are a malleable sector prone to be receptive. I know from my personal experience, as one who was among them. They should pray fervently for us who choose to battle with reality.
My reference is to the
My reference is to the clerical culture that "educates" minds early ("malleable") to be submissive to institutional persuasion. I entered the seminary at 13 years of age. There is no credible adult faith education program in the Church to this day. Immaturity is a systemic problem in Church culture.
I do not discredit the good faith generosity of people who give their hearts and souls to the Church, difficult as things are. De-facto systemic rejection of evolution by Church culture makes my point for such rejection fixates in "knowledge" that makes little sense to the contemporary consensus. Catholic Christian belief is not threatened by evolutionary science; to the contrary, Christianity becomes even more credible in the light of science.
"De-facto systemic rejection
"De-facto systemic rejection of evolution by Church culture..."
Sylvester, in case you haven't heard the Church accepts evolution as a scientific theory. You want the Church to make evolution a dogmatic fact and the source and summit of theology. This is your fantasy world, not reality.
Yes immaturity is pandemic. Not just in the Church, but in western society. But just because someone is immature does not mean they are brainwashed, as you imply. Nor is someone immature because they disagree with you and agree with the Church, as you also imply.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
"Sylvester, in case you
"Sylvester, in case you haven't heard the Church accepts evolution as a scientific theory."
Thank you HT, you made my point. JPII brought the Church a little further along by saying that evolution "is more than a theory". But I do not know of any "updating" or "analysis and synthesis" of creation/redemption theology that includes evolution. Are you willing to go further with JPII and call evolution "more than a theory"?
That's because science,
That's because science, particularly speculative science (which is all any theory about the origins of the world can truly be), is a poor foundation for theology. (What happens when we disprove spontaneous generation in 17th century?)
And my views on evolution are such that, in general, I disagree with JPII on evolution. (Within the species is undeniable, but is not 'evolution' properly speaking. Macro-evolution is unproven, likely unprovable, and spontaneous generation a real stretch.)
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
On another thought, perhaps you ought to (setting aside your own theories for a moment) look into 'theosis' in the Eastern Catholic/ E ORthodox tradition.
Stet res. We are clearly in
Stet res. We are clearly in disagreement here. Tell us about "theosis", please.
I can't explain much, as I
I can't explain much, as I am seeking to understand it myself, but...
It is the Eastern (catholic and orthodox) view of what we Westerners describe as sanctification, the process of 'deification' in which we become gradually more connected with God and participate more fully in His Divine nature. I believe this was also taught in the West into the Middle Ages, but has become lost in our tradition. I thought it might interest you because of its evolutionary qualities (and colkoch for its deification), although somewhat more focussed on the ultimate goal than your usual postings.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
Thanks for the info HT, I
Thanks for the info HT, I shall have to do more research into this notion of theosis. I did know though that the East places far more emphasis on the God within, than the God up and out there somewhere.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
There is a wonderful quote
There is a wonderful quote in the Dala Lama's Little Book of Wisdom that would be so appropriate here, but since I was informed by a member of the clergy that I am not to read his works, much less give them any credibility, I will refrain from quoting him, lest I disobey properly appointed apolostic authority and subject myself to censurship.
"Heresy" is from the Greek
"Heresy" is from the Greek meaning "choice". Early Church imperial Roman theologians sought to dominate consciousness by denying people the right of their own intelligence in forming conscience and making choices. While it is understandable in the times, it isn't applicable in the same way in the present time. To the contrary, the fatalism of imperial dominion that Christianity dealt with has come to be incorporated in the closed faith expectations of institutional Church purists.
People beholden by vows to the institutional Church are cultured in guilt and fear to surrender their right of reason, their right of growing in faith understanding, which expects the submission of personal conscience to Church hierarchy.
Institutional impositions to the contrary, dominion theology, in denying "choice", denies men and women their birthright of conscience. The institutional demand of "unconditional" obedience is invalid on its face. No one should be imprisoned by artifices of fear. We are advised, "To thine own self be true." Speak truth also to power. Do not let the "religious" cult of fear intervene conscience.
Sylvester, Christ was a
Sylvester, Christ was a Purist. He wanted His Church to be united in His Word. He entrusted His Church with the Deposit of Faith. He entrusted the Magisterium, beginning with Peter and the Apostles, with Divine Revelation. It is a truth of the Catholic Church, that the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, so that The Word remains consistent and pure.
You are correct when you say that we all have the free choice to Love God.
I never thought of Jesus as
I never thought of Jesus as a Purist. Here's what He said:
Mar 9:38
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mar 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
This is very, very inclusive. And once again he bases salvation not on dogma but on kindness.
AnneD, I don't know what you
AnneD, I don't know what you mean by "Purist". Vatican II, like Jesus, considered all people who live by his life example, as "church". The Magisterium is a human creation (dare I say, "political"?) that came into existence long after Jesus left this Earth. I'm not sure what "purity" it represents. Does it believe in Vatican II? It's not clear from the signals it gives. Is that confusion (waffling between V1 and V2) "pure"? The purity of Jesus's word is effective in the lived example of Church, all God's People.
I understand where you are coming from, but the Holy Spirit is prompting the Church to move beyond humanly created obstacles and mistakes of the past. It's a new day. It's a new Church.
Something to think
Something to think about:
How many catholics actually choose freely to be catholic? Really?
"cradle" Catholics are indoctrinated from birth as their parents most likely were. There really isnt any "freedom of choice" in this scenario.
I'm guessing that the majority of those adults who are confirmed as adults were forced to do so in order to marry catholic spouses and forced to vow to raise their children catholic. There really isnt much "freedom of choice" here either.
Add to that the endless indoctrinations that anyone who leaves the church is doomed to eternity in hell for abandoning the "one true church". Not much freedom of choice here either.
It is estimated that 10% of the US population are catholics who have left the church. That is a LOT of people who have walked away. My guess is that most if not all of them left so that they could have the freedom to choose in some form.
There are a few who have been around the religion block a few times, and decided that of all the options, Catholicism works best for them. These people truly have freedom of choice.
The question to consider: How profitable is religion if one does not have the TRUE freedom to choose it?
I wonder just what you are
I wonder just what you are referring to. You can't possibly be implying that anyone who actually believes in the Church and what it has taught for 2000 years is fleeing reality, can you? If so, I have to say that "I reject your reality and substitute [His] own" (to paraphrase Mythbuster's Adam Savage). (see also Frank Sheed's "THeology and Sanity).
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
OK in thinking about how
OK in thinking about how best to respond I must first stress something:
The Church cannot ordain women because it does not have the authority to do so. Jesus did not ordain women. The Catholic priesthood is a continuation of the Jewish priesthood. We must also believe, if we do believe in priestesses, that after several thousand years since Melchezadek (I know a trashed the spelling) the people of God have gotten it wrong. And now it is only with the advent of dissenting organizations that we are finally going to have priestesses. If the Jewish priesthood also existed thosuands of years prior to Jesus then they were wrong too. It is only us trying to understand why this is. This is what theology is: faith seeking understanding (as St. Anselm once said).
Sylvester you are asying that the Old and New Covenant are imperfect? They were made by God my friend. They were perfect for their place in time. The New Covenant, which we are presently following, is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. The Jews of the Old Covenant rejected God's prophets so he sent them his son Jesus. In turn he rejected them. Thus the New Covenant is to the whole world including the Jews. The Catholic Church is home of this New Covenant and is the safeguard of the divine truth. Faith and Reason do not need to be reconciled as you state. His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, is trying to show how faith and reason are one.
Look at Church history and at the great intellectual Saints such as Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Augustine, Chrysostom and others. The war between faith and reason in Catholicism is fictitious and never happened. This is the same for the supposed war between men and women in Catholicism. Catherine of Sienna, Theresa of Liseux and Theresa of Avila are all female doctors of the Church. Origen, a devout Catholic of the patristics era, opened a school for women. In medeival England it is fact that women had more legal rights than they would have in Victorian England hundreds of years later. Read Eusebius' history of the Church and see his great praise for women martyrs and preachers.
You also state that Jesus brings us healing. Indeed he does. We see this with his love for women throughout the New Testament. But note how he did not annoint any of them to be priestesses.
Admittedly some arguments to explain why this is are good. Some are not. I believe in regards to Brother Ed we must remember that the Eucharist is the bread of life. Just as the example of sexuality that Br. Ed used was related to the Eucharist being the Bread of Life. As the sexuality example was of human life being made the bread of life, the Holy Eucharist, gives way to spiritual life.
Truth is that radical feminism is inherently marxist. At first this statement sounds strong and offense but allow me to explain. Look at this example:
The Bourgeois are evil and oppress the proletariate!
It has been this way for centuries!
The Proletariate must not take this anymore!
They must instead rise up to make things equal!
Who said this? Karl Marx of course! Now replace "Bourgeois" with "clergy" or "men" and "proletariate" with "laity" or "women." This teaches that two people are equally only if they can do the exact same things. There is no sense of "complimentality." That is to say, the Catholic belief that men and women compliment each other and can each do things the other cannot do and each give life to the Church in unique ways. To radical feminism, influenced by Marxism, this is an alien concept.
Let's close this table. I
Let's close this table. I can't follow the comments any more. If anyone wants to continue, please open a new table.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management