The crisis in the RC Church in Belgium has caused a few priests to issue a call to reform that is bolder than Luther's. Mass without priests? IMO this is too radical.
I fully believe in the "priesthood of all believers". One becomes a priest per baptism; there are no "lay" members in the Body of Christ; only priests.
Ordination is the seal of approval granted by the institutional church that the candidate has been properly vetted, trained, spiritually directed, and is capable of serving as presider of the eucharist, pastor of the congregation, and cure of souls. The "priesting", however, comes through baptism.
In concept, I have no problem with the lay presidency of the holy eucharist. My problem sits at the functional level. It is incompatable with our Anglican heritage and traditions. It also could lead to religious anarchy unless assiduously regulated.
This is a Belgian RCC issue, however. The priests' proposals are legitimate in a crisis situation, which European churches currently are in. This is the matter: in a flow-down, monarcho-oligarchic institution --- which the RCC is --- petitions plus two bucks will get one a cup of expresso.
Nothing more.
Walk Your Own DharmaPath--- Do No Harm.
The Socratic Standard: Follow the evidence;____ if it doesn't make sense, it's bull$#!+.
The crisis in the RC Church in Belgium has caused a few priests to issue a call to reform that is bolder than Luther's. Mass without priests? IMO this is too radical.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral." St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
What limitation would you put on the choice of who presides? Would you be comfortable with lay people celebrating the Eucharist in their own homes? It would seem to miscommunicate the nature of the Eucharist as a shared meal of all believers. I would not have an issue with a Bishop authorising a lay person to celebrate the Eucharist for the benefit of the Church. IMO we should following the precedent that someone is sent by the Church to celebrate the Eucharist:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D: "Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
What limitation would you put on the choice of who presides?
As I previously indicated, while I'm not opposed to the concept in theory, I have profound difficulties with it in application.
Would you be comfortable with lay people celbrating the Eucharist in their own homes?
No. That would rapidly degenerate into an inzy-groupzy affair by invitation only. Horrible situation.
It would seem to miscommunicate the nature of the Eucharist as a shared meal of all believers. I would not have an issue with a Bishop authorising a lay person to celebrate the Eucharist for the benefit of the Church.
TEC already has this provision. It's called Canon Nine Priest.
IMO we should following the precedent that someone is sent by the Church to celebrate the Eucharist:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D: "Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Let's be careful not to retroject the later, developed concept of bishop onto the much earlier church. At that point in history, "bishop" i.e. "overseer" / "supervisor", was a presiding elder whose qualifications were moral and spiritual rather than academic and canonical, as we now understand things episcopal. The situation back then was far more fluid; each church in each major city appears to have its own format of liturgy, governance, and ethos.
As I've stated, this is a Belgian RCC matter; it doesn't touch us except hypothetically.
Walk Your Own DharmaPath--- Do No Harm.
The Socratic Standard: Follow the evidence;____ if it doesn't make sense, it's bull$#!+.
Let's be careful not to retroject the later, developed concept of bishop onto the much earlier church. At that point in history, "bishop" i.e. "overseer" / "supervisor", was a presiding elder whose qualifications were moral and spiritual rather than academic and canonical, as we now understand things episcopal. The situation back then was far more fluid; each church in each major city appears to have its own format of liturgy, governance, and ethos.
True! We should not be confused by the nomenclature, as the concept of ordination ( as well as that of the presbyter, bishop and deacon) that we have today has evolved from the time of the Church Fathers.
We are still referring to an individual whose authority was undertood by the entire ecclesial body. The appropriate person to preside at Eucharist should be someone whose spiritual authority is accepted by the local Church, or someone who this individual authorizes.
I wouldn't become too enthusiastic about the RCC's response to reform movements. The Vatican has never entertained warm-'n-fuzzy sentiments towards anything which challanged its authority or tickled the status quo.
I wouldn't become too enthusiastic about the RCC's response to reform movements. The Vatican has never entertained warm-'n-fuzzy sentiments towards anything which challanged its authority or tickled the status quo.
This is a re-play of the crackdown on "Modernism" ordered by Pius X ca. 1905, against priests, theologians, professors and seminarians.
Enjoy; comments welcomed.
"I don't know any more holy people," Cafardi said of American religious sisters. "I see a lot more holiness in the convents than I see in the chancery."
I couldn't agree more. This has been my experience, as well.
I'm with the Nuns. I hope they fight back, and tell the ArchBishop to go to H$!!
Robert J. McElwain
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral." St. Thomas Aquinas
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
