Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Show More
Loading...
Flag gilg April 14, 2010 7:47 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2010 -- 4:00PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Hi G,


We don’t know what the future demands of us and so the only oath, allegiance one can have is to God, if we do that then we will do the right thing.



But so many disagree on what God instructs.  He also instructed us to obey the successors of the Apostles. 


Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


 


I was very upset when people continued to intinct the Host in the Precious Blood, 


 Hey, we don’t that here but it sounds great, maybe I’ll do that next time I receive communion…



Do you think this is funny? 


Suz, i was playing with you, that is why I included the wink .


 


 





Flag Mysty101 April 14, 2010 8:04 PM EDT

re: Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


The vow of obedience is promising God that we will obey lawful superiors.

Flag jane2 April 14, 2010 9:42 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re: Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


The vow of obedience is promising God that we will obey lawful superiors.




And in today's Church just whom do you think are our lawful superiors?


I haven't ever made such a promise. And was never asked to.


When I was in college we attended an Eastern Rite mass within the Catholic Church where intinction was included.


No, I don't think it is a good idea within our Rite, but any pastor can put an end to it.


Weird discussion overall. Certainly not a major probem--have never encountenanced as a Eucharistic minister.


Actually I enjoyed being a Lector more because that was more within my charisms. I loved being a Lector and put hours into each reading. Even my DRE told me she was happy to hear me proclaiming the Word.


I'm no fan of Benedict ans was less a fan of JPII, an egotist of the first order. I'm weary of real corruption so often overlooked. I'm weary of the Maciel's and his cronies who have held such power, including Sodano who still does.


J.




Flag Mysty101 April 15, 2010 11:53 AM EDT

Apr 14, 2010 -- 9:42PM, jane2 wrote:


Apr 14, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re: Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


The vow of obedience is promising God that we will obey lawful superiors.




Hi Jane,


And in today's Church just whom do you think are our lawful superiors?


A lawful superior is anyone who is lawfully given that authority, whether he/she is good or bad----my old point--we still must pay the fine, if a bad cop gives us the ticket.  It is very tricky when we are told to do something, with which we disagree,  if it is not a not an immoral act.


I haven't ever made such a promise. And was never asked to.


I was speaking of Ma Angelica


When I was in college we attended an Eastern Rite mass within the Catholic Church where intinction was included.


Was it self intinction, or done by the Priest?  Under current guidlines only an ordinary minister may offer by intinction


No, I don't think it is a good idea within our Rite, but any pastor can put an end to it.


Any minister can refuse to allow it, but my Pastor wanted it to be allowed. He did instruct to "sip, not dip", but did not want us to prevent it.


Weird discussion overall. Certainly not a major probem--have never encountenanced as a Eucharistic minister.


It just came up because of the obedience discussion.  I would like to see more reverence and attention at Mass, especially during the Consecration & Communion.  Would you miss the Mass, if you couldn't attend? 


Actually I enjoyed being a Lector more because that was more within my charisms. I loved being a Lector and put hours into each reading. Even my DRE told me she was happy to hear me proclaiming the Word.


Yes, I am more a Lector, too, but usually only at daily Mass, since I am in the choir on Sunday.  The readings became even more powerful after I visited the Holy Land. I minister once a week in the Hospital, and in emergency at Mass.


I'm no fan of Benedict ans was less a fan of JPII, an egotist of the first order. I'm weary of real corruption so often overlooked. I'm weary of the Maciel's and his cronies who have held such power, including Sodano who still does.


Jane, we agree!!


J.








Flag gilg April 15, 2010 8:05 PM EDT

Apr 14, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re: Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


The vow of obedience is promising God that we will obey lawful superiors.




As long as superiors don't tell us or expect us to do something wrong, fine, but then you don't need to make an oath, a simple yes or no is what we should use instead of oaths.

Flag Mysty101 April 15, 2010 8:36 PM EDT

Gil,


We are discussing MA who as a professed religious has taken a vow of obedience.  I am surprised at her actions .


SuZ

Flag jane2 April 15, 2010 10:41 PM EDT

Apr 15, 2010 -- 8:36PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


We are discussing MA who as a professed religious has taken a vow of obedience.  I am surprised at her actions .


SuZ




That woman lived in Alabama and thought she walked on water. I don't even know what Order she really was. Nothing she said or did suprised me so I just tuned the whole EWTN thingie out. It is regressive.


Less than a hundred years ago the KKK in Georgia or Alabama would burn a cross or worse on the property of a Roman Catholic. But that kind of thinking was diminishing here even 30 years ago. Ma Angelica never did get it. I'm glad she got slapped down. Cardinal Mahony wasn't perfect but he had every right to direct the liturgy in his diocese--the largest in the US.


There is much controversy in the Archdiocese of Atlanta about the influence of EWTN and Steubenville here. And the Legion. Our archbishop, Wilton Gregory, is considered a bit left of center but he sent diocesan funds to Maine about the plebiscite there. He is a Church politician of the first order. The well-educated Catholics in the Faith in Atlanta came from the Northeast and are in the minority here.




Flag WaveringCC April 16, 2010 9:16 AM EDT

Apr 15, 2010 -- 10:41PM, jane2 wrote:


Apr 15, 2010 -- 8:36PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


We are discussing MA who as a professed religious has taken a vow of obedience.  I am surprised at her actions .


SuZ




That woman lived in Alabama and thought she walked on water. I don't even know what Order she really was. Nothing she said or did suprised me so I just tuned the whole EWTN thingie out. It is regressive.


Mother Angelica is a member of the Poor Claresan oxymoron of sorts? 


Less than a hundred years ago the KKK in Georgia or Alabama would burn a cross or worse on the property of a Roman Catholic. But that kind of thinking was diminishing here even 30 years ago. Ma Angelica never did get it. I'm glad she got slapped down. Cardinal Mahony wasn't perfect but he had every right to direct the liturgy in his diocese--the largest in the US.


There is much controversy in the Archdiocese of Atlanta about the influence of EWTN and Steubenville here. And the Legion. Our archbishop, Wilton Gregory, is considered a bit left of center but he sent diocesan funds to Maine about the plebiscite there. He is a Church politician of the first order. The well-educated Catholics in the Faith in Atlanta came from the Northeast and are in the minority here.





Flag Mysty101 April 16, 2010 11:54 AM EDT

Apr 15, 2010 -- 8:05PM, gilg wrote:


Apr 14, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re: Sure, we might disagre with some interpretations but I don't think we disagree with what God wants from us, besides what does this have to do with oaths only to God?


The vow of obedience is promising God that we will obey lawful superiors.




As long as superiors don't tell us or expect us to do something wrong, fine, but then you don't need to make an oath, a simple yes or no is what we should use instead of oaths.





Apr 15, 2010 -- 8:36PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


We are discussing MA who as a professed religious has taken a vow of obedience.  I am surprised at her actions .


SuZ




ps  I have always said that obedience is an obligation, unless the instruction is against faith (doctrine, not individual piety or preference) or morals.

Flag gilg April 20, 2010 10:41 AM EDT

Apr 12, 2010 -- 11:32AM, cove52 wrote:


Interesting, I just came upon the recent Newsweek.  Have you seen the cover???  "What would Mary do?" "How women can save the Catholic Church from it's sins"......


www.newsweek.com/id/235890




Cove, You All,


 


Here is another link to Mary & the Church:


 www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kri...


 From the article:


....


But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels  around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. One is the rigid  all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms  even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. To me  at least, this church  — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted  from social justice  — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus  criticized.


Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I  admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far  more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church  that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic  Relief Services and Caritas,  saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide  needy children an escalator out of poverty.


This is the church of  the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate  children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who  told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the  Vatican to save lives.


This is the church of the Maryknoll  Sisters in Central America and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa.  There’s a stereotype of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. I  learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an  American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a  creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters  like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the  world today may be nuns.


So when you read about the scandals,  remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church.  Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal,  but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of  priests, nuns and  lay workers toiling to make a difference.


It’s  high time for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime  — even  divine  — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers whose  magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness.  They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile.


 

Flag cove52 April 21, 2010 9:11 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2010 -- 10:41AM, gilg wrote:


Apr 12, 2010 -- 11:32AM, cove52 wrote:


Interesting, I just came upon the recent Newsweek.  Have you seen the cover???  "What would Mary do?" "How women can save the Catholic Church from it's sins"......


www.newsweek.com/id/235890




Cove, You All,


 


Here is another link to Mary & the Church:


 www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kri...


 From the article:


....


But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. To me at least, this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized.


Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty.


This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives.


This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns.


So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference.


It’s high time for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile.


 



 


 


Gilg, I know this all so well.  It is why I am still a Catholic.  A friend sent this article in a forward today:  catholicfriends.multiply.com/journal/ite....  Not sure about the precentages stated in article but it is nice to see that others are looking at us in a positive light.


It is true so many of us have found it hard to hold our heads up lately.  But, we have so much to be proud of.  We really do have an extraordinary "Church".


btw--One of my prayers was answered.  My bishop is leaving.  Cool


btw, btw--Is it just me or is anyone else irked by the Pope meeting with European victims and now coming out with an official apology when after all these years American victims cries were ignored by the Vatican? 

Flag cove52 April 21, 2010 9:30 AM EDT

Driving in the car the other day with my 10 year old daughter the question of why priests don't get married came up.  She wanted to know if our deacon was married and why he could be married and not the priests "don't the priests want to have descendants?".  I gave her my own answer which basically stated that the hierarchy of our Church needs to rethink the rules regarding priests getting married and women as priests.  "Yeah, why can't women be priests?" she asked "is it because Jesus was a man?"  I told her I did not believe that this is a valid reason. I told her this really is a rule the hiearchy over the centuries had come to adopt and enforce.  She leaned toward me and asked "isn't that discrimination?"... Yeah, baby!!!!  lol!  I laugh, but it really is not funny. 

Flag Mysty101 April 21, 2010 10:30 AM EDT

Hi ,


I certainly can see your POV, but obviously I don't agree.  I do also see that the gender Jesus chose is male, and that the Apostles are male, and feel these are good reasons to keep the priesthood male.  I don't agree with married priests, since I don't see that it would help with the scandal problems, and may just present more problems.


We need to find candidates who are not so worldly.  Even if the sexual sins were eliminated, desire for money and power would still keep candidates from the priesthood.


SuZ

Flag gilg April 21, 2010 12:09 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 9:30AM, cove52 wrote:


Driving in the car the other day with my 10 year old daughter the question of why priests don't get married came up.  She wanted to know if our deacon was married and why he could be married and not the priests "don't the priests want to have descendants?".  I gave her my own answer which basically stated that the hierarchy of our Church needs to rethink the rules regarding priests getting married and women as priests.  "Yeah, why can't women be priests?" she asked "is it because Jesus was a man?"  I told her I did not believe that this is a valid reason. I told her this really is a rule the hiearchy over the centuries had come to adopt and enforce.  She leaned toward me and asked "isn't that discrimination?"... Yeah, baby!!!!  lol!  I laugh, but it really is not funny. 




I like that daughter of yours, those are pretty good questions from a 10 year old. I think kids being innocent and all gives them a clear perspective that is not as clouded as that of adults.  Perhaps a better way of saying this is that kids can spot injustice better than adults, often they are the ones that make us question our beliefs.


 


Suz,


So: what will you do when women are ordained? That is assuming it happens in our lifetime and though it may take another generation, we might still be alive. It it were to happen in your lifetime, would you leave the Church because of it?


 


 


 


 


 

Flag cove52 April 21, 2010 3:31 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 10:30AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Hi ,


I certainly can see your POV, but obviously I don't agree.  I do also see that the gender Jesus chose is male, and that the Apostles are male, and feel these are good reasons to keep the priesthood male.  I don't agree with married priests, since I don't see that it would help with the scandal problems, and may just present more problems.


We need to find candidates who are not so worldly.  Even if the sexual sins were eliminated, desire for money and power would still keep candidates from the priesthood.


SuZ




Suz, my opinion regarding married priests does not come from the sex abuse scandal.  I truly believe we would have a stronger more prolific priesthood if married men were allowed to be priests.  I was thinking specifically a religious order of married priests.  The Church is full of well educated and talented men, why limit the pick of the pool?  Makes no sense, really.


But, Jesus did not just have male followers.  There is historical evidence that women held leadership roles in the early church.  So, that argument does not hold water, imo.  But, like you say you have your own pov.


We need to find candidates for the priesthood that are not so "worldly"?  Imo, the men who commited these "sins" were not worldly enough.

Flag Pensive April 21, 2010 4:42 PM EDT

Hello all.  Long time no see.


As for the issue of married priests, the question is not "will priests be allowed to marry" but rather "when will ALL priests be allowed to marry."  We already have married priests in the Roman Church.  The Episcopalian priests who converted to Catholicism are married; around 200 or so.  In addition, the Eastern Rite Churchs (Byzantine and Malkite Rites for example) also allow married priests, yet are still in full communion with Rome.  When we look at sister Churches like the Orthodox and Coptic Churches (in fact, Coptic priest "must" be married!) which have married priests (although higher positions than priests may not be married) , and Rome recogizes their apostolic succession, then  we see that it is quite "doable" without conflict.  Now for woman clergy, well THAT is a whole new can of worms which, unlike married clergy,  I do not expect to change in our lifetimes.  peace.


 

Flag jane2 April 21, 2010 6:02 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 9:11AM, cove52 wrote:


Apr 20, 2010 -- 10:41AM, gilg wrote:


Apr 12, 2010 -- 11:32AM, cove52 wrote:


Interesting, I just came upon the recent Newsweek.  Have you seen the cover???  "What would Mary do?" "How women can save the Catholic Church from it's sins"......


www.newsweek.com/id/235890




Cove, You All,


 


Here is another link to Mary & the Church:


 www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kri...


 From the article:


....


But there’s more to the picture than that. In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. To me at least, this church — obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice — is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized.


Yet there’s another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty.


This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives.


This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There’s a stereotype of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I’ve come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns.


So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference.


It’s high time for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime — even divine — side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. They’re enough to make the Virgin Mary smile.


 



 


 


Gilg, I know this all so well.  It is why I am still a Catholic.  A friend sent this article in a forward today:  catholicfriends.multiply.com/journal/ite....  Not sure about the precentages stated in article but it is nice to see that others are looking at us in a positive light.


It is true so many of us have found it hard to hold our heads up lately.  But, we have so much to be proud of.  We really do have an extraordinary "Church".


btw--One of my prayers was answered.  My bishop is leaving.  Cool


btw, btw--Is it just me or is anyone else irked by the Pope meeting with European victims and now coming out with an official apology when after all these years American victims cries were ignored by the Vatican? 




Cove and Gilg


I so agree with both of you.


Rome is much more concerned about the abuse stories in Europe than it ever was about abuse in the US or Australia where English common law is the basis for much of our own law.


Few remember that Pius XII was the first to ask women in active religious orders to modernize gollowed by Vat. II.


I support CRS, especially in a crisis where they are often already on the ground, as after the tsunami in Asia and in Haiti. CRS often works with USAID and that's one huge connection.


I've known women religious most of my life and many were pips--ran hospitals, schools, colleges and nursing schools. They were dedicated and prayerful women who knew how to roll up their sleeves.


My mother's best friend from nursing school had a brother who was a priest. In the forties he had a beat-up "woody-waqon" and he used to bring boys, mainly black boys from his poor parish to swim at his parents' summer house. I was  amazed at my wedding to see him in the sanctuary even though he'd known me forever. Their sister was an RSM and she and other RSMs came out to the "camp" to swim, too.


We're mired in something Rome promoted. It does no honor to all of us who have tried our best to serve as we have felt called.


Gilg, you mentioned all who have toiled in the missions under terrible circumstances. I remember our little lenten mite boxes in high school to support the missions. One year in hs I read an article in THE SIGN MAGAZINE by a teen leper in the Pacific. I wrote to ask if there was something I could send her. The list she sent needed more than my help so I gave it to Sister Ruth, head of the sodality Mission group.




Flag Mysty101 April 21, 2010 7:19 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 12:09PM, gilg wrote:


 Suz,


So: what will you do when women are ordained? That is assuming it happens in our lifetime and though it may take another generation, we might still be alive. It it were to happen in your lifetime, would you leave the Church because of it?




I don't think I'll need to worry about it, but no, I would not leave the Church---I really doubt I would leave for any reason.


I would definitely think about changing parishes if there were only women celebrating Mass in my parish.


SuZ

Flag Mysty101 April 21, 2010 7:24 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 3:31PM, cove52 wrote:


Suz, my opinion regarding married priests does not come from the sex abuse scandal.  I truly believe we would have a stronger more prolific priesthood if married men were allowed to be priests.  I was thinking specifically a religious order of married priests.  The Church is full of well educated and talented men, why limit the pick of the pool?  Makes no sense, really.


But, Jesus did not just have male followers.  There is historical evidence that women held leadership roles in the early church.  So, that argument does not hold water, imo.  But, like you say you have your own pov.


I have never seen any accredited evidence of this, and as I said I know a Priest who wrote a paper on this subject with much documentation that females were not ordained.  Early woman leaders were deaconesses, but their initiation did not include laying of hands.


SuZ


We need to find candidates for the priesthood that are not so "worldly"?  Imo, the men who commited these "sins" were not worldly enough.


Perhaps worldly was a poor choice of words.  I mean too concerned with secular issues and "things" of this world.





Flag jane2 April 21, 2010 9:55 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 7:24PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 3:31PM, cove52 wrote:


Suz, my opinion regarding married priests does not come from the sex abuse scandal.  I truly believe we would have a stronger more prolific priesthood if married men were allowed to be priests.  I was thinking specifically a religious order of married priests.  The Church is full of well educated and talented men, why limit the pick of the pool?  Makes no sense, really.


But, Jesus did not just have male followers.  There is historical evidence that women held leadership roles in the early church.  So, that argument does not hold water, imo.  But, like you say you have your own pov.


I have never seen any accredited evidence of this, and as I said I know a Priest who wrote a paper on this subject with much documentation that females were not ordained.  Early woman leaders were deaconesses, but their initiation did not include laying of hands.


SuZ


We need to find candidates for the priesthood that are not so "worldly"?  Imo, the men who commited these "sins" were not worldly enough.


Perhaps worldly was a poor choice of words.  I mean too concerned with secular issues and "things" of this world.








Not all women leaders in the early Church were deaconesses. That is a real misconception. Paul refers to hostesses.


 

Flag gilg April 21, 2010 10:31 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 7:19PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 12:09PM, gilg wrote:


 Suz,


So: what will you do when women are ordained? That is assuming it happens in our lifetime and though it may take another generation, we might still be alive. It it were to happen in your lifetime, would you leave the Church because of it?




I don't think I'll need to worry about it, but no, I would not leave the Church---I really doubt I would leave for any reason.


I would definitely think about changing parishes if there were only women celebrating Mass in my parish.


SuZ




Changing parishes? Why, just cause you would have to go to confession with another female? Wink

Flag jane2 April 21, 2010 11:43 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 10:31PM, gilg wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 7:19PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 12:09PM, gilg wrote:


 Suz,


So: what will you do when women are ordained? That is assuming it happens in our lifetime and though it may take another generation, we might still be alive. It it were to happen in your lifetime, would you leave the Church because of it?




I don't think I'll need to worry about it, but no, I would not leave the Church---I really doubt I would leave for any reason.


I would definitely think about changing parishes if there were only women celebrating Mass in my parish.


SuZ




Changing parishes? Why, just cause you would have to go to confession with another female? Wink




One of the funnier late afternoons my husband and I spent he was telling me what the young priest told him in confession--definitely not something said priest would have told me. The seal doesn't work two ways. I've never repeated it though.




Flag Mysty101 April 22, 2010 6:46 AM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 9:55PM, jane2 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 7:24PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 3:31PM, cove52 wrote:


But, Jesus did not just have male followers.  There is historical evidence that women held leadership roles in the early church.  So, that argument does not hold water, imo.  But, like you say you have your own pov.


I have never seen any accredited evidence of this, and as I said I know a Priest who wrote a paper on this subject with much documentation that females were not ordained.  Early woman leaders were deaconesses, but their initiation did not include laying of hands.


SuZ








Not all women leaders in the early Church were deaconesses. That is a real misconception. Paul refers to hostesses.




Hi Jane,


As I said, my friend researched this very thoroughly, and found no evidence of "laying of hands" on any women.  What is the description of these hostesses, and the source of the info?


SuZ

Flag Mysty101 April 22, 2010 6:51 AM EDT

Gil,


re--Changing parishes? Why, just cause you would have to go to confession with another female? Wink


Nah---Because I would find it very difficult to accept a woman confecting the Eucharist for the reasons I said before.


SuZ


 

Flag gilg April 22, 2010 10:10 AM EDT

Apr 22, 2010 -- 6:51AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


re--Changing parishes? Why, just cause you would have to go to confession with another female?

Nah---Because I would find it very difficult to accept a woman confecting the Eucharist for the reasons I said before.


SuZ


 




Ah, so somehow God is dependent on human gender for this wonderful gift? 


Suz,


I mentioned the confession part because some of my female friends have said they would find it most difficult if not impossible for them to confess to another female. I found that attitude interesting even though I can's see what difference this would make.


 


Jane,


One of the funnier late afternoons my husband and I spent he was telling  me what the young priest told him in confession--definitely not  something said priest would have told me. The seal doesn't work two  ways. I've never repeated it though.


Right, a couple of times my wife and I have discussed what the priest said.

Flag Mysty101 April 22, 2010 10:59 AM EDT

Apr 22, 2010 -- 10:10AM, gilg wrote:


Apr 22, 2010 -- 6:51AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


re--Changing parishes? Why, just cause you would have to go to confession with another female?


Nah---Because I would find it very difficult to accept a woman confecting the Eucharist for the reasons I said before.


SuZ


 




Ah, so somehow God is dependent on human gender for this wonderful gift? 


He did choose male gender for his human nature. 


I know they have used males to play Lassie in the show, but would you use a woman to portray Christ in a movie? "persona Christi" signifies male to me. 


Suz,


I mentioned the confession part because some of my female friends have said they would find it most difficult if not impossible for them to confess to another female. I found that attitude interesting even though I can's see what difference this would make.


It's not confessing to a woman, it is confessing to Christ, and this is much easier to realize when the "persona Christi" is male.


 




Flag cove52 April 22, 2010 1:09 PM EDT

Apr 21, 2010 -- 7:24PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Apr 21, 2010 -- 3:31PM, cove52 wrote:


I have never seen any accredited evidence of this, and as I said I know a Priest who wrote a paper on this subject with much documentation that females were not ordained.  Early woman leaders were deaconesses, but their initiation did not include laying of hands.


SuZ








 


SuZ, there is no evidence that Mary Magdlene was a prostitute but the Church sure had generations of Catholics believing it. 


Who knows what has been lost to history deliberately or otherwise. 




Flag Mysty101 April 22, 2010 2:55 PM EDT

Ah  something like a diagnosis of exclusion?


There are many biblical accounts of sending forth, selection and laying of hands, but nothing like that with women.


There are reports of deaconnesses and hostesses, but none were ordained. 


I really doubt there will be a change. 


SuZ

Flag Mysty101 April 22, 2010 3:01 PM EDT

re--there is no evidence that Mary Magdlene was a prostitute but the Church sure had generations of Catholics believing it. 


Yes, the 3 Mary's (or were there 3?)  some claim Mary of Bethany was the prostitute.  Obviously Lazarus and his sisters had money, yet neither of the sisters were married.  Some feel that this may be some disgrace on the family---perhaps one of the sisters?  If this were the case, the other would also not be a suitable wife.


(more speculation, but there was no speculation about the ordination of men)


SuZ

Flag jane2 April 22, 2010 10:28 PM EDT

Apr 22, 2010 -- 3:01PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re--there is no evidence that Mary Magdlene was a prostitute but the Church sure had generations of Catholics believing it. 


Yes, the 3 Mary's (or were there 3?)  some claim Mary of Bethany was the prostitute.  Obviously Lazarus and his sisters had money, yet neither of the sisters were married.  Some feel that this may be some disgrace on the family---perhaps one of the sisters?  If this were the case, the other would also not be a suitable wife.


(more speculation, but there was no speculation about the ordination of men)


SuZ




And exactly what do we know about the ordination of men in the early Church. You assume a laying on of hands.


The real truth is in retospect that men in the Church did try to make Mary Magdalene a prostitute with no substantiation. From what can read in Scripture she wasn't.


Some of us have spent years on Scripture Study--at the college level and beyond. I've read and studied and taught it under the supervision of many.


You are into some pretty esoteric thought. A class here and there?


While I was teaching adult religious education in my former parish, 4 RCIA classes, included, I regularly attended diocesan classes and seminars. (I had been recruited by that parish to teach adult ed.)


We don't know who presided at early Eucharistic celebrations. That is what we don't know. You don't know either.


Jane


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Flag Mysty101 April 23, 2010 7:33 AM EDT

Hi Jane,


Please don't start in about your liberal education again, especially in a condescending tone. As I said, I am relaying information researched by a priest for a paper he had published.


The acts of the apostles speaks many times of the "laying of hands", but never on a woman and the named Apostles  were men. The bible tells of Jesus speaking to a woman of very questionable reputation at the well, allowing a woman to touch him, and other incidents which were definitely not in line with the times, but no call to public ministry. 


There is much evidence for male ordination, yet none for female ordination.


SuZ


ps--could you please edit your post & get rid of all those spaces at the end?

Flag jane2 April 23, 2010 10:26 PM EDT

Apr 23, 2010 -- 7:33AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Hi Jane,


Please don't start in about your liberal education again, especially in a condescending tone. As I said, I am relaying information researched by a priest for a paper he had published.


The acts of the apostles speaks many times of the "laying of hands", but never on a woman and the named Apostles  were men. The bible tells of Jesus speaking to a woman of very questionable reputation at the well, allowing a woman to touch him, and other incidents which were definitely not in line with the times, but no call to public ministry. 


There is much evidence for male ordination, yet none for female ordination.


SuZ


ps--could you please edit your post & get rid of all those spaces at the end?




Hi Suz


Actually I taught a six-week course on the Acts of the Apostles using the Catholic Kevin Perrota series. I did two hours of prep for every hour of class.


I don't have to accept your interpretation of a paper written by a priest, nor his either.


This laying-on-of-hands is a nebulous business at best.


There is no substantial evidence in Scripture.


Hot dang, you are relying on one priest. In truth I had known the priest who headed theology and philosophy at my college for years at the diocesan camp in the Adirondacks as a youngster. My last year at camp we 12 an 13 y-olds kept him and the whole camp up one entire night, letting all the boats and canoes go and "rolling" the camp bell tower. It was one heck of a camp--with all meals served in the dining hall in the lodge with a wait staff.


My mother's mother lost her husband early. She had cooked for the priest who taught us senior theology. The old Irish-Catholic thing. Aced that course!!


My Dad's father helped build the private Catholic high school I attended--pastor b ecame a bishop friend of the family: Vice Chancellor of my college.


We all have stories to tell. No one priest ever influenced how I think, but in congregate many have.


Jane


( I didn't cause the long white space after my previous post and can't fix it.)

Flag Mysty101 April 23, 2010 10:37 PM EDT

Jane,


I thought we were having a pretty civil discussion, but I see that is impossible.


Peace to you.


SuZ

Flag jane2 April 24, 2010 12:43 AM EDT

Apr 23, 2010 -- 10:37PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Jane,


I thought we were having a pretty civil discussion, but I see that is impossible.


Peace to you.


SuZ




Suz


What is particulary civilized about this:


Please don't start in about your liberal education again, especially in a condescending tone. As I said, I am relaying information researched by a priest for a paper he had published


I just disagreed with you and gave reasons.


No one priest has ever had a singular influence on my thinking. Actually the CSJs who were my college mentors--a select few--had much more influence with me--also some of the RSMs in high school and as my employers for six summers in their hospital office.


SuZ--my family was highly connected in my diocese. It's just how it was. I benifitted and I have always been grateful.


A re-tell about Sister Lourdes and the pansies. As a junior in high school in Chemistry Sister Lourdes told me where my dad and all his siblings had sat in her classroom. She mentioned that my dad had brought her pansies for her convent garden when he was young. The next day my dad left a flat on pansies for her on the convent steps. For years he also gave Sister Paul chocolate covered cherries on her feast day--his name was Paul. The stories go on and on.


Jane

Flag Mysty101 April 24, 2010 11:01 AM EDT

OK we're getting a little sidetracked here--I have 2 questions about the original topic


How do you feel about the latest Vatican response?  Is popular opinion becoming any less disgusted with the Church?


And to the side topic--Does anyone have any hard evidence of female priests in the early Church?  I don't think that has any real bearing on whether or not there ever will be--we know early priests were married. 


SuZ

Flag gilg April 24, 2010 3:06 PM EDT

Mysty and Jane,


I love you ladies, I don't always agree with you gals but I still like you and that is why I am going to listen to what daddy used to tell me - "Don't get involved in a cat fight between two females" - Otherwise I would tell you beautiful ladies to use Email or the debate board to carry on your personal digs, but I won't and instead I'll say I'll say carry on.Smile


 


 

Flag gilg April 24, 2010 3:22 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2010 -- 11:01AM, Mysty101 wrote:


OK we're getting a little sidetracked here--I have 2 questions about the original topic


How do you feel about the latest Vatican response?  Is popular opinion becoming any less disgusted with the Church?


And to the side topic--Does anyone have any hard evidence of female priests in the early Church?  I don't think that has any real bearing on whether or not there ever will be--we know early priests were married. 


SuZ




Suz,


I don't about popular opinion but I've never been disgusted with the Church but my disgust with the church (heirarchy) is turning to indifference, some of the latest comments from Cardinals such as Rode and Hoyos suggest that these guys don't recognize evil when it faces them, e.g, Rode dismisses the abuse as an ""statistically insignificant problem" and Hoyos tells us that the coverup is merely a father protecting his son and the church is right in protecting the abuers from prison..... I don't know what to think....


If you are looking for hard evidence it will be very difficult. The sea scrolls discovered not too long ago suggest Magdeline was an apostle and in fact there are gospels that she wrote but those lost and recovered gospels aren't part of the four gospels that the council approved. Remember that they had orders to come up with one gospel and they had to get rid of all the other gospels - the king finally accepted four instead of one but who really knows?


Something similar occurred when the Jews consolidated the scriptures (Bible): first, they eliminated any scripture written by females (only God knows what we lost). Perhaps the council also eliminated any scriptures written by females.... we don't know. But I am glad that they at least came up with four.


Suz,


In the end, I really don't believe gender is important - can you think of reasons why female priests would hinder our orientation towards God and others?


 

Flag jane2 April 24, 2010 8:01 PM EDT

This is an intersting piece:


Rehabilitating Peter, praising women





Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF version

A homily for the Third Sunday of Easter


It can be read at:       ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/rehabilitating-peter-praising-women


It brings forward the women of the early Church in a fine way, without getting into the laying-on-of-hands.


I disagree with Decaon Ross about apostolic succession: don't think it ever happened, see Kung THE CATHOLIC CHURCH : A Short History. (Yes, I know Kung was forbidden to teach Catholic theology in 1979. But I find him right on many points.)


Jane


The Gospel of John is my favorite--interesting about the addition of Chap. 21 later.


 



Flag jane2 April 24, 2010 8:37 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2010 -- 3:22PM, gilg wrote:


Apr 24, 2010 -- 11:01AM, Mysty101 wrote:


OK we're getting a little sidetracked here--I have 2 questions about the original topic


How do you feel about the latest Vatican response?  Is popular opinion becoming any less disgusted with the Church?


And to the side topic--Does anyone have any hard evidence of female priests in the early Church?  I don't think that has any real bearing on whether or not there ever will be--we know early priests were married. 


SuZ




Suz,


I don't about popular opinion but I've never been disgusted with the Church but my disgust with the church (heirarchy) is turning to indifference, some of the latest comments from Cardinals such as Rode and Hoyos suggest that these guys don't recognize evil when it faces them, e.g, Rode dismisses the abuse as an ""statistically insignificant problem" and Hoyos tells us that the coverup is merely a father protecting his son and the church is right in protecting the abuers from prison..... I don't know what to think....


Not many of us can deal with much that is coming to light. For me, it also creates an indifference. And Rode wants to investigate mainly elderly active women religious in a country for which he has no use. Hoyos is off his rocker : as far as we know he knows nothing of parenthood.


If you are looking for hard evidence it will be very difficult. The sea scrolls discovered not too long ago suggest Magdeline was an apostle and in fact there are gospels that she wrote but those lost and recovered gospels aren't part of the four gospels that the council approved. Remember that they had orders to come up with one gospel and they had to get rid of all the other gospels - the king finally accepted four instead of one but who really knows?


In some circles Mary Magdalene is known as the Apostle to the Apostles. This has disappeared into the JPII and Benedict mysts/mists. In the late fifties when I was at the College of Saint Rose, several of my CSJ profs were big into the Dead Sea Scrolls and the mass in the vernacular. It is good to know the history of the Gospels, too, and the various audiences. In fact, it is essential on a certain level.


Something similar occurred when the Jews consolidated the scriptures (Bible): first, they eliminated any scripture written by females (only God knows what we lost). Perhaps the council also eliminated any scriptures written by females.... we don't know. But I am glad that they at least came up with four.


Christ actually supported women and they Him.


Suz,


In the end, I really don't believe gender is important - can you think of reasons why female priests would hinder our orientation towards God and others?


 




I don't think gender is all that important, either. Even in today's world--ours at least--children with two highly functioning parents seem to have the edge. My middle-aged children love to talk about the different POVs each parent gave.


Neat post, Gilg.


Jane




Flag Mysty101 April 25, 2010 9:33 AM EDT

Hi again,


re Christ actually supported women and they Him.


I never denied this---I certainly agree, but I still see little evidence that He wished women to consecrate.  And I really think that if there were women priests, it would have been recorded, since it would have been listed among the miracles at that time Wink


As is noted, many irregular incidents are reported.  I really don't feel the fact that it is not denied is a valid argument.  No records of chimps being denied either.


But again, things change.  My main disagreement is that Christ chose the male gender for Himself, and all the Apostles we see named in the Bible.


SuZ

Flag gilg April 25, 2010 1:50 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 9:33AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Hi again,


re Christ actually supported women and they Him.


I never denied this---I certainly agree, but I still see little evidence that He wished women to consecrate.  And I really think that if there were women priests, it would have been recorded, since it would have been listed among the miracles at that time


As is noted, many irregular incidents are reported.  I really don't feel the fact that it is not denied is a valid argument.  No records of chimps being denied either.


But again, things change.  My main disagreement is that Christ chose the male gender for Himself, and all the Apostles we see named in the Bible.


SuZ




Mysty,


As far as I know, at that time women were only cruzified if they were slaves and someone in the household was accussed of murdering a Roman official, then all the slaves were killed. Perhaps, the reason God chose gender had to do with the Passion, a woman would not have been taken seriously and probably stonned the first time she said something against the Pharasees (sp?).  Regardless, I don't see female priest diminish what God wants of us.


Assume Christ was a female at that time, do you think people would have listened to Her? Do you think the Sermon of the Mount would have been written? Do you think Peter and others would have followed Her? Do you think the lady at the well would have been the first Christian missionary if Christ had been a woman?


 

Flag Mysty101 April 25, 2010 3:47 PM EDT

Gil,


I do agree with your post,  and I do see your point, but I don't agree that this is a reason to ordain women. 


For the most part, male is the stronger gender. The bottom line is that the genders may be equal in status, but they are not in structure or emotional make up.  Not that either are superior, but they are different.  I would never take a job which requires physical strength.


I personally prefer the male priesthood.  I don't feel this is a slight to women.  I am all for women's rights, but I think this is as it is, and shouldn't be changed for the reasons I mentioned.


Obviously many disagree.


SuZ


 

Flag gilg April 25, 2010 4:59 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 3:47PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


I do agree with your post,  and I do see your point, but I don't agree that this is a reason to ordain women. 


For the most part, male is the stronger gender. The bottom line is that the genders may be equal in status, but they are not in structure or emotional make up.  Not that either are superior, but they are different.  I would never take a job which requires physical strength.


I personally prefer the male priesthood.  I don't feel this is a slight to women.  I am all for women's rights, but I think this is as it is, and shouldn't be changed for the reasons I mentioned.


Obviously many disagree.


SuZ


 




 


I would never take a job which requires physical strength.


You man like this:


images.travelpod.com/users/samndoug/1.12...


Suz,


The bottom line is that the genders may be equal in status, but they  are not in structure or emotional make up.Not that either are  superior, but they are different.


Exactly!


It is this difference, also made in the image of God, that we are losing; perhaps this difference you refer to is exactly what we need to prevent the sexual abuse, I don't know exactly what the impact what be but I am convinced that if God designed creation so women and men both bring something unique to the table then we should embrace that difference because somehow it must be good, otherwise why create it?


 

Flag Mysty101 April 25, 2010 6:39 PM EDT

Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.

Flag gilg April 25, 2010 6:52 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 6:39PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.




Ah, but it is not women or men that bring consecration to the table..... it is not the power of man that gives us this gift....


...but Suz, we don't have to agree, I still like you. Besides, it is not so much that I disagree but that I don't see us humans really having anything to do with the sacredness of Holy Communion or any of the other sacraments; priests just as the rest of us are simply tools that God uses..... tools are interchangeable; as the St Francis prayer says, we should all pray that we can be tools of the Lord, for it is in being a tool (Channel, Instrument, etc) that we forget about self and become tools of grace and really come to know ourselves.


 


As a side note, during WWII, women with bishop approval, performed priestly duties because there was a lack of males, this ended after WWII and no one complained then, particularly not those served.


Suz, if you finished going over your vacation photos, post some, here or start a thread.


 

Flag Mysty101 April 25, 2010 8:10 PM EDT

I thought I posted the link


suesphotos7.shutterfly.com/


The photo album is great.  ( It's near the bottom)

Flag jane2 April 25, 2010 10:43 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 6:39PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.




You are concentrated on "consecration". Many in the Church are now questioning that whole question and what it might or might not confer. Given how much we now know of the abuse scandal, I don't think it confers much.


Not everyone who disagrees with you is out of line or demeaning--we just disagree.


Peter is one of my favorites. His humaness appeals to me. About five years ago a former RCIA student asked me to lead a class or meditation before our week-night mass during Lent. I chose to lead a class from a meditation on Peter from a St. Anthony Messenger book: Peter of the big heart. Some got it and others who would have preferred schmaltz didn't. Actually I find Peter emotionally engaging.


I will always love Peter--the Lord chose well as aways. Do I think he was the first Pope? No. I think apostolic succession is a construct that is unprovable.


Jane


 

Flag cove52 April 26, 2010 1:00 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 8:10PM, Mysty101 wrote:


I thought I posted the link


suesphotos7.shutterfly.com/


The photo album is great.  ( It's near the bottom)




How awesome to go to Egypt.  The husband of a friend of mine is an Egyptian tour guide and takes groups of Americans over there.  He does this for a living.  He is originally from Egypt.  Interestly, she is  Jewish and he is Muslim.   They took their children last year. 

Flag cove52 April 26, 2010 1:20 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2010 -- 6:39PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.




I personally don't see what difference it makes. Certainly, God has chosen women as the vehicle for which other miracles have been performed.  The most important, of course, being the birth of Chist.  If the mother of our Lord was worthy enough to take part in that miracle than why not consecration?  Who did the Lord choose to appear to 1st after the Resurrection?  He certainly entrusted a woman to witness and spread the message of that miracle. 

Flag Mysty101 April 26, 2010 1:26 PM EDT

Yes, it was a fabulous trip------we saw the pyramids & Cairo, then cruised the Nile & Lake Nassar withe tours of the temples & tombs along the way.


The only downside was the heat.  In October it is over 100 in the shade in the Valley of the Kings (120 in the summer)


SuZ

Flag Mysty101 April 26, 2010 1:30 PM EDT

Apr 26, 2010 -- 1:20PM, cove52 wrote:


Apr 25, 2010 -- 6:39PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.




I personally don't see what difference it makes. Certainly, God has chosen women as the vehicle for which other miracles have been performed.  The most important, of course, being the birth of Chist.  If the mother of our Lord was worthy enough to take part in that miracle than why not consecration?  Who did the Lord choose to appear to 1st after the Resurrection?  He certainly entrusted a woman to witness and spread the message of that miracle. 




Sure, God can do whatever he wishes.  If he wishes women to be ordained, then certainly this will come to be.  I am not convinced that this is what He wishes.


SuZ

Flag Mysty101 April 26, 2010 1:34 PM EDT

Gil,


re As a side note, during WWII, women with bishop approval, performed priestly duties because there was a lack of males, this ended after WWII and no one complained then, particularly not those served.


I had never heard this.   Where was this & Did this include celebration Mass?


SuZ


 

Flag jane2 April 26, 2010 6:16 PM EDT

Apr 26, 2010 -- 1:20PM, cove52 wrote:


Apr 25, 2010 -- 6:39PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Certainly women have much to bring to the table, but I do not agree that this includes consecration.




I personally don't see what difference it makes. Certainly, God has chosen women as the vehicle for which other miracles have been performed.  The most important, of course, being the birth of Chist.  If the mother of our Lord was worthy enough to take part in that miracle than why not consecration?  Who did the Lord choose to appear to 1st after the Resurrection?  He certainly entrusted a woman to witness and spread the message of that miracle. 




Oh yes and then some..................


For me the whole ordination business is a control mechanism by Rome. Women can't give homilies on Scripture during the Liturgy of the Word because they are not ordained? More control by Rome. My former DRE, a woman, could preach better than many priests and most deacons.


Jane

Flag jane2 April 26, 2010 6:45 PM EDT

Since this is wandering from here to there, I had a very interesting conversation with a first cousin, a Vatican II priest whom I have never met. I've always wanted to meet him. He's in his mid-fifties. He was on the phone line with a cousin I've known since childhood. She and I were the more wild pair with stories to tell: nothing evil just some rare fun.


My cousin, the priest, had more than a few condemnations about how the Church is working. Another maverick but totally comprehensible. Wish I were a member of his new parish.


We talked about the new translations, which he thinks are totally out of line. He thinks bishops have too much power and use it not for the good of the Church. I have his e-mail address now and a new source.


A former pastor of mine would call it a divine appointment.


Jane

Flag gilg April 26, 2010 8:50 PM EDT

Apr 26, 2010 -- 1:34PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


re As a side note, during WWII, women with bishop approval, performed priestly duties because there was a lack of males, this ended after WWII and no one complained then, particularly not those served.


I had never heard this.   Where was this & Did this include celebration Mass?


SuZ


 




Mysty,


 


I didn’t find the article I was looking for, it was about women serving with the underground during WII, but here are a couple of related articles. What seems crucial is that these ordinations happened when there was a shortage of males, so if under extraordinary circumstances bishops have ordained females, this time period is an extraordinary situation and so where there is a priest shortage and people can’t receive the sacraments, then why not women priests?


 


BTW, I think you would like Ludmila’s sense of  “obedience” & tradition, not that much different than yours…..


 


Winter explains. “It is not easy to put Ludmila in a box, which we’d like to do. A stereotype -- ‘She’s a woman priest, therefore …’ She crosses back and forth. She was doing things that were post-Vatican II way back when, behind the Iron Curtain, it just blows you away. And she has this deep, deep loyalty to the institutional church, and to the importance of fitting within that tradition: not as an exception. She has always understood herself as being within the flow of that full tradition, and that what they did [in ordaining her] was right for the circumstances in which they found themselves.”


Winter continued, “Ludmila says, ‘If the bishop says I do not have faculties,’ ” -- the right to perform priestly functions -- “ ‘then I don’t.’ I pushed her on that. ‘Do you really think they took the priesthood away from you?’ ‘Absolutely not,’ she replied, ‘I am a priest forever.’


“There’s a difference, you see,” said Winter, “between faculties and priesthood. Ludmila has distinguished between the sacramental -- the gift from God, the call, the vocation -- and the canonical, the authoritative. She says the bishops and Rome have the right to rescind her faculties, but they can never take away her priesthood.


 


 www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/0511...


Also www.womenpriests.org/called/dunn1.asp

Flag jane2 April 26, 2010 9:40 PM EDT

Sorry dudes and dudettes, I'm outta here. I'm not fond of duettess.


I have family photos going back to Southeast Asia, Lebanon, and much of Europe decades old. One is of my son at nine on the Parthenon in Athens, where he shouldn't have been . Many of these were taken with a Minotla 101 with various lenses and filters: my kids at the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace, at the Vatican at a small public audience with Paul VI, in Paris.


I'm pleased for all who get to travel. I also had circumnavigated the globe with my family at 33. It was a treasure, but not unearned.

Flag Mysty101 April 27, 2010 7:43 AM EDT

Gil,


I didn't get the sense that these ordinations were approved by Rome.  There have also been other female ordinations by Catholics Bishops.  If woman cannot be ordained, none are valid ordinations.


If it is God's will, it will come to be.


SuZ

Flag cove52 April 27, 2010 9:49 AM EDT

Apr 26, 2010 -- 6:45PM, jane2 wrote:


He thinks bishops have too much power and use it not for the good of the Church.


Jane




This is very true in regards to the Bishop here in the diocese of Orlando.  Personally, I think the guy is a kook.  I am glad he is leaving here but not so happy that he is becoming an Arch-Bishop.  He has alienated many.  I have never in my life felt this way about a Bishop.  The 1st time I saw him say mass he sat in his big chair slouched, his legs with feet crossed stretched out in front of him.  His body language I thought very strange and out of place.  His words almost always have a bite to them.  He comes across rude, arrogant and self-centered, imo.  This is an ambitious guy.  He does not seem to care about whom he plows over on his way to the top.  He is moving up the ladder fast.  I am sure he has the color "red" in his sights.  He thinks he has left some great legacy here and hopes to help in the process of finding a successor to carry on what he started.  Just the thought makes me cold.

Flag gilg April 27, 2010 1:30 PM EDT

Apr 27, 2010 -- 7:43AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


I didn't get the sense that these ordinations were approved by Rome.  There have also been other female ordinations by Catholics Bishops.  If woman cannot be ordained, none are valid ordinations.




Suz, I believe only bishops are authorized to do ordinations (Rome's approval is not needed) and my understanding is that the ordinations are valid but illicit.  Difference there.


If it is God's will, it will come to be.


Agreed.


SuZ




Jane,


Nice that you ment your cousin, having a priest for a cousin can lead to some interesting discussions... does you cousin have a blog or publish someething? If so, give us a link I would like to read what he says.


Cove,


Your bishop's clone is over here in my parish, maybe they attended the same schools.


The best bishop we had was pretty old, he didn't last too long before he retired. I miss him, too bad more bishops aren't like him.


SO: I need advice regarding my niece that is staying here, after I get back from visiting a niece that just had a baby, I'll start a thread or something.


 

Flag Mysty101 April 28, 2010 11:19 AM EDT

Gil,


re--Suz, I believe only bishops are authorized to do ordinations (Rome's approval is not needed) and my understanding is that the ordinations are valid but illicit.  Difference there.


The problem is the subject matter is invalid.  Just as you can't consecrate beer & pretzels, you can't ordain women.  It is not the Church, but Jesus Himself, who established this.  Knowing all that was to come, He still chose no women.


Suz

Flag gilg April 29, 2010 9:59 AM EDT

Apr 28, 2010 -- 11:19AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Gil,


re--Suz, I believe only bishops are authorized to do ordinations (Rome's approval is not needed) and my understanding is that the ordinations are valid but illicit.  Difference there.


The problem is the subject matter is invalid.  Just as you can't consecrate beer & pretzels, you can't ordain women.  It is not the Church, but Jesus Himself, who established this.  Knowing all that was to come, He still chose no women.


Suz




Suz,


Interesting view on subject matter, I am not sure I understand it. I understand that we attempt to closely replicate the last supper, but I am not sure that the transformation from simple food stuff to the divine is dependent on the food stuff itself. I see the miracle coming from God's grace and I see grace independent of the material.


If we were found in a situation,e.g., prison, lost in a jungle, etc..., and the only food stuff available were pretzels and water, why would this stop a priest from saying Mass and using what is available for the Communion? I personally think the transformation would occur and the Communion would be as valid as Communion shared at St Peter's Basilica. As I said, I don't know but I am having trouble seeing how God's grace is dependent on subject matter.


 

Flag Mysty101 April 29, 2010 7:55 PM EDT

I think I am beginning to understand our differences.  You believe that we can confect the Eucharist with whatever is available.  I do not, but I do believe that God can give us His grace whenever He chooses with or without the sacramental Eucharist.


If we can believe so many mysteries, why can't we believe, "He who hears you hears Me"? or "whatever you bind on earth....." ?


How can you take a personal interpretation over scripture?


 

Flag gilg April 30, 2010 11:49 AM EDT

Apr 29, 2010 -- 7:55PM, Mysty101 wrote:


I think I am beginning to understand our differences.  You believe that we can confect the Eucharist with whatever is available.  I do not, but I do believe that God can give us His grace whenever He chooses with or without the sacramental Eucharist.


If we can believe so many mysteries, why can't we believe, "He who hears you hears Me"? or "whatever you bind on earth....." ?


How can you take a personal interpretation over scripture?


How so?





Flag gilg May 1, 2010 7:17 PM EDT

Suz,


You don't have to explain.


Last night I attended a party and I asked the priest there the subject question. He explained that the ritual requires matter to be wheat and or wine. He also said that in situations such as the one in the example, the body of worshippers can engage in what he calls spiritual communion, it is communion but without the host but with the same spiritual value, something like the concept of baptism by desire.


 


So you are right about the “matter” though he didn’t say you were correct about gender also being  “matter” required for the ritual. And given the situation, I didn’t ask and instead I brought him a glass of wine. BTW, He is from Columbia, he spent a few months as a hostage in some remote jungle and so right away he understood what I was trying to say and ask. While a hostage, he blessed water; they prayed together, etc. and celebrated a spiritual communion.  Going off track, our bishop likes to bring priests from Columbia and while this priest is pretty conservative, he is the only one of those imported priests that I like. He is a nice guy and I enjoy talking with him, even when we discuss religion we can have fun while disagreeing.

Flag jane2 May 1, 2010 8:54 PM EDT

May 1, 2010 -- 7:17PM, gilg wrote:


Suz,


You don't have to explain.


Last night I attended a party and I asked the priest there the subject question. He explained that the ritual requires matter to be wheat and or wine. He also said that in situations such as the one in the example, the body of worshippers can engage in what he calls spiritual communion, it is communion but without the host but with the same spiritual value, something like the concept of baptism by desire.


 


So you are right about the “matter” though he didn’t say you were correct about gender also being  “matter” required for the ritual. And given the situation, I didn’t ask and instead I brought him a glass of wine. BTW, He is from Columbia, he spent a few months as a hostage in some remote jungle and so right away he understood what I was trying to say and ask. While a hostage, he blessed water; they prayed together, etc. and celebrated a spiritual communion.  Going off track, our bishop likes to bring priests from Columbia and while this priest is pretty conservative, he is the only one of those imported priests that I like. He is a nice guy and I enjoy talking with him, even when we discuss religion we can have fun while disagreeing.




I agree with the priest with whom you spoke.


We can get so bogged down with "what has been decided by Rome" and spiritual reality.

Flag Mysty101 May 2, 2010 7:34 AM EDT

Apr 30, 2010 -- 11:49AM, gilg wrote:


Apr 29, 2010 -- 7:55PM, Mysty101 wrote:


I think I am beginning to understand our differences.  You believe that we can confect the Eucharist with whatever is available.  I do not, but I do believe that God can give us His grace whenever He chooses with or without the sacramental Eucharist.


If we can believe so many mysteries, why can't we believe, "He who hears you hears Me"? or "whatever you bind on earth....." ?


How can you take a personal interpretation over scripture?


How so?








Hi Gil,


Yes, we have a priest from India, and another from Guyana---both with wonderful gifts to offer us.  The Indian priest has a wonderful gift of healing prayer as well as many insights to offer, and the African priest has just completed his doctorate, and is extremely knowledgable on scripture.


If one accepts these scriptures:


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


I am sincerely asking these questions.  If I can believe that bread and wine can become a God who became man & rose from the dead, I can certainly accept His word on authority and obedience.


SuZ

Flag gilg May 2, 2010 3:16 PM EDT

May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


Yes, we have a priest from India, and another from Guyana---both with wonderful gifts to offer us.  The Indian priest has a wonderful gift of healing prayer as well as many insights to offer, and the African priest has just completed his doctorate, and is extremely knowledgable on scripture.


If one accepts these scriptures:


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


But Mysty, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


I am sincerely asking these questions.  If I can believe that bread and wine can become a God who became man & rose from the dead, I can certainly accept His word on authority and obedience.


SuZ




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.


 

Flag jane2 May 2, 2010 9:50 PM EDT

May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


Yes, we have a priest from India, and another from Guyana---both with wonderful gifts to offer us.  The Indian priest has a wonderful gift of healing prayer as well as many insights to offer, and the African priest has just completed his doctorate, and is extremely knowledgable on scripture.


If one accepts these scriptures:


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


But Mysty, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


I am sincerely asking these questions.  If I can believe that bread and wine can become a God who became man & rose from the dead, I can certainly accept His word on authority and obedience.


SuZ




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.


 




If there were only one correct interpretation of Scripture, even the NT, very few treatises, etc. over the centuries would exist. For me, Christ spoke in parables, etc. for a reason. It is also good to remember how long after Christ's death the Gospels were written and for what particular groups. The Letters, too, were written to specific peoples. Over the years I have had about 3-4 different versions/translations of the Catholic bible going back to the old Douay-Rheims.


Pius XII encouraged for the first time Catholic biblical scholars  working with biblical scholars of Judaism and other Christian groups. We tend to forget that Pius XII helped set the stage for Vatican II. Angelo Roncalli was a papal diplomat for Pius XII during WWII and after. Pius didn't put Roncalli in Paris after the war by mistake.


Emphases change and will so continue. A recalsitrant Rome really cannot stop progress, no matter how hard it tries. I think we are all called to have ears to hear and eyes to see within our own God-given personae. And as I have long quoted my favorite DRE: within the Church there are always expanders and limiters. Different people are called to different roles.


Jane




Flag WaveringCC May 2, 2010 11:49 PM EDT

May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.

Flag jane2 May 3, 2010 2:01 AM EDT

Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 

Flag WaveringCC May 3, 2010 12:25 PM EDT

May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!





Flag jane2 May 3, 2010 4:46 PM EDT

May 3, 2010 -- 12:25PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!








You are right about the different Franciscan orders. My husband graduated from an OFM college--they seem to be fairly middle of the road. My Catholicism was more liberal than his, though. The group that runs Steubenville drives me up walls.


I think the logistics for MIT are simpler and they all loved Boston.


McBrien has a great column this week on ncronline. (www.ncronline.org for those not familiar)




Flag WaveringCC May 3, 2010 5:19 PM EDT

May 3, 2010 -- 4:46PM, jane2 wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 12:25PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 3, 2010 -- 2:01AM, jane2 wrote:


Wavering


I agree with this:


I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.


But many other Catholic scholars are often addressing this. I like Fr. Richard McBrien and Fr.  Donald Cozzens and many who post on ncronline.


They are among my favorites also.  My reading spans a wide range!


The RCC is almost in schism right now with Rome as intent as ever to rule with rigidity in all.


I can see some wisdom in Anglican thought but I have no affinity with that community as you do. Franciscan thought is really not up my alley either in toto.


I honestly don't know what "Franciscan thought" is - there are many orders of Franciscans, and they do not seem to "speak" with one voice from the little I have read.  Richard Rohr is reported to bishops frequently for his un-orthodoxy, but so far, he has been left alone to write and preach.  The Franciscans I have a slight acquaintance with here in DC seem to be much closer to the views expressed by Richard Rohr, than to those of the Franciscans that Red is close to (a relatively new "branch" from what I have read, and very "orthodox.")


I like the intellectuals, mainly Jebbies, but not exclusively. And I can keep many ideas in tension with little problem.


Good to hear from you.


Jane


( you probably know that my grandson chose MIT. my son said it was a close decision with CalTech.)


 Yes - he had absolutely wonderful choices.  I, of course, was rooting for Cal Tech.  But, MIT is a good "second" choice.


It will make it easier for him to come home now and then, and for the family to go see him. He would excel no matter where he went, so -- no worries!  Just enjoy.


And I KNOW you will!








You are right about the different Franciscan orders. My husband graduated from an OFM college--they seem to be fairly middle of the road. My Catholicism was more liberal than his, though. The group that runs Steubenville drives me up walls.


Ah, yes. Steubenville. And the then there is the group at Medjugorje, making a fortune off the "seers" and those who flock to watch them "see."  They are also Franciscans.


I'm quite sure the Franciscans at Steubenville would not like to even admit that Richard Rohr is a Franciscan too. However, I suspect that his views are more in line with those of the original than are the views of the men of Steubenville.


I think the logistics for MIT are simpler and they all loved Boston.


I think Boston is very much an east coast/west coast thing.  I could hardly wait to see Boston, after hearing so much about it over the years, especially from a good friend in college who was from Boston and considered it the next thing to heaven itself.


Oh well, to each their own. I was so disappointed when I finally visited Boston, staying with my college friend, who showed me everything with great love. I didn't say anything to her, of course, but, sadly, Boston does not appeal to me at all, except for a couple of the areas bordering the river in Cambridge etc,. It just seems to be an old, tired city, full of either dark brown, dreary old buildings, or soulless new highrises.  It reminds me a lot of Baltimore, actually, except maybe not as many poor neighborhoods. 


However, I absolutely love the coast both north and south of Boston.  All the way up to the NH border, and south too, especially Cape Cod and Nantucket.  Absolutely beautiful coastline, and charming towns.  There is a Jesuit retreat house north of Boston a bit, and I'm thinking of trying to do an individual retreat there - just to have some silence, peace, and beauty.


I much prefer Pasadena, but, as I said, to each his or her own.  Pasadena is beautiful, but not a great college town.


Your grandson will be happy in Boston, and that's important.  And the logistics will definitely be easier. Plus Boston really is a truly a great college town - so many colleges there, and the kids who go to school there (many of my sons' various friends have gone to a very large sample of them!) and all seem to have loved it.  However, not even one chose to stay there after college.  After all, DC is much prettier and has a better climate to boot!


;)


McBrien has a great column this week on ncronline. (www.ncronline.org for those not familiar)


I read it. Excellent as usual.  Kennedy's column today is MUST reading too. 





Flag gilg May 3, 2010 5:29 PM EDT

Jane,


I read the article, I also read the article by Joan Chittister, The God who beckons, I have to read it again and spend sometime thinking about it, thanks for the link.


 

Flag Mysty101 May 4, 2010 6:50 PM EDT

May 2, 2010 -- 11:49PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.




Before we go any further into left field, we really need to watch the disecting of quotes---This was from Gil, not me-----


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


(no wonder personal interpretations are so off)

Flag Mysty101 May 4, 2010 6:56 PM EDT

No one has responded to this--


If one accepts these scriptures:



 


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 



 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.



 


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


 

Flag WaveringCC May 4, 2010 8:39 PM EDT

May 4, 2010 -- 6:50PM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 11:49PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 3:16PM, gilg wrote:


May 2, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


 


Hi Gil,


 


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


 




Oh, I accept His word on authority and obedience, what I don't always accept is the interpetation the heirarchy may give. Recently I had a discussion going on with Kim, she finds the Doctrine of Deception beautiful, I find it contrary to scripture and conflicting with other Church teachings. Some thing I don't accept, some I don't understand and try accepting, some I totally accept and overall my thinking is aligned with Catholic thought. It is part of my identity, of who I am and what I believe. Now you want to kick me out, but that is ok, I still like you.




I am not a bible scholar, Gilg. But, I read a lot, and listen to talks on tape by spiritual leaders.  Richard Rohr, OFM, once noted in a talk that the PTB are highly selective in their use of scripture, choosing to emphasize those that they have interpreted in a way that gives them exclusive "authority" while denying the church.  For example, Jesus talks of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16.  In that passage he is speaking to Peter and the others of the twelve.  The PTB emphasizes that passage in order to try to make the case that they (the clerical class) alone have the power to "bind and loose." However, Jesus also talks about "binding and loosing" in Matthew 18, where he is speaking to a large group of his disciples. That passage is really about seeking reconciliation and extending forgiveness (if possible), and that we are all called to do that. We all have the responsibility to "bind and loose." It interested me also because it was the subject of a homily at my (Episcopal) church a couple of weeks ago.  It simply doesn't even cross the minsds of the Episcopalians, including the priests and bishops, that "binding and loosing" is the exclusive province of the clerical class.  They interpret it as applying to all of us, and I think that their interpretation is closer to Jesus's intent and meaning than is that of the RCC.




Before we go any further into left field, we really need to watch the disecting of quotes---This was from Gil, not me-----


, the Catholic teachings are the ones more in line with my personal beliefs. But you are right, while I accept the scriptures, there are some official teachings that I don't totally agree with. Perhaps there are some people that accept everything told, if the Church is only for them, well, it will probably be a very tiny tent.


(no wonder personal interpretations are so off)




Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


While I agree that "personal" interpretations may be "off," it is also true that the history of the church demonstrates quite clearly that the interpretations of "Rome" have also been off at times - including when they pick and choose which passages of scripture to emphasize and which to gloss over (such as the example provided - by ignoring the passage where Jesus gives ALL of the disciples - not the 12, but ALL disciples - the responsibility for "binding and loosing."

Flag Mysty101 May 4, 2010 9:31 PM EDT

re-Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


If it was you who posted that disected mess, which atributed Gil's post to me, then yes, I am addressing you.  Check who posted what before you hit "submit"

Flag WaveringCC May 4, 2010 9:37 PM EDT

May 4, 2010 -- 9:31PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re-Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


If it was you who posted that disected mess, which atributed Gil's post to me, then yes, I am addressing you.  Check who posted what before you hit "submit"




Where did I attribute the "disected" quote to you?  You made a statement to Gilg, he replied, and I commented on HIS reply.  I said nothing of your post. In fact, knowing of your intense dislike of me, I deleted your original text (I'm afraid I forgot to delete the automatic fill in of your name, though).


  I commented on HIS reply. Please stop looking for things that aren't there.  If you re-read the entire sequence of posts, you will see where your "personal interpretation" went off track.


 

Flag jane2 May 4, 2010 10:18 PM EDT

Suz


Some of us have had it with the constant refrains about who follows "Church" teachings. And who repsonded to which statements. It gets tedious.


Neither Gilg, nor Wavering nor I are any sort of fool. I like the boards when conversations are interesting. Many of us learn from each other. I enjoy the companionship and exchange of ideas. I enjoy hearing about Wavering's sons and family and about Gilg's grandson: they have had some capers.


For years on these boards we read defenses of JPII and we are learning every day about how Maciel pulled the wool over his eyes. Maciel was a dangerous, corrupt leader and JPII gave him a personal prelature, which helped cover up real evil. And money talked big, big, big.


Nothing that happens in the Church makes me Speechless.


 

Flag jane2 May 4, 2010 10:44 PM EDT

Hi Wavering


I've never "done" Boston". My husband whose family is Mass. or was never wanted to.


We vacationed on Cape Cod when our children were small and loved it and all it's New England charm. Our fortieth anniversary trip was to the southern and rocky coast of Maine. We had booked an anniversary room at The Cliff House in Oquoquin about 20 feet from the rocky surf below. Room came with French Champagne and locally made chocolate truffles. I'm glad we did it: he was gone a year later. Some kind tourist took a picture of us on the porch/veranda at a cove "shack"--I treasure it. Ate lobster every day--our fave fruit. (flew in and out of Logan)


I've just been to Pasadena once, but loved it. Sunday my daughter in Southern CA and I will discuss an extended a visit. We can talk for hours because we have so many similar interests. Her husband and I do well together, too. I'm a low maintenance guest. Her husband is a piece of work--and I love pieces of work. (In his early thirties he ran Galpin Ford in LA.) Will be glad to see the Pacific again.


Tomorrow my daughter here and I are going to Pappadeaux's for mother's day in hopes we can still get New Orleans' fresh oysters on the half-shell.


Here's to great conversation !!


Jane


 

Flag Mysty101 May 5, 2010 6:10 AM EDT

May 4, 2010 -- 9:37PM, WaveringCC wrote:


May 4, 2010 -- 9:31PM, Mysty101 wrote:


re-Assuming you are addressing this to me (are you?), then...Yes, I was aware that Gilg made the statement and I was responding to him (not you) because of his statement about not always accepting the interpretations of the hierarchy. 


If it was you who posted that disected mess, which atributed Gil's post to me, then yes, I am addressing you.  Check who posted what before you hit "submit"




Where did I attribute the "disected" quote to you?  You made a statement to Gilg, he replied, and I commented on HIS reply.  I said nothing of your post. In fact, knowing of your intense dislike of me, I deleted your original text (I'm afraid I forgot to delete the automatic fill in of your name, though).


  I commented on HIS reply. Please stop looking for things that aren't there.  If you re-read the entire sequence of posts, you will see where your "personal interpretation" went off track.


 I went off track?  I knew exactly what you did---I was just pointing out that errors are made, and we need to be careful in quoting.





May 4, 2010 -- 10:18PM, jane2 wrote:


Suz


Some of us have had it with the constant refrains about who follows "Church" teachings. And who repsonded to which statements. It gets tedious.



Tedious?  Arrogant bragging----now that's tedious.  Some of us have had it with personal beliefs spouted like an authority, and self-proclaimed  "free thinkers" claiming scholarship over centuries of tradition and accredited theologians.


I am still asking


If one accepts these scriptures:


 "He who hears you hears Me" or "whatever you bind on earth....." 


 Then one  believes what the Church teaches.  I am not speaking of the rulings of invividual Bishops (such as those who chose to change the sacrament of orders or cover up abuse), but the official teachings of the Church.


If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


SuZ

Flag gilg May 6, 2010 4:11 AM EDT

May 5, 2010 -- 6:10AM, Mysty101 wrote:


 


I am still asking




If one can pick and choose which scriptures to believe, then why not go where the teachings are more in line with personal beliefs?


SuZ




I AM LEAVING AND IT  WILL BE YOUR FAULT!



Gee Mysty, you are still trying to kick me out because I can't  believe every interpretation that  Rome makes?


Ok, that is the  second or third time you posted that question, I take the hint, enough  is enough and so since you don't believe people that disagree with  everything Rome says should leave the Church, well, I am LEAVING AND IT IS YOUR FAULT.

You know, since you are the one pushing me out you  are going to have to do of penance for kicking me out into the cold.  Yep, you gotta do lots and lots of penance.


And it can't be a little penance, it has to be big penance; any ideas? Maybe walking with only one shoe for two months? How about walking with high heels for 7 days and 7 nights? Suz, I am plainyin. If I left  it would not be because of you or anyone else. I like you and am just having fun, I hope  you see the humor and it was just playing around. I am leaving but it is on vacation and really not your fault. See  you next week.


Flag Mysty101 May 6, 2010 10:27 AM EDT

Hi Gil,


Enjoy your vacation Smile


Seriously, I am certainly not trying to kick you, or anyone else out.  I am just saying that it is not up to an individual to change church teaching.  There is a difference between wanting a change, and trying to make it yourself, or ridiculing those who follow Church teaching.


Some are so rude and nasty to me because I follow Church teaching (especially in a Church ministry), and they don't like it.  I am merely saying they may be happier in a Religion more in line with their beliefs.  I have no problem with you, and would never try to kick you out of anywhereInnocent


SuZ

Flag gilg May 12, 2010 3:52 PM EDT

Suz,


Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.


So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.


 


 

Flag jane2 May 13, 2010 1:18 AM EDT

Actually I find Benedict's statements to the press onboard the plane to Portugal rather fascinating, especially for a very old man who is at least trying to come to grips with what has gone on. I dislike some central-eastern European thought where the Church is concerned, but I think this very old man may be trying to stretch. It's been all over the press, including the NYT. www.ncronline.org is probably a good source. Benedict indicated in this interview that the problem is with the very Church itself. I've read so much this week I'm bleary-eyed.


I like his take on Marianism as opposed to JPII's also: it is personal devotion, a choice not mandated.


Benedict is a theological scholar, but perhaps he can widen his ecclesastical view. I'm sorry it took a crisis in Europe to do this. No one in Rome really cared about the abuse by priests in the US: we still don't count because we have always had representational government not ever ruled by the Church and not indebted to it: no kings or queens who ruled by the divine right of kings. The Church has been fighting our form of government since the Enlightenment, of which our nation is a child.


It is good to keep reading and adding to what we have learned, for some of us over decades.


Jane


 

Flag Mysty101 May 14, 2010 7:34 AM EDT

May 12, 2010 -- 3:52PM, gilg wrote:


Suz,


Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.


There are some teachings open to personal interpretation, and others which are not.  Aparitions are open to personal belief.  If we struggle privately with a teaching, or say we would like to see change, it is a personal issue, but I believe it is wrong to publicly bash the Church or her members for following Authentic teaching. 


So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.


Hopefully the Bishops will be open to the Holy Spirit, and not let pride stand in the way of the changes that seem to be indicated.


SuZ


 




Flag gilg May 14, 2010 12:04 PM EDT

May 14, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 12, 2010 -- 3:52PM, gilg wrote:


Suz,


Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.


There are some teachings open to personal interpretation, and others which are not.  Aparitions are open to personal belief.  If we struggle privately with a teaching, or say we would like to see change, it is a personal issue, but I believe it is wrong to publicly bash the Church or her members for following Authentic teaching. 


Agreed. I do believe it is not only appropriate but our Christian duty to "bash" the bishops when they are wrong. I also believe it is our duty to speak out when a teaching is wrong. I don't consider the latter two as bashing the church.


 


 


 


So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.


Hopefully the Bishops will be open to the Holy Spirit, and not let pride stand in the way of the changes that seem to be indicated.


SuZ


 








Let us pray that it be so.....there seems to be more than one faction, those in the heirarchy that deny the wrong and those that accept that the church did not act in accordance with its own teachings.


 

Flag Mysty101 May 15, 2010 7:12 AM EDT

May 14, 2010 -- 12:04PM, gilg wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 12, 2010 -- 3:52PM, gilg wrote:


Suz,


Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.


There are some teachings open to personal interpretation, and others which are not.  Aparitions are open to personal belief.  If we struggle privately with a teaching, or say we would like to see change, it is a personal issue, but I believe it is wrong to publicly bash the Church or her members for following Authentic teaching. 


 


Agreed. I do believe it is not only appropriate but our Christian duty to "bash" the bishops when they are wrong. I also believe it is our duty to speak out when a teaching is wrong. I don't consider the latter two as bashing the church.


But it is not up to an individual to decide a teaching is wrong.  IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD BE JUST ANOTHE PROTESTANT SECT. (sorry for the caps) 


And we owe our Bishops respect even when we disagree (I know most disagree with that)


 


 


 


So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.


Hopefully the Bishops will be open to the Holy Spirit, and not let pride stand in the way of the changes that seem to be indicated.


SuZ


 








Let us pray that it be so.....there seems to be more than one faction, those in the heirarchy that deny the wrong and those that accept that the church did not act in accordance with its own teachings.


 





Flag Mysty101 May 15, 2010 8:07 AM EDT

May 13, 2010 -- 1:18AM, jane2 wrote:


Hi Jane,


Actually I find Benedict's statements to the press onboard the plane to Portugal rather fascinating, especially for a very old man who is at least trying to come to grips with what has gone on. I dislike some central-eastern European thought where the Church is concerned, but I think this very old man may be trying to stretch. It's been all over the press, including the NYT. www.ncronline.org is probably a good source. Benedict indicated in this interview that the problem is with the very Church itself. I've read so much this week I'm bleary-eyed.


I agree this was the first encouraging statement we've seen in this whole revival of the horror.  Let's see if there will be action, and not just words.


I like his take on Marianism as opposed to JPII's also: it is personal devotion, a choice not mandated.


The only thing I ever felt was mandated was the Mass obligation on the Marian Holydays.  I felt more that the importance was stressed because it is a benefit to us, as is all prayer.  Most priests I know have a strong Marian devotion because they do honor her as a mother, both on their own, and because Jesus loves and honors her so much.  As you say---it is a personal choice.


SuZ


Jane


 





Flag gilg May 16, 2010 1:47 PM EDT

May 15, 2010 -- 7:12AM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 12:04PM, gilg wrote:


May 14, 2010 -- 7:34AM, Mysty101 wrote:


May 12, 2010 -- 3:52PM, gilg wrote:


Suz,


Thanks for the clarification, I did feel that perhaps (I wasn't sure) you were directing your comments at me; I accept most of the Catholic teachings and I'm sure that even those teaching where we have agreement, we might not interpret them the same way.


There are some teachings open to personal interpretation, and others which are not.  Aparitions are open to personal belief.  If we struggle privately with a teaching, or say we would like to see change, it is a personal issue, but I believe it is wrong to publicly bash the Church or her members for following Authentic teaching. 


  


Agreed. I do believe it is not only appropriate but our Christian duty to "bash" the bishops when they are wrong. I also believe it is our duty to speak out when a teaching is wrong. I don't consider the latter two as bashing the church.


But it is not up to an individual to decide a teaching is wrong.  IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD BE JUST ANOTHE PROTESTANT SECT. (sorry for the caps) 


And we owe our Bishops respect even when we disagree (I know most disagree with that)


 


 


 


So: back to your original question about the Pope's resignation. As before, I rather see some changes that will inhibit such scandals and from the news coming out it seems that there isn't consensus among bishops, some want to retreat, others deny there is or ever was a coverup or sexual abuse, others call for change, and most simply remain silent.


Hopefully the Bishops will be open to the Holy Spirit, and not let pride stand in the way of the changes that seem to be indicated.


SuZ


 








Let us pray that it be so.....there seems to be more than one faction, those in the heirarchy that deny the wrong and those that accept that the church did not act in accordance with its own teachings.


 









Suz,


And we owe our Bishops respect even when we disagree (I know most disagree with that)


For the most part yes, I can respect the office of the bishop while disrespecting and disagreeing with what they say, this is not bashing the church or disrespecting the office of bishop. Do you really respect what Bishop such as Hoyos, Dadeus Grings, and others say? Are we to accept and give these bishops the honor of apostles when they preach sexual abuse by priests should be covered up because it really isn’t covering up the abuse but protecting the sons of the church? Do we accept that society at large is pedophile and adolescents are "spontaneously homosexual" and notions that sexual exploitation of children isn’t breaking celibacy vows? Is celibacy only applicable to sex with women? Sorry Suz, these guys are nuts and while I respect the office I find these leaders sick, very sick, and I can’t respect them and saying they are sick is not disrespecting authority but pointing out these guys need healing.


 




But it is not up to an individual to decide a teaching is wrong.  IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD BE JUST ANOTHE PROTESTANT SECT. (sorry for the caps) 


Suz,


 Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately since God didn’t create as all alike, life is not simply a black and white proposition, sometimes a teaching may generally be applicable but individual circumstances may require violation of the particular teaching, sometimes the teaching is simply wrong or a violation of another teaching. Excluding the primacy of conscience which the church also teaches, a few examples of teachings that contradict other teachings or are simply wrong when applied universally without considering the impact on individuals include:


 


-                  The Catholic doctrine of deception (Mental Reservation) – note that the Catechism section on Truth contradicts this teaching) as well as what Christ said about oaths and simply saying Yes or No instead of BSing around. So I reject the doctrine of lying while accepting the teachings related to truth.


 -           HIV and Condoms: There is the official teaching from Rome and there is the teaching from many bishops and priests that are actually working with those suffering. Who is right? And if the latter group of bishops are wrong, why aren’t they excommunicated for publicly teaching something different than Rome? Some bishops in the latter group and what they say can be found here:


www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaid...


 


-                  Birth Control: While I find much beauty in the teaching and general applicability, in the end there are individual circumstances that compassion requires this decision be left up to the couple and their spiritual advisor.


 


Note: most Catholics do practice birth control so one either accepts the notion that all these Catholics are living in mortal sin, condemned, or that the teaching that condemns so many people cannot be right.  To appreciate the dilemna and better understand the problem here, you need to understad the theology behind The Reception of Doctrine (two different models have been dominant at different points in history), and the notion of sensus fidelium.  


 So: no, questioning and not accepting a particular doctrine is not always simple disobedience but may be obedience to higher precepts and our understanding of the Gospel and the disobedience consistent with other Catholic teachings. We can further discuss this, if you like, it is particularly important today when we have a new crop of bishops such as Morlino; many accept his redefinition of the Good News while I find it obscene and misleading. I see both of us as Catholic yet with a fundamentally different view of God, Christ, and the Good New.


 On the other hand, perhaps discussing this would be a waste of time, recently I discussed this with two other Catholics (debate board) and I was told I was simply unable to ever get the theological meanings, another said it in more negative terms, but to be fair, I feel the same way about the two ladies so perhaps some things are so fundamental to faith and when the basis of faith is different discussion is futile and it is simply best to follows one’s conscience. It boils down to our view of Christ and the Cross, I see the Good News teaching us the way of finding the Kingdom here and elsewhere, and if we must reduce this to its simplest form there are two opposing views: 


 


Christ came to heal the world and lead us to the Kingdom, the act of the Cross is an act of Healing stemming from God’s unconditional love. The function of bishops is that of healers, to nurture the body of worshippers, uphold the truth, and help us in the process towards communion with God and others. This is the Catholic view I accept, the primary difference with the other view is that latter view reduces act of the cross is mere obedience and the function of bishops is being gatekeepers of the heavenly gates. Two different starting points that lead to different views of faith and one’s relationship with God and others. I can’t prove my faith has the right or wrong premise but that is the basis for my faith and thus impossible for me to “get it” when it comes to the other views.  


 


 

Flag Mysty101 May 16, 2010 7:30 PM EDT

I guess first I must clarify disagreeing, and disrespecting, and stress that my remarks are definitely not responding to your posts  I feel it is not only what is said, but also how it is said.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but I keep remembering how I was ridiculed and disrespected because I followed Catholic instruction in performing a Catholic ministry.


Yes, there are some bishops who need a stern reprimand or removal for what they have said.  It is hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence  could think as they do.  I have never heard authentic Catholic teaching documenting what they have said.


I have said many times that if a Catholic has a problem with a Catholic teaching, they need a good Catholic spiritual director, and work through the problem.  Some feel that a non-Catholic spiritual director is better, and this could be true for a non-Catholic , but for a Catholic, this is not best.


I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they would go to hell, regardless of what they have done.  This is between the person and God.  I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking of what it means to profess that manner of belief.


SuZ


 

Flag jane2 May 16, 2010 10:29 PM EDT

May 16, 2010 -- 7:30PM, Mysty101 wrote:


I guess first I must clarify disagreeing, and disrespecting, and stress that my remarks are definitely not responding to your posts  I feel it is not only what is said, but also how it is said.  I know I am beating a dead horse, but I keep remembering how I was ridiculed and disrespected because I followed Catholic instruction in performing a Catholic ministry.


Yes, there are some bishops who need a stern reprimand or removal for what they have said.  It is hard to believe that any person of normal intelligence  could think as they do.  I have never heard authentic Catholic teaching documenting what they have said.


I have said many times that if a Catholic has a problem with a Catholic teaching, they need a good Catholic spiritual director, and work through the problem.  Some feel that a non-Catholic spiritual director is better, and this could be true for a non-Catholic , but for a Catholic, this is not best.


I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they would go to hell, regardless of what they have done.  This is between the person and God.  I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking of what it means to profess that manner of belief.


SuZ


This was not directed to me, but as to the boldened part, much of this documentation came straight from the Vatican as in a document from Ratzinger to keep almost all under wraps. We  are reading now that this was not his personal decision--see Schonburn vs Sodano. It did come, however, directly from the Vatican and it was not new thinking.


 





Flag Mysty101 May 17, 2010 7:26 AM EDT

Hi Jane,


I don't know if you saw my response to your other post above, but you are certainly free to respond to any post.


I know the letter in question, and it has been a strong point in many discussions on abuse.  It certainly was misinterpreted by many bishops.  I don't think the shuffling of abusers was ever the intention, but whatever the case, this is certainly not authentic teaching---it is clearly very bad administration.  And the whole secrecy aspect was because the Church was claiming to handle any problems internally.  Obviously another serious admin defect.


My point it that you can't throw out the Catechism because of bad bishops or mishandling of abusers & shufflers.


You've read and studied Benedict's latest remarks on the flight.  Have you heard or read any more? Do you think there may be some light at the end of the tunnel?


SuZ

Flag gilg May 17, 2010 11:07 AM EDT

Mysty,


I have never said that anyone has committed a mortal sin, or that they  would go to hell, regardless of what they have done.  This is between  the person and God.  I reference Catholic teaching, just as a person of  any Religion would reference the teaching of that Religion when speaking  of what it means to profess that manner of belief...


 


I know you didn't say that, I just used the birth control as an example of a teaching that condemns so many people (most Catholics practice or have practiced birth control) can't be right.

Flag jane2 May 17, 2010 4:40 PM EDT

May 17, 2010 -- 7:26AM, Mysty101 wrote:


Hi Jane,


I don't know if you saw my response to your other post above, but you are certainly free to respond to any post.


I know the letter in question, and it has been a strong point in many discussions on abuse.  It certainly was misinterpreted by many bishops.  I don't think the shuffling of abusers was ever the intention, but whatever the case, this is certainly not authentic teaching---it is clearly very bad administration.  And the whole secrecy aspect was because the Church was claiming to handle any problems internally.  Obviously another serious admin defect.


My point it that you can't throw out the Catechism because of bad bishops or mishandling of abusers & shufflers.


You've read and studied Benedict's latest remarks on the flight.  Have you heard or read any more? Do you think there may be some light at the end of the tunnel?


SuZ




Suz


Benedict went a a tirade of sorts about same-sex marriage a day later at the Fatima shrine. Probably because of this news alert from the AP today:    LISBON, Portugal — Portugal's president says he is ratifying a bill allowing gay marriage.


He could have chosen a spiritual topic but chose a political one instead.




Flag Mysty101 May 17, 2010 6:35 PM EDT

Just when I was beginning to think he could keep his foot out of his mouth.........Wink

Flag gilg May 18, 2010 9:38 PM EDT

May 17, 2010 -- 6:35PM, Mysty101 wrote:


Just when I was beginning to think he could keep his foot out of his mouth.........




Maybe it is the red shoes....

Flag Mysty101 May 19, 2010 6:34 AM EDT

Yeah---he better not click his heels or he may end up in Kansas!

Flag gilg May 19, 2010 10:21 PM EDT

LOL!


Good one Suz.


 

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook