Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Really?!? Small synod rant


truthfinder

Recommended Posts

I like Simcha Fisher's take on the matter.  It dosn't cost us anything to hear people out.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/shush-your-mother-is-trying-to-listen/

In the end it may give us a nugget of truth that they are going off of that we can change an adapt to (perhaps a lay community of women who are commissioned by the dioceses and are as well educated as deacons) or perhaps we can hear in the presenter something about them that will allow us to council them with greater understanding.  (eg apologize for sins of the church, correct their mistaken beliefs, etc)

I'm by no means against innovation that leads to better evangelization and the like.  But the ordination question is settled.  It seems highly irresponsible for a bishop to suggest the contrary especially at such a meeting where he's probably aware it's going to be publicized.  It's all fine and dandy to have pet theological ideas that are privately discussed, but on such an open stage, it's really not a defensible position.  It's reckless, and it sows doubt amongst not only the believers but also those outside the church.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blazeingstar

I'm by no means against innovation that leads to better evangelization and the like.  But the ordination question is settled.  It seems highly irresponsible for a bishop to suggest the contrary especially at such a meeting where he's probably aware it's going to be publicized.  It's all fine and dandy to have pet theological ideas that are privately discussed, but on such an open stage, it's really not a defensible position.  It's reckless, and it sows doubt amongst not only the believers but also those outside the church.  

But that's completely the opposite of Simcha (and my) point. It dosn't matter if it's the worlds stupidest position.  Just like a mother will never let her child eat rat poison, she, in her wisdom, can let her child speak to her on the matter of why they think they should be permitted to do so.  It dosn't mean that she will ever let her child eat rat poision, all it means is that she's not shutting her child down.

This is what the Synoid is doing.  They are hearing out all the stupid positions.  They are not going to give creedance to the rumor that the church won't listen.  This open stage is just the place...for many indefensible positions.  If it sows doubt among people as to what is possible, it's not the synoid's fault.  People have come up with crazy ideas since the dawn of time.  People have aired it out.  Lets hope that we have found a better way to deal with it since Martin Luther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the article

Another thing, he said, “would be to look at the possibility of allowing married couples — men and women, who have been properly trained and accompanied — to speak during Sunday homilies so that they can testify, give witness to the relationship between God’s word and their own marriage life and their own life as families.”

 

:wall:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When permanent deacons were reinstated, our archbishop was so excited that he started a program immediately before the regulations were sent down. The first class had women. They were close to ordination before the archbishop was informed it would be men only. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's completely the opposite of Simcha (and my) point. It dosn't matter if it's the worlds stupidest position.  Just like a mother will never let her child eat rat poison, she, in her wisdom, can let her child speak to her on the matter of why they think they should be permitted to do so.  It dosn't mean that she will ever let her child eat rat poision, all it means is that she's not shutting her child down.

 

My apologies, I had misunderstood your post and clearly Simcha's as well.  I think in this case I must most respectively but vigorously disagree. Because unlike like the physical poison that the mother will not permit the child to eat, despite all the vocal remonstrations, the vocalizations of crazy theories in theologies and the sacraments operates on a spiritual level as well.  Basically, all this hypothesizing - at what cost? It's like the anecdote about women's veiling being discussed at Vatican II.  Bishop merely said it wasn't on the schedule, everyone else hears that it's no longer obligatory.  Consequently, just about twenty years of breaking canon law (no, I don't blame the women, but the end result is still disobedience).  I've made the point in other posts that while people are such terribly catechised, the general preaching from the church should be as black and white as possible.  Only when they start getting better catechised on the whole, can some smaller discussions (think parish bible studies or the like) go into the grey areas.  And in the mean time, the parish priest should be the one giving the reliable answers for the 'tough' cases (granted I know some of them are terrible).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basilisa Marie

When permanent deacons were reinstated, our archbishop was so excited that he started a program immediately before the regulations were sent down. The first class had women. They were close to ordination before the archbishop was informed it would be men only. 

Wow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

 

When permanent deacons were reinstated, our archbishop was so excited that he started a program immediately before the regulations were sent down. The first class had women. They were close to ordination before the archbishop was informed it would be men only. 

That was unwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know JP Durocher - he was a priest in my town back in the distant days of my teenage years.  

He is a genuinely good man. One of the few I've known to echo holiness.  

I am sadenned to hear about this controversy surrounding him - nearly heartbroken. 

 

I am nowhere near a church scholar - I wish I was. I wish I knew what to make of this.  

 

I suppose I can only pray...

:cry3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blazeingstar

My apologies, I had misunderstood your post and clearly Simcha's as well.  I think in this case I must most respectively but vigorously disagree. Because unlike like the physical poison that the mother will not permit the child to eat, despite all the vocal remonstrations, the vocalizations of crazy theories in theologies and the sacraments operates on a spiritual level as well.  Basically, all this hypothesizing - at what cost? It's like the anecdote about women's veiling being discussed at Vatican II.  Bishop merely said it wasn't on the schedule, everyone else hears that it's no longer obligatory.  Consequently, just about twenty years of breaking canon law (no, I don't blame the women, but the end result is still disobedience).  I've made the point in other posts that while people are such terribly catechised, the general preaching from the church should be as black and white as possible.  Only when they start getting better catechised on the whole, can some smaller discussions (think parish bible studies or the like) go into the grey areas.  And in the mean time, the parish priest should be the one giving the reliable answers for the 'tough' cases (granted I know some of them are terrible).  

All you've done is thusly proven my point.  The Bishop said it wasn't to be discussed so somehow that got translated to "no longer obligatory"  There's huge power in leaving things in the dark.    Again, why do you think Martin Luther's Thesis took hold so well?  Because they were a public quarrel that the church never really addressed.  Some of his points were valid, most were not.  The thing is, these grievences are now public quarrels with the church.  Lets not pretend that we have a glut of orthodox (small o) priests.

My pre-cana was a group of area churches and most couples were angered over NFP because they'd been told by their priests that ABC was fine.  The pre-cana stopped using a monk they used because he challenged couples to go sex-free in the months before marriage and that was "oppressive" according to the priests who ran it.  I had someone give to me a list of Catholic churches in my area in which the priest "approved" use of IVF.  The list had more than half the priests in a 50 mile radius. There are priests who called by name gay and lesbian couples for the blessing of marriages. There's ridiculous dissent among priests today in matters of sexuality.  All becuase "we didn't ask XYZ exact question"

That, and relegating these matters to  small discussions are ridiculous.  They don't have any power, nor do they bring people to understanding as a whole.  There will always be an imbalance of power of lay vs ordained and if the ordained is the one "out there" then that's the way things will go no matter how well catechized the rest are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That was unwise.

Probably. We were so desperate for priests that he looked on the diaconate as a major help. The men who had gone through formation all refused to be ordained. They began formation over again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are cardinals ordained as well? Could you say nuns are ordained too just in a different way?

Cardinals are created and are not doctrinally required to be clergy, however since 1917 it has been church discipline (Code of Cannon Law) that before being made a cardinal one must be at least a priest.

Deacons, Priests, and Bisops are ordained and receive the sacrament of holy orders

Male and female religious are consecrated (priestly religious are both consecrated to religious life & ordained priest)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KnightofChrist

If memory serves there's only been only layperson to ever be elevated to Cardinal, and he was first ordained. Female cardinals would be a novelty and a clear break with Church tradition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know JP Durocher - he was a priest in my town back in the distant days of my teenage years.  

He is a genuinely good man. One of the few I've known to echo holiness.  

I am sadenned to hear about this controversy surrounding him - nearly heartbroken. 

 

I am nowhere near a church scholar - I wish I was. I wish I knew what to make of this.  

 

I suppose I can only pray...

:cry3:

Never underestimate a clergyman's capacity to disappoint.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you've done is thusly proven my point.  The Bishop said it wasn't to be discussed so somehow that got translated to "no longer obligatory"  There's huge power in leaving things in the dark.    Again, why do you think Martin Luther's Thesis took hold so well?  Because they were a public quarrel that the church never really addressed.  Some of his points were valid, most were not.  The thing is, these grievences are now public quarrels with the church.  Lets not pretend that we have a glut of orthodox (small o) priests.

My pre-cana was a group of area churches and most couples were angered over NFP because they'd been told by their priests that ABC was fine.  The pre-cana stopped using a monk they used because he challenged couples to go sex-free in the months before marriage and that was "oppressive" according to the priests who ran it.  I had someone give to me a list of Catholic churches in my area in which the priest "approved" use of IVF.  The list had more than half the priests in a 50 mile radius. There are priests who called by name gay and lesbian couples for the blessing of marriages. There's ridiculous dissent among priests today in matters of sexuality.  All becuase "we didn't ask XYZ exact question"

That, and relegating these matters to  small discussions are ridiculous.  They don't have any power, nor do they bring people to understanding as a whole.  There will always be an imbalance of power of lay vs ordained and if the ordained is the one "out there" then that's the way things will go no matter how well catechized the rest are.

I think at this point we just might be talking past/over each other.  You've certainly made valid points about leaving things in the dark.  I'm not for that either.  What I think would be more productive (or at least a whole lot more clear, so the sky-is-falling crowd know exactly how far its falling) would be for the Holy See to publish a laundry list of things of practices that are or are not permitted based on the dogmatic and doctrinal teachings of the church (think the syllabus of errors).  There is no vagueness in that.  I know that sort of teaching can be really unpopular.  But at the end of the day, you know if you're in or out.

As to unorthodox parish priests, indeed they are problematic.  If a parishioner goes to them in good faith, then it's on the priest.  If a loophole searching parishioner goes priest shopping, then it's on them both.  I've also had the incredible good fortune to be in dioceses that were, in comparison, very orthodox.  This was long before becoming a trad.  The worst thing a priest probably ever did was have the kids around the altar, and to his credit, he stopped the practice when it was re-iterated that it was not allowed.  I also attended a conference and a speaker (a habit-wearing friar) was advocating female ordination - I came very close to sending a report off to the CDF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...