Age of priesthood, etc.

[Nietzscheiswrong]

The "messages" are too many.
30years at least a couple hundred messages. The Virgin seems more loquacious than oprah.

The church will say they were real even if not. Why? It can't do otherwise.

The institution and its governance is monolithic and reacts to changes with the same speed of a 2-legged turtle. Those in power have 75+ years old. Their generation would be a grandparent now and hence its traditions, culture is anachronistic, geriatric.

Men become Popes when in the real world they have been in pension for at least a dozen years!

Young people aren't welcome.
Rabbis are made rabbis in their 30s. A rabbi is the equivalent of a bishop.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

I'm sorry, but attacking the Church, her institutions, the Pope is really not welcome in this thread.

I am also sorry that there is a fundamental lack of undrestaning in those words as to who and what the Catholic Church or the Papacy is or how She operates, or that she is forever young.

I'm not attacking I'm stating the obvious.

That priests are 50+ on average (correct me if I'm wrong. The Pope and Cardinals are 75+...)

That "priests" of other religions become ordained in their 30s. That seminaries are next to empty.

That there is real need of change.

The second thing is that Medjugorje must be real even if it weren't. Because there would be a schism if a church member would deem it to be a hoax. The problem is that it went too far. In 25 years the church has stood there and watched. Now it must bear its fruits. Why did it stand and watch? Because it is static. It is static because when one hits 70 and is in the driving seat so to speak it will react with less speed than a younger man would to change.

No attack just stating facts. In companies those in power have 50/60 at 65/70 they go on pension. In the church at 65/70 they become bishops or cardinals (hence power). It is unfortunately self-evident that people in their 70s cannot react as sharply as a 50 year old.

Third the Virgin Mary can speak as much as she wants but 300 messages in a year seem too many. In lourdes and fatima her total messages were less than 300 in all the time she appeared there which was a couple years here its 20 messages in a month! Everyday these visionaries have a message. One message a day gets satan away? New slogan?

Its just odd. Either that or the times require it.

Hope I cleared the points out.

 

[Irenaeus]

That priests are 50+ on average (correct me if I'm wrong. The Pope and Cardinals are 75+...)

Depends what continent you're in, Nietzsche. It is not 50+ outside of "The West." And the Cardinals are not all 75+. The youngest is the new Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan of Kiev, who I believe is in his 40s. There are several Cardinals who are in their 50s. Yes, they are usually older, but it is not a totally homogenous body. Moreover, Cardinals do not work in a vacuum. Vatican Dicasteries are staffed with hundreds of Priests, Lay faithful and religious who are of many differing ages. Many of these are young in their 30s. Some are older. They run the gambit.

That "priests" of other religions become ordained in their 30s. That seminaries are next to empty.

Although the median age of ordinands has increased in the US, due to the introduction en masse of Pre-Theologate programs (i.e., Graduate studies in Theology after a Bachelor's Degree in another field) the fact remains that the vast majority of newly ordained Priests are ordained at or around the canonical minimum of 26.

That there is real need of change.

I never thought I'd ever say this, but that is very occidental to say.

The second thing is that Medjugorje must be real even if it weren't. Because there would be a schism if a church member would deem it to be a hoax. The problem is that it went too far. In 25 years the church has stood there and watched. Now it must bear its fruits. Why did it stand and watch? Because it is static. It is static because when one hits 70 and is in the driving seat so to speak it will react with less speed than a younger man would to change.

It's not static, it's common praxis for every apparition from the beginning of Marian apparitions, and is the same reason we don't canonize saints while they are living: death and the cessation of certain events, and the passage of time, unearths certain things about visionaries, the facts of a case, and more. It's not static, it is extremely prudent. I am neutral on the Medjugorje apparition, as I am not required by faith to believe it, but there is one thing I can say about it that is 100% true: it is irregular. By that I mean, "not according to the rule." In the history of apparitions, it does not fit the norm in terms of number of messages, the post-vision behavior of the missionaries, and the length of the apparitions. However, to be fair, God does not always act "inside the box".

No attack just stating facts. In companies those in power have 50/60 at 65/70 they go on pension. In the church at 65/70 they become bishops or cardinals (hence power). It is unfortunately self-evident that people in their 70s cannot react as sharply as a 50 year old.

The Church does not operate sacramentally on the basis of a system of seniority, or tenure. Potential bishops are examined and recommended, and although there have been many good and bad choices throughout the centuries, it is very rare that someone who does not have his full mental powers has ever been even considered in the process. I would agree temperamentally that older people are a bit "slow", but even that term is relative - I think many of us can say there are many things we did when we were young that we wouldn't do the same thing now as older people. Experience is a great asset to any leader.

Third the Virgin Mary can speak as much as she wants but 300 messages in a year seem too many. In lourdes and fatima her total messages were less than 300 in all the time she appeared there which was a couple years here its 20 messages in a month! Everyday these visionaries have a message. One message a day gets satan away? New slogan?

Its just odd. Either that or the times require it.

Hope I cleared the points out.

I will remain silent myself on these points. I think the best thing we can all do is pray and wait for the findings of the Vatican Commission. In any case, even if it is duly approved, no Catholic is required to believe it under pain of sin or ecclesiastical censure.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

We're in the west. If I were to consider the east I would look to the orthodox churches and force our priests to marry!

Unfortunately I haven't seen any 26 year old priests in a church being active i.e. celebrating mass. I've seen them "on the bench" supporting the "players". The difference between a priest being ordained and a rabbi for example is that the priest does not have power. Only bishops have it.

Rabbis have much more power than priests do as a priest is like a private in the military. The Pope is the Pres of the US. (analogy) then there's the sergeants, lieutenants, generals, etc...there is noone above the rabbis. There is no PopeRabbi nor bishoprabbi...for example. When a jew becomes a rabbi he is the Pope of that synagogue and answers to no one just like the Pope. They have meetings and discuss the theology but all rabbis have equal power. The respectability and fame may be different.

In no other institution run by men is the power in the hands of 75+old men. In the real world at 65/70 one gets the boot and goes on pension. People can be wise but the brain is better when younger and so is reaction speed.
Its biology. Nope priests aint supermen with mental superpowers and can go against biology. They're just men. If and when a doctor will say that they are then I will look at a 75/80 year old priests with different eyes. Now I see them as "too old".
And I think that in such delicate matters (religion aint football) a young man say 50 is better than a 75y old senile guy. Its old men not wanting to relinquish power. Seen that too much around am fed up seeing it by those who proclaim themselves as men of God.
God is alive. Men at 75/80 have more than a foot in the grave I'd say at least a leg.
They say they look to Jesus for celibate priesthood. Well-news folks He wasn't 75-80 when he died on a cross but started preaching in his 30s not in his 40s/50s! But that would go against them hence they don't see that as important. Same old story!

My grandma doesn't know what a computer is. And thinks its evil incarnate. Why? Reaction to change and poor adaptation skills. Hence will demonize it because she doesn't understand it and not because she knows it and thinks it is demonic! Very different.

Same thing 75y old priests. Rock and Roll was considered a vehicle of satan!! Elvis the devil incarnate! Superstition. Poor reaction to changes. That's why the church needs to be dogmatic in "political things" like Pope infallibility. Peter wasn't. And he was Peter. One thing is having the Holy Spirit and interpreting stuff, another is being God and sending it! Christ never interpreted Himself! People interpret Him!

-_-'

P.S 40 year olds do and say what 75+ year olds want them to. My question is why do 75+ year olds know what is best and 40/50 year olds don't and can't think for themselves? They aren't exactly 5 year olds neither biologically nor theologically speaking! Obedience is a fools errand. Luther started the Reform because the Papacy was corrupt in the Renaissance period. Does Pope Cesare Borgia say anything? His successors weren't much better during the Renaissance.

If the Pope had more humility the reform wouldn't have become what it did. It all began as a reaction to immorality, corruption, and the indulgences. All the Pope had to do was what he tells us to do everyday! MEA CULPA! ...

Anyway the Medjugorje "problem" is symptomatic of a larger illness. I don't believe that people in the Curia haven't got an opinion about the movement. After 30years. They're seeing it does great for money and leave it at that. It snowballed. Its out of control. They have to declare the apparitions as true. If not face a bigger schism than that of Luther's because this time it would mean the end of Catholicism as we know it. Its the Virgin appearing it aint theological interpretations!

All of this why? Because of the lack of courage and dynamism. We all make decisions in a split second. Each of us individually. Cardinals, bishops and all can't make one in 30 years? That imo tells the whole story. Inefficiency, poor governance and lack of courage.

The church needs change because of how it dealt with Medjugorje and the sex abuse scandals. Seeing that the sex abuse scandals is a west thing well of course we see it as pressing.

 

[Irenaeus]

Hi Nietzscheiswrong,

We're in the west. If I were to consider the east I would look to the orthodox churches and force our priests to marry!

That is another discussion entirely. I could defer to differences of opinion on Church discipline if they are reasoned and principled.

Unfortunately I haven't seen any 26 year old priests in a church being active i.e. celebrating mass. I've seen them "on the bench" supporting the "players". The difference between a priest being ordained and a rabbi for example is that the priest does not have power. Only bishops have it.

Seems like we have a culture difference here. I know a lot of "hard working" young Priests. I suppose it's the environment one walks in and imbibes that determines whether one is likely to become otiose or zealous.

A key question I think should be asked is: What kind of power are you referring to? Many Priests have a great deal of "power," if by that you mean, oversight and control over things. A Pastor alone, or a Vicar, has absolute local control (within the limits of the law) over his jurisdiction, and few Bishops would take the time to micromanage that, hence they appoint them.

Rabbis have much more power than priests do as a priest is like a private in the military. The Pope is the Pres of the US. (analogy) then there's the sergeants, lieutenants, generals, etc...there is noone above the rabbis. There is no PopeRabbi nor bishoprabbi...for example. When a jew becomes a rabbi he is the Pope of that synagogue and answers to no one just like the Pope. They have meetings and discuss the theology but all rabbis have equal power. The respectability and fame may be different.

I understand the analogy, but I do not understand why you feel secular and Jewish internal governance should be the guiding star of Catholic ecclesiology, or even her bureaucracy, the latter of which is negotiable. It should not be forgotten that we have a Church that has constitutive elements to it, founded by Christ himself. One of those elements is the hierarchy built into it sacramentally, as it were. These simply cannot be discarded to "streamline" the Church or "reform" it. One may always adjust how these parts relate to the whole.

In no other institution run by men is the power in the hands of 75+old men.

Again I must remind you, as I mentioned in a previous Church, that it is a fiction that the Church is run by 75+ men. It is a stereotype. All Catholic clergy must retire by the age of 75. So that ultimately removes the "plus" in 75+. Then, as I also mentioned earlier, these men are not simply shut up in a room in the Vatican making decisions in a huge sounding board. They receive the daily feedback and impact of hundreds of clergy and lay staff (mostly in their middle age) who help make decisions. Only the Pope, with the exception of a handful of Cardinals, ever really surpass the 75 age mark without retiring completely.

In the real world at 65/70 one gets the boot and goes on pension.

I don't think that's the case. I don't now very many men or women who have had a career and "get the boot" at a certain age. Some work and do not retire as long as they are healthy. Some do retire, but they are not booted simply on account of age.

People can be wise but the brain is better when younger and so is reaction speed.
Its biology. Nope priests aint supermen with mental superpowers and can go against biology. They're just men. If and when a doctor will say that they are then I will look at a 75/80 year old priests with different eyes. Now I see them as "too old".
And I think that in such delicate matters (religion aint football) a young man say 50 is better than a 75y old senile guy. Its old men not wanting to relinquish power. Seen that too much around am fed up seeing it by those who proclaim themselves as men of God.

Nietzsche, I don't know what Priests you personally speak to, but except for a few ladder climbers, the vast majority of older Priests and Bishops can't wait to retire. Administrative duties really are an annoyance to many Priests and they would rather relinquish them than keep them.

Our present Pope even wanted to retire several times, and said so to Pope John Paul II. He was retained in his post. Was he "clinging to power?"

God is alive. Men at 75/80 have more than a foot in the grave I'd say at least a leg.
They say they look to Jesus for celibate priesthood. Well-news folks He wasn't 75-80 when he died on a cross but started preaching in his 30s not in his 40s/50s! But that would go against them hence they don't see that as important. Same old story!

Jesus was teaching the elders in the temple at the age of 12. Should we start ordaining 12 year olds? Your logic is impenetrable.

My grandma doesn't know what a computer is. And thinks its evil incarnate.

That's your grandma's particular difficulty. I know older people that adapt just fine. It is a mixture of biology, your acquired habits and the will to change and to learn.

Same thing 75y old priests. Rock and Roll was considered a vehicle of satan!! Elvis the devil incarnate! Superstition. Poor reaction to changes.

Could you provide any citation for 75 year old Priests who have reacted to Rock and Roll, or any societal change that has no bearing on faith and morals, as rabidly you as you claim?

I would propose just the opposite, that documents show that the Pope and the Papal Curia have issued multiple encouragements promoting the positive use of social communications and new media forms.

That's why the church needs to be dogmatic in "political things" like Pope infallibility. Peter wasn't. And he was Peter.

Perhaps Peter didn't have to (insofar as we can see in the Scriptures) because it was already presumed by others?

One thing is having the Holy Spirit and interpreting stuff, another is being God and sending it! Christ never interpreted Himself! People interpret Him!

-_-'

Do you believe that Christ (his actions, words and person) does not require interpretation? Do you not believe in the necessity for an infallible organ to interpret and transmit the message of Christ? And if not, what do you propose as an alternative?

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

Hi Nietzscheiswrong,

There are plenty of scriptures talking about priesthood marriage. In the OT. Priests get married in the orthodox community and have sound basis for that in theology. When it suits personal interest the OT is fine when it goes against man made traditions i.e. celibacy of priests then no it isn't and not even Paul is!

Of course priests work. Even people in offices work and believe me they all think they have power but don't. They're just another brick in the wall.
Those in power are the CEO, CFO. It is them who ultimately decide on everything. There is also feedback. The same thing goes for bishops, cardinals etc.

Only bishops and cardinals can elect the Pope not the priest who's head of a church in a rural area somewhere. Come on. That's where the power lies. We all know that. And they are 70+ if not 75+ All the same that's when senility gets at you.

I take as an example of a more flexible method of governance- secular companies because for one thing the companies are accountable. It is us the shareholders which the CEO responds to. The priests instead think they can respond only to God and quite frankly its not possible and instances like sex abuse are the example. Priests aren't accountable. Its nonsense. Without the faithful, us, they would not be there in the first place. Meaning no money. No money no food. No food = death.
No faithfuls no need for priests... -_-' It is not by aggravating the faithful that they will evangelize people. They depend on us just like we depend on them. But our power is more. Strength in numbers. Plus they can even all leave the priesthood we would then do what the first christian communities did. They instead cannot live without us literally. This is true for any other "priests" too. But we are led to believe that we are helpless and can't change things because the institution came from heaven. One thing is the visible church another is the one in heaven.

A more streamlined governance only means more transparency. Only those who are afraid of something or need to hide things hate transparency!

People who continue to work do it because it is their company that they run but more often than not if you're an employee of PWC for example you go on forced pension around 65 if you don't pull the strings up on top. If you're a rank and file you get boot.

Jesus teaching the rabbis at 12 doesn't mean he started his ministry at that age. It started only after He got baptized. A football player turns pro when he turns pro not when he starts spearing people or throwing ball in his pre-teens. The fact that the guy started playing ball at 5 doesn't make him a pro at that age. What makes him a pro is becoming a pro.
At 5 he was better than most of the kids older than him and better than some of the adults hence one sees that he had that potential from young age.

I can give quotations that priests say that the sexual revolution of the 60s was satanic and that wearing miniskirts is a sin against the commandment of do not commit adultery! That's what led to even greater feminist reactions. there's many things which priests have done which they did because of the OT and not for the NT. Jesus liberated women. Before they were seen as cattle, property, inferior to man.

If women's rights movement, black right movements, antislavery etc even started it is because Christ said that everyone is a child of God. Hence gave human rights before human rights were even written down.

I don't think that there were bishops, cardinals etc back then. That's just what priests say to prevent change from happening.

People interpret Christ. Christ never interpreted Himself. Its a fact. Unfortunately people interpreted geocentrism too and that was OT not Christ! Guess what they were wrong as the OT is wrong about many things concerning the universe and a couple of centuries later when the evidence was too much abandoned ship and went for heliocentrism.

I think that the whole Medjugorje "problem" is the example of how wrong governance can go wrong. In the real world a company not reacting to its foreign subsidiary which decides to go on its own all of a sudden, will be bankrupt in a short time here its been going on for 30y and not a single statement by the Pope! And no one knows what to do. If they reacted to this before it would not have snowballed into the phenomenon that it is now.

20 years ago the Pope could have said: folks apparitions are fake and wouldn't have caused a schism. If he says that now what will happen? Yet another schism. People must learn from history but they don't.

Hence the apparitions will be deemed true even if they weren't/aren't.
So yes people do make decisions for the church. Sometimes.

I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's an example of the church's weakness in its governance style and its staticism.

The present governance was fine up until the 1950s. Then the world changed and the church should have reacted by streamlining its govrnance.

 

[Irenaeus]

Hi Nietzsche,

In the future, it may be better to do a point by point return on my posts if you are going to respond, since you have never quite answered many of my questions, and you bring up new ones before we closed the old ones.

There are plenty of scriptures talking about priesthood marriage. In the OT. Priests get married in the orthodox community and have sound basis for that in theology. When it suits personal interest the OT is fine when it goes against man made traditions i.e. celibacy of priests then no it isn't and not even Paul is!

Since when were we talking about celibacy?

This quoted sentence above, please forgive me, is a grammatical nightmare. But what I think you're saying is that there is a basis for celibacy in the OT (Old Testament?). And what is this about "personal interest?" Did not our Lord say about those who were to be "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven", "If they can accept it, let them accept it," and the fact that Paul's personal preference was for the unmarried, virginal state?

Of course priests work.

You stated two posts ago that most young Priests didn't work, but cheered from the sidelines. That is what I was rebutting.

Only bishops and cardinals can elect the Pope not the priest who's head of a church in a rural area somewhere. Come on. That's where the power lies. We all know that. And they are 70+ if not 75+ All the same that's when senility gets at you.

Your points on the 70-75 age bracket have already been thoroughly addressed and I have no desire on rehashing what you clearly have no courtesy to address. Additionally, if we wanted to follow your CEO analogy, I have one question:

Does the janitor get to choose, or vote for a CEO? No. A Board of Directors or some sort of executive body does. Since when did any business, if you want to use that analogy, act on the basis of absolute democracy?

I take as an example of a more flexible method of governance- secular companies because for one thing the companies are accountable.

Businesses are just as liable to corruption and scandal as the Church, because there are human beings that compose it.

It is us the shareholders which the CEO responds to.

Truly, but why do you think it is appropriate to apply a profit model, corporate analogy for the Holy Catholic Church, whose main concern beyond the mere bureaucracy is not the goods of this world, but the goods of the next?

The priests instead think they can respond only to God

Have you been talking to a Catholic Priest in the past seven years? What about the past couple decades? Priests have always been 'responding' in many places in innumerable ways: Priest committees, advisory boards, Safe Environment auditing, and lets not forget their oath of obedience to the Bishop and his lawful successors.

and quite frankly its not possible and instances like sex abuse are the example. Priests aren't accountable. Its nonsense. Without the faithful, us, they would not be there in the first place. Meaning no money. No money no food. No food = death.

Again, you have clearly not been working in a Church the past seven years at the very least because now Catholic Priests and employees of parishes are some of the most heavily audited and reviewed persons in the American workforce. For a 90 year old woman to sell hot dogs in a Church Hall she needs to have Safe environment clearance and education in fighting Child Abuse. Priests are always accountable, Nietzsche. If not, they would not be thrown under a bus and denied due process because of unfounded abuse accusations, as has been happening all across the country. However, if you were to say that Bishops are always accountable in the instance of clergy abuse, in that I would have to say your points have some validity.

No faithfuls no need for priests... -_-' It is not by aggravating the faithful that they will evangelize people. They depend on us just like we depend on them. But our power is more. Strength in numbers. Plus they can even all leave the priesthood we would then do what the first christian communities did.

"What the first christian communites did?" Have you ever read Ignatius of Antioch? Or Paul's letters to Timothy? The Priesthood is a constitutive element of the Church. John Paul II put it succinctly: without the Priesthood there is no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there is no Church.

Excuse me, but I have to point out that your ecclesiology seems to be at this point fundamentally Presbyterian in its outlook.

They instead cannot live without us literally. This is true for any other "priests" too. But we are led to believe that we are helpless and can't change things because the institution came from heaven. One thing is the visible church another is the one in heaven.

That is a Calvinist ecclesiology, which distinguishes the visible Church from the one in heaven. The Catholic vision is that it is all one.

Again, you are right in saying that governance styles may change and reforms may come, but you are essentially saying you want the Church to not be the Catholic Church.

A more streamlined governance only means more transparency. Only those who are afraid of something or need to hide things hate transparency!

As I said before, this is not necessarily true.

People who continue to work do it because it is their company that they run but more often than not if you're an employee of PWC for example you go on forced pension around 65 if you don't pull the strings up on top. If you're a rank and file you get boot.

So one company is to be the exemplar of "forced retirement for clergy?"

Jesus teaching the rabbis at 12 doesn't mean he started his ministry at that age. It started only after He got baptized. A football player turns pro when he turns pro not when he starts spearing people or throwing ball in his pre-teens. The fact that the guy started playing ball at 5 doesn't make him a pro at that age. What makes him a pro is becoming a pro.
At 5 he was better than most of the kids older than him and better than some of the adults hence one sees that he had that potential from young age.

That wasn't my point, Nietzsche. My point was to create irony. Your comparison between the life of Christ and the suitability of certain Priests to serve in active ministry is a logical non-sequitur.

I can give quotations that priests say that the sexual revolution of the 60s was satanic and that wearing miniskirts is a sin against the commandment of do not commit adultery!

Totally other story. And you know what, they were right. The sexual revolution was by and large satanic and immodesty is still a sin.

That's what led to even greater feminist reactions. there's many things which priests have done which they did because of the OT and not for the NT. Jesus liberated women. Before they were seen as cattle, property, inferior to man.

Did Jesus liberating women mean the pill, abortions, mass divorce, and the breakdown of the family? When Jesus liberated women, he liberated them from sin, from false accusation, from degradation. He didn't tell them that they didn't need men or that there is no fundamental difference between them and men. That is a modern invention. The kind of liberation that Jesus did back then for women is anathema to most radical feminists today, because to them there is no such thing as sin and there is no such thing as God who created men and women, in all their dignity and beauty.

If women's rights movement, black right movements, antislavery etc even started it is because Christ said that everyone is a child of God. Hence gave human rights before human rights were even written down.

Women's rights and black rights began mostly as a result of a desire to counteract what was deemed the hegemony of white males in the study of Western Civilization. It does have some merit but it was not necessarily based upon a Christian anthropology.

I don't think that there were bishops, cardinals etc back then. That's just what priests say to prevent change from happening.

Back when? Back when? Again, read Ignatius of Antioch, an early 2nd century friend of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Read the Epistles of Paul.

People interpret Christ. Christ never interpreted Himself. Its a fact. Unfortunately people interpreted geocentrism too and that was OT not Christ! Guess what they were wrong as the OT is wrong about many things concerning the universe and a couple of centuries later when the evidence was too much abandoned ship and went for heliocentrism.

Your argument is so full of non-sequiturs and reductiones ad absurdum that I cannot even begin to take that apart. There is a qualitative difference between interpreting a teaching and a person (with respective disciplines in hermeneutics, Christology, historiography, etc.) and interpreting quantitative data such as the observed laws of gravity and motion, and the orbits of the planets.

And as to the idea that Christ never interpreted himself, what about statements like "I and my Father am one," and his references to himself as the "Son of Man," or his self-identification as "Good Shepherd," and "Bread of Life" and more? These are statements pregnant with meaning and they are clearly statements of self-revelation and carry within them elements that help us understand who Christ was, and how he wanted us to understand him. And Christians since the beginning have meditated on the Scriptures and in union with the Apostles and successors, authoritatively exposited that meaning.

If you believe that that exposition is either incorrect or that that authority is invalid, it grieves me to say that you are not espousing the Catholic faith, and the problems you are facing run far deeper than simply disagreements on Church governance, retirement for clergy, need for transparency, etc. You fundamentally disagree with the Church-as-constituted.

Until your deeper ecclesiological disagreements are addressed, I am afraid you will not move an inch closer in getting what is considered necessary, and if you do move further, it will not be as a Catholic, but as something else, and an alien principle guiding the movement.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

Since when were we talking about celibacy? I just said that in the west church attendance is falling, seminaries are empty. At that you said well not in the east. Fine in the east the orthodox church is the one with more adherents. And the priests marry there. And used to in the catholic church too. The schism between catholicism and orthodoxy wasn't due to priestly marriage.
This quoted sentence above, please forgive me, is a grammatical nightmare.
Sorry lol
Paul even said that priests should be married once. Since priests are far from being eunuchs and the OT clearly states that priests should marry (everyone should marry according to the OT) I think that they should marry. The orthodox priests do and believe me their theology isn't invented it has solid grounds in the OT. When scripture validates a personal statement then it is fine, when it does not then the scriptural passage is given less importance (neocons and protestants use this alot). Jesus was answering a woman who asked Him why He wasn't married. He said there were 3 types of eunuchs those born that way-gays, others made into eunuchs by men (slavery, psychological beatings etc) and those who decide to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (priests). It does not mean: (priests) do not marry otherwise you are not working for the kingdom of heaven if you do.

You stated two posts ago that most young Priests didn't work, but cheered from the sidelines. That is what I was rebutting.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. football players on the bench cheer from the sidelines. I used that analogy. They do work their a's off during the week but seldomly play during the game if they're subs (that's where the real "stuff" is). just like young priests.

Your points on the 70-75 age bracket have already been thoroughly

How many bishops are there in the west? How many are 40-60 years old and how many 65-75? What about cardinals? Is it unfair to say that there are more bishops/cardinals in the 65-75 bracket or is it true?
Does the janitor get to choose, or vote for a CEO? No. A Board of Directors or some sort of executive body does. Since when did any business, if you want to use that analogy, act on the basis of absolute democracy?
The problem is that the janitor of a secular company is like a layman person in the church (as far as the amount of work and power that derives from the work goes). Lay people go around the church carrying the offerings basket. Or they are really janitors. Very few are deacons. Deacons would be the equivalent of people who are in charge of the photocopying machine in the secular world company analogy.

Businesses are just as liable to corruption and scandal as the Church, because there are human beings that compose it.
Yes. But I have never seen a priest go to jail for corruption, or crimes (except the good priests who practice their functions there doing service to the Lord). Nor have I ever seen people manage to force a bishop/cardinal to resign after the scandal (if he resigns it is because the other bishops and cardinals tell him it would be better or he just leaves "office" when he reaches 75-80.). I have seen many top execs being forced to retire and go to jail. Even the Heads of the Company for the crime of not controlling the Board.
All I have seen is us covering up the scandals and siding with priests who weren't "holy" in their functions or saying: those secular anti-catholic medias are destroying us! Etc
Not one of us said: the priest gotta get booted and go to jail.
Truly, but why do you think it is appropriate to apply a profit model, corporate analogy for the Holy Catholic Church, whose main concern beyond the mere bureaucracy is not the goods of this world, but the goods of the next?

The model is fine. Its a governance model. And the church is governed by men. Like you said just as profit companies are. The problem is picking the right one for the church. I can assure you that the governance model is similar to that of companies but much more monolithic. Responses to new events are made very rarely and are very slow. E.g. Medjugorje.

Have you been talking to a Catholic Priest in the past seven years? What about the past couple decades? Priests have always been 'responding' in many places in innumerable ways: Priest committees, advisory boards, Safe Environment auditing, and lets not forget their oath of obedience to the Bishop and his lawful successors.

They respond, yes, but are extremely slow. Not dynamic. If there is need to respond in a new unexpected fashion they won't if not after a couple years. Maybe 10.

Again, you have clearly not been working in a Church the past seven years at the very least because now Catholic Priests and employees of parishes are some of the most heavily audited and reviewed persons in the American workforce.

What I mean is that they are accountable to us. First and foremost. Because WE are the ones who suffer the most from THEIR actions. They have to be perfect like the Father or should be says Christ. Well its been 1800 years since they were. for example the kids being abused aren't sons of priests but they are ours they are one of us. Us having to go to work and being laughed at or ridiculed because of their actions isn't nice either. Their scandals only make people become more anti-catholic or atheist but then they dare question why people have turned their backs on God! They should cry over themselves and not blame society and big evil!
Its not our actions which turn people from the faith because we are of the world and have to fight it 24/7. They are in the world but aren't in it very often. They spend more time in monasteries, seminaries, in church etc. They are protected and aren't exposed like we are. They live in a vacuum.
"What the first christian communites did?" Have you ever read Ignatius of Antioch? Or Paul's letters to Timothy? The Priesthood is a constitutive element of the Church. John Paul II put it succinctly: without the Priesthood there is no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, there is no Church.
Excuse me, but I have to point out that your ecclesiology seems to be at this point fundamentally Presbyterian in its outlook.

My point was the priests need us more than we need them. If we become secularized or agnostics (all it needs is not passing on the faith to our kids)
they will have to find a job in the real world. Hence no more priests if we go. If they go on the other hand we can ordain the most faithful among us. Priests are men and faithful too i.e believers amongst men. The people who were made priests at the time of the 1st Christian Communities were not made so by bishops, cardinals etc . There weren't any back then nor there was a hierarchy. The 11 + Paul were the "anointed" and special ones. But they considered themselves to be equal to the new converts. Modern priests don't. If they were like the priests of old there wouldn't be so many scandals thats my point. But its always our culpa. We always do mea culpa they never have. Or not enough. We do mea culpa for using a condom for example, they don't for pedophilia? Come on! The sex scandals were committed in the 90s if not before and continued!!

That is a Calvinist ecclesiology, which distinguishes the visible Church from the one in heaven. The Catholic vision is that it is all one.
The priest's vision you mean. St. Joan of Arc was "Calvinist" then.
I don't think that the priests are equal to God. Nor that God is happy with how the institution-church has been governed not just lately but throughout history. Objectively speaking. We need apparitions for that reason. And many messages of the Virgin aren't nice towards priests.
Again, you are right in saying that governance styles may change and reforms may come, but you are essentially saying you want the Church to not be the Catholic Church.

Why? I want priests to be better priests. With better priests come better believers. The sooner priests stop thinking that they are untouchable and can do whatever they want in God's name and use Him, the better for God.
And us.
As I said before, this is not necessarily true.

So one company is to be the exemplar of "forced retirement for clergy?"

Totally other story. And you know what, they were right. The sexual revolution was by and large satanic and immodesty is still a sin.
No revolution is. The revolutions are made by people who are fed up with those who govern things. If things were good people would not feel the need to change things. We are all immodest. We all are fashion victims and want the approval of people. When priests start waving satan around its when they fall short of arguments. Much like the parents who tell of the boogeyman to kids.

Did Jesus liberating women mean the pill, abortions, mass divorce, and the breakdown of the family? ...

Of course not. But if the church would listen to Christ instead of basing itself on the OT (80% of the bible is OT..) it would not have committed any of the crimes it unfortunately has. One e.g is geocentrism vs Galileo. Another is enforcing OT laws. The sharia is OT laws. Everyone thinks that islam is a barbaric religion precisely because of the OT laws i.e. koran. One needs just open the OT randomly (of course not the psalms) and he will find the sharia law in there.
Divorce is also present in canon law. And sometimes it is best for the parents to divorce than to keep on fighting. A family which is based on love will never breakdown regardless of secular traditions. Most often people marry for financial reasons. That's real life situations. Or they marry because they get their girlfriend inadvertently pregnant and then divorce. No I'm not advocating abortion. I believe feminists react to the OT's sexism with an infantile response. OT=God, he's sexist we don't believe nge-nge(crybaby). If tomorrow there would be no OT (except for the prophecies on Jesus) they wouldn't have an excuse not to believe.
Same thing atheists. OT=God, he's a tyrant, a despot, genocidal kills kids, we don't believe.
Women's rights and black rights ..

Equality is essentially Christian. One must look no further than Islam to see that the OT is against equality. OT isn't christianity but orthodox judaism and islam.

Back when? Back when? Again, read Ignatius of Antioch, an early 2nd century friend of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Read the Epistles of Paul.

the theology of women not being able to become priests comes from eve grabbing the fruit and giving it to adam. The rabbinical tradition that men and women must sit one on the left the other on the right comes from that ideology and interpretation too. Jews still prohibit men and women to sit together in synagogues. Fake tradition. Nuns are way better than the average priest. No women are not impure due to their menstrual cycle as the OT states. Which would be further grounds for them not becoming priests...

Your argument is so full of non-sequiturs and reductiones ad absurdum that I cannot even begin to take that apart. There is a qualitative difference between interpreting a teaching and a person (with respective disciplines in hermeneutics, Christology, historiography, etc.) and interpreting quantitative data such as the observed laws of gravity and motion, and the orbits of the planets.
Was the OT right about the firmament and cosmology? Yes or no simple answer. The rest is apologetics. Christ went against the OT. The NT clearly says that the pharisees wanted to kill Him from the time He began His ministry against them and the OT legalism and that Him proclaiming himself to be the son of God was just the excuse they needed and were looking for to kill Him. So there is no theological error i.e. a break off from the OT is infact orthodoxy. Otherwise our faith is just messianic judaism. And Paul is a heretic.

And as to the idea that Christ never interpreted himself, what about statements like ...
These aren't interpretations. Just like my analogies of football and secular companies aren't. Interpretations are not revelations. Revelations are objective and subject to interpretation. We infact interpret Christ. We are the ones who don't know Him. He knows Himself. And reveals Himself to us in a way that we might understand Him and heaven. Therefore with parables too

If you believe that that exposition is either incorrect or that that authority is invalid, it grieves me to say that you are not espousing the Catholic faith, and the problems you are facing run far deeper than simply disagreements on Church governance, retirement for clergy, need for transparency, etc. You fundamentally disagree with the Church-as-constituted.


Until your deeper ecclesiological disagreements are addressed, I am afraid you will not move an inch closer in getting what is considered necessary, and if you do move further, it will not be as a Catholic, but as something else, and an alien principle guiding the movement.

The following I don't understand. Is authority always true per se or isn't it based on the One who exercises it? Do you know the Pope of the Renaissance? Who he was? Cesare Borgia. Do you know how he became Pope? What he did? Etc. There's a reason why Dante hated Him so much and put Him in the inferno..

Nope that guy was no Pope even though he was made into one by the Cardinals which were as corrupt if not more corrupt than him. That's why Luther began what then snowballed into the Reform. Later on the dogma of Pope infallibility came. It wasn't there in the beginning. And isn't based on the NT. As Peter is shown to be fallible. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith just like any other Catholic.

 

[Irenaeus]

Nietzsche,

First I'd like to say, thank you for your help in bracketing your responses. That was very helpful.

I just said that in the west church attendance is falling, seminaries are empty. At that you said well not in the east. Fine in the east the orthodox church is the one with more adherents. And the priests marry there. And used to in the catholic church too. The schism between catholicism and orthodoxy wasn't due to priestly marriage.

No I did not say that. My comment was this, Post #26, on July 14 2011.

It is not 50+ outside of "The West." And the Cardinals are not all 75+. The youngest is the new Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan of Kiev, who I believe is in his 40s. There are several Cardinals who are in their 50s.

You can see then that I did not say this about "The West" in regard to Seminaries, I was speaking about the median age of clergy in the Western world. And I never said it was true "not in the east." I said, that outside of the "Western World" (which means, if I need to tell you, much of modern Europe, the Americas, Japan, Austrailia, and several smaller democratic Asian countries like Taiwan. Again, this was about the median age of existing clergy not about the fulness (or emptiness) of Seminaries. Now I will address that point.

The fact remains that again, Seminaries are empty mostly in the developed Western World, not in the developing world. There are many factors, among them socioeconomic and demographic, that have caused this decline, but there is also the "eclipse of God" which our present Pope has spoken of in regard to the modern West.

Next..

Paul even said that priests should be married once.

Please cite that. I assure you will not find it. Paul did say to Timothy that he said that a bishop must be a "man of one woman," which indicates to us, of course, that clergy were permitted to marry. This is no surprise to us as Catholics.

Since priests are far from being eunuchs and the OT clearly states that priests should marry (everyone should marry according to the OT) I think that they should marry.

Ok, fine. You're free to have an opinion on that. However, I think it's a discussion best left to another thread.

The orthodox priests do and believe me their theology isn't invented it has solid grounds in the OT. When scripture validates a personal statement then it is fine, when it does not then the scriptural passage is given less importance (neocons and protestants use this alot). Jesus was answering a woman who asked Him why He wasn't married. He said there were 3 types of eunuchs those born that way-gays, others made into eunuchs by men (slavery, psychological beatings etc) and those who decide to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven (priests). It does not mean: (priests) do not marry otherwise you are not working for the kingdom of heaven if you do.

That's not true, Nietzsche. This is what the Scripture says. Please excuse me if it is a tad long but it is the pericope.

1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So you can see that Jesus was not asked this because someone wanted to know why he wasn't married, but in the specific context of the discussion on divorce. The disciples say that it seems it would be better for someone not to marry than to comply with the commandment Christ gives. Jesus says, then, that not everyone can live in a single, celibate state, but only those to whom it has been given. I think that may require a revision to your Christology of celibacy, which, by the way, is one of the fundamental elements in our understanding of its relation to the Priesthood, as can be read especially in Paul VI's Sacerdotalis Celibatus.

In the future please be careful with your accuracy of citations from the Sacred Scripture because it is my specialty and I will call you on it, and I will do so in Latin, Greek, and Syriac. The Scripture is not meant to be blithely and coarsely used to make mere talking points, and I do not use it as such and I will not suffer it to be used as such.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. football players on the bench cheer from the sidelines. I used that analogy. They do work their a's off during the week but seldomly play during the game if they're subs (that's where the real "stuff" is). just like young priests.

You tend to have an affinity for analogies, especially from sports and the business world. You still have never answered my most pressing question as to why these analogies you have been using (which are, by definition, meant to demonstrate similarity of two things) in sports and the business world have any necessary validity when speaking of the Church.

How many bishops are there in the west?

I don't know. I'll have to look that up sometime.

How many are 40-60 years old and how many 65-75?

I would say about half and half are between the two age brackets you just mentioned.

What about cardinals? Is it unfair to say that there are more bishops/cardinals in the 65-75 bracket or is it true?

No, it's not unfair. But you originally said the following, post #25 on 14 July 2011 to thereselittleflower:

That priests are 50+ on average (correct me if I'm wrong. The Pope and Cardinals are 75+..)

To which I responded, post #26 14 July 2011:

Depends what continent you're in, Nietzsche. It is not 50+ outside of "The West." And the Cardinals are not all 75+. The youngest is the new Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan of Kiev, who I believe is in his 40s. There are several Cardinals who are in their 50s. Yes, they are usually older, but it is not a totally homogenous body. Moreover, Cardinals do not work in a vacuum. Vatican Dicasteries are staffed with hundreds of Priests, Lay faithful and religious who are of many differing ages. Many of these are young in their 30s. Some are older. They run the gambit.

I did correct you because you were wrong, that the Pope and Cardinals are 75+. You did use the indicative mood, so I assume that you were not speculating, you were making a statement. Now that you are suddenly stepping back and saying 65-75 (bravo) I would have to say, yes, that many bishops are 65-75. That much is true. Now that we have that down..

The problem is that the janitor of a secular company is like a layman person in the church (as far as the amount of work and power that derives from the work goes). Lay people go around the church carrying the offerings basket. Or they are really janitors. Very few are deacons. Deacons would be the equivalent of people who are in charge of the photocopying machine in the secular world company analogy.

Your analogies are a stretch. You insistently have been using analogies without saying directly what you believe the Church is. What is the Church? You have indicated several things, such as that you believe the visible Church is somehow not the real Church. Now prove that from Scripture and Tradition.

Yes. But I have never seen a priest go to jail for corruption,

Nietzsche, I am 23 years old and I have seen that multiple times. I simply cannot take you seriously when you say that. My own supervisor at a parish I worked at was arrested. That's not even mentioning Priests I have read in the paper (usually national) that have been imprisoned for stealing millions of dollars and more.

or crimes (except the good priests who practice their functions there doing service to the Lord). Nor have I ever seen people manage to force a bishop/cardinal to resign after the scandal (if he resigns it is because the other bishops and cardinals tell him it would be better or he just leaves "office" when he reaches 75-80.)

That much is true, a Bishop has never resigned. In that I agree with you.

I have seen many top execs being forced to retire and go to jail. Even the Heads of the Company for the crime of not controlling the Board.

I agree with you in broad strokes.

All I have seen is us covering up the scandals and siding with priests who weren't "holy" in their functions or saying: those secular anti-catholic medias are destroying us! Etc

If you have followed any Catholic response to the scandal after the very beginnings with Cardinal Law, you would find that many Bishops haven't been siding with any Priest, guilty or not. More often, they have been suspending them indefinitely, as just happened recently to 24 (largely innocent) Priests in Philadelphia. The problem now is not that they are not reacting to the scandal. The problem now is that Bishops are offering Priests up as scapegoats so they can avoid prison and serious litigation.

The model is fine. Its a governance model. And the church is governed by men. Like you said just as profit companies are. The problem is picking the right one for the church. I can assure you that the governance model is similar to that of companies but much more monolithic. Responses to new events are made very rarely and are very slow. E.g. Medjugorje.

The model is not fine because a business is simply a man made institution. The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, with certain things that must be, or else it ceases to be Catholic. What those things are needs to be discussed.

And as to the Church's treatment of Medjugorje, it's not because the Church is otiose that a commission was only recently formed: it's because there is centuries of precedent that an apparition is never approved until it is completed. This is how the Church protects the people from scandal and deceit on the part of visionaries.

They respond, yes, but are extremely slow. Not dynamic. If there is need to respond in a new unexpected fashion they won't if not after a couple years. Maybe 10.

No one is going to say that Rome is the fastest bureaucracy in the face of the planet, but it doesn't mean also that it's fuddling bunch of geriatrics who can't come to grips with the modern world. I told you twice already that not only are many, many people (mostly in middle age) employed in the Vatican, but also, I think it bears keeping in mind that many of these people (although not all) are some of the finest minds in Christendom.

What I mean is that they are accountable to us. First and foremost. Because WE are the ones who suffer the most from THEIR actions. They have to be perfect like the Father or should be says Christ.

First, every believer is first and foremost accountable to Christ and his fearsome judgment seat. Second, I agree with you that they must be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect.

Well its been 1800 years since they were.

The Litany of Saints does not end at St. Ignatius of Antioch, Nietzsche.

for example the kids being abused aren't sons of priests but they are ours they are one of us. Us having to go to work and being laughed at or ridiculed because of their actions isn't nice either. Their scandals only make people become more anti-catholic or atheist but then they dare question why people have turned their backs on God! They should cry over themselves and not blame society and big evil!

This is true. What has happened is heinous beyond imagining. However, I have to say two things:

The phenomenon of Priestly abuse, let alone all criminal misconduct, is still, a minority of all clergy. A vast minority. By that I mean, under 5%. In pederasty, the number is maybe 2% according to sources like the John Jay report and others. In my opinion, to urge a fundamental reconstitution of the Catholic Church's hierarchy because of these numbers is not only overblown, it's histrionic. Reform, yes. But a full-scale revolt, no.

Its not our actions which turn people from the faith

Most of the time it's not because we "do anything" to turn people away, it's because we don't do anything at all, that's how lazy we have become by and large with the task of evangelizing the culture and the world around us.

because we are of the world and have to fight it 24/7.

Question: why is it that on most national polls on social issues Catholics rarely ever are distinguishable from the larger population? I take with a huge grain of salt your romantic view of the vast majority of Catholic lay faithful in this country in their fight against the spirit of the world (that's not to say clergy don't need help either).

 

[Irenaeus]

They are in the world but aren't in it very often. They spend more time in monasteries, seminaries, in church etc. They are protected and aren't exposed like we are. They live in a vacuum.

I have not known one Parish Priest in my entire life who hasn't been fundamentally involved in the joys, pains and events of his community and of his parishioners. They are not in a vacuum. They are with the people every single day, and in the most significant events of their lives. These Priests are the majority of the clergy (those who work in parishes). You might make this claim about academics and certain religious, but even in their apostolates they are out, working. Only the very cloistered, the lazy, and the naive are insulated from the troubles the lay people face. We are aware of them and we, lay and clergy, help each other face the challenges.

My point was the priests need us more than we need them. If we become secularized or agnostics (all it needs is not passing on the faith to our kids)
they will have to find a job in the real world. Hence no more priests if we go.

That's inspiring.

If they go on the other hand we can ordain the most faithful among us.

Oh, you mean your "new Church"? Your perfect community? Your reconstituted body of true believers?

Priests are men and faithful too i.e believers amongst men.

Yes...

The people who were made priests at the time of the 1st Christian Communities were not made so by bishops, cardinals etc.

From the first discernable moments of the Church's history, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and the letters to Timothy and the Apostolic Fathers, Priests (presbyteroi) were always ordained by Bishops (episcopoi). It has never been different and it will always be until the end of the world.

There weren't any back then nor there was a hierarchy. The 11 + Paul were the "anointed" and special ones.

Ok, so you just said in two sentences there was no hierarchy, but then you say that "the 11" and Paul were special somehow. How were they special, Nietsche? Who made them that way?

And also, when these special people got together, like in the Council of Jerusalem, for the governance of the Church, who was invited? The Apostles and ELDERS (episcopoi, or bishops), as is said in Acts 15:6.

Your conception of Church History is fantasy, both in the Scriptures and in the Historiography of Early Christianity. And it isn't Catholic. I'm sorry.

But they considered themselves to be equal to the new converts.

Then why did Paul write epistles if he considered himself equal? In the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians he is consistently reprimanding them for their errors and sins, and mocks anyone who would dare to consider themselves apostles among them, and said to them in one occasion:

2 Corinthians 11 NASB
5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

He says this in the context of false apostles who deceived the Corinthians. If he did not consider himself inferior or even equal to false apostles, how can you even countenance saying that somehow he was spiritually egalitarian with the Corinthian believers?

Modern priests don't. If they were like the priests of old there wouldn't be so many scandals thats my point. But its always our culpa. We always do mea culpa they never have. Or not enough. We do mea culpa for using a condom for example, they don't for pedophilia? Come on! The sex scandals were committed in the 90s if not before and continued!!

Most scandals were not committed in the 90s if I remember correctly, but between 1960-1985.

The priest's vision you mean. St. Joan of Arc was "Calvinist" then.

Do you even know what non sequitur means? I'm not saying this to offend you, I just want to point out what you are saying and how certain points you are making just don't connect.

I don't think that the priests are equal to God.

Did anyone ever say that? Did I say that?

We need apparitions for that reason. And many messages of the Virgin aren't nice towards priests.

Priests need repentance and conversion just like everyone else.

Why? I want priests to be better priests. With better priests come better believers. The sooner priests stop thinking that they are untouchable and can do whatever they want in God's name and use Him, the better for God.
And us.

I think we all want better Priests and better believers. But I don't know many Priests today who think they are untouchable. I think most Priests today feel extremely vulnerable.

Two short stories.

I was in a barber two weeks ago and the person cutting my hair told me how sorry she was for Priests. She said she thought we were profiled and persecuted and that that was wrong. I've heard such stories like this from many priests. I can't tell you how many times people have told me this, even when I was getting dinner on Tuesday last week.

I heard a story from a rather nationally prominent Priest who said that he saw a woman in a convenience store who said that her brother was a Priest, and that he told him to "get the [fill in the blank] out" and go work at a fast food store because they were getting thrown under the bus all across the country.

Maybe you think Priests are untouchable. I would say that they have been slapped, shamed, and humiliated by and large, and that the 98% of innocent, good Priests have been vilified and those Priests need our support now, more than ever. Not this revolution that you propose, as I will shortly quote you.

No revolution is. The revolutions are made by people who are fed up with those who govern things.

I find it interesting that you use the word "revolution."

If things were good people would not feel the need to change things. We are all immodest. We all are fashion victims and want the approval of people. When priests start waving satan around its when they fall short of arguments. Much like the parents who tell of the boogeyman to kids.

Maybe Priests waved around Satan because Satan actually exists and he exists to destroy our souls. Do you believe that?

Of course not. But if the church would listen to Christ instead of basing itself on the OT (80% of the bible is OT..)

Not only is your comment reminiscient of Marcionism, but if we were as compliant with the OT as you say, we would still be keeping kosher and sending our wives away with bills of divorce.

it would not have committed any of the crimes it unfortunately has.

So..."the Church" would not have committed these crimes if it were following the OT...you mean the same OT which says the very crimes it's committing are wrong?

Ok....

One e.g is geocentrism vs Galileo.

E.g. means exemplaris gratia. For the sake of an example. Just a linguistic point, you never say "one e.g."

And I already mentioned the Galileo thing and how there is a qualitative difference. You did not address it.

Another is enforcing OT laws. The sharia is OT laws.

Sharia is OT laws? Really? I thought that all Islam was unanimous on the belief that the OT is a corruption of the word of Allah, and that Shariah is based on both the Koran and the deeds of the Prophet Mohammed (Hadith). Curious that they would codify the prescriptions of the very Scripture they claim is a Jewish invention.

Everyone thinks that islam is a barbaric religion precisely because of the OT laws i.e. koran. One needs just open the OT randomly (of course not the psalms) and he will find the sharia law in there.

Does the OT mandate the observation of Ramadan?

Divorce is also present in canon law.

Now a jump from the OT, to Shariah (itself an illicit, invalid jump) to canon law.

And sometimes it is best for the parents to divorce than to keep on fighting. A family which is based on love will never breakdown regardless of secular traditions.

Why are we talking about divorce now? I never mentioned divorce and it seems to be another non-sequitur.

Most often people marry for financial reasons.

Say it ain't so!

That's real life situations. Or they marry because they get their girlfriend inadvertently pregnant and then divorce. No I'm not advocating abortion. I believe feminists react to the OT's sexism with an infantile response.

So the OT is sexist? How so? And God is sexist, who gave the law to Moses?

OT=God, he's sexist we don't believe nge-nge(crybaby).

Look up Marcion please, I beg you.

If tomorrow there would be no OT (except for the prophecies on Jesus) they wouldn't have an excuse not to believe.

So if tomorrow they didn't know about a God who punishes and who creates and gives the law to man, they would believe? Too bad Jesus talks about Gehenna fire, and outer darkness, and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Oh, and by the way, he who divorces his wife and marries another, according to all the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) commits adultery.

Same thing atheists. OT=God, he's a tyrant, a despot, genocidal kills kids, we don't believe.

Ok, let's cross that out because it isn't convenient, because we can do that and that's the right thing to do.

the theology of women not being able to become priests comes from eve grabbing the fruit and giving it to adam.

I have never read a single theological text in my entire life that ever made that argument.

The rabbinical tradition that men and women must sit one on the left the other on the right comes from that ideology and interpretation too. Jews still prohibit men and women to sit together in synagogues.

Maybe the strict Hasidics do, but I don't remember it. I grew up in a majority Jewish neighborhood, and they were Ultra-Orthodox Jews. I had to turn on my neighbors' ovens on the Sabbath because they couldn't even turn the dial to cook their food.

Fake tradition. Nuns are way better than the average priest. No women are not impure due to their menstrual cycle as the OT states. Which would be further grounds for them not becoming priests...

"Impure" does not mean "sinful". There is a difference between ritual uncleanliness in the OT and sinfulness, they are not the same thing. If you want to talk about the Old Testament theology of sin, I'll dig out my Pentateuch notes from my Professor from the Biblicum and we can have a heck of a time.

Was the OT right about the firmament and cosmology? Yes or no simple answer.

Nope. But then again, why does that matter. The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Of course there are aspects of Scripture that are adapted to man made idioms and customs of that era, but you have to be judicious and understanding it. Even liberal scholars like Harnack understood that. Not blithely throw out much of the OT minus the Psalms.

The rest is apologetics. Christ went against the OT.

Again, chapter and verse. Christ said on the Sermon of the Mount as recorded in Matthew's Gospel that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Why would Christ say that he would fulfill that which he was against, exactly?

The NT clearly says that the pharisees wanted to kill Him from the time He began His ministry against them

No. It said the Pharisees were determined to kill him, particularly in the Synoptics, after he cleansed the Temple. I know, I had to write a Graduate paper on it.

and the OT legalism and that Him proclaiming himself to be the son of God was just the excuse they needed and were looking for to kill Him. So there is no theological error i.e. a break off from the OT is infact orthodoxy. Otherwise our faith is just messianic judaism. And Paul is a heretic.

Look up Marcion please.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

....

There are 4 gospels and in one of them a woman asks Jesus why he's not married. Rabbi why aren't you married. Why do you think rabbis marry? And always have? I think that no one wants to become priest anymore precisely because he can't marry. Open up marriage to priests and see how many who would like to become priests but don't because they want to get married would as a result. If the seminaries stay empty then fine I'll admit that celibacy does not hinder becoming a priest nowadays.

The Pope and Cardinals in the West are 70-75 (65-75 whatever) the Pope is more than 80...
I'm saying that they are too old. That's it. If you think they aren't fine. But the age of a person will have a repercussion on his reactions. Even reflexes are hindered. And not judgement? Priests are senile free? Unfortunately not as the Blessed Pope JPII had Parkinsons disease. My point is that they are human and age like humans and aren't immune to diseases.

I'm just saying that since the church is made up of men and we have medical, biological advancements we can without a doubt say that 50yr olds are sharper than 65+. There are fields of study for governance too.
Why not use them?
I think the logic is the other way round. It is not: since the church is not secular its governance does not need change nor is it comparable to business companies (the church has budgets, uses banks, loans and the like. Hence economically it is secular. And uses economic theories.)

My logic is: since the church isn't secular it should be much better, (because it reflects God), than secular companies and not worse in its governance. Hence I say change the governance because it is even worse than secular companies when in fact it should be better. 30 years deciding whether or not an apparition is real is appallingly inefficient to say the least. Not just that if it turns out it is not a real one imagine the irreparable damage caused by the church's governance to the faithful. I'm not asking much I'm just asking for the church to be as efficiently governed as any other multinational company. I would like them to be better but that would be a start.

That's all. I don't think that priests are supermen who don't need help. The church has advisors who aren't priests. E.g. for the economic governance of the church.

I know about Marcion. He was a simple minded guy. Didn't realize that in the OT God spoke to men via prophets and those prophets who were men spoke of Him to other people whereas in the NT He came to the world and spoke about Himself. Its like night and day. If one doesn't understand the difference then one doesn't understand what being Christian really means. Its not the mantra jesus died for your sins that makes one a christian.

That is why Marcion thought that in the OT God was cruel and the NT God good. He thought there were 2 Gods. The OT and NT are different just like moses is the opposite of Christ. Of course God is one but the only thing that changed was who spoke for God in the 2 testaments. One is prophets, scribes, speaking. In the other its God Himself speaking for Himself about Himself. That's the main difference. If we think that all the OT is God's infallible word we're not just protestants but have regressed to islam and to judaism. Christ is God's word. Full stop. Not the OT. Otherwise the old covenant still remains and Christ is just another prophet like in islam.

The equation God =OT is made by everyone.

Unfortunately the church has done damage to itself and hence to God by wanting to adhere to the OT which Christ has turned into the NT and new covenant. But we still go towards Moses i.e. OT. Lets become Jewish and renounce Christ then. Its schyzzophrenia imo wanting to stick to the OT.

The OT's laws are the problem. That is why feminists exist and the reason for the whole geocentrism v galileo case. Without the cosmology and bs of the OT regards to the universe there wouldn't be a schism between religion and science as there is now. All because of geocentrism v galileo. That's the truth. Its a mess. Only Christ can save ths mess. No one else.

We can see the OT at work in islam and orthodox judaism. It isn't pleasant. Nor does it make justice to God. I think. I'm talking about the laws not the Revelations and prophecies about Christ. Those are 2 completely different things. One is God revealing its plan the other is pharisaic priests concocting laws and giving them authority by saying that they come from God. The 10 commandments are not mosaic law. There's a vid here on sharia. Under the thread about Muslim lies or something like that. Sharia is OT. In that vid women are stoned for adultery. That's how the woman was going to get stoned and Jesus saved. Without Jesus we would be like muslims and orthodox jews. Thank God we aint!

If I were to believe that sharia is God's law (sharia=OT) I'd become like the feminists and atheists. Sorry can't do that. Can't believe sharia-OT is God's law. I got both faith and reason. I aint a lutheran. Feminists are feminists because adultery is punished one way. Women are stoned not men. And the OT is full of sexist nonsense. The Bible didn't come down from the sky Christ did. TheBible was written by people. Christ is God. And he never wrote a sentence. Or, nothing he may have written has come to us. He spoke.

The whole question about pohibiting tatoos is another example of OT mosaic law and misinterpretation of it furthermore.

Anyway my points are:

1) priests are too old (fact)

2) they are too few because people don't want to be celibate (fact)

3) the governance of the church is worse than the secular multinational companies as its governance is anachronistic. It is anachronistic because it thinks that it cannot change its governance. Lies. It wasn't like that always. Bishops, cardinals were made after Christianity became the official religion of Rome. (fact)

4) I'd like the church to be better governed and more efficient and not to have to take a secular company as an example of efficient governance but the church. I can't. I'm not happy about it. Would like to help but can't with this closed up mentality. Because if laymen tell me nope the church can't be better and can't change its governance because scripture tells it to be inefficient and like it is, then we've already lost before the fight (on satan? or on us first?) began. (personal wish and conviction)

5) More transparent (personal wish on a fact it is not very transparent)

6) More control and less silence (its like the oath pledge that mafiosi make. Pedophile priests are covered up..a disgrace. All this for silence and obedience and never questioning authority!!!) (another personal wish based on facts)

7) A more people friendly church because WE make the church not the priests. The priests were like us before becoming priests! They weren't born priests.. (personal wish and fact)

8) Hence there would be less scandals and they would not pop out after 20years but immediately if there were any and solved quickly. (strong hope)

9) There would be better reaction to instances such as Medjugorje (strong hope)

That's why I made the other 8 points and that's my solution to Medjugorje and all other things the church is called to deal with including scandals.

Hope I made myself real clear!

P.s people friendly does not mean lets have barbecues inside the church and watch celtics thrash lakers! -_-'

Dante put yet another Pope in the inferno I thought it was Borgia based on Borgia's biography which I know because came across a tv series thought and hoped it was completely false and the usual anti-catholic propaganda (sic). EVEN WORSE!!! It shows that Popes in the Reanissance were "questionable" to say the least that was my main point. It reinforces my point if anything. Which Pope did Luther go against? I know the whole reform snowballed into the reform but started as an anti-corruption movement and anti-simony. That I'm sure of. I can't be bothered to go on wiki. Sorry. The main argument and points don't fall because of my lazyness to click on wiki pages. Someday I'll have to write a thesis on this who knows and do it seriously lol.

I thought the passage about adultery was that if a man foresakens a woman he pushes her to adultery. Even looking at another woman and in our hearts appreciating her beauty is adultery!.. what do we do get our eyeballs off (since men cannot take their eyeballs off in islamic countries they cover women instead so that they do not commit adulterous thoughts! lol) ? Fine I've committed adultery a lot. Everytime I see a "hot chick" I think she's that and would like to ahem (not always its a hyperbola).. I'd be a hypocrite if I were to say that I repent of being heterosexual and confess my "sin" of heterosexuality to a priest! Or of having sexual desires which I didn't make nor I bought in a candy shop but have since birth (insticts..). Of course in medio stat virtus. My last example was a paradoxical hyperbola if there is such a thing!

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

MOD HAT ON
This thread was split from "The Medjugorje Seers and an Unescapable 'Conflict of Interests'" because these posts were off topic. In the future, please abide by the following CF rule:

Respect and become familiar with each forum's Statement of Purpose. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose; submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion. Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Irenaeus]

My apologies.

If it's not too much trouble, there were some other posts in that general run of thought that are still left in the Medjugorje thread. I understand if that is tedious to move (I've been a mod before), but I wanted to make public note of it it anyone wants to refer to it.