| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Priesthood of the Future | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Thursday, 21. June 2012, 09:17 (1,035 Views) | |
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 12:16 Post #61 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Interesting, Father. Very interesting... Obedience, you say? OK, what in my post would you consider to be an act of disobedience to my bishop if I were a priest? ++Lefebvre may be dead, but his contributions to the Church still live on (not quite sure why you brought ++Lefebvre into things, but never mind.) |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 12:56 Post #62 |
![]()
|
just about every thing you stated you would do in this quote from your earlier post.
As a priest you are not free to do as you please you are obliged to obey your bishop and the law of the church as defined in the Code of Canon Law 1983, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 2003. and teach in accordance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1993, most of your posts through out this forum indicate that you would have difficulty with this and would disobey most of them. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 12:58 Post #63 |
![]()
|
Edited by Penfold, Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:42.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:36 Post #64 |
|
.... (SSPX already has its own existing threads) |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:39 Post #65 |
![]()
|
My apologies Mairtin I shall amend my post. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:40 Post #66 |
![]()
|
posted in error
Edited by Penfold, Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:40.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 13:40 Post #67 |
|
I'm not regarding them as "almost priests", I realise the difference in their ministry, it just seems to me that those reaching ordination as deacons would de facto fulfill the conditions for what Fr. Ratzinger described as "proven Christians who have other jobs". He seemed to be suggesting part-time priests rather than full time so maybe that is the key difference I am talking about. |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 14:34 Post #68 |
|
Try priestess-hood as an essential addition. Women are as human as men. Think the many other beliefs-re middle east / far east with ever so many very importants godeses. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 14:42 Post #69 |
![]()
|
Mairtin it may be that some deacons are suitable candidates for priesthood and may come forward for ordination to the priesthood but they would be ordained as Priests not some form of enhanced deacon. The church experimented with worker priests before, most notably in France during the 1940's and 50's and it lingered on into the 1990's. Alas it met with several difficulties which led to the Vatican clamping down on it, however in principle it was looked upon favourably by many, including the young Ratzinger, and the problems were related to indiscipline among some of the priests and a lack of adequate supervision. It may be that if revisited and better constituted some form of "Worker priests" could be a way forward. I read an interensting article in the Time magazine but I can not paste it in for copyright reasons but it reflected upon the last of the worker priests following his death. On reflection I think it was a plan that went off at half-cock but in theory was a good idea that could bear fruit. I will try and find another article on worker priests, it was an interesting experiment. I have a problem however with the idea of "Part Time Priests" Priesthood is a way of life not a job, if it is reduced it to being just a function or job within the church then we loose far more than we would gain. What we need are the right people to come forward for ordination to the priesthood. We also need to remind ourselves of what a priest is, hence in my earlier post I gave a reference to the DECREE ON THE MINISTRY AND LIFE OF PRIESTS PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19 and to assist and help avoid confusion I also gave the reference to SACRUM DIACONATUS ORDINEM on the role of deacons, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19670618_sacrum-diaconatus_en.html What I would also add is that deacons are also bound by the rules of celibacy as a general norm and it is a concession that has permitted married men over 35 to become deacons but they may not re-marry if their wife dies. A thread on diaconate is in the archives somewhere, but if you wish to discuss priesthood, as I though this thread was about the priesthood of the future, then please focus on priesthood not trying to remodel the diaconate. (John, I am sorry if my answer is long winded but some things can not be dismissed with flippant one liners. Mairtin has posed a serious question and I am trying to give a considered and respectful answer.) |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 14:52 Post #70 |
|
I remember meeting a vicar who was also a working farmer. I suspect that the problem in the French worker-priest experiment had something at least to do with the ideology of those putting themselves forward as candidates and those responsible for their ordination, rather than with the principle that an ordained priest might properly earn a living doing. St Paul seems to have envisaged priests earning their keep by regular work (though what he would have understood by "priest" is at least debatable). Priest/monks, of course, teach, keep bees, and do other income-producing things. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 15:04 Post #71 |
![]()
|
This is an interesting article. Veit Strassner The Worker Priests: History and Development Tendencies of a Movement Fallen into Oblivion{1} http://www.con-spiration.de/herwartz/english/arge-e.html I suspect there may also be lessons to learn from the Church of England and Non-stipendiary ministers, but this is not a subject I am familiar with and perhaps Home in Rome will be able to offer some insight into the NSM and how we might make use of it. |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 15:52 Post #72 |
|
Patrick, popes have often disagreed with what went before... and reversed it. Pope John Paul2 seemed not to have a problem with female altar servers, and Pope Benedict16 has has said they should not serve only at Tridentine form Masses. It's not Church dogma, it may appeal to, or disturb, some (like yourself), but it is all an irrelevant distraction: We're allowed, so get used to it. You should have far more important issues to focus on than this.... |
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| Emee | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 16:12 Post #73 |
|
Due to the Apostolic Succession the Church has the capacity to bind and to loose. In the early Church St Paul had deaconnesses. Somewhere along the way - about the 11th Century, I believe they were "loosed". Therefore if one day the Church were to return more intrinsically to Biblical times there could be a "re-binding" of this Ministry. Similarly female altar servers. As they are not dogma they were once able to be "loosed" and now they have been "bound" to the Church again. I see no truck with this. Jesus gave the Church the capacity to bind and to loose. Therefore one Pope abolished them and now they have been re-instated. That they have been re-instated and that we now also have male and female EMHC's brings the Church closer back to its Biblical roots. No problem at all. The survey Angus / Patrick refers to had loaded rather than neutral questions, in that they already set the premis in the question. Therefore only people who felt particularly strongly about the matter would be likely to answer. If the survey were to be carried out in my Parish, my Mum's Parish, my sister's Parish in fact most other Parishes I am familiar with, I am confident that the answer would be completely the reverse - that is if people even thought of it as any more than a "non issue". I do not think it is something that even enters the regular Catholic in the street's mind. I know it only ever comes to my mind when Angus mentions it. And I am no feminist Angus believe you and me. Basically, the statistics quoted are not representative of typical RC Parishes today. |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 16:50 Post #74 |
![]()
|
There is a suggestion that they were Deacons and there was a movemet to reintroduce female deacons but it was thwarted when the Anglican Communion jumped the gun and ordained women Deaconesses and later deacons and then priests. It may be that in time for the reasons given by your opening statement that the church introduces ordained females and female priests may be the priests of the future, but not today. |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 23. June 2012, 16:55 Post #75 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Here is the link to the thread "Permanent Deacons". It is still open, in the Discussion section. http://ukcatholic.co.uk/topic/7005255/15/#new |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |









....

3:41 PM Jul 11