|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Roman Catholic Church 100 years from now
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I don't know about his personal faith, but MacCulloch is a very respected and well-studied historian of Christianity, and his knowledge of historical processes and trends of development and change within Christianity is therefore extremely good.
Well, what he revealed of this purported historical insight in the video was a one-sided view with enough spin on it to put Shane Warne to shame. Furthermore, while knowing about the past can help predicting the future, knowing about the present helps even more, and there was little indication that he's aware of the actual global condition (healthy growth) of the RCC.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
His argument that centralisation has been a fatal flaw in modern Roman religion is a good one, and I agree that the RCC stands a good chance of prospering if it can restore its traditional decentralised power structures of the pre-19th century.
As I've said, it was a series of really dumb soundbites. Prosper by decentralization? As the Protestants have been prospering in the West? Yeah? Well, we are seeing that in action in the Anglican church. As that denomination decentralizes before our eyes, falls to pieces in slow motion, we will watch how it starts to accelerate into massive growth in Europe. Sure.
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
First of all, I don't agree that a personal attack on the piety of the learned Professor is a substitute for reasoned engagement with his factual analysis.
What factual analysis? Pretending that the Pope was little more than the Bishop of Rome till a few hundred years ago? And I simply have laid out the piety of the learned Professor according to his own words.
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
So he obviously identifies as a member of the Church.
Probably. But not as Christian, other than in some sort poetic-mythical "liking the vibes" sense. Yes, it's absurd that such a man is a deacon. But that's the CofE for you...
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
As for him being gay, what is the relevance of that? His analysis doesn't deal with homosexuality at all.
However, it identifies one more reason why his reading of RC history is biased and his predictions for the RC future is pants. This is a guy who refused to be ordained as priest in the CofE because of how that denomination treats homosexuals. I think it is a fair bet that he sees the RC hierarchy as even more "anti-gay" and that he really, really wishes it to disappear. And so his prediction that it must do so in order to secure the future of the RCC should be taken with a salt mine or two.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
IngoB, you might not like what he says, but one doesn't get appointed Professor of Church History at the University of Oxford by being a complete dullard about said Church, and caring solely about one's media image.
Would you contest, for example, his implication that widespread Ultramontanism is a more recent development in the RC Church?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a numbers game afoot, certainly in Northern Europe, which suggests that there will be at least some sort of "give" in the makeup of the priesthood, the responsibilities of deacons, and lay involvement.
First, internationally numbers are up. Second, as you can see from this table, in the UK one priest on average serves 847 faithful. In Portugal it is one priest per 2,403 faithful. But that's still far less than for example in Mexico and Brazil, with one priest for 8,441 and 8,630 faithful, respectively. Or in the Philippines with one per 9,493. These are hardly countries that are less Catholic than the UK. Sure, there are effects of population density in this. But still, the UK has a factor three to go even to Portugal. Clearly, one can run a Catholic church with far fewer priests than we are accustomed to, without major innovations.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suspect that in 100 years time, there may be some major changes in understanding, fueled at least to some extent by this practical sharing of the priesthood. People need time to adjust.
Whereas I suspect we will simply see more of what we have been seeing: a reduction of the all too ready availability of mass, in particular outside of larger cities, and more priests "imported" from overseas.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
What I see in this thread is a lot of wish fulfilment fantasies that the Church will either wither into irrelevance or capitulate to the liberal Zeitgeist. It will do neither. It will do what it has always done; endure.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
Thanks for the post. I'm afraid the second link didn't work for me, even after I used Google to try to access the root website. Also used Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Anyone else. I noted one Google entry which said that www.catholic-hierarchy wasn't an officially sacntioned website and a number of other entries to show the site exists. So I'm flummoxed!
Anyone else having this problem?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB
Thanks for the post. I'm afraid the second link didn't work for me, even after I used Google to try to access the root website. Also used Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Anyone else having this problem?
Yes.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
IngoB, you might not like what he says, but one doesn't get appointed Professor of Church History at the University of Oxford by being a complete dullard about said Church, and caring solely about one's media image.
You mean like the previous Professor for Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, one Richard Dawkins? The first few books of his may give us an idea what he conceivably has a serious clue about:
- Suffolk and the Tudors (1986)
- The Later Reformation in England (1990)
- Henry VIII: Politics, Policy, and Piety (1995)
- Thomas Cranmer: A Life (1996)
- Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (1999)
- Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490–1700 (2003)
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Would you contest, for example, his implication that widespread Ultramontanism is a more recent development in the RC Church?
Yes, that's bollocks. In fact there was a fairly steady rise of the power of popes till it arrived at a proper state in late antiquity / the early medieval period, in tune with the general development of the Church. See for example here. This came to a high point in the High Middle Ages, but like most ecclesiastic goodness, then turned sour in the late medieval / early modern period. "Ultramontanism" is simply a dismissive label attached to the recovery of the proper place of the papacy after the unbridled disaster of the Reformation.
(One should not be anachronistic about this. Obviously, a medieval pope had much more limited "technical" abilities to execute his power. He hardly could send bishops an email, and the faithful could not read his encyclicals in multiple languages on the internet. Also there was be a totally different interplay between temporal and ecclesiastic power back then. Societies were really organised differently to now. But the pope sure had become the ultimate ecclesiastic power in the middle ages.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
IngoB, you might not like what he says, but one doesn't get appointed Professor of Church History at the University of Oxford by being a complete dullard about said Church, and caring solely about one's media image.
Would you contest, for example, his implication that widespread Ultramontanism is a more recent development in the RC Church?
Ingo can answer for himself, and doubtless will*, but the centralisation of authority in Rome over the last couple of hundred years is a direct result of the withering of absolute monarchy. In the c16th and c17th the right to appoint bishops tended to devolve from the Pope to the local monarch in the c19th and c20th it reverted back to the Pope when the authority of the monarch became contested by local republicans and anticlerical types. Now one can deplore the authority of the Pope and, as an Anglican Catholic of sorts, who wishes that the Conciliarists had come out on top at the end of the Middle Ages I generally do. However I note that the centralisation of authority in Rome led to Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes whereas the devolution of authority in the early modern period coincided with the Duke of Alva's campaign in the Low Countries and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
More generally autocracies are generally about as good as the reigning autocrat and since Leo XIII (discuss!) the RCC has been blessed with a reign of reasonably competent Popes. Now it could be that the Cardinals elect a complete duffer this time round, in which case the wheels will come off. But it's not clear that the Bishops Conferences would handle things with spectacular competence if the authority of the Pope was delegated to them. Certainly, Irish traditionalists were wont to argue that what Ireland needed was more Papal authority than less after the child abuse thing blew up in their faces and certainly, given a choice between Cardinal Brady and Pope Benedict on the whole child abuse thing, I'd rather have Pope Benedict all things considered.
Professor McCulloch thinks that if the Catholic Church embraced the ethos of the C of E it would solve its problems. This is true to a certain extent but it would also acquire the C of E's problems and it's not immediately apparent that this would be an improvement.
*Oh, he has.
[ 28. February 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: Gildas ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB Thanks for the post. I'm afraid the second link didn't work for me, even after I used Google to try to access the root website. Also used Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer. Anyone else having this problem?
Yes.
Weird, sometime I get this page, sometimes not. It may actually be in my browser's cache, or something.
Anyway, here is the Google chache of it, does that work for you?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, that video gets my vote for the dumbest five minutes of soundbites I've heard on the topic yet. Let's see, that sort of bollocks sure sounds a lot like ... google ... yep, he's a gay, liberal, ex-Anglican atheist (agnostic?).
You must've thought all your Christmases had come at once, IngoB, when you read that rap sheet of Catholic bete-noirs. What a shame he wasn't a woman, too. You would've had a full house ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) .
One of my favourite OT stories is from 2 Kings 7.
There's the city full of God's chosen people, and their king. Starving to death because they're under seige from the enemy. But that's okay, isn't it - because they're God's people, so something's gonna turn up, isn't it?
At the city gates are the outcasts of God's chosen people - the lepers; because outside the city is the place these chosen people put their unwanted human rubbish, the people who aren't to be reckoned as up to much, worth the effort etc. Their human condition makes them too 'imperfect' lawfully to be permitted to share the approval of the holy community or its God.
The lepers decide their best chance of staying alive is with not their own people, but the enemy, the Arameans. So they hike off to throw themselves on the mercy, not of God's chosen people, but of the enemy of God's chosen people - to the Aramean camp.
Funnily enough God does something unexpected. He must've given himself permission to go off and be merciful and godly outside of the walls of the city of his special people. And before the lepers arrive, he scares off the enemy, so the lepers have food, drink and riches at their disposal. Wasn't that nice of God? He didn't do that for the beseiged city full of his chosen people.
Astonishly, the lepers say to themselves 'we're not doing the right thing. This is good news and we're keeping it to ourselves. Let's go to the city and tell them.' They turn their own good fortune - given them direct from God's own hand - into a blessing for those who rejected them.
So the lepers give the good news to the king in the city. And the people are relieved from their famine. The rejects, the unworthies, have brought the good news of what God has done - to the people of God, who were blissfully unaware, unconscious of what God was doing. Isn't it as well they could be bothered to listen?
Every Church community/communion needs to listen to the outside voice - because that is just as often where God is. From many posts on this thread the message seems to be that not only must any 'outside' voice be ignored or silenced, but even if God were to be acknowledged as working beyond the walls of the holy city, it can only be in a way which is somehow not doctrinally or dogmatically licit.
So if that is so, then the Roman Catholic Church in a hundred years time will certainly still be the city full of God's chosen people - but starving, beseiged by imaginary enemies, and apparently ignoring the 'good news' of the outsiders telling them that God has been at work, and would they like to share in that new freedom?
Please don't see this as getting at Rome, however! This is also the case, imo, for the Anglican communion, too. And for any Church that structures God so tightly we become unable to see beyond the edges of our own theology to where God is equally active. And where licitness lies not in the approval of doctrine or orthodoxy, but with the fruit of the Spirit.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, IngoB, works for me. Will post tomorrow, need to do a bit of digging.
But I take your points; given the global scope of the Catholic Church, there are probably lots of regional variations.
By developed western standards one priest to several thousand faithful sounds very strange. I suppose the reaction I got at Santiago de Compostella were based on relative change away from what folks were used to. The global stats seem to provide a different perspective.
Maybe it's yet another example of global inequity of "supply/availability"? More later.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
What I see in this thread is a lot of wish fulfilment fantasies that the Church will either wither into irrelevance or capitulate to the liberal Zeitgeist. It will do neither. It will do what it has always done; endure.
Indeed, it seems like the general idea among posters that the future is for it to be a somewhat more successful version of the ECUSA.
I simply do not see that happening, not out of personal bias, but simply that among the observant, the church is going in exactly the opposite direction.
In my own area, there is exactly one parish which is growing, and it's the more conservative, traditional one. The parish is staffed by a tradition-oriented religious order, offers the tridentine mass and is known for orthodoxy. In the 9 years since they took over the parish, the parish has grown so much that it has 3-8 times the weekly attendance of the nearby parishes. Many of the parishioners are "refugees" from the two closest parishes, which are known to be liturgically "creative" and not entirely sound on Catholic doctrine. Both of those are slated to close this month.
It's my personal belief that the Catholic Church right now is in the midst of or soon going to see some very interesting changes, as far as the way things are going on the ground. Rather than a more liberal, more relevant utopia, I think what's more likely to happen is that the hierarchy will accept that many observant Catholics are really more interested in a strong, conservative Catholic identity, and they will be more willing to provide options for them.
This will definitely mean the disappearance of things such as territorial parishes. The future will be more like the Episcopal Church in that people will go to the parishes where they feel fed, and not so much the ones they are canonically obligated to be registered at. Similar to how there are low, high, and middle parishes on the other side of the Thames, Rome will see parishioners aligning themselves with the parishes that meet them where they are doctrinally and liturgically. This is already happening, but I expect it to be the norm, rather than the exception.
I am sure that the combination of low diocesan vocations and a high number of vocations among certain men's religious order will see many bishops inviting these same orders into their dioceses to take over parishes. It is much easier for a bishop to give a parish or a few parishes to, say, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, with the knowledge that the liturgy and teaching there will change, but they will at least not have to spread their own resources thin to staff parishes. This is technically already occurring in some dioceses, but again, I think it will be more widespread.
While priestly vocations worldwide are on the rise, I think that diocesan seminaries will likely be phased out for regional seminaries for the time being. At this point, there really is no need for every diocese to have it's own seminary. Metropolitan archdioceses should have their own, and smaller diocese ought to send their seminarians to theirs.
I am certain that as some point in the future ether both Roman Missals will be combined into one new missal, or both will be revised. There are admitted problems in both missals, and Rome has already spoken of the possibility of revising the missal and breviary of Paul VI. The existence of two forms of the Roman rite is sort of an odd thing, and I don't see it as a long term solution to the problems that plague Catholic liturgy.
I would like to see the extension of the ministires of Acolyte and Lector into normal parish life. The entire rationale behind the suppression of the minor order (and the major order of the subdiaconate) was that they could not be given to laymen, and were present only in seminaries. Right now, Acolytes and Lectors, which replaced them, are still only found in seminaries, and not in parishes as they were intended.
I do think the church in the U.S. will have to commit to a single model of running parishes. Currently, the situation is that on paper, the pastor has the final say in all decisions regarding the parish, despite what various parish councils or committees may say.The pastor runs the parish. That model, however, dates from a time when pastors were always appointed for life, and more than likely died pastoring the parishes they were given as their first parish to pastor. Right now, pastors are appointed to six year terms and generally moved after two terms.
This had led to parish councils effectively running the parishes, with the tacit approval of many bishops on the U.S. The pastor may think he runs the parish, but he will be gone in six years, or 12, or even less, and a new priest will come, and he will do things the way we've always had them done, and then he'll be gone after six years, etc.
Either they will have to commit to the old model, or they will commit to a new model that gives lay parishioners more control over the assets or the parish and various other decisions. The current model only leads to tensions.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Every Church community/communion needs to listen to the outside voice - because that is just as often where God is. From many posts on this thread the message seems to be that not only must any 'outside' voice be ignored or silenced, but even if God were to be acknowledged as working beyond the walls of the holy city, it can only be in a way which is somehow not doctrinally or dogmatically licit.
In case you didn't notice: It was Elisha who made the actual prophecy, so an inside voice. The actual outsiders, the Syrians, were indeed attacking the insiders. And they did so without mercy, and in spite of the mercy that was previously shown to them. They were driven off by the Lord, who was stripping them even of their belongings. The marginal lepers went to the Syrians because they merely saw a choice between certain death (starvation upon being admitted inside, starvation caused by the Syrians) and likely death (at the hands of the Syrians). They were gambling on pity for their sorry state. And what did they do when they found that the outsiders had been routed by the Lord and left all their stuff? The reported it right back to the insiders.
So if you want to do some rad trad eisegesis on 2 Kings 7 instead: The Lord will smash secular society and leave all its goods to the faithful. This will have been announced by the prophetic traditional voice in the Church, but ignored out of fear at first by the hierarchy, leaving it to the rat trad communities - often treated like lepers by the rest of the Church - to take first spoils from the secular world. But in their faithfulness they will then come back with their converts and show to the hierarchy that the secular world is ripe for the taking, and finally Christendom will be re-established.
Not that I believe that nonsense either. Just a little demonstration that anybody can play the silly eisegesis game. It is just not meaningful. In fact, the bible as a whole is not meaningful if approached in this manner.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
I am certain that as some point in the future ether both Roman Missals will be combined into one new missal, or both will be revised. There are admitted problems in both missals, and Rome has already spoken of the possibility of revising the missal and breviary of Paul VI. The existence of two forms of the Roman rite is sort of an odd thing, and I don't see it as a long term solution to the problems that plague Catholic liturgy.
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. I sincerely hope they're not merged. You're also right in saying that there are problems with both though if I were to keep one it would be the older. This subject would make for an interesting discussion as it is a personal interest of mine, or at least used to be when I was still an RC. Related to this is also the problem of ultramontanism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by bad man:
Sir Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford, has an interesting video essay about the future of the Roman Catholic Church out today. Link is http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2013/feb/28/pope-benedict-diarmaid-macculloch-video
Well, that video gets my vote for the dumbest five minutes of soundbites I've heard on the topic yet. Let's see, that sort of bollocks sure sounds a lot like ... google ... yep, he's a gay, liberal, ex-Anglican atheist (agnostic?).
I don't know about his personal faith, but MacCulloch is a very respected and well-studied historian of Christianity, and his knowledge of historical processes and trends of development and change within Christianity is therefore extremely good. His opinion is well-grounded in historical facts and so I think he's got a good handle on what may happen in the future.
His argument that centralisation has been a fatal flaw in modern Roman religion is a good one, and I agree that the RCC stands a good chance of prospering if it can restore its traditional decentralised power structures of the pre-19th century. I don't think this will happen though. Throughout history the centralisation of power mainly continues into stronger and stronger forms of autocracy until it is either violently overthrown, or dies.
My beef was certainly with his analysis of the centralised structure of the Catholic and its future, rather than about his personal faith. The centralisation of the Catholic is an issue that is being addressed and will be addressed. However, who in their right mind thinks that a return to secular rulers exercising power in the church is a good thing?
Other historians and commentators have pointed to the rise and centralisation of the papacy as a protection against the interference of secular rulers in the church. If this development has been exaggerated, the answer is not a return to the situation pre-19th Century but to a greater collegiality between bishops and greater representation of lay apostolates.
Or if you want to see an example of what Diarmaid MacCulloch is advocating witness Patriarch Kirill and Putin.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
IngoB, yes, I did notice that that big word beginning with E and ending with lisha, was Elisha. Just as I managed to read and understand the literal meaning as you have, so usefully - though forgive my saying so, so needlessly - given in your first paragraph. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm a bit sorry you didn't believe the bit you did on interpreting that passage in another way. I would've respected your opinion and admitted there was certainly merit in it. But I see it was just a 'silly' game to you, as you put it. It really wasn't for me. I do think there is some truth in the concept of God's use of the apparent profane to speak to the apparent religious. The rejected, to the rejectors (if that's a word.) And I think this is a point which applies to Church institutions. Such as your Church and mine.
So honestly you don't have to create or quote eisegesis for me to prove you can play silly games with the Bible. If you tell me you can, I certainly believe you.
The 'silly' eisegesis, by the way, was originally Walter Brueggemann's. Given in a lecture in Lichfield round about 1999 or so. In his application of it at that time, he thought it likely the prophetic outsider voice would be the gay voice that the Church refused to listen to. But, of course, as a theologian who doesn't agree with you, naturally he would be a very 'silly' theologian! Along with all the others. And there must be so many others.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I would've respected your opinion and admitted there was certainly merit in it.
Sigh. Yes, that's what it all is about. You say one thing, I say something completely different. Then we respect each other's opinion, and live happily ever after in disagreement. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I tell you where and when that works. It works if it doesn't matter anyway. Maybe you consider arbitrary meaninglessness to be the hallmark of faith, but I don't. I respect your faith enough to consider it wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
So honestly you don't have to create or quote eisegesis for me to prove you can play silly games with the Bible. If you tell me you can, I certainly believe you.
I was actually proving to you that you are playing silly games with the bible. The problem is that you may not be able to do anything else, if the bible is the only authority concerning faith that you recognize.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The 'silly' eisegesis, by the way, was originally Walter Brueggemann's. Given in a lecture in Lichfield round about 1999 or so. In his application of it at that time, he thought it likely the prophetic outsider voice would be the gay voice that the Church refused to listen to.
Surprise, surprise.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. ...
Why is this a problem? In our communion, most provinces have their own liturgies. There are plenty of problems in the communion, which get debated frequently on the ship, but that isn't one of them.
Having or not having more than one form of liturgy is not going to win the apostate multitudes back into the kingdom. They have got better things to worry about.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
I am certain that as some point in the future ether both Roman Missals will be combined into one new missal, or both will be revised. There are admitted problems in both missals, and Rome has already spoken of the possibility of revising the missal and breviary of Paul VI. The existence of two forms of the Roman rite is sort of an odd thing, and I don't see it as a long term solution to the problems that plague Catholic liturgy.
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. I sincerely hope they're not merged. You're also right in saying that there are problems with both though if I were to keep one it would be the older. This subject would make for an interesting discussion as it is a personal interest of mine, or at least used to be when I was still an RC. Related to this is also the problem of ultramontanism.
They won't be merged. The Pauline Missal will be gradually be revised out of existence. The Johannine Missal will see restorations of pre-1955 elements, incorporation of one or two positive elements of the PM and will be made available substantially in the vernacular along the lines of the English Missal/1965 Interim Roman Missal. There will be more widespread use of Latin too I believe.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is this a problem? In our communion, most provinces have their own liturgies. There are plenty of problems in the communion, which get debated frequently on the ship, but that isn't one of them.
Having or not having more than one form of liturgy is not going to win the apostate multitudes back into the kingdom. They have got better things to worry about.
It's odd because until recently it was unheard of. There was only ever one rite in Rome just as there was only ever one in Milan, or Canterbury, or Byzantium etc. What you are referring to are local rites, which is a different thing. The above are all local rites, or at least that's where their origins lie. I have no problem with that. It needs to be resolved because the two Roman rites are so radically different. One might even argue that they teach two different faiths.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
I am certain that as some point in the future ether both Roman Missals will be combined into one new missal, or both will be revised. There are admitted problems in both missals, and Rome has already spoken of the possibility of revising the missal and breviary of Paul VI. The existence of two forms of the Roman rite is sort of an odd thing, and I don't see it as a long term solution to the problems that plague Catholic liturgy.
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. I sincerely hope they're not merged. You're also right in saying that there are problems with both though if I were to keep one it would be the older. This subject would make for an interesting discussion as it is a personal interest of mine, or at least used to be when I was still an RC. Related to this is also the problem of ultramontanism.
They won't be merged. The Pauline Missal will be gradually be revised out of existence. The Johannine Missal will see restorations of pre-1955 elements, incorporation of one or two positive elements of the PM and will be made available substantially in the vernacular along the lines of the English Missal/1965 Interim Roman Missal. There will be more widespread use of Latin too I believe.
Let's hope so. Barring a few bits here and there I think you're speaking my language. Another thing that needs to be addressed is papal interference in the liturgy of which two good examples are Pius X's reform of the breviary Psalter and Pius XII's Holy Week reforms which gave a precedent for the VII reformers.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
One might even argue that they teach two different faiths.
An extreme view (par for the course among Sedevacantists; see Fr Anthony Cekada) but not without merit. The PM is "serviceable" when done strictly in accordance with the (meagre) rubrics and in Latin. Doing otherwise results in a mess, so unfortunately a mess is what one usually gets.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
One might even argue that they teach two different faiths.
An extreme view (par for the course among Sedevacantists; see Fr Anthony Cekada) but not without merit. The PM is "serviceable" when done strictly in accordance with the (meagre) rubrics and in Latin. Doing otherwise results in a mess, so unfortunately a mess is what one usually gets.
Agreed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Edgeman:
I am certain that as some point in the future ether both Roman Missals will be combined into one new missal, or both will be revised. There are admitted problems in both missals, and Rome has already spoken of the possibility of revising the missal and breviary of Paul VI. The existence of two forms of the Roman rite is sort of an odd thing, and I don't see it as a long term solution to the problems that plague Catholic liturgy.
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. I sincerely hope they're not merged. You're also right in saying that there are problems with both though if I were to keep one it would be the older. This subject would make for an interesting discussion as it is a personal interest of mine, or at least used to be when I was still an RC. Related to this is also the problem of ultramontanism.
They won't be merged. The Pauline Missal will be gradually be revised out of existence. The Johannine Missal will see restorations of pre-1955 elements, incorporation of one or two positive elements of the PM and will be made available substantially in the vernacular along the lines of the English Missal/1965 Interim Roman Missal. There will be more widespread use of Latin too I believe.
Let's hope so. Barring a few bits here and there I think you're speaking my language. Another thing that needs to be addressed is papal interference in the liturgy of which two good examples are Pius X's reform of the breviary Psalter and Pius XII's Holy Week reforms which gave a precedent for the VII reformers.
Many, including Fr John Hunwicke, trace todays problems as far back as Urban VIII's buggering up of the Divine Office in 1632 by inserting a bunch of faux Horatian hymns into the Breviary hymnal.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Many, including Fr John Hunwicke, trace todays problems as far back as Urban VIII's buggering up of the Divine Office in 1632 by inserting a bunch of faux Horatian hymns into the Breviary hymnal.
Aye, that too. I used to read Fr. Hunwicke's blog. He had a lot of good, interesting things to say on liturgical issues.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Mexico and Brazil, with one priest for 8,441 and 8,630 faithful, respectively. Or in the Philippines with one per 9,493. (...) Clearly, one can run a Catholic church with far fewer priests than we are accustomed to, without major innovations.
I personally know quite a number of Latin American padres who'd heartily disagree with you. They don't have the feeling that they are 'running' their parish, they barely get by. They work far too many hours, with too little funds, too many problems, going from place to place putting out fires without really being able to get a grip on it. And often with a Bishop who doesn't understand what they're going through. The love for what they're doing keeps them going, but it's almost impossible to work like that.
Is this the future you envision for the RCC?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You're right in saying it's odd that two different forms of the the Roman liturgy exist side-by-side. It will have to be resolved. ...
Having or not having more than one form of liturgy is not going to win the apostate multitudes back into the kingdom. They have got better things to worry about.
I would disagree completely, knowing many converts from irreligion whose experience with certain liturgies was a huge thing that sparked their conversions, myself included. If I had not experienced reverent catholic liturgy as I did when I was 15, I would not even be a Christian.
Remember that the dismantling of the liturgy as most Catholics experienced it during and after Vatican II led to a lot of disaffected Catholics leaving the church and many others to become so distraught and confused that they simply gave up. It wasn't all candy and roses. I have known some, including myself, whose experience of the way that most RC parishes celebrate the liturgy lead to thoughts of "They don't even really believe any of it, why should I bother?"
I don't want to stray too far into Ecclesiantics territory, but the Liturgy is supposed to be the Church's way of publicly worshiping God and proclaiming her faith, if we can't even get that much right there's a lot more we're going to screw up.
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
IngoB. You respecting my faith, enough to consider it wrong? What do you know of my faith? You may have a good knowledge of the Church Communion to which I belong, and I know pretty well how much that is respected by you - which is barely at all, if past posts are anything to go by! Certainly, there must be many wrong things about my understanding of God and matters of faith. But my faith, itself? I wonder, genuinelly, if you could even come close to knowing what that word means to me.
However, if by 'faith' you mean the particular method one employs to worship God; I certainly do think the Church to which you prefer to be affiliated is often wrong. Much as I admire it and respect it in many other ways. As for whether your faith is wrong or not. That's between you and the Almighty.
And please don't tell me I'm playing silly games when I know I'm not. I wasn't playing anything when I made that post. Again, you don't know me or my faith well enough to make that judgement call. All you know is that I've favoured a particular interpretation of scripture - which may be wrong or right - with reference to a particular application for this thread. And you don't like it. Just because you have the smarts to play silly games yourself, doesn't mean other people want to. I didn't want to, and I wasn't. I was serious. And if that's worth your ridicule of my abilities, and an incorrect dig at a sola scriptura position I'm supposed to have, I reckon I can live with that. Please feel free to bolster your intellectual superiority at my expense!
Though, thank you for the entirely predictable response to Brueggemann. If I'd run a book on it, I could be a rich woman! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You respecting my faith, enough to consider it wrong? ... I wonder, genuinelly, if you could even come close to knowing what that word means to me.
I'm certainly not doubting your sincerity or depth of feeling, merely some of the content it is about. And while I have my preferences, it's not about worship styles.
(Indeed, I think Ad Orientem's little comment about two faiths from the current two (main) liturgies of the RCC is historically ignorant, theologically false and ecclesiastically suspect of heresy and schism. It's more or less the same "silly game", just applied to the liturgy instead of the bible...)
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And please don't tell me I'm playing silly games when I know I'm not. I wasn't playing anything when I made that post.
I know that you were serious. If I thought you were intending to play silly games, I would but chuckle. My point was that your method turns the bible into a canvas on which to paint your opinions. That is a silly game. (Actually, it' s a dangerous game.)
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Though, thank you for the entirely predictable response to Brueggemann.
Well, I have to admit that I'm feeling a bit smug about having detected the typical fudge even though the original gay agenda had been carefully stripped away. A test for my spider senses, and they sure did tingle...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Rather depends upon how one views liturgy. Your use of the term "worship styles" says it all, whereas I would take a much more patristic view. Lex orandi lex credendi!
[ 01. March 2013, 07:35: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anselmina:
Though, thank you for the entirely predictable response to Brueggemann.
Well, I have to admit that I'm feeling a bit smug about having detected the typical fudge even though the original gay agenda had been carefully stripped away. A test for my spider senses, and they sure did tingle...
IngoB, does being always right necessitate being a complete cad?
I have other far more important stuff in real life to deal with right now but I won't let that bit of smartarsery on Anselmina pass without comment.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
They won't be merged. The Pauline Missal will be gradually be revised out of existence. The Johannine Missal will see restorations of pre-1955 elements, incorporation of one or two positive elements of the PM and will be made available substantially in the vernacular along the lines of the English Missal/1965 Interim Roman Missal. There will be more widespread use of Latin too I believe.
This is exactly where I would like to see the Church going, liturgically speaking. How much of it I'll live to see is another matter, seeing how slowly the Church moves on these things. EPIII is something I'd like to see preserved from the PM, and it's right that the JM with appropriate tweaking, should be available both in the vernacular and in Latin. I, too, would like to see more use of Latin in the future.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
IngoB
As promised, a considered response to your "numbers" post.
To make things easier, I'm going to repeat the other link I made in my "Santiago" post. This one, from the Irish Association of Catholic Priests.
So far as numbers go, here is the excerpt which encouraged me to link it.
quote:
This year just 12 students entered Maynooth to study for the priesthood. None of them is from a western diocese. That must be something of a record. In my first year in Maynooth I was one of 20 students from the western dioceses and there were 84 altogether in my class. In all now there are 64 students in Maynooth studying for the priesthood. In my time the total number of students was around 400.
It’s not a happy picture. And of course the same applies across the developed world: Britain, Germany, Italy, USA. France is even worse, of course, a template of the future. The Church has virtually disappeared in vast areas of rural France as aged priests struggle to cope with a multiplicity of parishes. The future of the Catholic Church in Ireland looks like France, I’m afraid.
The Maynooth picture was strikingly similar to the historical trends of numbers in training at Santiago de Compostella and the comment about aged priests coping with a multiplicity of parishes was very similar to a comment by the Catholic tour guide.
On the numerical question, have you found more detailed tables showing the trends of priests in training in the developed world? Repeating your earlier link, it does show a short term decline in Europe, but the impression I get from the ACP link (and from the Santiago de C experience) is that numbers in training, certainly in Ireland and Spain, and possibly in general in Europe, have been in long term decline. Is that wrong?
The ACP article shows ways in which priestly duties are in practice being more "shared out" - and that's a good thing. It also hints at discussions re the celebration of the Mass and the distribution of the Host by those other than priests, (I'm reminded of the "reserved elements" approach within the C of E which enables communion in rural parishes to be distributed by Readers and Deacons) And there are some poignant words about funerals as well.
I suppose this may be a "local difficulty" when viewed in global terms, but it appears to be causing stress and distress. And gloomy predictions. Like this
quote:
So what’s going to happen? The trajectory will be something like this. As priests age and die out, lay ministers will hold week-day Communion Services in situations where priests are not available. It will start with Communion Services conducted by laymen and women in parishes where there used to be Mass and now there’s no priest to say it. Gradually this practice will extend to weekend Masses. People will either opt to travel to some more populated centre for Mass or stay in their home parish for a Communion Service. In all probability parishes will not be amalgamated or churches closed – as that would cause a lot of bother – but effectively parishes will become paper entities and churches will become dilapidated and eventually close. And like in Liverpool, a series of specific ministries (like Funeral Ministers) will be introduced to fill in for a declining and aged remnant of priests.
This is "insider" talk. Is the author talking out of his hat? (BTW I presume Weekday Communion is some secondary distribution of the Host, but I'm not clear on that)
I accept that my earlier argument (essentially that a greater sharing out of priestly duties is likely to lead to long term change) is predicated on such info I had about long term decline in numbers in training. The overall global picture does look better, and so it may only be Europe (or parts of Europe anyway) that have major causes of concern.
But there is another way of looking at the numbers Table you provided. Given the comparative ratios of priest to population, is it really fair for Europe to see the "importing" of priests from the developing world as fair to the developing world? Some of that will be fine and cross-fertilisation is always a good thing, but if it becomes a pattern it also feels like a subsidy of the comparatively less needy by the comparatively more needy.
And to judge from the Irish link (and comments) the needs of the "comparatively less needy" are pretty serious. The "insiders" foresee substantial changes in parish life. I was impressed by the final sentence.
quote:
Don’t mention the war. Don’t mention it. I won’t tell a soul.
This is "coalface" feedback from Ireland and has something to say about elsewhere in Europe. How do you, and other Catholic contributors here, assess it? Just a whinge? Or a siren voice? Or what?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Rather depends upon how one views liturgy. Your use of the term "worship styles" says it all, whereas I would take a much more patristic view. Lex orandi lex credendi!
I was still mostly responding to Anselmina, who talked about "the particular method one employs to worship God". As for "lex orandi, lex credendi" ("the law of prayer is the law of belief") - indeed, that's precisely why I suspect your comment of heresy and schism. While we are doing the Patristic boogie on the liturgical minefield, does "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" ("Rome has spoken, the case is closed") ring a bell?
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I have other far more important stuff in real life to deal with right now but I won't let that bit of smartarsery on Anselmina pass without comment.
I'm all about making other people feel good, so you are most welcome to your brief flash of righteousness.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB
As promised, a considered response to your "numbers" post.
To make things easier, I'm going to repeat the other link I made in my "Santiago" post. This one, from the Irish Association of Catholic Priests.
So far as numbers go, here is the excerpt which encouraged me to link it.
quote:
This year just 12 students entered Maynooth to study for the priesthood. None of them is from a western diocese. That must be something of a record. In my first year in Maynooth I was one of 20 students from the western dioceses and there were 84 altogether in my class. In all now there are 64 students in Maynooth studying for the priesthood. In my time the total number of students was around 400.
It’s not a happy picture. And of course the same applies across the developed world: Britain, Germany, Italy, USA. France is even worse, of course, a template of the future. The Church has virtually disappeared in vast areas of rural France as aged priests struggle to cope with a multiplicity of parishes. The future of the Catholic Church in Ireland looks like France, I’m afraid.
The Maynooth picture was strikingly similar to the historical trends of numbers in training at Santiago de Compostella and the comment about aged priests coping with a multiplicity of parishes was very similar to a comment by the Catholic tour guide.
On the numerical question, have you found more detailed tables showing the trends of priests in training in the developed world? Repeating your earlier link, it does show a short term decline in Europe, but the impression I get from the ACP link (and from the Santiago de C experience) is that numbers in training, certainly in Ireland and Spain, and possibly in general in Europe, have been in long term decline. Is that wrong?
The ACP article shows ways in which priestly duties are in practice being more "shared out" - and that's a good thing. It also hints at discussions re the celebration of the Mass and the distribution of the Host by those other than priests, (I'm reminded of the "reserved elements" approach within the C of E which enables communion in rural parishes to be distributed by Readers and Deacons) And there are some poignant words about funerals as well.
I suppose this may be a "local difficulty" when viewed in global terms, but it appears to be causing stress and distress. And gloomy predictions. Like this
quote:
So what’s going to happen? The trajectory will be something like this. As priests age and die out, lay ministers will hold week-day Communion Services in situations where priests are not available. It will start with Communion Services conducted by laymen and women in parishes where there used to be Mass and now there’s no priest to say it. Gradually this practice will extend to weekend Masses. People will either opt to travel to some more populated centre for Mass or stay in their home parish for a Communion Service. In all probability parishes will not be amalgamated or churches closed – as that would cause a lot of bother – but effectively parishes will become paper entities and churches will become dilapidated and eventually close. And like in Liverpool, a series of specific ministries (like Funeral Ministers) will be introduced to fill in for a declining and aged remnant of priests.
This is "insider" talk. Is the author talking out of his hat? (BTW I presume Weekday Communion is some secondary distribution of the Host, but I'm not clear on that)
I accept that my earlier argument (essentially that a greater sharing out of priestly duties is likely to lead to long term change) is predicated on such info I had about long term decline in numbers in training. The overall global picture does look better, and so it may only be Europe (or parts of Europe anyway) that have major causes of concern.
But there is another way of looking at the numbers Table you provided. Given the comparative ratios of priest to population, is it really fair for Europe to see the "importing" of priests from the developing world as fair to the developing world? Some of that will be fine and cross-fertilisation is always a good thing, but if it becomes a pattern it also feels like a subsidy of the comparatively less needy by the comparatively more needy.
And to judge from the Irish link (and comments) the needs of the "comparatively less needy" are pretty serious. The "insiders" foresee substantial changes in parish life. I was impressed by the final sentence.
quote:
Don’t mention the war. Don’t mention it. I won’t tell a soul.
This is "coalface" feedback from Ireland and has something to say about elsewhere in Europe. How do you, and other Catholic contributors here, assess it? Just a whinge? Or a siren voice? Or what?
The ACP are not an unbiased source and representative of a great deal of those responsible for the current mess in Ireland. Willie Walsh could be their poster child.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Barnabas62: quote:
But there is another way of looking at the numbers Table you provided. Given the comparative ratios of priest to population, is it really fair for Europe to see the "importing" of priests from the developing world as fair to the developing world? Some of that will be fine and cross-fertilisation is always a good thing, but if it becomes a pattern it also feels like a subsidy of the comparatively less needy by the comparatively more needy.
Maybe the "less needy" are spiritually "more needy". As St. Philip Neri was the Apostle to Rome when the city was in something of a spiritual malaise, so perhaps some developing world saints will come to convert the hearts of RC Europeans and Euro-descendants where they are no longer on fire.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was still mostly responding to Anselmina, who talked about "the particular method one employs to worship God". As for "lex orandi, lex credendi" ("the law of prayer is the law of belief") - indeed, that's precisely why I suspect your comment of heresy and schism. While we are doing the Patristic boogie on the liturgical minefield, does "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" ("Rome has spoken, the case is closed") ring a bell?
Well, as an example I would point you to the prayers for the Jews in both forms. Have a look and tell me they don't teach different things, but then I have no alleigence to the Roman bishop speaking only from an Orthodox perspective.
Concerning primacy even the most grandiose language of the Fathers cannot be reconciled with the claims made in Pastor Aeternus. The Petrine ministry is, I would argue the Great Lie of the post schism Roman Church (though the rot started even earlier). Primacy as it existed in the Early Church is not something we would deny but if the bishop of Rome wants to discuss it the position of Orthodoxy remains the same: first confess the orthodox faith.
BTW, I'm saddened that Benedict has resigned. I rather liked him. He was a breath of fresh air.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose
I get that and I would never argue against anyone following a call from wherever to wherever. Just as long as there isn't a strategic assumption that "importing" will be used to alleviate the European shortage.
CL
Of course I recognised the possibility of some kind of group bias, which is why I asked the question. But I'm trying to avoid Bulverising witnesses here.
Are the concerns voiced in the ACP link unfounded? The fact that from some folks' POV "they would say that" - maybe because those folks see some kind of agenda at work - does not set aside the possibility that at least some of their concerns may be justified.
On long term decline of Catholic ordinands in Europe, that's a matter of fact which can be resolved by detailed data. If it is happening, it needs a considered, serious, strategic response.
I read the ACP link as providing evidence of need which would not exist if there were more priests. Is that just about inefficiency, or laziness, amongst those who are in office? Or is the "struggling to cope without getting much by way of help" the underlying source of the discontent?
I don't automatically take the side of protesters, don't automatically assume that they are groaning under the weight of complacent, top down, management just telling them to "get on with it". But I don't automatically dismiss their voices either. People also protest for good and objective reasons, not just because they have problems with submission and authority and perseverance.
Are there good, objective reasons behind a proper cause for concern here? If so, what do they imply for the longer term? These seem valid questions in the context of this thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Concerning primacy even the most grandiose language of the Fathers cannot be reconciled with the claims made in Pastor Aeternus. The Petrine ministry is, I would argue the Great Lie of the post schism Roman Church (though the rot started even earlier). Primacy as it existed in the Early Church is not something we would deny but if the bishop of Rome wants to discuss it the position of Orthodoxy remains the same: first confess the orthodox faith.
Such assertions always amuse me because they are so devoid of fact and yet so firmly and fervently adhered to. The great lie of the post-schism Church has been that the good, clean Orthodox were trying to prevent the Roman Primate from expanding his power. The truth of course is rather different: successive Roman Primates had been trying to clip the wings of successive Bishops of Constantinople, who had trying to puff themselves up with titles like "Universal Bishop" (less controversially, though I'm not sure why, translated as Ecumenical Patriarch) and issuing instructions or even trying to depose other bishops, ultra vires. So it suits them to assert that they were really just opposing Roman ambition, as a way of undermining the person who was calling them to heel. Except it just ain't so.
Nice try though.
[ 01. March 2013, 11:26: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
What one might more historically consider is that the hierarchy in both Rome and Nova Roma became highly politicised following imperial recognition and eventual Christianisation of the Western and Eastern empires; and that both bishoprics would understandably have been engaged in a sort of sibling rivalry from their respective imperial capitals -- the crumbling old seat of empire on the one hand, and Constantine's vigorous new imperial capital built up on the site of an old fishing village. Excessive and OTT claims, pretenses, and precipitous action would hardly be surprising in such circumstances.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Lyda*Rose
I get that and I would never argue against anyone following a call from wherever to wherever. Just as long as there isn't a strategic assumption that "importing" will be used to alleviate the European shortage.
CL
Of course I recognised the possibility of some kind of group bias, which is why I asked the question. But I'm trying to avoid Bulverising witnesses here.
Are the concerns voiced in the ACP link unfounded? The fact that from some folks' POV "they would say that" - maybe because those folks see some kind of agenda at work - does not set aside the possibility that at least some of their concerns may be justified.
On long term decline of Catholic ordinands in Europe, that's a matter of fact which can be resolved by detailed data. If it is happening, it needs a considered, serious, strategic response.
I read the ACP link as providing evidence of need which would not exist if there were more priests. Is that just about inefficiency, or laziness, amongst those who are in office? Or is the "struggling to cope without getting much by way of help" the underlying source of the discontent?
I don't automatically take the side of protesters, don't automatically assume that they are groaning under the weight of complacent, top down, management just telling them to "get on with it". But I don't automatically dismiss their voices either. People also protest for good and objective reasons, not just because they have problems with submission and authority and perseverance.
Are there good, objective reasons behind a proper cause for concern here? If so, what do they imply for the longer term? These seem valid questions in the context of this thread.
No, what they say is true for the most part when taken in isolation. What they fail to say is that it is their particular "Spirit of Vatican II" nonsense that is responsible for the empty seminaries. They desacralised the priesthood, the sacraments and the Church and now wonder why no one wants to be a priest. If they don't believe in what they are supposed to be selling, why the Hell would anyone else bother?
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
CL
Thanks, I get that.
I suspect opinions vary within the Catholic Church about both the bad and the beneficial effects of Vatican 2. My own experience of that is very limited. The Catholic priest I got to know best is/was a "Vatican 2" man and the Catholic Church in Norwich which was his responsibility seemed to flourish under his care. I liked him a lot, found him wise and helpful. But that's just one, I know.
I suspect that if folks polarise about the reasons for the emptier seminaries, they will also polarise about what might be done to "re-stock" them. Which might limit progress over remedial action. In any case, it takes time to make good on a longer term "supply deficit". But remedial action there will have to be to cope with the lean years, and their impact on parish life for at least the time being. I suppose time will tell whether the remedial action is a temporary, or more permanent, solution, and how effective it turns out to be.
That persuades me at least that current moves (some of which are outlined in the ACP article) to "share the priesthood" more, whilst preserving for the priesthood that which cannot be delegated, seem like the best practical way to go. I suppose one might argue that is making the best of a bad job, but at least it's not a complacent approach.
[ 01. March 2013, 13:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I've heard people stridently saying that churches should "modernise" in order to gain people back to church. I've also read here people stridently putting the blame of less people in church at the feet of "modernists".
I believe there to be a small, very small element of truth in both points. The bigger point is, though that less people are going to church per se. We can all give examples of the Father who wants Latin masses and daily fasting and the female Priest who sings songs about lesbians being loved by God being a success/having less parishioners. It proves nothing.
I love liturgy and have been at many, many RC services that I have enjoyed. For all the good liturgy, however, the question is, are you a twat?
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Rosa Winkel wrote: I've heard people stridently saying that churches should "modernise" in order to gain people back to church. I've also read here people stridently putting the blame of less people in church at the feet of "modernists".
There are two big problems with modernising (whatever that may mean in a given context) to try to get people back into the church. Firstly, it assumes that the state of the outside world (its spurious and transient ways of thinking, etc.) should determine how the church does what it does. I can find no support for that, either in scripture or in tradition. Secondly, and more importantly, is that it fails to realise thoroughly modern people (to say nothing postmodern) really have no particular need for the church, whether it is modern or not. When I was in undergrad I got more than my fill of modern/postmodern bullshit from my professors; thank God I didn't have to hear it from my local pulpit as well.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I don't think it's much of a surprise, at least not to me, that the priestly and religious societies that are flourishing the most are the traditional ones. A good example is the SSPX in France.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I very much doubt that the people talking about "modernising" churches are thinking in terms of "modernism" or "post modernism". They are more likely talking in terms of language and liturgy that people can understand.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
In the Irish context, they seem to be talking about measures to help it to function. Deeper considerations may help you to drain the swamp, but first you have to deal with the alligators.
It's cool to debate underlying principles; you can do it all day if you like. But it's bugger all help to a priest struggling with, and getting exhausted by, maintaining some kind of reasonable "status quo" for the folks he serves.
There are managerial issues here.
[ 01. March 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
To make things easier, I'm going to repeat the other link I made in my "Santiago" post. This one, from the Irish Association of Catholic Priests.
That association is not representative of Irish Catholic priests, though it claims to have 25% of their number signed up. One of their founding members is a priest who has been censured by the CDF. Something that actually doesn't happen that often. The organisation asks for revisions of the usual stuff: ordination of women, artificial birth control and priestly celibacy. Whatever ill effects priest shortages may have, I would be happy to see the number of priests in Ireland reduced by up to - say - 25%.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
numbers in training, certainly in Ireland and Spain, and possibly in general in Europe, have been in long term decline. Is that wrong?
No, that's correct on all the data that I have ever seen about it. However, Europe is importing talent, so to speak. Setting the matter of possessions (in particular church buildings) aside, one really has to ask whether the number of priests is falling faster than the number of faithful. Here is the number of priests, as you can see it is falling in Europe. Here is the number of Catholics, as you can see it is also falling in Europe. But here is the more essential number of Catholics per priest. As you can see it is rising, which is bad, but fairly slowly. Over 15 years (1997 to 2002) it has risen by just 7.5%. That's not nice, but not exactly a catastrophe either. (And yes, I would also like to see newer data. But I don't know where to find it so readily compiled.) The main problem the Church has to deal with in Europe is her shrinking base, providing the usual service to this base is so far still possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is "insider" talk. Is the author talking out of his hat?
I think so and I hope so. This is simply ignoring (or "wishing away") the considerable conservative turn that the Church has had and I believe will continue to have. The envelope of lay participation has already been pushed, hard. Lay "Extraordinary Ministers" of Holy Communion are super-abundant. Most likely further pushes will not be allowed, indeed, I would expect pull-backs. What we will see is simply an end of luxury. Most Catholics in Europe expect that the can fall out of bed on Sunday and find themselves in a Mass with Holy Communion half an hour later (if they so please, which they rarely do). If the numbers reduce much further, this will cease to be the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But there is another way of looking at the numbers Table you provided. Given the comparative ratios of priest to population, is it really fair for Europe to see the "importing" of priests from the developing world as fair to the developing world? Some of that will be fine and cross-fertilisation is always a good thing, but if it becomes a pattern it also feels like a subsidy of the comparatively less needy by the comparatively more needy.
From a pragmatic point of view, money and political power remain concentrated in the North/West. It would be foolish of the Church to let her foothold there slide, and that would be detrimental to her members elsewhere as well. For example, the federation of German dioceses pumped almost 50% of their total budget into the world church and missions, rather than into Germany. At €64 million, that's more than three times what was invested into all pastoral care for Germans (€20 million). The South/East may have the growth, but the North/West remains the engine that powers much of that growth behind the scenes. Now, we can get all romantic about this and dream of spiritual growth in spite of egalitarian poverty. But the truth is that the "cash cows" of the North/West will not be hastily abandoned. And all in all, that is not something that works against the many "hungry calves" in the South/East.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is "coalface" feedback from Ireland and has something to say about elsewhere in Europe. How do you, and other Catholic contributors here, assess it? Just a whinge? Or a siren voice? Or what?
Swan songs. Whatever else will happen in Europe, these people will be gone in the medium term.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suspect that if folks polarise about the reasons for the emptier seminaries, they will also polarise about what might be done to "re-stock" them. Which might limit progress over remedial action. In any case, it takes time to make good on a longer term "supply deficit".
One key problem here is that family sizes in the West have shrunken so drastically. If you have just one child, a son, then "losing" that son to the priesthood means no grandchildren. If you have ten children, then "sending" a son the priesthood helps a little in keeping your explosively growing tribe from starving.
This is just about the only argument for a married priesthood that I personally take serious. However, the truth is also that this would not be such an issue if Catholics actually obeyed Catholic teaching on sexuality. No, we don't want to get the old times of huge families back, and we would not (NFP has come a long way). But just as the sourcing of priest should be "sustainable", so our reproduction should be. It would be good if Catholic couples had on average about 2.1 kids, or perhaps 3 or 4 while the seculars are still busy contracepting themselves out of existence. If there were such numbers, again, then I'm sure that the number of candidates for the priesthood would go up as well, locally.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel: We can all give examples of the Father who wants Latin masses and daily fasting and the female Priest who sings songs about lesbians being loved by God being a success/having less parishioners. It proves nothing.
and
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
When I was in undergrad I got more than my fill of modern/postmodern bullshit from my professors; thank God I didn't have to hear it from my local pulpit as well.
Excellent !! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
@ Ad Orientem: I take your point on the SSPX and agree. There is also a tendency for new Catholics to be rather conservative. You say you are based in Finland. I lived in Helsinki for 5 years in the late 90s/early 2000s and those were testing times for the small local RC community. Roman Catholicism is not at all rooted in Finland; the Helsinki Parish consisted of either embassy personnel and expats like myself, or of converts. And these converts were very, very conservative indeed. Their zeal was frightening and worrying. They were converts and they practised their new faith with furrowed brows and deadly seriousness. The Parish was run by Opus Dei priests and an archconservative Bishop from Poland. And by "conservative" I do not mean liturgically conservative. We (the born-and bred Catholics of a mostly not very Ultramontanist conviction) felt quite homeless in that parish. Personally, I literally took to the woods, attending mass at a remote Carmelite hermitage in the forests far from town.
So a tendency for a strengthening of "right-wing" catholicism in the future is quite possible in countries where there are many converts.
The Lesbian-hugging, guitar-playing lets-all-stand-around-the-altar-and-hold-hands- type of Catholicism will remain the preserve of Europe and North America. Where Catholicism is dying out.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I very much doubt that the people talking about "modernising" churches are thinking in terms of "modernism" or "post modernism". They are more likely talking in terms of language and liturgy that people can understand.
"Modernist" was my word. I thought of writing "PC" or "liberal" or "Vatican II".
I'm pretty sympathetic to what I clumsily called modernists. I think, though, that when we start getting het up about liturgy we need to remember the millions starving in the world, including in our countries, and the system that enables that.
In my life I've met anti-OoW and pro-OoW Anglicans and liberal and conservative RCs. Anyone can be a twat. Anyone can be over-focussed themselves and deny the humanity of people around them. Anyone walk to the other side when they see a homeless guy. Anyone can do nothing when they hear of a husband or wife being beaten.
I'm not saying "liturgy or social work". I'm just saying about attention paid.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
