Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay
#51
(12-29-2017, 10:20 AM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Moreover, what I have proposed is completely in line with what you have quoted:

Quote:49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

...

What you have quoted says exactly what I was arguing: the presider eventually "acquired" the sacerdotal (priestly) character.

I'm glad we agree that what you propose matches what I quoted. It removes the difficulty of having to prove that what you said boils down to those proposition.

Unfortunately for you, those are condemned propositions ... they are defined by the Church as false propositions of the Modernists, so to profess them would be to profess heresy.

Again, I invite you to abandon your heretical notions before your simple misunderstanding of the Faith takes on a more formal element and you reject what the Church teaches.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#52
(12-29-2017, 04:14 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(12-29-2017, 10:20 AM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Moreover, what I have proposed is completely in line with what you have quoted:

Quote:49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

...

What you have quoted says exactly what I was arguing: the presider eventually "acquired" the sacerdotal (priestly) character.

I'm glad we agree that what you propose matches what I quoted. It removes the difficulty of having to prove that what you said boils down to those proposition.

Unfortunately for you, those are condemned propositions ... they are defined by the Church as false propositions of the Modernists, so to profess them would be to profess heresy.

Again, I invite you to abandon your heretical notions before your simple misunderstanding of the Faith takes on a more formal element and you reject what the Church teaches.

MM, Maybe you didn't follow the argument.  Please read my conclusion:

Quote:If indeed all overseers were "priests" (whether in function or in name or both), then, based on 1 Timothy, I certainly maintain my view that the early priesthood consisted both of celibate, continent priests and non-celibate, chaste priests.

1. In my final argument, I accepted the principles of Lamentibili.  I accepted that the priest was a "priest" from the start.  I accept that point as now established in the context of my overall argument regarding a celibate, continent priesthood.  There is no argument between us that the references to "presbyteros" and "episkopos" in St. Paul's writings were to PRIESTS (some modernists argue that the overseers did not perform priestly functions but acted only administratively - just to be clear that argument is ruled out).
2. Then the next step was to apply this understanding - that priests (episkopos and presbyteros) were priests from the very start - to the language we find in St. Paul's first letter to Timothy.

If the overseers were Priests then, based on 1 Timothy 3, they were not celibate and not continent.  That is the point I was arguing.

Now to address your accusation of material heresy:

Historically speaking, I still believe that the Church gradually came to understand what was happening from a sacramental point of view.  So we must understand what is being condemned in Lamentibili.  

In 49 there are two parts:

Part 1.  "When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action"  this phrase is not the belief that is condemned, it is merely a prepositional phrase to preface to what is condemned later.
Part 2.  "those who presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character."  this is the part being condemned.  They were acting as priests from the beginning whether or not they understood it as such or called it by such a name.  The character of the office NEVER changed nothing was "acquired" other than a deeper understanding of what a priest was.  

Likewise in 50 there are three parts:

1. "The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops"  This is not condemned!!! Wouldn't you agree with this part of the statement??  Or must we reject this also??
2. "to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities"  I don't think this part is being condemned either.
3.  "and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power."  Here is where the condemnation lies.

I believe that the Church gradually came to understand fully the priesthood established by Christ.  I do not believe that that in and of itself makes me a modernist or heretic.  I also believe that, historically speaking, the Church gradually came to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  Does that also make me a modernist?  Christ himself said I have much to teach you but you cannot bear it now.  (But all of this is not germane to the underlying argument on continence and celibacy.  The point is they were priests from the beginning and in scripture they were not celibate nor continent.)

Finally, take a look at No. 60 "Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic."  This is condemned.  Thus my argument that the early Christian Church rejected adopting the Levitical structure is in line with this condemnation.
Mater Dei, Ora pro nobis.
Reply
#53
Believe me I understand the arguments to maintain a celibate priesthood.  I have stated my displeasure with the lavender priesthood.  I would also ask that the reader please step back and view the picture from the point of view of my hometown in Europe.  We have one priest who is 74 that we share with 3 other parishes.  There is one mass per weekend in one of the parishes and one must always consult a program in order to determine where to go for the mass.  I cannot remember when regular confessions were last held.  

The bishop has tried to bring in a few priests from other countries.  However, as I understand it, the parishioners who have these imported priests claim that this is a job for them not a vocation.  They are there for the immigration and wage earning benefits and there is an honest doubt whether they truly have a Christian faith or are just pretending.  I have met one on my last trip home and unfortunately, he was more interested in chatting with the one or two young ladies after mass than making my acquaintance.  A good friend of mine met this priest, who was wearing a muscle shirt and shorts, in the local fitness center where my friend greeted him with "Good Morning Father" only to be rebuffed with "Don't ever call me "father" in public!"  After which he turned sharply and resumed his conversation with the lady friend in whose company he is often seen.

Certainly, I am not as learned as many of you.  But I see the Church in terrible crisis in Europe.  It is not as bad here in the US in terms of vocations, but the priests here are so very arrogant and so many of them quite effeminate.  I have to weigh the benefits of having priests to minister to the people (regardless of celibacy) with simply having no priests at all or having ones who are more of the "rent a priest" import variety.  And at the end, I am ready to accept a married priesthood.  

Yes, many of you will disagree with me.  Whether or not you agree, please pray for those souls who are going to hell because there are simply no priests to maintain vibrant communities in places that were formerly very Catholic.
Mater Dei, Ora pro nobis.
Reply
#54
(12-30-2017, 02:38 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Believe me I understand the arguments to maintain a celibate priesthood.  I have stated my displeasure with the lavender priesthood.  I would also ask that the reader please step back and view the picture from the point of view of my hometown in Europe.  We have one priest who is 74 that we share with 3 other parishes.  There is one mass per weekend in one of the parishes and one must always consult a program in order to determine where to go for the mass.  I cannot remember when regular confessions were last held.  

The bishop has tried to bring in a few priests from other countries.  However, as I understand it, the parishioners who have these imported priests claim that this is a job for them not a vocation.  They are there for the immigration and wage earning benefits and there is an honest doubt whether they truly have a Christian faith or are just pretending.  I have met one on my last trip home and unfortunately, he was more interested in chatting with the one or two young ladies after mass than making my acquaintance.  A good friend of mine met this priest, who was wearing a muscle shirt and shorts, in the local fitness center where my friend greeted him with "Good Morning Father" only to be rebuffed with "Don't ever call me "father" in public!"  After which he turned sharply and resumed his conversation with the lady friend in whose company he is often seen.

Certainly, I am not as learned as many of you.  But I see the Church in terrible crisis in Europe.  It is not as bad here in the US in terms of vocations, but the priests here are so very arrogant and so many of them quite effeminate.  I have to weigh the benefits of having priests to minister to the people (regardless of celibacy) with simply having no priests at all or having ones who are more of the "rent a priest" import variety.  And at the end, I am ready to accept a married priesthood.  

Yes, many of you will disagree with me.  Whether or not you agree, please pray for those souls who are going to hell because there are simply no priests to maintain vibrant communities in places that were formerly very Catholic.
Peace.....yes, the Church IS in crisis and not just in Europe.  We, in Canada and USA also see our priests as having a career, not a vocation - this comes out of the seminary teaching and screening.  From what i understand though, many seminaries have been checked out and cleaned out.  (?)  I also heard on a video recently, that there are many priests in N Ordo who are learning the Tridentine Mass (in their spare time) so as to be prepared for more definite bigger changes - we are there now!  There is also a pilgrimage i believe in France with Cardinal Sarah ( recently reprimanded by P Francis) leading the High Solemn Mass.  15,000 pilgrims are expected to attend this Cathedral - and possibly more.  These are Traditionals.  There is a new youth movement taking place based on the Latin Mass.  So, there are good things happening!  We are stuck at the turning point.  There may be more dirt on the horizon, however there is some light too!  Dont give up - by the way, I have a friend who always has difficult having confession - it is either cancelled, priest is a no-show, make a last minute appointment, being rushed through her confession to feel like a bother not a soul in need.  You are not alone by any means.....God bless, angeltime
Reply
#55
(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: 1. In my final argument, I accepted the principles of Lamentibili.  I accepted that the priest was a "priest" from the start.  I accept that point as now established in the context of my overall argument regarding a celibate, continent priesthood.  There is no argument between us that the references to "presbyteros" and "episkopos" in St. Paul's writings were to PRIESTS (some modernists argue that the overseers did not perform priestly functions but acted only administratively - just to be clear that argument is ruled out).
2. Then the next step was to apply this understanding - that priests (episkopos and presbyteros) were priests from the very start - to the language we find in St. Paul's first letter to Timothy.

That was not clear from before.

Your earlier comment :

(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you MM, but I do indeed believe that it took the Church sometime to figure it all out.  The Church wasn't born on Pentecost knowing with certainty that she would have 7 sacraments and a priesthood and deacons and bishops.  She grew organically.  Yes, Our Lord, I believe, established a priesthood, but I do not think the Church recognized what that priesthood was until the 2nd century.  I believe that many of the early Christians wanted separation from the Jews.  They didn't want to adapt to the Old Law.  There was resistance. Our Lord never once in scripture called his Apostles or disciples "priests".

Is not easily reconcilable with the Faith without many distinctions.
  • Our Lord instituted all 7 Sacraments, but not all specifically. The Apostles knew there were to be 7 Sacraments, and they would determine exact form and matter on several of them (such as Confirmation, Extreme Unction and Penance). Still there were 7 and only 7. They did not discover new ones beyond what Christ established. Yet your way of putting it sounds as if the Apostles were blissfully unawares of this.
  • As you now more clearly say that Christ established the priesthood. It was clear from the start it involved the Sacrifice that Our Lord gave them, but the depth of the theology, yes, can and did develop.
  • The distinction between bishop and priest was not clear initially, but what was clear is that bishops were priests. Deacons came after Christ's death, but ordination to the Diaconate being Sacramental, it was, like the priesthood, instituted by Christ, even if it only was the Apostles acting on Christ's previous commands, who first ordained deacons.

Still, the distinction you are trying to make between bishops and priests, and the understanding of this in the early Church, interesting as it is, is not material in this discussion.


(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: If the overseers were Priests then, based on 1 Timothy 3, they were not celibate and not continent.  That is the point I was arguing.

First off, we've already addressed the celibacy part earlier.

There is a clear prohibition to marriage after ordination : 1 Tim 1.2 (unius uxoris virum) and 1 Tim 3.12 (Diaconi sint unius uxoris viri) well establish this. St. Paul, as you quote, says that marriage is at least partly about cooling concupiscence 1 Cor 7.9 (Quod si non se continent, nubant. Melius est enim nubere, quam uri). The prohibition to marriage for the ordained is hardly then arbitrary. The clear reason one ordained would not be allowed to marry is because it would show an inability to be continent.

The question really involves continency.

1 Tim 3 is in no way proof that a married man who became a deacon, priest or bishop was not required to be continent after their ordination.

And that is the question.

For instance, 1 Tim 3.4 says that a bishop is to make his children subject in all chastity (filios habentem subditos cum omni castitate). For deacons 3.12 (qui filiis suis bene præsint) commands the same. While this suggests each may possess a wife and children, it in no way suggest these children were born after his ordination due to incontinency. Only a myopic optic and bias forces this reading.

If the reading of this passage were as obvious as you suggest it would make the many scholarly studies and common teaching of celibacy/continency for the clergy as Apostolic discipline laughable. How could scholars and theologians defend celibacy/continence as Apostolic discipline if your reading of 1 Tim 3 is the correct one.


(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Historically speaking, I still believe that the Church gradually came to understand what was happening from a sacramental point of view.

If you are saying that the theology developed. Fine.

If you are suggesting that somehow the Apostles did not know that they were giving certain specific graces through rites that Christ instituted. Nego.

(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: They were acting as priests from the beginning whether or not they understood it as such or called it by such a name.  The character of the office NEVER changed nothing was "acquired" other than a deeper understanding of what a priest was.

That is fine, yes the theological understanding developed but was not clear from what you had said before. The plain meaning of your words suggested that the Church "did not understand" and coupled with the "Christ never called them priests" comment, the logical reading is that he did not clearly institute a priesthood, and that it was the priesthood that developed, or the Church did not understand Christ.

(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: I believe that the Church gradually came to understand fully the priesthood established by Christ.  I do not believe that that in and of itself makes me a modernist or heretic. I also believe that, historically speaking, the Church gradually came to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  Does that also make me a modernist?  Christ himself said I have much to teach you but you cannot bear it now.

Fine. Theology does develop, and it is clear that there was not a rich theology if things like Arianism can get established. Talking of the development of doctrine and theology is the proper way to address this. One must be careful not to suggest that a development of the theology is a development of the thing itself.

People have an "understanding". The Church does not. She has a Magisterium — a teaching authority. That Magisterium has the integral deposit of Faith which is unchanging and does not develop. She communicates this. She does not learn or understand.

That Magisterium expresses itself, which means the expressions can become more refined in order to help people understand. The theological knowledge of people increases by the Magisterium correcting errors and expressing the Truth.

That is the language we should use and understanding we should have of such matters. Your terminology did not make it sound like this was your understanding of things.


(12-30-2017, 02:08 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Finally, take a look at No. 60 "Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic."  This is condemned.  Thus my argument that the early Christian Church rejected adopting the Levitical structure is in line with this condemnation.

Not at all.

Modernists would argue for the evolution of religions, and that Christianity is just a doctrinal development of Judaic ideas. That is condemned.

Rather, there is a connection, and not a development, but a fulfillment in Jesus Christ. A Modernist, like a Rationalists, rejects Christ (either as existing, or as the Messiah God-Man), and so Christian doctrine is just a rationalistic evolution of Jewish doctrine. Best proof that this is false is that a Jew would never, by his own ideas, come up with the idea that God could become Man. That is uniquely Christian, but Christ doctrine is most certainly founded on the Old Law, which it fulfills.

This does not condemn parallels between the Old and New Testaments, which there naturally should be if the point of the Old Law was to embody and prepare for Christ who was to come, and the point of the New Law is to embody and communicate Christ who has come.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, VoxClamantis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)