PipeChat Digest #1071 - Thursday, September 9, 1999
 
Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger
  by "Bud/Burgie" <budchris@earthlink.net>
Re: priestly egos
  by <JDeCaria@aol.com>
Re: priestly egos
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
 


(back) Subject: Re: Josef Cardinal Ratzinger From: Bud/Burgie <budchris@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 22:28:47 -0700   The RC church could use a few more priests and bishops like Good Pope John = and a lot LESS "inquisitors" like Cardinal Ratzinger. Give me a break! This = ISN'T the Middle Ages!   Cheers,   Bud (who isn't as conservative as he THOUGHT he was, evidently!)        
(back) Subject: Re: priestly egos From: JDeCaria@aol.com Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 02:39:39 EDT   Bud: Thanks forthe comprehensive reply to my email. There were a few major = errors on your part, due to either misinformation, or more likely, a lack of = clarity on my part. I would like to clarify them. The first was your referral to St. Thomas's writings on the Primacy of = and Informed Conscience. Your answer seems to contradict itself. St Thomas = (who isn't one of my favorite theologians either) and the Roman Church = acknowledge the Primacy of an INFORMED conscience. Who may inform the conscience is an =   entirely different matter. The Roman Church still maintains, even today, that the ONLY people who have the right to interpret scripture are the ordained. This is not to say that there is no room for lay catechists. On = the contrary, there is a great need for them, but they MUST NOT be allowed to teach their personal interpretations of scripture. When this happens, it allows room for doctrinal error to creep in. If a person makes a = conscience decision based upon bastardized teachings, it could very well be dangerous = to the salvation of their immortal souls. You refer to male and female religious. They taught under the auspices of the local bishop, and were forbidden to make their own interpretations of scripture by canon law. = They taught the material according to the catechisms of the Catholic Church, = and did not depart from it, or imbue their students with their own personal = bias. If they did do this, they acted in grave error, and were in violation of their obligation of obedience to their bishop   You next refer to straw subdeacons and masters of ceremonies. Straw -subdeacons who were seminarians were ordained that is what the order of subdeacon is. The function of subdeacon, is proper to one who is ordained = as such, but can be taken over by a priest or deacon. SOME of the functions = of the subdeacon were allowed to be performed by laymen, but onle some. You = must remember their functions: they were not allowed to touch the Most Blessed Sacrament, and they were there only to assist the celebrant of the mass. = They never made decisions about liturgy - this was expressly forbidden in the rubrics of the Roman Missal. Indeed, the Masters of ceremonies nor non-ordained subdeacons were not even allowed to touch the Chalice. Non-ordained subdeacons were also not allowed to wear the humeral veil and =   hold the paten. As for laymen knowing more about the liturgy than the clergy, this is NOT possible. Only one who has the facullty to enact the transubstantiaion can have a full appreciation of the mass and it accompanying rites. Functions such as the distribution of communion were reserved to prysbeters alone - the extraordinary minister of communion was =   the deacon. Nowadays an extraordinary minister of communion is someone = with purple hair.   There is no parish in the world that has a deacon or lay administrator as =   it's Pastor. The office of Pastor of Souls is so important to the = salvation of Gods people that the Church has forever reserved it to those in the = order of the prysbeterate. Deacons and "Lay Administrators" fulfill the = obligations of running a parish, but they are not Pastors in any sense of the word. = They teach according the the catechisis of the church, as to consecrated = members of religious communities. They are not empowered, nor to they have the = right to interpret scripture of Church teachings and laws. We must differentiate =   here between intrepretation and teaching. Anyone, with a rescript of the Bishop of the place, may teach catechism validly, but they must only relay =   the information as it is presented to them. The MAY NOT color the = information with their own biases or leanings, normay they choose to emphasize one = aspect over another.   Bud mentions lay people bringing Holy Communion to the sick in hospitals. This is another abomination. The Very Nature of the Eucharist, being the Physical Body, the very Flesh of Christ, renders it so sacred that it must = be treated with the greatest of care. Modernist theologians tend to de-emphassize the sacred nature of the Eucharist, nd bring it"closer to = the people" This is disgusting. We must treat the consecrated Eucharist for = what is is.. GOD!!!!! Allowing lay people to carry it around (in their pockets = as i once witnessed in a hospital) is sacreligious, and opens up the Most Blessed Sacrament to profanation of all kinds. There are many modern practices that do this as well. The most horrid is the dirtribution of = Holy Communion at Papal Masses. There are SO many people distributing the Eucharist that He inevitably ends up being dropped on the ground, or = profaned in some other way. In the opinion of many Cardinals and theologians, it = would be better not to distribute the Eucharist in curcumstances like these at = all. Bud mentions his Anglican 'priest' bringing communion to him in the hospital. It would, perhaps, bemore fitting for the Anglican Eucharist to = be distributed be laypeople, because it is, in it's very nature, not deemed "sacred", that is, it is not the physical presence of Jesus Christ - there = is no transubstantiation acknowledged nor conferred, even if acknowledged.   As far as lay people using consecrated holy oils, that cannot ever happen, =   due to the nature of the sacrament. To bless, to consecrate, to confirm, = to annoint, to exorcise, all these things require the mark of Holy Orders on =   the minister's soul. Without this mark, any actions performed are invalid. = An interesteing not though: in the earliest Christian communities, the bishop =   was the only one who consecrated the Eucharist. He deputized laymen to = being it to the various communities. When theology of the Eucharist developed in =   the late first century, early second century, and the sacredness of the Eucharist was realized these deputized laymen were eventually set apart = from others, and consecrated to handle the Eucharist - the first priests.   As far as the shortage of priests and the reasons for this.. that is even MORE off topic and controversial than this thread!! I will comment = briefly, but please let's not open up this can of worms. There is a shortage of priests in not only in the U.S., but all over the world. Bud is wrong = about the average age of priests in the U.S., it is not 50.. it's 61 to be = exact. All I will give here are general statistics. Traditionalist seminaries in North America are bursting at the seams. Liberal, diocesan seminaries are =   empty. Conservative religious orders are having to refuse applicants for = want of space and formation programs, while liberal diocesan and religious = orders cannot recruit enough priests to have a novitiate program every year. = There is NO shortage of vocations, in fact, there are more than ever before in = this century. What we do have is a shortage of places to realize the types vocations that God is sending us. It seems He's not giving us too many liberal celibates.   If there are any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I love = being able to practice my homilizing skills and getting honest feedback and criticism. The people on this list are truly first-class. I remain,   your humble servant, Joseph deCaria  
(back) Subject: Re: priestly egos From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:05:41 -0700     >All I will give here are general statistics. Traditionalist seminaries in =   >North America are bursting at the seams. Liberal, diocesan seminaries = are >empty.<snip>   ....mainly since the pollack in Rome won't support them at all.   >Conservative religious orders are having to refuse applicants for want >of space and formation programs, while liberal diocesan and religious = orders >cannot recruit enough priests to have a novitiate program every year.   So, I take it the Jesuits are outta business?   >There is NO shortage of vocations, in fact, there are more than ever before in >this century. What we do have is a shortage of places to = realize the types >vocations that God is sending us. It seems He's not giving us too many >liberal celibates.   What're they doing...sending headhunters to Southern Baptist churches = these days?   I gave up on the Catholic church years ago. It's just a = political/financial behemoth, like any other nation. Doctrine/dogma changes with the = political winds and fads. Paper infallibility? Pius XII collaborating with Hitler...the pollack turning a deaf ear to the American labor movement, completely disregarding Pius X's encyclical. I got yer papal = infallability RIGHT HERE!   Get back to organs. Religion makes me sick.   DeserTBoB