Vatican II themes: The people of God

Monk, I greatly sympathize with your wish that things be more evenhandedly stated. These are such extreme times.
I'd guess that the seeming exclusion of clerics and religious from The People Of God is best read as a reaction to the centuries of cleric-centricity that demeaned the laity as a matter of principle. Things will calm down (once/if) generally married bishops ever get back to being selected by diocesan processes that include laity, religious and priests.

As to the poisonous atmosphere in seminaries you allude to, much of it goes back to cliquishness in close quarters.
I was a Jesuit seminarian in the '60's,seeing what I thought were cliques of athletes who found the evidently gay members of the scholastic community faintly ridiculous, as well as cliques of the evidently gay, affecting cultural superiority over straights. And all this in a minuscule population.

The answer? Move seminarians out into the light of day and the wider world. Mature contemplatives going out into the monastic or eremitic desert is one thing; sequestering developing young adults inside compounds has always been a prescription for bedlam. Better yet, drop the demand that people adopt some celibate uber-Catholicism before they can be ordained. Get mature married men and women, and ordain them. Nothing trumps common sense.

Monk McG on Jul. 25, 2011.

You stated:

"First and foremost the Church is the "people of God"? Not according to Lumen Gentium. If one actually reads the document that is not what the text says; in fact that particular description is pretty far down the list of ways to describe the Church. Even when it does address the Church as "the people" it is always a people gathered by Christ and inflamed by the Holy Spirit. I do appreciate the nod the author gives to the fact that "the people" include the bishops and priests; much of the commentary on these pages gives the impression that "the people" are only the laity. Unfortunately the rest of the article goes on to build exactly that false distinction. (If the people of God are to effectively served...).

The real kicker is this: "Others, however, seem convinced that the problem will somehow go away through prayer and fasting, or by purging seminaries of dissident theologians and homosexuals, or by more inventive techniques of making personal contact with prospective candidates for the priesthood."

Who are these "others"? Classic strawman argument. Prayer and fasting are not the sole answer, nor should they be scoffed at. Neither should one so blithely discount making personal contact with potential candidates. Purging seminaries of homosexuals and dissident theologians is a great idea. I know of several men who have questioned their call to the priesthood because of the poisonous atmosphere in the seminary - though I know of more who soldiered through despite it."
------------------------------------------------------
The revival of the concept of the "people of God" to describe the church was one of the crowning achievements of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium
9-17).

The notion deepens the realization of the Church as 'communio' {community}, locates the church within the history of salvation, links it to the chosen people of Israel, and identifies those called by God who respond to the message of Christ.

The concept of the people of God transcends the laity-hierarchy dualism, and points to the communality and solidarity of a single people. It depicts a people on the march through history, a pilgrim people, but a people united and empowered. Within one people there are functions, ministries, charisms, and religious vocations, but no special status or separate classes. Their common existence as a people precedes and underlies all distinctions based on office or ministry or gift.

The people of the "new covenant" {Luke 22, 20; I Cor. 11, 25} all share in the three-fold ministry and mission of Christ (Lumen Gentium 10-13). All of the baptized are consecrated as a holy priesthood, they all share in Christ's prophetic mission, and everyone assists in gathering humankind into this "new and universal people of the children of God."

The "people of God" is not an undifferentiated mass of human beings. Rather there are many shades of diversity within this unity. this one people is made up of distinct groups. The groups differ in geography, history, race, and culture as well as in intellectual, spiritual and liturgical traditions. "By virtue of this catholicity, the individual parts bring their own gifts to the other parts and to the whole church" (Lumen Gentium 13).
These parts of the church, including individuals and local churches, are bound together in one intimate communion. They are all members of the people of God, linked by various bonds.

The people of God, of course, is much larger than the Catholic Church. All human persons are called to belong, all are ordred to it in some way, and all of those who believe in Christ belong. The Catholic Church is properly described as one part of this people.

The "Church" is one as the "People of God," the way Jesus started his community of followers.In the beginning the eclesia was the gathering of the Jewish followers of Jesus who taught them what came to be known as the Way. Jesus never renounced his Jewish faith so his followers in Jerusalem did not renounce their Jewishness. In spite of what Rome teaches the formation of a separate religion did not happen (until well after the destruction of Jerusalem) in the 80's and 90's when the disciples of Matthew, Luke and John wrote their versions of the gospel. Jesus didn't start a priesthood, his apostles were uneducated married men who spent their lives trying to get the Jewish people to accept Jesus as their messiah. Jesus did not ordain anyone in the sense it is used by the hierarchy today. The ordained priesthood and hierarchy came generations after Jesus died. Jesus did found a community of followers whom we now call the People of God.

Joe is right. Jesus never formed a community of 2 groups: those who have a special calling as holy celibate men to consecrate Eucharist and Lord it over the other group of common sinful folks who can be ignored as the hierarchy do today. Jesus did not separate himself from the common people as bishops do today. In fact Jesus immersed himself among the common people and chose his disciples from among the common people and the "Holy" religious authorities of his day criticized Jesus for his attachment to the common people.
The current church structure is contrary to what Jesus established.
The "Church" is the People of God period.

Clint presumes: "How difficult is it to comprehend that the subject of the ordination of women to the sacred priesthood is CLOSED? The answer is definitively "NO"."

This subject is never closed until the People of God discovers this is so, not because of a faux closure imposed from else where, and obviously the People of God finds this a topic to discuss at greater length.

Does hell exist?
What did ratzo say?
Does Heaven?

We hear of the Reign of Heaven, but Jesus reports this among us, here and now, and that we must here and now get to work in uncovering this Reign of Heaven, here and now, through loving one another entirely, without question, without second thought, without judging, and with all self-sacrificing, compassionate generosity, etc., and thus and only thus do we achieve entering the Reign of Heaven, which is amongst us now, through Love, as God is Love.

All the rest is frillies. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, free the imprisoned, heal the sick, etc., as signs of the presence of the Reign of Heaven, by Love.

Clint.
Dude.
Where's the Love?

Consider the honeybee . . .

No issue - even within the Church - is CLOSED (as you emphasize)except for the Divinity (dual nature) of Jesus Christ, the nature and Assumption of the Blessed Mother Mary, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of God. Let's even throw-in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Everything else, no matter who declares it a done deal, is not beyond examination and discussion, even dissent, because it is all man-made embellishments. If one was to follow your logic, dear CWG, one would have to conclude that no theologian (of whatever belief) would need to exist; that the Church would not give the role of conscience a primary place in its own life and revoke it; that there would be no need for electronic media to spread the work of the Church; that blogs like this would have no role to play in Catholocism, and your comments (or mine) never allowed to appear as public comment. You, like many of the same stream of thought, really go after Fr. McBrien; I would remind you that as he is aging and "an elitist," so are all of the orthodox believers, the Vatican II supporters, the entire group of bishops and cardinals (even more so), and the Pope himself is nearing his final days. So your subtle attack on Fr. McBrien is also an attack on everyone else, even you. But there is still hope that this can change.

How difficult is it to comprehend that the subject of the ordination of women to the sacred priesthood is CLOSED?

No subject in human discourse is closed until people stop talking about it. The pope and those who think like him might wish the subject of the ordination of women to be closed, but they can wish and wish and wish. They can't stop people talking and thinking, thank God.

Dear Tom Warren: Trite as it may seem, only circumcised Jewish men supposedly attended the Last Supper. Should not the tradition be consistent with your reasoning also require the "men" to be Jewish and circumcised?
The social norm as eternal and absolute rationale for the exclusion of women does not hold and becomes more inane the more it is repeated. Try the "Bridegroom"/bride charade which seems to be more popular among the "magisterium" these days.

Tom claims: "All the people called by Jesus Christ to be His Twelve Apostles were male."

Can you give the scriptural basis for this?

How then do you account for the followers of Jesus who alone follwed Jesus all of the way up Calvary, women, while the men all ran and hid, in some upper room, some attic . . .

How do you account for Martha and Mary, for Mary Magdalene, for the many other Mary's, for the Samaritan woman at the well? The woman with the hemmorhage, etc.

I bet we could count twelve women more easily than your twelve . . .

And the women followed Jesus all of the way, and beyond, and had to drag the men cowering in the attic outside to ministry. In fact we may say the women, true followers of Jesus, are the ones who ordained the men as ministers, instead of leaving them shaking hiding the light in an attic.

The women first preached the Gospel of Peace to the so-called Apostles, and sent them forth.

Tom, "You might point out a Scriptural Passage to point the way to your TRUTH" yet you fail to do so, speaking instead upon your own arrogantly disparaging and calumnious pseudo-authority which denies what all the Roman Catholic Church discovers in this Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, our leading theologian in anglo America.

Jesus called men because the societal status of women at Jesus' time would not have allowed them to go out to the world to spread the Good News.

However, the role of women in society has changed through history. Even when women have been delegated to a limited kind of roles within the church, still, it is amazing how much more participation of women there is today compared to my childhood years. We could not even step on the altar or touch the chalices! Is it enough? NO.

Male clericalism has to end. The people of God includes all people: clergy, laity: male and women and religious. It includes ALL, with equal participation in Christ priesthood because of our Baptism. Women are still low-class citizens within the church. Their input in the holy business of the church is non-existent.

All you have to do is consider what would have happened to Jesus and His teachings and the other apostles if women were allowed to preach in public. How many rocks do you think it takes to kill a person? Also consider that Mary, the Mother of Christ, also never said a public word about her Son, about her experience of conceiving Him, or what they were doing to Him as he went to the cross. To continue to point to the Gospels as being "the answer" is foolish. Those Books were written by men who lived in the same environment and the same times and social norms that made women be silent, and never be a public figure. So, there's your answer. But.....pay attention to who Jesus chose to reveal Himself to first upon his resurrection. Now THAT tells ya something!

A "fisher of men" is not a "priest".

The Apostles were "fishers of men", not at all "priests".

The Christian/Catholic "priesthood" was a historical development occurring over several centuries before it took the form with which we are familiar today.

Our primitive ancestors in the faith knew nothing of any so-called Catholic/Christian ministerial ordination to "priesthood". Instead, they saw themselves as a "priestly" community whose sacrifice consisted of their daily struggles to live the kind of life that God would ask of them.

To date, the Vatican has offered only excuses, not reasons, to support its opinion that women cannot be ordained to the Catholic presbyterate or episcopate.

Finally, it should be noted that your pastor, just like you, became a priest of God at his baptism. At his ordination, he became a presbyter, not some special kind of "priest" ontologically superior to you.

TW HERE'S THE TURTH. Men with a clearly banal to wit, self-serving agenda wrote and continue to interpret that gas about Jesus chooing all males to be "Fishers of Men."
Inclusive language is a neccesary corrective to this language warp. Misrepresenting Jesus to promote male-priviledge is rank.

I too, belong to a small faith community and it is obvious the Spirit is at work!

Bravissimo! Encore, encore! The whole sacramental system (7 for men, 6 for women) is just another way to control the laity. There is a sacrament for each milestone in life. The catch is that the sacraments are administered by priests, who are apointed by bishops, who appointed by the Holy Father. But Jesus himself said "Call no man 'Father,' for you have but one father, your Heavenly Father." Give me your brains and your checkbooks, you Bottomfeeders, and I will give you eternal salvation! Any relation between this and the Gospel of Jesus is absurd and tragic.

I really don't think that McBrien proposes that ordaining women and married men would be a panacea, nor would most who so propose. It is the right thing to do. Maybe, as many who would depart in disagreement and anger would be replaced by those who would return and join.

I suggest there is another way of interpretng what you call "decline" in the mainstream churches. Numbers have decreased, true, but there is also a growing realisation in these churches that the Gospel of Jesus is more important than the Church. The purpose of the Church is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus: that God is love and that we are to love God with all of our beng and love our neighbours as ourselves. At present, at least as far as the Vatican is concerned, it seems that the purpose of the Church is to proclaim the Vatican. The Pope is not God, you know. ANd I have seen a Catholic catechism, printed under imprimaatur, which claims that papl infallibility is a Protestant invention.

The Church of Rome has also been in decline.

According to the Pew organization:

+ 1 of every 10 Americans is ex-Catholic

+ 1 of every 3 persons raised Catholic is ex-Catholic

+ For every 1 person joining the Catholic Church, 4 persons are leaving it

+ But for Hispanic immigration, the U.S. Catholic Church would be seeing an actual loss in its numbers

And who's been occupying the papal throne during this time?

Not progressives.

If you don't think the Catholic Church is in decline these days in terms of losing membership, you are isolating yourself from reality and the sad consequences of the continual 'pray, pay and obey' dictums constantly drummed in Catholicism.

MikeAtCF on Jul. 25, 2011.

You stated:

"If ordaining women and/or married men is the panacea Fr. McBrien claims it to be, then our mainline Protestant brethren ought to be thriving.

Well, they aren't; in fact, most of those denominations have been in decline for decades.

Got any other ideas, Father?"
---------------------------------------------------
Have you been all over America to see the size of the buildings (and the size of the congregations) of many of the mainline Protestant churches?

This is just ONE example of one of many churches that I have seen "Christ, the Savior" is a mainline Lutheran Church in the Lansing, MI area. The church is MASSIVE and the congretation is HUGE. It continues to draw more and more people to its ranks. Its staff is large and that includes men and women ministers (who preach), and other staff members who do everything but
repair cars, do medical/dental surgery, and sell groceries.

Your generalization is just that---a generalization.

I'm sure that Cardinal Newman knew what the Church taught on infallibility when he entered it! It is true that he was not comfortable with the notion but he still accepted it & let us admit, it is a limited notion. More important than the infallibility of the Pope, is the infallibility of the Church's teachings on faith & morals.

Also, Newman was clear in understanding that not everything a pope says is true. Although not as common in his era as in the post conciliar era, popes have gone way beyond their competence in making statements on everything under the sun, most particularly on political matters.

If the Church is us, as your article maintains, why can't a layperson be elected Pope or Cardinal.

Theoretically, what you suggest is possible, though, alas, improbable.

Oops, forgot the second link. Here it is:

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/sep2005p7_2045.html

Anonymously, and fallaciously, you conclude the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien finding a dearth of psychological testing a "Straw man argument" yet you do not provide any statistical evidence which would grant your counterassertion any credibility, as you do not give the number of subjects you examined aside from the nebulous "all" nor the geographical scope of your survey (your local parish?), nor the time frame (one coffee clatch with the new seminarian?), but give us only your word for us to accept.

Or not.

Forgive me as I find more credible, valid, reliable and therefore trustworthy the scholarly findings of the noted academic and very Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien than your bare naked and anonymous word.

You similarly prvide no statistical basis for your other bald assertions.

Wait, aren't the long and faithful labors of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien located in the "midwest," specifically at the great and ancient Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame (Our Lady)?

Logically then we must thank him for what you claim to be "the places with the most amoung of vocations!"

DEO GRATIAS!

I find curious this admission:

" . . .all those I know who are considering the seminiary or religious life ( . . .) I only know a few men, and fewer women, who would even consider the vocation."

So you dismiss as "a Straw man argument" the failure to screen based upon the total testing sample of your "few?"

Perhaps The Reverend and academic Father Richard P. McBrien used a larger sampling pool for his conclusions.

Dear Duffy, Your comment about my being disturbed about ordaining women couldn't be further from the TRUTH. Reading LUKE 6, one will learn that JESUS came down from the mountain after talking with HIS FATHER and called HIS disciples together and from them HE appointed TWELVE and all of them were male. Now when one realizes that there were females among JESUS'S DISCIPLES and JESUS apponted all males especially after HE consulted with HIS FATHER isn't it reasonable to assume that JESUS and HIS FATHER were in accord with the decision to appoint all males? Perhaps John Paul II also realized this and it is why he said that he and the Church had no authority to ordain women.
Actually Duffy there has not been even a single female ordained by a Catholic Bishop as Catholic Bishops do not have the authority to ordain females.

A local priest/monk in our parish has left his community because he fell in love with a woman. They now live together, yet he continues to exercise his priestly ministry by saying mass in our parish. He gets to do this with no problem. But there are many faithful churchgoers who cannot receive communion because they have been divorced without an annulment and remarried. This guy gets to give sacraments despite living in these circumstances while faithful churchgoers are denied sacraments by this same priest because they are not living within "the rules." Priests should be able to marry and women should be ordained, but it hasn't changed yet and the faithful sees double standards everywhere. It's no wonder they're "sad and tired."