Saints and today's church

No, that's actually pure unhistorical speculation. She was never a bishop or a priest(ess?).

Is it also true that St. Bridget was part of the Guinness clan?

Well said!

The Anonymous Bridge of Perception

Fr. Rahner tried to bridge the gap between Catholic faith and reason. When faced with the belief of Christ's Absolute centrality and universality in the History of Redemption, he rejected the previous belief 'non salvation outside the church' to include those outside the Church in God's redemptive plan. His explanation was to help change a way of perceiving the 'other' - a passage from a rejection of the other unless baptised to inclusion of the other even if not baptised. His attempt was a more Christian outlook than the first.

However, his 'anonymous proposal' was not intended to be propagated as official universal teaching. It was an explanation for Catholics alone. It was a way of giving Catholics a unitary vision so as to make Catholic faith understandable in a world that is far bigger and complex than itself. Plainly speaking, it was a 'way of looking' at the world through 'Catholic spectacles' that did not condemn the non-Catholic but saw him/her as different and yet one-in-Christ, the Christ at the centre of Catholic faith.

It is true that such a view by a catholic can be abused: a closed way of seeing the other, a patronising or condescending view of the other or a sheer exercise in triumphalism. I do not think Fr. Rahner is responsible for any of these misinterpretations.

Blessed Columba's books can be purchased here:

http://www.zaccheuspress.com/

They are otherwise quite difficult to find in English.

Can't afford to buy a $171.11 150-page paperback. Doubt that Marmion would want me to.

There is an awful confusion: Christians in the orthodox churches most definitely are in Communion with us CAtholics , and so are Jesus' disciples in the Protestant churches. And so are those who "are coming to Jesus and the Church" like Cornelius.

Yet since it is Jesus who bring the Lost and Proud Humanity to the Father, I feel we should not mix up those who turned to Jesus with the others who ignored Him or who were unfortunately ignorant of His message of salvation. We just do not know how the good Pagans will be saved.

In any case it is not up to us to sit at Jesus's feet and tell the world WHO will be placed at this right and who at his left.

Let us pray for all...and let the Pharisians distribute the Medals.

I don't see that fading any time in my lifetime or anyone's lifetime. Agreed it is a sad thing when any male interested in boys (priests, scoutmasters, teachers etc) is held in suspicion but
it is what it is. For priests this was brought on by criminal bishops and heads of religious orders (The Salesians in California paid 19 million in just a few abuse cases and they'll surely be paying more). The church still does not get it; still does not realize the harm done. Dolan, George, Rigali operate as if this was all over with, that they can go back to the old ways of operating when "father knew best", when nuns were in their convents or in the rectories cooking breakfast.

The quote is quite accurate. Don't judge by the source! God's grace is not restricted to the Catholic sacramental system. However, the sacramental system is the normative way for grace to be received. Besides that many in the false religions like Hinduism are still stuck in Original Sin. The same applies to the Jews. However, St Thomas Aquinas taught that non-Christians who make their first moral choice for God receive the remission of Original Sin by a implicit baptism of desire.

Those who remain in Original Sin can never receive sanctifying (saving) grace until & if this sin is remitted. For Christians a perfect contrition will remove the stain of mortal sin & fill the soul with sanctifying grace. The same applies to pagans if the Original Sin has been remitted. Of course this only applies to pagans who believe in the one true God. If not the God of Revelation at least the God of reason. The God of reason & Revelation is the same God. Also, belief in the one true God carries with it an implicit belief in Christ.

The implicit belief in Christ is the ticket as it were for non-Christians to be saved. They are saved by Christ's act on the Cross & through the Catholic Church, the one true Church. The irony is that many of today's Catholics who deny truths of faith are outside the mystical Body of Christ & cannot be saved. This happens when one loses the virtue of faith by sinning against this virtue.

For example all those Catholic women & wimpy men who advocate for priestesses will be damned unless they repent of their denial of an infallible doctrine.

Yes, indeed, Martin inspired much change for the good; but, so did Ronald Reagan, another exemplary christian like no other in the twentieth century. Nominating those types of figures for civil recognition is ok, but a cause for sainthood is an entirely different paradigm.

Kindly accept as your lectio divina this Lenten season of repentance the excellent hagiographical treatise from the Reverend Father John Dear SJ:

You Will Be My Witnesses: Saints, Prophets, And Martyrs

2 things:

1. How can someone be a saint if they did not believe in Jesus Christ and His Church? How can the Church publicly declare someone a saint who denied the Eucharist and the priesthood?

2. Martin Luther King was not someone of good moral fiber when it came to his personal life.

Read it again.

Perhaps it would help going back to read some forty years of his opus.

Last night for example I was considering carefully his 1977 Dimension Book entitled In Search of God and found it quite focusing in our quest for God, who is all Love. The theological research methodology described in the Appendix is most focusing, and comprehensible, and never out-dated.

Posthumous calumny is the most unbecoming of all.

In fact, our local Apache would not dare speak even the name of a deceased, including their most renowned Geronimo.

Which sources are these of this news not previously seen. Certainly she shared with him his celibacy, and in the film, Candace Bergen's character asks her if this "rankles," but does this constitute the beating your source alleges?

Seems very out of character, and opposite to the Jain.

You may wish to review the excellent article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

and consider carefully the second of these, from that page:
==============================================================

There are five basic ethical principles (vows) prescribed. The degree to which these principles must be practiced is different for renunciant and householder. Thus:

* Non-violence (Ahimsa) - to cause no harm to living beings.
* Truth (Satya) - to always speak the truth in a harmless manner.
* Non-stealing (Asteya) - to not take anything that is not willingly given.
* Celibacy (Brahmacarya) - to not indulge in sensual pleasures.
* Non-possession (Aparigraha) - to detach from people, places, and material things.

Ahimsa, "Non-violence", is sometimes interpreted as not killing, but the concept goes far beyond that. It includes not harming or insulting other living beings, either directly, or indirectly through others. There can be even no room for thought to injure others, and no speech that influences others to inflict harm.[19] It also includes respecting the views of others (non-absolutism and acceptance of multiple views).

Satya, "truthfulness", is also to be practiced by all people. Given that non-violence has priority, all other principles yield to it, whenever there is a conflict. For example, if speaking truth will lead to violence, it is perfectly ethical to be silent. Thiruvalluvar in his Tamil classic devotes an entire chapter clarifying the definition of 'truthfulness'.

Asteya, "non-stealing", is the strict adherence to one's own possessions, without desire to take another's. One should remain satisfied by whatever is earned through honest labour. Any attempt to squeeze others and/or exploit the weak is considered theft. Some of the guidelines for this principle are:

* Always give people fair value for labor or product.
* Never take things which are not offered.
* Never take things that are placed, dropped or forgotten by others
* Never purchase cheaper things if the price is the result of improper method (e.g. pyramid scheme, illegal business, stolen goods, etc.)

Brahmacarya, "monastic celibacy", is the complete abstinence from sex, which is only incumbent upon monastics. Householders practice monogamy as a way to uphold brahmacarya in spirit.[20]

Aparigraha, "non-possession", is the renunciation of property and wealth, before initiation into monkhood, without entertaining thoughts of the things renounced. This is done so one understands how to detach oneself from things and possessions, including home and family, so one may reach moksa.[21] For householders, non-possession is owning without attachment, because the notion of possession is illusory. The reality of life is that change is constant; thus, objects owned by someone today will be property of someone else in future days. The householder is encouraged to discharge his or her duties to related people and objects as a trustee, without excessive attachment.

Every source that I have checked, including auto-biographical, identifies Gandhi as a Hindu albeit raised by a Jain mother. Of course, we all know he was more than a Hindu.

What "saving poser?"

What's "progressive recalcitrant?"

My severely limiting literary incapacities want to know.

Yes, thank you for the stretches to the left and the challenges to the right. Ghandi would have recommended additional stretches to the right and challenges to the left to balance the yoga exercise.

"You seem to overlook women, like Lydia, who were un-ordained priests in the early church."
- un-ordained priest is a contradiction in term. And no, she wasn't a priest.

"You seem to overlook other women who were bishops (see the pictures of these women's tombs in the catacombs inscribed with the word for bishop)"
- There weren't any women bishops either. I know of one such you may be referring to, but she was actually the WIFE of the bishop. How about some proof and links, Bob? And please, don't try to toss up those that followed the heresy of Gnosticism like everyone else tries to do. They don't count, and never did.

"women who were apostles (as mentioned in Acts) in the early church."
- Women did indeed follow Christ. However, no women were of the 12, nor were any ordained.

"Is it not true that ordained priests weren't a part of the church until about 300 AD?"
- It is not true. Are you really claiming that Paul and Acts, in addition to a dozen some odd Church Fathers, in spite of ther historically verified dates, weren't written until after 300AD?

Sorry, but your argumentation, while noble, has some logical and factual loopholes. One cannot be an un-ordained priest. In the general meaning of the word, Holy Orders refers not specificically to the ritual or the induction into a place of ecclesiastical authority (both of which developed through time), but to the actual conferral of Sacramental Grace, which, if one is a Catholic, believes dates back to the Person of Jesus of Nazereth. So you used a confusion of terms.
Second, remember that Christians did not invent new terms for those to whom this Sacrament was conferredd, they used pre-existing terms -- Episcopus (Bishop-- meaning "overseer"), Presbyter (Priest -- "Elder"), and Diakonos (Deacon -- "Servant"), all of which could be used in a sacramental as well as a non-sacramental sense. Also, since celibacy, while the ideal according to St. Paul and Apostolic Tradition, was not strictly enforced, so far as I know, the wives of overseers, elders, or servants (either in the sacramental sense or in a broader, more secular sense), could also be given the title -- similar to how the wives of married clergy are addressed in the Christian east (Presbytra- the wife of a Greek priest, etc.) So references to female "bishops," or "priests" must be put in context, both historical (based on 1st century understanding of the words used) and theological (interpreting using Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium).
Also, with regard to St. Lydia "offering Mass." This is a supposition. First, "Do this in memory of me," has always had, (again, interpretting in light of the historical understanding of the Greek word "anamnesis" used in that context, and looking to the Traditions of the Church and writings of the Church Fathers), the implication of the Conferral of (what would come to be called) Sacramental Grace, consistent with the definition of Holy Orders I put forth earlier. The owner of a house might have often serve a meal in a 1st century Mediterranean culture, however to say that "Mass" was understood by them to be just a meal is not consistent with the writings of early Christians (such as St. Justin Martyr), and actually provides no evidence that St. Lydia presided over Eucharistic celebrations. To say she was an unordained priest -- that would mean nothing more than that she was an elder in the community, without any implication of a sacramental role. And if I have misunderstood your argument, I apologize.