The church outside the walls

Beautiful, and timely. I think this speaks especially well to deep spiritual longings and thoughtful seeking of our generation, who are often dismissed as apathetic. Thank you!

You should know that when Pope John Paul II was welcomed in to the heavenly kingdom upon his death he was welcomed in not as Pope or Father, rather he was welcomed in to heaven as Karol. It should be noted that when the Cardinal responsible for confirming the death of a Pope, he always calls the deceased 3 times by his Baptismal name. We bring nothing with us other than love. Glory be to God in the Highest, Hosanna!

This is an interesting article on several levels. The first for me is the experience to which the author refers- the Easter Triduum liturgy with the Pange Linqua, Panis Angelica us, the incense, vestments and smokey incense, especially in a traditionally majestic church is an awe provoker. Not necessarily an experience of the Divine but an awakening of the "sense of the divine" in us stimulated by the external elements that invoke those kinds of emotions. These are environmental factors which facilitate and reward focus and the act of faith. The externals which evoke this sense, the surge of emotion and cry for its fulfillment change with time, generations and understanding (e.g., incense and scent-free)and are not, to my mind, a "calling" any more or less than a beautiful piece of music in a hall with magnificent acoustics is a calling to become a musician. As she notes, discernment follows.

I really do think that Vatican II correctly identified that "tradition" as having run its course generations before and warranted a respectful enshrinement in history, to be resurrected occasionally and reverentially as should any treasured artifact. Unfortunately, the quest for a new form has yet to find its contemporary equivalent. The shared intimacy of the like-minded few with each other, the Christ of faith in Eucharist and message with liturgy emanating from understanding of role and intent rather than formula rigidity is very attractive. Certainly, for me, it is preferable to the mass hysterics of evangelical gatherings or its quiet spectator equivalent in the latin high Mass.

This is a compelling story. Jamie Manson's openness to the call remained strong and she found a way to fulfill it. I agree that the Church is not adequately reaching enough teens and young adults. There are many young people in Catholic families who are not attending Mass, nor are they involved in their Faith. Looking at the crowd at our Sunday Mass reveals far fewer in the 15 to 25 age group than the population has, and a predominance of grey-haired parishioners. Doesn't anyone worry about how the torch will be passed to the younger generations? The Bible studies and the Stations of the Cross, the other parish functions are predominately attended by the over 50 crowd. We have an unusual Diocese (Oakland) in that Confirmation is not done until Junior Year of high school - or the candidates must be 16 years of age. I think that delaying this Sacrament of Confirmation adds to the numbers of those falling away from the Church throughout these years from 15 to 25 and through the twenties. The formative years of middle school and the imagination and spiritual growth which can be fostered during these middle school years is amazing. Confirmation, a sacrament of initiation, needs to go back to being received in 7th, 8th or 9th grades. Jamie Manson first felt her calling at age 13. Many in our Diocese will not even receive Confirmation, much less feel any special calling, if their middle school years are not recognized for their importance. (Note: I was confirmed in 7th grade in Michigan and remember that day in some detail.)

What a wonderful article you have written. May God continue to bless you and those who encounter you in your intellectual and social ministries.

Be careful to avoid unnecessarily close contact with traditional Catholic organizations (esp., religious orders of nuns), since their members have been falling too close to the power of bishops, who have a record of oppressing women who seem even the least bit threatening to their narrow vision. Perhaps it was St. Paul who advised Christ's missionaries, when they might encounter a town of heardened hearts, to leave the town and shake the dirt off their sandals and move on to the next people. One of the evangelists reported that Christ Himself had a hard time delivering His message close to Nazareth, because a prophet is least respected in his home town. So the New Testament itself has examples of how Christ and his own first disciples had to come to grips with -- identify and acknowledge -- barriers to their ability to convey the Message.

You have a bright spark in you that appears to be flourishing among the types of organizations and missions that your article and its introductory remarks mention. Christ's Church, inside and outside its walls, is spiritually richer because of you and your intellectual and social contributions.

Great reflection, It seems to me that what Jamie describes in the coming together of intentional community is precisely eucharist. Sacrament is, in the words of Fr. Michael Himes (Boston College)"What is always and everywhere true (Christ's Body), must be sometimes celebrated." Do we come together to "confect" euchraist or do we come together to celebrate that which always and everywhere is? Her thought process just took a quantum leap from merely replicating the failed past for women, to a share in the Paschal Mystery for all people.

"just as ordination in some form in my own tradition has become an option for me, thanks to movements such as the Roman Catholic Women Priests, the Ecumenical Catholic Church, and other Catholic reform groups"
- If by 'ordination in some form' you mean 'pretending to be a Catholic priest', than yes. If you mean actually RECEIVE valid Holy Orders, than no, you are mistaken. That's never going to happen.

You know, the NCR gives lots of official support to the women priests movement by using proponents of their ideology as primary content whenever they can. In the spirit of opennes, I think you all should listen to someone who disagrees with them and can explain why VERY clearly (unless, of course, you are afraid of hearing someone who questions those beliefs.)

Try listening to this

Its kinda long, but it's well worth the listen.

Beautiful, Jamie; I couldn't agree more--we are church at its best when we are present to one another just as Jesus wants us to be. The only difficulty I have seen over the years is that it sometimes doesn't last without some structure; we seem to nned a bit of that, too. Thanks for some insightful thoughts.

Thank you so much for this wonderful article. We just returned from a Holy Thursday Service with our small faith group pastored by a married RC Priest and his RC woman Priest wife. It was the most meaningful, inclusive and loving Holy THursday Service I've ever been involved in... The time has come..A New Church of the people and their God...

Happily the author's experience of what is more than likely Small Christian Community is beautifully elucidated. But we can rejoice that Christianity is not a zero sum game. It is both possible to have Small Christian Community and to have "cathedral-style" church. Indeed, both aspects of Church are vital. In SCC we can explore our faith with others, in 'cathedral' we can draw nourishment from the larger community and the Sacraments. Let me tell a story to illustrate part of what I mean.
In 1989 I had the opportunity to accompany 36 boys, some from a small city, some from small towns, to the Boy Scout National Jamboree. On opening night at the ceremony, there were over 30,000 Scouts. For kids from rural life, it was an astonishing "Wow" moment along the lines of "we at home are not alone."
The same is true of 'cathedral' Church. To go to Mass is an occasion for a child from one family to observe a little piece of being one of 1.3 billion Catholics worldwide. In short, if you are teased about your faith, and my grandchildren are, you have many friends who share it with you. For some that's needed.
Let's have both Small Christian Communities and larger Churches.

The Catholic "priesthood" was a divinely inspired, human invention to meet the perceived needs of early Christian communities as they grew in number and size. As Paul reminds us, every Christian was a member of a "royal priesthood" that replaced the Jewish priesthood by offering sacrifice to God through Jesus the High Priest (who replaced the high priest of the Temple). The presider merely maintained order and called upon members of the community to offer their gifts. His leadership notwithstanding, the presider was no more or less a member of this "royal priesthood" of believers. There was no ordination as we use and understand this term today. Jesus certainly did not establish an institutional church. The Savior merely delivered the Good News and instructed his disciples (including the Twelve) to spread this message far and wide. Every ecclesial development after the Lord's death and resurrection was man-made and, therefore, must be subject to modification and change to meet the needs of Christian communities.

The Holy Spirit's organizational influence cannot somehow be "locked in" with no allowance for change. The Spirit is the source of life in the church, and life is change! We have certainly witnessed in recent years the dangers of a "clerical culture" that elevates the ordained and subordinates the laity, promotes and sustains clerical sexual abuse of children and other vulnerable members of the Christian community, facilitates financial and other wrongdoing, and continues to reveal itself within the ranks of episcopal leadership and a clerical caste. This deadly culture simply cannot allow for transparency and accountability.

The Catholic Church is morphing to meet the growing needs of a concerned laity more than ever aware of the shortcomings of "the way we've always done things." In the meantime, we have a pope, a curia, a hierarchy, JPII priests, and a minority of laity who desperately try to preserve what they see as unchanging "tradition."

If things continue as they are, perhaps we'll see the Church of Rome turn into a religious sect more focused on an outdated culture than on the Christian message given us by Jesus himself!

But maybe that's what the Gospel will require.

While reading this article, I was reminded of conclusions drawn in Tad Guzie's book entitled JESUS and the EUCHARIST. From there I suddenly found myself hearing a line from the PRIEST'S solo in Leonard Bernstein's MASS: "ANY ONE OF YOU CAN BE ANY ONE OF ME!"
As more and more Catholic communities are finding themselves regularly deprived of a validly ordained male minister the more they are also recognizing that their basic divine right and standing invitation to Eucharist far supersedes any man-made 11th-12th century Roman requirement for a celibate male as the only way to make that happen. Male and female religious life and traditional priesthood are currently going the way of all flesh simply because baptized people are realizing that they -like the author-do not need the institutional vehicle to walk in the ministerial footsteps of The Master.

"far supersedes any man-made 11th-12th century Roman requirement for a celibate male as the only way to make that happen."
- You are mistaken. The male only priesthood was founded by God first among the Israelites and later by Christ Himself. It is not man made.

According to Mike in KC, "the male only priesthood was founded...later by Christ Himself. It is not man made."

Wrong!

See Robert J. Egan's article, "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination" from COMMONWEAL MAGAZINE, April 11, 2008. He quotes theologian Bernard Lonergan, "Vatican II was about the acknowledgement of history." Indeed, the conciliar fathers were impressed by the scholarship available to them from theologians, biblical scholars, historians, and others. It was this solid review of church ecclesiology that would inspire and inform the world's bishops.

Egan's article is available at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2184&var_reche...

See also Kenan Osborne's book PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (1988).

As I noted earlier, Jesus delivered the Good News of our salvation and instructed his disciples to spread it far and wide. All the various offices, ministries, and structures were devised by flesh-and-blood human beings inspired by the Holy Spirit to further this mission.

People who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history --- indeed, history itself --- are like ostriches: they bury their heads in the sand, and, of course, we all know what's there to see!

When it comes to mechanisms and structures for spreading the Good News, the Holy Spirit cannot be hemmed in. The Spirit is life, and life is change.

It's odd, you'd think Mrs. Manson wouldnt want her name tied to the Yale Divinity School. They support the idea that women have a right to murder their babies. She keeps rather barbaric friends, dont you think?

To those who appreciate history and recognize the inherent weakness of apologetics, I recommend the above link and Osborne's book. As theologian Bernard Lonergan observed, Vatican II demonstrated the conciliar fathers' acknowledgment of (and, thus, appreciation for) history.

To Mike in KC, especially, I suggest you revisit my earlier comments at http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/papal-envoy-sent-move-us-.... Scroll down to my first comments dtd March 7. They address, inter alia, JPII's view that the church supposedly has no authority to ordain women to the Catholic priesthood.

Mike in KC wrote, "If you are implying that an all male priesthood promotes sexual problems, whereas a mixed priesthood would not have an [sic] scandal you are gravely mistaken." I am not making any such implication or assertion. The clerical culture should not be confused with an all-male (or all-female) priesthood. They are different issues.

Mike in KC then says, "I think you must be protestant or something." No, I am Catholic by faith, age 61, a former Tridentine altarboy, honorably discharged veteran, a retired federal employee with a graduate degree in the adult training field, a product of 16 years of Catholic education, a great nephew of a (long deceased) superior general of a religious community, and a guy with plenty of time to peruse church history. Yes, my mother was protestant, but even she attended the old Latin Mass with my Catholic father, me, and my two brothers. In fact, it was her protestant father who made possible my eight years of Catholic parochial schooling and encouraged me to be a "good Catholic."

As I've demonstrated on my link, various specialists (biblical scholars, theologians, historians, and others) have clearly challenged JPII's assertion that the church has no authority to ordain women. They've pointed out the errors in his reasoning reflected in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Clearly, most Catholics have not, in fact, "received" this papal teaching (and the historic ecclesial practice of reception is also addressed in my link).

Apologetics is not history.

Well, the same mainline protestants who ordain women are declining, not growing. If you think that ordaining women (and the openly gay)will stop, or even slow down, your church's membership losses, you are either kidding yourselves or someone's lying to you.
And what will you do about the eastern churches? They don't even have these discussions-do you want to become a downscale, ethnic version of the Unitarians and Episcopalians or try to get back together with people who outnumber the shrinking mainline by 3 to one?
Either way, it's ridiculous. I'm an agnostic and am glad I can sleep in on sunday mornings.

Thankfully, millions of Catholics around the world are praying for most of you specifically today. The Divine Mercy Novena today specifically mentions heretics and schismatics.

On April 11, Mike in KC gave us a link to the ORIGINAL CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, published in 1907. It's obvious he refuses to acknowledge scholarly findings in theology, biblical studies, history, and other fields in the more than one hundred years since. Indeed, Mike in KC apparently consigns folks interested in intellectual inquiry to the ranks of the Gnostics (which suggests to me, at least, that he has no understanding at all of what this development was about).

Although a blog is no place to give a detailed critique of the 1907 Catholic understanding of priesthood, etc., it may help to highlight just a few points subject to legitimate challenge today in light of scholarship over the past hundred years. Section III, The Christian Priesthood, begins with the phrase "In the New Testament bishops and priests are..." Subsequent research shows this phraseology to be erroneous: there were no "bishops" or "priests" as we understand these terms today (or as our grandparents understood them in 1907). To quote theologian Kenan Osborne (PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1988): "The early Church did not use the liturgical or sacred title of 'priest' [in Greek, hierus; in Hebrew, cohen] for Church ministers. Even though this title was readily available, it was evidently shunned by the early Church for designation of its ministers. In the New Testament only the Jewish priests, Jesus [and only in Hebrews], and all the baptized are called: hierus."

Another entry: "If all Christians without exception are priests in virtue of their baptism, an official priesthood obtained by special ordination is just as inadmissible as the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass." In fact, we know today that the Christian 'presbyteroi' and 'episkopoi' functioned as presiders at the sacred liturgy ("work of the people"), not as special intermediaries between God and man. As the encyclopedic entry notes, "Christ is the sole high-priest of the New Testament." Jesus replaces the Jewish high priest. The people at worship function as a priestly people: they offer a very real sacrifice to God. They do not participate in some inferior way. The presider's job is to maintain order and call upon the gifts of the people. In a very real sense, the presider chairs the liturgical assembly. Depending on the community, these presiders might be called presbyteroi or episkopoi; there was no difference in rank or function at this time.

One final example: "But the Sacrifice of the Mass indicates only one side of the priesthood; the other side is revealed in the power of forgiving sin, for the exercise of which the priesthood is just as necessary as it is for the power of consecrating and sacrificing." This picture of "confession" reflects MT 16:19 in which Jesus gives Peter the power to forgive sins. Unfortunately, this understanding of reconciliation (conveniently) overlooks MT 18:18 in which Jesus gives power to forgive sins to the entire community. Elsewhere in scripture, Jesus encourages his disciples to forgive indefinitely --- without limit. What Mike in KC apparently ignores/rejects is sacramental history and the fact that the Rite of Reconciliation, for example, morphed during the first centuries to meet the perceived needs of Christian communities. In his THE RECONCILING COMMUNITY: THE RITE OF PENANCE (1991), James Dallen offers the following:

"The Jewish Christians whose faith the Gospel of Matthew reflects had organized themselves like the synagogue, with perhaps some influence from the Qumran community. In some instances, the community acted as a body. Matthew 18:18, for example, speaks of the community's authority in a fashion similar to John 20:23, though the technical rabbinic phrase of binding and loosing is used. Matthew 16:19, on the other hand, uses the same terminology to describe a community official exercising authority. Certain officials, much like the rulers of the synagogue and the supervisors of the Qumran community, exercised the functions of the Twelve and Peter in supervising and regulating the life of the Matthean community. In rabbinic usage, the terminology of binding and loosing indicated the authority to determine what was permissible and what was not, of imposing obligations and of removing them, and, in extreme cases, of banishing from the community and of recalling those who had been banished. Matthew 16:19 seems primarily concerned to indicate the ability of officials to make authoritative decisions --- including, for example, the admission of gentiles to the Church, a probable context for the narrative in the life of the Matthean community --- while Matthew 18:18 seems to refer primarily to condemnation and acquittal (in the sense of expulsion and reconciliation) as an action of the whole community.

"John 20:23 is the same tradition, restated to apply specifically to sin rather than to authoritative decisions in general. The Johannine community appears to have placed less emphasis on the role of community officials. The Spirit, 'another advocate,' takes Jesus' place and continues his work."

Dallen continues later: "In the context of the community gathering, the ritual of welcome and the kiss of peace would have signified forgiveness and reconcilition. Converts were initiated and welcomed, repentant and reformed sinners were welcomed back. In both cases the assembly itself was the primary actor and celebrant. Community officials, especially the one presiding at the eucharistic gathering, undoubtedly had particular competence and responsibility --- their role became increasingly prominent by the mid-third century --- but in light of the New Testament documents and other early writings it would seem improper to see isolated references such as 1 Clement 57:1 affirming a power reserved to such officials. Clement advised submission to the presbyters because there had been animosity toward them, not because they were empowered to hear confessions."

Effective apologetics requires, inter alia, good history, and good history reflects the fruits of scholarly research. Unfortunately, there are Catholics today whose idea of church is limited and timebound. They do themselves and the rest of us no favor by continually rehashing archaic arguments in support of a fortress church.

MORE TO FOLLOW

Dear Frances M

You really dont think women killing their own babies is kind of barbaric? I mean, if that isnt, what is?

The concept that larger, institutionally structured communities require the complement of smaller, 'cellular' communities to remain vibrant is old news, though always relevant news. And the concept that those small and informal communities need the structure of an institution to endure beyond the goodwill of the group is also old news, though often forgotten news.
And if the Prot 'mega-churches' are any sign of the value of a parish-like structure to engage enormous numbers of people in a very intense experience of faith, community, worship, I don't know what is.
I think the Catholic vision of reform is not to abandon the structures of parish, priesthood or liturgical rite, but to reform, revitalize, reengage them by recourse to their ancient roots, and by a rapprochment with the contemporary world. That is precisely what Vatican II called for, and it is time to do the hard work of forming a generation in that reformation that flows not from stirring feelings of tremendum, but from the ever-ancient, ever-new heart of Christ.

CHAYNES -You really don't think men who drop bombs that are killing babies, women and children and men is kind of barbaric? If that isnt, what is?

Women cannot be ordained it is as simple as that, if a Bishop tries to ordain a woman still no ordination takes place what takes place is a profanation of the sacrament, I say again no one gets ordained. The Church has stated clearly even if she wanted to ordain women to the priesthood the Church does not have the authority to do so and so cannot.

Such women are in the same boat as all the other pretend ministers without valid orders they can go through the motions of been a priest all they want but they are not and never will be.

Theologians can come up with as much nonsense as they want but the Faith cannot be changed from that which was instituted by Christ, if it could be then Christianity would be shown to be a man made charade of no value whatsoever.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Pope John Paul II

If NCR do not want to follow the Catholic teaching then that's your choice but at least stop this deceit where you continue to call yourself Catholic, you cannot be a Catholic if you do not share the unity of belief, why not just be honest with everyone and let them know the protestants you are?

Aquino, do you really mean to use the word "reformation"...? You do understand that Vatican II was in no way, shape or form a reformation of the Church?

I don't know why one would point to evangelical mega-churches as an inspiration for what we want and need the Catholic Church to be. See, first thing is the Church already *is*...we are the Church but we don't get to re-make the Church in our own image every other generation.

Second, the Church is not and never has been govered by a democracy. And with all due respect to Ms. Manson, we really, really, *really* don't need to be "inspired" by a Presbyterian minister who has "studied Catholic theology."

(If a person is so studied in Catholic theology, yet still remain in a protestant church, there's a reason and the reason usually is because they won't accept some aspect of the Catholic Church that doesn't suit their needs or opinions. Either that or perhaps they want to retain certain worldly freedoms which the Church rightly calls sin. Of course I don't know which it is and it's not my business anyway.)

But here's what I really hope some of y'all are able to understand-- if you look at the Catholic Church and you can't quite agree with or understand something you see, what arrogance is it to presume that the fault lies with the 2000 year old Church of Christ and not with yourself?

CONTINUED FROM EARLIER

Kenan Osborne, cited previously, advises that any study of ordained ministry in the Catholic Church must first acknowledge the "ecclesiological presuppositions" (or "a priori stance") of when and how the church was established. He presents two viewpoints: (1) the church including its basic structure and ministries was established by Jesus during his lifetime, and (2) the church including its early structure and ministries was established by Jesus' followers after the resurrection and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "If these two presuppositions," writes Osborne, "are not appreciated, then the tendency seems to be that one side begins to call the other side 'heretical' [see, for example, Mike in KC's comments of April 13]....[I]t is important to realize that such stances affect, in some degree, the manner in which subsequent historical data on the issue of ministry is evaluated."

The problem with the first viewpoint --- that Jesus established the institutional church with its structure and ministries --- is that it diminishes the significance of the Lord's resurrection! Easter, after all, is the most important day on the Christian calendar. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 651 (quoting 1 Cor 15:14) reminds us, "'If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.' The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings..." In paragraph 652, we read in part, "Christ's Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly ministry." According to paragraph 653, "The truth of Jesus' divinity is confirmed by the Resurrection. He had said: 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he.' The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly 'I Am,' the Son of God and God himself..."

The basic dividing line between these two presuppositions, notes Osborne, is the resurrection. It is belief in the risen Jesus as Lord "that is at the very heart of the Church....Prior to the resurrection and the resurrection faith of the followers of Jesus, it appears difficult to speak about a Church, since the central focus of the Church is missing: namely, belief in the risen Jesus as Lord....To put the institution of the Church chronologically prior to the resurrection tends to relativize the importance of the resurrection of Jesus itself and the faith in the risen Lord by the disciples."

The resurrection could not exist in a vacuum: it was necessarily and deliberately made manifest in the appearance of the risen Jesus in the breaking of the bread and to the doubting Thomas. As the CCC, paragraph 860 notes in relevant part, "In the office of the apostles [the Twelve in this context] there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord's Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church." If there are no witnesses, there can be no credible evidence of Jesus' resurrection. An empty tomb by itself means nothing. As Paul noted, preaching and reception would be "in vain." Without this combination of resurrection and witness, there can be no ongoing rationale for an ecclesial foundation, and, without the latter, various church ministries (ordained or otherwise) would mean nothing from the Christian perspective. After all, even athiests can do good works, albeit not in Christ's name.

If one accepts the view that the institutional church was established after the resurrection (a stance that acknowledges the singular significance of this Easter event), then one cannot ignore historical development of various ministries to serve the People of God. Viewed a different way, "If 'Jesus' way of acting' anchors the whole argument about women's ordination [as just one issue among several relating to historic development of ministry], then it must be carried through to a plausible conclusion in historic terms" (per Robert Egan in his article cited previously). We cannot afford to ignore church history. Any apologetics based in whole or in part on flawed history risks rejection at a time when so much more information is accessible to scholar and layperson alike. Weak apologetics risks not being "received."

On April 13, Mike in KC rhetorically asked, "Does Catholic teaching change based on polls?" We all know (or should know) the answer is "No." Yet, did Mike in KC consider the possibility/probability that longitudinal polling might, in fact, reflect the gradual development of new doctrinal understanding --- inspired by the Holy Spirit --- that will eventually be acknowledged by Rome as genuine, as orthodox?

MORE TO FOLLOW

From The First Vatican Council in 1870, it says the Pope's infallibility is limited to binding proclamations regarding faith and morals. A gradual development of new doctrinal understanding is not how the Church was established. No actual doctrines were changed; only certain disciplinary practices have been changed. There are over 1.3 billion Catholics in the world. Longitudinal polling to those not equipped to understand the doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church would be counter productive.
Peter was meant to be the head of Jesus' Church. It is found in Matthew 16:17-19; John 21:15-17. Jesus conferred upon Saint Peter the office of Chief Pastor, and St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Those that succeeded him, also succeeded him in the supreme headship. Isaiah 22:22 refers to the key of the House of David, referring to the head of Jesus' Church on Earth. Also, it can be found in Isaiah 22:15-25.

Jesus had female disciples, which was not done normally in His time. Yet, He did not lay His hands on any of His women disciples, only the twelve at Pentecost. The feeding of the thousands in both Matthew 14 and 15 was also a foreshadowing of the priests in His Church, which again were the twelve.

I think it could be up for debate, but I will leave that with the Pontifical Committee of the Vatican, since I think the Pope and his advisors are most familiar with the subject as it relates to church doctrine.

Love your God, Love your neighbor

DIGRESSION - REPLY TO "MIRTH MAN"

Regarding your reference to the First Vatican Council of 1870 and its teaching on papal infallibility, the resulting conciliar document Pastor aeternus states "that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibiity which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." You seem to suggest, "Mirth Man," that the development of new doctrinal understandings is impossible from both a theological/ecclesiological perspective and a polling/practicable one ("1.3 billion Catholics in the world").

The word 'doctrine' means, quite simply, 'teaching,' nothing more, nothing less. If "Mirth Man" believes all "doctrine" is somehow infallible, he is wrong. Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism states in relevant part, "When comparing doctrines with one another, they ["catholic theologians" and "other Christians"] should remember that in catholic doctrine there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their connection with the foundation of the christian faith." Since 1870, only two dogmas (highest form of church teaching) have been historically associated with papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I, namely, the Immaculate Conception, promulgated in 1854 by Pius IX (who convened Vatican I), and the Assumption of Mary, proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950.

Polling and longitudinal studies are regularly undertaken by various organizations, e.g., university and other research institutes. Statistical sampling is used to obtain opinion on various matters. Over time, trends may be seen. While polling or voting do not determine doctrine, they can --- over time --- gauge the "sense of the faithful" on various issues with potential doctrinal impact, e.g., women's ordination and gay marriage (in this respect, we must recall that even Vatican I's Pastor aeternus acknowledged "that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals"). Vatican II's Lumen gentius states in relevant part, "The universal body of the faithful who have received the anointing of the holy one, cannot be mistaken in belief."

If the Catholic hierarchy (official teachers) can use the telephone to communicate with Rome and one another, who is to say they cannot use polling and longitudinal studies to track the "sense of the faithful" on potential/actual doctrinal development? Where does it say in sacred scripture that God forbids use of technology (defined in its broadest sense) to ascertain doctrinal development? For a discussion of development of Catholic moral teaching, for instance, see John Noonan's A CHURCH THAT CAN AND CANNOT CHANGE (2005). The bishops might, indeed, protest the use of technology to gauge the "sense of the faithful," but they certainly would not be emulating the Master who was fond of telling his listeners, "You have heard it said that...but I tell you..." Jesus could be so contrarian toward the teachers of the Law --- and, of course, we know where THAT got him, don't we?

"Mirth Man" claims that Peter was "the Bishop of Rome." In fact, historical evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise! For more information, see my April 2 comments at http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/transfer-bishops. In addition, see Paul Johnson's A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY (2005 reprint), pp. 60-61 and 166-170, for information about Peter's association with Rome. Let's not confuse "tradition" with history.

"Mirth Man" asserts, "Yet, [Jesus] did not lay His hands on any of His women disciples, only the Twelve at Pentecost." In fact, Jesus is not present at Pentecost, described in Acts 2. There is no laying on of hands on the Twelve or anybody else. Instead, Acts describes "tongues of fire which spread out and touched each person there. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit." This event fulfills Jesus' promise to his disciples at John 14: 14-16 that "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, who will stay with you forever. He is the Spirit, who reveals the truth about God."

Regarding women's ordination, see my April 11 link above to Robert Egan's article in COMMONWEAL.

Regarding the use of foreshadowing in the Old Testament, there is the problem of interpretation. Even if one accepts it, foreshadowing proves nothing. As Egan and Osborne have noted, Jesus and his disciples knew only one priesthood, the Jewish one, which disappeared after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Available evidence describes the Twelve et al as healers, teachers, preachers. Osborne states, "Every study of Church ministry must begin with a study of the ministry of Jesus himself; this is the source, the model and the dynamics of all Church ministry."

There are several New Testament passages that reveal the earliest understanding of Christian priesthood:

a. Paul writes to the Romans (12:1), "...Offer yourselves as a living sacrifice to God, dedicated to his service and pleasing to him. This is the true worship that you should offer."

b. Writing to Jewish Christians, Peter reminds them (1 P 2:9), "But you are the chosen race, the King's priests, the holy nation, God's own people, chosen to proclaim the wonderful acts of God..."

c. Earlier, Peter writes (2:5), "Come as living stones, and let yourselves be used in building the spiritual temple, where you will serve as holy priests to offer spiritual and acceptable sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ."

d. In the letter to the Hebrews, we read (13:15-16), "Let us, then, always offer praise to God as our sacrifice through Jesus, which is the offering presented by lips that confess him as Lord. Do not forget to do good and to help one another, because these are the sacrifices that please God."

e. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul writes (2:17-18), "Perhaps my life's blood is to be poured out like an offering on the sacrifice that your faith offers to God. If that is so, I am glad and share my joy with you all. In the same way, you too must be glad and share your joy with me."

f. In Revelation 1:5-6, we read, "He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins and made us a kingdom of priests to serve his God and Father."

Volpius Leonius states, "Women cannot be ordained it is as simple as that..."

No, it's not "as simple as that."

For background, please go to http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/papal-envoy-sent-move-us-... , and scroll down to see my comments of March 7, 9, 11, and 20.

There is no "deceit" here, but if you felt good after your venting, more power to you :)

Please, though, do not pretend to know the subject under discussion. Opinionated feeling is one thing. Knowledge is another.

Andiclare says, "...the Church is not and never has been governed by a democracy."

It's also not a monarchy.

CONTINUATION FROM APRIL 16

Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (1988) offers a dispassionate look at how ordained ministry developed in the church. The author observed the 50th anniversary of his ordination in 2005. He is professor emeritus of theology at the Franciscan School of Theology, Berkeley.

In providing below a few highlights from his book, I have tried to minimize the use of quotation marks in the interest of minimizing editorial clutter. The following information is either directly quoted or paraphrased.

a. With Jesus' resurrection and the development of the Christian community, belief in the risen Jesus became central to the essence of the Church and its ministry. The church is christocentric, and its ministry is christocentric because belief in the risen Lord is central to the church.

b. Looking at ministry from 27 to 110 AD, we know that the term 'presbyter' as used in Judaism did not include liturgical functions. It was not 'priestly' in its connotation. The presbyter/elder exercised leadership and service to the community. Various Christian communities, probably more Jewish than Greek, followed this practice and nomenclature. The term 'episkopos' was a civil and secular one in Greek society. It, too, was a term of service and leadership. It did not refer to a priestly caste, nor did it carry priestly or ritual overtones.

c. Likewise, the early church did not use the liturgical/sacred title of 'priest.' Even though this title was readily available, it was evidently shunned by the early church for designation of its ministers. All the baptized were understood to be 'priests' (as were the Jewish priests and, only in Hebrews, Jesus).

d. Jesus did not give any names for ministry (other than the Twelve and perhaps apostle) to the community.

e. Any statement on ordination, based on New Testament data alone, is conjectural. Most New Testament references to a 'laying on of hands' cannot be interpreted as an ordination ritual. The one or two passages remaining are highly debated.

f. The essential aspect of ministry, based on New Testament sources, cannot be seen as in 'the power to celebrate the eucharist,' which reflects a scholastic approach.

g. Apostolic succession primarily means a connection with Jesus himself; the fundamental 'successor' is the church itself. The term is not a scriptural one but appeared only in the second century to counter the private revelations of certain gnostic groups.

(The conclusions of Francis Sullivan, professor emeritus of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome where he taught from 1956 to 1992, can be instructive here:

"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man as bishop for each of the churches they had founded. The only person in the New Testament whose role resembles that of a bishop is James the 'brother of the Lord,' who was most likely designated for his position of leadership in the Jerusalem church by his relationship with Jesus and the special appearance with which he was favored by the risen Jesus. It seems extremely unlikely that he was 'ordained' as bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter. Nor does the New Testament evidence support the idea that Peter, Paul or any other apostle became the bishop of any one local church or ordained one man as bishop of any local church. One looks in vain to the New Testament for a basis for the idea of 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today."

Does Sullivan's conclusion turn the idea of episcopal succession into a conundrum? For Sullivan, the "most probable" answer is "No." He notes "[two] lines of apostolic succession [that] gave rise to the monepiscopate during the second century." Simply put, these lines were (1) apostolic coworkers in missionary activity and (2) leaders in the local churches, i.e., groups of presbyters. As Sullivan explains, "This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole" and that "the development of the episcopate would have meant the [subsequent] differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state [with] the consequent reservation to the [new/first] bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters." Sullivan admits there is no documentary evidence to explain the transition from collegial governance to the monepiscopate. Therefore, "we must also invoke theological reflection." If I may opine, his reasoning would seem quite sound if we remember the old maxim that "necessity is the mother of invention.")

h. Only around 200 AD, according to Osborne, do we have an ordination ritual ("Hippolytus") that can be verified. Installation from 90 to ca. 200 AD remains a matter of hypothesis, with no historical data for verification. The episkopos in this ritual is ordained for pastoral leadership and exemplarity of Christian life. Liturgical leadership is not the primary focus of the ordination rite. In the ordination of presbyter, providing pastoral advice to the episkopos is the central focus. No mention is made of liturgical leadership.

i. From roughly 350 to 500 AD, the Latin term 'sacerdos' (i.e., 'priest' --- one who mediates between God and man and offers sacrifice to God) normally refers to the episkopos. The diversification process in which the presbyter assumes some of the liturgical functions begins in earnest between 400 and 500 AD. In the Carolingian period [751 - 987 AD], the term 'sacerdos' refers as much to priest as to bishop, but most often to priest. By the eleventh century, the term refers normally to priest. The presbyter [i.e., the liturgical presider in the primitive church] has become the priest.

(It should be noted that according to some references not mentioned here, the so-called "Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus" may very well be a "redaction," i.e., a work that was massaged, edited, and/or rewritten by various people over perhaps decades before it took on the known content available to researchers today. Therefore, it is hard to date. Nonetheless, a broad outline can be discerned about the development of ordained Catholic ministry based on the work of Osborne and others: the earliest Christian communities, i.e., those communities closest to Jesus in both time and place, did not have "priests" and "bishops" as we understand these ecclesial roles today. Instead, they had (for lack of a better description) natural talent whose gift of leadership was recognized and accepted by the Christians served, a gift that was perceived by their communities as coming from Jesus himself. These leaders presided at community worship. These church leaders did not self-appoint, nor were they appointed. They were seen as recipients of God-given leadership to be exercised for the benefit of their respective communities.)