The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionBelgian Catholics issue reform manifesto
Dec. 02, 2011
Parishes without a priest, Eucharist at inappropriate hours, worship without Communion: that really should not be! What is delaying the needed church reform? We, Flemish believers, ask our bishops to the break the impasse in which we are locked. We do this in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries, with all who insist on vital church reform.
Police officers stand outside the residence of the archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels in Mechelen, Belgium, in 2010. Belgian investigators searched the headquarters of the Belgian Catholic Church, the archbishop's residence as well as the home of Cardinal Godfried Danneels as part of an investigation into alleged priestly sexual abuse. (CNS photo/Eric Vidal, Reuters)
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM -- The week before the start of Advent, four Flemish priests issued a church reform manifesto that called for allowing the appointment of laypeople as parish pastors, liturgical leaders and preachers, and for the ordination of married men and women as priests.
By the week's end more than 4,000 of publicly active Catholics had signed on to the "Believers Speak Out" manifesto. By Dec. 1, the number of signers had reached 6,000.
Among the supporters are hundreds of priests, educators, academics and professional Catholics. Two prominent supporters are former rectors of the Catholic University of Leuven, Roger Dillemans and Marc Vervenne.
"These are not 'protest people.' They are people of faith. They are raising their voices. They hope their bishops are listening," said Fr. John Dekimpe, one of four priests who launched the manifesto.
"Some people are fearful about approaching church leadership," said the priest, who lives in Kortrijk. "Is this being a dissident? I don't think so. The Belgian church is a disaster. If we don't do something, the exodus of those leaving the church will just never stop. ... I really want the bishops to reflect deeply about the growing discontent of so many believers."
Among the manifesto's demands, made "in solidarity with fellow believers in Austria, Ireland and many other countries," are that:
- Parish leadership be entrusted to trained laypeople;
- Communion services be held even if no priest is available;
- Laypeople be allowed to preach;
- Divorced people be allowed to receive Communion;
- "As quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood.
So far there has been no official reaction from Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, the Catholic primate of Belgium, any of the other Belgium bishops, or the Vatican. Privately, and off the record, one Belgian bishop has applauded the manifesto.
Jürgen Mettepenningen, a Leuven theologian and former press officer for Léonard, told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen that he hopes the manifesto can lead to a well-thought-out church reform. "When I reflect on what I have written and said over the past years, I can only say that the spirit of the manifesto is the very same spirit in which I have been trying to work to make the church more credible: true to the faith."
Last year, after reports of abuse rocked the Belgian church, an independent commission discovered sexual abuse in most Catholic dioceses and all church-run boarding schools and religious orders. The commission said 475 cases of abuse had been reported to it between January and June this year.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
In one of the more prominent cases, Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe was forced to resign after admitting to years of abusing his nephew. In April of this year, he told Belgian television that he had molested another nephew and that it had all started "as a game."
The full text of the manifesto, "Believers Speak Out":
We simply do not understand why the leadership in our local communities (e.g., parishes) is not entrusted to men or women, married or unmarried, professionals or volunteers, who already have the necessary training. We need dedicated pastors!
We do not understand why these our fellow believers cannot preside at Sunday liturgical celebrations. In every active community we need liturgical ministers!
We do not understand why, in communities where no priest is available, a Word service cannot also include a Communion service.
We do not understand why skilled laypeople and well-formed religious educators cannot preach. We need the word of God!
We do not understand why those believers who, with very good will, have remarried after a divorce must be denied Communion. They should be welcomed as worthy believers. Fortunately, there are some places where this is happening.
We also demand that, as quickly as possible, both married men and women be admitted to the priesthood. We, people of faith, desperately need them now!
[John A. Dick, an American historical theologian, has lived in Belgium for 30 years. He is currently visiting professor of religion in American society at the University of Ghent. This report includes some information from Catholic News Service.]
What a breath of fresh air
What a breath of fresh air that would be!
How can we join up with them.
How can we join up with them. New Solidarity Movement begins?
How can we join up with them.
How can we join up with them. New Solidarity Movement begins?
============================================
It's been bubbling beneath the surface THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH since John Paul's time and the energies have been released from the fissures beneath earth. This earthquake is very real and the convulsions are spreading fast.
Keep watching your Richter scale in the comments section here and the counter-voices on the blog devoted to selling coffee and NCR fish wrappers, among other things.
Want to join them now? What
Want to join them now? What they want is already here and it's called The Old Catholic Church. Please leave since you're already gone in spirit.
Want to join them now? What
Want to join them now? What they want is already here and it's called The Old Catholic Church. Please leave since you're already gone in spirit.
------------------------------------------
Leave? When one is having all this fun and then miss all the action?
On a more serious note, you better check your canon law and theology manuals one more time. Nobody validly baptized can ever leave the Catholic Church even if they wanted to. They simply assume an inactive status, but never leave. What's more, to counsel anyone to leave the Church is itself an even greater sin, a crime against the Holy Spirit. Which, if St. Augustine is to be believed, is unforgivable.
While on the subject of the "spirit", best you go back and rediscover the spirit of Catholic teaching yourself. Even if one could leave, why do that and surrender the Church to the likes of you and others like you?
Like Erasmus, best to stick around, enjoy the blood sport of the self-appointed "orthodox" fighting the "heretics", and then arrange to be carried out on a stretcher.
Occupy OUR Church movement?
Occupy OUR Church movement?
Occupy OUR Church
Occupy OUR Church movement?
You bet! Head into the parks and the streets and take back the Church. The bishops and clergy will have to share government with the those who pay, pray, and obey. If it means receiving ordination from renegade churches to rebuild the Faith, so be it.
The bishops either lead now, or they must stand aside and permit the Holy Spirit to move through the Church healing and enlivening existing charisms within the people, and perhaps creating new structures along the way to open the Church to the will of Jesus who is speaking to us now.
My thoughts exactly.
My thoughts exactly.
What is catholic? Catholic is
What is catholic? Catholic is cosmic wholeness — always in process of becoming, not standing still (stasis).
================================
“Kata-holon” is a “ferment” of wholeness in process of transformation, expansion from within, psychically conscious, as well as physically substantive. The “withinness” of expansion has an exterior dimension always in process of outward expansion. Walter Ong, SJ, sees “catholic” as conscious wholeness transforming from within, like yeast in dough. The inner dynamic of “wholeness changing” is organic, catabolism, implicating everything in process of exterior expansion. The universe (cosmos) to which we belong, and in which we have being/becoming, is expanding like consciousness, at an accelerating pace. The consciousness of purpose, of wisdom-expansion, is an essential aspect of the human-becoming-whole.
The arrogance of isolated thinking opposes the “becoming of wholeness”. It is a fatal contradiction that excludes, alienates others, from essential place in the common process of becoming whole by way of transformation, evolution. Catholicism is the process of, and the mindfulness of evolution-from-within; like it or not, we are caught up in cosmic expansion, in the evolution of wholeness from within — MINDFULNESS is “yeast in the dough”.
“Catholic” is Christic emergence, is the holistic anointing of growth into Godlikeness, the mindfulness of becoming whole, holy, holistic, in intention as well as in body. To be catholic is to think as Jesus thought, do as Jesus did. It is not about slavish fidelity to institutional structures that impose conditions of belonging and mind-submission to their self-serving requirements. [See: Ilia Delio, “The EMERGENT CHRIST, Exploring the Meaning of Catholic in an Evolutionary Universe”, pp. 59-84, © 2011, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York 10545-0302] www.WordUnlimited.com
AMEN! Living a faith filled
AMEN! Living a faith filled life is so much more than following the Law!! After all, what was the purpose of the life of Jesus?
Count me in!
Count me in!
The movement is correct I
The movement is correct I have been fighting for the empowerment of the laity in INDIA. The laity are not idiots . They are the only competant people to lead the church.The priests do nothing and do not lead a pious and decent life. It is high time, the decisoin making body is the laity and not the priest andthe clergy
My whole support to the movement
MORE BELGIAN INFO
MORE BELGIAN INFO ........... Bob R.. please note for some additional interesting background from Reuters on the Belgian reform effort, accessible by clicking on at:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/12/02/belgian-catholic-reformer...
It is past time that the
It is past time that the faithful take back the church from those who have secured unto themselves a power structure from which they do not have the courage to escape. Let us pray for them and their "spirit" also
The days of the people
The days of the people telling the emperor he's fully clothed are over. The "Benedictine" court, however, will continue to convey the message to the elderly pontiff that all is well, the sheep adore him, and his priestly sons are prepared to accept his every whim with the docility expected of them.
Reminiscent of the German Imperial General Staff repeatedly telling Kaiser Wilhelm II in late 1918 all was going well on the western front. In this instance and ever since Benedict ascended the throne we see a richly woven fabric of pontifical hoaxes, fronts, and case of CYA perpetrated to create a "feel good" atmosphere in Benedict's bunker. By telling the Leader what's happening in Belgium, Austria, Germany,Switzerland, and Ireland, just for starters, should be dismissed as little more than another series of "monkish squabbles".
Certainly a welcome
Certainly a welcome development out of Belgium, but reform will only occur when the change is not only seen coming from, but in fact is demanded by Catholics in the pews, not a few priests who will be quickly co-opted by the hierarchs.
If the last decades of child rape and sodomy by priests have taught us anything, the Catholic priesthood must be reformed from parish to pope.
Jim Jenkins, How right you
Jim Jenkins, How right you are. Priests alone can't sustain the revolution. It has to emerge from the presbyterate of the laity in each parish, school, and Catholic institution of every kind, including the bishop's own cathedral.
Let the frightened hierarchs take refuge in their chanceries and cast their anathemas. It's time for them and Pope Benedict to listen, or just gaze upon the dying cinders from the rubble of their 10th century institutional model which no longer functions effectively for anyone in the Universal Church. The pope himself is ill-served by perpetuating an infrastructure so completely out of step with the times and the People of God.
"Prests along cannot sustain
"Prests along cannot sustain the revolution." Where is the critical mass of priests in your perception? The number of priests groups in this country trying to create change can be counted on one hand. Would that there were more. This is definitely a movement that must be caused / brought about by laity. And..... I hate to say it..... but it has to begin at the level of the purse. Or said another way " Grab them by the b---s and their hearts will soon follow! Pain in the pocketbook seems to be the only way to move issues forward.
This is the John McGovern I
This is the John McGovern I remember: "Hit'em where it hurts! If only you were in charge ...
The Golden Rule of politics also applies to the Catholic Church: "He who has the gold, rules!"
Sorry, but the Church is not
Sorry, but the Church is not a democracy. You can't "demand" anything.
Here again we have another
Here again we have another poorly educated and ill-informed person--pretending to be a "good Roman Catholic!" Well, you are NOT! The baptized CAN demand and MUST if the RCC is to be saved! But, I have to realize that there are many like you who hide in false security thinking that you will have a high place in heaven for being "obedient." You need to read the lives of the saints. You would be amazed at many of them who were not afraid to challenge the clerical Catholic Church. Get with it. It is OUR church not the clerics.
Sorry Will, but it is a FACT
Sorry Will, but it is a FACT that the Church is not a democracy--nor should it be, since pure democracies always end up in mob rule. Remember ancient Athens?
Of course many saints did speak out against the abuses of the Church from time to time, but they did it with respect, and out of a love for the CHURCH, and not our of a self-serving "love" which only concerns itself with me, me, me! The saints NEVER were concerned about their "rights," the way the left of the RC can sometimes shamefully be.
It's not all about you Will. It's about God.
Why not a democracy,
Why not a democracy, Miriam?
How's that all-male feudal Roman oligarchy working out for you?
If Catholics have learned anything from the child rape scandal, it's that you can't trust those hierarchs to do the moral, just thing as long as they have no checks and balances.
Democracy would allow Catholics to begin to separate the MINISTRY from the MONEY - at least the the hierarchs wouldn't have unlimited access to literally $billions to underwrite their failed ideology and political hegemony over the rest of us.
Why not a democracy? Because
Why not a democracy?
Because truth is not relative. It is not subject to a vote.
When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13), he was speaking to the apostles alone. *They* are the ones to whom God has given the responsibility of proclaiming the truth--not the rest of us.
To want a democracy in the Church is to go against the direct will of God.
You are so right!!!!
You are so right!!!!
Truth, it seems, is in very
Truth, it seems, is in very short supply in the Roman Church these days. We have all witnessed the spectacle of the sexual abuse scandal: It took YEARS for anyone official to speak ANY truth. Then there is the matter of the new liturgical "translation". The new "rules" for translation are a complete lie, a humpty-dumpty turning on their head of the actual principles followed for centuries (look up St Ephraim the Less) by legitimate scholars. Then there is the pack of lies used to try "selling" the new "translation", particularly (but not only) the assertion that the translation of "for many" for the Latin "pro multis" was based upon scholarship. Other readers can multiply examples; but the truth is that many of our hierarchs place a very low practical value upon truth. Most merely repeat whatever Rome tells them, whether or not they consider it true.
Democracy? Well, perhaps the Church is not. On the other hand, the Church is also not -- or ought not to be -- a totalitarian fascist dictatorship in which no dissent is tolerated. We all need to re-read Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles. And, that most orthodox of theologians, Thomas Aquinas, has spelled out in the clearest terms our obligations as Catholics to correct clerics, including popes and bishops, in error. Please see his Article 33 (esp. #4) on Fraternal Correction in the Summa Theologiae, Secundae Secunda (the Second Part of the Second Part). Aquinas cites Augustine and Matthew 18:15 for support. (It is available on-line at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm). Saint Catherine of Siena, a "mere" laywoman was largely responsible for getting the Pope to move back to Rome from Avignon, France.
Make no mistake: Our Church is in the worst shape it has been since the Renaissance (maybe worse; perhaps we just haven't heard about the orgies yet?) For example, it seems perfectly plain to me that, if a liturgical change is being foisted upon the Church by such means — strong-arm tactics, intimidation, refusal to dialogue, insults to ecumenical partners, lies, secrecy, and even heresy — then someone ought to realize that something has gone terribly wrong. And we ought to do something about it. Clearly, any order to use a liturgy which was confected in purposeful opposition to the formal documents of an Ecumenical Council, and which contains a formula which is heretical in the judgment of competent theologians, and which is being promoted by lies and subterfuge — such an order is clearly illegal and immoral, and it ought not be obeyed. This is especially true when we take into account the larger context of the Church today: A Church mired in sexual abuse, cover-ups, financial misdealings, secrecy, and general abuse of power — possibly even murder (of Pope John Paul I, possibly others).
If we stand idly by, if we obey such an order without protest, then we, too, are derelict in our duty. We become like the “good Germans” who were “just obeying orders”. This so-called ‘translation’ is simply WRONG, and SINFUL , and it needs to be opposed. It does not bear the marks of the Gospel. It is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
Sadly, there are many other such examples -- more serious ones -- which also need to be similarly addressed. Perhaps the time has come.
Please don't confuse the sins
Please don't confuse the sins of church members with the Truth of the Church. The handling of the sex abuse scandal does not nullify the Truth that the RCC teaches every day. The sex abuse scandal was a matter of sin. Despite this grave sin, the hierarchy is still teaching doctrinal truths that much of the world rejects: for example, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Your beef with "for many" probably comes from your misunderstanding that the phrase "excludes." It does not. "For many" comes from the Greek phrase OI POLLOI, which means "a large number too large to count and WITHOUT RESTRICTION." That teaches several things. One, man has free will. Two, God is not restricting the number. Three, man excludes himself by not following God. Four, there is a hell.
The liturgical changes have not been built on lies. If you see differently, then please share links supporting your claim.
Fascist dictatorships force you to adopt their ways. No one is forcing you. You have not been arrested or barred from the church's doors. The Church MUST uphold what is true, even if the whole world go against them. If you are disagreeing with what they say is true, then why do you stay?
It doesn't matter what "for
It doesn't matter what "for many" means in Greek. What matters is what it means in English: "a lot of people" but not "everyone." The mass is still supposed to be in English, or so I hear.
Perhaps the true goal is to ease the people back into a Latin mass eventually...
Or else it's a matter of deck chairs being rearranged.
Sigh.
Then it is about time people
Then it is about time people actually learn what the Church teaches, rather than relying on what they THINK the Church teaches.
I agree, it is important that
I agree, it is important that we understand the Mass in English - and that can vary from one English speaking nation to another! What we have now is not English; linguists complain that some of the verbs make no sense and priests find it difficult to pray the collects because of the long sentences, but the people have evn more problem listening to them! So we go backwards and become a laity that simply attends Mass but gets nothing from it. Heaven knows what the young people make of it all.
Actually I believe that what
Actually I believe that what became the RCC started as more of a democracy than the oligarchy that it has now become. The Celtic church of Patrick was certainly more sensitive to the needs of its people, and therefore more a democracy, than when in was supplanted by the Roman Constantine imperialistic model.
History is strewn with examples of abuse of power, whether on the part of of rulers or churchmen. It seems ridiculous to me that abuse of power on the part of churchmen should be justified as somehow being the divine right of those churchmen.
Patrick was a bishop. Of
Patrick was a bishop. Of course he had authority to carry out his mission.
Bishops today are also given such authority (as the successors of the apostles) which is why we have practical differences among dioceses.
And of course history is strewn with abuses of power, but those abuses should not become excuses to cast aside Jesus' promise to the apostles alone of the guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth (john 16:13). Ignoring God's way in favor of man's way (because man thinks he "knows better") is never a good thing.
These people are not Catholic
These people are not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word, for they neither believe nor behave as Catholics...
These people are not Catholic
These people are not Catholic in any meaningful sense of the word, for they neither believe nor behave as Catholics...
===========================================
For which we can be most grateful. From what I've seen from those who proclaim they "behave as Catholics", the more I do not see Jesus at work in His Church.
Father John - they are still
Father John - they are still Catholics. They are just no longer sheep.
Why is being sheep bad?
Why is being sheep bad? Aren't we part of God's Flock, and Christ goes out to find the lost sheep? I know I have needed being found a couple of times... I would imagine we all have.
Why is being sheep bad?
Why is being sheep bad? Aren't we part of God's Flock, and Christ goes out to find the lost sheep? I know I have needed being found a couple of times... I would imagine we all have.
=================================
It's almost always the clergy who delight in using this sheep metaphor. We are called to follow them because the bishops and pastors believe the sheep remain as dumb as dirt, compliant, and will always follow them no matter what. Unfortunately, the sheep usually aren't dumb. They've got the shepherd's number and realize he may be thoroughly inadequate in carrying out his duties. They aren't lambs led to the slaughter any longer, but, instead, have become lions ready to turn on their trainer!!
Welcome to the beginning of the suffering Church, the Church of the catacombs of which the late Karl Rahner, SJ had foreseen.
If they aren't sheep then
If they aren't sheep then they don't know the voice of the shepherd.
The problem is Father John,
The problem is Father John, the voice of The “shepherds” in the RCC have consistently spoken out in arrogance, in fear, in hate, in misogynism, and in homophobia. They have failed to speak out and take responsibility for RAPE of children and they have failed to keep Vatican finances out of the reach of the Mafia. There are too many people in this information age to hide these facts as the People of God see that these men are not Shepherds but are unfaithful Charlatans. They do not follow in The Way of Christ. The structure of our Church follows the imperial structure of the Roman empire and is authoritarian with all the inherent problems when authoritarians are in leadership. No Father John, we are not sheep and we do not recognize that we should be led by an authoritarian mind set! It is the leadership that is not “Christ-like.”
And yet it is that same
And yet it is that same leadership that Christ himself sets over you.
No Sir, Father JOhn, this
No Sir, Father JOhn, this Episcopacy was started by Constantine not Christ. These men and many of the clerics that defend them are truly charlatans. They do not follow The Way of Jesus Christ. They are more into "do as I say not as I do." The episcopacy and many defending clerics seems to believe that they can lead the church while openly committing all the capital sins and then refusing to take responsibility for their own misbehavior. No, these men are not Christ-like at all, they are the same as the leadership that Christ condemned!!!
You may create your own beliefs about this leadership, but you can not create your own facts.
May we gain grace and peace through the understanding of actual facts.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"Therefore, after a very
"Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
"...39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity .
"40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.
"...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.
"...52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.
"53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
"54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
"55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.
"56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions" (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Pope St. Pius X)
One man's opinion...... I
One man's opinion...... I suppose that if he told you that the Sun revolved around the Earth you'd believe that as well. Wait, his predecessors did just that!
Encyclicals are not
Encyclicals are not "opinion."
They are the opinions of our
They are the opinions of our popes, they are not necessarily all infallible. Fact is most are not infallible at all. Some are even full of none sense. I agree that the Syllabus of Errors is an embarrassment to the Roman Catholic Church.
Fr. John N., where is the
Fr. John N., where is the part where you quote what Jesus said we should do????? There are two commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Herein is the basis of the LAW!!!! All your quotes come from the MEN of ROME. Magisterium up front and center, Gospels and Paul on the shelf. Why would we ignorant sheeple have any problems? Your post does not make me feel held, warm and safe in the arms of my Shepherd.
The Syllabus of Errors was
The Syllabus of Errors was written by very troubled Pope who lead the Church after the time of political loss of the Vatican States. His work has been an embarrassment to scholars ever since. This Syllabus was pretty much addressed and condemned even before Vatican II did it out right. That you should quote something like that about condemning theological beliefs from the 19th century is typical of sour reasoning from a rather sour Pope at a rather difficult time. We fortunately have moved on from that modernistic time to a postmodern paradigm that needs to be addressed in a positive light without simple condemnation because there is some inspiration from the Holy Spirit in all these theologies. Simple condemnations are essentially refusing to listen to the whispers of the Holy Spirit in every generation. So by quoting it this Syllabus, you are showing a lack of understanding of decent history and theology.
Martha, Maters in Divinity from Claremont McKenna and Marquette Universities
By calling a saint a troubled
By calling a saint a troubled pope, you reveal a remarkable ability to place yourself in judgement of others. Amazing how "kiss my ring" clericalism was abandoned in favor of "genuflect before my degree clericalism."
Show me the Magisterial document that condemned St Pius X as being in error somehow. Right, it doesn't exist. St. Pius X was a prophet, and rightly predicted the collapse into atheism that the "synthesis of all heresies" would usher in.
Pascendi Dominici gregis continues to be taught as a very important theological text. I am well aware of my history and theology, thank you very much; my university for theology did a rather good job of that.
I assure you that the effects of Modernism continue to be relevant in pastoral ministry; conversations with other priests confirm that.
See http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/what_you_need_to_know/index.cfm?i...
2 E=MC that was modernism.
2
E=MC that was modernism. Now perhaps the existence of nurtrino's that go faster than the speed of light may prove some of that theory incorrect. You see as much as the anti-modernist deny it all knowledge is relative. As men grow and develop, all their beliefs and theories do change as observation and inspiration of the Holy Spirt take us to areas that our finite brains have not yet understood. Yes, dear father, no matter what Pius X felt or said, he made many significant mistakes as he was only a finite individual. No one condemns him personally for that but his Syllabus of errors has been an academic embarrassment almost as much as was the belief that the sun rotates around the earth.
In Vatican II many of the ideas in this syllabus were discussed and modified as we have had to discuss and modify Newtonian laws of gravitational rotation of plants. No man be he a declared Saint or a Pope is beyond critique. Why do you think that a schismatic group took the name of Pius X? How can we not see the very poor leadership of a pope who would enable rape or mafia practices in the Vatican Bank even if his successor declares him Blessed.
All men are finite beings and the idea of a man producing such a syllabus of errors such as Pius X produced only certainly calls attention to his own errors in logic and though. No one man has the whispers of the Spirit as she will whisper to whom she wishes, pope, scientist, historian or man/woman on the street. Please, dear father, also read the long not by Mike below who has a much clearer historical approach than you seem to have. We as humans have now moved past the modernist era, I hope you will also Father John.
May we have the grace to gain peace through more understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about? Many words, few are relevant.
"Modernism" is a set of theological opinions. Nothing about physics. It does touch on the relationship between science and religion, and Pascendi's teaching is reinforced and strengthened by John Paul II's Fides et Ratio.
You make further category errors by confusing the technical name of a heresy with equivocal uses of the word. Perhaps a Wikipedia "disambiguation" page might help you out there. For example, the term "post-modern" doesn't help too much here.
I have a personal rule when discussing Vatican II. You can't cite "Vatican II." Vatican is a Council, not a book. There are documents of Vatican II. I think you may be referring (loosely) to Gaudium et Spes, but I can't be sure. Certainly GS represents a change in approach to the modern world (and in that sense a rollback of the PASTORAL (prudential/pragmatic) approach which the Church used in response to the Modernists). Vatican II certainly does this other areas as well. We can dialogue with Protestants and non-Christians without ourselves admitting to heresy or apostasy. If Lamentabile, Pascendi, and the oath were no longer true (philosophically absurd, truth doesn't change), those who had taken the oath would have been released and dispensed from it. Note that that never happened.
Look for the book The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward by Fr. Jonathon Robinson if you would like to strengthen your philosophical understanding of what's at stake. Hint: you can't drink the modern Kool Aid and stay Christian; the contradictions will catch up with you.
I am sorry Father that you do
I am sorry Father that you do not understand what I am talking about. Truth is one weather it be uttered by a scientist or a priest. Modernism was a theory that we could discover The truth in most situations by science and observation. However bright people came to understand that we as finite beings can only discover more truth. Einstein understood this well as he told people the more we begin to understand, the more we have to learn. Thus we have entered a postmodern era in which finite but good scientists and theologians are looking for not The truth but more truth. You seem to be more of a modernist or ancient thinker. Modernist scientists and social scientists thought they could discover what the truth was thus supplementing religious thoughts that they had all the necessary truths. Today good academics know that we are in an rapidly evolving world of discovery. I invite you to join that world and forget about such theological embarrassments as the Syllabus of errors. Perhaps in the seminaries today you are not taught about the current paradigms. I don't know but to rely on an historical infallible truth has been shown to be a false paradigm by more creditable academic minded people in studies as varied as theology, philosophy, science, social science and medicine.
I have not read the articles in Vatican II for many years and would have to go back and reread them to point out line and verse. It is not worth my time or work to do that now. I am too busy attempting to use my God given talents to ascertain truth as others and I observe it in the present. The beliefs of the past are a mere framework that one can refer to try to understand how and why things evolved as they have.
My we obtain the grace of peace and understanding with the Spirits help through more observation and understanding of our world given us by a great and powerful Other.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"Modernism was a theory that
"Modernism was a theory that we could discover The truth in most situations by science and observation." This may be true in other uses of the word, but it isn't with respect to Roman Catholic usage.
I'm going to use Wikipedia, simply out of convenience.
Everything that follows is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_%28Roman_Catholicism%29
Modernism in the Catholic Church was the subject of the definitive encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis of Pope St. Pius X. Modernism may be described under the following broad headings:
A rationalistic approach to the Bible. The rationalism that was characteristic of the Enlightenment took a protomaterialistic view of miracles and of the historicity of biblical narratives. This approach sought to interpret the Bible by focussing on the text itself as a prelude to considering what the Church Fathers had traditionally taught about it. This method was readily accepted by Protestants and Anglicans. It was the natural consequence of Martin Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine, which asserts that Scripture is the highest authority, and that it can be relied on alone in all things pertaining to salvation and the Christian life.
Secularism and other Enlightenment ideals. The ideal of secularism can be briefly stated as follows: the best course of action in politics and other civic fields is that which flows from a common understanding of the Good by various groups and religions. By implication, Church and State should be separated and the laws of the latter, for example that forbidding murder, should cover only the common ground of beliefs held by various religious groups. From the secularists’ point of view it was possible to distinguish between political ideas and structures that were religious and those that were not, but Catholic theologians in the mainstream argued, following St. Thomas Aquinas, that such a distinction was not possible, inasmuch as all aspects of society were to be organised with the final goal of Heaven in mind. The humanist model which had been in the forefront of intellectual thought since the Renaissance and the scientific revolution was however directly opposed to this view.[which?]
Modern philosophical systems. Philosophers such as Kant and Bergson inspired the mainstream of Modernist thought. One of the latter’s main currents attempted to synthesise the vocabularies, epistemologies, metaphysics and other features of certain modern systems of philosophy with Catholicism in much the same way as the Schoolmen had earlier attempted to synthesise Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy with the Church's teaching.
As more naturalistic and scientific studies of history appeared, a way of thinking called historicism arose which suggested that ideas are conditioned by the age in which they are expressed; thus modernists generally believed that most dogmata or teachings of the Church were novelties which arose because of specific circumstances obtaining at given points in its history. At the same time rationalism and literary criticism reduced the possible role of the miraculous, so that the philosophical systems in vogue at the time taught among other things that the existence of God could never be known (see Agnosticism). Theology, formerly “queen of the sciences”, was dethroned[4], and it was argued that religion must primarily be caused by, and thus be centred on, the feelings of believers. This argument bolsters the impact of secularism by weakening any position supporting the favouring of one religion over another in a given state, on the principle that if no scientific and reasonable assumption of its truth can be made, society should not be so organised as to privilege any particular religion.
More gobbly gook. High
More gobbly gook. High schoolers are taught that wikapedia is not such a great source and not excepted on scholarly papers. So I refuse to look at this source as you are pulling out your hair attempting to argue a line that supports felon Bishops and poor teachings. (Perhaps your source does have some credibility but if it does than the author should place it in a more scholarly journal) Look at how the officials at Penn State were treated. The vatican and Bishops need a board of directors composed of the People of God to keep them at all credible.
Dear Father John, I am using
Dear Father John,
I am using the sources of my own understanding not looking to something like wikapedia that even high school students understand is often not reputable. So what I am saying is from my own experience as a (now retired) Professor at a major university that has instructed people as Medical Residents, MD candidates, and PhD Candidates, and now in retirement some middle school science classes.
In a postmodern paradigm, the idea is that truth is one and that secular and theological truth should both try to match if they are truth at all. There are however many angles that we can view truth. That is why not even instant replay can be conclusive or an infallible indications of what just happened. Secularism in many area of ethics and morals has lead religious ideas. Such as the ideas of slavery which Christians believed in. Today the ideas that women and homosexuals should be treated equal to men is a new ethic that comes from secularism that is far ahead of catholic morality. In the postmodern paradigm we realize that we can not know THE truth only more of truth. The idea that events are not relative comes from the churches attacks on the windmills of modernism is still present. Yet the Church itself teaches that a venial sin is relatively not as evil as a mortal sin. When one studies deeply philosophy and science we see that all in life really is relative.
What has really disturbed faithful and good Catholics is the idea that a clergy has all The answers as far as truth goes. Fact is that the clergy is very slow to consider and slower to understand the facts brought by scientific observation. Now if that were the only problem with the Episcopacy this discussion would be a lot easier.
When leaders act as authoritarian sources of truth, it presents a real problem because they fail to see that truth may be seen from angles they never even thought to consider. When the Episcopacy denies its responsibilities in the scandal of enabling priest rapists and priest that father outside of wedlock and do not do the fathering work of a life time, there is a very big ethical problem with this leadership. When the Episcopacy continues to deal in its banks with the mafia not only of southern Europe but all over the world, there is a big problem. When the episcopacy attempt to interfere with emergent health care in a Catholic Hospital and overrides the ethics committee composed of far greater incites than they, there is another big problem. Many of us then begin to understand that the Episcopacy is in schism with its own laity that are following The Way of Christ.
Perhaps the largest problem between you and I is that you seem to respect what I and many others consider a horrible leadership. Now there are calls for reforms from very many theologians all over the world. The peoples of Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Australia, and here in the US are seriously calling for reform. You continue to deny the need and wish to treat these men as not the fallible men that they are but as infallible Godly men. We do not agree. In all conscience we are bound to speak from our educated angle of seeing a truth that our current Episcopacy does not fair at all well! In fact they are in complete schism with their own people.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Was I writing a scholarly
Was I writing a scholarly paper? Since I'm trained in theology, I'm able to judge the veracity of a summary. I've read Pascendi and studied it at the graduate level. I know what the contents are, and what the historical context was. I know the names Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell and how the caused the controversy.
My goal was to quickly provide you with a summary. I judged the Wikipedia entry to be complete and easy to read.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dgkf1Y1AHD4C&lpg=PT91&ots=XxCHm6pFD9&dq... Does this link work better for you?
How about the Catholic Encyclopedia? (Less concise and someone from here I'm sure will jump down my throat for reading this "outdated" source.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm
Dear Father John, My studies
Dear Father John,
My studies in theology were eons ago as a seminarian. After finishing a divinity degree, I decided not to be ordained but rather to pursue a life studying truth from the scientific and medical perspectives.
Now Father John, anyone can refer me to the text Christian Theology by McGrath without showing me a relative section to which they are speaking. You further ask me if I think the Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source and I would state that as any source it has its prejudices but at least it is not wikapedia. My complaint about the on line encyclopedia remains no matter what you personally think of the author. Try to use better sources. You seem however to use sources as bullets of truth. In fact sources are only that one source. They may be strong and contain some truth but none that you have shown me seems to support very much your defense of a very poor authoritarian Episcopal leadership that we currently are under, and this is what I have been referring to in all my posts. I am semiretired and have some time to respond to your rather interesting defenses of people that have shown themselves to lack ethics but who want to make moral rules and judgements. Speak to those facts from your heart. It will not require any references!
If you are not retired father, where do you get the time to be such an avid blogger? I must admit that the only reason that I continued to respond to you was that it is very difficult for me to hear an authoritarian voice and say nothing.
My we gain grace through listening and responding to all God’s truth no matter the source.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"I've read Pascendi and
"I've read Pascendi and studied it at the graduate level. I know what the contents are, and what the historical context was. I know the names Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell and how the caused the controversy."
All this show is that Father John states that he believes in a writing form a source that is often not at all creditable. Makes one also wonder about how well he selects his other sources.
Let's don't get too caught up
Let's don't get too caught up in defining the heresy of modernism which Pius X cleverly invented. Very simply put, the church as always had to decide to reach out to the world, learn from it, and offer her gifts to it, or to withdraw into itself, condemn the world, and maintain the status quo. And we know how that decision went. This has been typical of Roman leadership with the exception of John XXIII. Unfortunately, the popes that followed him reverted to the old Roman pattern. The church does not exist for itself; it exists for the world. I personally believe the church will stand to be judged by God on how well it has fulfilled this mission.
What does it mean to be in
What does it mean to be in the Universal Church?
Jesus founded one Church – the community of believers in Him as the Son of God and Redeemer of fallen humanity. What happened after that was simply that fallen humanity has had a long time to distort the message and turn the Church from an assembly into an institution.
There are some basic and solid issues that were thrashed out very early in the life of the Church. If we look to Scripture we find in the Acts of the Apostles the dispute between the Jewish Church, based in Jerusalem, and the Gentile Church of Paul’s missions (Acts 15: 5‐12). These disputes were about observance – nothing of theology, just practice – and yet they give us the truth of the early Church. Paul “went up to Jerusalem again” (Galatians 2:1) and in discussion with the other Apostles reached agreement on how they should act towards those they called “pagans”.
Throughout the first several centuries of the life of the Church this was the way all decisions were made – by meeting, discussion and consensus. The process we now call “collegiality”. As the Church spread through the Roman Empire and numbers of communities grew these meetings became what we now call Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical because they involved all the leaders of the communities and what was agreed at these Councils was binding on all the faithful. Throughout this period the Bishop of Rome was considered as successor
of Saint Peter to have a primacy of honour that meant he was, effectively, the chairman at these Councils.
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, as commonly understood, are:
1. FirstCouncilofNicaea(325) 2. FirstCouncilofConstantinople(381) 3. CouncilofEphesus(431) 4. CouncilofChalcedon(451) 5. SecondCouncilofConstantinople(553) 6. ThirdCouncilofConstantinople(680) 7. SecondCouncilofNicaea(787)
These Councils, all Christians agreed, were the meetings that defined what was necessary to be believed for salvation. The faith they agreed was summed up in what we now call the Nicene Creed. It was also understood that nothing could be added to or taken away from that Creed without the agreement of an Ecumenical Council.
As the Roman Empire went into decline divisions started to appear in the Church that mirrored the politics of the Empire, the main division being between East and West, between Constantinople and Rome. Things came to a head in 1085 when the Rome‐based Church wished to change the Nicene Creed by adding one word “filioque” in the passage referring to the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Churches saw this as making the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and Son, and they objected. Cutting a long story short this bitter dispute ended in mutual excommunication that lasted until the 1970s and a division and mistrust that still endure.
The central point is that the essentials of faith were defined by Ecumenical Council and no such gathering has happened since 787. The later Roman Councils have been called Ecumenical but truly are not because of the exclusion of the Eastern Churches. Their proclamations and decrees cannot be seen as binding on the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that contains and embraces the whole of Christendom.
For this reason alone any later decrees of Popes and Councils may be seen as mere guidance and not true dogma.
The most contentious statements of Rome are regarding the issues of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. In order to understand these more fully we must look at the First Vatican Council, its context and its history.
The context of the Council is an imperial church under threat – the unifying armies of Italy were swallowing up the Papal States and Pius IX was losing his worldly realm. The Council was primarily a political attempt to re‐assert the position of the Roman Church in a changing world. The Council convened in December 1869 and lasted until September 1870. It produced only two agreed Constitutions – one on the Catholic Faith and the second on Papal Primacy and Infallibility.
The first of these documents was intended to bolster the position of the Roman Catholic Church, but its wording is such that it can be seen as an understanding of the “Catholic” faith in the wider sense and therefore is not for deeper consideration here.
The second topic caused wide and uncomfortable dispute among the assembled bishops and it is apparent from the documents and transcripts of that Council that agreement was unlikely. In fact it was more than likely that the concept of personal primacy and infallibility would be rejected, primarily by the bishops of what we now call the new and emerging worlds. In the summer of 1870 Pius suspended the Council and the bishops began their journeys homeward. When Pius then unexpectedly re‐convened the Council it was almost entirely the European bishops that attended the final sessions – the very bishops who had aligned themselves with Pius in the earlier sessions. This “rump” of the Council acclaimed the personal primacy and – worse – the personal infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Head of the Universal Church.
All of this history is documented fact to be found in the records of the Council itself. Even without the absence of the Eastern churches this final session of the first Council of the Vatican was a sham, an artifice to provide a politically weak
institution with a moral stature that it would utilise to replace the political power it had so long wielded with a moral one.
I have not touched on other dogmas declared by Rome, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary since both of these were wide‐spread pious beliefs held throughout the whole church and its history and simply did not need to be declared “essential to salvation”.
Most certainly it is not a part of the ancient faith that we preach to the modern world that belief in the supremacy and infallibility of one man (other than Jesus, of course!) should be essential to salvation.
mike 44, Thanks for a brief
mike 44,
Thanks for a brief and wonderfully constructed overview of our history. There is a story, I do not know if it is true or not, that at Vatican I, when several bishops objected to the doctrine of papal infallibility, they said to the pope, "This is not our tradition." The story says that Pio Nono bellowed across the consistory hall, "I AM the tradition!"
The objecting bishops ended up leaving the church and forming what is called the Old Catholic Church. These communities have modernized and embraced many of the changes of Vatican II. They are providing a home for some people who leave the Roman church. In fact they are far more progressive than Rome.
I doubt it very much.
I doubt it very much.
History trumps doctrine, Mr.
History trumps doctrine, Mr. John N.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).
Christ came for the sinners,
Christ came for the sinners, so why are we so shocked and appalled that we have a church full of broken and sinful human beings? That a small percentage of priests committed heinous acts is an abomination, however we all bear responsibility in some way for the sins present in the body.
Caterina, A small percentage
Caterina, A small percentage of rapist priests, but a high percentage of Bishops who overlooked it. That is the current RCC. To enable this type of crime or to defend the enablers takes away any moral argument you or Father John are using. In fact the good doctor, as usual is very correct.
Once again an interesting
Once again an interesting metaphor is taken literally or stretched beyond its literary purpose so that it disintegrates into nonsense. That is, to me, a disrespectful way to treat the writing of scripture. Please note: we actually are not sheep. Jesus (and the writer of Psalm 23) may be saying that God is dedicated to us in the way that a shepherd is dedicated to his flock, but Jesus and the psalm author were not saying that they thought human beings are actually sheep.
We recognize the voice of the
We recognize the voice of the predators FJ. You know those clerics belonging to the wolf pack in Rome.
Goats are the new sheep.
Goats are the new sheep.
As I recall, Jesus said, "I
As I recall, Jesus said, "I am the good shepherd", the key word being "I", not the pope (Good God, Peter denied Jesus three times!!!), or a local bishop, or the parish pastor.
(but, hey, i've got a west coast orange bridge for ya')
John 21:15-17.
John 21:15-17.
The view that good or bad
The view that good or bad behavior made one a Catholic was rejected very early on by the Church.
Post new comment