Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 969
  • 55095
  • 0


Catholicism vs Change   Religion

Started 2/13/20 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 8358 views.

From: RGoss99


Catholic¿ is a valid question, but based on a lack of knowledge of the English tradition. In theory, the 12 apostles became the first bishops, and it takes a bishop to ordain a priest.

So here is where the problema arises, historicly bishops were elected by the canons of the diocese, or some similar body (RC cardinals are canons of Roman churches and they elect the Pope as bishop of Roman). In practice over the ages, nations had different ways of accomplishing this. In England, by concordat (agreement or treaty with Rome) the King had a say in who became a bishop or archbishop. Today in Spain, the King has the same right, but the last head of state to exercise it was Franco the dictator, as regent. Usually where the King had the right, he usually took the advice of his "episcopal council" (episcopal in this case has no connection to Episcopalians). In some cases, recomendation was three candidates and the pope had to pick one of the three. The unmarried priesthood is not based on scripture but simply an administrative rule. For example in the Orthodox tradition parish priests are usually married, but not bishops who are chosen from priests who are unmarried monks. In Scotland the last prereformation primate, Cardinal Beaton, was married and had a family. The former Italian royal family, was descended from a cardinal who was not a priest. In England, Henry II, had a tutor, friend, drinking buddy, who was only a deacon, when the job of Archbishop of Canterbury, became vacant, So the King, using his power forced his election by the Canons of Canterbury Cathedrel, as a result this deacon passed from deacon to priest to bishop to archbishop in a matter of days. The problema was that he took his new job too seriously, so Henry II had him assasinated..

In the case of your question, when Henry VIII broke from Rome, the process was not so fixed that he was able to affectively maintain the apostolic succesion without the pope´s approval. So as Canturbury continued to consecreat bishops, who continue to ordain priests, under those conditions priests in the Episcopal church are just as much priests as those in the Roman church.

Here is an aside related to the American Revolution. The 13 American colonies were basicly chartered companies with headquarters in London, so the colonial priests were ordained under the authority of the Bishop of London, or other English bishops. After the American revolution, English bishops, as members of the House of Lords, would be traitos to the King if they ordained American rebels as priests, so over the years as the pre revolution American priests died off, the Episcopal church in America would dissolve. However there was also a Reformation in Scotland, which went from RC to Episcopal Church of Scotland then Presbyterian, leaving the episcopal establishment in Scotland, independent of England, but not a part of the government. So the Americans, to maintain apostolic succession sent a Boston priest, Seabury, to the Aberdeen, to be consecrated a bishop there, from where he returned to the U.S. to ordain American eiscopalians as priests. 

There is also a language problema in that both RCs and Piskys accept the Apostles creed which makes them Catholic, though not Roman Catholic, thus having legitimate priests. In recent times there has been a división within the Episcopal church over several issues, as a result some Episcopal priests, with or without their parishes, have converted to Rome, and as some of these priests were already married, Rome has accepted them as priests in the Roman rite without any problems.

The RC church has seen many changes since the 1960s with Vatican II, so if one attends mass at a "high" episcopal church, the service is closer to the traditional Roman service then at an RC church. My university town, St Andrews had two episcopal churches one high, one low. In the high church the priest not only wore the same vestiments not seen in many low episcopal churches, or current RC churches, but said mass facing East instead of west (facing the congregation), and based on old RC traditions, the high church is called "smells and bells" - today rare in RC churches, and non existent in low episcopal. An oddity in St Andrews is that some of the text, and hymns are still in Greek and Latin..

In reply toRe: msg 6

From: RGoss99


I posted before reading yours, and disagree with one point, and that is if a priest wants to marry or a candidate is already married, the first step is permission of his local bishop, who grants permission subject to approval by Rome. Because of the shortage of priests in varios parts of the world, no approval would mean no priest, so Rome has the power to, and sometimes grants this. 

Regardine female deacons, they existed during the first 300 years after Christ, and in fact, if not in name they do today. Using my own parish in Spain. When I was a kid, women were not allowed inside the sanctuary (except to do "women´s work" - cleaning up after men). The break through came when women defined as "Eucharistic ministers" became involved in that part of the service. When my parish church here was built, it had 20 priests, serving 21 altars, by 1950 there were 10, when I arrived there was 1 who had some nuns or laity serving as Eucharistic ministers. When that priest died, we got a retired missionary, who not only took care of our parish church, but a few village chapels. Sometimes he did not make it back in time for services, so a lay woman eucharistic minister ran the service, no different then a priest, except for the consecration, and she did not wear any special costume. That priest died, so now we have half a priest, because his replacement lives in his original parish, but also serves ours. This means that most of the time on week days this woman does the local service, preaches, etc. If Francis re-establishes deaconesses, it would make no difference, except that this woman would simply have the title for work she has been performing for over 10 years.

Eventually Rome Will have to give in, not just because of the shortage of priests, but because to fill the vacancies, the church has lowered its standards for seminarians, and the result is an increase in unfit priests causing scandals and other problems. 


From: adwil


" if a priest wants to marry or a candidate is already married, the first step is permission of his local bishop, who grants permission subject to approval by Rome. "

If they're already married Anglicans and want to become Catholic, then they can be ordained as priests but it does require approval from above.

 I have not come across any priest granted permission to marry.

You're correct about Deaconesses. Women played a bigger part in the early church than they do today.


From: RGoss99


There is a logical reason for your, "I have not come across …"

Primarily this is a private issue, and really noone´s business, I priest is a priest is a priest and should be judged by his actions as such, not by to whom or if he is married or celebae.

But there is a deeper reason. Vatican II, was a long overdue reform activity, because before it the RCs were so far out of sync with logic, scripture, theology, changes had to be made for survival. The problema was marketing, because the majority of Catholics with no real scritural education, were so brainwashed by the chatichism that they had no tools to judge between Christ´s teachings, and the varios traditions,in cluding pagan ones that got attached over the centuries. The RC establishment mishandled Luther, an academic Augustinian priest scholar, so by rejecting him, he went his own way, and as a result many RC illogical, irrelevant, unscriptural traditions, were upgraded into tests of faith in reaction. Sadly the general RC population was so unsophisticated in these matters, that no real effort was made to make up for lost time by educating them resulting in a weakening of the faith, and a disassociation from the church. The changes were not taught, they were simply orders from the top in a society already becomming more religiously liberal and anti authoritarian.

As a result it is difficult to get the church to admit error, so they simply make changes (as in married priests) quietly and don´t talk about it. There are several Jesuit universities, and the one I am familiar with is the Loyola in Los Angeles. Many of its academics were Jesuits, and Vatican II, opened the door to them questioning rules from the top. The Jesuits were a teaching order, not a pastoral one. But before the 60s, because of a declining number of secular priests, they had one parish in Los Angeles, but because of the same shortage, most of the priest faculty members, were farmed out to other parishes. One where I was an altarboy was, St Kevin´s, which had 6 masses every Sunday to a full house, plus an evening serevice. It had a full time pastor, and an assistant who lived in, but was sort of a religious civil servant at the Archdioses, as his full time job. With that many masses, we got some Jesuit each Sunday from the university to fill in the gap. Since Vatican II, many of the priest-professors, while not defrocked, resigned from the active ministry, stopped wearing the collar, were secularized and got married with permission.  but remained teaching in their varios fields. In the next, and current phase, the shortage of priests was so great, that these were needed for Sunday parish work, so the local archbishop got permission to reinstate them (e.g. license to preach, hear confessions, and officiate at sacraments) along with others who had been secularized and wanted to get married. 

So the church is caught in a bind, while there is no reason for not making exceptions to the rules, a large proportion of the believers, become motivated to seek their own exceptions to issues that were never on the table.

This is OT, but related to the problema here in my parish. As I was raised, infant baptism was considered very important so if a baby died he could get to heaven. The faulty theology came under the heading of original sin. This is illogical if God by definition was just, how could he punish one in whom there was no fault (and that included "good" people who never had the opportunity of baptism in the first place). So now without talking about it, the church does not publicly deny good Muslims, pagans, etc. the right to heaven. The practical solution within the church was to abolish private baptisms, in a baptistry, but to move them to the front of the church, as a ritual of initiation into the community of the parish at a regular mass. I was aware of this in the 60s, but when I came to this village 20 years ago, nothing had changed with the current pastor. He died and was followed by an academic who was not happy with the VatII corrections, so nothing changed, eventually he was replace by a retired missionary who grew up with the corrections as commonly practiced in the missionary field. So when he arrived, he closed the baptistry (currently a museum) and performed baptisms during Sunday mass with a basin of wáter and a table. So 15 years later our church got up to date, with loud objections from families for whom private baptisms were traditional excuses for family festes. The local paper carried an artical featuring a photo of the iron grill entry to the baptestry wrapped with a chain. Although for over a year baptisms were at the front, the elaborate Font at the back, was a reminder of the old way. So about 7 months ago, when the área became a museum, the Font was moved to the front. Two rather interesting things are not obvious, thus not talked about. 1. Babies are no longer baptized so soon after birth, often later much bigger, So in moving the Font, the left off about 50cm of the base, to save the priest´s back. 2. beneath the baptestry which was in the same locaton of the pre 1700 Gothic church was a special área where the ground was considered sacred and blessed to recieve the wáter after the ceremoney. Water is wáter, and ground is ground, so the supposed sacredness is pre-Christian superstition. Besides, can you imagine the cost of ripping up the floor of the church to insert the sacred earth and plumbing. Solution (again not talked about) - in the new position there is a space in the pedistal with a plastic bucket to catch the wáter, which is simply dumped down the  drain in the sacresty, which is also common to the toilet, (-- many traditional catholics would consider this sacriledge if they were aware. 




Problema, Problema, Problema!

STOP TYPING THAT! Spanglish, or whatever your "problema" truly is, should not be used here. Either stick to English (Lingua Franca here) or STFU!

  • Edited February 16, 2020 6:09 pm  by  MEDDLY

From: adwil


Yes that would probably explain why I'm not aware of priestly marriage. I certainly can't find any references to it. 

That was a detailed and interesting post. Thanks.


From: RGoss99


Sorry, but you continue to ignore two points already explained ...

1. I am more interested in the message, then wasting time by going back to edit spelling and gramar, which are only a problema when not standard when dealing with anal retentative trolls who have a brain fart, when they see an error because, as your post indicates you have no interest in my message anyway. For your rudeness, G=G+1 since your post is an off topic thread diversión, and as such is insulting.

2. I did not type the Word spelled "problema" as already explained, I typed "problem" but because I have a non English keyboard, and changing the setting to English would be counterprodictive since most of my typing is not in English, the letter "a" is automatic, and to get ride of it I have to go back and edit it out. There is no reason to do this because normal people are not bothered about it, since they are more interested in the message sent to them as opposed to lurking trolls who are only interested in putdowns. 

Question, if not interested in posts not addressed to you, why do you even bother to open them since you are only looking for an excuse to act like a troll?

I know that you choose to find my "G" posts insulting, but then again if you are so sensitive about my imaginary insults why do you have to pepper your posts with "STFU" which is obviously a non imaginary intentional insuclt, but then you and your Little troika of Friends are not really interested in communication anyway, just ego serving put downs.

Incidently the spelling "problema" and the Word, has reached American urban dictionaries as a form of modern slang.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


RGoss99 said:

I did not type the Word spelled "problema" as already explained, I typed "problem" but because I have a non English keyboard, and changing the setting to English would be counterprodictive since most of my typing is not in English

Problema is a consistent word of yours, I figured it was normal for you - as it's obviously Spanish - but I did not know your keyboard automatically finished the word that way.

What other words does it do this for?


From: RGoss99


Several other words, but I don´t keep track because they don´t bother me enough to go checking and edit them out because they have never affected the content of the message. Most people don´t even notice them because not being anal retentives focus on the message, instead of scanning the message for errors while avoiding the message, so they can be negative. There is an English auto correct that I do have to correct, but is so common that I simply avoid it. In English, the letter "I" standing alone is always upper case, but in all the other languages it is lower case. No problema in Spanish where the word for "and" is "y", in Catalá it is "i" which is changed to "I", so consciously I replace it with "&". The most annoying auto correct that I often don´t notice or change is that certain common nouns with initial lower case letters, get changed to upper case. For example three lines above here I typed "...where the Word for …" puts the "W" in upper case because the auto correct assumes I am referring to a Microsoft program. In which case if I notice it I go back and change it.

Note if you actually read the post to which you were referring you would not honestly be able to say that "Problema is a consistent word of yours" because, I never type it, as your quote of me states. Put simpler if I post (as you cited) "I did not type the Word spelled "problema"  (note the automatic upper case "W" in word) how can you justify posting "Problema is a consistent word of yours" in the same post.

Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)


May I ask what your mother tongue is?