"Catholic social teaching finds Church teaching lacking." by Bishop Dowling

[CMatt25]

I’m thinking that if Christ wanted the respledent image he never would have been born in a stable.

Nor worked as a carpenter by trade.

 

[CMatt25]

So you disagree with the Church?

The Church teaches now Jesus wasn’t born in a stable? I’m kinda thinking btw the inn where there was no room? Might not have exactly been a Hilton either.

 

[St_Francis]

The Church teaches now Jesus wasn’t born in a stable? I’m kinda thinking btw the inn where there was no room? Might not have exactly been a Hilton either.

The Church has always taught that we glorify God in several ways, one of which is to dedicate beautiful things to Him. The Church has taught this despite for 2000 years knowing that Christ chose to appear to us as a humble person born in a stable, and despite the fact that there were people in material want all along.

We are not to neglect the poor, nor are we to neglect God.

 

[Nec5]

As an earlier poster noted, the article has all the buzzwords of progressivism and relativism. It’s main weakness, however, is the lack of specifics. The author says we need more local control and more freedom to pursue God’s Truth. Like what? How about some specific issues? Is he talking female priests, the liturgy, the songs, pro-homosexuality? What?

Then he doesn’t offer counterarguments to obvious objections, a sure sign that he has not thought out the issues or is not very good at making his case.

1. He mentions that conservatism is on the rise in the Church and leftist views are becoming associated with “wrong” and “immoral”. Any casual observer can see why. The left advocates massive governmental control, God as a quaint and personal matter confined only within an individual’s darkest isolated room (no public square), pro-abortion, pro-gender as a spectrum, pro-homosexuality, etc. These run counter to the catechism and the Bible. Where is the author’s argument about why the left should still not be discounted? He should have mentioned these things as a collection of problems and then countered.
2. The argument for local control of churches immediately brings to mind all the Protestant communities. Few of them have a centralized authority that anyone really cares about or has to follow. Look what has happened; it’s a salad bar ranging from the bizarre to the corrupt. Where is his counter to this? Again, no specifics. If he’s arguing that masses should have local events catering to their specific parishioners, I don’t see anyone having a problem with that. If he’s arguing that it is okay for California to have gay marriages in pro-gay parishes, that is a different matter. Where are his specifics?

 

[St_Francis]

As an earlier poster noted, the article has all the buzzwords of progressivism and relativism. It’s main weakness, however, is the lack of specifics. The author says we need more local control and more freedom to pursue God’s Truth. Like what? How about some specific issues? Is he talking female priests, the liturgy, the songs, pro-homosexuality? What?..

One thing he advocated was the distrbution of condoms to those with HIV/AIDS in South Africa, where he is a bishop.

His current issue seems to be with the new translation for English-speakers, about which he wrote, "When the Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) received the new texts from the Vatican, my reaction to many of the proposed changes was that it was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in the first place, !] that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English…

…What this decision also means is that years and years of painstaking work on new liturgical texts by the original International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been set aside in place of implementing what has now been decided by the Vatican and the group with which it consults or works.

My personal views in this article are expressed out of deep concern about the hurt and damage decisions like these can cause to the People of God. **It cannot be presumed that thinking lay faithful, priests and religious are simply going to accept what is imposed on them from above when it makes no sense to them. **Hence the opposition expressed in the letters."

Sorry, I have heard too much of the pain caused to people when a previous liturgy was imposed upon them for no apparent reason to be able to agree that a return to prayers whch more fully express Catholic teaching is a bad idea. And istm that it is his job to explain the changes to the laity in his doicese rather than to join them in their discontent.

 

[Brendan]

I’m thinking that if Christ wanted the respledent image he never would have been born in a stable.

No, Christ DID want a splendid image of the Resurrection. That is why He showed Himself in that way on Mt Tabor, and that is why He gave St. John the visions of Heaven.

The stable is our old life, the life of sin. Christ was born into that so He could rescue us from it. Christ conquered that and now lives in Splendor.

Which do you want to celebrate?

Nor worked as a carpenter by trade.

Working for one’s bread is a fault of the sin of Adam, again, something Christ came to rescue us from.

You and Via would have our Mass model Gen 3:19 instead of John 20

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Self-governance ala subsidiarity doesn’t mean that priests and bishops get to change the rules and standards as they see fit. It means that local stuff (e.g. schools) shouldn’t be governed by the Vatican…which they aren’t. You can’t apply subsidiarity to dogma, such as the non-possibility of ordaining women, or discipline, such as priestly celibacy. Lower levels (priests and bishops) can’t have that authority, or our Church would fragment.

I agree with you. Another good example is producing translations of the bible and the mass. This was assigned to the national councils, but they weren’t happy with just translating… they had to come up with new wordings that weren’t faithful to the original. That’s not translation, thats making a new mass. So the Vatican had to take some of this authority back from them. If they had just done what they were supposed to, it could have worked fine.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Whatever simple attire and footwear or lack thereof Christ walked the earth in would suit me fine for his representatives. If it was good enough for our Lord should be good enough for His representatives. Well at least until a bishop walks on water wearng his cappa magna, transfigures himself, resurrects on the third day.

I think the difference here is that someone can choose to be humble, but other people shouldn’t impose it on them. Perhaps the resurrected Jesus would choose to wear simple clothes and live in poverty to show solidarity to the poor, like some monks do. But if Christ (or a monk, for that matter) visit my home, I’ll offer them the best of everything. It’s up to them to refuse it. It’s not up to us to tell them to dress poorly. It’s one thing for a bishop to be humble outside of the mass, but when in the mass, he is representing the glorified Christ. Here’s a description of the glorified Christ from scripture:

Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and when I turned, I saw seven gold lampstands and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest. The hair of his head was as white as white wool or as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame. His feet were like polished brass refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing water. In his right hand he held seven stars.

 

[Tigg]

I’m thinking that if Christ wanted the respledent image he never would have been born in a stable.

And HIS majesty and transcendent glory will NOT be denied HIM after first showing us that he chose to come to us with humility of heart.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m thinking that if Christ wanted the respledent image he never would have been born in a stable.

If Christ didn’t want His priests clothed royally, or worship offered to God of ‘the best’, then Cain’s offering would not have been found inferior, Aaron and the high priests would have dressed ‘simply’, there would have been no Ark of the Covenant, and the Church itself would have been guided to your ‘dirtpoor simplicity’ by the Holy Spirit from the start.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know what really puzzles me?

That some people who think that the Church is absolutely WRONG on everything from cardinals’ robes to artwork, who are convinced the Church has gone ‘off the rails’ at some point (never completely specified). . .

But these people think that they: with absolutely no personal authority, based solely on their personal opinion. .

have gotten it all right.

Christ’s Church is all wrong, but these shining examples of Catholicism know the real truth and the fact that it is distortion or outright denial of Church teaching means nothing to them. . .they know for sure that their own personal ‘study’ or ‘understanding’ is right and the Church is wrong.

If the Church (which we know from Scripture and Tradition is guided infallibly in faith and morals) is somehow wrong, why do these people trust that the parts of Church teaching which they **accept and drum beat as REAL TEACHING **are any more correct than the parts of Church teaching that they reject???

Seems very selective to me, to accept bits and pieces of Church teaching and then to insist that other teachings are ‘wrong.’

 

[CMatt25]

Ah, but the Mass is a celebration of Christ’s Resurrection. Therefore the person who is in persona Christi should vest in a way that most resembles the Risen Christ, the Transfigured Christ, Christ in His Glory and Radiance.

For that is how Christ is now at this very minute, and that is how Christ will come again. The rags are gone, left in the tomb. Christ now sits in Splendor and Light upon the Cherubim Throne.

Ok but just be sure to let me know when a sinless priest ascends into heaven during Mass. That’s my pt.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok but just be sure to let me know when a sinless priest ascends into heaven during Mass. That’s my pt.

Let’s get this straight --you’re arguing that because nobody now is sinless, that nobody gets to dress in anything but rags and ‘simple attire?’

Several times now I have brought up Aaron and the Jewish high priests and God’s MANDATE for them to dress richly.

WHERE is the Scripture that abrogated God’s mandate for His priests and told them, “Stop with the fine linen and gems, and the rich vessels that I instituted with my Chosen people the Israelites! From now on, because My son walked on the earth and fed the poor, you must only wear ‘cheap clothes’. . .even though My Son’s TUNIC was so well made that the soldiers threw dice for it because it was FINE WEAR, SEAMLESS and WELL MADE -”. . .

And the tradition that the apostles absolutely held to this, and accepted no gifts for God other than ‘food for the poor’.

 

[CMatt25]

The stable is our old life, the life of sin. Christ was born into that so He could rescue us from it. Christ conquered that and now lives in Splendor.

You and Via would have our Mass model Gen 3:19 instead of John 20

Jesus actually was from the beginning of Genesis. (Jn 1:1, 14) But no not me. I believe Christ already paid the price for us. The Church though still has a lot of hoops for us to jump thru. Things with hoops can be sweaty. (Gen 3:19) Take basketball for instance.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Jesus actually was from the beginning of Genesis. (Jn 1:1, 14) But no not me. I believe Christ already paid the price for us. The Church though still has a lot of hoops for us to jump thru. Things with hoops can be sweaty. (Gen 3:19) Take basketball for instance.

What does basketball have to do with wearing a Cappa Magna?

 

[canadianguy1143]

Ok but just be sure to let me know when a sinless priest ascends into heaven during Mass. That’s my pt.

What point would that be?

 

[St_Francis]

Ok but just be sure to let me know when a sinless priest ascends into heaven during Mass. That’s my pt.

Do you understand what *in persona Christi *means?

 

[CMatt25]

What does basketball have to do with wearing a Cappa Magna?

I was responding to the poster who tried to say I wanted to go back to sweat. But you’re right. Playing basketball in a Cappa Magna probably not the best idea.

 

[CMatt25]

Let’s get this straight --you’re arguing that because nobody now is sinless, that nobody gets to dress in anything but rags and ‘simple attire?’

Several times now I have brought up Aaron and the Jewish high priests and God’s MANDATE for them to dress richly.

WHERE is the Scripture that abrogated God’s mandate for His priests and told them, “Stop with the fine linen and gems, and the rich vessels that I instituted with my Chosen people the Israelites! From now on, because My son walked on the earth and fed the poor, you must only wear ‘cheap clothes’. . .even though My Son’s TUNIC was so well made that the soldiers threw dice for it because it was FINE WEAR, SEAMLESS and WELL MADE -”. . .

And the tradition that the apostles absolutely held to this, and accepted no gifts for God other than ‘food for the poor’.

Tantum, Tantum, Tantum my dear friend. :nope: No one is arguing you must wear rags. And a Cappa Magna is far from simple attire. I’m sure your long sleeved top and my nice clean cargos could sit perfectly well in the pew next to each other. I know you might frown upon me during the Sign of Peace though.

Nor is anyone arguing no spiritual gifts. But you can’t be spiritually noursished without seeing a Cappa Magna? Christ nourished droves without one. Peace to you Tantum.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum, Tantum, Tantum my dear friend. :nope: No one is arguing you must wear rags. And a Cappa Magna is far from simple attire. I’m sure your long sleeved top and my nice clean cargos could sit perfectly well in the pew next to each other. I know you might frown upon me during the Sign of Peace though.

Nor is anyone arguing no spiritual gifts. But you can’t be spiritually noursished without seeing a Cappa Magna? Christ nourished droves without one. Peace to you Tantum.

And you can also be spiritually nourished with seeing said Cappa Magna, my dear brother.

What exactly gives YOU the authority to determine what a bishop of the Church must wear in order to adhere to "the teachings of Christ’ and to fault him for wearing the Cappa Magna? I’m just wondering. . . .

You still haven’t given me the Scripture and apostolic tradition that Christ ‘changed’ the requirements for priests with regard to clothing and to ‘vessels’ and to the appearance and materials for ‘temples’ etc., and made it not only a requirement that all be ‘plain and simple’ and everything offered to God was ONLY to be ‘food for the poor’, not art, not beauty, not ‘riches’, but only ‘food for the poor’ and ONLY ‘earthly food at that. . .but that any cleric who DARED to wear a ‘rich robe’ was taking food away from the poor, and anybody who offered anything (clothing, gold chalice, materials to build a church, altar linens, flowers, art etc.) to God was ‘taking food away from the poor’ in doing so, and this ALL should be SOLD and given to the poor. . .just like Jesus insisted on a ‘do-over’ with the woman and the alabaster jar, miraculously’ gathering up the oil and telling Judas–"take this ointment and sell it and give it to the poor, I don’t NEED anybody offering me riches, only food for the poor, earthly food, is what I demand. . ."