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

[CMatt25]

Do you understand what *in persona Christi *means?

No I’m too ignorant.

Benedict even said they are an alter Christus, another Christ.

“As an alter Christus, the priest is profoundly united to the Word of the Father who, in becoming incarnate took the form of a servant, he became a servant (Phil 2: 5-11). The priest is a servant of Christ, in the sense that his existence, configured to Christ ontologically, acquires an essentially relational character: he is in Christ, for Christ and with Christ, at the service of humankind. Because he belongs to Christ, the priest is radically at the service of all people: he is the minister of their salvation, their happiness and their authentic liberation, developing, in this gradual assumption of Christ’s will, in prayer, in “being heart to heart” with him. Therefore this is the indispensable condition for every proclamation, which entails participation in the sacramental offering of the Eucharist and docile obedience to the Church.” - Pope Benedict XVI 24 June 2009

But during the Mass he serves in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. The real one is present of course though too.

 

[St_Francis]

No I’m too ignorant.

Benedict even said they are an alter Christus, another Christ.

“As an alter Christus, the priest is profoundly united to the Word of the Father who, in becoming incarnate took the form of a servant, he became a servant (Phil 2: 5-11). The priest is a servant of Christ, in the sense that his existence, configured to Christ ontologically, acquires an essentially relational character: he is in Christ, for Christ and with Christ, at the service of humankind. Because he belongs to Christ, the priest is radically at the service of all people: he is the minister of their salvation, their happiness and their authentic liberation, developing, in this gradual assumption of Christ’s will, in prayer, in “being heart to heart” with him. Therefore this is the indispensable condition for every proclamation, which entails participation in the sacramental offering of the Eucharist and docile obedience to the Church.” - Pope Benedict XVI 24 June 2009

But during the Mass he serves in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. The real one is present of course though too.

So what was your point about the sinfulness of the priest? So what if he is sinful–when he is acting in persona Christi he is not there as himself and should be clothed as we would like to cloth our Savior.

 

[CMatt25]

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. . ."

1Sam 16:7 And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge according to the look of man: for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.

1Cor 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor, for your sakes; that through his poverty you might be rich.

Mk 12:38 - 39 In the course of his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues…

Luke 7:25 Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces.

No Tantum. They did not go see a messenger of Christ dressed in fine garments.

God bless you always my friend as we walk together with Him along our paths of spiritual nourishment and peace to you always.

 

[CMatt25]

So what was your point about the sinfulness of the priest? So what if he is sinful–when he is acting in persona Christi he is not there as himself and should be clothed as we would like to cloth our Savior.

It is not about how “we” would like to clothe our Savior Servant. Peace.

 

[St_Francis]

It is not how “we” would like to clothe our Savior. It is what He wanted to wear to serve us.

God told us how to dress the priests in the OT. The Church, the Body of Christ,has continued along these lines for 2000 years. So, as I asked Via Dolorosa, you disagree with the Church?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1Sam 16:7 And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge according to the look of man: for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.

1Cor 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich he became poor, for your sakes; that through his poverty you might be rich.

Mk 12:38 - 39 In the course of his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces, seats of honor in synagogues…

Luke 7:25 Then what did you go out to see? Someone dressed in fine garments? Those who dress luxuriously and live sumptuously are found in royal palaces.

No Tantum. They did not go see a messenger of Christ dressed in fine garments.

God bless you always my friend as we walk together with Him along our paths of spiritual nourishment and peace to you always.

And THIS is what you use? Cherry picking of Scripture as a claim that Jesus would ‘only’ wear plain clothes and that priests (you do not address priests, Levitical priests, Matt) are to wear plain clothes?

What of the Scripture, Matt, where God demands that Aaron and the LEVITICAL PRIESTS dress richly?

A PROPHET may wear ‘a robe of camel’s hair’. . there is nothing in Scripture that says that a priest must wear plain things.

And as for the charges of ‘luxury and sumptuous living’. . . pray tell, Matt, what is 'luxury"? Do the bishops **own the robes, own the chalices, own the art work? **

Isn’t the laborer 'worthy of his hire"?

**I find it very, very sad that you are judging on ‘appearances’ Matt. I find it sad that you seem to think your cherry picking is authentic Magesterial authority, guaranteed infallibily from error in regard to faith and morals. **

**I also find it telling that the Scripture where a man actually complains that a rich ointment ‘should have been sold and the money given to the poor’ was rebuked by Jesus. REBUKED! Because what was offered was offered to Him. He didn’t say, “I don’t NEED this ointment” (though certainly He did not need it). . .He didn’t say that He could not accept it because it TOOK FOOD FROM THE POOR. **

---

I’d be AWFULLY leery, myself, of siding with anybody other than Jesus–and Jesus, Matt, is not telling us what YOU are telling us, that priests and bishops are guilty of ‘luxury’, that their ‘robes’ and the art in Church’ takes away from the poor. The person in Scripture who DID align with your views isn’t Christ but Judas. . .

 

[CMatt25]

God told us how to dress the priests in the OT. The Church, the Body of Christ,has continued along these lines for 2000 years. So, as I asked Via Dolorosa, you disagree with the Church?

I can’t speak for Via. But yes I disagree with the degree the Church has gone in Her extravagance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I can’t speak for Via. But yes I disagree with the degree the Church has gone in Her extravagance.

Extravagance? Pretty harsh words, Matt. I repeat, where did you come by the authority and assurance that your personal ‘judgment’ of ‘extravagance’ is guaranteed to be correct?

Who gets to keep the laundry list of exactly what ‘degree’ is too ‘extravagant’? Why do we trust that you ‘got it right’ and the Church ‘got it wrong?’

 

[rlg94086]

I can’t speak for Via. But yes I disagree with the degree the Church has gone in Her extravagance.

I can’t speak for the Church, but I believe you are free to hold that opinion. However, I don’t believe it has any bearing on on anyone’s salvation. What I would recommend, if it is a big concern for you, is to take a vow of poverty yourself. This is what St Francis did (not the poster…the saint ), so I’m certain there is good precedence for that.

 

[CMatt25]

And THIS is what you use? Cherry picking of Scripture as a claim that Jesus would ‘only’ wear plain clothes and that priests (you do not address priests, Levitical priests, Matt) are to wear plain clothes?

What of the Scripture, Matt, where God demands that Aaron and the LEVITICAL PRIESTS dress richly?

A PROPHET may wear ‘a robe of camel’s hair’. . there is nothing in Scripture that says that a priest must wear plain things.

And as for the charges of ‘luxury and sumptuous living’. . . pray tell, Matt, what is 'luxury"? Do the bishops **own the robes, own the chalices, own the art work? **

Isn’t the laborer 'worthy of his hire"?

**I find it very, very sad that you are judging on ‘appearances’ Matt. I find it sad that you seem to think your cherry picking is authentic Magesterial authority, guaranteed infallibily from error in regard to faith and morals. **

**I also find it telling that the Scripture where a man actually complains that a rich ointment ‘should have been sold and the money given to the poor’ was rebuked by Jesus. REBUKED! Because what was offered was offered to Him. He didn’t say, “I don’t NEED this ointment” (though certainly He did not need it). . .He didn’t say that He could not accept it because it TOOK FOOD FROM THE POOR. **

---

I’d be AWFULLY leery, myself, of siding with anybody other than Jesus–and Jesus, Matt, is not telling us what YOU are telling us, that priests and bishops are guilty of ‘luxury’, that their ‘robes’ and the art in Church’ takes away from the poor. The person in Scripture who DID align with your views isn’t Christ but Judas. . .

Tantum perhaps you cherry pick the OT Jewish priests just a bit much. With Christ a new dawn appeared. Belief in a child dressed in swaddling clothes, born in a manger. Our new High priest Who became man. A carpenter by trade. A servant. Not living in a palace as a king. He taught a new faith. A faith where He was crucified paying the price for our sins. Believe in Him, in this High priest and you shall have life last everlasting He taught.

We may disagree on how much “ointment” vs giving to the poor. And you may judge my partially bare legs at Mass. Though the Apostle James taught not to judge a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes better than a person in shabby clothes. And you may judge me “Judas”. But I know you believe in Him, Tantum. As do I. Peace.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum perhaps you cherry pick the OT Jewish priests just a bit much. With Christ a new dawn appeared. Belief in a child dressed in swaddling clothes, born in a manger. Our new High priest Who became man. A carpenter by trade. A servant. Not living in a palace as a king. He taught a new faith. A faith where He was crucified paying the price for our sins. Believe in Him, in this High priest and you shall have life last everlasting He taught.

We may disagree on how much “ointment” vs giving to the poor. And you may judge my partially bare legs at Mass. Though the Apostle James taught not to judge a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes better than a person in shabby clothes. And you may judge me “Judas”. But I know you believe in Him, Tantum. As do I. Peace.

Matt, if Christianity were nothing more than an individual’s interpretation of Scripture, you and I could play ‘cherry pick’ till the cows come home.

But Christianity is not just in how “Matt” sees this verse, or how “Tantum” sees another.

Matt, I have the support of the Church (whose authority was guaranteed by Christ Himself). You. . . do not, where you go ‘against’ Her. I’m not saying that you aren’t sincere in your beliefs . … no doubt you feel you are ‘closer’ to the ‘truth’ and you wonder WHY I am so ‘blind’ not to see what you unquestionably ‘accept’ as truth.

I’m not saying that as an individual I can’t err. Even if I directly copy and paste from the Catechism, the catechism itself could contain a spelling error --oops, I’ve made an error, some will say! So obviously I could ‘think’ I was expounding authentic Catholic teaching but if I copy/pasted one of those ‘uh-ohs’ (Thou SHALT commit adultery, for example), I’d have the APPEARANCE of error even though I just ‘overlooked’ the error and was sure that I had put the correct thou shalt NOT commit adultery. Provided I knew the truth, my own ‘lacks’ are not the errors of the Church but the errors of a person.

But when it comes to taking a truth, putting it out clearly, and then deliberately denying it in favor of something which is NOT taught by the Church, and claiming that the second teaching is "true’ or ‘better’. . .that isn’t a simple error of communication, that is deliberate error.

Now, if I am in error (as you seem to be saying) kindly point me out the authority that says that YOU are right in your denunciation of the Church itself as ‘extravagant’ and that this is the Church deliberately DENYING the words of the Master and teaching falsehood as truth.

Because otherwise, Matt, you just have an opinion that bishops are too ‘gaudy’ for **your personal taste here in AD 2010. You just have an OPINION that Christ would have ‘wanted’ nothing but plain clothes, ONLY plain clothes and cheap vessels, and all else to ‘go to feed the mouths only of the poor’. You’re just using ‘cherry picking’ to support your personal belief in spite of 2000 years of Scripture and tradition that deny that personal belief. That is very Protestant type thinking. **

 

[tpw]

I have to disagree with your comments. You’ve simply read your prejudices into what Bishop Dowling was talking about and in the process ignored what the entire article is really all about.

Speaking from a South African perspective which I suspect none of us on this thread knows the least about, he rails against centralized authority that is so rigid that local churches (i.e. national synods) aren’t given enough freedom to address issues of concern for their countries or their dioceses. The tools are there - principles of Catholic social teaching. What’s apparently lacking in Dowling’s view is the freedom to apply them to their own situation.

It’s viritually impossible for people in this country to grasp what issues are of significant concern in other countries. That’s what Catholic social teaching is there for - to provide the local church with the means to read the signs of the time in their context.

His introductory comments are intended to call into question a form of traditionalism that fails to recognize the tremendous damage done in many countries by the sex abuse scandal. Unfortunately, the bishops in many countries lost all kinds of moral credibility because of it. To pretend that wearing elaborate liturigcal vestments will translate into authentic worship is absurd - that’s his point.

Another thread on this post seems to discount what young adults are searching for. On one hand Dowling speaks of his pastoral experience in Europe where young, well-educated adults are profoundly aware of grave injustices in the world and are searching for something or someone to help rally support for their concerns. On the other hand he also mentions the other phenomenon of the attraction of young adults to the more traditional spiritual and moral guidance of the church. He didn’t dismiss it. He simply implies that Catholic social teaching will be a draw for many. And from my experience that is definitely true. We really have a lot to offer for young adults, their interests and their passions. Young adults are the future of the church. To simply dismiss their concerns is to shoot Christ’s church in the foot.

His comments re: the prohibition of discussion by the Vatican of topics like married clergy or the ordination of women were intended as examples of where there has been a reactionary backlash in the church starting from the Roman curia who are apparently unable or unwilling to listen. Somehow some in the curia believe that talking about such things is going to stop people from discussing them. It’s as one person observed “the battered wives syndrome”…beat somebody down long enough to silence them and then pretend there is no problems.

For those on this thread who dismiss such concerns that he raises then you are challenged to offer a way of drawing a wide group of people - young adults - into the church. Wearing elaborate liturgical garments is hardly appealing on any score.

Re: rags - hmmm - one of the few persons to recieve a stigmata Francis of Assisi was not known to concern himself with elaborate liturgical dress. While respectful liturgical garments are necessary - a retreat into the past with greater concern for outlandish liturgical wear - and it doesn’t matter whether its donated or not (BTW - I wonder what the person’s intentions and priorities are in paying such elaborate sums for liturgical wear - it wouldn’t be the first time that weathly donors tried to control the church and undermine its’ spiritual and moral leadership) does very little to lead a person to authentic holiness.

Finally, as Dowling notes at the conclusion of his talk - the real crisis is bridging the gap between traditionalists and so-called progressives. Talking past each other has unfortunately become an ingrained habit. Belittling or pointing accusatory fingers at those who believe a whole host of issues are not being addressed constructively does nothing. It only becomes yet another way of pretending to live in an stable church when in fact deeper questions (and here I’m not simply talking of ordination issues) are left unattended.

Marriages on the rocks don’t suddenly fix themselves when the couple involved don’t talk to each other. Bumpy roads in the life of the church aren’t going to disappear because significant matters are no longer talked about either.

 

[CMatt25]

Extravagance? Pretty harsh words, Matt. I repeat, where did you come by the authority and assurance that your personal ‘judgment’ of ‘extravagance’ is guaranteed to be correct?

Who gets to keep the laundry list of exactly what ‘degree’ is too ‘extravagant’? Why do we trust that you ‘got it right’ and the Church ‘got it wrong?’

Tantum, you know me better than that. We have faith and belief. Not absolute certainty that me nor the Church has “got it right or wrong”. That’s why we call it faith. Peace in your faith Tantum as we, united in Him, await the coming of the One Whom called Himself Truth.

 

[Brendan]

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

But the Priest is the alter Christus. He IS Christ during the Mass.

It doesn’t matter a bit of the person of the priest is the most unrepentant, vile sinner in the world, when he ascends the steps to the altar, Christ takes over! The sinless High Priest offers the Sinless Lamb to the Father.

That is why things the the cappa Magna, and gold vestments are so important; they remind us who the True Celebrant of the Mass is.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

So what was your point about the sinfulness of the priest? So what if he is sinful–when he is acting in persona Christi he is not there as himself and should be clothed as we would like to cloth our Savior.

Where is the sinfulness of priest argument coming from? Who said anything about sin?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

But the Priest is the alter Christus. He IS Christ during the Mass.

So?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum, you know me better than that. We have faith and belief. Not absolute certainty that me nor the Church has “got it right or wrong”. Peace in your faith Tantum as we. united in Him, await the coming of the One Whom called Himself Truth.

Matt if you don’t know that the Church infallibly ‘has it right’ regarding matters of faith and morals–if you feel you can’t have ‘absolute certainty’ as to the Church being right–then I tremble for you.

Look, I know we are human. There is such as thing as having doubts and a lack of ‘absolute certainty’ 100% of the time. . .but I don’t think that is what you’re saying, Matt.

Rather what I hear from you is more, "Because no person can be 100% certain 100% of the time, a person can NEVER be absolutely certain at all, therefore I can believe that the Church can be wrong and I can be right if I disagree with her, even on the most explicit teachings, because my understanding of ‘absolute certainty’ is that it can never be achieved, so all teachings are thus ‘uncertain’. "

 

[Brendan]

So?

The Celebrant of the Mass is the Resurrected Christ, Respendant in Glory. The ornate vestments of the priest are a sign of that.

And fuller signs are always the best signs

 

[rlg94086]

And you may judge my partially bare legs at Mass. Though the Apostle James taught not to judge a man with gold rings on his fingers and in fine clothes better than a person in shabby clothes. And you may judge me “Judas”. But I know you believe in Him, Tantum. As do I. Peace.

It’s interesting that you would compare your “nice clean cargos” to “a person in shabby clothes.” If the best clothes someone has to wear are “shabby,” then they shouldn’t be judged. However, by showing up to Mass in your “nice clean cargos,” it is equivalent to showing up to a wedding in your “nice clean cargos.” Would you do that? Would you tell the bridegroom, “don’t judge me?”

The question is not “what are you wearing?” Rather, it is “why are you wearing what you wear?”

btw…why are you allowed to judge our priests/bishops on their garments, but no one is allowed to judge you based on your garments? Seems like a double standard to me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, Via and Matt (as proponents of the “bishops and priests dress too fancy” theory). …what exactly is your understanding of the vestments (to name just one item) worn by clergy? What is their development? Their symbolism? How did the development arise? What are the Scriptural and traditional bases for such?

And if you still think them ‘too fancy’ where is your authority to determine them as such against all the above?