Changes in catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Young_Ludovicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Young_Ludovicus

Guest
NOTE: This thread goes about changes that could happen/ should happen / shouldn’t happen. And what would realistically be possible.

-Female Priesthood: NO
-Female Diaconate: YES
In my understanding there’s no room for a female priesthood. But I do think positive about a female diaconate. In several orthodox churches there are female deaconesses.
The Japanese-, Russian-, Bulgarian- and Romanian Orthodox churches have currently (or have a history of) a female diaconate.

-Cardinals: MORE (And more inclusive)
Today only catholic bishops can become cardinals.
I would want to change this to all catholic laity to be able to be chosen as a cardinal.
Theologians (also female ones), munks, nuns, priests, permanent deacons etc. all should be able to be chosen as cardinals. Ofcourse only a catholic male could be chosen as pope.

Today it seems like cardinals are viewed as a step above bishops, but they are still bishops. Cardinals shouldn’t be this elite little club, their task should be choosing a new bishop of Rome.

-Married Priesthood: YES
Ofcourse this implies that the priest was already married before any ordination. And he married a devout catholic woman. But I think this should be possible. Though I would want archbishops to have controle if their dioceses would allow a married priest serving within their diocese. In no way am I trying to discredit a celibate priesthood.

-Personal Ordinariates: MORE
Lutherans who want to join the CC should be able to retain some parts of their liturgy etc. like the Anglicans did.

-Rites: MORE
I strongly believe in diversity in unity. And people should be allowed to celebrate God and the eucharist in different ways. Hebrew Catholics should be able to have their own rite for example.

-Contraception (?)
I don’t understand why there’s so much of a focus on contraception when natural family planning is perfectly fine. Intervening God’s work in the bed room is not that great. But if they otherwise are open for children and if they are welcoming of any other pregnacies that might occure. I don’t see it really as a sin.

Abortion on the other hand is murder. So I can’t understand why contraception and abortion seem to be lumped together when one of those is clearly worse on all levels.

-Marriage (?)
I also don’t understand why we have anullments instead of divorce. Believe me I know that divorces are bad. But I don’t really buy that the marriage never happened in the first place. If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would want to divorce her. But to say that there never was a marriage seems like a lie to me.

-Downplay of the papacy
The pope should be referred to as the bishop of Rome. I don’t like titles like Pontifex Maximus, Servant of the servants of God or Apostolic Lord. But the most important reason they should downplay the tone of the papacy is because it causes division within christianity. And I long for the day that the Great Schism is solved.
I’m hoping for more of a decentralasation within Catholicism.

-More effort to fix the schisms with EO, OO and Syriac christianity.
There could be diversity in unity. Altough this would take years and years before it bears fruit. As of now I’m positive that within 60 years EO and RC will be one once more.

I also have some difficulties with some dogmas but I’m not going to dwell there.

Some people might wonder why I’m eager and yearn for catholicism despite wanting all these changes. But I see the Catholic Chruch as the church instituted by a Jew named Yeshua Bar Josef who appointed a man named Shimon as Kepa (Rock). That church broke off in several pieces. But the biggest and best chunk resides in the Catholic church, the church where the succesor of Kepa resides.​

Anyway bring forth your own changes which you would want or changes you don’t want.
You also could give me feedback about my post. And explain me why some things wouldn’t be open for change or why they shouldn’t.

-Young Ludovicus
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
NOTE: This thread goes about changes that could happen/ should happen / shouldn’t happen. And what would realistically be possible.

-Female Priesthood: NO
-Female Diaconate: YES
In my understanding there’s no room for a female priesthood. But I do think positive about a female diaconate. In several orthodox churches there are female deaconesses.
The Japanese-, Russian-, Bulgarian- and Romanian Orthodox churches have currently (or have a history of) a female diaconate.

-Cardinals: MORE (And more inclusive)
Today only catholic bishops can become cardinals.
I would want to change this to all catholic laity to be able to be chosen as a cardinal.
Theologians (also female ones), munks, nuns, priests, permanent deacons etc. all should be able to be chosen as cardinals. Ofcourse only a catholic male could be chosen as pope.

Today it seems like cardinals are viewed as a step above bishops, but they are still bishops. Cardinals shouldn’t be this elite little club, their task should be choosing a new bishop of Rome.

-Married Priesthood: YES
Ofcourse this implies that the priest was already married before any ordination. And he married a devout catholic woman. But I think this should be possible. Though I would want archbishops to have controle if their dioceses would allow a married priest serving within their diocese. In no way am I trying to discredit a celibate priesthood.

-Personal Ordinariates: MORE
Lutherans who want to join the CC should be able to retain some parts of their liturgy etc. like the Anglicans did.

-Rites: MORE
I strongly believe in diversity in unity. And people should be allowed to celebrate God and the eucharist in different ways. Hebrew Catholics should be able to have their own rite for example.

-Contraception (?)
I don’t understand why there’s so much of a focus on contraception when natural family planning is perfectly fine. Intervening God’s work in the bed room is not that great. But if they otherwise are open for children and if they are welcoming of any other pregnacies that might occure. I don’t see it really as a sin.

Abortion on the other hand is murder. So I can’t understand why contraception and abortion seem to be lumped together when one of those is clearly worse on all levels.

-Marriage (?)
I also don’t understand why we have anullments instead of divorce. Believe me I know that divorces are bad. But I don’t really buy that the marriage never happened in the first place. If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would want to divorce her. But to say that there never was a marriage seems like a lie to me.

-Downplay of the papacy
The pope should be referred to as the bishop of Rome. I don’t like titles like Pontifex Maximus, Servant of the servants of God or Apostolic Lord. But the most important reason they should downplay the tone of the papacy is because it causes division within christianity. And I long for the day that the Great Schism is solved.
I’m hoping for more of a decentralasation within Catholicism.

-More effort to fix the schisms with EO, OO and Syriac christianity.
There could be diversity in unity. Altough this would take years and years before it bears fruit. As of now I’m positive that within 60 years EO and RC will be one once more.

I also have some difficulties with some dogmas but I’m not going to dwell there.

Some people might wonder why I’m eager and yearn for catholicism despite wanting all these changes. But I see the Catholic Chruch as the church instituted by a Jew named Yeshua Bar Josef who appointed a man named Shimon as Kepa (Rock). That church broke off in several pieces. But the biggest and best chunk resides in the Catholic church, the church where the succesor of Kepa resides.​

Anyway bring forth your own changes which you would want or changes you don’t want.
You also could give me feedback about my post. And explain me why some things wouldn’t be open for change or why they shouldn’t.

-Young Ludovicus
Click to expand...
Contraception has been banned from the beginning. It isn’t going to change. I can put some quotes from Church fathers who condemned it.

Some people are coerced into marriage or secretly planned on being closed to life in their marriage. Also hiding a big secret could invalidate the marriage. Some marriages are not valid to begin with, but the problem must be present when the couple is getting married not after it.

I hope to see the east coming back in communion to Rome but I don’t think I will be alive to see it when it happens.
 
The only way there could be a female diaconate would be for it to be a non-ordained ministry. Deacon is the first ‘Order’ in Holy Orders: Deacon, Priest, Bishop. Deacons are ordained. Woman cannot be ordained. So if there were to be female deacons they would have to be called something else in order to avoid confusion.
 
Contraception: I am firmly convinced that the acceptance of contraception has been an unmitigated evil for society. It enabled the sexual revolution and all the ills that came from it. Read “Adam and Eve After the Pill” by Mary Eberstadt to review the disastrous consequences.

I would also note that up until 1930, every Protestant denomination had the exact same teaching about contraception as the Catholic Church. All the Protestant reformers condemned it. It has been a consistent teaching for 2,000 years. In the 1920 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church roundly condemned it. In the 1930 Conference they made a small opening for exceptional cases, which became a gusher. It’s been a disaster.
 
Marriage and Decrees of Nullity. The large number of annulments granted seems disgraceful. But keep in mind that Jesus said that marriage was for life and that divorce was prohibited. His hearers did not like the teaching then, and it’s still not popular.

When I was in Catholic high school, many distant decades ago, we were told to be careful about who we chose to marry, because there could be no divorce. If it turned out we did not like the spouse, we’d better learn to get along, because if we got a (civil) divorce, we could never marry again, since we already had a spouse who was still alive.

Decrees of nullity might be viewed as a mitigation of this. The tribunal agrees to look at the beginning of marriage to determine whether or not it was valid from the beginning. If it was, it cannot be broken (Jesus’ words.) If it was invalid from the start, it never existed, and one was free to marry.

Again, the key here is that the Church takes Jesus’ teaching at face value. It does not have the ability to overturn his teaching.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
NOTE: This thread goes about changes that could happen/ should happen / shouldn’t happen. And what would realistically be possible.

-Female Priesthood: NO
-Female Diaconate: YES

-Cardinals: MORE (And more inclusive)

-Married Priesthood: YES
Ofcourse this implies that the priest was already married before any ordination. And he married a devout catholic woman. But I think this should be possible. Though I would want archbishops to have controle if their dioceses would allow a married priest serving within their diocese. In no way am I trying to discredit a celibate priesthood.

-Personal Ordinariates: MORE

-Rites: MORE

-Contraception (?)

-Marriage (?)

-Downplay of the papacy

-More effort to fix the schisms with EO, OO and Syriac christianity.
Anyway bring forth your own changes which you would want or changes you don’t want.
You also could give me feedback about my post. And explain me why some things wouldn’t be open for change or why they shouldn’t.

-Young Ludovicus
Click to expand...
Female priests- NO, Female deacons - NO, Deaconesses - possibly. Deaconess is not a female deacon.

Cardinals - more -NO, we have too many as it is. No theological reason they all have to be bishops but I would not like to see lay Cardinals. Besides being the electors, Cardinals are the princes of the Church. I don’t think that is a role appropriate for a layperson.

Married priesthood - yes, possible. I would never (unless on my deathbed) go to Confession to a married priest and would try not to belong to a parish pastored by one, but certainly possible. Just my personal preference.

Personal ordinariates and other rites, sure, if there’s a good reason.

Contraception - theologically impossible

Abortion - likewise.

Marriage - lifelong bond. The Orthodox position notwithstanding, I don’t see how we could accept divorce and still believe that marriage is forever.

Downplay (?) the Papacy - absouluely not. We don’t give enough honor to the Papacy as it is. And a lesser emphasis on the Pope will not hasten Christian unity. If the Pope is just another Bishop, why rejoin the Church?

More effort to heal schisms. Yes, but there has already been increasing efforts in this regard. It’s not a unilateral act, however, and the efforts on both sides have waxed and waned over the centuries.
 
While married priests are theologically possible, the reason why they are so desired now is precisely why they won’t happen anytime soon.

The sexual revolution has made the general culture uncomfortable with chastity and celibacy. That per se is not a reason to change anything.

Nor is a shortage of clergy, as this has surfaced only very recently, but priestly celibacy is over 900 years old.

ICXC NIKA
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
I also don’t understand why we have anullments instead of divorce. Believe me I know that divorces are bad. But I don’t really buy that the marriage never happened in the first place. If I was married and my wife cheated on me I would want to divorce her. But to say that there never was a marriage seems like a lie to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. And BTW, it seems that His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper has said that in some cases a marriage annulment is a divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.
 
The Church has no power to dissolve a validly contracted, consummated, sacramental marriage.
 
I think you need to work out the fact that you label yourself as an “agnostic Catholic” before you concern yourself with anything else.
 
An annulment is the Church’s way of saying that the marriage wasn’t valid or sacramental for some reason. I mean, I got a divorce in 1987, and became a Catholic in 1997. A year later I applied for an annulment. It was granted because there was apparently enough evidence that my ex entered the relationship without any thought as to actually being married. I mean, to him, I was married but he wasn’t. Makes no sense, right? Everything was pushed off on me, while he ran around acting like he wasn’t married. He didn’t want to support me in any way. Anyway, it turned out to be a nasty marriage with some abuse thrown in. That’s the only way I can think of to describe the situation. He was holding out on me.
 
Elizium23 said:
Nullity investigations do not concern themselves with sacramentality.
Click to expand...
You are right. The only question is one of validity. And non-sacramental marriages can be valid–in fact, are presumed to be valid until shown to be invalid.
 
Ok, so what makes a marriage invalid? I believe that one person entering the marriage lightly, without intention to uphold the vows, is something that makes the marriage invalid.
 
Christy_Beth said:
Ok, so what makes a marriage invalid? I believe that one person entering the marriage lightly, without intention to uphold the vows, is something that makes the marriage invalid.
Click to expand...
All kinds of things. Diriment impediments listed in Canon Law, lack of canonical form, lack of jurisdiction, coercion, and yes, deception or incomplete consent. But this discussion is rather beyond the scope of this particular thread.
 
1ke said:
I think you need to work out the fact that you label yourself as an “agnostic Catholic” before you concern yourself with anything else.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is a polite way of reacting. Catholics taking that kind of an attitude when talking to possible converts or nominal catholics are detrimental to the evangelisation of the Church.

I’m not saying I am going to change some things, I’m just listing ideas I or anyone else would like to see,

''NOTE: This thread goes about changes that could happen/ should happen / shouldn’t happen. And what would realistically be possible.​

Anyway bring forth your own changes which you would want or changes you don’t want.
You also could give me feedback about my post. And explain me why some things wouldn’t be open for change or why they shouldn’t.’’

I label myself as an agnostic catholic because I didn’t know any other way to name myself. I was baptised, did my communion and confirmation in the Catholic Church.
But my family is very nominal. As pretty much the entire Dutch society is. I don’t even know anyone personally who I know to be really devout catholic. Altough I’m sure there are some people who may be so but I don’t know of. The devout religious people I know are either muslim or protestant. But 95%+ of people I know are either agnostic or atheist. Most people take a very negative stance against religion, that would include most of my friends. People who aren’t hostile to religion are mostly indifferent. I was a cultural catholic. I identified myself enough with catholicism to want communion and confirmation. A thing most nominal catholics didn’t undergo. When I was 14 I began self-identifying more with catholicism. Started reading a bit into it. My religion pretty much functions like a wave since that time. Sometimes my belief is high at other times it’s low.

A few years back I started reading into most religions, to get a basic grasp op what those religions teach and where they come from. (with dropping as much of the preconceived notions I held)
Mandaeism, Samaritans, several sects of Judaism, Islam, Yezidi, Druze, Bábism, Bahá’i, Azalis, Buddhism, Hinduism etc I read about a lot. Also l studied a lot of different christian denominations.
In the end I spent most time looking at Catholicism, EO, OO and Syriac christianity. (with catholicism and EO being pretty even except for Peter as the Rock of Christ’s church)

I became convinced that if I did ever turn to become a devout believer it would be as a catholic.

Since that time the biggest issue is a real and unwavering belief in God. I wasn’t brought up really religious, but I would want to be. I’m in a society that’s violent against religious belief. So if I turned religious there would be a lot of discernment before I make a leap for faith. Altough the Donatists were heretics, I agree that people shouldn’t convert on a whim. You have to convert if you are really a catholic.

Since I’m baptised and the church sees me as a catholic I gladly take the label of catholic.

There are other people like me, people who are seriously eager to become a catholic but struggle because of secular society around them made them lack a belief in God.
You and other catholics should look at this as a chance for evangelisation instead of trying to shame them or put them in their place.
 
Everyone thinks it would be great if their favorite religion ordains women, or blesses homosexual sex, or strips away the liturgy until there is nothing left, and generally “gets with the times”, and then everyone leaves because that religion doesn’t stand for anything anymore. How’s that working out for Church of England?
 
Elizium23 said:
Everyone thinks it would be great if their favorite religion ordains women, or blesses homosexual sex, or strips away the liturgy until there is nothing left, and generally “gets with the times”, and then everyone leaves because that religion doesn’t stand for anything anymore. How’s that working out for Church of England?
Click to expand...
One of the CoE’s brightest lights, CS Lewis, said “Those who keep up with the times end up where all times go.”

ICXC NIKA
 
JimG said:
Contraception: I am firmly convinced that the acceptance of contraception has been an unmitigated evil for society. It enabled the sexual revolution and all the ills that came from it. Read “Adam and Eve After the Pill” by Mary Eberstadt to review the disastrous consequences.

I would also note that up until 1930, every Protestant denomination had the exact same teaching about contraception as the Catholic Church. All the Protestant reformers condemned it. It has been a consistent teaching for 2,000 years. In the 1920 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church roundly condemned it. In the 1930 Conference they made a small opening for exceptional cases, which became a gusher. It’s been a disaster.
Click to expand...
Offsetting your opinion is another that clearly believes that God expects each family to behave in a manner that makes the use of their individual talents, and their ability to support the family unit. Unbridled births, which in this modern mostly nonagrarian society demands a certain amount of monetary resources, result in poor outcomes, especially for the children.

Thus I submit, there is a difference in managing births for the right “investments of talents”, versus out of wedlock or other considerations for contraceptives. Standing before God, I am ready to be judged on the responsibility and accountability to care for my family (three kids, four grand kids and counting) versus deliberately taking on more than I could ever hope to provide for.
 
bjryman said:
Offsetting your opinion is another that clearly believes that God expects each family to behave in a manner that makes the use of their individual talents, and their ability to support the family unit. Unbridled births, which in this modern mostly nonagrarian society demands a certain amount of monetary resources, result in poor outcomes, especially for the children.

Thus I submit, there is a difference in managing births for the right “investments of talents”, versus out of wedlock or other considerations for contraceptives. Standing before God, I am ready to be judged on the responsibility and accountability to care for my family (three kids, four grand kids and counting) versus deliberately taking on more than I could ever hope to provide for.
Click to expand...
you could use nfp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top