Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

[ron77nyc]

It is good to support democracy, as it is the most humane of civil institutions.

But Christ did not come to establish a democracy; He came to create a Body. His collective body in our world is the church. Bodies are not democratically run; if they were they would not survive. Heaven is not a democracy either.

It is also not oppressive, political or authoritarian.

John 8:36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

 

[ron77nyc]

So it was not such a big deal among Roman Catholics, that the Pope broke his promise of celibacy and that he was living openly with a mistress and had four illegitimate children?

Not really. Let’s not forget the fact that the laity has no authority over the clergy or over religious. Even for those who felt that it was wrong for the pope to have a mistress and illegitimate children, there was no recourse.

In conclusion, there is not much that can be done when a pope sins as long as he does not teach contrary to truth. This has never happened. I believe that’s the reason that the papacy is the longest living succession of leadership in the world. It has been protected by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is typical of earthly institutions. This is not what Jesus taught. He condemned the Pharisees for this sort of thing.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,

 

[nonsumd]

This is typical of earthly institutions. This is not what Jesus taught. He condemned the Pharisees for this sort of thing.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 “They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,

First of all, I would just like to point out that Jesus here is not condemning the authority of the Pharisees, not telling the people not to follow what the Pharisees are teaching them. He is in fact telling the people to follow the words of the Pharisees but not their example.

Second, “Pharisaism” (the tendency to fixate on the letter of the law rather than the spirit, as well as to self-righteousness and hypocrisy) is a spiritual danger to which all of us Christians are vulnerable, no doubt particularly those wielding positions of authority within the church. That this is so is not a reason to reject the authority of the Church that was established by Jesus Himself.

There have been not a few popes whose sinfulness has scandalized (Alexander VI Borgia immediately comes to mind) believer and non-believer. There have been periods of Church history when popes were inordinately invested in worldly things (such as in expanding their political power among the Italian states). At the time, such popes were widely and vociferously criticized for these things, though truly saintly men and women found ways of giving correction to the individual without denigrating the office.

We come as sinners to a church of sinners. Our Lord works through sinners because that is all He has to work with. And a sinner is but a saint in the making; who of us can judge when one is not?

 

[ron77nyc]

First of all, I would just like to point out that Jesus here is not condemning the authority of the Pharisees, not telling the people not to follow what the Pharisees are teaching them. He is in fact telling the people to follow the words of the Pharisees but not their example.

That’s a Pharisee. Do as I say not as I do.

Second, “Pharisaism” (the tendency to fixate on the letter of the law rather than the spirit, as well as to self-righteousness and hypocrisy) is a spiritual danger to which all of us Christians are vulnerable, no doubt particularly those wielding positions of authority within the church. That this is so is not a reason to reject the authority of the Church that was established by Jesus Himself.

You sound as if it’s normal and acceptable. If you want to learn to read you have to go to a person who knows how to read. If they are just teaching machines then we could read a book or just hire a non-Catholic to teach religion.

There have been not a few popes whose sinfulness has scandalized (Alexander VI Borgia immediately comes to mind) believer and non-believer. There have been periods of Church history when popes were inordinately invested in worldly things (such as in expanding their political power among the Italian states). At the time, such popes were widely and vociferously criticized for these things, though truly saintly men and women found ways of giving correction to the individual without denigrating the office.

One of those saintly men was Bernard of Claivaux who dealt with the same problems in the 12th century that the Church is dealing with today. The root of the problem has not been eliminated.

religionfacts.com/christianity/people/bernard_clairvaux.htm
The Church as organized, with its hierarchy, at whose head stands the Roman bishop, as successor of Peter and vicar of Christ, is to Bernard the exhibition of the kingdom of Christ on earth. On this account it must enjoy perfect autonomy, having a right of supervision over everything in Christendom, even over princes and states. It even has a right over the worldly sword (De consid., IV, 7; cf. Epist., cclvi, 1). Nevertheless Bernard is no blind adherent of the views of Gregory VII. In the first place Bernard demands a perfect separation between secular and spiritual affairs; the secular as such is to be left to the secular government, and only for spiritual purposes and in a spiritual sense is the pope to have supervision (De consid., i, 6). But Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consid., iii, 8).

 

[LUKBAN]

Vow of celibacy is a descipline and was never imposed on any priest to be, they freely accepted the vow before their ordination. In fact seminarians are given a one year leave from the seminary to explore the world before making a serious commitment to priesthood. They made the choice to live a celibate life and they can be dispensed from the vow if during the course of time they change their mind. I don’t believe the Pope can deny to allow dispensation as long as the reason is legitimate. Nobody will desire for them to live in sin, including the Pope just because there is a priest shortage. The main issue here is dishonesty. Nobody is forbidden from falling in love, priest or no priest. But there is a right way of handling it especially if you are wearing a Roman collar. I will not say Fr. Cutie committed fornication without the objective evidence of such. Did he admitted it? Correct me if I’m wrong, I heard Fr. Cutie had been having this relationship with this woman in secret for about two years now. With this length of time, I believe Fr.Cutie has all the intention of and was determined to be dishonest to his parish and parishioners. This is a total betrayal of the trust his parishioners had given him as their priest. I don’t know what good it is to continue crucifying him. Calling Fr.Cutie as “Fr.Oprah” is an insult to Ms. Oprah. What is the rationale for this title? I don’t understand it. Can we equate Ms.Oprah with Fr.Cutie? I thought we are all christians whose heart are forgiving. I would rather pray for him, hoping he will realize he made the right or wrong decision for his life. I will not say either that the Anglican Church is a trash collector. It’s not proper to label them this dirty words. We should all be doing what we are preaching.

 

[JReducation]

That’s a Pharisee. Do as I say not as I do.

You sound as if it’s normal and acceptable. If you want to learn to read you have to go to a person who knows how to read. If they are just teaching machines then we could read a book or just hire a non-Catholic to teach religion.

One of those saintly men was Bernard of Claivaux who dealt with the same problems in the 12th century that the Church is dealing with today. The root of the problem has not been eliminated.

religionfacts.com/christianity/people/bernard_clairvaux.htm
The Church as organized, with its hierarchy, at whose head stands the Roman bishop, as successor of Peter and vicar of Christ, is to Bernard the exhibition of the kingdom of Christ on earth. On this account it must enjoy perfect autonomy, having a right of supervision over everything in Christendom, even over princes and states. It even has a right over the worldly sword (De consid., IV, 7; cf. Epist., cclvi, 1). Nevertheless Bernard is no blind adherent of the views of Gregory VII. In the first place Bernard demands a perfect separation between secular and spiritual affairs; the secular as such is to be left to the secular government, and only for spiritual purposes and in a spiritual sense is the pope to have supervision (De consid., i, 6). But Bernard is also an opponent of the absolute papal power in the Church. As certainly as he recognizes the papal authority as the highest in the Church, so decidedly does he reprove the effort to make it the only one. Even the middle and lower ranks of the Church have their right before God. To withdraw the bishops from the authority of the archbishops, the abbots from the authority of the bishops, that all may become dependent on the curia, means to make the Church a monster (De consid., iii, 8).

You pointing to many things that are not real. I can’t address each point, because the space is limited, but take a few examples. Please do not be offended. It’s not my intention to do so.

I was struck by the statement where you use the analogy of reading. There is another equally valid analogy. If you want to be healed you go to one who can heal, even if the doctor has cancer and one year left.

A pope can be a sinner, be he still has the authority to bind and unbind given to him by Christ. He still has the moral obligation to teach truth and guide the faithful. That authority was never given to him with a contingency.

That famous cliche that people use to put down clergy and the hierarchy, “Do as I say, not as I do,” was actually a statement from Paul. Most people forget that. It was later repeated by other Catholic leaders such as Benedict, Francis of Assisi and more. It was not just a cliche. It was mean to be understood very literally. The good is good no matter how sinful the messenger.

Jesus was not condemning Phariseism. He condemned the way that some of them abused the people. Let’s not forget that Jesus and Peter were members of the order of Pharisees. This is the reason for the great debates between them and Jesus. They were on very familiar terms. He was one too. He’s not condemning the office, but the abuse of the office.

St. Bernard was also wrong in his position regarding the attachment of religious orders to the Holy See. In the end, it has proven to be very good for religious orders not to be subordinate to the laity, civil authorities, and local bishops. It has given them freedom to move around the world and serve without the intervention of politics that often goes on between bishops or amongst the laithy.

It allowed the Cistercian reform to grow unimpaired by local bishops who were often part of other religious communities and would have liked to suppress the Cistercians in their dioceses in favor of directing vocations to their communities. It protected Cistercians and other Benedictine branches from the powers of feudal lords who wanted to take away their land and their source of materail support. All these people who would have done harm to the Cistercian reform and to other religious orders were afraid of the papacy, since these orders acquired Pontifical Rights.

St. Bernard was right in his theology, but wrong in his opinions regarding the governance of religious life.

I for one am thankful that we are subject to the authority of the papacy and not to the local Church. This allows our Franciscan family to retain its unity and common mission. Were we to have to accommodate to the expectations of every bishop, regarding the charism and mission of the order, it would be chaotic. There are 1.7 million Franciscans around the world in 114 nationsl. That’s a large number of dioceses.

The organization setup in the 10th century does not take away a bishop’s authority in pastoral and moral matters in his diocese or over those who work for his diocese. The autonomy only applies to internal matters of religious of Pontifical Right.

Thanks for reading this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Whoa, slow down! You’re making some statements that need clarification or they will get many people confused.

Vow of celibacy is a discipline and was never imposed on any priest to be, they freely accepted the vow before their ordination.

Celibacy is not a vow. It is a promise. Only religious make vows and it is chastity, not celibacy. The promise of celibacy is made during the rite of ordination to the deaconate.

In fact seminarians are given a one year leave from the seminary to explore the world before making a serious commitment to priesthood.

What diocese does that? There is a deaconate year before ordination to the priesthood. Is that what you’re referring to? During that year the deacons go to parishes and other ministries. It’s sometimes called an internship year. If the seminarian is a religious in vows, he may never leave the community for a year. This would only apply to secular seminarians. Which diocese does this?

they can be dispensed from the vow if during the course of time they change their mind. I don’t believe the Pope can deny to allow dispensation as long as the reason is legitimate.

A promise of celibacy can be dispensed by the pope. You are right; the pope does not want to see anyone living in sin. However, the Congregation for the Sacraments has already made it clear, on behalf of the pope that there will be NO DISPENSATIONS from celibacy for secular priests or from solemn vows for religious brothers and friars, unless the cause is most grave. This was in a letter that was sent to all houses of male religious and to all bishops. I know, because I saw it. It has nothing to do with the shortage of priests and religious brothers. It has to do with the fact that the Holy Father wants to hold people to their commitment.

Nobody is forbidden from falling in love, priest or no priest. But there is a right way of handling it especially if you are wearing a Roman collar. I will not say Fr. Cutie committed fornication without the objective evidence of such. Did he admitted it?

Fr. Cutie did admit that they had sexual relations. He admitted it in front of a television camera. Fr. is guilty of sin against his promise of celibacy. That’s the first sin for which he is objectively guilty.

I believe Fr.Cutie has all the intention of and was determined to be dishonest to his parish and parishioners. This is a total betrayal of the trust his parishioners had given him as their priest.

That’s not a violation of canon law. The Church is more concerned with violations of canon law and civil law in these cases. Any other sin is an internal matter between the individual and his confessor. It is not for public discussion.

I don’t know what good it is to continue crucifying him.

It does no good. Actually, it is unkind, judgmental and only continues to feed the scandal. The objective judgment has already been made by the Archbishop. We really have nothing to add on this thread. We can clarify what the Archbishop said. We can learn some Sacramental Theology that will help us understand the Sacrament of Holy Orders. We can learn a little about the difference between a vow of chastity and the promise of celibacy or the difference between a secular priest and a priest who is also a religious. But there is not much that we can do about Fr. Cutie’s situation. That is in his hands and God’s.

Calling Fr.Cutie as “Fr.Oprah” is an insult to Ms. Oprah. What is the rationale for this title?

Actually, this began many years ago and was sort of joke by Spanish language television. Fr. Cutie had a talk show which was modeled on the Oprah Winfrey Show. There is where this came from.

I thought we are all christians whose heart are forgiving. I would rather pray for him, hoping he will realize he made the right or wrong decision for his life. I will not say either that the Anglican Church is a trash collector. It’s not proper to label them this dirty words. We should all be doing what we are preaching.

Your position here is 100% correct and along the lines that the Church wants for us. Please keep up this position. It is the right attitude to have. God bless you for it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nonsumd]

That’s a Pharisee. Do as I say not as I do.

You sound as if it’s normal and acceptable. If you want to learn to read you have to go to a person who knows how to read. If they are just teaching machines then we could read a book or just hire a non-Catholic to teach religion.

We are all sinners. Strictly speaking, all that we can honestly say when we teach what the Lord wants us to teach is “Do as I say, not as I do” (or better yet, “Do what Our Lord says…”). Ultimately, as Saint Francis said, “Preach always… and when necessary with words.”

Hypocrisy, etc. that fall under the label of “Pharisaism” is not by any means acceptable and is not normal in the sense that it should be any kind of “norm.” I would also hesitate to call it “ordinary” because that term contains within it the idea of “being ordained/ordered.”

Let is us say it is something that is lamentably common, an “occupational hazard” of those who seek to be close to God. Even self-abnegation and self-abasement can be sources of pride, as any of the saints will tell us. The Devil reserves his strongest attacks for those closest to God, and pride is the Achilles’ heel through which he strikes.

“Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Those of us who feel provoked to condemn our spiritual leaders should do so only after acknowledging our own sinfulness. Not to do so would be to fall oneself into a type of “Pharisaism.”

One of those saintly men was Bernard of Claivaux who dealt with the same problems in the 12th century that the Church is dealing with today. The root of the problem has not been eliminated.

Well, Bro. JR has answered you in regard to Saint Bernard.

The real root of the problem is Original Sin. No alteration of the institutions of the Church and certainly not the establishment of spiritual communities without apostolic succession will completely eliminate the human sinfulness that is at the root of corruption within the Church. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, and it is a battle each of us – with His help – has to fight within ourselves; it is a continual battle from generation to generation.

 

[ron77nyc]

I was struck by the statement where you use the analogy of reading. There is another equally valid analogy. If you want to be healed you go to one who can heal, even if the doctor has cancer and one year left.

A pope can be a sinner, be he still has the authority to bind and unbind given to him by Christ. He still has the moral obligation to teach truth and guide the faithful. That authority was never given to him with a contingency.

I understand what you are saying. A sick doctor can heal but it would be ridiculous for a doctor to give a stop smoking seminar while smoking a cigarette. Who is going to take him seriously?

St. Bernard was also wrong in his position regarding the attachment of religious orders to the Holy See. In the end, it has proven to be very good for religious orders not to be subordinate to the laity, civil authorities, and local bishops. It has given them freedom to move around the world and serve without the intervention of politics that often goes on between bishops or amongst the laithy.

It allowed the Cistercian reform to grow unimpaired by local bishops who were often part of other religious communities and would have liked to suppress the Cistercians in their dioceses in favor of directing vocations to their communities. It protected Cistercians and other Benedictine branches from the powers of feudal lords who wanted to take away their land and their source of materail support. All these people who would have done harm to the Cistercian reform and to other religious orders were afraid of the papacy, since these orders acquired Pontifical Rights.

There are advantages and disadvantages for religious orders not to be subordinate to the laity, civil authorities, and local bishops. It makes room for freedom to do good but it gives more opportunity for hiding scandal rather than dealing with it, but that’s life. Everything has 2 sides. I don’t mean that as a slam against the Church. It’s just human nature in every walk of life. We are seeing it today in the collapse of financial institutions. When people are not held accountable, they run with it.

 

[JReducation]

I understand what you are saying. A sick doctor can heal but it would be ridiculous for a doctor to give a stop smoking seminar while smoking a cigarette. Who is going to take him seriously?

Anyone who understands human physilogy and pathology.

There are advantages and disadvantages for religious orders not to be subordinate to the laity, civil authorities, and local bishops. It makes room for freedom to do good but it gives more opportunity for hiding scandal rather than dealing with it, but that’s life. Everything has 2 sides. I don’t mean that as a slam against the Church. It’s just human nature in every walk of life. We are seeing it today in the collapse of financial institutions. When people are not held accountable, they run with it.

The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We do have systems in place where religious communities are held accountable by those who kow what they are doing.

We also have to remember that there is a theological different betweent he secular man in the pew and the consecrated religious. The average secular man in the pew does not really understand the theology of religious life. That would make him an ill-equipped judge.

In addition, religious do not promise obedience to the man in the pew. They promise obedience: 1) to God, 2) to their founder, 3) to their constitution approved by the Church, 4) to the Holy See, 5) to their brothers in chapter, 6) to their traditions. Where does the laity fit into this hierarchy?

We have to be very careful here. Just as we don’t tolerate external interference in marriage and family, we must also respect the internal forum of religious life. Religious life is a marital relationship between the religious and Christ. The religious is spouse, father, mother, brother or sister to Christ. These relationships with Christ are effected through solemn vows that make the religious state a consecrated state and places it at the same level as the sacraments of holy orders and matrimony. As the Church has carefully taught us, these are canonical and theological relationships that are outside of the realm of the secular world.

As to the bishops and religious, it is a matter of protection for both. With large religious orders, it would be chaotic if every bishop had an (name removed by moderator)ut into the spirit, charism, mission and governance of a religious community in his diocese. That would destroy the unity of the religious order. Religious orders are brotherhoods. One characteristic of their brotherhood is their centralized government and their obedience to their founder. What happens when a bishop speaks and is in conflict with the founder? You would find yourself in an ecclesial tribunal every week.

The Church does not want this kind of antagonistic relationship between religious and bishops. For this reason, the Church gives major superior the same ordinary powers that it gives bishops. This way they can settle these issues internally in a manner that is consistent with the mind of the founder and of the community’s chapter which is the highest law making body in any religious community. The deliberations and conclusions of every chapter are always approved by the Holy Father or someone in the Holy See who acts in the name of the Pope. If there is something in the conclusions of the chapte that is inconsistent with the mind of the Church, it is sent back for more deliberation.

I can attest to this with my own experience. I took us from 1978 to 2000 to finish our revising our constitutions. Each time that we submitted the results of the Chapter to the Holy See it was sent back with something to add or to delete or a word that they wanted us to explain. The oversight of Pontifical religious orders is very rigorous.

Hope this gives you more information.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ron77nyc]

The real root of the problem is Original Sin. No alteration of the institutions of the Church and certainly not the establishment of spiritual communities without apostolic succession will completely eliminate the human sinfulness that is at the root of corruption within the Church. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, and it is a battle each of us – with His help – has to fight within ourselves; it is a continual battle from generation to generation.

This was not the advice that Paul gave the Corinthian church. He said to throw out the immoral Christians because they pollute the whole body.

1 Corinthians 5
1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[JReducation]

Ron,

Remember what the Church teaches us. We cannot apply scripture without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. As Catholics, we believe that the three are equal in authority. We use them together.

We cannot quote St. Paul without also quoting what the Church says about similar situations or without reflecting on what the Church calls us to do in similar situations.

If we do only scripture, then we are building a house with Protestant architecture. Catholcism is not a Church of just the word. We are a Church of 1) Tradition, 2) Magisterium and 3) Scripture in that order.

They came in that order. The order does not indicate the degree of dignity or authority. They are equal in degrees. But historically that’s how they came and in the end, the scriptures that the Church allowed to be bound into one Bible were those that reflected her tradtion and her teachings. That’s how the decision was made as to what books were canonical and which ones are not.

Therefore, when we read a citation like the one that you provided on St. Paul, we must always ask how does this citation show what the Chruch believes and teaches. That’s when we go to Tradition and Magisterium, to fond Church belief and teaching that supports the citation and is supported by the citation.

You have to do the work of theologian if you’re going to fight an argument with scripture. I’m not saying that you cannot do it. I’m saying that you did not do it in this post.

Fraternally,

BR. JR, OSF

This was not the advice that Paul gave the Corinthian church. He said to throw out the immoral Christians because they pollute the whole body.

1 Corinthians 5
1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

 

[nonsumd]

This was not the advice that Paul gave the Corinthian church. He said to throw out the immoral Christians because they pollute the whole body.

Are you saying that Paul taught that we do not need the aid of the Holy Spirit to overcome the power of sin??? That was what* I *was talking about.

Conversion is about changing the heart, not changing structures.

 

[benedictgal]

Are you saying that Paul taught that we do not need the aid of the Holy Spirit to overcome the power of sin??? That was what* I *was talking about.

Conversion is about changing the heart, not changing structures.

We also should not read any of the Pauline letters in a vaccuum. We should always read them with the guidance and the Magesterium of the Church.

When Cutie knelt before the Episcopalians, he pretty much forfeited his rights as a priest. He was the one who walked out on the One True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He was the one who turned his back on the True Faith.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron,

Remember what the Church teaches us. We cannot apply scripture without Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. As Catholics, we believe that the three are equal in authority. We use them together.

Therefore, when we read a citation like the one that you provided on St. Paul, we must always ask how does this citation show what the Chruch believes and teaches. That’s when we go to Tradition and Magisterium, to fond Church belief and teaching that supports the citation and is supported by the citation.

You have to do the work of theologian if you’re going to fight an argument with scripture. I’m not saying that you cannot do it. I’m saying that you did not do it in this post.

Fraternally,

BR. JR, OSF

Are you saying that Paul taught that we do not need the aid of the Holy Spirit to overcome the power of sin??? That was what* I *was talking about.

Conversion is about changing the heart, not changing structures.

The aid of the Holy Spirit is the only way to overcome sin.

Paul was straightforward about what he said all the time. I don’t think anyone could interpret his words any other way than the way he said it. He said do not even eat with a Christian who is not repenting. His bad conduct will rub off on you. If I’m wrong I’m open for correction.

 

[LUKBAN]

To JREDUCTION: My apology for not being specific. I knew this is coming. The country where I came from, seminarians in major seminaries are given a leave of absence to explore life outside the seminary and evaluate their true desire to become a priest. It is not in this country. I thought there is universality in this practice as CATHOLICS. My mistake. I think we are in this forum to learn. What is the major technical differences in meaning between a vow of celibacy and a promise of celibacy in religious vocation? I’m not familiar with the terminologies you are using. I did not met these words in agriculture, accounting, business adm. and nursing, though I was educated in universities run by SJ fathers. Religion (Apologetics) was my most hated subject in college. It was only lately that I decided to take interest in religious education, the reason why I joined the forum. My pleasure if you can share your expertise.

 

[JReducation]

The aid of the Holy Spirit is the only way to overcome sin.

Paul was straightforward about what he said all the time. I don’t think anyone could interpret his words any other way than the way he said it. He said do not even eat with a Christian who is not repenting. His bad conduct will rub off on you. If I’m wrong I’m open for correction.

As Benedictgal and I have pointed out, what is wrong here is that scripture must always reflect the faith of the Church. The scriptures were compiled in a systematic manner to reflect the faith of the Church that already existed.

If you examine the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the scriptures are always embedded in theology. They do not stand alone, because they were not meant to stand alone. They were meant to stand as part of a threefold reality: Tradition, Magisterium and Scripture. That threefold reality is the source of Revelation.

When you take Paul’s writings and you cite them in isolation, without the teachings of the Church, you run the risk of interpretation that is different from that of the Church. That’s a danger that we must always avoid. Our interpretation and application of scripture must be consistent with the faith and teaching of the Church.

In this case, the Church teaches us that this priest and others like him are not evil people. They are people who have done something that is objectively sinful, gravely sinful. But something objectively sinful, does not always make someone evil.

There are people who do objectively evil things because they are evil people. But most of us do objectively evil things because of our fallen nature, not because we are evil.

Father Cutie’s actions fall into this category, objective grave sin. Whether his degree of subjective culpability is proprotionate to the objective reality, none of us will ever know, only God knows the hearts of men.

When Paul writes here he is speaking about avoiding behaviors that are dangerous to the soul. These were behaviors that were observable, qualifiable and quantifiable. If one wants to say that a celibate man or woman must avoid occasions that may lead one to sin against celibacy, that is consistent with the faith of the Church and the Church’s application of Paul’s message. It is appropriate to say that one must also avoid those who engage in such activities. It is inappropriate to presume that those people are evil. Their choices are gravely sinful. Their subjective status is unknown to us.

I hope my explanation is clearer than beforer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

To JREDUCTION: My apology for not being specific. I knew this is coming. The country where I came from, seminarians in major seminaries are given a leave of absence to explore life outside the seminary and evaluate their true desire to become a priest. It is not in this country. I thought there is universality in this practice as CATHOLICS. My mistake. I think we are in this forum to learn. What is the major technical differences in meaning between a vow of celibacy and a promise of celibacy in religious vocation? I’m not familiar with the terminologies you are using. I did not met these words in agriculture, accounting, business adm. and nursing, though I was educated in universities run by SJ fathers. Religion (Apologetics) was my most hated subject in college. It was only lately that I decided to take interest in religious education, the reason why I joined the forum. My pleasure if you can share your expertise.

Thank you for the clarification. We don’t have such a system in the USA. I would imagine that this system is used only for secular seminarians.

You asked about the terms . . . let me explain them in brief.

1. A secular priest makes two promises: obedience to his bishop and to live a celibate life according to the law of the Church. These promises are made at the time of ordination to the deaconate. The promise of celibacy can only be dispensed by the pope.
2. A religious man makes vows: obedience to the founder of his community, to the superior, to the rule of his community, to the general chapter of his community and to his brothers. He makes a vow to be poor. This means that he does not own property and gives up the right to inherit property or make money in any way. He depends totally on his community for his material needs. He makes a vow of chastity. He gives up the right to a biological family and makes the community his family. He joins Christ on the cross by giving his entire life to the service of the Church, his brothers in community and the faithful, in that order. His life belongs to his brothers and confirmed by the Church. His brothers represent the Church. His vow of chastity makes him the spouse, father, brother, mother, and son of Jesus Christ according to the scriptures where Christ says, “My brother is he who does the will of my Father.” His vow of chastity makes him like Mary the mother of Christ. He is not simply conforming to a Church discipline. Even if the Church’s discipline were taken away, the religious would still be celibate, because he has promised to belong only to Christ within his new family. Like Mary, his life points others to do whatever Christ says.

As you can see, in a vow of chastity community life is essential. In the promise of celibacy fidelity to the disciplines of the Church and the life of ministry is essential.

They are complimentary, but different. The priest who makes a promise of celibacy does not live in a community, does not make a vow of poverty; therefore, he can own property. He owes obedience only to a bishop, because he has no founder, no rule and no religious community to obey.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LUKBAN]

TO JREDUCATION: I think growing roses and trees is easier than this. No wonder why I hated apologetics and the thought of becoming a priest. Thanks for your patience. Your explanations cleared some spider webs in my brain. Thanks again:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

Actually, theology of religious life does not fall under apologetics. It falls under Canon Law, Mystical Theology, Systematic Theology and Metaphysics.

Mix them all together and you have Theology of Religious Life.

Now you know what I had to go through during six years of formation before making final vows.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

TO JREDUCATION: I think growing roses and trees is easier than this. No wonder why I hated apologetics and the thought of becoming a priest. Thanks for your patience. Your explanations cleared some spider webs in my brain. Thanks again:thumbsup: