If YOU could.change the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you knew what the process of choosing a new Pope entails, you would realize that the Holy Spirit is definitely involved in the selection.
 
Thank you:grin:

Firstly there is no actual such thing as “chance”, luck [good or bad; or coincidence: GOD is always in charge and Divine Providence always in action. years young,

Now 2,000 we live in a TRUE Culture of DEATH [legislated abortion], so are you suggesting the the Church should acquiesce to the new morality? That She should be come-along to GET-along?

And you’re completely wrong about the Holy Spirit and Pope selection. BUT we must also accept that God does not think exactly as we do. Isi 55: 8-9

No man is elected Pope that the HS has not, often for reasons beyond our at least immediate comprehension, permits to be His Pope.

GOd causes all good things and tolerates evil as a consequence of freewill choices.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
Well, the Church has been doing this, or an equivalent, for 2,000 years and it hasn’t killed the priesthood; expanding it likely will not do so either.
 
crux.com has a good answer for this situation, and covers more questions raised here.

“in my experience, a freewill offering for a wedding most commonly turns out to be $100 or $150.”
 
In the Latin Church it would. Our tradition practically demands daily mass for example. The Latin Church demanded continence from its marrow priests back then. How many would be willing to marry only to remain continent?

Or even on a softer tone, how many would abstain from relations with their wives on almost everyday because of having to say daily mass?
 
Last edited:
Hello Patrick,
*
PJM said:
Now 2,000 we live in a TRUE Culture of DEATH [legislated abortion], so are you suggesting the the Church should acquiesce to the new morality? That She should be come-along to GET-along?
Click to expand...
  • In looking at my previous response it appears as your dreaming up counter arguments to arguments I never made. I’ll go ahead and respond to them anyway.
  1. To draft or enact (a law).
  2. To bring about, establish, or influence by means of legislation: legislate safety standards;
    I’m not aware of the US enacting any laws which would require women to get an abortion. Because of Democrats there has been some legislation which provides help to women who have children.
    With regards to new morality I would think that would include the morality that the church dreams up. Are there any laws that if the CC was in a position of power that it would enforce that were not dreamed up by them?
 
Your issue is that your view of the matter is way too narrow, I am off to Thanksgiving dinner; will respond further later.
 
Nothing changes in the doctrines, sacraments, values, catechism. This stays unchangeable.
But some adjustments are be needed in order to strengthen the Church worldwide:
  • First, clean the Vatican from those trying to corrupt it. (no mercy, God’ll take care of it)
  • Second, the Vatican should send orders to all dioceses, to re-promote the importance of all sacraments, especially the eucharist, confession and marriage among others.
  • Clean Catholic schools and colleges of reformists and liberal teachers (to stop the bending of God’s law where the heresies are spread. We serve God’s standards, not society’s. Period)
  • Organize more social events (big scale events like the JMJs) that would reach out to younger generations, and show them what the faith really is.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
You did. Do you still say there is no such thing as bad luck? Hmmmmmm, ie
Click to expand...
I DID:thinking: And here is WHY

Everything happens for one of two reason:

If it is a GOOD it is caused by God
If it is a GOOD-Choice by Us; choosing GOOD over evil:

God is GLORIFIED and WE are sanctified [offered grace]

If it is an EVIL: God permits it but does not cause it [His WAYS are NOT necessarily ours Isa. 55:8-9]

If it is an Evil that WE choose over the possible good:

God is still Glorified for having made possible for US to have chosen the good ; BUT we lose the grace opportunity

So again I share: GOD IS IN CHARGE:grin: Even when we might wish that he were not.

Blessings

PJM
 
We have a shortage of priests in the US (other parts of the world have been experiencing an increase of vocations).

The shortage of priests means that it is going to be come difficult (varying by diocese) to have a priest in residence in all parishes (we already have priests saying Mass on Sunday in several parishes, usually in the hinterlands).

You seem to presume that married priests must say daily Mass. Daily Mass is a luxury, not an absolute. There is no particular necessity that a married priest say daily Mass. What is needed is priests to say the Sunday (or Saturday evening) Mass.

A comment has been made that married priests could well be individuals who are older (one suggestion is no on under the age of 50; I would probably put it closer to the age of permanent deacons). Point - many if not most would already have work - a job, or possibly a career - so they are not adding to the cost burden which all dioceses have. They would be there for sacraments and Mass, and definitely not “full time”.

There was an exchange few years ago, fairly strong, between Peter Kreeft and another individual. I forget whether the other was a Canon lawyer or a theologian (or possibly both). The matter being disputed was the issue of whether or not married deacons were required to be continent.

The short answer came, not from two scholars, but from Rome. Rome had no interest in pursuing that discipline with the married deacons.

As it is a discipline, the same could be granted to married priests; or they could follow the Eastern Rite discipline, of continence for the day before they say Mass. It is not in any way an issue that is so great a stumbling block.

Currently, some deacons have a “day job”. Some are retired; some have a “day job” with the Church (Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers comes to mind). There is no reason that we could not have married priests with similar characteristics.
 
“The Code of Canon Law (#276) in the section entitled “The Obligations and Rights of Clerics” states the following: “In leading their lives, clerics are especially bound to pursue holiness because they are consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders as dispensers of God’s mysteries in the service of His people. In order for them to pursue this perfection, …they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of Sacred Scripture and the Eucharist; priests are therefore earnestly invited to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist daily…”

GBY

PJM
 
Last edited:
As noted, “Invited”, not “required” or “must, shall” or other mandatory wording. And as an entire quote, it is Canon law, which may be changed.

There were certainly questions brought up as the Church entered into the renewal of making permanent deacons. Some certainly presumed they would be in the parish “24/7”. Some are, some are not.

The possibility of having more married clergy in the Roman rite is on the table - as I understand it, for Brazil. Whether that is to come to pass is up to the Holy Spirit and to individuals so far above my pay grade as to be out of sight. The discussion, however, is not exactly new. And it seems, whenever it comes up, there are all sorts of objections, Part of that comes from narrow, linear thinking.

The Church does not move rapidly The change, if any, may come from this Pope, or from another one. Given that we have had married clergy in the Catholic Church since the beginning of the Church, it is not exactly a novel idea. Some react to married clergy negatively with “But this is the Church’s long standing practice”. Well, yes and no - long standing in the Roman rite, but not the Church as a whole; and in the Roman rite, celibacy only has been the practice about as long as it wasn’t the practice.

I don’t have a dog in the fight. I simply sit and watch. It is not a “right”, as no one has a “right” to be ordained. And most of the objections which I have seen are spurious. If the Church determines that it is a proper response to current needs, then it will expand beyond ministers converting.
 
AH, the one best passage of the bible Protestants refers to
when they want to support their belief in Sola Scriptura.
Would be a shame if it refuted itself…

Oh wait…

Read the verse before, 2 Timothy 3: 15
And tell me why you and every protestants are wrong about verse 16-17.
 
Last edited:
CatholicGearSolid said:
AH, the one best passage of the bible Protestants refers to

when they want to support their belief in Sola Scriptura.

Would be a shame if it refuted itself…

Oh wait…

Read the verse before, 2 Timothy 3: 15

And tell me why you and every protestants are wrong about verse 16-17
Click to expand...
Tim.3 Verses 13 to 17

[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Very good

Thank you

God Bless

PJM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top