If YOU could.change the Catholic Church

[Wandile]

Nope. My EC parish has a priest who could celebrate a daily DL (the former one used to) if it was their tradition to do so.

Your parish yes. Universally nope.
Hence why some parishes in the Eastern Catholics do but most don’t because most simply can’t do it consistently even though it’s is allowed for them to do

I attend a Maronite Church sometimes which has daily mass but they geenrally can do because of the huge population of celibate priests.

There would be MORE PRIESTS! Married priests to augment the unmarried priests! Do you get that!?! No one is getting rid of the unmarried priests. These “requirements” exist due to a GRAVE SHORTAGE of priests.

Explained why there eactually wouldn’t be Moreno proests and would actually cause a loss in my previous post.

MANY around here. Even if a priest retired at 75 that would be 25 years of service. 20 years of service at 70, etc.

Around here… that’s my point. Not universal. Universally not so much…

 

[Wandile]

The changes I would make are :

Liturgical

• Train all priests in seminary to say both forms of the Roman Rite. Traditional and ordinary.
• Ad orientem worship only unless actual east faces the people then versus populum is allowed (like at St Peters in Rome). However, even if that’s the case, liturgical east should be applied as much as possible even if the altar does not face actual east.
• Necessitate Latin for all parts except those pertaining to laity (readings and sermons). If not this then at the very least the Eucharistic prayers must be in Latin
• Eliminate all optionally in the mass to avoid liturgical tampering and more universality of the celebration of the sacrifice of the mass. Especially returning to the Roman canon as the only Eucharistic prayer.
• Restrict all normative liturgical music to Gregorian or plain chant and any other types of music must be solemn and have prior approval of the bishop before being used.
• Reintroduce the prayers at the foot of the altar and the increased use of incense and it’s mandatory use at all Sunday masses.
• Vestements must either be Roman fiddleback or gothic. They all should have clear doctrine on them, typically the cross. Some vestments today are hideous and honestly portray no clear doctrine at all on them.
• Restrict the sanctuary to acces of Males only to emphasize the priesthood and everything associated there (especially the alter servers) as an apprenticeship to the clergy (deacons or priests). No female altar servers.
• Abolish all extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Only clergy should be able to distribute communion and in rare cases maybe the lector or acolyte may assist the priest. No other laity except those previously mentioned present in the sanctuary (lector or acolyte).
• Communion on the tongue only and the use of communion/altar rails.
• Churches shall be built according to set gudlines that ensure that no modernistic hideous structures are built that look more like halls or spaceships than churches. Cruciform especially. Tabernacles must be at the center of the sanctuary except in monasteries. All churches will have at least two side altars. Churches must be as ornately decorated as possible. Minimalism must be stamped out except in monastic communities.
• Priests should wear cassocks as regular attire and only in certain instances can they wear a clerical suite.

Administration

• Priestly formation must include the use of scholasticism, learning of basic Latin and deep study of the fathers, traditions and councils of the church.
• Hold an inquisition to purge out all heretical prelates either through deposition, defrocking or through their recanting of their errors.
• Abolish all bishops conferences and rather promote synods of bishops of certain regions held upon necessity .
• Have a syllabus of errors issued that is attached to the documents of Vatican II to avoid any erroneous or heretical interpretations of them, as has been so common.
• Religious communities must be mandated to wear their religious habits at all times.

 

[pnewton]

I am glad that we do not have a tyrannical pope. I will remember next time I disagree with the Holy Father, it could be much worse, not that I think the Holy Spirit would let someone so harmful to the Church in office to destroy it.

 

[Wandile]

Dogmatic

• Officially condemn modernism, communism, relativism, communion for the divorced and remarried, gender ideology, female ordination again, Homosexual behavior again, gender theory as well as Islam.
• Codemn any ecumenism that does not have for its end goal, the conversion of non-catholics to Catholicism.
• Reinstitute the catechism of the Council of Trent/Roman Catechism or the Baltimore Catechism as the normative Catechism of the Church.
• Condemn the presence of Catholics in non-catholic services and liturgies which could in any way give the impression of active participation by the person or equivalence of faiths.

 

[Wandile]

I would definitely be a tyrant if I were pope. A tyrant for God. A tyrant against heresy and bad practice and abuses.

In the mould of Pope Blessed Pius IX, St Pius X and Pius XII. I think you can see which name I would choose.

Lastly most of what I have prescribed are returns to older ways of the church, not new innovations. So unless you’re wishing to say that the church at one time was tyrannical, you can’t level that charge at my list.

We can disagree but never can it properly be called tyrannical.

 

[pnewton]

I would definitely be a tyrant if I were pope. A tyrant for God. A tyrant against heresy and bad practice and abuses.

For God? You like Latin so you want everyone to have nothing but Latin. You like chant, so you want that as the sole music. Okay, it is not tyrannical, but how is it not selfish? It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to believe that opinion must be universal. (Love me or else?)

Some of your things are at least some form of doctrinal idea, harsh or not, but some are flat out likes and dislikes. Oh, and going back in time does not work. Surely you must know that temporal context is essential in understanding disciplinary practices. That is why we don’t spank a thirty year old man, or make grandpa put his nose in the corner.

I cannot imaging the most conservative bishop anywhere in the Church promoting such a universal dress code.

 

[TC3033]

There is only one parish in our town. When my wife went to the parish inquiring about our marriage they told her it was going to cost $1200 for the church. That became moot because once the priest found out I wasn’t Catholic he denied to do the wedding anyway.

There was no cost associated with the country parish down the road that performed the wedding.

 

[pnewton]

There is only one parish in our town. When my wife went to the parish inquiring about our marriage they told her it was going to cost $1200 for the church.

I don’t know the answer to that. I think every parish should consider how to balance the need to pay for facilities without the need to pay or the Sacrament. Maybe for baptisms there can be a monthly baptism in a group for all who do not want to rent the Church, and something similar for weddings. That way the Church is out only one cleaning and one utility increase.

The Sacrament must be free, and the priest must be willing to accept nothing, or only what one is willing to pay, but the janitorial and cleaning staff should not be expected to work for free, nor should the musicians.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

Make it illegal for Bishops and ArchBishops to charge a stipend for coming to your Parish to perform a Sacrement or something less than a sacrament.

Our Arch-Bishop charges 500 to come to a parish…

 

[Wandile]

For God? You like Latin so you want everyone to have nothing but Latin.

Firstly I don’t like Latin but since it is the language of the church I understand it’s importance. Every religion of any seriousness has a liturgical language. The Latin Church has Latin.

Further this is not my wish but that of the church herself at Vatican II which stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium that :

The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants”

This here is the sense of Latin I’ve prescribed. Not completely as the parts relating to the laity should be in vernacular like I stated above.

You like chant, so you want that as the sole music.

I like chant but im not the one who made this prescription but rather the church at Vatican II, again in Sacrosanctum Concilium, when she said:

“the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

Okay, it is not tyrannical, but how is it not selfish? It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to believe that opinion must be universal. (Love me or else?)

If reinstituing what the Church has called for is selfish then call me selfish all day long.

Some of your things are at least some form of doctrinal idea, harsh or not, but some are flat out likes and dislikes. Oh, and going back in time does not work. Surely you must know that temporal context is essential in understanding disciplinary practices. That is why we don’t spank a thirty year old man, or make grandpa put his nose in the corner.

I cannot imaging the most conservative bishop anywhere in the Church promoting such a universal dress code.

Let’s agree to disagree then.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

TC3033:

There is only one parish in our town. When my wife went to the parish inquiring about our marriage they told her it was going to cost $1200 for the church.

I would be very hard pressed to call that church a “Godly Church”.

 

[pnewton]

Further this is not my wish but that of the church herself at Vatican II which stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium

No, no,no,no, no. Preserve does not mean universally used.

 

[Wandile]

No, no,no,no, no. Preserve does not mean universally used.

Latin was universally used. To preserve what once was is to preserve it as it was. Thus if it was universal , then preservation of Latin must be preservation of Latin as it was. Which is what the fathers meant in this stipulation because some progressive/liberal bishops at Vatican II wanted to throw out Latin.

Thank God this decree was issued even though in practice it has been almost completely ignored.

Hence why I included it as a change I would make. I would mandate the adherence to this stipulation of Sacrosanctum Concilium

 

[Duesenberg]

Traveling and saying mass is and additional stress. Never mind family life and his job. And praying the liturgy of the hours strictly. lastly the administering of sacraments which only he can do besides baptism.

Other than actually celebrate Mass (many assist), married deacons do ALL of this.

Just because you say so? Th Eastern Catholic are Catholic yes, but not Latin. Our traditions are different and have different contexts entirely.

The RC had married priests for at least its first 1,000 years.

Withdraw dwindling number of vocations of seminary formed priests and the allure of marriage present amongs so many protective priests… show do you think the idea of waiting until your 50 to get ordained so that you can also be married will affect the vocations to the seminary?? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. How many after years of marriage would still be interested in the priesthood??

This is a quick fix solution that will only cause more problems than it solves.

Naw, it wouldn’t be a quick fix, but it would help. It would also be the right thing to do because it would be a source of GOOD priests.

Actually no as less priests will be available before the age of 50 as many vocations to the seminary will be lost to the allure of marriage. During marriage some will lose their vocations to the priesthood entirely. Other will pass on along the way when they wait for the priesthood. There might be new vocations here and there but to be honest, their number would be insignificant and most people not wanting to be priests by the adulthood would not want to priests in later adulthood. So there will definitely be less priests.

That’s simply your personal opinion. You cannot prove that.

 

[Wandile]

Other than actually celebrate Mass (many assist), married deacons do ALL of this.

How can they administer the sacraments except for baptism when they canonically can’t do so? let’s also see how many married deacons there are. It’s certainly not the boom they hoped for.

The RC had married priests for at least its first 1,000 years.

Yes I alluded to this earlier. And they did away with it for good reason. Even then, they still imposed the rule of continence on their married clergy. Lastly, there wasn’t a priestly crisis like there is today. Further, the factors surrounding the crisis include the drive to marry. Now imagine how many ordinations we would lose because men would rather marry and wait until they are 50. Assuming they will even still have said vocation. How many would just settle for the dacaonate instead thus losing more ordinationations just to have marriage.

Naw, it wouldn’t be a quick fix, but it would help. It would also be the right thing to do because it would be a source of GOOD priests.

You definitely cannot guarantee good priests. And the formation you’ve prescribed on it’s own is already lacking. Seminary formation is not perfect, as can be seen today, but it’s better than what you prescribed for this new group of priests.

That’s simply your personal opinion. You cannot prove that.

Just like everything you’ve said is your opinion. This is a thread of opinions after all.

 

[Duesenberg]

How can they administer the sacraments except for baptism when they canonically can’t do so? let’s also see how many married deacons there are. It’s certainly not the boom they hoped for.

My point is that married/employed deacons spend as much time as a married/employed priest do at their vocations.

Yes I alluded to this earlier. And they did away with it for good reason. Even then, they still imposed the rule of continence on their married clergy. Lastly, there wasn’t a priestly crisis like there is today.

The priestly crisis was far worse. I wonder how many priestly vocations are lost today because men get married without really discerning?

Now imagine how many ordinations we would lose because men would rather marry and wait until they are 50. Assuming they will even still have said vocation. How many would just settle for the dacaonate instead thus losing more ordinationations just to have marriage.

Not many I suspect.

You definitely cannot guarantee good priests. And the formation you’ve prescribed on it’s own is already lacking. Seminary formation is not perfect, as can be seen today, but it’s better than what you prescribed for this new group of priests.

“Seminary formation” has some grave drawbacks. What I described is not “lacking.” If a man was a known quantity at his parish and then entered into what would amount to an apprenticeship for XY years, it would be a GREAT way in which to form priest. No, it couldn’t be done at all parishes by all pastor, but it could in many.

People resist change. I get it.

 

[Wandile]

My point is that married/employed deacons spend as much time as a married/employed priest do at their vocations.

Simply not true at all.

The priestly crisis was far worse. I wonder how many priestly vocations are lost today because men get married without really discerning?

Again not true. We are currently in the worst priestly crisis in the history of the church.

Not many I suspect.

Then you have a lot to learn about the reasons why we have lost so many priests over the last few decades.

One of the big reasons why priests and seminarians leaving the priesthood to be married. Other priests started schismatic organisations to be married. Seminarians leave to get married. And some priests harbor thoughts of marriage within the current clergy hence the push to allow priests to marry.

Now limiting it to 50 many men will wait to get both slices of the cake (marriage and the priesthood) rather than give up marriage for an immediate ordination.

"Seminary formation" has some grave drawbacks. What I described is not “lacking.” If a man was a known quantity at his parish and then entered into what would amount to an apprenticeship for XY years, it would be a GREAT way in which to form priest. No, it couldn’t be done at all parishes by all pastor, but it could in many.

On the boldes part I agreed. That was clear from my previous post. I which makes my point all the more forceful. That with all its deficiencies it’s still better than what you proposed.

Simply training under a priest ina parish will not give the the requisite theological, philosophical and canonical knowledge that would gain in a seminary to be a good priest. Sure you would learn how to say mass and interact with people but that’s just about it. Your average parish priest is not a great theologian or philosopher or canonist. Yet you expect priests to train unde them? What a joke. Seminaries were made for a reason. The church had good reason for them.

People resist change. I get it.

People love innovation, I get it. Innovation in the Church context is 9/10 a bad thing. In this case it’s a terrible thing primarily because it betrays the tradition of the Latin Church and its ideal for the priesthood. Secondly because the Latin Church saw good to abandon a married clergy, reverting would not really be new but just a resuscitation of the error of antiquarianism.

 

[Rau]

Maybe for baptisms there can be a monthly baptism in a group for all who do not want to rent the Church,

Our children were baptized in the course of a Sunday Mass. Bsptism takes a few minutes - and the community is there to welcome the newcomer(s). And of course there are no costs.

 

[Duesenberg]

Again not true. We are currently in the worst priestly crisis in the history of the church.

You’re wrong. The Church has suffered from far greater vocations problems.

Then you have a lot to learn about the reasons why we have lost so many priests over the last few decades.

One of the big reasons why priests and seminarians leaving the priesthood to be married. Other priests started schismatic organisations to be married. Seminarians leave to get married. And some priests harbor thoughts of marriage within the current clergy hence the push to allow priests to marry.

Now limiting it to 50 many men will wait to get both slices of the cake (marriage and the priesthood) rather than give up marriage for an immediate ordination.

Are you making this up as you go along? Again, your comments are nothing more than your personal opinions and it would appear you have a lot to learn.

Simply training under a priest ina parish will not give the the requisite theological, philosophical and canonical knowledge that would gain in a seminary to be a good priest. Sure you would learn how to say mass and interact with people but that’s just about it. Your average parish priest is not a great theologian or philosopher or canonist. Yet you expect priests to train unde them? What a joke. Seminaries were made for a reason. The church had good reason for them.

So you say.

People love innovation, I get it. Innovation in the Church context is 9/10 a bad thing. In this case it’s a terrible thing primarily because it betrays the tradition of the Latin Church and its ideal for the priesthood. Secondly because the Latin Church saw good to abandon a married clergy, reverting would not really be new but just a resuscitation of the error of antiquarianism.

It’s not “innovation.” It’s an ancient practice in the Catholic Church. Anywho, go ahead and keep on posting, but I’m done with this discussion.

 

[PJM]

GOds PROMISE is that the gates of hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL; n ot that the boundaries will not be tested

Pray VERY MUCH.
Patrick