Is there truly a priest shortage or is there only a diocesan priest shortage?

[1234]

These so-called ‘orthodox’ dioceses may produce more priests, but there will never produce enough of them, not even if all the dioceses in the US become ‘orthodox’, which is unlikely.

The reasons for becoming a celibate priest have changed in the last century. People don’t need to ‘church climb’ anymore–enter a seminary or a convent to get an education and escape poverty. Thanks to Vat II, marriage isn’t a second-rate institution any more–“It is better to marry than to burn”, Thanks, Paul–; you don’t have to enter a convent or monastery or seminary to get saved or to acquire status and education for yourself and your family. If you want to do church work, you can do it as a married layperson, including becoming a permanent deacon.

I see on this forum and this thread a lot of young men having serious doubts about seminary, which center on celibacy, and well it might; men don’t do well alone. They are more easily isolated and have fewer friends. This isn’t just about sex, as many would have one believe; it’s about having a loving, supportive spouse, family, children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors, and the leisure to enjoy them. If one is considering the priesthood, it might be better joining a religious order and then working in a parish, the way many do; then one has friends and support, a sort of home.

 

[Tsuwano]

An example of an ‘Orthodox’ diocese would be the Diocese of Lincoln. They only have some 90,000 catholics in a diocese with a population that covers the southern half of Nebraska and a population of 500,000. Yet they have continuously had several dozen seminarians in formation for the past several years. Their diocese has opened the only new diocesan seminary in decades. All this because their current (and former bishop) are very faithful to the Magesterium and completely loyal to the Pope. They maintain strong traditional values and take a hard line against heretical organizations like Call to Action and Planned Parenthood.

On the other hand, a liberal or non-orthodox diocese is one in which the bishop is will not stand up publicly against issues such as abortion, gay marriage, celibate/male only priests, etc… In fact, some bishops openly support these heresies. These bishops typically exude an air of rebelliousness to the Pope and the Magesterium. Their dioceses typically have very few, if any, vocations and some have had to close their seminaries/convents as a result of ‘calling the shots’ their way in their diocese.

Hope that clears up the terminology.

Actually, the terminology seems more muddled than ever. You seem to be saying that a diocese is orthodox if it has vocations in its seminary and a diocese that lacks vocations is not orthodox. This seems to be a limited definition of orthodoxy. Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that some bishops “typically exude an air of rebelliousness to the Pope and the Magesterium.” What does one actually do to exude and air of rebelliousness? Besides, I was under the impression that the Pope is able to remove a bishop from his diocese who is in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church. Why hasn’t this happened if those bishops are in rebellion against the Church? I was also under the impression that the U.S. bishops, at least, generally publish their responses to such issues as “homosexual marriage” or “abortion” through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I have never read a statement from any American Bishop expressing his support for abortion on demand, the ordination of female priests, or active homosexuality in seminaries. Who are those bishops who openly support these things? If they openly support these things, why haven’t they been removed or excommunicated?

 

[1234]

Actually, the terminology seems more muddled than ever. You seem to be saying that a diocese is orthodox if it has vocations in its seminary and a diocese that lacks vocations is not orthodox. This seems to be a limited definition of orthodoxy. Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that some bishops “typically exude an air of rebelliousness to the Pope and the Magesterium.” What does one actually do to exude and air of rebelliousness? Besides, I was under the impression that the Pope is able to remove a bishop from his diocese who is in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church. Why hasn’t this happened if those bishops are in rebellion against the Church? I was also under the impression that the U.S. bishops, at least, generally publish their responses to such issues as “homosexual marriage” or “abortion” through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I have never read a statement from any American Bishop expressing his support for abortion on demand, the ordination of female priests, or active homosexuality in seminaries. Who are those bishops who openly support these things? If they openly support these things, why haven’t they been removed or excommunicated?

Hear,hear, Tsu. Good response.

Most of the bishops in the US were appointed by JPII anyway, who had a long pontificate. AND anyone rebelling as what’s-his-name did in in Seattle, ?Weakland? receives a ‘helper’ from Rome just to keep things in line.

I personally think that this self-styled ‘orthodox’ vs the ‘non orthodox’ thinking is very dangerous and can lead to schism. You are imputing conditions which probably do not exist, are dependent on rumor, which you cannot prove. Just because a nun comes in to teach a class on Reiki doesn’t mean that the a) bishop, b) diocese, c) nun or d) her order is heretical!

–this orthodox v. the non-ortho line is especially bad on Vocation Station on Phatmass, where there are a bunch of posters who belong to the Perpetually Discerning and/or who are ineligible for celibate life, ie they are married! They moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals, 1990 Constitutions (of the Discalced Carmelite nuns for the cognoscenti) and generally cast a dim view of Vatican II. Only fully habited, preferably papally cloistered orders will do, who preferably sing all of the above. Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t *actually entered *these orders! Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.

Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass, so much so, that a few actual discerners and people who *have actually entered and are persevering *in these orders have quit in disgust. (They have PM’ed me privately).

 

[nightwalker]

Besides, I was under the impression that the Pope is able to remove a bishop from his diocese who is in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church. Why hasn’t this happened if those bishops are in rebellion against the Church?

Yes, and no. The Pope could remove bishops from their dioceses, but it does not seem that it is easy (if even possible) for him to remove them from the episcopacy. Instead of troublesome bishops in the Church you would end up with schismatic bishops like Milingo.

There are bishops who oppose the Pope on many issues. In order to pass through seminary and become recognized enough to become a bishop you have to be smart enough to know what you can “get away with”. No bishop will outright oppose Catholic teaching on homosexuality, but they will re-interpret instructions (like the one on seminaries) to be essentially meaningless.

The motu proprio is another good example: the Pope allowed every priest to offer the ‘Gregorian Rite’ (if you will) of the Mass, preventing bishops from forbidding it. So you have innumerable bishops setting up hoops for priests to jump through, even one bishop in Canada forbidding it out right. (watch that one)

The distinction of orthodox vs heterodox dioceses is somewhat misleading, at least in terminology. Perhaps it would be better to refer to those in ‘cheerful submission’ and those in ‘compliance’ with the Pope. It is often a matter of attitude, but attitude makes a huge difference.

As to 1234’s assertion that: “Just because a nun comes in to teach a class on Reiki doesn’t mean that the a) bishop, b) diocese, c) nun or d) her order is heretical!” is inaccurate. Reiki is based on a system of belief incompatible with Christianity.

If it is an isolated case than perhaps the nun is in error (although I would doubt it). If it were a pattern with a nun she could be assumed to be in material heresy. If concerns about the nun are ignored by her superiors, or if the order as a whole joins in or promotes such teaching, then the order as a whole is in a precarious state. So too with the bishop and the diocese, although as remoteness increases culpability decreases.

Leaving aside the attack on Phatmass and VS, I also wish to comment on this: “Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it…” 1234, have you wondered why? Many conservative (weak label, I know) Catholics wondered where all the religious went after Vatican II and why. Nowhere in Perfectae Caritatis does it call for the abandonment of the habit, apostolate, or rule of any order; on the contrary, it called for a return to the founders.

Many of the orders that did change dramatically following the Council have slid into questionable teachings, some religious openly campaign against the Pope at every turn. This is why some people discourage them, in general.

 

[johnnydigit]

yes, it’s hard to establish what “orthodox” means in the context many are using it today as it can be very subjective.

for me, it includes decisions which are less than conservative to preserving our tradition and faith, and building up our faithful. the mentality is minimalistic. what is done is only enough “just to get by”. e.g.,

-“if it’s not specifically condemned, than it’s ok”
-“eucharistic adoration? we are only required to have it once a month. why have more? it’s not needed really, and can actually cause negatives”
-“a youth program? nah, we don’t have any youth here.”
-“a young adult program? nah, we don’t have any here.”
-“you don’t have to dress nice. forget the robe, it’s not important.”
-"no, it’s ok. go ahead (and ignore that minor detail that is prescribed in the GIRM).
-“the real presence? yeah i know what it means. relax, it’s not that big of a deal. we’re not hurting anyone”

as you can see, many of these things aren’t necessarily wrong, but they keep choosing things which are conducive to causing our faith to deteriorate instead of grow. there is no extra care taken in the details. they are more lax. they have little to no zeal. the fire is barely there.

 

[johnnydigit]

These so-called ‘orthodox’ dioceses may produce more priests, but there will never produce enough of them, not even if all the dioceses in the US become ‘orthodox’, which is unlikely.

“produce enough of them” to do what? rebuild the Church with new saints and martyrs… to destroy this culture of death? it’s not going to happen with lax people who only want to do the minimum.

Hear,hear, Tsu. Good response.

Most of the bishops in the US were appointed by JPII anyway, who had a long pontificate. AND anyone rebelling as what’s-his-name did in in Seattle, ?Weakland? receives a ‘helper’ from Rome just to keep things in line.

I personally think that this self-styled ‘orthodox’ vs the ‘non orthodox’ thinking is very dangerous and can lead to schism. You are imputing conditions which probably do not exist, are dependent on rumor, which you cannot prove. Just because a nun comes in to teach a class on Reiki doesn’t mean that the a) bishop, b) diocese, c) nun or d) her order is heretical!

–this orthodox v. the non-ortho line is especially bad on Vocation Station on Phatmass, where there are a bunch of posters who belong to the Perpetually Discerning and/or who are ineligible for celibate life, ie they are married! They moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals, 1990 Constitutions (of the Discalced Carmelite nuns for the cognoscenti) and generally cast a dim view of Vatican II. Only fully habited, preferably papally cloistered orders will do, who preferably sing all of the above. Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t *actually entered *these orders! Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.

Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass, so much so, that a few actual discerners and people who *have actually entered and are persevering *in these orders have quit in disgust. (They have PM’ed me privately).

you mention rumors and judging, bu then do the same about Phatmass?

“moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals” - if you don’t know the value in those, then you’re missing out on a lot of what our Pope is wanting to rebuild our Church. if you don’t read his material, i suggest you look into Cardinal Arinze.

“Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t…” - uh huh.

“Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.” - i adore them. starting to sound like someone has issues with a particular board…

i happen to respect Vatican II. i happen to respect the choice of habit or no habit. many things point to holiness, but they don’t define holiness.

“Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass” - both are great and have great people i know personally.

hopefully you have found a vocation message board with a different personality that you can relate to, so that you don’t have to criticize Phatmass like you’ve done here… one less orthodox, less traditional. unfortunately, i know that none exist that is nearly as active, which, as much as you may hate it, points to the future of our Church.

fyi, maybe you can try standing up for yourself more there and maybe others who you weren’t aware of will support you. i don’t subscribe to the things you’ve criticized there and my opinion is respected fine. if they happen to outnumber me, so be it. truth is truth.

 

[IronHammer]

Actually, the terminology seems more muddled than ever. You seem to be saying that a diocese is orthodox if it has vocations in its seminary and a diocese that lacks vocations is not orthodox. This seems to be a limited definition of orthodoxy.

I think Orthodoxy is defined as holding traditional values and adherence to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. The proliferation (or not) of vocations in a diocese is, in my opinion, a good indicator of how ‘orthodox’ that bishop is.

Also, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that some bishops “typically exude an air of rebelliousness to the Pope and the Magesterium.” What does one actually do to exude and air of rebelliousness?

A ‘non-orthodox’ bishop has modernist tendencies (support female priesthood, homosexual marriage, abortion, birth control, etc…) and will do things such as allow anti-life organizations like Planned Parenthood to operate within his diocese. He will do things like allow modernist and relativist speakers to speak at his parishes and university. That’s the kind of thing a bishop does to exude an air of rebelliousness. He is rebellious but not so much so as to draw the ire of Rome.

Besides, I was under the impression that the Pope is able to remove a bishop from his diocese who is in rebellion against the Magisterium of the Church. Why hasn’t this happened if those bishops are in rebellion against the Church? I was also under the impression that the U.S. bishops, at least, generally publish their responses to such issues as “homosexual marriage” or “abortion” through the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I have never read a statement from any American Bishop expressing his support for abortion on demand, the ordination of female priests, or active homosexuality in seminaries. Who are those bishops who openly support these things? If they openly support these things, why haven’t they been removed or excommunicated?

Have you considered the possibility that modernist thought is so rampant in America that the problem is systemic? I honestly don’t know why these errant, divisive bishops aren’t removed or corrected. I do know that Bishops like Fabian Bruskewitz, Edward Braxton, Raymond Burke, Charles Chaput and others are the exception but they are slowly turning the tide against relativism and modernism. ‘non-orthodox’ priests and bishops have done nothing but divide the Catholic Church in America into camps of “i want this” and “we want that” and “we think this” instead of “We follow Rome”. Freedom has made America sick. So much so that it can’t even decide on something as simple as whether a person has the right to live their own life! The person may be free but people can’t handle freedom it seems. We need traditional values, we all need to be united together with Rome in everything if we are to survive these times. Christ appointed the Pope to be our shepherd. We must follow him.

 

[IronHammer]

Planned Parenthood is not ‘heretical’ in that it is not a religious organization. It is a secular one.

From the standpoint of the Catholic Faith, which is what we are discussing, they are murderers. It is possible for our clergy to provide support for and encourage their parishioners to seek help from Planned Parenthood without it being a ‘heretical’ organization. You get the point.

 

[Deblette]

These so-called ‘orthodox’ dioceses may produce more priests, but there will never produce enough of them, not even if all the dioceses in the US become ‘orthodox’, which is unlikely.

The reasons for becoming a celibate priest have changed in the last century. People don’t need to ‘church climb’ anymore–enter a seminary or a convent to get an education and escape poverty. Thanks to Vat II, marriage isn’t a second-rate institution any more–“It is better to marry than to burn”, Thanks, Paul–; you don’t have to enter a convent or monastery or seminary to get saved or to acquire status and education for yourself and your family. If you want to do church work, you can do it as a married layperson, including becoming a permanent deacon.

I see on this forum and this thread a lot of young men having serious doubts about seminary, which center on celibacy, and well it might; men don’t do well alone. They are more easily isolated and have fewer friends. This isn’t just about sex, as many would have one believe; it’s about having a loving, supportive spouse, family, children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors, and the leisure to enjoy them. If one is considering the priesthood, it might be better joining a religious order and then working in a parish, the way many do; then one has friends and support, a sort of home.

I couldn’t agree with you less. I see so many young men now discerning a call to the Priesthood and it has so much to do with a love for the pure tradition of the Mass or the more orthodox followings. Orthodox to me just means celebration of Mass as it is supposed to be according to the Church. There is also an increase of young Catholics now being taught the need for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and their faith is now taking on a whole new dimension (no pun intended) that many Catholics never had revealed to them. This is the new evangelization of the church and it is exciting and beautiful to watch.

Groups are starting up in many parts of the country, like the Companions of Christ, where priests and seminarians are diocesan but, live in groups of two to four so that they have support like they did in the seminary. Getting the office of priest back to the priest after all this liberal **** is what is interesting the young now. Only a priest can consecrate the host and that is the center of all Mass and of our faith.

Priests are just as capable of having loving, supportive friends and relatives in their lives. If one is looking for a job with a lot of leisure time to just hang out, then yeah, don’t become a priest. If one is looking to sacrifice themselves for Christ and to bring souls to the Lord, to welcome man to life in baptism, to confirm them in the spirit, to bless their marriages, to bring them back to grace through reconcilliation and to lay them to rest, to live in the lives of people on such an intimate level all the time, become a priest. Becoming a priest isn’t a career choice per se, it is a vocation. It is answering a call from God and giving yourself up to him. We are all called to do the same, regardless of our vocation.

As for celibacy. Nothing is impossible with God and so many people view it as such a tough and unnatural thing when in reality, with the grace of God, it isn’t giving up all that much. There are many, many people who are celebate who are not priests or religious. Giving that all to God is incredible and God returns our sacrifices to us ten fold or a hundred fold. It is all a matter of if you really have the ability to empty yourself so that Christ may reside within you and then let him do the work.

What is interesting is we have a shortage of priests in this country and yet the other countries, africa, parts of asia, even india, are filled with men in the seminary. They are looking to serve God. All are called, very few answer. Maybe there are less distractions outside the U.S. and men are actually hearing the voice of God calling them.

 

[daughterofmary]

–this orthodox v. the non-ortho line is especially bad on Vocation Station on Phatmass, where there are a bunch of posters who belong to the Perpetually Discerning and/or who are ineligible for celibate life, ie they are married! They moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals, 1990 Constitutions (of the Discalced Carmelite nuns for the cognoscenti) and generally cast a dim view of Vatican II. Only fully habited, preferably papally cloistered orders will do, who preferably sing all of the above. Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t actually entered these orders! Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.

Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass, so much so, that a few actual discerners and people who have actually entered and are persevering in these orders have quit in disgust. (They have PM’ed me privately).

This is uncalled for and misleading. All of what was said here is misleading to the nature of Phatmass. Members there certainly do not “cast a dim view on Vatican II.” They “rep Pope” my friend.

Johnny said it best when he said,

“hopefully you have found a vocation message board with a different personality that you can relate to, so that you don’t have to criticize Phatmass like you’ve done here… one less orthodox, less traditional. unfortunately,*** i know that none exist that is nearly as active, which, as much as you may hate it, points to the future of our Church.***”

 

[IronHammer]

These so-called ‘orthodox’ dioceses may produce more priests, but there will never produce enough of them, not even if all the dioceses in the US become ‘orthodox’, which is unlikely.

Hmm, and if you look at how many priests are being produced by ‘orthodox’ versus ‘non-orthodox’ seminaries I think you will find that the tide is turning in favor of the ‘orthodox’ seminaries. It is my firm belief that American Catholics have woken up from the silly-phase they have been in since the 60’s and realize it’s a dead end full of division and quarreling. There are and always has been moral absolutes. We cannot continue to ignore them. The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. The young people are getting it…the older people will follow or fade away.

The reasons for becoming a celibate priest have changed in the last century. People don’t need to ‘church climb’ anymore

Where did this happen? I know it was common for young people in Subic Bay, Phillipines to join the US Navy in the 70’s and 80’s because it meant a future for them. This is the first I have heard that applying in America to the priesthood.

you don’t have to enter a convent or monastery or seminary to get saved or to acquire status and education for yourself and your family.

I would venture to guess that most seminarians were looking to follow their calling to Christ rather seeking an education or status. One doesn’t take on the duties of the priesthood because they are seeking fame or fortune. Have you ever noticed how hard a priest has to work?!

I see on this forum and this thread a lot of young men having serious doubts about seminary, which center on celibacy, and well it might; men don’t do well alone.

This is why they are urged to seriously consider the priesthood carefully. They are doing so, they way it sounds.

They are more easily isolated and have fewer friends. This isn’t just about sex, as many would have one believe; it’s about having a loving, supportive spouse, family, children, grandchildren, friends and neighbors, and the leisure to enjoy them.

I would love to see the data/statistics on this. Priests are serving God not this world. It is a supernatural job!

If one is considering the priesthood, it might be better joining a religious order and then working in a parish, the way many do; then one has friends and support, a sort of home.

If there are no priests then who would provides God’s children with the sacraments Jesus gave us?! The priesthood was established by Christ. You can’t just throw it out because it’s archaic or doesn’t jive with what people want these days.

Remember, God doesn’t change, we do. We are the ones who become disordered and have to get back in step with Him.

 

[Deblette]

Hear,hear, Tsu. Good response.

Most of the bishops in the US were appointed by JPII anyway, who had a long pontificate. AND anyone rebelling as what’s-his-name did in in Seattle, ?Weakland? receives a ‘helper’ from Rome just to keep things in line.

I personally think that this self-styled ‘orthodox’ vs the ‘non orthodox’ thinking is very dangerous and can lead to schism. You are imputing conditions which probably do not exist, are dependent on rumor, which you cannot prove. Just because a nun comes in to teach a class on Reiki doesn’t mean that the a) bishop, b) diocese, c) nun or d) her order is heretical!

–this orthodox v. the non-ortho line is especially bad on Vocation Station on Phatmass, where there are a bunch of posters who belong to the Perpetually Discerning and/or who are ineligible for celibate life, ie they are married! They moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals, 1990 Constitutions (of the Discalced Carmelite nuns for the cognoscenti) and generally cast a dim view of Vatican II. Only fully habited, preferably papally cloistered orders will do, who preferably sing all of the above. Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t *actually entered *these orders! Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.

Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass, so much so, that a few actual discerners and people who *have actually entered and are persevering *in these orders have quit in disgust. (They have PM’ed me privately).

I am not sure why you felt you had to unload a rant about Phatmass. com. I happen to think that forum is one of the best out there for all Catholics to discuss the faith. You may not agree with some people’s viewpoints and you can debate those points continually.
All people are at different points in their faith journey. What I have found is that the more one has detached themselves from this world and moved into having Christ as the center of their lives, the more orthodox they become.
I am not sure what you even mean by self styled orthodox. Do some people wish to see things go back to Latin Mass etc, sure they do. Do they state this as anything other than their personal desire, not really.
So, whatever your own personal problem with Phatmass is, please don’t dis it to others. It is a lively, entertaining, educational, faith filled place to learn and bond with others who live and love the Catholic faith.

 

[IronHammer]

What I have found is that the more one has detached themselves from this world and moved into having Christ as the center of their lives, the more orthodox they become.

Whoa, that’s a deep insight. Thanks for that one, Deblette!

 

[Deblette]

Whoa, that’s a deep insight. Thanks for that one, Deblette!

It has really been evident in my own life and I have noticed it in others I know who are in deep conversion as adults. Once you start detaching material goods and gains from your life, spend more time in prayer and adoration, you enter into a deeper relationship with God and somehow just naturally gravitate to the more conservative or orthodox ways. I think it is hard to go there if you live mostly in the secular world and then have a little corner of yourself reserved for God.
If you are living for God and only bother with the secular world as you have to, you see things so much differently.
Just my opinion based on my experience. I have no idea how it works.

 

[Phemie]

yes, it’s hard to establish what “orthodox” means in the context many are using it today as it can be very subjective.

for me, it includes decisions which are less than conservative to preserving our tradition and faith, and building up our faithful. the mentality is minimalistic. what is done is only enough “just to get by”. e.g.,

-“if it’s not specifically condemned, than it’s ok”
-“eucharistic adoration? we are only required to have it once a month. why have more? it’s not needed really, and can actually cause negatives”
-“a youth program? nah, we don’t have any youth here.”
-“a young adult program? nah, we don’t have any here.”
-“you don’t have to dress nice. forget the robe, it’s not important.”
-"no, it’s ok. go ahead (and ignore that minor detail that is prescribed in the GIRM).
-“the real presence? yeah i know what it means. relax, it’s not that big of a deal. we’re not hurting anyone”

as you can see, many of these things aren’t necessarily wrong, but they keep choosing things which are conducive to causing our faith to deteriorate instead of grow. there is no extra care taken in the details. they are more lax. they have little to no zeal. the fire is barely there.

One bishop I know, upon being asked by a non-Catholic if he could receive Communion, replied “Pretend you didn’t ask the question” and later gave him Communion.

 

[Deblette]

One bishop I know, upon being asked by a non-Catholic if he could receive Communion, replied “Pretend you didn’t ask the question” and later gave him Communion.

Well, that is certainly wrong. How did he get to be a Bishop without understanding exactly why you have to be Catholic to receive in the Catholic Church.
I would have asked him.

 

[Phemie]

Well, that is certainly wrong. How did he get to be a Bishop without understanding exactly why you have to be Catholic to receive in the Catholic Church.
I would have asked him.

I would have, had I been present. My role consisted in trying to keep the transitional Deacon from having a stroke over the incident.

It was my role to keep calming him down over all the abuses he saw in our diocese and parish in the year he was here. He was sooo happy to be ordained to the priesthood and be appointed to a “conservative” parish i.e. cassocks, habit for Sisters, hundreds of male altar servers, 80+ vested at each Sunday Mass.

 

[Deblette]

I would have, had I been present. My role consisted in trying to keep the transitional Deacon from having a stroke over the incident.

It was my role to keep calming him down over all the abuses he saw in our diocese and parish in the year he was here. He was sooo happy to be ordained to the priesthood and be appointed to a “conservative” parish i.e. cassocks, habit for Sisters, hundreds of male altar servers, 80+ vested at each Sunday Mass.

Glad your (now priest) deacon got to move on to something more in keeping with his faith beliefs. I love the cassocks and the habits!!! Must be a super large church.

I think I would slip a note to Rome on the priest who gave out that communion. He is so not in keeping with what he is called to do. Very sad. I think I would have a cow if I witnessed that. The worst thing I have ever seen was skipping the rite of handwashing. It is required but, it does not invalidate the Eucharist so I just shut up on that one. I see that once a week maybe at a church that is not mine at daily Mass. I am too much of a newbie to approach the priest on that. Altho, it does bug me that he also leaves Jesus alone on the altar to come out and shake some hands during the “sign of peace” part. I have not researched that yet to see if that is a no-no but, I think it might be.

 

[1234]

I couldn’t agree with you less. I see so many young men now discerning a call to the Priesthood and it has so much to do with a love for the pure tradition of the Mass or the more orthodox followings. Orthodox to me just means celebration of Mass as it is supposed to be according to the Church. There is also an increase of young Catholics now being taught the need for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and their faith is now taking on a whole new dimension (no pun intended) that many Catholics never had revealed to them. This is the new evangelization of the church and it is exciting and beautiful to watch.

Groups are starting up in many parts of the country, like the Companions of Christ, where priests and seminarians are diocesan but, live in groups of two to four so that they have support like they did in the seminary. Getting the office of priest back to the priest after all this liberal **** is what is interesting the young now. Only a priest can consecrate the host and that is the center of all Mass and of our faith.

Priests are just as capable of having loving, supportive friends and relatives in their lives. If one is looking for a job with a lot of leisure time to just hang out, then yeah, don’t become a priest. If one is looking to sacrifice themselves for Christ and to bring souls to the Lord, to welcome man to life in baptism, to confirm them in the spirit, to bless their marriages, to bring them back to grace through reconciliation and to lay them to rest, to live in the lives of people on such an intimate level all the time, become a priest. Becoming a priest isn’t a career choice per se, it is a vocation. It is answering a call from God and giving yourself up to him. We are all called to do the same, regardless of our vocation.

As for celibacy. Nothing is impossible with God and so many people view it as such a tough and unnatural thing when in reality, with the grace of God, it isn’t giving up all that much. There are many, many people who are celebate who are not priests or religious. Giving that all to God is incredible and God returns our sacrifices to us ten fold or a hundred fold. It is all a matter of if you really have the ability to empty yourself so that Christ may reside within you and then let him do the work.

What is interesting is we have a shortage of priests in this country and yet the other countries, africa, parts of asia, even india, are filled with men in the seminary. They are looking to serve God. All are called, very few answer. Maybe there are less distractions outside the U.S. and men are actually hearing the voice of God calling them.

Yes, there are celibates, but not by choice, and not many celibates at that. The percentage of never-marrieds is very low, even lower when you exclude priests and religious.

Religious life in the developing world offers a way out of poverty. It offers education, status, FOOD, medical care and many things that is otherwise not available to the poor. Anglicans do well in the developing countries, too.

Increasingly, priests are sacrament factories, running from mass to mass, no time for any kind of dialog, relaxation or friendship with anyone. People on this forum have showed up for confession only to find it canceled, or not even canceled, the priest just didn’t show up, probably too busy elsewhere. It would help if there were more priests, but who wants to be the first and then hope that myriads will follow?

The stats from CARA tell it all; seminarians up from 1995, but down from 2000 and 2005, ordinationsup from 2000, down from 1995, and all absolute numbers of religious, priests, nuns, brothers and diocesan priests, ordinations down continuously since 1965

cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm

 

[1234]

“produce enough of them” to do what? rebuild the Church with new saints and martyrs… to destroy this culture of death? it’s not going to happen with lax people who only want to do the minimum.

you mention rumors and judging, bu then do the same about Phatmass?

“moon about the Latin Rite, The Latin Chant, pre 1962 missals” - if you don’t know the value in those, then you’re missing out on a lot of what our Pope is wanting to rebuild our Church. if you don’t read his material, i suggest you look into Cardinal Arinze.

“Of course, these folks can’t or haven’t…” - uh huh.

“Another favorite are the videos of such orders in Europe, who don’t speak English, and aren’t likely to attract many Americans on the forum.” - i adore them. starting to sound like someone has issues with a particular board…

i happen to respect Vatican II. i happen to respect the choice of habit or no habit. many things point to holiness, but they don’t define holiness.

“Non-habited orders and ‘updated’ orders don’t cut it on Phatmass” - both are great and have great people i know personally.

hopefully you have found a vocation message board with a different personality that you can relate to, so that you don’t have to criticize Phatmass like you’ve done here… one less orthodox, less traditional. unfortunately, i know that none exist that is nearly as active, which, as much as you may hate it, points to the future of our Church.

fyi, maybe you can try standing up for yourself more there and maybe others who you weren’t aware of will support you. i don’t subscribe to the things you’ve criticized there and my opinion is respected fine. if they happen to outnumber me, so be it. truth is truth.

I have encouraged those that are discerning/have entered to continue to post on Phatmass to show the other side, that is reports of religious life from those who have actually entered who don’t moon about habits and cloisters and Latin----but they won’t. . They won’t post and others who were on Phatmass, a cloistered nun who was chased off, and other sisters–another who left in disgust after non-habited orders were insulted–and others who just don’t post anymore. honest to God vowed religious. I think that they don’t bother–who’d listen to them?