by Mike Rose isn’t always accurate, it dosen’t always give the entire story and it’s extremely inflammatory. ** *
You would rather we listen to a “trained investigate journalist” like, oh, Dan Rather?
There is nothing “soothing” about Goodbye, Good Men.
Read some of the “conservative” reviews of Rose and his inflammitory books. Begin with Google.
A great deal of truth to this, despite PhDs, glowing reports, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Gottle of Geer said:
Gottle of Geer said:## How is orthodoxy being muted ?
And where is there is “progressivism” in this matter ?
(What’s wrong with “progressivism”, BTW ? )
As described, the whole thing sounds like nothing but a dispute over who does what - aren’t pastors meant to preach, BTW ?
As to Albert’s point: St. Paul preached, and preaching is a very important part of the Church;'s mission. Apparently, if Protestants do something the Church does, that thing becomes eeevil
St. Alphonsus Ligouri - to name but one of hundreds of Catholic preachers of great reputation in the Church - preached constantly. Very Protestant - just like that other Protestant, the Pope. Other Protestants include St Louis de Montfort, Cardinal Newman, rather a lot of Dominicans, most of the Fathers.
Why some Catholics have this phobia of preaching, I cannot imagine. I think sermons ought to be much longer - they could be an excellent counter to the trash the media throw at Christians.
People are for ever griping about bad religious instruction - so let sermons be long enough for the religious instruction to be drawn from the passage of the Bible appointed in the Sacramentary, and, applied in detail to the needs of the hearers. ##
thanks
When I think of my brother who was in a Detroit seminary for one year, was told he was too “dedicated” to morality to be a priest, and was asked to leave… well he has not been back to the Church since - about 50 years. Goodbye, Good Men accurately describes many just like him.
I usually recommend the Changing Face of the Priesthood: the first half is an excellent description of how the very office and functions of the priesthood have changed and are viewed post council and the second half deals with the problems found within seminaries and during formation.
Denzinger’s contains the actual words the popes and the councils used in defining all the Catholic doctrines. Thus, it is THE primary source of all Catholic doctrines. The Bible is not, for the words in the bible are appealed to by any number of sects as the primary source of any number of their heterodox doctrines.
**I fully have felt God’s call to be a deacon, when I am the appropiate age, and I fully expect to be married at that point, for better or for worse. **He was not stopped until *his *pastor heard his homily.
That’s why I don’t attend that parish. I wouldn’t dare to do anything to jeopardize or scandalize my husband. Don’t worry - the feeling is mutual. The pastor doesn’t like me much, either.
I didn’t like that book. I think there may be some truth to the point he was making, but I didn’t think that he really relied on good research. Yeah, some guy says he got kicked out of seminary for being too holy :insert eyerolling emoticon: I also think that the book just makes for ugly scandal and gossip. I know people who attend the author’s parish. They say things that really shock and upset me, like “Michael Rose has tapes of priests doing and saying very naughty things!” “Michael Rose says that Archbishop So-and-so is into whips and chains!”
Actually, I think he’s an architect. Which makes his book on church architecture Ugly As Sin a little more palatable to me. Other than that, I agree with your opinion of Goodbye, Good Men
TheGarg said:
