"Pope Francis Digs at Vatican's Narcissistic Nature.."

[JReducation]

Br JR, I think you will make a very poor soap opera scriptwriter. I cannot find anywhere in your post what the response of Francis was.

Thank you for an excellent exposition of the life of a religious priest, etc. It certainly helps with the questions many ask about Jesuits and other religious priests.

One point about Jesuit community life (I am not Jesuit myself; although very close to them and Ignatian in my outlook, I decided not to join). The Jesuits do have some requirement for community life though nowhere as broad as in other religious orders. Our local Jesuit community still have the requirement for a weekly community meal, wherever they reside. Still, it would be correct to say that Jesuit community life is sometimes more a facade and some of the inter-personality squabbles in the local community can be rather in appropriate.

One of the problem is that (sorry for the over-generalisation), while many priests join the priesthood due to a desire to serve, most of the Jesuits I know join in for a specific idea about what they want to do. Put these strong personalities (enhanced even more by their 13-year training) together and what do you get? Where it works out, the individual Jesuit can be rather single-minded about what he thinks God wants him to do.

The motto of the Jesuits is AMDG For the Greater Glory of God. Which means they can do anything in the Church, wherever the work is needed. In US, they known for education but here in Asia, they were exemplary in the missions. Not only they brought Christianity to Asia, but they brought Asian indentities into Christianity. They did more than dress in secular clothes. In 16th century China, European Jesuits dressed as mandarins and studied the language, philosophy and culture like mandarins did. While this was very controversial in Europe and the Curia, they came close to converting the Emperor. During the Chinese Rites dispute (when Chinese Jesuits were praying the Liturgy of the Hours in Chinese - three centuries ahead of their time) and the Pope wrote to forbid it, the Chinese Emperor himself wrote to the Pope to ask him to reconsider.

In India, Jesuits dressed as wandering swamis. In Japan, they had a great influence over Japanese life. Did you know tempura was Lent food introduced by Portuguese Jesuits to the Japanese? The seed they planted was so strong that despite a persecution in which all priests were expelled or martyred, the faith survived for two centuries without any priests. The response of European priests when they discovered these Christians, though, still rankle to this day.

We in Asia owe a lot to Jesuits and we look forward to a Jesuit Pope. I pray for his protection and may a Jesuit Pope do for the universal Church what Jesuit missionaries did for the Asian Church.

I love the Jesuits. I worked very closely to them in the missions in South America. They were exemplary missionaries.

Yes, I guess I would make a bad script writer for the soap opera industry. LOL

The story ended with Francis telling the brothers to mind their own business. This is where he makes his famous statement, “I am what I am before God, nothing else.” He goes on to say that we are to judge anyone, because we are the worse sinners in the world. We’re so bad, that we’re even proud of being the worse sinners. Then he goes on to say that any sin that another commits, we have the potential to do much worse.

The message to the brothers was to find the good in the sinner and keep your nose out of other people’s souls.

Francis was always very careful to speak about sin in a very general way. In other words, if there was a adulterer in his presence, he would speak about lying, injustice, failure to love God as God deserves; but notice that adultery is not on this list. He would be horrified to call attention to the person for fear of being guilty of judging. Maybe on another occasion he would preach on adultery, but not that day. He was probably the most PC man you ever wanted to meet. His way of being PC was very honest. It had nothing to do with sweeping sin under the rug. It was all about not doing harm, not even to sinners. Calling them out in public is not the charitable or the merciful thing to do. Francis always pointed to the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery. He always pointed to how Jesus was very careful not to do harm to them.

 

[jimkhong]

I love the Jesuits. I worked very closely to them in the missions in South America. They were exemplary missionaries.

Yes, I guess I would make a bad script writer for the soap opera industry. LOL

The story ended with Francis telling the brothers to mind their own business. This is where he makes his famous statement, “I am what I am before God, nothing else.” He goes on to say that we are to judge anyone, because we are the worse sinners in the world. We’re so bad, that we’re even proud of being the worse sinners. Then he goes on to say that any sin that another commits, we have the potential to do much worse.

The message to the brothers was to find the good in the sinner and keep your nose out of other people’s souls.

Francis was always very careful to speak about sin in a very general way. In other words, if there was a adulterer in his presence, he would speak about lying, injustice, failure to love God as God deserves; but notice that adultery is not on this list. He would be horrified to call attention to the person for fear of being guilty of judging. Maybe on another occasion he would preach on adultery, but not that day. He was probably the most PC man you ever wanted to meet. His way of being PC was very honest. It had nothing to do with sweeping sin under the rug. It was all about not doing harm, not even to sinners. Calling them out in public is not the charitable or the merciful thing to do. Francis always pointed to the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery. He always pointed to how Jesus was very careful not to do harm to them.

Thanks, Br JR to know how it ended.

Though I am Ignatian in my outlook, Francis of Assisi was my patron saint for my confirmation. I guess a Jesuit Pope with the name Francis is the culmination of what I think a priest should be.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks, Br JR to know how it ended.

Though I am Ignatian in my outlook, Francis of Assisi was my patron saint for my confirmation. I guess a Jesuit Pope with the name Francis is the culmination of what I think a priest should be.

But Francis was never a priest. :nope:

And for those silly folks out there who insist on saying that he did not see himself worthy of being a priest, the answer to that is, “legend”. Bonaventure and Thomas of Celano never say this. Not sure where this came from. Maybe people are confusing this with the fact that he never wanted priors and abbots. At that time, priors and abbots were priests. He did not want priors and abbots, because he did not want such tight authority over his brothers. Authority had to be fraternal, not paternal. Nothing to do with priests.

People draw the strangest conclusions.

 

[Abba]

My dear Brother JR,

This discussion with you has indeed been fruitful as it exposed me to the religious life. I would have never thought that it could come to a point in where we would disagree with a matter that we both hold dear to our hearts, for you the brothers and religious life and for me the priests and the priesthood.

It is not so simple, as it would be presumptuous, to consider that I need to find my place as I am a laity and have no (name removed by moderator)ut in the matter. Indeed, much to the contrary, I am oblige to speak what I think as I do have a duty as a laity and faithful to do so. Peter said that we should always be ready to defend the faith that is in us. I do not need to have a Ph.d to do this. I can speak and express my understanding and concerns not for my benefit but for the good of all. This is not about me, I do not play a role in this discussion, this is about my faith.

I think it is dangerous and detrimental to promote the view and position of a priest in a religious community out to the world where it does not apply. We are discussing, you and me here but will some laity do as you are saying to their priests? I like to think that the great majority will not but I am still concern about the few that may if this ideology is propagated and those few may grow into a bigger number and this may hurt our priests.

In reality, I do understand that the reverence and respect laity demonstrate to their priests has a spiritual foundation and that will always be the case so the priesthood will survive attacks.

I hope in this papacy it will not be the case that we have merely changed obsessions. As the pastor that Pope Francis is, I do not think that is his intention at all nor will he promote and allow such a thing.

I appreciate your concern with assuring that in your community the priests understand and anyone that comes in contact with the brothers that they are all equal and the priest does not have a better position than the others. That is the religious life which enjoys a beautiful charism.

However, in the world, the position of the priest is very different and this has a biblical and spiritual basis. If we reverence, respect and love our pastors this helps us to grow and it is good for the whole community the pastor cares for. In Hebrews we read: remember your leaders (priests) who preached the word of God to you, and as you reflect in the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith." (Heb 13:7). And in Hebrews 13:24 we read:
Obey your leaders and do as they tell you, because they must give an account in the way they look after your soul; make this a joy for them to do and not a grief - you yourselves will be the losers".

I understand that there exists something called ‘clericalism’ but the solutions to problems and concerns need to be kept in there place. Otherwise, other areas can be damaged. The hierarchy of the Church was established by Our Lord Jesus - it is not man made. It is exists and again, and appears to have been overly emphasized these past decades and adjustments need to be done but it can never be completely horizontal because it was Our Lord Jesus that established it vertical. That of course is a given, and I see how Pope Francis recognizing this, of course, wants to remove the narcissism and in doing so allow for more humility which will be good for all.

This, however, does not mean he is giving free reign on our priests.

Peace

 

[JReducation]

I believe that this is common misunderstanding.

I think it is dangerous and detrimental to promote the view and position of a priest in a religious community out to the world where it does not apply. . . . ]this may hurt our priests.

That which is part of the religious life is also part of the greater life of the Church. The religious life and its rules are approved by the Church for the good of the Church. These lead to salvation when they are observed. The Church does not approve that is not for the common good. Nothing in religious life takes anything away from those religious who are priests, not anything essential to the priest and the priesthood. What religious life does is to equalize. In doing so, it actually protects the priest from clericalism. What the Church demands, in such documents such as Perfectae Caritatis and Vita Consecrata is encourage the religious orders to take their vision and their way of life to the laity as an example of charity and life in the Kingdom to come. From the point of view of the Church, these rules and customs very much apply to the extended Church, because she expects the extended Church to adjust accordingly.

This is why I offered you the example of the religious priest who can be in a confessional and leave at an appointed time, even when there are more people waiting. The Church expects those people to adjust to the fact that this man is a religious and that at the appointed time, he has obligations to his religious community and that an absence from such an obligation may and probably will be acceptable on some occasions, will never be acceptable as a frequent occurrence.

Clericalism, be it at the parish level or at the Vatican is not helpful. This is part of the Holy Father’s concern. He understands well that clericalism can easily lead people to focus on the wrong thing or to ignore other things of equal value.

In reality, I do understand that the reverence and respect laity demonstrate to their priests has a spiritual foundation and that will always be the case so the priesthood will survive attacks.

The priesthood is no under attack when religious state that priests who belong to religious communities live differently and see themselves differently from their counterparts in a diocese or a priestly institute. They should see themselves differently, be they at home or on the road.

I hope in this papacy it will not be the case that we have merely changed obsessions. As the pastor that Pope Francis is, I do not think that is his intention at all nor will he promote and allow such a thing.

No it is not. However, he has spoken very clearly against clericalism. If the article can be trusted, he said that when he runs into clericalism he himself feels anticlerical. I don’t think that he means that he feels as did the French or the Mexicans during their heyday of anticlericalism, which was politically driven. I think that he’s speaking as a Jesuit, meaning that it bothers him to the point that he wishes it were not so.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate your concern with assuring that in your community the priests understand and anyone that comes in contact with the brothers that they are all equal and the priest does not have a better position than the others. That is the religious life which enjoys a beautiful charism.

However, in the world, the position of the priest is very different and this has a biblical and spiritual basis.

This biblical message is equally observed in religious communities, without distinctions that are unnecessary to the religious life. We certainly have a great love for our pastors and we submit to them more than you will imagine. I can best speak about the Franciscan tradition. We have a great love for our superiors, our bishops and the Holy Father. We hold diocesan priests in high esteem. We submit to the authority of those clerics in position of authority with a fraternal love and unquestioning obedience.

From what I have seen, monks and friars are much more submissive to the bishops and the Holy Father than most Catholic laymen. For example, a thread such as this would never be allowed among monks and friars. The Holy Father said X and so it is, unless he’s speaking contrary to the Commandments.

If we examine the threads on this forum about what the Holy Father has really said and has allegedly said, you’ll find much more disregard for the priesthood that you will ever find in a monastic house or a fraternal friary and priory. None of the points being argued back and forth on these forums are being argued in monasteries, priories or friaries. Once it is established that this is what the Holy Father wants or this is what a bishop wants, it is accepted and everyone is silent on the matter. There are no further discussions or analysis. The laity seems to feel quite free to analyze and even attack its parish priests, local pastors, bishops and the Holy Father, something that religious superiors would never tolerate from one of our own whether he does it to a confrere or to a priest outside of his community.

If we reverence, respect and love our pastors this helps us to grow and it is good for the whole community the pastor cares for.

I wish this were true. But you and I know that it is not. Far too many Catholics treat priests, religious brothers and religious sisters as commodities. If they provide what the laity wants, then they are appreciated, loved and respected, otherwise they come under attack.

I understand that there exists something called ‘clericalism’ but the solutions to problems and concerns need to be kept in there place. Otherwise, other areas can be damaged. The hierarchy of the Church was established by Our Lord Jesus - it is not man made. It is exists and again, and appears to have been overly emphasized these past decades and adjustments need to be done but it can never be completely horizontal because it was Our Lord Jesus that established it vertical. That of course is a given, and I see how Pope Francis recognizing this, of course, wants to remove the narcissism and in doing so allow for more humility which will be good for all.

I hope everyone agrees on this. It is necessary to understand the hierarchy as Christ understands it.

This, however, does not mean he is giving free reign on our priests.

You lost me here.

But in closing, let me state again, for the benefit of all readers. When you meet a priest or work with a priest, you owe to him to follow the norms that are appropriate for him. If he’s a Dominican, you owe to him to conform to the norms of the Dominican family. If he’s Benedictine, then to those norms, Franciscan to those and diocesan to those, etc. It’s not that difficult to do. No one asks for the impossible and no one asks for something that you have to study in order to learn. One learns by observation.

I’ll offer one simple example and then I’ll shut up. When I meet a bishop who is a Jesuit I shake his hand. Why? I know that Jesuits do not allow their bishops to stand out. Jesuit bishops feel very uncomfortable when you kiss their ring. If I’m in the presence of a secular bishop, I will kiss his ring, unless I see that he prefers a handshake, as is the case in my diocese. My bishop pulls away and barely speaks when you kiss his ring. He’s not being mean, he’s feeling uncomfortable. When you shake his hand he is very relaxed and talkative.

We do have to adjust for the sake of kindness and for the sake of the common good. I believe that this is what Pope Francis means and why he said that the problem was not with the cardinals and those in positions of authority, but with those who were at their service. These individuals are bent on preserving a “hierarchy” that should not exist. The hierarchy is gubernatorial and sacramental, but these are not as they are treated today, especially at the Vatican. Even a gubernatorial hierarchy has limits. When you clericalize everything, then you turn the priesthood into a royal state and you turn Church government into part of priesthood. There are certain offices that can only be occupied by priests, but they are not royals. There are certain offices that can be occupied by laymen and they are not to be clericalized. This dovetails with the Holy Father’s other comment that there is greater place for women at the Vatican. But because we have distorted the image of the priesthood, we have clericalized everything and excluded women and laymen.

 

[Abba]

These folks to inflate the egos of the other person, the pope says are like leprosy. I would have used the word, cancer because most people have seen cancer. Both are diseases that slowly eat away at your life.

If you’re inflating priests at the local level or inflating cardinals at the curia in Rome, you’re a cancer. You’re not helping these men become holy and you’re not helping them live the life that God called them to live. You’re encouraging their base instincts instead of their virtues.

The best support that you can give to a priest, brother, bishop or cardinal is to help him with his work and support him with your prayers. Don’t kiss his boots.

I think it is good to be prudent with these situations. Just because some clerics have been enjoying things that they shouldn’t be, be they material or ego lifting; it can not be said that the rule of a religious community which equalizes a priest with a community of brothers is the thing to do in the world. Neither can it be said that the role of the priest is merely to administer the sacraments and then after that back to the ranks and files with the laity.

A priest is not a priest only when he is administering the sacrament. The priesthood is not a charism, although some theologian have tried to argue that it is. But, it is not. The priesthood was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who empowered the apostles and sent them out to evangelize.

The priest is a priest for ever and I will add always. A priest is not only a priest when he is administering the sacraments. A priest is a priest 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and 365 day per year and for ever and always. He has an eternal mark in his soul that does not appear and disappears when he is administering the sacraments - it is permanent and does not go away - not even in hell.

The priesthood is not confined nor limited to the administration of the sacraments, the priest has a mission and responsibility to Christianize, sanctify and evangelize the community of which they are in charge. This is why I said that falling back to the rank and file in a religious community is accepted but not in the world with the laity where a priest and rightly so, continues to be a priest even after administering the sacrament.

Regarding the documents you quoted, yes, it is good for people to enjoy a community that is practicing the counsels (poverty, obedience and chastity/celibacy) but it is not encourage for such a community to disrupt the priesthood. Where is that?

Regarding priests not being shepherds as you wrote:

1564 “Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest,** they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament**.”

I have witnessed in my life, that when a community of faithfuls reverence, honor and love their priests - it is good. This fact, should not be muddied up with this whole narcissism thing nor with the role priests are allowed in religious communities.

Peace

P.s. I was just thinking, that if we took 3 priests and disguised them with religious robes and 27 religious and 300 laity and provided a 3 days retreat at the end of which the laity would have to try to determine who are the three priesst. I would not be surprised at all if the laity discern the 3 priests from the 30. You see - it’s a spiritual thing.

 

[Brendan_64]

But, it is not. The priesthood was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who empowered the apostles and sent them out to evangelize.

Priest are not empowered to evangelise, they are called to evangelise, just as all Christians are. In this we are all equal. It as much our job to evangelise as it is the priest’s. Evangelising is part of being a Christian, it is not part of the specific role of the priest.

The priesthood is not confined nor limited to the administration of the sacraments, the priest has a mission and responsibility to Christianize, sanctify and evangelize the community of which they are in charge. .

Priests are not in charge of the community to whom they serve. They serve us, they are not in charge of us. If they were in charge of us then that would mean that the congregation serves the priest. the reality is that we all, as Christians, serve each other, and mankind. The priest is no different in this regard. It isn’t the role of the priest (as a priest) to evangelise, it is his role as a Christian to evangelise (as it is the role of us all).

 

[Abba]

Priest are not empowered to evangelise, they are called to evangelise, just as all Christians are. In this we are all equal. It as much our job to evangelise as it is the priest’s. Evangelising is part of being a Christian, it is not part of the specific role of the priest.

I wrote: Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who empowered the apostles and sent them out to evangelize.

Empowered to forgive sins, cast our demons, etc…
sent them out to evangelise, yes, you are correct. Here I wanted to refer to how they are to sanctify the community of faithfuls. Nonetheless, they are also to evangelize and yes we are too but, now that this is brought up, I think in some document of the Church (VII ?) it is specified that part of their duties as priests is to evangelize. That would be not just as Christians.

Priests are not in charge of the community to whom they serve. They serve us, they are not in charge of us. If they were in charge of us then that would mean that the congregation serves the priest. the reality is that we all, as Christians, serve each other, and mankind. The priest is no different in this regard. It isn’t the role of the priest (as a priest) to evangelise, it is his role as a Christian to evangelise (as it is the role of us all).

The priests are responsible for us and will have to give an account to God for us. They are the ‘soul’ of a community and they shepherd us; guide us… They are our spiritual leaders.

Peace

 

[Brendan_64]

I wrote: Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who empowered the apostles and sent them out to evangelize.

Evangelisation was not part of the priestly mission. Evangelisation is part of each Christian’s mission. The priest is called to evangelise, not because he is a priest, but because he is a Christian (like the rest of us).

Empowered to forgive sins, cast our demons, etc.

Yes he is called to forgive sins because that involves administering the sacraments (which is his priestly duty) but Christ did not specifically empower priests to cast out demons. All Christians are empowered to cast out demons (and to lay hands on the sick). this is not a priestly function.

The priests are responsible for us and will have to give an account to God for us. They are the ‘soul’ of a community and they shepherd us; guide us… They are our spiritual leaders.

Peace

No they’re not. The Bishop is the shepherd of his flock.

I also disagree with you that priests are our spiritual leaders, or the ‘soul’ of the community. No one person is the ‘soul’ of the community. We are a community of believers, we area spiritual communion, the priest is neither the centre, nor the soul of that spiritual communion. He plays an important role in the community, but so do many others.

The only thing that sets priests apart from other Christians is his ability to administer the sacraments, that’s all. Everything else that a priest does can (and should) be done by the laity. Apart from the ability to administer the sacraments, there is nothing special about priests.

 

[Abba]

No they’re not. The Bishop is the shepherd of his flock.

I also disagree with you that priests are our spiritual leaders, or the ‘soul’ of the community. No one person is the ‘soul’ of the community. We are a community of believers, we area spiritual communion, the priest is neither the centre, nor the soul of that spiritual communion. He plays an important role in the community, but so do many others.

The only thing that sets priests apart from other Christians is his ability to administer the sacraments, that’s all. Everything else that a priest does can (and should) be done by the laity. Apart from the ability to administer the sacraments, there is nothing special about priests.

Helllo Brendan 64,

In Vatican II Lumen Gentium it is written:

“Those of the faithfuls who are consecrated to Holy Orders are appointed to feed the Church in Christ’s name with the Word and the grace of God”…"“The ministries are meant to work for the good of the whole body.”

In Lument Gentium it is written in “The Pastoral office of Bishops in the Church” [Bishops take up] …“the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock whose shepherd they are, as teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship and officers of good order.” Jean Galot in The Theology of the Priesthood notes:

"Priests participate in this pastoral office through all the activities in which they engage: “Inasmucn as it is connected with the episcopal order, the priestly office shares in the authority by which Christ Himself builds up, sanctifies, and rules His body” (PO, 2 [Abbott, p.535]).
The two possible usages of the word “shepherd” are not just semantic variations. The difference between the one usage and the other involves a whole conception of the priestly functions, for the ministries of the word and worship take on a special meaning when they become the expression of pastoral mission.
It is this mission that marks the difference between the word spoke by the priest and that of the laity. As example, lay persons may preach and catechize, for they too are called upon to hand down the word of God. The priest, however, speaks specifically as the shepherd who must respond to the needs of the community entrusted to him by conveying to them God’s own message. His outlook is inherently pastoral.
Likewise, worship should not be divorced from the whole pastoral talks by which the priest attends to the spiritual growth of the community. We notice a divorce of this sort in certain attempts at suggesting a novel priesthood. According to Msgr. Illich, the new type of secular priest is a man entrusted mostly with the presidency at the Eucharistic Celebration. In his view, all Christians of good will can prepare themselves to assume this presidency. This means that, secularization notwithstanding, the much maligned concept of the priesthood as ritual or cultic empowerment remains in place, and depreciation for the priesthood follows as a consequence. True, this makes is easier to entrust the priesthood to lay person, but the evangelical notion of priesthood is thereby mutilated. The presidency at the Eucharistic Celebration should not be isolated from the entire pastoral mission. It must be regard as the apex of the pastoral task which is meant to animate the community and provide leadership.
Finally, when the function of the leadership is given a pastoral import, less attention goes to administration and more to personal relationships. The shepherd is a man who knows his sheep, and whom the sheep know, a man who calls them by name.” Theology of the Priesthood. Galot. Page 141.

Jesus was sealed by the Father who at his baptism said : This is my beloved son…" Our Lord Jesus calls men to the priesthood and they are marked as men of God with a mission to accomplish. In the same way that Jesus reveals to us the Father, priests who perform their mission reveal to us Christ. The more a priest is true to his calling the more holy he becomes and more he reveals Jesus to us and God the Father because it is as Jesus said; if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Being a priest is not just a matter of administering the sacraments, the priesthood is much more than that - irregardless of the fact that in our modern times and with the scarcity of priest we would like to believe otherwise. The priesthood cannot be deduced to certain functions (preach, shepherd, sacraments) either singularly or merely to these functions. It is much more than that - there occurs a change in being. Galot writes that Jesus changed Simon’s name and this demonstrated a recognition of a change in the person. Maybe if we recognized this more young men would be attracted to the priesthood. The priests are the leaders of our communities the soul as they unite the community of believers.

May God bless our priests.

Blessings,

Abba

 

[JReducation]

In Vatican II Lumen Gentium it is written:

“Those of the faithfuls who are consecrated to Holy Orders are appointed to feed the Church in Christ’s name with the Word and the grace of God”…"“The ministries are meant to work for the good of the whole body.”

In Lument Gentium it is written in “The Pastoral office of Bishops in the Church” [Bishops take up] …“the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock whose shepherd they are, as teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship and officers of good order.” Jean Galot in The Theology of the Priesthood notes:

"Priests participate in this pastoral office through all the activities in which they engage: “Inasmucn as it is connected with the episcopal order, the priestly office shares in the authority by which Christ Himself builds up, sanctifies, and rules His body” (PO, 2 [Abbott, p.535]).

[snipped for space]

Finally, when the function of the leadership is given a pastoral import, less attention goes to administration and more to personal relationships. The shepherd is a man who knows his sheep, and whom the sheep know, a man who calls them by name.” Theology of the Priesthood. Galot. Page 141.

Jesus was sealed by the Father who at his baptism said : This is my beloved son…" Our Lord Jesus calls men to the priesthood and they are marked as men of God with a mission to accomplish. In the same way that Jesus reveals to us the Father, priests who perform their mission reveal to us Christ. The more a priest is true to his calling the more holy he becomes and more he reveals Jesus to us and God the Father because it is as Jesus said; if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Being a priest is not just a matter of administering the sacraments, the priesthood is much more than that - irregardless of the fact that in our modern times and with the scarcity of priest we would like to believe otherwise. The priesthood cannot be deduced to certain functions (preach, shepherd, sacraments) either singularly or merely to these functions. It is much more than that - there occurs a change in being. Galot writes that Jesus changed Simon’s name and this demonstrated a recognition of a change in the person. Maybe if we recognized this more young men would be attracted to the priesthood. The priests are the leaders of our communities the soul as they unite the community of believers.

May God bless our priests.

Blessings,

Abba

I believe that you are confusing the language of Vatican II just as you confused the language of religious life when I tried to explain how we want our priests to function in the larger community such as a parish.

The priest shares in the priesthood of the bishop. It is the bishop who is the pastor and it is the bishop who enjoys the fullness of the priesthood. No priest, has the power to exercise the ministerial priesthood without either a bishop or a religious superior, if he’s a religious.

Ordination does bring about an ontological change in the person’s soul. However, it is the Ordinary who confers faculties to preach, absolve, celebrate the mass for the people of God, and celebrate the other sacraments.

There was a time when the Latin Church thought of priest and priesthood as synonymous. As of 1983 that’s not longer the case. A priest is a presbyter, but he does not have the power or authority to exercise the priesthood, because it’s not his to exercise. It is the proper office of the bishop or of his religious superior, if he is ministering in a place under the authority of the superior. Let’s leave out these last scenario so as not to confuse the matter. Let’s stick with the bishop. It is the bishop who is the pastor or shepherd. And it is the bishop who has jurisdiction and faculties over the faithful in his church. He shares his ministry with the presbyter. The presbyter does not exercise his ministry on his own, even though he has an ontological mark.

A good support for this is the process of laicization. When a priest is laicized, does he become a layman? No. Once a cleric always a cleric. Does he remain part of the clergy? Yes. Is he in the clerical state? No. He is a cleric who lives in the lay state. Why so? He no longer shares in the priesthood of the local bishop. However, the ontological mark on his soul cannot be diluted because of laicization, regardless of the reasons, be they a dishonorable dismissal or an honorable dispensation.

If it were the case that all of this authority to shepherd and to dispense graces came solely from ordination, a bishop would become unnecessary once he ordains.

The same way that a priest is dependent on the bishop in order to exercise the priesthood, a religious who is a priest is dependent on his religious superior and his community. His order is not simply a charism. It is a way of life in which he ministers as a priest. His ministry must be within this way of lie and must follow the rules of this way of life, just as the ministry of a secular priest is within the jurisdiction of the bishop and must follow the bishop. In the one case, the religious community has the right and power to strip one of its priests of all faculties and in the other case, the bishop has that right. In both cases, the priest is part of something bigger than himself. He is not the focus of the community.

As far as the laity is concerned, regardless of whether the priest is secular or regular, the focus is always the bishop, because the laity is under the jurisdiction of the bishop, not the local priest. The local priest shares in the ministry of the bishop, which the bishop can take away at any time, within reason.

 

[Abba]

I believe that you are confusing the language of Vatican II just as you confused the language of religious life when I tried to explain how we want our priests to function in the larger community such as a parish.

I don’t want to confuse you either. You seem to be avoiding the arguments.

Every thing you have written below are repetitions of the points I have made. You may want to read my posts as it seems that you think you are providing information a new which have already been presented.

I quoted in my last post that the priest participates in the pastoral office of the bishop (repeated again below).

"Priests participate in this pastoral office through all the activities in which they engage: “Inasmucn as it is connected with the episcopal order, the priestly office shares in the authority by which Christ Himself builds up, sanctifies, and rules His body” (PO, 2 [Abbott, p.535]).

The priest shares in the priesthood of the bishop. It is the bishop who is the pastor and it is the bishop who enjoys the fullness of the priesthood. No priest, has the power to exercise the ministerial priesthood without either a bishop or a religious superior, if he’s a religious.

Ordination does bring about an ontological change in the person’s soul. However, it is the Ordinary who confers faculties to preach, absolve, celebrate the mass for the people of God, and celebrate the other sacraments.

There was a time when the Latin Church thought of priest and priesthood as synonymous. As of 1983 that’s not longer the case. A priest is a presbyter, but he does not have the power or authority to exercise the priesthood, because it’s not his to exercise. It is the proper office of the bishop or of his religious superior, if he is ministering in a place under the authority of the superior. Let’s leave out these last scenario so as not to confuse the matter. Let’s stick with the bishop. It is the bishop who is the pastor or shepherd. And it is the bishop who has jurisdiction and faculties over the faithful in his church. He shares his ministry with the presbyter. The presbyter does not exercise his ministry on his own, even though he has an ontological mark.

A good support for this is the process of laicization. When a priest is laicized, does he become a layman? No. Once a cleric always a cleric. Does he remain part of the clergy? Yes. Is he in the clerical state? No. He is a cleric who lives in the lay state. Why so? He no longer shares in the priesthood of the local bishop. However, the ontological mark on his soul cannot be diluted because of laicization, regardless of the reasons, be they a dishonorable dismissal or an honorable dispensation.

If it were the case that all of this authority to shepherd and to dispense graces came solely from ordination, a bishop would become unnecessary once he ordains.

The same way that a priest is dependent on the bishop in order to exercise the priesthood, a religious who is a priest is dependent on his religious superior and his community. His order is not simply a charism. It is a way of life in which he ministers as a priest. His ministry must be within this way of lie and must follow the rules of this way of life, just as the ministry of a secular priest is within the jurisdiction of the bishop and must follow the bishop. In the one case, the religious community has the right and power to strip one of its priests of all faculties and in the other case, the bishop has that right. In both cases, the priest is part of something bigger than himself. He is not the focus of the community.

As far as the laity is concerned, regardless of whether the priest is secular or regular, the focus is always the bishop, because the laity is under the jurisdiction of the bishop, not the local priest. The local priest shares in the ministry of the bishop, which the bishop can take away at any time, within reason.

+++

Our Lord Jesus calls many but few answer the call. This can be applied to the priesthood. We can blame it on the cultures and rightly so. However, additionally, perhaps, we have responsibility when men answer the call and are presented with a crippled priesthood (or to use Galot’s terminology "mutilated’) and think that perhaps they misunderstood the call.

 

[OraLabora]

THEY FOCUSED ON A CASSOCK AND STOLE!!! :banghead:

But we don’t have narcissism in the Church. :nope:

This is narcissism. This is the leprosy of the papacy that Pope Francis spoke about. This constant watch for temporal to the point that the transcendent is forgotten.

Agree completely. I had the good fortune of being at the Holy Father’s Angelus blessing at St. Peter’s last Sunday.

He asked the crowd for a few moments of silence in memory of the shipwrecked of Lampedusa. Imagine for a moment, thousands of people in St. Peter’s square falling to dead silence for two minutes. Not a single sound from the crowd, only the background noise of the city. It was unbelievably moving.

This man is about far more than just what he wears. He will evangelize millions.

 

[jimkhong]

I am following this debate with great interest.

Abba:

1The priesthood was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who empowered the apostles and sent them out to evangelize.

Actually, he did not. Jesus founded the order of bishops. The fullness of Christ’s sacraments is found in the bishops. Scriptures tells us that the bishops then established the order of deacons. Priests in the early church were not mentioned in the NT though some references to elders in the epistles were taken to mean priests, but I find that tenous.

Priests as an order was established much later in the Church’s history. When the community in the town got too big for the bishop to say mass,the bishops sent priests out to the countryside to say mass. The similarity in the terms pastor and pastoral (as in countryside) is no coincidence. (I am sure you, Abba, already know all this)

We owe our communion with the rest of the Church via the bishop, not the priest. The bishop, not the priest is our gateway to the universal Church.

This is not to say that the priest does not have any honour in the Church. In my ministries as a lay person in the parish, I consider myself under the Duty of Obedience (not vow, as I did not take a vow) to the priest, but only insofar as in his position as the delegate of the bishop for the adminstration of the parish. If he cease to be the parish priest, I see my duty on obedience transfering to his sucessor. If the bishop appoints a sister to be a parish administrator, my duty of obedience applies to her as well. To me, it is the local Ordinary that counts.

Still as the parish is normally the cornerstone of Catholic community life and the pastor of the parish is normally a priest, it is common for us to revolve our Catholic life around what the priest does. But to me the fact that he is a priest is incidental. I find some sisters or lay catechists doing an excellent job as the parish administrator.

This is not to belittle the role the priest has in the adminstration of the sacraments. We differ from many other denominations in having priests because we continue to believe in a sacrifice as our central act of worship. So, definitely, having priests is an important part of our Catholic life, but remember that the license for the priest to celebrate mass for the parish again comes from the bishop.

Nothing here detracts from the importance of priests in the Catholic Church, the need to select & train priest well and for the priest to carry himself in the appropriate manner. It is just that the bishop is the far more important office to the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, sometimes, some bishops can be a bit to distant and the priest becomes more accessible and takes on the aura of the bishop due to the gap. I pray the the pastoral example of Pope Francis will help lead bishops who have been focusing their ministries elsewhere to be more available and visible to the people who they represent to the Universal Church.

 

[Abba]

Still as the parish is normally the cornerstone of Catholic community life and the pastor of the parish is normally a priest, it is common for us to revolve our Catholic life around what the priest does. ** But to me the fact that he is a priest is incidental. I find some sisters or lay catechists doing an excellent job as the parish administrator.**

I guess many people think as you do. So, the priests could just go traveling from one parish to another administering the sacraments. And the parishes can be administered somewhat protestant style by the religious and the laity.

Will anyone lament the loss of the priests?

The priest is the pastor of the community who shares that authority by working under the Bishop. I don’t want to be Protestant.

 

[Brendan_64]

Jesus was sealed by the Father who at his baptism said : This is my beloved son…" Our Lord Jesus calls men to the priesthood and they are marked as men of God with a mission to accomplish.

We are are all given a mission to accomplish, and we are all called by God to carry out this mission. Your mission is just as important as your parish priest’s mission. The fact that many lay people never really think much about their mission, listen to hear what they are called to do, or don’t do much to try to acomplish it, doesn’t mean that their mission isn’t there. They, and not their parish priest, will be called to account for the fact that they haven’t dedicated their life to acomplishing God’s mission for them. The priest will be called to account for how he has carried out his own mission, we will be called to account for how we have carried out our mission.

The priests are the leaders of our communities the soul as they unite the community of believers.

On that I will simply never agree with you. That places far too much significance on one man. It is also dangerous in that it can result in a passive community who view their responsibilities as simply turning up on Sunday, listening to Father’s homily and then going away thinking, “So that is what I need to do”.

Communities are not united by the priest, they are united by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not simply come through the priest and then out to us. The Holy Spirit comes directly to all of us and moves through all of us as a community. The priest plays a very special part in that community, in that he administers the sacraments and can, as a result of his knowledge and this special position, guide us, but he is not the ‘soul’ of our community. Many a parish priest has this found out to his cost that taking over the reigns of a parish that has a very well developed spiritual community. Personally, I think that if the parish priest has to assume the role of the ‘soul’ of the community, then that parish is probably not in very good shape.

 

[jimkhong]

I guess many people think as you do. So, the priests could just go traveling from one parish to another administering the sacraments. And the parishes can be administered somewhat protestant style by the religious and the laity.

Will anyone lament the loss of the priests?

The priest is the pastor of the community who shares that authority by working under the Bishop. I don’t want to be Protestant.

The fact that we think that the bishop is more important than the priest doesn’t make the priest not important at all.

Of course we all find the shortage of priests a very unsatisfactory situation. The fact that we have non-priest administrators with peripathetic priests administrating sacraments is due to the shortage of priests, certainly not something we relish. In my country, some of the more remote places get only one mass a month. Would anyone be happy with that?

At the same time, having the priest appearing to be like the bishop to the community is also not satisfactory. While the parish (led by the priest where we have enough priests) may be the cornerstone of the daily life of the community, the bishop is the symbol of our communion with the Universal Church. One is pastoral & practical in nature, the other is ecclesiatical and mystical in nature. The early church survived for a good while with only bishops and deacons.

We also have to be clear that administration of the parish and the administration of the sacraments are two different roles. If there is not enough priests for each community, then communities have to share priests for the purposes of the sacraments and someone else need to step in the adminster the parish. Because mine is a Jesuit parish, we have the luxury of having many Jesuit priests in residence. So, we have many priests to say mass and administer the sacraments but have no role in leading the community. Two very different roles. That splitting of the roles doesn’t make us Protestant in nature.

Sorry but I am wondering why we are debating that the bishop and not the priest is the foundation of the Church. The priest is the assistant of the bishop and not the bishop-figure himself. While I know Catholic dioceses is just getting too big, but I do wish that we can figure out a way to bring the bishop closer to the people. Then, we do not have the people thinking that the priest is the bishop-figure in their parish.

 

[Abba]

We are are all given a mission to accomplish, and we are all called by God to carry out this mission. Your mission is just as important as your parish priest’s mission. The fact that many lay people never really think much about their mission, listen to hear what they are called to do, or don’t do much to try to acomplish it, doesn’t mean that their mission isn’t there. They, and not their parish priest, will be called to account for the fact that they haven’t dedicated their life to acomplishing God’s mission for them. The priest will be called to account for how he has carried out his own mission, we will be called to account for how we have carried out our mission.

Yes, we all have our mission as little or big as it may seem, it is our mission. My mission whatever it may be will be different from a priest, nonetheless, because he is a pastor.

On that I will simply never agree with you. That places far too much significance on one man. It is also dangerous in that it can result in a passive community who view their responsibilities as simply turning up on Sunday, listening to Father’s homily and then going away thinking, “So that is what I need to do”.

I will give you the part about using the analogy of the priest being as if the soul of the community. I have been doing a lot of skimming for this thread and reading various documents and read the analogy to express that a priest offers unity to the community of believers. What ever analogy is used, I still agree that it is the case that the priest offers unity and this, of course, as he services the community under his Bishop.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a nice movie of Padre Pio on Youtube. According to the movie, it happened one day when he went to his home town, that the people went to him while he was out in the countryside. They told him that there were some bugs eating the crop and if something was not done soon they would lose the group and will all go hungry. Well, Padre Pio went around the crop with a group behind him and he prayed and burned incense. The bugs all died and the crop was saved. Now, hold on, I am not saying that we expect our priests to go around doing miracles to resolve our problems. The reason I am mentioning this is because it depicts a pastor that smells like the sheep. When a priest is in the community that he serves he knows his community and the people and is able to better guide them spiritually. Perhaps, this is the reason why the priesthood was instituted and is a pillar of our Church. What a difference it is to go to a Mass given by the parish priest than one given by a priest that goes around from parish to parish administering the sacraments. Are you saying that the spiritual guidance of a priest is not needed and is ‘accidental’ and the nuns and laity can guide the community just as well and they only need the priest to do his cultic sacred thing?

So you do not think that inherent in the priesthood is a pastoral mission?

 

[Abba]

Sorry but I am wondering why we are debating that the bishop and not the priest is the foundation of the Church. The priest is the assistant of the bishop and not the bishop-figure himself. While I know Catholic dioceses is just getting too big, but I do wish that we can figure out a way to bring the bishop closer to the people. Then, we do not have the people thinking that the priest is the bishop-figure in their parish.

Is that what you think we are debating?

765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. 168 Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. 169 The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also in his lot. 170 By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” 171 “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” 172 As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross. 173