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

[Brendan_64]

If the bishop gets complaints or see that people are leaving one parish and going to another, he take notice. He may actually agree with the priest actions, but if it is causing problems in that particular parish, usually he will move the priest to a parish better suited for him.

I’m not so sure. A bishop might simply take the view that this just shows that the parishioners are being challenged to step out of their comfort zone, and that letters to him are simply a sign of an expected reaction towards an uncomfortable, but necessary change.

 

[Abba]

The “being revered” part is not about pride or being served but about being needed for indispensable functions – namely, ministering to souls. Unless souls understand that they need that, and that makes a priest singularly necessary and valuable in a way no lay person can provide, then a priest is not sufficiently “revered.”

Yes. You are very eloquent.
(Language is not my forte and it’s sometimes an obstacle. To make it worst, I can be negligent with it and it makes my communication at times unclear. I apologize for that. While I am apologizing I want to note one particular typo on #373: So, it is obvious to me as a faithful that the priesthood is valid because Jesus comes to me through the priests and the sacraments are valid. (me not be)).

Just acknowledging what I have underlined on your post above helps us to grow. We call a priest Father because he is our spiritual Father and we need to live in harmony with our beliefs. Out of His great love for us, Our Lord Jesus gives us priests to nourish and guide us and serve as witnesses to the faith at the community/parish level. He Himself serves as witness to the validity of the priesthood (or presbyter order) and of the sacraments. When we reverence our priests we acknowledge that we are their spiritual children and as such allow them to guide us through our spiritual journey. “And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

This thread has been draining for me and as I have been resting and recuperating I have continued my reading on the topic just out of interest. I learned that in actuality there is nothing new nor particular nor unique here, which came as a bit of a surprise to me. The arguments presented here are centuries old and constitute a body of arguments that are used to attack the order of presbyter by both the laity and religious with the goal of managing at the parish level which dates back to the time of the Reformation. These arguments have created a dialogue between theologians that has been going on for centuries. The arguments are: dividing the priesthood into functions, not really recognizing the ontological change but referring to it more as a base that needs to be covered, and not recognizing inherent aspects of ordination. The theologians when the Vatican II Council was meeting asked the council in the form of a simple questions (so the issue could get addressed and they could get an answer): Is it erroneous or heretical do deny an ontological change? and the answer was = heretical.

So, this has been going on for centuries and the Church is aware that this problem manifests itself when exactly people are given positions at the lower level - then they want to take over. I was surprised to learn that this discussion is not the unique situation I thought it was.

Peace

We do not mean reverence like this: :bowdown:

 

[Abba]

P.s. Another one of the arguments that are in that body of argument is the one that Jesus did not establish the order of priests. I am going to read up on that and see how the Church or the theologians have responded. Again, to me, that is of no concern as a faithful because Jesus Himself serves as witness that he wants the priests. We, of course, know that He is not dead. Also about the competence of the priests as people have become more and more educated but I think Saint Francis answers well: “And if I were as wise as Solomon and met the poorest priests of the world, I would still refuse to preach against their will in the parishes in which they live.” The important thing here is not an exchange of human knowledge but eternal salvation and God works through the priest and the priests are His workers.

We are in a spiritual journey and if I was given a choice of following the most intelligent, successful, riches, power laity to help me navigate out of here or a priest with limited education and who could barely speak my native language or understand my culture - I would choose the priest. Even if it was Saint Cupertino.

 

[shelby_sun]

I’m not so sure. A bishop might simply take the view that this just shows that the parishioners are being challenged to step out of their comfort zone, and that letters to him are simply a sign of an expected reaction towards an uncomfortable, but necessary change.

I think bishops are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them as long as no dogma is trying to be changed or disrespected. Bottom line is following the dogma of the church, but parishes need to keep bring in money not only to run the church but to continue help all those they can. It doesn’t matter if someone lives in a mansion if they are at church every Sunday, living a faithful life, and giving a great deal to all areas of the cities needs. Bishops do not want to have those people live the church.

 

[Abba]

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)

Hello jimkhong,

I am actually very ignorant about the history of the Church and a lot of other things. I try to dedicate some time when I can to increase my knowledge about Church history and read the CCC and documents of the Church. In all sincerity, I never heard of this before, that goes to show you how ignorant I am. Exactly, how much later?

Actually, I have connected pastor with shepherd as these two words are used interchangeably. And, it reflect how priests are shepherds of a lesser degree than their Bishops - but shepherds nonetheless.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think bishops are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them as long as no dogma is trying to be changed or disrespected. Bottom line is following the dogma of the church, but parishes need to keep bring in money not only to run the church but to continue help all those they can. It doesn’t matter if someone lives in a mansion if they are at church every Sunday, living a faithful life, and giving a great deal to all areas of the cities needs. Bishops do not want to have those people live the church.

What if the area is not an affluent area? Do those parishioners count for less if they ‘walk’ over the diocese boundary?

 

[Abba]

Priests as an order was established much later in the Church’s history.

Would you agree that the ‘much later’ does not go further than, let’s say A.D. 107? So the years under debate here are approximately from A.D. 28 to A.D. 107 or a maximum of 79 years? I am just trying to establish a time frame for our discussion.

I say A.D. 28 as we are not certain of the exact year of Our Lord’s birth and I am adding 30 years as it was when Jesus was about 30 years old that he started his ministry, right? And, I am stopping at approximately A.D. 107 as that is approximately the year Saint Ignatius of Antioch was eaten by wild beasts and so the year of his death. He was born at approximately A.D. 35 (which if corrects blows the legend that he was one of the children that Our Lord Jesus blessed as Jesus died by some account anywhere between A.D. 27 and A.D. 33, I guess. Here is an analysis provided by Jimmy Atkins on the year of Our Lord: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-year-was-jesus-born-the-answer-may-surprise-you)

In the 79 years I am counting the whole life of 72 years of Saint Ignatius of Antioch which of course is not necessary but I don’t know how old he was at least when he became Bishop of Antioch ( at least not yet). One thing to keep in mind is that he was disciple of Saint John the Apostle himself.

This limit of ‘much later’ of course, would only be fine if you accept that Saint Ignatius’ letter records the existence of presbyters already in his time:

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

Btw, who were the ‘elders’ and ‘elders’ to distinguish them from who else? Who were the Seven who were ordained but were not deacons nor bishops?

Peace

 

[shelby_sun]

What if the area is not an affluent area? Do those parishioners count for less if they ‘walk’ over the diocese boundary?

Absolutely not. I think people in poorer parishes appreciate more what they have like a church in their area, a priest that speaks their language, and what ever help the church can give them. Some people with money are used to getting their way and get put out when they do not. Those people with money usually have power at work or in their community and get spoiled.

I feel the poorer parish focus on the important things in the Church. My parish was once a Jesuit parish, that is the only reason I am there. I have gone to other churches when the priest message seem to get off track for me. As you know the Jesuit live in very limited means, but they never would speak badly of those with money because they knew those people are need to help others.

 

[Brendan_64]

Absolutely not. I think people in poorer parishes appreciate more what they have like a church in their area, a priest that speaks their language, and what ever help the church can give them. Some people with money are used to getting their way and get put out when they do not. Those people with money usually have power at work or in their community and get spoiled.

I feel the poorer parish focus on the important things in the Church. My parish was once a Jesuit parish, that is the only reason I am there. I have gone to other churches when the priest message seem to get off track for me. As you know the Jesuit live in very limited means, but they never would speak badly of those with money because they knew those people are need to help others.

The area my church is in is not affluent, but I love the church I attend. I love the warmth of the people their, their welcoming nature, their kindness, and the love you feel from them, and their willingness to give up their time for our church and to help those in need. I love the simple (slightly shabby in parts) church, with it’s beautiful hand-painted crucifix above the altar. But I listen to our current priest and wonder am I listening to a Catholic priest or a low-church Anglican minister. I’m not ultra-traditional at all, I’m just a run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, OF Mass attending Catholic. The diocesan boundary is a mile away and if it wasn’t for the wonderful congregation in my church, I’d have walked by now (sadly, many have). It seems to make no difference though (to priest of bishop). I guess its just a case of batten down the hatches, fight to protect things that are especially dear to me, and ride out the storm. Afterall, priests come and priests go.

 

[Brendan_64]

However that approach would put me in a position of not following the lead of my priest. Is that the right thing to do?

 

[shelby_sun]

The area my church is in is not affluent, but I love the church I attend. I love the warmth of the people their, their welcoming nature, their kindness, and the love you feel from them, and their willingness to give up their time for our church and to help those in need. I love the simple (slightly shabby in parts) church, with it’s beautiful hand-painted crucifix above the altar. But I listen to our current priest and wonder am I listening to a Catholic priest or a low-church Anglican minister. I’m not ultra-traditional at all, I’m just a run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, OF Mass attending Catholic. The diocesan boundary is a mile away and if it wasn’t for the wonderful congregation in my church, I’d have walked by now (sadly, many have). It seems to make no difference though (to priest of bishop). I guess its just a case of batten down the hatches, fight to protect things that are especially dear to me, and ride out the storm. Afterall, priests come and priests go.

I know exactly what you mean. I have had to do that a few times. Different priests present their faith in different ways, some not to my liking. That is when I need to focus on other things, like the parishioner, groups, etc. Luckily the Mass stays the same.

 

[esieffe]

Pope Francis is a man of mercy. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall find mercy.”
I feel truly blessed to be converting to Catholicism during his reign. May he live long, and continue to serve God and Christians well!:clapping:

 

[Abba]

Dear jimkhong,

Upon further reflection I want to say that I remember covering the ‘elders’ many, many years ago in a discussion and that arguments are which question if they were priests. It is not the argument that strikes me but, instead, it is to see it used in our day and age and in actuality to justify the claim that priests are ‘incidental’. In other words, we can do away with priests all together because for some time which has not be defined except to claim ‘much later’ - supposedly they did not exist.

Actually, he did not. Jesus founded the order of 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.

Can you provide some reasoning for your declaration that He did not? Again, what I find astonishing is not the simple matter of the argument but that it is being used to diminish the value of the priesthood.

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.

When I was still in diapers, it was a priest who cleansed me, strengthened me and made me a member of the Church. I am in communion through my parish priest who is in communion with his bishop who is in communion with the pope.

This is not to say that the priest does not have any honour in the Church.

It’s not about honor in the Church - as you put it anyway. What honor?

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 see.

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.

And if you see him again, who is he to you?

This is not to belittle the role the priest has in the adminstration of the sacraments.

It is to belittle it when you limit the functions of a priest to the administration of the sacraments and do not present the value of ordination.

We differ from many other denominations in having priests because we continue to believe in a sacrifice as our central act of worship.

Why do you equate the Church with ‘denominations’?

And, yes, we do continue to believe and will continue to the end of days. Already, there are people that are trying to argue against that who are getting a little ahead of themselves, first we diminish the priesthood to functions and then put the functions into question and maybe others can perform those functions as the value of ordination is diminished and not recognized. This will never happen - not in the Catholic Church - which is not a denomination.

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.

I don’t see how you are presenting it as important in Catholic life at all. They seem to be something that we can do without and did not even exist until a ‘much later’ time.

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 doesn’t? Why are they important?

You do not appear to be recognizing the value of ordination but instead present the priest as someone who needs to be trained and who needs to learn how to behave appropriately. As if it was a simple worldly career. What to you think of ordination?

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.

It is not that the people think the priest is the bishop. Instead, it is that you are not recognizing the value of a priest.

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.

Really? And, what is a ‘good while’? So, exclusively Bishops were feeding the flock with the Eucharist?

How is the priesthood pastoral & practical and the bishopry ecclesiatical and mystical in nature? Can you please explain this? Also, you use the word ‘pastoral’ - why?

I can definately see the benefits of the religious life to the world as they show us the counsels of poverty, obedience and chastity as Our Lord Jesus lived, the religous have also served communities, but I also see that great harm can be done when the value of ordination is belittled.

Peace

 

[Abba]

St. John Vianney :
"If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. St. Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, "There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul. " At the sight of a church tower, you may say, “What is there in that place?” "The Body of Our Lord. " “Why is He there?” "Because a priest has been there, and has said holy Mass. " fisheaters.com/holyorders2.html

AD CATHOLICI SACERDOTII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19351220_ad-catholici-sacerdotii_en.html

Those Priests that abused me…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=460180&highlight=priest+who+abuse

 

[jimkhong]

Hello jimkhong,

I am actually very ignorant about the history of the Church and a lot of other things. I try to dedicate some time when I can to increase my knowledge about Church history and read the CCC and documents of the Church. In all sincerity, I never heard of this before, that goes to show you how ignorant I am. Exactly, how much later?

Actually, I have connected pastor with shepherd as these two words are used interchangeably. And, it reflect how priests are shepherds of a lesser degree than their Bishops - but shepherds nonetheless.

Hi Abba

Sorry for the delay in replying, with my Sunday duties and all. I have found your question intriguing (with no intention of entering into any argument that I believe will be inconclusive) and an opportunity for me to gather what I have learnt (as a purely scholastic exercise and is not intended as a commentary on its relevance to our contemporary Catechicism - that’s a separate exercise). I was hoping to have some references online as it is easier for reference, unfortunately, they were all over the place and require much more research to link them together. So, I had to fall back on the more traditional research from my little library of books, which is more time-consuming and labourius.

What I put out below is limited to the understanding of the priesthood as the middle tier of the Holy Orders, above the order of deacons and below the order of bishops. It does not deal with the concept of the priesthood in broader terms as in the priesthood of the faithful, the broader meaning of priesthood, which also includes bishops, or the liturgical priesthood of the Eucharistic sacrifice. That involves theology and not Church history as below.

I will look at this question from two angle: (i) the tiered structure of the Holy Orders; (ii) presider of the liturgy of the local Christian community.

Structure of the Holy Orders
I have found only two references to Holy Orders in the first century.
1 Clement 42:4:

They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers.

There is a reference to presbyters in 45:5 but it seems to a reference to the “epsicopate” mentioned in the preceding quote.
Didache 15:1:

Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.

A quick glance through the above books revealed no other reference to priests, other than the Jewish priesthood. The first reference to a 3-tiered Holy Orders seems to be in Ignatius, who wrote in early in the second century.

One has to be careful with these references though because (i) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; and (ii) there are times when the term presbyter and bishops are used inter-changably in the first century, 1 Clem 45:5 being an apparent example. Still, when read together with other references, it is rather persuasive that the Order of priests (as an order distinct from bishops) came later.
*
Bishops’ adminstrative units*
As Jewish communities in the Roman Empire was town-based, the first Christian communities were also based in towns, where the Sabbath worships are held and to which the few rural Christians will join the urban Christians each Sunday to celebrate the breaking of bread.

When Christianity expanded to smaller towns, a need arose to determine the boundaries between churches, and the then-existing civil delineation was quickly adopted. From there also grew the different ranks of bishops arising from the size of the town or city of the bishop and the number of missions they send out to the surounding towns. (p.12 Christian Worship: It’s Origin and Evolution, Mgr Duchesne)

A related question is how did the bishop gets elected, which is not comprehensively documented until 3rd century by Hippolytus. Quite likely, the very first bishop in each town
would have arrived there from somewhere else. It is possible that subsequent bishops could still be appointed from the mother church that first sent out the mission, but rather quickly a form of election took place with the laity, or more likely the presbyter-counsellors that Ignatius referered to, taking charge. You can still see vestiges of such elections for the Bishop of Rome, with the Pope being elected by Cardinals, who technically are the bishops, parish priests and deacons of the Roman diocese. So, by the time of Ignatius, it is quite likely that an Order of priests have emerged to assist the bishop and to elect one when the see falls empty.

See part 2

 

[jimkhong]

Hello jimkhong,

I am actually very ignorant about the history of the Church and a lot of other things. I try to dedicate some time when I can to increase my knowledge about Church history and read the CCC and documents of the Church. In all sincerity, I never heard of this before, that goes to show you how ignorant I am. Exactly, how much later?

Actually, I have connected pastor with shepherd as these two words are used interchangeably. And, it reflect how priests are shepherds of a lesser degree than their Bishops - but shepherds nonetheless.

Celebrant of the liturgy
Here, I think we can find more references. Theodor Klauser in his A Short History of the Western Liturgy, summarised here, indicates that the bishops were the first celebrants of the liturgy p.8 Klauser). We see this in the Hipplytus’ Apostolic Constitution (I don’t have a complete copy myself and am relying on Klauser’s description in p.16 of his book) where there is a missal-like mass and the dialogue is between the bishop and the people.

The clearest reference in my little library is from AG Herbert’s Apostle and Bishop.
Herbert pp 66:

In the fourth century a great change took place … to the offices of bishop and presbyter, though it was already beginning in the third. During the pre-Nicene period the bishop was the president of the local church, celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday with his people.

The important thing for the ordinary Christian was the presidency of the Eucharist. Hitherto he had received the sacrament Sunday by Sunday at the hands of the bishop, who was the normal celebrant of the Liturgy. Now the presbyter became the normal liturgical celebrant, as he continue till today.

Dom Gregory Dix in his Shape of the Liturgy made a similar observation.
pp 33:

… Hippolytus calls the bishop ‘the watchman’ or ‘guardian’ of the church, but not its ruler. Government is in fact the special province of the corporate Sanhedrin of presbyters of which the bishop is the president. … administrative decisions larely depend upon his carrying most of the prebyters with him. … But as presbyter, he has strictly no liturgical functions at all, whereas the bishop has almost a liturgical and sacramental monopoly.

Yet it is true that the presbyter only acquired liturgical functions by degrees, and then rather as the bishop’s representative than as his assistant. … After the middle of the fourth century, we begin to find a change in the language used about the presbyter. He is no longer as an ‘elder’, but as a ‘priest’.

There seems to be a consensus that priests did not start off as priests but as assistants to govern the church with the bishops. Only when bishops had the opportunity to participate in the government of the wider Church at councils, etc with peace in the Church post-Constantine, did priests began to represent bishops in liturgical functions when the bishops were away or were busy. Interestingly, Dix mentioned that “the last church to abandon the tradition of a single eucharist under the bishop” was Rome (p21).

My readings through the years so far has not noted any study that contradicted the above, but of course, my reading could be rather limited.

Conclusions
I will not be responding to your later post directed to me. There seems to be a fundamental difference in opinions between us. Not on the issue of the centrality of the priesthood, which I am quite sure we are both in agreement. But rather on your opinion whether my words represent the opposite of my assertion that the priesthood is central in Catholicism.

I agree with almost everything you have said, despite your assertions to the contrary. My main point was one has to remember that no matter how highly we think of the Order of priests (as opposed to the Order of Bishops; we are not talking about the broader concept of the priesthood here), the Order of Bishops is always greater and they give context to everything done by the Order of priests. Think of how great the priests are: the bishops are higher than that.

I will be happy to look further into my research above but will not participate in any arguments over whether my words mean opposite to what I have said.

 

[Brendan_64]

Pope Francis is a man of mercy. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall find mercy.”

That may be true, but if the offence hasn’t been committed against Pope Francis himself then (outside of his priestly duty in Confession) Pope Francis is not in a position to grant mercy. And as a priest administering the Sacrament of Penance, the mercy of Christ through the priest, would be no different whether that priest is Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, or the local parish priest down the road from you.

I very much like Pope Francis, but I think there is a great danger of putting him up on a special pedestal. He may be our leader, but In the end he is just a man, and as far as dispensing God’s mercy, he is no different than any other priest.

Pope Francis is our pope, and he is taking our faith out there into the wider world with enthusiasm, but he is not special (no more so than any of our other popes have been). We ought not to treat him as particularly special, at least no more so than the other popes we have had.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I very much like Pope Francis, but I think there is a great danger of putting him up on a special pedestal.

I think this is a danger in general in the modern age. This has been called the cult of personality. It is evident both in and outside the Church. It comes very close to idolatry.

And not only that, we get the cult of celebrity (merely a variation on the cult of personality). Repeatedly I have heard the Message of Mercy from local parish priests of all kinds of diverse parishes, from very modern to very traditional parishes. All sounding the message of mercy, and for decades. Yet somehow when a Pope says it, it’s important? Worse, it’s novel? I suspect that many people “impressed” with his (same) message of mercy have not been to Mass in years, or are not even Catholic, and furthermore are listening because he’s “a celebrity.” Had they bothered to attend their local sacraments (if Catholic), nothing Pope Francis said in regard to that issue would have been “new” to them. Or, to put it as you have…

Pope Francis is not in a position to grant mercy. And as a priest administering the Sacrament of Penance, the mercy of Christ through the priest, would be no different whether that priest is Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, or the local parish priest down the road from you.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think this is a danger in general in the modern age. This has been called the cult of personality. It is evident both in and outside the Church. It comes very close to idolatry.

And not only that, we get the cult of celebrity (merely a variation on the cult of personality). Repeatedly I have heard the Message of Mercy from local parish priests of all kinds of diverse parishes, from very modern to very traditional parishes. All sounding the message of mercy, and for decades. Yet somehow when a Pope says it, it’s important? Worse, it’s novel? I suspect that many people “impressed” with his (same) message of mercy have not been to Mass in years, or are not even Catholic, and furthermore are listening because he’s “a celebrity.” Had they bothered to attend their local sacraments (if Catholic), nothing Pope Francis said in regard to that issue would have been “new” to them. Or, to put it as you have…

Agreed.

 

[Abba]

Hi Abba

Sorry for the delay in replying, with my Sunday duties and all.

I understand, some of us have obligations seven days a week.

I have found your question intriguing (with no intention of entering into any argument that I believe will be inconclusive) and an opportunity for me to gather what I have learnt (as a purely scholastic exercise

The argument is on whether the nature of shepherd is inherent in the Catholic priesthood and I believe the matter is very conclusive. I am not experiencing this as a scholastic exercise. I actually have a tremendous amount of demands on my time, however, the matter raised on this thread is one that I consider very important to clarify for the good.

…and is not intended as a commentary on its relevance to our contemporary Catechicism - that’s a separate exercise).

Pardon me? I don’t understand what you mean here. You joined the discussion to back up how a community does not need a priest to lead and that the nature of shepherd is not inherent in the priesthood and so a parish only needs a priest to administer the sacrament and then he can basically punch out. You noted that they are called pastor not because it has anything to do with shepherd but because they were sent to the country side hence ‘pastoral’.

C’est tout et plus rien - that’s all and nothing else (eso es todo y nada mas). I have not joined any catechism program that you may be offering. We obviously have a different understanding about some fundamental matters of the Catholic faith. I would never permit myself to learn from someone who’s understanding is fundamentally different from mine.

You have joined a debate/argument/disagreement and so the way it works is in dialogue form - you say - I say. People respond to the points the person holding a different position in the matter makes. You are not participating in a dialogue with me and are not responding to my questions nor acknowledging what I have said. Instead, you make a presentation with a lot of irrelevant information in the matter.

Btw, I like to give credit where credit is due and the person who points to Saint Ignatius of Antioch who you just re-quote without responding to my question regarding him is Lemaire. This is not a teaching session - I never signed up.

Now, from Elizabeth502 I can see myself learning. I agree with all her posts so far and she presents herself as someone who is competent. I actually signed up for a Benedictine spirituality online course which I have been missing because of this thread. To say, I am selective of who I learn from and I sign up for course as I see they would help my learning, understanding, generally to grow in the faith and help me better to imitate Jesus.