Pope sacks Bishop

[chaunceygardner]

Chauncey, after reading many of your posts, I realize that you do not know very much about Catholic teaching. Maybe you have observed a lot of lax practice and think that you are seeing the truth of Catholic Doctrine. May I suggest that you watch Fr. John Corapi, or read any of the great apologists—like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas. Or read the Fathers of the Church. Or some of the current people----Scott Hahn, Tim Staples…there are a lot.

Thanks for reading my posts, but I feel you may getting the wrong impression. I have watched Fr. Corapi, but admittedly not on a regular basis. I have read Augustine, Aquinas, and many more Catholic theologians, all the way up to modern times. That is actually from where and how I have developed most of my ideas, from Catholic thinkers and writers. I have not read Hahn or Staples other than short articles or blogs. Have read several histories of the Church and of Christianity (not quite the same). I have more than two full shelves of books on religious topics, mostly by Catholic authors. I read about 20-30 books each year on church history, bible scholarship, spirituality and theology. I have the Catechism, an NAB, a D-R and NRSV bible, and have read every book of the Bible, some several times. I have read Bible commentaries and portions of Canon Law. I have observed the Church and Catholics very closely for 50+ years. I have attended Mass in at least 50 churches within the U.S. and several outside of the country.

So my ideas are not due to any lack of overall knowledge, experience or understanding (although I have admittedly learned a whole lot more since joining this forum, for which I am very appreciative). Sorry that you were getting a different impression.

I suggest this because you have received very incorrect information and I so much want you to understand the joy and greatness of the Church that Jesus Christ founded. Popes and the Magesterium the teaching arm of the Church] don’t make the changes that some people say are necessary to modernize the Church because if Jesus had wanted it that way, He would have founded it that way.

This is where we part company, as I wonder what exactly Jesus “founded” (if anything); in any case, it is certainly nothing like the church we have today. If He or any of the Apostles were to see how the church operates, they would be astonished, and probably seriously dismayed. And actually, my contention is not that the church should be modernized, but rather that it return to the real traditions that were first established by those very same Apostles. They have either been lost or changed to a great degree.

I don’t want a Church full of “modern” teachings. Today’s morals are not God’s morals. All of the cries for relevance and being politically correct stem from pride----that was Lucifer’s downfall and he is still trying to pull down the Church. But Jesus said that “the gates of hell will not prevail against [His Church]”

Unfortunately, the Church today is not the best place to look for moral leadership.

ANNE2:

The Vatican gave the bad Bishop enough time to repent, correct his statements that were in error, and enough time to find a replacement if needed (5 years)…

Bishops and Priests may not teach anything contrary to the CCC. Those who obstinately do are heretics or schismatics. Priestly celebacy, no women priests, etc are all covered in the CCC. If Morris did not encourage those in his Diocese to read the CCC, now you know why he kept his people ignorant in certain matters.

See how quickly we go from “forced to retire Bishop Morris” to “bad Bishop Morris”, and then imply he was a heretic or schismatic? And also somehow conclude that he “kept his people ignorant” (just how did he do that, not allow them to read books, watch TV or surf the internet?) Amazing, but sadly not uncommon to these forums.

This post with assumptions that have no basis in fact and conclusions drawn out of thin air is the poster child for what I am talking about. I couldn’t have made up a better example. Thank you.

My suggestion is that you find out a little more about Bishop Morris. Go to the Diocesan web site. Read what the Bishop actually said in his Advent letter 5 years ago. Read some of the quarterly newsletters (24-48 pages in full color!) that he made freely available to all in the diocese to help build community in a vast region. Learn about the diocese of Toowoomba, 2 1/2 times the size of Italy with only about 2 dozen priests (I think there are more Italian Cardinals than that). See how many of the parishes had to get by with Masses every other week or a service with just Communion and readings since there was no priest to say Mass). See how many parishes were served by “circuit riding priests” who had to travel hundreds of miles from one church to another so that the faithful could have Mass periodically. See how concerned he was for those priests who were doing their best in difficult circumstances and for the laity who were stepping up to fill the gaps within their parish communities. Note too the effort he made to include the priests of his diocese in all the planning that was done and changes that were being considered to address this problem (By 2014 they were projecting the diocese would have 2 priests for each of 6 regions, average area of each equal to the size of Ohio or Kentucky–imagine having two priests to serve the entire state of Ohio!).

Take an hour or so away from Fr. Corapi and do this. Then come back and tell me that Bishop Morris was a “bad Bishop”. If you can honestly do that, then your vision of the Catholic Church is nothing like the Church that is made up of the people of God that Jesus proclaims in the Gospels.

Peace and blessings.

 

[ANNE_2]

It was his job to teach those in his Diocese the following:

CCC - " 1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

CCC - " 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. "

and

" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have approved…and the publication of which I order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." - Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 5)

 

[JackyB]

I believe that the Vocations “crisis” is directly linked to disobedience among the ordained. That disobedience ends up confusing parishioners and stifling the Holy Spirit. They need to get those 178 either out or in obedience. Watch the number of vocations rise.

Couldn’t agree more, I myself wonder about what was and what is, time to clean out and revive, we have just the Pope to do it.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I believe that the Vocations “crisis” is directly linked to disobedience among the ordained. That disobedience ends up confusing parishioners and stifling the Holy Spirit. They need to get those 178 either out or in obedience. Watch the number of vocations rise.

Have you ever stopped to think about what we expect from our priests? Contrary to Paul’s letter to the Romans and other scripture that talks about how people with different roles and responsibilities come together to form, lead and serve a church community, today we expect one man, just one man, to do it all. A priest must be:

a preacher…a liturgist…a student of canon law and all the doctrines of the church…a theologian…a teacher…a psychologist, social worker and counselor…an administrator of a corporation…an HR manager…a financial planner…a facilities manager…a referee and judge…and on and on. The Church has vested great power and responsibility in this one man and given him an untenable job description.

More and more frequently they are being asked to do all of this at more than one parish, or at multiple locations in combining parishes. They then become a merger and acquisitions manager, having to deal with the entrenched status quo of each parish and each organization who want to hold on to their positions and territories as if they were defending the Alamo.

Who in their right minds would want to take that on?

And while they are doing all that they are being watched by the “temple police” who report any word or rubric that does not exactly conform to “proper” liturgy and any statement that might remotely appear to be advocating something outside the narrow confines of orthodoxy or questioning the rules and doctrines carved in cold, hard stone but not in the hearts, minds and souls of the the People of God.

I don’t think the vocations crisis is a result of any disobedience by some priests. I think it is more a result of the growing perception that the hierarchical, institutional Church is losing relevance in the world. It is also the result of the attitude of the people in the pews (or the people who should be in the pews). How often does a priest baptize a baby, marry a couple, give First Communion, participate in the Confirmation of young people, and then never see those people or their families in church again (except maybe at Christmas and Easter)? You know and I know that this has become the norm in many places.

And the declining number of priests is self-perpetuating, as the extra burdens placed on the remaining priests reduce the appeal of this vocation for those considering becoming a parish priest.

Don’t blame this crisis, or any other Church crisis, on outsiders or the disobedient. The greatest threat to the Church today is not external, but internal. “We have found the enemy, and it is us”.

 

[Tigg]

I don’t think the vocations crisis is a result of any disobedience by some priests. I think it is more a result of the growing perception that the hierarchical, institutional Church is losing relevance in the world.

I think Jesus, the Lord, might disagree with you as He is the one who decided the foundation should be hierarchical, institutional, and I might add, patriarchal!

Don’t blame this crisis, or any other Church crisis, on outsiders or the disobedient. The greatest threat to the Church today is not external, but internal. “We have found the enemy, and it is us”

I agree…the dissention from Absolute Truth by unhappy progressives has confused the faithful and led to massive rebellion.

 

[1holycatholic]

Have you ever stopped to think about what we expect from our priests? Contrary to Paul’s letter to the Romans and other scripture that talks about how people with different roles and responsibilities come together to form, lead and serve a church community, today we expect one man, just one man, to do it all. A priest must be:

a preacher…a liturgist…a student of canon law and all the doctrines of the church…a theologian…a teacher…a psychologist, social worker and counselor…an administrator of a corporation…an HR manager…a financial planner…a facilities manager…a referee and judge…and on and on. The Church has vested great power and responsibility in this one man and given him an untenable job description.

You assume that the Bible defines the Church when in fact its the other way around. The primary role of the priest is the Sacraments.

More and more frequently they are being asked to do all of this at more than one parish, or at multiple locations in combining parishes. They then become a merger and acquisitions manager, having to deal with the entrenched status quo of each parish and each organization who want to hold on to their positions and territories as if they were defending the Alamo.

Who in their right minds would want to take that on?

Men from the priesthood of believers whom God has called to the ministerial priesthood.

And while they are doing all that they are being watched by the “temple police” who report any word or rubric that does not exactly conform to “proper” liturgy and any statement that might remotely appear to be advocating something outside the narrow confines of orthodoxy or questioning the rules and doctrines carved in cold, hard stone but not in the hearts, minds and souls of the the People of God.

The faithful have a right to orthodox clerics. A cleric does not have the right to proclaim heterodox beliefs contrary to the teaching of the Church.

I don’t think the vocations crisis is a result of any disobedience by some priests. I think it is more a result of the growing perception that the hierarchical, institutional Church is losing relevance in the world. It is also the result of the attitude of the people in the pews (or the people who should be in the pews). How often does a priest baptize a baby, marry a couple, give First Communion, participate in the Confirmation of young people, and then never see those people or their families in church again (except maybe at Christmas and Easter)? You know and I know that this has become the norm in many places.

And the declining number of priests is self-perpetuating, as the extra burdens placed on the remaining priests reduce the appeal of this vocation for those considering becoming a parish priest.

Don’t blame this crisis, or any other Church crisis, on outsiders or the disobedient. The greatest threat to the Church today is not external, but internal. “We have found the enemy, and it is us”.

Orthodox Catholic dioceses have many seminarians, those that aren’t have few to none. The same is true for religious.

Christmas and Easter only Christianity is not only a Catholic phenomena, it is common in Protestant denominations as well.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You assume that the Bible defines the Church when in fact its the other way around.

No, I am not assuming that, but rather looking at what Paul and others in the early church did and how they structured their communities and wondering how it could have changed so much and so drastically.

The primary role of the priest is the Sacraments.

Exactly, but we have given the priest so many other roles and responsibilities beyond that. The roles that the priest has been saddled with in today’s church was shared and split between several different ministerial positions in the early church.

In response to my query about who in their right mind would seek to take on such a burden you responded:

Men from the priesthood of believers whom God has called to the ministerial priesthood.

Either God is quite sadistic to those who answer the call to serve or the Church has totally misinterpreted what the original plan was.

The faithful have a right to orthodox clerics. A cleric does not have the right to proclaim heterodox beliefs contrary to the teaching of the Church.

Some of our “orthodox” beliefs and practices would seem quite unorthodox in the early church. A big example is married priests, as you must certainly know. We went from a Bishop “having only one wife” to now having none, to say nothing about those who presided at the Eucharist back then, people who were chosen from among the congregation and who could have been married. So which is orthodox? And proclaiming an unorthodox belief (which many accuse Bishop Morris of doing) and asking a question about practices in the church which have obviously changed over the centuries and could certainly change again (which is what he actually did) are two different things. But I understand that to the “temple police” anyone who just questions something is likely a heretic and should be eliminated.

The biggest mistake the good Bishop made is stating what he did in print, to be read by the faithful of his diocese. Perhaps he did that because he was getting questions from his flock about the lack of priests and what could be done about it; I don’t know.

What I do know is that a good Bishop who was known to just a few and whose influence was limited to a mostly desolate area of Australia is now known to the world. I foresee a book on the way and more exposure of his ideas than would have ever been possible before, thanks to the actions of the Vatican. Bless you, Pope Benedict.

Orthodox Catholic dioceses have many seminarians, those that aren’t have few to none. The same is true for religious.

I am not sure what you mean by “Orthodox” dioceses, or how you can make that blanket of a statement. How do you determine which diocese IS orthodox? And how could an entire diocese be “unorthodox”? Do the Bishops, who are BTW appointed by the Pope, have the power and charism to change the thinking of an entire diocese? Wow, I am impressed! And a little concerned about the vetting process in place at the Vatican.

Christmas and Easter only Christianity is not only a Catholic phenomena, it is common in Protestant denominations as well.

You are certainly correct, and in many cases it is even more pronounced, since for most Protestant churches there is no obligation to attend services every week. On the other hand, those Protestant congregations exist because the people will it and support it. In the Catholic Church, parishes exist only if the Vatican or the Bishop wills it. The faithful, the heart of the Church, have no voice whatsoever.

I really think that we need to become much more aware of the situations in places like the “outback” of Australia and the desert southwest of the U.S., where there is one priest to serve Catholics ranging over thousands of square miles, or to the villages of South America, where there is one priest for thousands and thousands of Catholics. How do we reconcile the focus on being a Eucharistic Church and its related Sacramental requirements with the physical impossibility of providing those Sacraments in an efficacious manner? What can be done about it? That is the issue that good Bishop Morris was trying to deal with; not trying to undermine the Church but to bring the Church and its Sacraments to the people of his diocese. Removing him will do nothing to solve the problem.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, I am not assuming that, but rather looking at what Paul and others in the early church did and how they structured their communities and wondering how it could have changed so much and so drastically.

You mean with the threefold ministry?

Exactly, but we have given the priest so many other roles and responsibilities beyond that. The roles that the priest has been saddled with in today’s church was shared and split between several different ministerial positions in the early church.

There are laity that work in parishes assisting the clergy.

In response to my query about who in their right mind would seek to take on such a burden you responded: Either God is quite sadistic to those who answer the call to serve or the Church has totally misinterpreted what the original plan was.

No I didn’t. You asked who becomes a priest. I said “Men from the priesthood of believers whom God has called to the ministerial priesthood.” I disagree with your characterization of the ministerial priesthood.

Some of our “orthodox” beliefs and practices would seem quite unorthodox in the early church. A big example is married priests, as you must certainly know. We went from a Bishop “having only one wife” to now having none, to say nothing about those who presided at the Eucharist back then, people who were chosen from among the congregation and who could have been married. So which is orthodox? And proclaiming an unorthodox belief (which many accuse Bishop Morris of doing) and asking a question about practices in the church which have obviously changed over the centuries and could certainly change again (which is what he actually did) are two different things. But I understand that to the “temple police” anyone who just questions something is likely a heretic and should be eliminated.

Married clergy is a discipline and not a matter of orthodoxy.

The biggest mistake the good Bishop made is stating what he did in print, to be read by the faithful of his diocese. Perhaps he did that because he was getting questions from his flock about the lack of priests and what could be done about it; I don’t know.

What I do know is that a good Bishop who was known to just a few and whose influence was limited to a mostly desolate area of Australia is now known to the world. I foresee a book on the way and more exposure of his ideas than would have ever been possible before, thanks to the actions of the Vatican. Bless you, Pope Benedict.

If he was a good bishop then he would not have been removed.

I am not sure what you mean by “Orthodox” dioceses, or how you can make that blanket of a statement. How do you determine which diocese IS orthodox? And how could an entire diocese be “unorthodox”? Do the Bishops, who are BTW appointed by the Pope, have the power and charism to change the thinking of an entire diocese? Wow, I am impressed! And a little concerned about the vetting process in place at the Vatican.

Orthodoxy is assumed. Orthodox diocese meaning an orthodox ordinary.

You are certainly correct, and in many cases it is even more pronounced, since for most Protestant churches there is no obligation to attend services every week. On the other hand, those Protestant congregations exist because the people will it and support it. In the Catholic Church, parishes exist only if the Vatican or the Bishop wills it. The faithful, the heart of the Church, have no voice whatsoever.

Everyone has an obligation to worship God, even Protestants. It is in a well known top ten list.

The faithful have the sensus fidelium, which most certainly has a voice in the Church.

I really think that we need to become much more aware of the situations in places like the “outback” of Australia and the desert southwest of the U.S., where there is one priest to serve Catholics ranging over thousands of square miles, or to the villages of South America, where there is one priest for thousands and thousands of Catholics. How do we reconcile the focus on being a Eucharistic Church and its related Sacramental requirements with the physical impossibility of providing those Sacraments in an efficacious manner? What can be done about it? That is the issue that good Bishop Morris was trying to deal with; not trying to undermine the Church but to bring the Church and its Sacraments to the people of his diocese. Removing him will do nothing to solve the problem.

If Bishop Morris were good Bishop Morris then Pope Benedict would not have removed him.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You mean with the threefold ministry?

There are laity that work in parishes assisting the clergy.

No I didn’t. You asked who becomes a priest. I said “Men from the priesthood of believers whom God has called to the ministerial priesthood.” I disagree with your characterization of the ministerial priesthood.

Married clergy is a discipline and not a matter of orthodoxy.

If he was a good bishop then he would not have been removed.

Orthodoxy is assumed. Orthodox diocese meaning an orthodox ordinary.

Everyone has an obligation to worship God, even Protestants. It is in a well known top ten list.

The faithful have the sensus fidelium, which most certainly has a voice in the Church.

If Bishop Morris were good Bishop Morris then Pope Benedict would not have removed him.

Ok, what is important then, the ends or the means?

It seems from all the news reports, both pro and con, that Bishop Morris thought that the ends (getting ‘the sacraments’ to the people) justified the means (‘opening up’ the ‘dispensers’ of the sacraments to not just validly ordained priests, who by definition are always men, but to ‘add on’ women–, to add on ‘married men’, and finally, to add on PROTESTANT ministers.) That the means he proposed and which he refused to recant after more than 5 years of hearing “no” were not valid Catholic Christian means does not seem to have dissuaded him, sadly.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You mean with the “threefold ministry”?

You are headed in the right direction, but I would add the idea of more horizontal authority and election from within the community, not authority and control from a distance.

There are laity that work in parishes assisting the clergy.

And doing some of work that Priests had to handle in the past. That certainly is a start, but is occurring ONLY out of necessity. I have read many posts in this forum by people who dislike the roles that the laity have taken on in their parishes. In any case, the end result is that non-ordained Catholics are still 3rd class (lay men) or 4th class (lay women) citizens of the Church. Why must the laity only “assist”; why can’t the laity have a greater role in their faith? That certainly was the case in the early church but that structural form was lost, unfortunately, when the church changed from being communal to being institutional and authoritarian. Don’t forget that the first Apostles were “laymen”.

I disagree with your characterization of the ministerial priesthood.

I am confused as to what you are disagreeing with since your post made it appear that you were saying my words. I was not characterizing the priesthood, which I greatly admire and respect.

Married clergy is a discipline and not a matter of orthodoxy.

So it CAN be changed, just as I thought (especially since it has been changed before). If it is a changeable discipline and not an immutable doctrine, then what is all the fuss about?

If he was a good bishop then he would not have been removed.

I refuse to judge or label others based on personal assumptions. I have read many quotes from priests, other Bishops and the faithful that indicate he was “good”. I have no evidence to state otherwise.

Orthodoxy is assumed. Orthodox diocese meaning an orthodox ordinary.

As the Bishop goes, so goes the entire diocese? I didn’t realize Bishops had THAT much power and authority, or that a whole diocese could become rotten because of one person.

Everyone has an obligation to worship God, even Protestants. It is in a well known top ten list.

Well, actually no. The commandment to “worship God” is not found in the so called ten commandments. Neither in Exodus 20 or Deut. 5 does it mention “worship” of God. Rather, it talks about NOT worshiping other Gods and to have no other gods before Yahweh. In the instruction by Jesus to love God and neighbor found in Matthew He is referencing Deut. 6 where the commandment to 'love God" is found. In fact, I could not find much that talked about “worship” of God, but did find instructions to “love God” and to “follow God”. So apparently there is no obligation to worship God by anyone, but rather to do God’s will and to live according to the Gospels. The idea of formal worship appears to come from the mind of man, not the will of God.

The faithful have the sensus fidelium, which most certainly has a voice in the Church.

I have just been learning more about that concept, as well as the idea of “reception”. Apparently, according to our Pope, *sensus fidelium *moves from the top down, not from the people up to the hierarchy. It is a one way street, and if the “sense of the faithful” does not agree with the ideas of those in authority the faithful must be wrong. The Holy Spirit appears to be restricted to only working in and through certain people in Rome. Whatever voice *sensus fidelium *has is quite weak and is rarely listened to.

A classic example of *sensus fidelium *not working from the bottom up (or even from the upper middle up) and the problem of non-reception of doctrine by the faithful is the response to Humanae Vitae. There have been many other examples throughout history.

If Bishop Morris were good Bishop Morris then Pope Benedict would not have removed him.

See my comments above and in prior posts. Again, I will not be the one to judge the good Bishop. But the corollary to this is that the Bishops who were involved in the great abuse scandal but were promoted and/or protected by the Pope must therefore have been good (despite other indications), obviously much better morally and spiritually than Bishop Morris. For some reason, that thought does not give me much comfort.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are headed in the right direction, but I would add the idea of more horizontal authority and election from within the community, not authority and control from a distance.

It’s the right direction because Christ established a hierarchical Church with deacons, priests and bishops. You can add whatever idea you want. The Early Church Fathers don’t support your speculation.

And doing some of work that Priests had to handle in the past. That certainly is a start, but is occurring ONLY out of necessity. I have read many posts in this forum by people who dislike the roles that the laity have taken on in their parishes. In any case, the end result is that non-ordained Catholics are still 3rd class (lay men) or 4th class (lay women) citizens of the Church. Why must the laity only “assist”; why can’t the laity have a greater role in their faith? That certainly was the case in the early church but that structural form was lost, unfortunately, when the church changed from being communal to being institutional and authoritarian. Don’t forget that the first Apostles were “laymen”.

The laity are not 3rd or 4th class anything. Laity are not the clergy.

I am confused as to what you are disagreeing with since your post made it appear that you were saying my words. I was not characterizing the priesthood, which I greatly admire and respect.

So it CAN be changed, just as I thought (especially since it has been changed before). If it is a changeable discipline and not an immutable doctrine, then what is all the fuss about?

Just because something can be changed doesn’t mean it ought to be changed.

I refuse to judge or label others based on personal assumptions. I have read many quotes from priests, other Bishops and the faithful that indicate he was “good”. I have no evidence to state otherwise.

The bishop is not in communion with the pope and the magisterium because he does not hold all of the Catholic faith. By definition that is not good.

As the Bishop goes, so goes the entire diocese? I didn’t realize Bishops had THAT much power and authority, or that a whole diocese could become rotten because of one person.

No, but the bishop is setting a bad example. That empties seminaries.

Well, actually no. The commandment to “worship God” is not found in the so called ten commandments. [chop] The idea of formal worship appears to come from the mind of man, not the will of God.

The third commandment.

Didache (A.D. 90):
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord’s Day

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

I have just been learning more about that concept, as well as the idea of “reception”. Apparently, according to our Pope, *sensus fidelium *moves from the top down, not from the people up to the hierarchy. It is a one way street, and if the “sense of the faithful” does not agree with the ideas of those in authority the faithful must be wrong. The Holy Spirit appears to be restricted to only working in and through certain people in Rome. Whatever voice *sensus fidelium *has is quite weak and is rarely listened to.

You aren’t describing the sensus fidelium.

The sensus fidelium is held by the faithful in union with the magisterium and the pope. The sensus fidelium remains the same across time and place. The sensus fidelium can’t change doctrine. The Catholic Church can’t change the deposit of faith given to her in its entirety by Christ Himself. The Church can’t just hold a vote and change doctrine. Protestants did an about face with contraception changing it from gravely sinful to acceptable, even desirable, in just a few decades. The Church can’t change the truth to accommodate the zeitgeist.

A classic example of *sensus fidelium *not working from the bottom up (or even from the upper middle up) and the problem of non-reception of doctrine by the faithful is the response to Humanae Vitae. There have been many other examples throughout history.

That is a non issue among the faithful.

See my comments above and in prior posts. Again, I will not be the one to judge the good Bishop. But the corollary to this is that the Bishops who were involved in the great abuse scandal but were promoted and/or protected by the Pope must therefore have been good (despite other indications), obviously much better morally and spiritually than Bishop Morris. For some reason, that thought does not give me much comfort.

Where did Christ ever claim member of the Church would be impeccable?

What evidence do you have supporting your claim of malfeasance on the part of the pope in the abuse scandal?

 

[chaunceygardner]

It’s the right direction because Christ established a hierarchical Church with deacons, priests and bishops. You can add whatever idea you want. The Early Church Fathers don’t support your speculation.

The church histories I have read (several of them, some by Catholic authors) and the analysis done by Bible scholars and theologians (the majority of whom are also Catholic) seem to say otherwise. The vertical, authoritarian institutional church did not develop for many decades and was not entrenched in the structure of the church until after Constantine. Prior to that authority was vested in the local church communities with no centralized authority over the entire church.

The laity are not 3rd or 4th class anything. Laity are not the clergy.

That is a matter of opinion, and we each have our own. I can only report what I observe, what I hear from many, many Catholics and what I read. When I put it all together, the laity comes out at the bottom. When I was growing up it was said that the only role of the laity was to “pray, pay and obey”.

Just because something can be changed doesn’t mean it ought to be changed.

It also doesn’t mean that it cannot even be discussed or considered.

The bishop is not in communion with the pope and the magisterium because he does not hold all of the Catholic faith. By definition that is not good.

You’re jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Bishop Morris expressed the need to discuss possible solutions to a problem, he did not advocate for these as the only options, or state publicly what position he held.

No, but the bishop is setting a bad example. That empties seminaries.

Another conclusion that you are jumping to. Not sure how asking some legitimate questions that have obviously been discussed by and with the laity, other priests and seminarians could do what you say. For some seminarians it might give them hope that things will improve.

I do like your quote from the Didache:

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

From that passage and another similar one I see this as saying that the sacrifice mentioned is not worship but an admonition to be in the right spiritual condition to properly participate in the breaking and sharing of the bread. Part of that includes reconciling with your neighbor for any transgressions (not confessing sins to a priest). I also like this part:

Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord.

Appoint? By the faithful, the community, the laity? Not unilaterally picked by an outsider with greater authority? What a novel concept that is! But apparently not so novel in the early decades of the Church. I wonder what could have happened? This also supports my contention that the Church once had a more horizontal authority structure, which has changed to a vertical structure. Thanks for pointing out that wonderful example in the Didache.

You aren’t describing the sensus fidelium.

The sensus fidelium is held by the faithful in union with the magisterium and the pope. The sensus fidelium remains the same across time and place. The sensus fidelium can’t change doctrine. The Catholic Church can’t change the deposit of faith given to her in its entirety by Christ Himself. The Church can’t just hold a vote and change doctrine.

You obviously see the *sensus fidelium *as something that comes to the people from the higher church authority. I see it as a way to describe how the Spirit may work within the communal church. In the book I am reading that discusses this the author asks whether hierarchy alone has a sacred power independent of the entire church or if there is an interdependence between all member of the Church, ordained and non-ordained? He references several scholars, including Avery Dulles, in stating that the doctrine of sensus fidelium implies an interdependence that reaches into the church’s very nature and the whole church is involved in grasping truth. It is also not a one way only movement. The hierarchy does not have a corner on revelation. That should be strikingly obvious from any cursory reading of Church history.

In my use of the reaction of the pastoral church to Humane Vitae, you responded:

That is a non issue among the faithful.

It is amazing that you can simply write off millions of Catholics that most people would consider part of the church faithful. From what I am getting from your comment, all those people over the past 40 years who have faithfully attended Mass, participated in their parish, and contributed to their Church, but did not fully conform to Humane Vitae, are un-faithful. I see nothing in scripture or in the words of Jesus that would support this idea.

Where did Christ ever claim member of the Church would be impeccable?

What evidence do you have supporting your claim of malfeasance on the part of the pope in the abuse scandal?

Not sure from where you are getting those two questions. I never made either claim, and did not say that the Pope is guilty of any kind of malfeasance. In fact, I commend him for taking some of the actions he has in the abuse crisis.

 

[1holycatholic]

The church histories I have read (several of them, some by Catholic authors) and the analysis done by Bible scholars and theologians (the majority of whom are also Catholic) seem to say otherwise. The vertical, authoritarian institutional church did not develop for many decades and was not entrenched in the structure of the church until after Constantine. Prior to that authority was vested in the local church communities with no centralized authority over the entire church.

Try reading the actual Early Church Fathers. They don’t back up your claim.

That is a matter of opinion, and we each have our own. I can only report what I observe, what I hear from many, many Catholics and what I read. When I put it all together, the laity comes out at the bottom. When I was growing up it was said that the only role of the laity was to “pray, pay and obey”.

When you were growing up Catholic laity were to be mocked and insulted. Check.

It also doesn’t mean that it cannot even be discussed or considered.

It is impossible, therefore discussion or consideration that it is possible is either ignorance or dissent.

You’re jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Bishop Morris expressed the need to discuss possible solutions to a problem, he did not advocate for these as the only options, or state publicly what position he held.

Bishop Morris publicly held positions contrary to the Catholic faith.

Another conclusion that you are jumping to. Not sure how asking some legitimate questions that have obviously been discussed by and with the laity, other priests and seminarians could do what you say. For some seminarians it might give them hope that things will improve.

I’m not jumping to conclusions. There are numerous examples.

I do like your quote from the Didache:

From that passage and another similar one I see this as saying that the sacrifice mentioned is not worship but an admonition to be in the right spiritual condition to properly participate in the breaking and sharing of the bread. Part of that includes reconciling with your neighbor for any transgressions (not confessing sins to a priest). I also like this part:

Appoint? By the faithful, the community, the laity? Not unilaterally picked by an outsider with greater authority? What a novel concept that is! But apparently not so novel in the early decades of the Church. I wonder what could have happened? This also supports my contention that the Church once had a more horizontal authority structure, which has changed to a vertical structure. Thanks for pointing out that wonderful example in the Didache.

You seem to see it like a Protestant congregation voting in a pastor, a person devoid of Holy Orders. It is not the same. The laity cannot ordain.

You obviously see the *sensus fidelium *as something that comes to the people from the higher church authority. I see it as a way to describe how the Spirit may work within the communal church. In the book I am reading that discusses this the author asks whether hierarchy alone has a sacred power independent of the entire church or if there is an interdependence between all member of the Church, ordained and non-ordained? He references several scholars, including Avery Dulles, in stating that the doctrine of sensus fidelium implies an interdependence that reaches into the church’s very nature and the whole church is involved in grasping truth. It is also not a one way only movement. The hierarchy does not have a corner on revelation. That should be strikingly obvious from any cursory reading of Church history.

I gave you a summary of what John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about the sensus fidelium. Church doctrine is what it is and it can’t change because of a majority vote. The debate on contraception is no different than the debate on Arianism in this regard.

In my use of the reaction of the pastoral church to Humane Vitae, you responded:
It is amazing that you can simply write off millions of Catholics that most people would consider part of the church faithful. From what I am getting from your comment, all those people over the past 40 years who have faithfully attended Mass, participated in their parish, and contributed to their Church, but did not fully conform to Humane Vitae, are un-faithful. I see nothing in scripture or in the words of Jesus that would support this idea.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Out of 1.1 billion Catholics it should be no surprise that millions dissent from some infallible teaching of the Church.

I’m not writing off millions of Catholics, they’re writing themselves off.

Not sure from where you are getting those two questions. I never made either claim, and did not say that the Pope is guilty of any kind of malfeasance. In fact, I commend him for taking some of the actions he has in the abuse crisis.

You wrote: “But the corollary to this is that the Bishops who were involved in the great abuse scandal but were promoted and/or protected by the Pope must therefore have been good (despite other indications), obviously much better morally and spiritually than Bishop Morris.”

That’s malfeasance.

 

[Tigg]

Don’t forget that the first Apostles were “laymen”.

Are you perhaps, unaware that Christ instituted the **Sacrament of Holy Orders **at the Last Supper when He commissioned the Apostles to “do this in memory of me?”

 

[Tigg]

I have read many posts in this forum by people who dislike the roles that the laity have taken on in their parishes. In any case, the end result is that non-ordained Catholics are still 3rd class (lay men) or 4th class (lay women) citizens of the Church.

Yes, faithful Catholics who understand Redemptionis Sacramentum dislike the clericization of the laity which dimishes the role of the priest and likewise the nature of the sacraments.

Why must the laity only “assist”; why can’t the laity have a greater role in their faith?

Because they have not received the grace and effects of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and may not go beyond the boundaries of “ministry.”

There is a big difference between ministry and the priestly functions permitted only by the ordained by nature of their office.

The instructions recognize the active role of the faithful in the mission of the Church, for example, their participation in the Liturgy, teaching in catechesis, and their association with groups and movements which contribute to the spiritual mission of the Church. However, these activities together with the laity’s work in the secular world are to be considered as “complementary activity” to the “more restricted area” of the ordained clergy. One must be “mindful of the boundaries established by the nature of the sacraments and of the diversity of charisms and ecclesiastical functions.”

The sacred ministry of the priesthood is rooted in the Apostolic Succession, which is why we profess our belief in the Apostolic Church when we pray the Creed — priests are conferred with the “responsibility of acting in the person of Christ.” The priest has the authority to proclaim the Gospel, administer the sacraments and carrying out the “pastoral direction of the faithful,” thus fulfilling his threefold role of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.

**No community can confer upon itself the Apostolic mission which Christ gave the Church. Only through the Apostolic succession of the hierarchal authority is Christ’s mission of teaching and governing passed on. “Thus the ordained priesthood is absolutely irreplaceable.” **

credo.stormloader.com/Joseph/laycolla.htm

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, faithful Catholics who understand Redemptionis Sacramentum dislike the clericization of the laity which dimishes the role of the priest and likewise the nature of the sacraments.

:yup:

Because they have not received the grace and effects of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and may not go beyond the boundaries of “ministry.”

There is a big difference between ministry and the priestly functions permitted only by the ordained by nature of their office.

Five of the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ are dependent on Holy Orders. That’s why Protestants only have two Sacraments.

It’s one thing to assist the priest in budgeting for expenses etc. which the laity or clergy can do and quite another in administering the Sacraments which are reserved to the clergy.

 

[ANNE_2]

quote from chaunceygardner - “You are headed in the right direction, but I would add the idea of more horizontal authority and election from within the community, not authority and control from a distance.”

Your profile states you are not a Catholic.
The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. You are not about to change our beliefs or our Religion.
Practicing Catholics are Catholics because we want to be.
We don’t vote on what is sinful and what is not, as in many non-Catholic faiths today to be politically correct.
We don’t vote on Bishops or Priests, because we do what is in line with our Faith. The Apostles were appointed, not voted on by the public.

Jesus is our God, not secularism or relativism or whatever the popular theory of the day is. If that is want people want they will go elsewhere.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Are you perhaps, unaware that Christ instituted the **Sacrament of Holy Orders **at the Last Supper when He commissioned the Apostles to “do this in memory of me?”

Yes I was not aware of that, as the Apostles likely were unaware as well, since I don’t see that mentioned in the texts about the Last Supper. I suppose it could have happened but not recorded, but I would think that something of such major importance would have been described.

The Apostles were all laymen; none was apparently trained for the priesthood, they were laborers and fishermen. One, Matthew, would have certainly been ostracized by the Jewish community because of his job, tax collector. Not a person normally fit for Holy Orders.

And if the Apostles were ordained at the Last Supper, how does one explain that Jesus sent them and many other disciples out to preach, teach and heal well before the Last Supper where the first ordination supposedly occurred?

ANNE2:

The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. You are not about to change our beliefs or our Religion.
Practicing Catholics are Catholics because we want to be.

You are right, I don’t expect you to change my views or I yours. But there are others out there, people who read and actually think about these posts, and do their own reading and studying and meditating about these things, who might be influenced. Not to change their minds or to think like me, but to think for themselves. To seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is there for all, not just for those who profess a particular church doctrine. To believe in and open themselves to Jesus and God the Father, not to just follow the rules and doctrines of a church as the way to the Realm of God.

This will be my last post on this thread since, as you say, neither of us will convince the other, and we seem to be diverging from the original topic. But let me finish with these two things, and then the floor is all yours. My first comment is about this statement:

ANNE2:

We don’t vote on Bishops or Priests, because we do what is in line with our Faith. The Apostles were appointed, not voted on by the public.

That is the way it works today, but not always. Nor does it have to. How did the community in Jerusalem choose a replacement for Judas? Matthias was not appointed by Peter or other Apostles. He was discerned from the other disciples, and after narrowing the choices to two men, Matthias was picked by lot.

Second, read Canon Law 375 where it says that the Pope either “freely appoints Bishops or confirms those lawfully elected.” This latter way is quite like how Matthias was chosen, and it could still be done that way today. As one church historian wrote, in the ancient church bishops were selected by and from within the local churches. Into recent times it was still common for secular leaders and church communities to have (name removed by moderator)ut into the selection of Bishops. I don’t expect an answer to this question, but I would like everyone to think about why Bishops today could not be selected from within their dioceses, and by the priests (and even lay representatives) from that diocese? Subject to confirmation by the Vatican. Just think how that might help unify and vitalize the priesthood and the laity, by actually allowing them to participate in their own church communities. It has been done in the past, it could easily be done in the future, and Canon Law seems to allow it. Think about that.

Finally, back to Bishop Morris. I am sure that you all have taken my suggestion and gone to the Toowomba Diocese website and read some of the materials there, whether from the Bishop himself or about the diocese. You may have had the chance to read the message to the flock back in 2005 or 2006 where he extolled the new Pope, and talked about the man that he had known as a Cardinal. You may have also had a chance to consider the position Bishop Morris was in, much like many other Bishops and priests in various parts of the world, being asked to do more and more with less and less. Then think about the FACT that there are right now married priests in the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Rite church in communion with Rome, and that the Church WELCOMES ordained converts from other faiths who are “married with children”. Then ask yourself (you don’t have to respond here) whether what Bishop Morris suggested were paths to consider was that unreasonable?

I think the good Bishop Morris will be ultimately vindicated, by the Church he loves and deeply cares about, and by the Holy Spirit.

May the Lord’s Peace and His unbounded Blessings be with you.

 

[1holycatholic]

Finally, back to Bishop Morris. I am sure that you all have taken my suggestion and gone to the Toowomba Diocese website and read some of the materials there, whether from the Bishop himself or about the diocese. You may have had the chance to read the message to the flock back in 2005 or 2006 where he extolled the new Pope, and talked about the man that he had known as a Cardinal. You may have also had a chance to consider the position Bishop Morris was in, much like many other Bishops and priests in various parts of the world, being asked to do more and more with less and less. Then think about the FACT that there are right now married priests in the Catholic Church and in the Eastern Rite church in communion with Rome, and that the Church WELCOMES ordained converts from other faiths who are “married with children”. Then ask yourself (you don’t have to respond here) whether what Bishop Morris suggested were paths to consider was that unreasonable?

I think the good Bishop Morris will be ultimately vindicated, by the Church he loves and deeply cares about, and by the Holy Spirit.

Bishop Morris wasn’t proposing a change in discipline, he was proposing a change in doctrine.

Vindication for Bishop Morris is not possible.

 

[chevalier]

This Bishop is confronting the truth that many countries are facing. There is a shortage of priests. All the priests in his diocese bar 3 wrote letters to Rome supporting him.

As far as I am aware he wanted to ‘start a dialogue not a revolution’ regarding women priests which is still a ‘discipline’ therefore, it can be changed. I don’t see why the
dialogue/debate could not be had. He also wanted to discuss the possibility of Anglican priests assisting (IMO unwise).

Where are small country towns in rural Australia going to get their priests from? There are also other parishes around the world who cannot get enough priests. Would we rather see these smaller parishes close down and the Catholics there have no access to the Sacraments. In a country as big as ours, you drive for hours before you reach the next town.

Women priests are not discipline but doctrine, and long decided (1994, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis). Anglican ordinations are generally invalid, which has been decided since 1896 (Apostolicae Curae) except in the few instances they are conferred by a validly ordained bishop using a sufficient rite (e.g. an Old Catholic bishop, which has happened). Clerics shouldn’t be suggesting these are open options on the table.