T
Thom18
Guest
That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.
- Status
J
Jimbo
Guest
I get that. But were a bunch of folks to turn my Parish into the progressive gender inclusive language ‘St. Pat’ (not Patrick or Patricia, just Pat) I’d be furious.
But never, NEVER would I try to screw up or disrupt the consecration, unless some serious blasphemy was going on with the Host or the Precious Blood.
But never, NEVER would I try to screw up or disrupt the consecration, unless some serious blasphemy was going on with the Host or the Precious Blood.
O
otjm
Guest
St Thomas Aquinas in mid-thirteenth century accepted the new Aristotelian view of slavery as well as the titles of slave ownership derived from Roman civil law, and attempted - without complete success - to reconcile them with Christian patristic tradition. He takes the patristic theme… that slavery exists is a consequence of original sin and says that it exists according to the “second intention” of nature; it would not have existed in the state of original innocence according to the “first intention” of nature; in this way he can explain the Aristotelian teaching that some people are slaves “by nature” like inanimate instruments, because of their personal sins; for since the slave cannot work for his own benefit slavery is necessarily a punishment. He accepts the symbiotic master-slave relationship as being mutually beneficial. There should be no punishment without some crime, so slavery as a penalty is a matter of positive law. St Thomas’ explanation continued to be expounded at least until the end of the 18th century.
In His Pastoral Care, Pope Gregory I wrote: “Slaves should be told …[not] to despise their masters and recognize they are only slaves”.
Papal Bulls such as Pope Nicholas V’s 1452 Dum Diversas permitted “perpetual servitude” of Saracens and pagans in Africa.
There certainly are more points which can be brought up concerning the matter; but your position that the Church has been against slavery all along does not hold.
And as to St. Paul, which he discreetly told Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, Cardinal Avery Dulles noted that Paul did not say that Philemon was morally obligated to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had. And one can hardly say that Paul was shy about speaking on moral issues. In fact, In his sermon on Philemon, St. John Chrysostom considered that St. Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his aster a sign that slavery should not be abolished.
In His Pastoral Care, Pope Gregory I wrote: “Slaves should be told …[not] to despise their masters and recognize they are only slaves”.
Papal Bulls such as Pope Nicholas V’s 1452 Dum Diversas permitted “perpetual servitude” of Saracens and pagans in Africa.
There certainly are more points which can be brought up concerning the matter; but your position that the Church has been against slavery all along does not hold.
And as to St. Paul, which he discreetly told Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, Cardinal Avery Dulles noted that Paul did not say that Philemon was morally obligated to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had. And one can hardly say that Paul was shy about speaking on moral issues. In fact, In his sermon on Philemon, St. John Chrysostom considered that St. Paul’s sending Onesimus back to his aster a sign that slavery should not be abolished.
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
For much of human history slavery has been a fact of life. Thus, Christians, and Jews before them, have had to contend with this reality. This is a complex history, and one I have devoted most of my life to studying. The most difficult part of studying the history of slavery is that one much guard against presentism if one is to remain intellectually honest. It is a difficult thing to do. For the modern man, it is the most natural thing to rightly abhor and decry all forms of slavery as inherently immoral and unjust. Consequently, it is difficult, and for some impossible, to see the nuances of slavery within human history. Indeed, this is an even more difficult task if you are descended from slaves, as I am. Nevertheless, the nuances are important.
A distinction must be made between just-title slavery and racial slavery. Just-title slavery has always been an accepted part of human history even to this very day and even in modern democracies such as the United States. It has always been the case that slavery has been considered a just form of punishment for the guilty. It is in this context that Paul sends Onesimus back to his master.
For the Christian, your reward is not in this life but the next. Here Paul is focused on the salvation of souls. For Onesimus, who is subjugated under a system of just-title slavery, his road to salvation is in living the most Christian life he can according to his status in life. But, Paul does not stop there. In sending Onesimus back he also sets out some expectations for his master. Namely, that he treat Onesimus as a brother. This is significant, and in this admonition we see the anti-slavery roots of our faith. Just as husbands and wives have the responsibility to treat one another with love and respect even as the husband is recognized as the head of household, so too with the master and the slave under just-title slavery. This is in stark contrast to the norms of slavery in Ancient Rome, for instance, where there existed no such restrictions on slavery.
Indeed, the church continued to place restrictions on slavery and remind her followers of their duties and responsibilities under this system. We see this with Pope Eugene IV in his Bull Sicut Dudum in 1435. In his bull, he denounces the enslavement of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands who were being abused by the Spanish at the time.
It is also in the context of just-title slavery that we must see the issuance of Pope Nichols V’s devastating bull in 1452. Even in its barbaric nature, we see the restrictions he places on the system. He views Muslims and pagans as guilty of sins against Christ and as a result he sees slavery as a just punishment for them. This is, of course, rightly abhorrent to us as modern men, but again, the nuances are consequential.
(Continued in the next post)
A distinction must be made between just-title slavery and racial slavery. Just-title slavery has always been an accepted part of human history even to this very day and even in modern democracies such as the United States. It has always been the case that slavery has been considered a just form of punishment for the guilty. It is in this context that Paul sends Onesimus back to his master.
For the Christian, your reward is not in this life but the next. Here Paul is focused on the salvation of souls. For Onesimus, who is subjugated under a system of just-title slavery, his road to salvation is in living the most Christian life he can according to his status in life. But, Paul does not stop there. In sending Onesimus back he also sets out some expectations for his master. Namely, that he treat Onesimus as a brother. This is significant, and in this admonition we see the anti-slavery roots of our faith. Just as husbands and wives have the responsibility to treat one another with love and respect even as the husband is recognized as the head of household, so too with the master and the slave under just-title slavery. This is in stark contrast to the norms of slavery in Ancient Rome, for instance, where there existed no such restrictions on slavery.
Indeed, the church continued to place restrictions on slavery and remind her followers of their duties and responsibilities under this system. We see this with Pope Eugene IV in his Bull Sicut Dudum in 1435. In his bull, he denounces the enslavement of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands who were being abused by the Spanish at the time.
It is also in the context of just-title slavery that we must see the issuance of Pope Nichols V’s devastating bull in 1452. Even in its barbaric nature, we see the restrictions he places on the system. He views Muslims and pagans as guilty of sins against Christ and as a result he sees slavery as a just punishment for them. This is, of course, rightly abhorrent to us as modern men, but again, the nuances are consequential.
(Continued in the next post)
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
(Part 2)
Once the abuses of this American system become apparent. Once it becomes clear that what emerged in the Americas was not just-title slavery but racial slavery, the system is condemned. See Pope Paul III’s Sublimis Deus issued in 1537 for example. And, the church continued to decry racial slavery issuing several bulls and letters to that effect and even excommunicating clergy who defied her admonitions.
The only form of slavery that was ever accepted by the church was just-title slavery (which is still accepted by many modern democracies including the United States) and even then, it was only accepted with restrictions.
(We are well and truly off topic for this thread, but I’d be happy to continue this exchange via PM)
Once the abuses of this American system become apparent. Once it becomes clear that what emerged in the Americas was not just-title slavery but racial slavery, the system is condemned. See Pope Paul III’s Sublimis Deus issued in 1537 for example. And, the church continued to decry racial slavery issuing several bulls and letters to that effect and even excommunicating clergy who defied her admonitions.
The only form of slavery that was ever accepted by the church was just-title slavery (which is still accepted by many modern democracies including the United States) and even then, it was only accepted with restrictions.
(We are well and truly off topic for this thread, but I’d be happy to continue this exchange via PM)
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
We need to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
And we need to be careful that in our zeal to love people unconditionally that we don’t ignore their evil intent to harm us.
I’ve actually read quite a few LGBTQ pieces that call for the end of the Catholic Church, although they are always charitable towards Catholics who agree with their agenda of homosexual marriage and parenthood (through adoption).
Every two weeks, I go out to eat with my organ teacher, who is gay. Two weeks ago, he had some pretty harsh words for the Catholic Church. He didn’t go so far as to say “destroy it” (he’s a gentle soul), but he definitely wants the Church to change their teaching regarding homosexuality, or else stop calling itself a “Christian” organization.
If the doctrine (dogma?) against homosexual marriage were to be changed by the Holy See–wouldn’t that essentially end the Catholic Church, as it would no longer be free of error in her teaching?
If my gentle music teacher is so adamant about his despising of the Catholic Church teachings, then it makes sense that the activists in the LGBTQ community are out for blood.
I have not checked out any of the LBGTQ articles on any of their community newspapers recently, but I’m guessing that I would see some very unfriendly articles calling for the Catholic Church to stand down. (These LGBTQ newspapers are quite disgusting and I really dislike seeing the photos and reading the articles.)
I’m also guessing that they are continuing their strategy of placing LGBTQ individuals in paid positions in the Catholic Church and then crying a very public “FOUL!” when the Church fires them for their off-work words and behavior; this strategy has garnered a lot of support of LGBTQ lifestyles and a lot of public rancor against the Catholic Church–we lost almost all of our really good musicians when our diocese fired our gay organist for telling the schoolchildren about his marriage and plans to adopt a child with his new “husband.” And I was able to find articles in the LGBTQ publications that made it obvious that this is a strategy, not just a local incident.
Let’s not be naive. It does none of us any good.
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Very wise words. You’re right, there are those who are out there and do have an evil intent to harm or destroy the Catholic church.
P
PetraG
Guest
There are also, unfortunately, some who want to conform to the World’s definition of a “Christian” instead of the plain teachings that have endured across the ages.
The biggest enemy, it seems to me, is the idea that the teachings of the Church are supposed to “evolve,” as if Our Lord and the Apostles ever taught that they were teaching a primitive version of what it means to be a disciple. No, they did the opposite. The Apostles warned very clearly about imposters who came along from the very beginning, teaching a changed version of what was never meant to be changed. There are of course trivial aspects of culture that can and do change over the years and that differ from one place to the next. There are less-important things such as arguments over aesthetics. The major teachings of the faith, however, are not subject to change. Anyone who says that they are is raising the red flag that they don’t know the faith they propose to teach. We don’t have to know their motives or their awareness of their error to know that it is in fact an error.
O
otjm
Guest
Yes, we are off topic. Your original statement was that the Church has been anti-slavery from the beginning. I have shown not so, and you now have put in qualifiers - and while I agree to some extent on the qualifiers, only to some extent.
Not that I have ever overstated a position (ahem).
Back to the topic: the Church has had and likely always will have people who are somewhere between poorly and barely catechized; it will also have people who come in with an agenda and don’t pay a lot of attention (or choose to ignore) doctrine and related matters.
I can’t speak directly to the parishioners in St. Francis as it has been several decades since I had direct contact. However, the parish has had progressives since at least going back to the mid 1970’s.
Even the term “progressives” has a great deal of latitude; it can mean people who are very very strongly committed to social justice, and they I can deal with. However, it also includes those who have little or no grasp of doctrine; where it came from, where it is, and where it is going, and most importantly, why. The same can be said (and often exists in parallel) to those who look at discipline the same way; pushing the boundaries in multiple areas. In the write-up in the Oregonian, we see a very small snippet of a view; but the tell-tales are there: married priests (that is simply a disciplinary issue; we have them, folks) and women priests (showing either a marked lack of understanding of doctrine, with sacrifice offered all the way back to Cain and Able); acceptance of LGBTQ going from accepting their human dignity bleeding over into accepting their lifestyle choices; and what appears to be a fierce political left.
I have not polished my crystal ball, so this is simply a mild guess; but I would not be surprised to see this kerfuffle settle down to a low roar, go for about a year, and the parish be closed for lack of significant numbers of parishioners. As noted in the thread, there are a multiple of parishes available within a reasonable distance. The Church has a duty to provide the sacraments, but not necessarily on the terms demanded by a group of individuals.
And as to why the parish has gone through at least 5 bishops (Sample being the 6th, and not counting Howard, who ended in 1966) and a number of priests; only they could tell. And so far, none have spoken - but there may well be reasoned choices made over the decades.
Not that I have ever overstated a position (ahem).
Back to the topic: the Church has had and likely always will have people who are somewhere between poorly and barely catechized; it will also have people who come in with an agenda and don’t pay a lot of attention (or choose to ignore) doctrine and related matters.
I can’t speak directly to the parishioners in St. Francis as it has been several decades since I had direct contact. However, the parish has had progressives since at least going back to the mid 1970’s.
Even the term “progressives” has a great deal of latitude; it can mean people who are very very strongly committed to social justice, and they I can deal with. However, it also includes those who have little or no grasp of doctrine; where it came from, where it is, and where it is going, and most importantly, why. The same can be said (and often exists in parallel) to those who look at discipline the same way; pushing the boundaries in multiple areas. In the write-up in the Oregonian, we see a very small snippet of a view; but the tell-tales are there: married priests (that is simply a disciplinary issue; we have them, folks) and women priests (showing either a marked lack of understanding of doctrine, with sacrifice offered all the way back to Cain and Able); acceptance of LGBTQ going from accepting their human dignity bleeding over into accepting their lifestyle choices; and what appears to be a fierce political left.
I have not polished my crystal ball, so this is simply a mild guess; but I would not be surprised to see this kerfuffle settle down to a low roar, go for about a year, and the parish be closed for lack of significant numbers of parishioners. As noted in the thread, there are a multiple of parishes available within a reasonable distance. The Church has a duty to provide the sacraments, but not necessarily on the terms demanded by a group of individuals.
And as to why the parish has gone through at least 5 bishops (Sample being the 6th, and not counting Howard, who ended in 1966) and a number of priests; only they could tell. And so far, none have spoken - but there may well be reasoned choices made over the decades.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Not quite.
Portland
Seattle
http://www.seattlearchdiocese.org/ Arcbishop Sartain is one of the holiest priests I’ve ever met.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Archbishop Sample of Portland is by far one of the better US bishops.
Now if only he could reform OCP…
Now if only he could reform OCP…
O
otjm
Guest
Well, actually, OCP does not need reformation. There is a wide variety of music available in it; and it is up to the music leader/coordinator in the parish to choose what they play. By and large, that will vary from parish to parish.
There are alternatives for music; OCP does not need to become one of those.
I suspect strongly (having attended Masses in a number of states), that if you do not like the music it is far less OCP than it is the individual who chooses the music from the widely available selection.
If you do not like contemporary music, then there are music sources available to provide alternatives. However, if the parish does not provide the music you wish, it may be that you need to look at another parish.
There are alternatives for music; OCP does not need to become one of those.
I suspect strongly (having attended Masses in a number of states), that if you do not like the music it is far less OCP than it is the individual who chooses the music from the widely available selection.
If you do not like contemporary music, then there are music sources available to provide alternatives. However, if the parish does not provide the music you wish, it may be that you need to look at another parish.
Last edited:
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Like Gregorian chant.
O
otjm
Guest
Exactly. Or Plaestrina.
Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that our own personal desires are not necessarily completely aligned with the parish structure and process. If there is enough dissonance, it may be time to either go to another parish. or, as my sainted grandmother often said, “offer it up”. The Poor Souls always need prayers and sacrifices.
I can count on two hands and have fingers left over as to how many excellent homilists I have known over the last 7 decades. And to me, that is more important than the music… well, as long as it is not Palestrina. I want to go to Mass, not a concert. But that’s just me.
Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that our own personal desires are not necessarily completely aligned with the parish structure and process. If there is enough dissonance, it may be time to either go to another parish. or, as my sainted grandmother often said, “offer it up”. The Poor Souls always need prayers and sacrifices.
I can count on two hands and have fingers left over as to how many excellent homilists I have known over the last 7 decades. And to me, that is more important than the music… well, as long as it is not Palestrina. I want to go to Mass, not a concert. But that’s just me.
O
otjm
Guest
So the latest news on this imbroglio: it appears the K of C on the state level have decided to attend Mass there this next Sunday.
I fear that this is a decision which may well make matters worse rather than better.
I am all for support for the priest. His brother priests and the chancery should be filling this need.
The parish has already made national news. If word gets out of the impending attendance, I foresee at least print journalist(s) being in attendance; and it easily could escalate to the television crew(s).
If the parishioners decide to boycott this Mass, then little or nothing has been done other than to put the priest in a potentially awkward, if not explosive situation.
And if the parishioners decide this is their parish" and attend en force, what has the potential to happen?
Knights run all through my family and I love them dearly and support the work they do. But it takes just one Knight to make an error in judgement and all bets are off.
I fear that this is a decision which may well make matters worse rather than better.
I am all for support for the priest. His brother priests and the chancery should be filling this need.
The parish has already made national news. If word gets out of the impending attendance, I foresee at least print journalist(s) being in attendance; and it easily could escalate to the television crew(s).
If the parishioners decide to boycott this Mass, then little or nothing has been done other than to put the priest in a potentially awkward, if not explosive situation.
And if the parishioners decide this is their parish" and attend en force, what has the potential to happen?
- nothing. The diocese and attendees get a free pass.
- someone decides to make a fuss during Mass. There is the tinder, and the flame is right nearby. Should one Knight so much as touch one of the parishioners, let alone one making a “statement”, there is immediately ground for both civil and criminal charges of at least assault.
Knights run all through my family and I love them dearly and support the work they do. But it takes just one Knight to make an error in judgement and all bets are off.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
How many knights are expected to show up? And what is the seating capacity at St. Francis?
O
otjm
Guest
It was related to me by a parish member and she did not say, except she was going to go,
It is an older church, and I have not been inside for decades,; from visual memory somewhere between 400 and 600. That is assuming 8 to a pew and 25 pews a side. could be smaller, but not tremendously so.
It is an older church, and I have not been inside for decades,; from visual memory somewhere between 400 and 600. That is assuming 8 to a pew and 25 pews a side. could be smaller, but not tremendously so.
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t really think any of the Knights in Oregon are going to start a rumble at St. Francis Church. I would bet that a good number of the local Knights have put in volunteer time once or twice the St. Francis Dining Hall, if not more. If the more senior Knights are in attendance, it will be made extremely clear that there are to be no problems whatsoever for Father to deal with coming from the KCs. Period.
The other priests have their own parishes to cover on Sundays and in any event will show their confidence in the pastor by butting out and letting him handle things. That is only what they would have wanted themselves, in the same situation. Having a few extra KCs around shouldn’t cause him concern, either.
It is an older church with mostly older parishioners. They’re going to catch on that the Franciscans are gone and they’re not coming back. If they want to have a priest at all, they’re going to have to learn to join the realities of the 21st century, because the Archbishops of Portland in Oregon have not been ordaining as many men on an annual basis as they’ve been losing to retirement. There are only so many to go around.
I somehow doubt the Knights will show up in anything more imposing that suits and ties with K of C pins or maybe in K of C polo shirts. They won’t be bringing their swords or anything.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
A bunch of Catholic men going to Mass is hardly cause for alarm, ANYWHERE.
It’s not like they’re going to whip out their swords and start beating up on the parishioners. They’re probably not even going to make any speeches or do anything but show up in their uniforms and go to Mass.
If they were going to hold a rally on the Church steps, I’d agree with you it is not a good idea if they aren’t from the parish, but showing up and quietly praying is a great thing to do. If I lived in Portland I would go there myself, attend a Mass and quietly pray. All the Catholics in the area should do so.
I am sure the Knights will have their marching orders as to what to do and not do during the Mass, and I have not seen the K of C getting “out of line” at any Masses where they’ve been in attendance. They are very respectful and not activists.
Last edited:
- Status