Questionable statement at RCIA tonight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scotty_PGH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TNT:
Not to poke my nose in, but PGH in scotty’s name is short for Pittsburgh, Pa.
It was the old train abbreviation for people’s baggage destination, like the airlines today.
He’s also a TLM advocate, so I would not worry about losing him to some nut in RCIA.
Click to expand...
When did Pittsburgh get so liberal thought it was a conservative albeit blue collar town.
 
Maccabees said:
When did Pittsburgh get so liberal thought it was a conservative albeit blue collar town.
Click to expand...

**When VATII took down the firewalls. :yup:

**Since your post Name indicates OT admiration:

***Jeremias 6:16 ***
** “Thus saith the Lord:** Stand ye on the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: We will not walk.’**” ****
**
Click to expand...
**Thus saith VATII: **We will not walk.
 
TNT said:
**When VATII took down the firewalls. :yup: **

Since your post Name indicates OT admiration:

***Jeremias 6:16 *****Thus saith VATII: **We will not walk.
Click to expand...

More like a misapplication of Vatican 2.
 
Scotty PGH:
I heard something at my RCIA class tonight that surprised me a bit. Let me preface by saying I might be misinterpreting this incident. If it sounds that way to you, please do say so.

Tonight we discussed the Sacrament of Holy Orders. At one point, the discussion turned to the shortage of vocations. A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear a statement like this, which sounds pretty radical. The RCIA director scrambled for a moment, then charitably mentioned that female ordination would probably not solve the shortage of priests, since other Christian denominations ordain women, but are still short on clergy.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the same sort of thing happened in my RCIA class. One of our six rotating catechists told the class that she believed priests should be allowed to marry and then added “Women can’t be priests now but hopefully someday they will be.” Like you, I was shocked as I thought to myself “Huh??? Didn’t the Pope already say, in NO uncertain terms, that the Church **can’t **ordain women, not now, not ever?”

Later I mentioned what she had said to the RCIA director but the director didn’t seem too concerned and simply said “That’s why we have six catechists.” (?? Does this mean if we don’t get the truth from one, we might get it from the others??)

This particular catechist definitely has a feminist agenda, speaking of God as “She” and bemoaning the “not so nice way Paul treated women.” When she isn’t pushing her agenda, though, she is actually a knowledgable, good teacher.

Like you, I am already well catechized and this won’t harm me. I just feel bad for the others in my class who aren’t getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from our classes. For the most part our catechists are orthodox but the occasional “questionable statement” does slip in and always disturbs me.

Also like you, I am just trying to get through it and anxiously waiting for Easter! Perhaps when it is over, I will sit down and have a long talk with my pastor about my “RCIA experience.” He is as orthodox as they come and he just might want to make some changes…
In His love,
Rhonda
 
Scotty PGH:
A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination.

Am I correct in interpreting these statements as radical?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. You were dealing with a person who is in serious disagreement with the teachings of the magisterium, and is in turn spreading her brand of dissent to those unsuspecting, unfortunate souls. I find it appalling these “lecturers” are misrepresenting Church teachings to people who are not in a position to refute her.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
Livnlove55:
Sadly, the same sort of thing happened in my RCIA class…
Rhonda
Click to expand...
Sigh.

I really wish that all modern churches celebrated mass with the splendor, gravity and honor as seen on the daily Masses that are broadcast on EWTN. I’d give anything for that chuapel to be located in my neighborhood!
 
if your catechist was speaking about celibacy, that is a tradition, a discipline that has not always been binding in every time and place in the Church, and could conceivably changed. This pope has stated it will not be changed in his lifetime because the world so desperately needs the sign value of the chaste priest. Usually “male/female” roles is a codeword for women priests. That is a doctrine, the male priesthoods is established by Christ and cannot, ever, be changed. The Church, the Pope, no power on earth has the authority to make that change (or to change the definition of marriage, which was also ordained by God as one man and one woman.)

If by her statement on traditionalism, she was making a distinction between Sacred Tradition, handed on by the apostles along with Sacred Scripture, both divinely inspired, both preserved by the Church through the protection of the Holy Spirit, and “traditions”–those ethnic, national, regional customs that have attended popular devotion in many places throughout the years, she is being very correct. What you or I remember as the practice of the Church of our childhood may not be 2000 year old Sacred Tradition, it may be just a custom, a few hundred years old or less, that is in use only in limited places, by certain groups of Catholics. Mistaking the two is behind a lot of the misplaced allegations of liturgical abuse and clerical pride.
 
By her statement about traditionalism I would stay away from her.

By her statement that females should be priests she should be banned from the RCIA class.
 
What do you think of this defination of Sacrament that is being used in my parish’s RCIA program?

*"A sacrament is a *festive action ** in which Christians assemble to celebrate their lived experience and to call to heart their common story. The actionis a symbol of God’s care for us in Christ. Enacting the symbol brings us closer to one another in the Church and to the Lord who is there for us."

I was dumbstruck by this definition. I am not sure why someone has to make up some goofy definition when they can just open THE Catholic Catechism:

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions

I did a quick google search of this definition. It turns out that it was created by a former Jesuit named Tad Guzie. It turns out that this guy is a part of the Call to Action related CORPUS (“The National Association for an Inclusive Priesthood”) lospequenos.org/Pepper%20Issues/Jul02OnLine.doc

This type of stuff is very disturbing when we have the official Catholic Catechism as a guide.
 
Some of these things are pretty sick!

I was a catechist at my last parish, and I recently moved. I went to RCIA when I arrived at my new parish, and was shocked and appalled at what the priest (60’s generation) was teaching. He told these unknowledgeable catechumens that they needed to give Church teachings their “religious assent” and use their “well-formed consciences” to determine which Church teachings to believe and which ones to ignore. He specifically mentioned the Church’s teaching on birth control, which is a papal teaching on a moral issue, as a fallible opinion which a Catholic (presumably one with a better-formed conscience) could faithfully reject.

He also discussed how the Eucharist was important because it involved the community of God’s people gathered as one, not because of something mundane like Jesus’ physical presence.

He also told us how Vatican II had turned the Church upside down - how the magisterium now existed to serve God’s people, and how God’s people were now really in charge.

I found a new parish.
 
40.png
SHEMP:
What do you think of this defination of Sacrament that is being used in my parish’s RCIA program?
Click to expand...
Oh my…this is disturbing. Why are our RCIA programs polluted with these activists? Why are we given materials like this thing from Mr. Guzie, rather than information directly from the CCC?

In my own program, we’ve watched a video tape series by our Bishop, who is faithful and an excellent teacher. Thank God for that. If I were confronted with a definition like the one you quoted, there’s no way I could hold my tongue. Our Faith is founded on the truth that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. It is no symbol.
 
40.png
SHEMP:
What do you think of this defination of Sacrament that is being used in my parish’s RCIA program?

*“A sacrament is a **festive action *** in which Christians assemble to celebrate their lived experience and to call to heart their common story. The actionis a symbol of God’s care for us in Christ. Enacting the symbol brings us closer to one another in the Church and to the Lord who is there for us.”

I was dumbstruck by this definition. I am not sure why someone has to make up some goofy definition when they can just open THE Catholic Catechism:

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions

I did a quick google search of this definition. It turns out that it was created by a former Jesuit named Tad Guzie. It turns out that this guy is a part of the Call to Action related CORPUS (“The National Association for an Inclusive Priesthood”) lospequenos.org/Pepper%20Issues/Jul02OnLine.doc

This type of stuff is very disturbing when we have the official Catholic Catechism as a guide.
Click to expand...
3 cheers for your research, and hope you publicize it to all who come in contact with those who subscribe to this “Newchurch” apostasy.
 
The tradition/traditionalism quote is from Jaroslav Pelikan. He was a Lutheran when he said that, but he is now Orthodox. So while the quote can be used in a lot of different ways, the person who initially came up with it is now a member of one of the most traditional, even traditionalist Christian groups there are.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Scotty PGH:
I heard something at my RCIA class tonight that surprised me a bit. Let me preface by saying I might be misinterpreting this incident. If it sounds that way to you, please do say so.

Tonight we discussed the Sacrament of Holy Orders. At one point, the discussion turned to the shortage of vocations. A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear a statement like this, which sounds pretty radical. The RCIA director scrambled for a moment, then charitably mentioned that female ordination would probably not solve the shortage of priests, since other Christian denominations ordain women, but are still short on clergy.

Later, in response to another person’s statement on how deep the Church’s traditions run, she warned against getting locked down in “traditionalism,” saying, “Just remember, Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This really shocked me. I took this to mean that both Tradition (as taught by the Church) and traditionalism (as lived by the faithful) are somehow wrong.

Am I correct in interpreting these statements as radical?
Click to expand...
Yes… There are some remarkably sound reasons for opposing the ordination of women. It doesn’t detract from their own wonderful roles either, but simply acknowledges that the roles of men and unique and different. C.S. Lewis wrote on this topic as concerned the Anglican Church of his own time. Two of his essays you might be interested in are “Priestesses in the Church?” and “Fern-seed and Elephants” (hard to find–I am looking for it currently). Joseph Pearce’s, a Catholic scholar, book entitled C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church is also very informative. I am sorry I am not aware of more Catholic-specific works, but we are converts from the Episcopal Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top