RCIA and priest teaching not entirely orthodox topics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xpiatio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m afraid that the priest giving RCIA is throwing doubt on Catholic doctrines. For example, Pope John Paul II said strongly that only men can become priests since it is part of the deposit of faith. The Church repeated what he said to insure more greatly that it is understood to be part of the deposit of faith by Catholics, when it issued this statement:
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
Of course it is good often to be open to others, but I think it is good to realize that such words are not the teaching of Catholicism.
 
Honestly, I’ve not read all the responses.

I’d be more concerned about a RCIA class that was taught like mine was than this particular class/priest. It sounds like the priest is just “being real” about the shrinking pool of applicants to the priesthood. For us laypeople to have priests, they’ll have to be recruited from somewhere and if we aren’t getting enough applicants in our current talent pool, then they’ll have to figure out something to meet the need. As for the “mother” thing, it’s really something I’d overlook if he was accurately teaching about the sacraments. He just might be trying to explain (poorly) to the women in his audience that the RCC is really inclusive and accepts everyone where they are at.

However, it’s not evil or sinful to acknowledge God’s femininity. What we shouldn’t do is limit God (and who and what He is) because our language is limited and doesn’t always capture God’s essence entirely.

For me, making this distinction “mother/father” (and wrestling with God over it) made it a lot easier to accept Catholic teaching about our Holy Mother Mary. (I’m a convert from an evangelical background.) People need to see themselves in God and in the community if they are going to keep going forward with the conversion process.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t reference the priest’s direct comments, but some people do have this struggle. While it might be an invalid distinction to OP (as a man), it’s not an invalid distinction to a lot of women.

God is both “mother and father”. He is genderless; yet we have gender and are distinctly male or female. We are inherently incomplete and God is both “male and female”. Why is it such a bad thing to acknowledge this? Why do we only assign God to male roles of “father” and “son” when the female roles of “mother” and “daughter” are just as powerful? Isn’t that limiting God and who He ultimately is in our world, universe, lives?

These are legitimate questions that a lot of females struggle with. I tend to give the priest the benefit of the doubt because the people who are going to an RCIA class are questioning God and trying to understand more about who He is and trying to decide whether they want to enter communion with the RCC.
 
Kal2012 said:
Why do we only assign God to male roles of “father” and “son” when the female roles of “mother” and “daughter” are just as powerful? Isn’t that limiting God and who He ultimately is in our world, universe, lives?
Click to expand...
Question for you, if you don’t mind. How do you reconcile the belief that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man? Jesus was born a male. I don’t think that we could separate God’s humanity from his divinity. I believe to do so would be a heresy, if my understanding of the doctrine is correct. Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arianism . . . etc.
 
=Xpiatio;12342251]I would like to consider myself a catholic who has a firm grip on my faith. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I may not know the fine details of everything. But I know enough to walk my way through the Bible when talking to my protestant friends.
Click to expand...
I started attending the RCIA classes with my gf, who is learning the faith to become Catholic. I am starting to see where the priests stands on some things, which would explain some events that happened in the past. Tonight he mentioned that its ok to call God: Mother. And the Catholics do not take the Bible literally. (Initially thinking about when Jesus says “this is my body” and how we take it literally.) He also mentioned the possibility of women becoming priests and possibility of having married priests again. He stated that we dont have to believe the Marian doctrines. And that because of the Dead Sea scrolls we have greater understand of what was taught back then.
Click to expand...
I know that God revealed himself to us in the masculine form. I also know that Catholics believe that the authors of the Bible used literary styles when writing. 1. Literal 2. Figuratively. and I forget the other 2 off hand.
Click to expand...
Since I can easily jump of the deep end with apologetics, it would be information overload for those that are inquiring about the faith. I also do not want to disrespect the priest and don’t want to start a confrontation. How do I bring up these items and any future items that I know that are wrong or even shades of grey?
Click to expand...
Your situation is both dangerous and in a real sense: necessary.

RCIA being the NORM for admission into the RCC.

I suggest you attend EVERY class and then AFTER class correct Privately CORRECT the errant teachings. DO N OT get into in in class. The priest will have to answer to God for what he teaches.

The FIRST understanding is Literal BUT the bible employs MANY different forms. That is why ALL teaching MUST conform to what the Magisterium teaches:).

God Bless you both! LOOK FOR A PM FROM ME

Patrick
 
Xpiatio said:
Question for you, if you don’t mind. How do you reconcile the belief that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man? Jesus was born a male. I don’t think that we could separate God’s humanity from his divinity. I believe to do so would be a heresy, if my understanding of the doctrine is correct. Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arianism . . . etc.
Click to expand...
But the Second Person of the Trinity had to be one or the other when made incarnate, not both man and woman.
In the context of the time, it was better to be born a male, particularly as all the prophecies related to a male, and so there was symbolic value.
 
paperwight66 said:
But the Second Person of the Trinity had to be one or the other when made incarnate, not both man and woman.
In the context of the time, it was better to be born a male, particularly as all the prophecies related to a male, and so there was symbolic value.
Click to expand...
But Jesus is male.
 
All I can say about this priest and some of the responses here is “WOW”.
  1. Tonight he mentioned that its ok to call God: Mother.
Click to expand...
NO!
Wherever in the bible where it says how to address God it says “Him” or “Father”. Whether or not God is male or female or has no sex, we’ve been instructed to address God as male.
  1. And the Catholics do not take the Bible literally.
Click to expand...
This is only true of certain parts of the bible, like Genesis. The whole NT is literal, but only in the context of the entire bible.
  1. He also mentioned the possibility of women becoming priests and
Click to expand...
Nope, won’t happen. It may be tradtion but this would be the last tradition to go.
  1. possibility of having married priests again.
Click to expand...
This is much more likely to happen, but not any time soon.
  1. He stated that we dont have to believe the Marian doctrines.
Click to expand...
Well,yes we do. You have to believe in her Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and The Assumption.
  1. And that because of the Dead Sea scrolls we have greater understand of what was taught back then.
Click to expand...
The Dead Sea Scrolls changed nothing, it was mostly a copy of previous books in the bible and non-canon books previously known to us.
 
mcrow said:
All I can say about this priest and some of the responses here is “WOW”.

NO!
Wherever in the bible where it says how to address God it says “Him” or “Father”. Whether or not God is male or female or has no sex, we’ve been instructed to address God as male.

This is only true of certain parts of the bible, like Genesis. The whole NT is literal, but only in the context of the entire bible.

Nope, won’t happen. It may be tradtion but this would be the last tradition to go.

This is much more likely to happen, but not any time soon.

Well,yes we do. You have to believe in her Divine Motherhood, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and The Assumption.

The Dead Sea Scrolls changed nothing, it was mostly a copy of previous books in the bible and non-canon books previously known to us.
Click to expand...
As far as the women priests, it can’t be changed per the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated in 1995: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
 
mcrow said:
Right, yes, the Church has ruled that it does not have authority to ordain women. So, that is official these days.It was tradition before this, I think.
Click to expand...
BTW, I love the “Tiber Swim Team” that’s just awesome.
 
=Xpiatio;12383871]But Jesus is male.
Click to expand...
[Originally Posted by paperwight66 View Post]
But the Second Person of the Trinity had to be one or the other when made incarnate, not both man and woman.

In the context of the time, it was better to be born a male, particularly as all the prophecies related to a male, and so there was symbolic value. END QUOTE

No dear friend

God is genderless; and is literally “Spirit and Truth” John 4:23-24 {I think?}

Look carefully at the entire OT and discover that not one time did Yahweh {God} make himself VISIBLE in human form… as a cloud, fire, the wind and just a voice; but NEVER literally “face to face”

That is in part why the Incarnation of Christ in human form was so difficult for many Jews to accept. Even though the OT Prophets said that God would send a MESSIAH; which they took to mean another DAVID who would free them from Roman enslavement.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top