A
Annunciata
Guest
Lots of truth here, Coder…more than you even know…
Annunciata:yup:
- Status
Annunciata:yup:
C
Coder
Guest
God bless you Annunciata! If I am not mistaken you are in Massachusetts also. I know you have been a bit down. It is understandable given the events here. It is very trying. I bid you good cheer.
A
Annunciata
Guest
Ayup! Keep up the good work:thumbsup:
Annunciata
P
patricius
Guest
Clearly, any group that’s trying to change the unchangable truths of our faith is being at the same time very insidious and very futile. But that doesn’t mean we should have a knee-jerk reaction to all of their ideas. My mom and dad just had a really rotten experience with their bishop pushing a homosexual priest on their parish just a few months after he was arrested for soliciting a (male) prostitute. I can guarantee you that if the parish (which until recently was rather conservative) had been allowed to elect a pastor, he would have been a lot better. I’m not saying that’s necessarily how we should do it-- but it’s given me perspective.
I *definitely *think that bishops should spend a lot more time guarding the Deposit of Faith, and a lot less time being administrators. My parents’ bishop, in reassigning this priest, focused entirely on what was good for the priest. Never once was the good of the parish mentioned. It was really just a big manipulate-a-thon. In a real sense, the Church exists for the laity-- the Pope (servus servorum dei) recognized this. Why can’t our bishops?
This doesn’t mean that I endorse VOTF. I don’t. But “Keep the faith-- change the Church” seems like an awfully good slogan to me.
I *definitely *think that bishops should spend a lot more time guarding the Deposit of Faith, and a lot less time being administrators. My parents’ bishop, in reassigning this priest, focused entirely on what was good for the priest. Never once was the good of the parish mentioned. It was really just a big manipulate-a-thon. In a real sense, the Church exists for the laity-- the Pope (servus servorum dei) recognized this. Why can’t our bishops?
This doesn’t mean that I endorse VOTF. I don’t. But “Keep the faith-- change the Church” seems like an awfully good slogan to me.
C
Coder
Guest
patricius said:
“Return to Jesus - stop the nonsense” sounds like a better slogan to me.
N
nordskoven
Guest
Deal Hudson’s CRISIS Magazine has done continuing expositions on Voice of the Faithful, which does the same thing corrupt bishops do: say one thing, do another, relying on Catholic saps to keep the support coming and the money rolling in.
VOTF–quietly if not secretly–wants women priests and married priests via mob rule.
WOMEN PRIESTS: The “Sin of Adam” demands atonement by males only. To suggest otherwise is an insult to women, blaming Woman for Adam’s betrayal of the trust which was uniquely his. She received her own unique authority, crushing Lucifer’s head. In trying to make the priesthood female, VOTF actually perpetuates the elitist European model of priestly privilege, not servitude. In this instance VOTF wants to share the prestige, wealth and cute outfits, ignoring the bearing of sin guilt for the Sin of Adam as males alone can do as the Alter Christus, Christ Himself being the Second Adam.
MARRIED PRIESTS: Christ explicitly asked for unmarried servants. There are those who are born eunuchs; and those made eunuchs by men; but Christ asked for “spiritual eunuchs” to serve His kingdom. Those with ears to hear, shout down the ear-tickling novelty.
One may note that the pornographic website for homosexual priests, St. Sebastian’s Angels, suggested forwarding women priests and married priests by way of garnering acceptance for homosexual priests. VOTF’s protestant agenda of self-shepherding sheep is tailor made for furthering and not halting depradation.
MOB-OCRACY: This power-to-the-people agenda is being gently floated by the likes of that spooky Cardinal Dulles of the spooky American spy-plomat family. Mob-ocracy is easily co-opted by those with hidden agendas, as is seen in how gullible Catholics are regarding VOTF’s duplicity.
Christ vested teaching and disciplining power and authority with His shepherds, not the sheep. More to the point in refuting Dulles, who seems bent on undermining Petrine Authority, the final “buck stops here” Prime Ministerial job is vested in Peter alone, who has been a singular check, for example, on Freemasons among the Cardinals who aided in looting the Church during the Vatican banking scandal. In short do not give VOTF money, matches or sharp objects. They will turn on you.
VOTF–quietly if not secretly–wants women priests and married priests via mob rule.
WOMEN PRIESTS: The “Sin of Adam” demands atonement by males only. To suggest otherwise is an insult to women, blaming Woman for Adam’s betrayal of the trust which was uniquely his. She received her own unique authority, crushing Lucifer’s head. In trying to make the priesthood female, VOTF actually perpetuates the elitist European model of priestly privilege, not servitude. In this instance VOTF wants to share the prestige, wealth and cute outfits, ignoring the bearing of sin guilt for the Sin of Adam as males alone can do as the Alter Christus, Christ Himself being the Second Adam.
MARRIED PRIESTS: Christ explicitly asked for unmarried servants. There are those who are born eunuchs; and those made eunuchs by men; but Christ asked for “spiritual eunuchs” to serve His kingdom. Those with ears to hear, shout down the ear-tickling novelty.
One may note that the pornographic website for homosexual priests, St. Sebastian’s Angels, suggested forwarding women priests and married priests by way of garnering acceptance for homosexual priests. VOTF’s protestant agenda of self-shepherding sheep is tailor made for furthering and not halting depradation.
MOB-OCRACY: This power-to-the-people agenda is being gently floated by the likes of that spooky Cardinal Dulles of the spooky American spy-plomat family. Mob-ocracy is easily co-opted by those with hidden agendas, as is seen in how gullible Catholics are regarding VOTF’s duplicity.
Christ vested teaching and disciplining power and authority with His shepherds, not the sheep. More to the point in refuting Dulles, who seems bent on undermining Petrine Authority, the final “buck stops here” Prime Ministerial job is vested in Peter alone, who has been a singular check, for example, on Freemasons among the Cardinals who aided in looting the Church during the Vatican banking scandal. In short do not give VOTF money, matches or sharp objects. They will turn on you.
K
katherine2
Guest
They clearly and firmly state they are not interested in changing the teachings of the Church. Child safety was the motivating issue around their founding, but I believe they are interested in a broad range of such legitimate concerns of God’s holy people.
K
katherine2
Guest
Dear Fiat,
I think VOTF takes a perfectly Catholic and even Jocist (if you are unfamilair with this wonderful Catholic term, we can start another discussion on it) approach. Yes, rather than come in with a cliam to have all the answers to recent problems, they start off with a process of reflection and discernment.
I don’t think their agenda is veiled (i.e. fully formed but hidden). I think it is properly a work in process. Obviously, this scares people of a certain mindset, but it is a beautifully Catholic way of approaching matters.
Catholic history, of course, is quite varied as to the role of the laity in the life of the Church, including her governance. In the past we have had popular election of bishops (including the bishop of Rome), lay cardinals (done away with by the liberals), trusteeship, etc. I am not suggesting any of this well serves the Church at this moment in history. But I find it hard to say that any of these practices are unorthodox if they were used by the Church in the past.
Lastly, yes, let’s not put too much in an etching on a cathedral. But it does seem to me that after centuries and centurties, the popes woud have removed the words put before the world on their own cathedral if they were heretical.
K
katherine2
Guest
I’m not insulting your intelligence. I am questioning your honesty.
You find all sorts of statements here. From the pious to the heretical, from insightful to racist.
K
katherine2
Guest
I’m so glad Deal has found time to “expose” VOTF. Anything that keeps him busy and away from my granddaughters.
F
Fiat
Guest
Katherine2:
You have very succinctly identified what I think most people’s difficulty with VOTF is by asserting that VOTF’s agenda is “a work in process.” Therefore, whether the practice is “unorthodox or not” is difficult for anyone to assess since by your own admission the details of the agenda aren’t available for anyone to assess. I will point out that I said that the terms that VOTF uses in its goal are veiled. I never said its mission was veiled. Given your recent response, can we now agree that its mission is nonexistent?! If its mission is still being formed, as you indicate, then its appropriate for us to look to see how that mission is being formed. Is it appropriatley being formed by studying treatises on women’s ordination? Redefining marriage? Birth control issues? Perhaps VOTF thinks studying these treatises or proposing heterodox ideas is the best way to form its agenda. The question for VOTF is WHY are those topics consequential?
You give examples that the Church, throughout Her history has had periods of “democratization.” Do you think the Church had valid reasons for abandoning popular elections? Are you quite certain we should bring back forms of governance that we left, particularly when, again, VOTF’s mission is undefined? Let’s be careful about assuming that just because something was done in the past, it is appropriate to do it again. Perhaps some things are best left in the past?
I don’t like going back to the etching in the cathedral, but you seem to be bringing up that “ever-changing” fact quite frequently. Can you verify that when the artist etched the words “ever-changing” into the cathedral wall that he did so because the universal pastor of our church intended to infallibly declare that the Holy Catholic Church needs to be changing its structure at all times? How frequently should the Church be ever changing its structure, Katherine2? How frequently should we be holding elections or reorganizing policy advisory issues, etc.? Again, can you verify at all that “ever-changing” means what you say it means? Please tell me that VOTF stakes its authority on something more substantial than that.
Finally, VOTF seems to think it is possible to separate the political aspects of the church from the doctrinal/dogmatic aspects of the church without affecting the latter, but I am not sure how this is possible, and given VOTF’s veiled terms and apparently nonexistent agenda, I don’t think they know either. It seems a little like trying to separate the soul from its body to tinker with one without affecting the other. To me, each aspect of our Church is connected to the other. Patricius gives a prime example of this in his/her post #44. Had a lay committee been allowed to select a pastor for its parish, they would have been able to preserve “orthodox teaching,” etc. Do you see how what on the one hand seems to be a political aspect of the church ends up affecting spiritual aspects of the Church? The book of Corinthians beautifully sums up this idea as to how each part is a smaller part of the larger whole in the Body of Christ. Therefore, when the smallest part is affected, so too is the rest.
I just pray that VOTF is ever mindful of the dangers that exist in a democracy. We need only look to our Protestant brothers and sisters to see how divisive democracy is.
So, I return to my original question, Katherine2. How on Earth does VOTF plan on living up to its motto of “Keeping the Faith and Changing the Church”?
Your brother in faith,
Fiat
You have very succinctly identified what I think most people’s difficulty with VOTF is by asserting that VOTF’s agenda is “a work in process.” Therefore, whether the practice is “unorthodox or not” is difficult for anyone to assess since by your own admission the details of the agenda aren’t available for anyone to assess. I will point out that I said that the terms that VOTF uses in its goal are veiled. I never said its mission was veiled. Given your recent response, can we now agree that its mission is nonexistent?! If its mission is still being formed, as you indicate, then its appropriate for us to look to see how that mission is being formed. Is it appropriatley being formed by studying treatises on women’s ordination? Redefining marriage? Birth control issues? Perhaps VOTF thinks studying these treatises or proposing heterodox ideas is the best way to form its agenda. The question for VOTF is WHY are those topics consequential?
You give examples that the Church, throughout Her history has had periods of “democratization.” Do you think the Church had valid reasons for abandoning popular elections? Are you quite certain we should bring back forms of governance that we left, particularly when, again, VOTF’s mission is undefined? Let’s be careful about assuming that just because something was done in the past, it is appropriate to do it again. Perhaps some things are best left in the past?
I don’t like going back to the etching in the cathedral, but you seem to be bringing up that “ever-changing” fact quite frequently. Can you verify that when the artist etched the words “ever-changing” into the cathedral wall that he did so because the universal pastor of our church intended to infallibly declare that the Holy Catholic Church needs to be changing its structure at all times? How frequently should the Church be ever changing its structure, Katherine2? How frequently should we be holding elections or reorganizing policy advisory issues, etc.? Again, can you verify at all that “ever-changing” means what you say it means? Please tell me that VOTF stakes its authority on something more substantial than that.
Finally, VOTF seems to think it is possible to separate the political aspects of the church from the doctrinal/dogmatic aspects of the church without affecting the latter, but I am not sure how this is possible, and given VOTF’s veiled terms and apparently nonexistent agenda, I don’t think they know either. It seems a little like trying to separate the soul from its body to tinker with one without affecting the other. To me, each aspect of our Church is connected to the other. Patricius gives a prime example of this in his/her post #44. Had a lay committee been allowed to select a pastor for its parish, they would have been able to preserve “orthodox teaching,” etc. Do you see how what on the one hand seems to be a political aspect of the church ends up affecting spiritual aspects of the Church? The book of Corinthians beautifully sums up this idea as to how each part is a smaller part of the larger whole in the Body of Christ. Therefore, when the smallest part is affected, so too is the rest.
I just pray that VOTF is ever mindful of the dangers that exist in a democracy. We need only look to our Protestant brothers and sisters to see how divisive democracy is.
So, I return to my original question, Katherine2. How on Earth does VOTF plan on living up to its motto of “Keeping the Faith and Changing the Church”?
Your brother in faith,
Fiat
U
utica
Guest
Here’s an AP story that mentions VOTF president Jim Post.
“Coyne also noted a May incident in which Voice of the Faithful president Jim Post publicly scolded archbishop Sean O’Malley for what he called a ``divisive’’ stand against gay marriage. O’Malley has said he was simply articulating the church’s view that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=41900&format=
I don’t know what the May incident was. Do you katherine2?
“Coyne also noted a May incident in which Voice of the Faithful president Jim Post publicly scolded archbishop Sean O’Malley for what he called a ``divisive’’ stand against gay marriage. O’Malley has said he was simply articulating the church’s view that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=41900&format=
I don’t know what the May incident was. Do you katherine2?
K
katherine2
Guest
Yes. “Scolding” is Coyne’s term. Mr. Post thought the way the archdiocese was campaigning on this matter was divisive. Later, Archbishop Sean himself, made the same point about how others (not himself) were campaigning against gay marriage. So, I don’t see this has a matter of orthodoxy but judgement.
K
katherine2
Guest
Okay, I understand your reservation. But for many other people, the idea that the Holy Inquisition needs to be called in immediately is troubling to us. I woudl have a resentment of the suspiction that faithful lay people can never come together to address matter of the faith community without first offering extraordinary proofs of their orthodoxy. I think these good Christians have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guility. At least I think they have the right to be given such a public presumption. If you have private doubts, I would expect that you would not join up with VOTF.
VOTF never took any action to say that those issues are consequential or even that those treatises need study. They offered a rather open forum for Catholic laity to come forward and present their views. Why the uneasiness about having knowledge of what people think, be it orthodox or heterodox? Many in VOTF see that as related to the child abuse scandal – let’s pretend everything is fine.
I totally agree. I don’t think many of those past practices best serve the Church in the present day. I don’t think someone is a heretic for suggesting they would be good ideas. And I don’t think ignorance of those past practices is a virture. I think by study of those past practices we might find wisdom or pastoral good even if we do not return to them.
I’m a little tired of this as well. VOTF was attacked for employing a little slogan. I pointed out the Popes have a similiar slogan (if you will) on their own catherdal. Neither slogan needs to be raised to a whole philosophy. My point was I don’t think VOTF’s little phrase makes them unorthodox.
That is an issue for reflective discernment.
K
katherine2
Guest
(cont.)
VOTF would raise the idea that this colaboration might also be lacking in other fields.
Pesonally, I think shutting down or censoring any lay exploration of this possibility is a very bad idea.
I think VOTF’s critics see a “political” and a “doctrinal/dogmatic” bifurcation in the church. I think VOTF understand the teaching authority of the Church rests with the bishops. I think they also would propose that other aspects of the Church (I don’t think they or I are quick to use your term “political”) such as evangelization, pastoral concerns, social justice, stewardship, family concerns, protection of children, parish life and community, etc, best require a close colaboration among laity and clergy. I think they find that on the matter of protection of children there was not a close colaboration. In fact, Catholic parents were not consulted; not informed, and in some cases, lied to.
VOTF would raise the idea that this colaboration might also be lacking in other fields.
Pesonally, I think shutting down or censoring any lay exploration of this possibility is a very bad idea.
I agree. That is why seeing clergy solely as a caste to themselves is a mistake. The laity cannot be seperated from the Church. They have legitimate functions and concerns. AND, AS CANON LAW AFFIRMS, they have the RIGHT to make those concerns known to their pastors.
Yes? So you are defending lay nomination? I’m not sur eof yoru point. I understand the interreation. I simply hold that the clergy and laity are also both part of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.
The Church is not a democracy. Nor is it a dictatorship. It is a family, a community, the piligrim people of God, the mystical Body of Christ.
Well, I am reluctant to speak for VOTF. I could give you my thoughts, if you like and assuming we have clarified the other issues.
U
utica
Guest
katherine2, do you have a link to what Mr. Post said? I can’t find any via google.
I assume that Mr. Post agrees with Church teaching on marriage. So I’m left to wonder what he thought was so divisive about the archdiocese’s activities.
Here’s a piece about the archbishop:
cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/11/gay.marriage.archbishop.ap/
- "Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley urged Catholic lawyers on Sunday to oppose gay marriage, saying the institution of marriage and the family are under assault and attorneys need to help protect them.**
“It’s not a question of live and let live, it’s a question of right and wrong,” O’Malley said."*
Perhaps the archbishop said other things that were off the mark?
F
Fiat
Guest
Dear Katherine2:
First, I would like to thank you for discussing this matter with me openly and with a spirit of Christian love and zeal. It’s nice to have somewhat intense debates without sarcasm, etc.
You stated:
Also, you indicated that “VOTF was attacked for employing a little slogan.” I don’t think VOTF’s slogan is all that little, frankly. After all, it seems that the VOTF slogan is all that VOTF has at the moment since, again, it has not clarified any agenda or mission for itself. The motto “keep the faith, change the church,” and the name “Voice of the Faithful” are finer points that may not speak to the whole philopshy of VOTF, but again, how can you make this argument without putting your tongue in your cheek when you admit that as of yet, there is no VOTF philosophy?
I have noticed that when you speak of VOTF’s alleged mission, you tend to confine your discussion to the child sex abuse situation. I stand alongside you in asserting that protections and policies need to be defined and implemented. However, VOTF’s website certainly doesn’t limit its concerns to the child sex abuse situation. It seems to extend beyond that into doctrinal realms…at least that is the impression one is given when it throws words around like “faithful” “change” “church”.
You stated:
I understand your reluctance to speak for VOTF. If I were in your shoes trying to define what VOTF is and defend what it may or may not do once someone in VOTF decides what is and is not best for VOTF, I would be distressed by the lack of resources VOTF provides. Nonetheless, I would be interested in what your personal views on VOTF are: what do you ultimately see happening to VOTF? Do you think VOTF will ever be able to appeal to a wide audience?
In faith,
Fiat
First, I would like to thank you for discussing this matter with me openly and with a spirit of Christian love and zeal. It’s nice to have somewhat intense debates without sarcasm, etc.
You stated:
I’m not clear on what your driving at, here. First you say the critics of VOTF see a “bifurcation.” But then you nullify your point when in the next sentence you confirm that VOTF sees a bifurcation: (1) teaching aspects resting with the bishops and (2) a handful of other aspects resting with the laity. My point was that I DON’T see a bifurcation between the teaching and nonteaching aspects, as each one is intimately connected to the other. Therefore, I find it impossible without some further clarification that a person can say that we can CHANGE THE CHURCH while at the same time KEEP THE FAITH.
Also, you indicated that “VOTF was attacked for employing a little slogan.” I don’t think VOTF’s slogan is all that little, frankly. After all, it seems that the VOTF slogan is all that VOTF has at the moment since, again, it has not clarified any agenda or mission for itself. The motto “keep the faith, change the church,” and the name “Voice of the Faithful” are finer points that may not speak to the whole philopshy of VOTF, but again, how can you make this argument without putting your tongue in your cheek when you admit that as of yet, there is no VOTF philosophy?
I have noticed that when you speak of VOTF’s alleged mission, you tend to confine your discussion to the child sex abuse situation. I stand alongside you in asserting that protections and policies need to be defined and implemented. However, VOTF’s website certainly doesn’t limit its concerns to the child sex abuse situation. It seems to extend beyond that into doctrinal realms…at least that is the impression one is given when it throws words around like “faithful” “change” “church”.
You stated:
I am assuming that the reason VOTF seeks to have an open forum where ideas (orthodox or heterodox) can be discussed is because it is hoping to discern (your word) its mission. Are you now saying that in fact, VOTF’s only interest in providing a forum for public discourse was an end in and of itself, and that in spite of what the laity think, VOTF will juggernaut itself forward with whatever agenda it defines on its own terms?
I understand your reluctance to speak for VOTF. If I were in your shoes trying to define what VOTF is and defend what it may or may not do once someone in VOTF decides what is and is not best for VOTF, I would be distressed by the lack of resources VOTF provides. Nonetheless, I would be interested in what your personal views on VOTF are: what do you ultimately see happening to VOTF? Do you think VOTF will ever be able to appeal to a wide audience?
In faith,
Fiat
K
katherine2
Guest
Certainly in all our official pronouncements we tried to be very clear that the issue was not to undermine anyone’s individual rights or promote, in any way, prejudice or discrimination.
utica:
One of Archbishop Sean’s statement was that “Were there some excesses among supporters of traditional marriage? There were, and that’s unfortunate.” I recall another statement where he warned pro-marriage advocates to be careful in hwo they presented their case and not to be divisive.
So, it seems Mr. Post and Archbishop Sean have similar concerns, thought hey may differ as to where they see this problem occuring. Neither seems to deny that it is possible even in the support of the best of causes, to procede in a way that is inappropriate and divisive.
I remember the exchange. Mr. Post didn’t say much more than that. Coyne, who was a Cardinal Law man, has since been re-assigned as communications director for the Boston Archdiocese.
One of Archbishop Sean’s statement was that “Were there some excesses among supporters of traditional marriage? There were, and that’s unfortunate.” I recall another statement where he warned pro-marriage advocates to be careful in hwo they presented their case and not to be divisive.
So, it seems Mr. Post and Archbishop Sean have similar concerns, thought hey may differ as to where they see this problem occuring. Neither seems to deny that it is possible even in the support of the best of causes, to procede in a way that is inappropriate and divisive.
K
katherine2
Guest
Fiat,
Thank you. I think you are being too kind, however. You have been most gracious, so it is easy to respond likewise. I know my faults and with others who have been nasty, I’ve been too quick to take the bait.
i think maybe the difference we have is that you see it as some kind of a shortcoming that VOTF did not spring forth from day one with some extensive manifesto. I, on the other hand, consider it a virture that they are using a very Catholic JOCist method. They have identified a real and legitimate concern in the life of the Church. They feel that situations similiar to the child abuse problem may exist on other matters in Church life. To study and reflect on this they are gathering groups of concerned laity. I think this is a wonderful and extremely Catholic approach to matters. I would recommend to you a study of the life, writings and methodolgy of Father Cardjin.
Not resting with the laity. But matters on which the laity have a role in collaboration with the clergy. And yes, the lines are fuzzy. That is why even on matters of doctrine, the bishops need to consult with the laity. They need to knwo what matters they are anxious about, what they are confused on, what their yearings are.
Didn’t Vatican II change the Church? Didn’t Trent change the Church? Didn’t St. Francis change the Church? Didn’t Frank Sheed & Maise Ward change the church? Did the Christian Family Movement and Marriage Encounter change the Church? Did the NCCIJ change the church? I’m confused as to why this phrase is so troubling. it seems to me we have seen alot of change for both good and ill.
I agree child protection is the spark that started much more. I don’t see the extention into doctrine and you will find VOTF clearly, firmly and repeated say that they are not about changing doctrine.
K
katherine2
Guest
I see them as following a JOCist method, one of the great jewels of Catholicism.
I think they have already been successfull in their appeal. They have sparked something very real among the lay faithful.
I think soon the national organization will step into the background and dozens of local – diocese, regional and parish – groups will develop and grow. I think certain bishos will start responding to VOTF concerns while denouncing the organization. So what – its not about institutional building but renewing the Church.
- Status