"We have fewer priests now than we did 50 years ago, I think we have a more vibrant church than we did 50 years ago"

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From the Cardinal Mahoney Article:
“What some refer to as a ‘vocations crisis’ is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God’s deep love for the Church,” says Cardinal Mahony
Click to expand...
Less priests means the less available the Sacraments are. This is a “fruit” and a “a sign of God’s deep love for the Church”?Sounds like more of that rotten brand of fruit cultivated in the gardens of the “spirit of Vatican II” to me.
Cardinal Roger Mahony has laid out “two absolute essentials” to “the organization of strong, representative groups in the archdiocese.” These, he told the inaugural meeting of the Archdiocesan Pastoral Council, are parish pastoral and finance councils.
Click to expand...
Canon law, Mahony told the 27 council delegates, requires that parishes have finance councils, while archdiocesan policy mandates parish councils. The delegates included “representatives from the regional pastoral councils, Council of Priests, Council of Deacons, Parish Life Directors, religious women, religious brothers and ex-officio non-voting members,” according to the Feb. 2 Tidings, the archdiocesan newspaper.
Click to expand...
The parish councils, according to Initiative II of the Los Angeles archdiocesan synod (held 2000-2003), are “structures that provide for appropriate religious and lay participation in decision making and processes of accountability at Archdiocesan, regional, deanery, and parish levels.”
Click to expand...
The councils ensure that, in directing parish life, pastors collaborate with laity in what Cardinal Mahony in his 2000 pastoral letter, As I Have Done for You, called “a broadly based shared ministry.”
Click to expand...
Does anyone else agree that since Vatican II the Church in North America has become very bureaucratic? There are councils and committees for everything and everyone. We are almost rivaling the protestants in bureaucracy now.
In his letter, Mahony altered the priest’s office as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as sanctifying, teaching, and ruling, to “sanctifying, teaching, and guiding.”
Click to expand...
“Our understanding of the ordained priesthood has changed and is still changing,” Mahony wrote. One key term for the priestly office, in persona Christi capitis (“in the person of Christ the head”), wrote Mahony, “relates priestly ministry to the whole Body, head and members, and emphasizes the priest’s collaborative role, the need to work with other ministries, and the need to draw into the unity of the Gospel and the Church community all the gifts and ministries that come from Christ and his Spirit.”
Click to expand...
Priests, in short, are not to rule their parishes but to collaborate with others in guiding them. “In light of the many gifts and challenges that are calling us to reshape our ministerial structures, the priest may be best understood as a sign of ecclesial communion,” said Mahony.
Click to expand...
I must have missed it, but now Cardinal Mahoney has the power to change the Catechism as he sees fit? Will he be calling an Ecumenical Council anytime soon and issuing some Encyclicals? Perhaps he will promulgate some infallible Dogmas regarding Liturgical Dancing and ugly Cathedral architecture.
The Archdiocesan Pastoral Council is an important group, since, Mahony told the inaugural meeting, it will oversee implementing the synod’s six pastoral initiatives, which include the establishment of lay leadership of parishes – Parish Life Directors.
Click to expand...
Ok, I realize that in this day and age of complex finances and accounting, not to mention all these committees and councils to deal with, the average parish can no longer be run out of the priest’s back pocket, but come on! Parish Life Directors? This isnt a corporation, this isnt a government- this is a parish church!
 
childofmary1143 said:
I don’t understand how a bishop can think that having less Priests makes for a more better diocese?
Click to expand...
I interpretted that quote a different way. First, I would say here vibrant might mean “alive” or “active” more than it means “exciting”. A slight difference.

To me, he’s not saying the church or diocese is better because there’s less priests. He’s saying that despite the fact that there are less priests, the church is more vibrant (alive, active) than it was 50 years ago.

Now, whether you agree with that statement or not is another matter. I just want to make sure we all respond to what the Bishop actually said, in context. 🙂
 
Timmay said:
I interpretted that quote a different way. First, I would say here vibrant might mean “alive” or “active” more than it means “exciting”. A slight difference.

To me, he’s not saying the church or diocese is better because there’s less priests. He’s saying that despite the fact that there are less priests, the church is more vibrant (alive, active) than it was 50 years ago.

Now, whether you agree with that statement or not is another matter. I just want to make sure we all respond to what the Bishop actually said, in context. 🙂
Click to expand...
I am not sure I agree. I think as the church changes good things have come in some ways. Some vibrant churches are manfiesting things like Bible Studies and Youth Programs that Protestant Churches have. This is very good for spiritual development. BUT as Priests become scarce we have fewer of them and what there are are spread too thin. There should be enough Priests and assistant Priests that pastoral care is amply provided and that Priests know their Parishioners. This does not happen well when Father has a couple of thousand or more Parishioners and is spread thin (ie all he can do to keep up with weddings, Baptisms, Masses and funerals), forget about establishing in depth relationships with those he serves.

We need more orthodox, celibate men who want to be invested in the life and spiritual development of their church. One of our most vibrant Catholic churches is large and has a Priest who ensured that active Youth programs were established, a variety of Masses and Bible Studies. Very active and devoted Parish (has a packed school as well). The man is a leader.

Rev North
 
RevDrNorth said:
I am not sure I agree. I think as the church changes good things have come in some ways. Some vibrant churches are manfiesting things like Bible Studies and Youth Programs that Protestant Churches have. This is very good for spiritual development. BUT as Priests become scarce we have fewer of them and what there are are spread too thin. There should be enough Priests and assistant Priests that pastoral care is amply provided and that Priests know their Parishioners. This does not happen well when Father has a couple of thousand or more Parishioners and is spread thin (ie all he can do to keep up with weddings, Baptisms, Masses and funerals), forget about establishing in depth relationships with those he serves.

We need more orthodox, celibate men who want to be invested in the life and spiritual development of their church. One of our most vibrant Catholic churches is large and has a Priest who ensured that active Youth programs were established, a variety of Masses and Bible Studies. Very active and devoted Parish (has a packed school as well). The man is a leader.

Rev North
Click to expand...
The problem of less priests goes even further then that.

The sole purpose of the Church is the salvation of individual souls and the glorification of God on this earth. The means of salvation, in Catholic doctrine, are the sacraments. So, less priests means less sacraments, which means…

I’m not trying to get into a discussion of doctrine, but my point is that to say God is blessing the Church with fewer priests cannot be a Catholic perspective, since less priests means less access to the sacraments, which could never be accounted as a blessing in Catholic theology.
 
Is it just me, or is the word “vibrant” usually used by someone who is less than enthused about orthodox teaching and just wants to get on with their own agenda?
 
katy said:
Is it just me, or is the word “vibrant” usually used by someone who is less than enthused about orthodox teaching and just wants to get on with their own agenda?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not just you. Typically, “vibrant” is a code word for anti-clericalism and heterodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top