TRUE Religion, TRUE Priesthood

Anniedanielson, you say, "Love and sex are not and can never be the same thing.Love is not possessive and does not serve to manipulate.Tell me then, where in his message does he tell us that we should celebrate sex outside of marriage?To enter the kingdom of Heaven like a child is to understand this simple Truth.A simple truth ,timeless in it's application,God is Love."

AMEN! Of course love and sex are not the same thing. Committed sexual partnership in marriage is "amor", a divine gift and grace of self-donation. Everyone should praise God for the gift of sexuality. I DO NOT ADVOCATE SEXUAL PROMISCUITY OUTSIDE OF MARRAIGE, what I take you mean by "celebrate sex" here. Reason is an individual faculty which seeks truth, albeit, imperfectly. Yes, we all are called to be innocent, altruistic, honest and open like a child. The child is the model of God's love. God is Love; how imperfectly we humans understand love and God.

Anne Danielson With all due respect,Sylvester L.Steffen,my comment was made as an attempt to help clarify your statement regarding entering the Kingdom of Heaven like a child.If we believe that Jesus Christ was our Lord and Savior then we also believe His Message,that Human life is Sacred and has Dignity.All of his teachings and all that we believe stem from His Message.Without His Message,there is no Catholic Church.The story of Jesus's Life on Earth is simply that,a great story.Those of us who believe know that Jesus Christ came to tell us that Human Life is a gift from God,a gift of Love,a gift that has a purpose,the Hope of eternal Life and happiness with God.He came to show us the way, to lead us to Salvation.Human Life is Sacred and has Dignity, Love one another as I have Loved you.That is the simple Truth.To live by this Truth is not always easy.I admit that I often stumble.That is why I Love and value my Church and recognize and appreciate the great responsibility that Christ has given to those who lead us.Most have taken this responsibility seriously,they are the ones that know and understand the Truth.Some,those that pretend to know the Truth,have caused chaos and destruction.What does it mean to Love someone?There is a book,Touching the Holy, by Robert Wick,that discusses ordinariness,self-esteem and friendship.It is a wonderful book because it does a great job of explaining as he states,that"true ordinariness is tangible holiness and that through real and loving relationships we discover the Love that God has for us."The Pope,speaking to the general assembly of Caritas Internationalis stated that "Changing unjust structure is not in itself sufficient to guarantee the happiness of the human person.The Churchs'mission is to promote the integral development of people which includes their spiritual and emotive dimensions.The greatest challenges facing the world...such as globilization,human rights abuses,unjust social structures,cannot be overcome unless attention is focused on the deepest needs of the human person which is the promotion of Human Dignity,well being and eternal salvation.That is exactly what Christ meant when He said"Love one another as I have Loved you."We all are aware of the chaos and destruction that exist in the world today. It is a direct result of our inability to Love one another and respect Life in relationship and communion.We are also witness to all that is beautiful and wonderful about Life and living , a result of successfully following the Truth.I am the way, I am the Light, I am the Truth.A simple Truth,timeless in its'application.God bless our Pope and all the priests that help lead us in Truth.God Bless our Church.May the Holy spirit continue to guide us with his Wisdom.Anne Danielson

THANK YOU. I couldn't have said it better! I couldn't agree more.

Cogently put, *anne*.

But, then, one asks, WHAT WE DO ABOUT God's Truth:

* HOW we live into that greater Truth?
* WHOM we serve in God's name, (with gifts that actually cost us something more than membership in a familiar worship-club)?
* WHAT we give of ourselves in this wonderful invitation to KINGDOM-COME as we enact in real flesh-and-blood terms Mt. 28; and, of cours?,
* WHEN we accept the balance of all the little truths that constitute communion and JOY (TODAY is the acceptable day of the Lord!)?

The TRUTH may be simple, as you say, but our many and varied faith responses are so very beautiful in their complexity, color, and developing character, are they not? ... all the more so in response and in comparison to that amazing and transcendent GLIMPSE of simple, timeless Truth given to us by grace, eh.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)

Ninja said the following:
"You assert in response to Sylvester that a RC Priest is "in persona Christi" - the traditional teaching of the RCC."
Yes I did...I am glad to see this is not in doubt.

Ninja also said:
"Can you explain in plain terms then the 'sexual crimes' that so many priests have committed and their hierarchy have concealed over centuries."
I am no theologian but this would seem to be a serious breach of their responsibilities and a cause of great scandal. The priest is acting "in persona Christi" when he performs his sacred duties (most especially the Mass). He is not in the ordinary course of events impecable. This would seem readily apparent as the priest is just as needing of Confession as the rest of us.

Ninja also said:
"Please do not attempt to insult the layman with the usual [poppycock] that has been dished out to justify this abomination which those priests and their supervising Bishops have visited on innocent children."
There is no justification for sin and scandal. Those that have done these things should be pursued to the extent the law allows. Why would you think I would in any way try to justify this "abomination".

Ninja also said:
"I am also cognizant of the many good priests who live out their lives serving God's people - sadly they are tarred with the same brush as a consequense."
I can't say I know what you are getting at here. Yes, I would agree there are priests that unfortunantly tarred with the unreasonable accusation that 'all' priests are guilty somehow of these sins.

If I misunderstood you somehow I am open to any correction as to your opinion.

Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

Catholic priests are "Ontologically different" - what does this mean? Are humans ontologically different from stones? I would suppose that they are because humans are sentient and highly organized collections of living cells whereas the stone may contain carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, sulphur and all of the other components of the human body but in a very random and stable relationship to each other. The human is a much less stable organization of these components, more dynamic in the exchange of molecules internally and externally with the environment, etc. So what might we infer from the "ontologically different" characterization? Can we say by analogy that the priest differs from other humans as the stone differs from the human being?

Perhaps the specified difference is less drastic and would more closely match the difference between an insect and a human? Or perhaps just the difference between a rabbit and a human? Since those who have insight into such matters have deemed that a woman cannot be a priest, is this because she does not possess the same ontological reality as the male?

Are ontological differences on such a spiritual level that they cannot be perceived by other human beings? Is this the only such ontological difference? It would seem exceedingly strange if priests are so differentiated from the rest of the universe of living and non living beings that there is no reference to this in scripture. In fact, Paul, the first to develop a "christian theology", had neither priests not bishops (in our hierarchical sense) in his taxonomy. So when was this ontological difference first discovered?

Frank, this clarification is, simply, brilliant.

Your post has me reconsidering this Sabbath day's Luke 10 and the lesson embedded in Jesus' sending out of the seventy.

* He didn't say, "Go out and be ontologically different", (neither, of course, did He ever give that instruction to the Apostles.) He said, rather, "Ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest" (NOT specifying their race, gender, sexual practices, or, even their ontological status). Simply put, "Get More";

* Jesus gave a singular and specific task to the seventy: act and speak so that this message is clear: "THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME NEAR TO YOU";

* Upon their return and jubilant reports He counsels the seventy to rejoice not in their mighty work but rather, 'that your names are written in heaven.’

* AGAINST ANY PRIESTLY OR OTHER 'ONTOLOGICAL' PRESUMPTION FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN GODSELF, Jesus says, "... no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

* And Luke ends his chapter with the wonderful parable of Jesus' telling of the story of the Good Samaritan followed by the pericope of the Martha & Mary admonition.

These five movements seem to me to support your own wonderful critique of any claims to *ubermesiter* clericalism.

But, you know, I think it is not primarily priests who claim this separation. I think the mystification of the priesthood derives as much from a larger church/institutional "economy" that both exploits a popular desire for a mystified "over class" and that also establishes a professional cadre of institutional bureaucrats who administer the necessary functions supporting a complex organization. Institutional stability and identity separation serve other modern corporate organizations so why not churches?

The trouble comes when all of this efficiency gets repackaged as piety and clergy deference gets to be a shared myth between congregations and priests:

* congregations start leaving scripture reading to the "expert" and listen to the finished opinion in homilies (they even defer religious education to 'youth ministers');
* liturgy stops being the "work of the people" and gets to be a clergy demonstration (at worst a pantomime; at best a lonely offering);
* moral questions gets deferred to these same "experts" and the struggle to be God's person gets reified into an adolescent loyalty oath that both infantilizes the laity and interrupts the spiritual development of the clergy whose roles degrade into bureaucratic gate-keepers;
* and somehow, in all of this, the central instruction of Jesus' Teaching/Sending is lost: THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME NEAR TO YOU!

Frank, you wrote in an earlier post, "As humans we can only speak like a blind poet describing the night sky" (in that former case, with regard to another and different hubris claim) but YES!!! If there is an ontology at work it is that marvelous GRACED and HUMAN courage that sings a blind poet's FAITH!

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)

Rev. Dr. McCoy, your instructive exchange with Mr Lawlor took me back to David C. Korten's (author of "When Corporations Rule the World") book "The Great Turning from Empire to Earth Community" and his Prologue "In Search of the Possible". He tells of his personal transformation and journey to the realization "that leadership to create a world that works for all can and must come from the bottom up through the creative work and political activism of ordinary people who know from their experience the consequences of these policies" (overreaching policies of centralized authority and control).

From global experience, cultures SHOULD be wary of big government, big business, big finance, and big church. What is universal and diverse cannot be centralized in a singular controlling bigness. The universal validity of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ exposes the invalidity of corporate bigness and centralized control.

If we say "no" to big church, corporate bigness, centralized control and invalidity, we must then say "yes" to the validity of alternatives. When there is a clear vision as to what is wrong, there should be some insight as to what is right. We may throw out the catechism of centralized control, but we must at the same time open to the lessons that "create a world from the bottom up that works for all." This means authenticating oneself in family, community, Earth and Cosmos. We all begin in and function first and always in family and community. A catechesis of self-family-community is needed to enable everyone to function effectively in the small picture if one would find place in the big picture. Toward this objective, a faith-sharing manual (free download) is offered at www.secondenlightenment.org

This is a remarkable exchange between yourself and Frank, and at least for me, helps clarify some of the discussion on this thread. Now I want to muddy the waters.
Elaine you wrote:

"* moral questions gets deferred to these same "experts" and the struggle to be God's person gets reified into an adolescent loyalty oath that both infantilizes the laity and interrupts the spiritual development of the clergy whose roles degrade into bureaucratic gate-keepers;"

I have thought about this particular issue for a long long time, and have come to the conclusion it's the easiest way for us to avoid walking our own path and taking responsibility for the deeper questions of who we are. It's much easier to say: "I'm a Catholic" and adopt that personal definition, than it is to say, "I am" with all the open ended questions that stance leaves. I don't remember any gospel texts in which Jesus defines the totality of His nature with closed statements about that nature. Instead He asks a question of others--"Who is it that YOU say I am?" I've found as I've aged and learned a whole lot more about who I am, that my answer to His question changes, sometimes drastically.

I'm returning more to the open understanding I had as a child, when it was natural to answer: "Someone I want to be like." This was before I had been given my 'Catholic' identity. The one that told me how that was to be accomplished, and that as a girl child, I had some serious deficiencies in 'being' like Him. It was only the first of many cognitive dissonances between my understanding of who I was, and who the Church told me I was to aspire to become. It was hardly the last.

I've pretty much given up on priests ever effectively demonstrating to me that the "Kingdom of God is Near to Me." I've found that truth elsewhere, but this is not a bad thing. It's been a freeing thing. I've been able to come back from my journey quite capable of reversing roles for some of my very close priest friends, and in that reversal they have deepened and broadened their understanding of priesthood and just how close the Kingdom really is.

It's right there within us, if one only reaches for it in Faith and trust, and isn't afraid to look for it within themselves. It's then that the miracles happen and Faith is justified to reason---assuming reason hasn't been scared silly. :)

- yes *col*, Within and Without, I'd say, because the Covenant, for me, is always about participating in the "bringing of the fullness" that I believe is God's ever-surprising and wonderful gift of salvation in Christ. As in Jesus' instruction to the Seventy: "Go get more". It's always, also, a joint enterprise, I think. The Harvest needs so many laborers; the abundance is so incredibly GREAT.

I don't find your posting muddy at all; I find it encouragingly clear and honest.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"All who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear..." (Romans 8:14-15)

I said, "In the tradition of dominion culture, the Roman Catholic Priest is primarily understood to be the agent of the institutional church, a “bureaucrat” who enforces and teaches the ideologies and objectives of imperial Catholic culture."

You answer, "No, in the Tradition of the Catholic Church the priest is primarliy understood to be acting "in persona Christi" ie. in the person to Christ to transmit the Grace of God to the Church through his ordination."

Your counterpoint opens to highly meaningful discussion--the reason I gave it a 4 rating. I believe it is true that people do "in the tradition of dominion culture" experience priests "primarily" as true institutional bureaucrats. They, like bishops, seem preoccupied with defending and face-saving the institution, even if it involves cover-up of criminal conduct, notwithstanding your quotation of the official "in persona Christi" understanding of the institution. Public experience is quite different from the Church's self-understanding.

MALES, CLERICAL OR NON-CLERICAL, CAN CLAIM NO ONTOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY OVER FEMALES.

Forgive me for the suggestion, but doesn't your counterpoint in defense of the Church dominion tradition make the point for me, that you are a faithful and "TRUE Bureaucrat"?

What is more S&S suggests that a RCC priest has two personas - one divine and the other human. Seems to be some sort of parallel here!!!

Any wonder then that they operate out of a sense of being 'untouchable'.

What is of course worse is that the average lay catholic has pedestalized them for so long they believed and continue to believe in their pedestal status.

This is the 21st century not the dark ages. As JFK(I think) once remarked 'you can fool some of the people some of the time...'

'What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak'. -George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952)

Ninja
><>

Peace and Good,

Ninja wrote on June 25, 2007 - 12:48pm.
"What is more S&S suggests that a RCC priest has two personas - one divine and the other human."

No, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The priest acts (note the word, this is action not being) 'in persona Christi'. This doctrine is only understandable in light of an orthodox understanding of who the Person of Jesus Christ is. In other words, one can only understand the being of the priest if one has a proper understanding of the being of Christ.

From the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (re. the Hypostatic Union):
"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

The Capital Grace of Christ is from Christ because he is the eternally begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Aquinas says that "on account of his nearness to God His grace is the highest and first, though not in time, since all have received grace on account of His grace…" Because Christ is Head of the Church, he is the fount from which all graces flow to the Church. This grace was bestowed upon us in the human nature which he assumed. According to Aquinas, "grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which He received, it is from Him that this grace is bestowed on others, – and this belongs to the nature of the head." The Capital Grace of Christ is the fount of the sacramental life of the Church. The grace given to Christ by the Father is given to each son and daughter of God who is incorporated into the Church’s life and communion through the sacrament of baptism. It this Capital Grace of Christ which makes possible the sacrament of Holy Orders and the sacramental consecration of the priest.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and the perfection of the priesthood of the Old Law. He became man so that he might reconcile us to God. He reconciled us to the Father in a similar fashion that the priesthood of the Old Law prefigured: by offering sacrifice. However, the sacrifice that Christ offered was the perfect sacrifice that definitively reconciled us to God. The sacrifice that he offered was himself. Jesus Christ is the perfect high priest because he is God himself. But how is it that Christ is the priest and also the sacrifice offered by the priest? On the Cross, he offered to the Father that which needed to be reconciled to him, our fallen human nature which is united to his divine person. He is both the sacrifice and the one who offers the sacrifice; he is offered and the one who offers.

We must understand that there is only one priesthood, the priesthood of Jesus Christ. All other men who are ordained priests participate in the one priesthood of Christ. Christ, the High Priest, reconciled us to God by his sacrifice on Calvary. However, he willed that the effects and merits of his sacrifice be given continually to the Church. Thus, he calls men to continue his priestly ministry and to be dispensers of the divine mysteries.

Aquinas says that it is the nature of Christ’s priesthood to be communicated to others:
"…A priest is set between God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself cannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ; for the Apostle says (Heb. vii. 25): Coming of Himself to God, always living to make intercession for us…And therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the effect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive light…Now Christ is the fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in his person, according to 2 Cor. ii. 10: For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done in the person of Christ."

Thus, Christ bestows the effects of his priesthood and his priestly action on the Church by allowing other men to participate in his one priesthood. Just as Christ redeemed us by a priestly act of worship, so the ordained priest, by virtue of his participation in Christ’s priesthood, offers that same sacrificial act of worship on the altar. "The sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church is not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a commemoration thereof." The priest, who is a sharer in the priesthood of Christ, offers the Mass in the Person of Christ.

Only by having a deep knowledge of the Person and work of Jesus Christ is the priest able to understand his own identity. John Paul says, "the priest finds the full truth of his identity in being a derivation, a specific participation in and continuation of Christ himself, the one high priest of the new and eternal covenant. The priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the priest…Reference to Christ is thus the absolutely necessary key for understanding the reality of the priesthood." The priest is called to be a man of prayer and contemplation, for it is through prayer (and study) that the priest comes to a deeper personal knowledge of the Person and work of Christ. In prayer and contemplation he is sent forth by Christ to minister to his people in pastoral charity. Possessing this understanding of his own vocation the words of Pope John Paul II will echo true in the heart of the priest: "Our priestly life and activity continue the life and activity of Christ himself. Here lies our identity, our true dignity, the source of our joy, the very basis of our life."

I hope this is helpful. :D

Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

Peace and Good,

Sylvester L. Steffen wrote on June 23, 2007 - 6:41pm
"Your counterpoint opens to highly meaningful discussion--the reason I gave it a 4 rating. I believe it is true that people do "in the tradition of dominion culture" experience priests "primarily" as true institutional bureaucrats. They, like bishops, seem preoccupied with defending and face-saving the institution, even if it involves cover-up of criminal conduct, notwithstanding your quotation of the official "in persona Christi" understanding of the institution. Public experience is quite different from the Church's self-understanding."

Why thank you I appreciate the opportunity for meaningful dialog. So...you see the "public experience" as different from the "Church's self-understanding". I would agree that in some areas this is the case. The Church needs to 'live' the Gospel better and become a true witness to the beauty and joy to be found in Jesus' church. Unfortunantly we are living in the times of the 'wheat and tares' and the 'sheep and goats'. Only after the harvest will those that where faithful and those that where not be clearly evident. Until then we have to live in this broken world, looking forward to completing the race that has been given to us.

Sylvester L. Steffen also wrote on June 23, 2007 - 6:41pm
"MALES, CLERICAL OR NON-CLERICAL, CAN CLAIM NO ONTOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY OVER FEMALES."

I hope your caps lock key was stuck and you are not 'shouting'. I am not sure I know what you mean by this statement though. Please explain this to me and include any relavant documentary references.

Lastly, Sylvester L. Steffen wrote on June 23, 2007 - 6:41pm
"Forgive me for the suggestion, but doesn't your counterpoint in defense of the Church dominion tradition make the point for me, that you are a faithful and "TRUE Bureaucrat"?"

No more than your defence of your position does. Why would you use such circular logic?

If I misunderstood any of your positions, please help me to know you better.
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

My dear Brother, you made the observation "No more than your defence of your position does. Why would you use such circular logic?"

Somtimes I find myself so myopic in what I believe and say that I don't see myself in the way I come off to others. Communication helps to bring things out. I guess I got the impression that you were in denial of my suggestion that you are a Church "bureaucrat", and I don't mean it in a wholly pejorative sense.

I think my writing makes it clear that I am not a Church bureaucrat, at least not in the same way that you are.

Peace and Good,

Sylvester L. Steffen wrote on June 27, 2007 - 3:44pm.
"Somtimes I find myself so myopic in what I believe and say that I don't see myself in the way I come off to others. Communication helps to bring things out. I guess I got the impression that you were in denial of my suggestion that you are a Church "bureaucrat", and I don't mean it in a wholly pejorative sense."

No offense taken. So...a bureaucrat, hmmm lets look at some definitions:

"An employee or official whose actions and duties are guided and determined by rules, regulations and budgetary specifications established by law or other higher authority. The employment of bureaucrats and bureaucratic management is the only appropriate method for handling governmental affairs, for which market processes, economic calculation and the profit motive are unable to provide sufficient guidelines."

-or-

"An official of a bureaucracy. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure."

-or-

"A government official. An official who follows rules rigidly, so creating delays and difficulties; someone who practises or believes in bureaucracy."

Thesaurus: civil servant, functionary, minister, officeholder, official.

Sylvester L. Steffen also wrote on June 27, 2007 - 3:44pm.
I think my writing makes it clear that I am not a Church bureaucrat, at least not in the same way that you are.

So are you implying that since I support the Churchs posititions this makes me an official of the Church. Wow, I never knew promotions were that easy. ;) Personally, I find some of the 'rules' of the Church hard to follow even irksome at times. But, I do believe the Church was founded by Christ with the authority it claims. Therefore, I follow...even when its hard.

Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)