I live in a great community and last night was community meeting time. Always loved and loathed, a chance to check in and re-connect, but also the potential for a long night in debating how the tea towels should be hung or whether it’s warm enough to turn the heatpumps off.
However, last night, we took some time to look at the results of the Myers Briggs Personality test. I’d never done one of these before and I was particularly impressed by how well I felt that my ‘type’ described my own preferences. Of course, it’s not something to base your life on, and you can’t get hung up thinking that you’re ‘stuck’ in a certain way…but it is quite revealing, and somewhat reassuring to realize that, no, you really do just operate totally different to this other community member who you struggled to understand.
However, in the last couple weeks, a number of people around me have commented on how Myers Briggs is limited in comparison to the depth and methods of the Enneagram. The Enneagram seems like one of those many things that looks really good and can provide some fascinating insights, but used blindly or without knowledge of it’s origins, could lead us down a garden path that we don’t want to go.
I was aware that the Enneagram had gotten quite a bit of bad press and so I dug a little deeper and found this from A Brief (haha, yeah right) Report on the Origins of the Enneagram from the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference.
For example, in enneagram teaching sin is often redefined in terms of the characteristic limitations of a particular personality type. One problem resulting from this redefinition derives from the fact that according to enneagram teaching every person must inevitably choose a personality type as a basic strategy for coping with one’s environment. Since every personality type has its intrinsic limitations, sin becomes something at least in part inevitable. Personal responsibility for sin becomes very difficult to explain in this theory. A second problem is a consequence of the first. If sin is the (inevitable) result of one personality type, then the solution to sin is to be found primarily in compensating for one personality type by following the prescriptions of enneagram teaching. The remedy for sin becomes first of all a matter of greater knowledge rather than reform of the will. According to Christian teaching, sin is indeed unhealthy behavior and can be combated by an improved understanding, but it is at its root a moral problem, so that repentance before God and one’s neighbor must be the fundamental response. Enneagram teaching thus obscures the Christian understanding of sin.
This is a major concern, among a number of other things mentioned, about the Enneagram.
However…would it be possible to “take the good and leave the rest” as a great priest I know would say? I guess the issue is that so many Catholics who do make use of the Enneagram, who introduce it to others etc, do not (deliberately or not) stipulate clearly how it fits in with our own Christian understanding of the faith.
So what if someone did do that, and sought the good bits, clearly outlining the not so crash hot…does anyone see potential here?
“So what if someone did do that, and sought the good bits, clearly outlining the not so crash hot…does anyone see potential here?”
Can we have Astrology and the Tarot then as well?
I think it is all a distraction……..
I think there is something to personality types. It’s a very ancient idea.
I think part of the draft report for the USCCB seems to go a bit too far when it states:-
I don’t know that enneagram theory concludes that sin is in part inevitable (although, given original sin and the very fallen state of the world today sin is a real struggle to avoid) so much as that certain personality types are particularly prone to certain types of sin.
I think that’s an insight which can be quite helpful to those seeking spiritual growth.
I also think that the insight that others function and think quite differently to the way I do is helpful.
I think its certainly possible to “take the good and leave the rest”.
God Bless
The Vatican has also published a document on New Age spirituality which includes the Enneagram. From JESUS CHRIST THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE
Note the link between Gnosticism, an ancient heresy and the Enneagram.
Personally, as someone who spend years out in the New Age wilderness before coming back to the Church a couple of years ago, I can categorically state that there is absolutely nothing of worth to a Catholic in the Enneagram. It is seductive because of it’s promise of secret knowledge, but, it can only lead you away from God, not towards him. And picking and choosing doesn’t help, you can be lead astray without even realising it.
Tuppence,
“would it be possible to “take the good and leave the rest”"
I like to think so. It seems pretty impossible in this day in age to be black and white about everything; there’s so much grey! I certainly try to adopt the taking the best, leaving the rest attitude when it comes to yoga, which I wouldn’t be without but which also doesn’t wholly fit in with my religion…
Interesting post, thanks for the thought food.
I’m with you one hundred percent here Lucyna.
“Personally, as someone who spend years out in the New Age wilderness before coming back to the Church a couple of years ago, I can categorically state that there is absolutely nothing of worth to a Catholic in the Enneagram. It is seductive because of it’s promise of secret knowledge, but, it can only lead you away from God, not towards him. And picking and choosing doesn’t help, you can be lead astray without even realising it.”
so if Enneagram is new age and conflicting with Christian teaching (and based on numerology)etc as the Bishops warn why does a google search throw up so many associations with the ‘Mercy Spirtuality Centre’ or is this centre not Catholic?
Here’s an interesting article by the very solid Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J., who was taught enneagram in the seminary and has spent some time studying it. Fr Mitch taught the enneagram himself (including to Fr Richard Rohr).
It’s very telling that, according to Fr Mitch, the Jesuits have now dropped the enneagram.
There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence that there actually are 9 personality types and many of the other claims made for the history of the enneagram do not stand up to close scrutiny.
Worth a read.
http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a076.html
Pacwa is unequivocal in his warning: “No Jesuit from my class, except myself, who took the Enneagram teaching is still a Jesuit today. All have left the priesthood.”
http://www.lhla.org/globalwatch/gwenneagram.htm
I think that with the enneagram one would be taking the idea of personality types and ditching just about everything else.
God Bless
Chris, I’d disagree with that. Taking the personality types still gives *it* a foot in the door. It’s like Astrology, if you allow the personality types there to gain a hold of your way of thinking, you can let in ways of thinking that you don’t expect that gradually lead you away from God.
However, that quote you’ve pulled up is a great one and worth repeating:
Just goes to show how destructive the Enneagram is.
*
Benedicta, I’m glad someone here understands!
Dei Verbum, the Enneagram has infested many Catholic organisations and religious orders. Like any good heresy, it gets most of the unwary.
Lucyna,
I mean the idea of personality types, not the enneagram take on them.
It seems this stuff is pretty ingrained in the Church. As recently at Sep 2007 in Reno?, participants in the diaconate training program were reportedly required to take either the Meyers Briggs or Enneagram personality type tests.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187795
One of the problems with personality types is that most of us are a mixture of types – I know I am, although others would probably say I’m just all over the place
God Bless
I’d be interested to know how the Meyers Briggs compares to the Enneagram in terms of bad-ness?
Anyone?
I think one difficulty with even having a focus on ‘personality types’ is that it provides opportunities to depersonalise the person as a loved human being. They became a problem number or they have an unfortunate profile or type or combination of types. It can become an empirical tool in deciding compatibility.
I think it just plays to our modernist cultural instinct – we want to be somebody, to have a significant life, significant talents. These things seem to show us what they are. In other words they play to our vanity and get used by our pride. When you think about it, it is all upside down from what Christ Teaches us about what pleases God.
3 Veg,
More info including how the tests can be used against people one might want to screen out for other reasons is at http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187795
It appears that these tests have been used to screen candidates for the priesthood and the diaconate. That either means there is nothing wrong with them. Or that the Church has used physchological methods that are seriously suspect.
Going by Fr Benedict Groeshel’s (who is also a trained psychologist) accounts of the misuse of psychology in Catholic circles in the 1970’s and its subsequent effects, there is something to be said for the later view.
God Bless
The Catholic principle is “when in doubt stay away” as in “better safe than sorry”, so no it is not possible to take the good with the bad as The Captain suggested. As Chris mentioned there are a number of claims to the history of the enneagram but no one actually knows for sure and that should be a point of concern.
A while ago I emailed the heads of all the psychology departments of NZ’s major universities to get their view on it. 3 replied saying it was not a recognised test and they would never use it.
2 points are highly important:
1. Is that there is no scientific basis for the Enneagram, it is presented as a “conclusion” and there is no actual mechanic explanation for it so you take the results as a matter of ‘faith’.
2. The Church in her wisdom has told us to stay away and therefore we should listen (not to mention the New Age classification of it is plain to see).
I was shocked when I read; I think it was in the Van Holland Report, that the Enneagram was taught in Catholic secondary schools in NZ. Do not 9 out of ten Catholic youth leave the Church the first year out of school? Did not Fr Mitch say all of his class mates that used it are no longer priests?
I do not think the enneagram did it but I think it would have gone a long way as we may as well been fostering a belief in horoscopes.
Eyes towards Heaven people not into your inner self, pray the rosary!
Dear Leo XIII,
once again, thank you for your contribution, and (once again) for apostolicae curae.
My ouija board says to disagree with all of you.
i wouldn’t touch the enneagram with a barge poll…
it’s feel good hippy stuff with none of the substance of the actual Catholic faith!
besides, when the chief exorcist for the largest diocese in England (Westminster) says this about it:
…Fr. Davies also warns in his book against so-called New Age and occult practices, as well as trendy exercise and “spiritual healing” regimens derived from eastern religions.
“The thin end of the wedge (soft drugs, yoga for relaxation, horoscopes just for fun and so on) is more dangerous than the thick end because it is more deceptive – an evil spirit tries to make his entry as unobtrusively as possible.”
“Beware of any claim to mediate beneficial energies (eg. reiki), any courses that promise the peace that Christ promises (eg. enneagrams), any alternative therapy with its roots in eastern religion (e.g. acupuncture).” Needless to say, overtly occult activities such as séances and witchcraft are “direct invitations to the Devil which he readily accepts.”
…
from
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081506.html
Dear FXD,
thank you so much for your warm welcome to the site. Yes people must realise that Anglican Orders are invalid and that they must come home to Rome so we can have one Church (branch theory it just stupid). More must be done to convert Anglicans rather than having an Anglican ‘priest’ concelebrate at a mass like happened in Auckland recently (I have sent an email to Mr Van Holland to try and get him to write about it). That situation Very Bad (like the enneagram).
Also Chris in some more dissenting dioceses very bad psychologists were allowed into the seminaries. The best example is in Boston which had such people tell seminarians that children are sexualised and look where that lead.
You want to know who you are? Get a spiritual director, regularly go to confession and go to Adoration and spend time with Christ who we are all called to be like.
right on Leo!
Leo XIII
Perfect……..
“You want to know who you are? Get a spiritual director, regularly go to confession and go to Adoration and spend time with Christ who we are all called to be like.”
Chris, note the absence of ‘Mullahs or Imams’ on the above recommendation for spiritual help.
Leo,
There’s a difference between “when in doubt stay away” and the “take the good with the bad” as you have erroneously credited me with saying.
In the case I put forward, yoga, I’m not in doubt. But I’m also not fully compliant. If I had serious concerns about what I was hearing, seeing and doing, then I would walk away. But I believe there’s a danger in shutting yourself off to anything that doesn’t fit in your black-and-white world (not yours specifically, obviously, but in the general sense). What a narrow-minded, boring, untested and self-righteous place that would be!
Benedicta,
You’re clearly relatively new to this site, so as a resident poster I politely take this opportunity to point out to you that we prefer you keep comments in a discussion relevant to what’s been said in that thread.
I guess that’s why you’re called The Captain.
“In the case I put forward, yoga, I’m not in doubt. But I’m also not fully compliant. If I had serious concerns about what I was hearing, seeing and doing, then I would walk away. But I believe there’s a danger in shutting yourself off to anything that doesn’t fit in your black-and-white world (not yours specifically, obviously, but in the general sense). What a narrow-minded, boring, untested and self-righteous place that would be!”
Sounds all good and pretty real in terms of today’s thinking.
But re ‘black and white world’ compared with realising its okay to be “not fully compliant”: legalism is not the problem in the Church today, subjectivism is…………….
which is why enneagram keeps on moving around in Catholic circles…….it ‘feels’ good.
That Myers-Briggs or the Enemagram are considered sufficiently informative to spend half a day or more doing them casts a dim light on the competence and currency of some retreat leaders.
I think the bad psychology was also one of the factors behind the sex abuse crisis and the bishops response of moving abusers around on bad advice from psychologists.
I think we ought to be a little wary of psychology in the Church. Its a new science and by no means mature.
It’s good advice to stick to the tried and true spiritual practices because those have been tested by the Church over time and found good.
Benedicta: Actually, it was official spiritual advice (via the Catholic Enquiry Centre) from a Catholic priest which first put me on to Islam, and I’ve never regretted it. I’ve never even thought about seeking Islamic spiritual advice (but its an interesting idea).
My brother (not a Christian) practices yoga and it seems to have some spiritual value although it often seems to be mixed up with other new age practices which are at least problematic if not dangerous (eg reiki). Some Catholics have practiced Yoga and found it beneficial (my brother has a book on Yoga written by such a Catholic).
God Bless
I often think about what lead me to fall away from the Church in my youth. I think it was a combination of bad catechises and a growing attraction to Eastern thought via astrology and yoga, both of which I believed in as a teenager. I was doing 1 and a half hour daily sessions of yoga as a 16 year old, I became a vegetarian and found that through yoga I could control my body and myself. Of course we are never in control, God is, but that delusion of control is what tempts us and makes us feel empowered. So, in retrospect, I wouldn’t consider yoga benign at all.
My comment above was made in response to The Captain. If you look at #17 from Famous Spear, he/she puts forward a quote by an exorcist that also bears repeating:
Yoga is connected to the spirit/demon world. The techniques make you more receptive, but not necessarily in danger. However, you wouldn’t experience any alarm if you were in danger because of the apparent benigness of what you are doing. So, you wouldn’t know.
Jesus said that you can tell a tree by its fruit, and the fruit that I have seen hanging from the Enneagram tree is, at best, decidedly smelly, and very often very rotten.
It seems to me that it has been nothing but a substitute for the true faith and a doorway into New Age and pagan religious beliefs and practices for many members of religious orders over the last 30 years or so.
Myers Briggs seems to be harmless, and it seems that some people find it useful, but I would tend to agree with the statement that it doesn’t really tell people anything they don’t already know, and in my experience it often becomes a cop-out for people.
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard someone try and justify, or excuse, their bad behavior by saying something like “the reason I never listen to you is because I’m an EJ”, or “the reason I hardly pray is because I’m an E”.
I am also led to believe that many competent psychologists don’t actually accept the Myers Briggs as being that legitimate, apparently they don’t think their is enough data to support its validity.
I’ve just got home from speaking to a priest no one on here would find fault with and we, coincidentally, got on to the topic of yoga. A physio has suggested yoga may be useful; the priest plans on checking it out.
If I had serious concerns about what I was hearing, seeing and doing, then I would walk away.
Sounds like you’re unlikely to run in to serious concerns, El Capitano.
Scribe,
Please pass my recommendations on to said priest. All yoga has done for me in the 18 months I’ve been doing it is help align my spine, strengthen my back muscles (with which I have had immense trouble in the past) and increase my capacity for breathing a certain way. Highly recommend the physical benefits of it.
Lucyna,
“So, in retrospect, I wouldn’t consider yoga benign at all.”
Your journey was your own, correct? It’s interesting to hear it, don’t get me wrong, but what felled you will not necessarily bring the rest of us down. Surely, surely, going into something with eyes wide open – as I venture to suggest you didn’t as a vegetarian 16-year-old clearly in search of something – is not in and of itself problematic.
Ok. Here’s a quote from HinduWisdom;
Have a look at the bit on Hostility to Yoga in Church. Gives a number of references for why Catholics should not practise Yoga.
Captain, what felled me has felled many. I don’t consider myself unique in this respect. I just hope I can warn others where I wasn’t warned myself.
In reference to Leo XIII’s Post no 18. What was more shocking than an Anglican minster concelebrating Mass with four Catholic Priests was that the main celebrant (a Catholic Priest) invited all the Anglicans up to receive the Eucharist!!!
I wrote to the Bishop quoting: Apostolicae Curae, to do with the invalidity of anglican orders; Redemptionis Sacramentum, to show the minister was not allowed to preach, and; Canon law, to point out that Anglicans cannot receive the Eucharist.
The result of all this after a couple of letters toing and froing was a final letter in which the Bishop said he wouldn’t comment on my use of Church documents, and reduced my motivation down to a subjective psycological hurt that I could hopefully be forgiving for – when all I was tring to do was deal with objective truth.
the main celebrant (a Catholic Priest) invited all the Anglicans up to receive the Eucharist!!!
That’s wonderful news !
Br Schultz of the Taize community received Catholic Holy Communion every day (and even from Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger) but he never became a Catholic and remained Calvinist to his death.
Let us pray with Jesus : that we might all be one.
God Bless
Taize situation is unique and different. There have been clarifications from the Church about this.
Anglican priests are not allowed to concelebrate. One priest was recently stepped down by his Bishop in the States for doing just that.
“The result of all this after a couple of letters toing and froing was a final letter in which the Bishop said he wouldn’t comment on my use of Church documents, and reduced my motivation down to a subjective psycological hurt that I could hopefully be forgiving for – when all I was tring to do was deal with objective truth.”
I’m sorry Systole you had to receive that response.
As I said the problem in the Church is subjectivism and relativism not legalism. This of course subjects us all to clericalism instead of the authority of the Church. The comfort Systole is that the true Church of christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Its within it, but not always in the outward action and visible presentation you may have in front of you. Read ‘Spirit of the Liturgy’ by Benedict – he’s with you.
Of course this is all off topic…….
Systole,
as you’ve already written to the Bishop and received no joy, your next step is to write to the Vatican. But you need proof, ie the date, place and time this occurred and maybe a corroborating statement from someone else that was there. I’ll try and find the address, Fr Z. puts it up from time to time.
@ the captain,
in response to your question #76 on the war for peace post: i know enough about the koran and classical teachings of islam to know what the basic tenents of islam are. in fact i know quite a bit more than just the basic tenents. were you being a bit defensive of islam in that question?
Benedict,
How was Taize different ?
Br Schultz was a protestant and he was admitted daily to Holy Communion by the Catholic priests at daily mass at Taize. And by JPII and Ratzinger when he visited Rome.
The Church found a way to make an exception for Br Schultz because he was baptised and held the Catholic faith on the Eucharist.
Why can’t we do the same for Anglicans who hold the Catholic faith on the Eucharist ?
the problem in the Church is subjectivism and relativism not legalism.
There is still plenty of eucharistic legalism, as Douglas Kmiec found out
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/the-day-i-was-denied-communion.html
God Bless
It is the hallmark of a good Bishop that he affirms,upholds and supports those under him when they are attacked for speaking the Truth and also reprimands those that stray from it.
This Bishop does neither and therefore isnt acting as a true shepherd.
Yes Chris let us pray that we all be one but not at the expense of Truth! What you suggest is a blasphemy to unity.
Here’s a link, including addresses : Tips for writing to bishops and to the P.C. Ecclesia Dei
Dei,
How can you possibly say something so harsh as “This Bishop does neither and therefore isnt acting as a true shepherd” when John Paul II and Benedict XVI both gave Holy Communion to Br Schultz when they knew he was a protestant ?
http://www.americamagazine.org/blogs/client/index.cfm/2008/8/26/Brother-Roger-of-Taize–Catholic-Protestant-what
Isn’t the bishop just following what the Popes themselves do ?
God Bless
Oops, that link should be
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=FDE86917-5056-8928-101A76CC89571ABD
God Bless
Thanks for the link Chris, as usual the detail does not support your assertion;
“Kasper denies that Fr. Schutz “formally” adhered to the Catholic Church. He never left the Protestantism into which he was born. But, says the German cardinal, Brother Roger gradually “enriched” his faith with the pillars of the Catholic faith, particularly the role of Mary in salvation history, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the “the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome.” In 1980, Brother Roger told a meeting of young adult Christians that “I have found my own Christian identity by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone”.
It was in response to this “enrichment” that the Catholic Church “accepted that he take Communion at the Eucharist”, says Kasper.”
Chris if those Anglican Priests are similarly disposed then I will be the first to welcome them to share Eucharist. If the Anglican Chuch was similarly disposed you and I would not have had to convert to recieve the ‘fullness of truth’ and unity would be already a reality.
You may care to reflect on John 6:41-71 and Jesus’ reaction when many left him (because the teaching was too hard). Did he run after them in the ’spirit of unity’, no he simply turned to his disciples and asked if they wanted to leave as well.
We need to answer the same question Peter responded with, “Lord to whom shall we go?”
Dei,
Br Schultz was a protestant until the day he died. He never formally joined the Catholic Church.
He remained a Calvinist but was admitted to the Catholic eucharist, and by two Popes to boot.
You can’t jump and down condeming this bishop because he allows what the Popes allowed.
John 6:41-7 is not really germane to this issue because the Anglicans are not turning away from the eucharist. They are presenting to receive it.
Germane here is Jesus’ own actions at the last supper in admitting Judas who had already betrayed him and Peter who was about to.
We ought to do what Jesus did.
This bishop is acting as a true shepherd. He’s feeding the lambs. As is the Catholic priest who admitted the Anglicans at the mass. As Jesus instructed his shepherds to do at the end of St John’s gospel.
It won’t wash to condemn priests and bishops for doing what Jesus did, what Jesus taught we should do, and what the Popes themselves do.
God Bless
Chris
The Church has never practiced so called “inter-communion” and it never will as the Eucharist is a sign of our communion of faith as members of the only Church found by Christ and given authority to teach in His name. The Church has always taught intercommunion is false unity, so the Churches teaching rejects it as wrong and it is in canon law this is not to be done.
If the priesthood only haves the right to teach and perform their scared duty when in union with the Magisterium, which giving communion to non-Catholics is not apart of so it dos not matter if the Pope does it, he has not right to do so but…
I believe under canon law that the local ordinary can give licence for a non-Catholic to receive communion (for a good reason like Kasper points out) and so if 2 Popes chose to give him communion in their diocese they had the right to, but it is an exemption not something to become universal practice. For example at a wedding of a Catholic and a non-Catholic, the non-Catholic can receive communion although they cannot do so afterwards unless they convert or have a very good reason for the Bishop to give a dispensation (no blank “you all welcome”).
Also Chris it is not legalism, i.e. technicalities or turning the law into an idol, for who gets communion love comes into it. If someone is denied communion for a good reason, because they are doing something wrong, then it tells them they need to stop doing it for the good of their soul. Also I am a little horrified at the article you used as the man in question could be denied communion because he shares in Obamas sin even though he is prolife because by helping Obama win he is helping kill possibly millions of unborn babies. That Cardinal Mahony did not support the priest is of no consequence considering he is not the most orthodox of people.
Also Chris you are saying it is what Jesus would have done but it is against what the Church teaches, are you saying that error has entered into the Church and her teaching? If so I would stop going to communion as that is a schismatic action, schismatic like the Anglicans (well Anglo-Catholics: the rest of the Anglican communion are heretics).
Bishop Patrick cannot defend what happen nor does he punish the priests who have done this and continue to do this (three of whom linked to C.I.T. where at their “staff mass” I was offered communion when they knew I was not a Catholic at that time). Bishop Patrick has celebrated for a “gay Catholic” group who reject the churches teaching on homosexuality and openly practiced it meaning many, if not all, were in a state were they could not receive communion. When you seek to be “inclusive” when it comes to communion it does not work as the peoples hearts and minds are not in communion make the exercise a farce.
The one sacrament the Church can offer those who chose to stay outside of her is Confession, that’s what we should be offering with open arms to Anglo-Catholics and others.
Intercommunion is a road to error, like the enneagram.
The pope met a precedent which says if you pass muster we will include you. Alleluia! It is not necessary to belong to the same team to be in communion but there are bottom line issues. The exception does not prove the rule.
The issue with these Anglicans is that there has been a public scandal because we dont know if the proper test was applied (as it was for Br Shultz?), given the dodgey situation I would be surprised if it was and we are also told that the general congregation was invited up? It beggars belief that there was a general conversion.
Judas?? (good grief Chris!!!) “also presented to receive it”.
Read Luke 22; 3, and 22. Your Anglicans share poor company. You suggest therefore that these priests also will suffer damnation but I would not like to be the Catholic priest (or Bishop) responsible for that!
Getting back on thread the issue is that the Bishops are responsible for ensuring our spiritual safety and the use of enneagrams is something they should remove from Catholic teaching least some lambs be misled. A true shepherd cares for his flock and doesn’t feed them on poison or allow others to do the same
The Bishop might also feed his lambs with melamine fortified milk but he would be imprudent to do so?
Cheers Dei V, I did not catch that. Judas was the only one who did not recieve at the last supper, he left to go and betray Jesus
Leo XIII,
Judas received, as Christ quoted the psalm which foretold it “you ate my bread”.
I would be careful about refusing to feed the hungry and condemning those who do. Our Lord taught that it would be one of the criteria used to separate the sheep from the goats (Mt 25).
I think Bp Pat rocks as a great bishop and so does Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who severely reprimanded the priest who denied Holy Communion to Douglas Kmiec for political motives.
Ask yourself: what would Jesus do if a baptised Christian asked him for Holy Communion ?
The answer comes down to the age old question “Who do you say that I am” ie what kind of God is God.
God Bless
Leo; good point on confession. Eucharist is to strengthen and sustain. Reconciliation is the sacrament of unity and if the Anglicans were serious they would seek this first. As we all should.
Don’t hold your breath on Judas as Chris will say that he was and he did but I will say his sin was the greater for the sacrilege
but I will say his sin was the greater for the sacrilege
That’s not the point here.
The point is what Jesus did at the last supper – gave his body and blood to Judas.
That’s the kind of God he is.
A God who really does love his enemies.
Enough to feed them on his own body and blood.
God Bless
Dei Verbum et al
Great comments.
Chris,
Catholicism is a faith of distinction…I think you have difficulties in this, giving the widest possible interpretation, even from outside the Christian faith, in fact on another road altogether.
What we need today is conversion of heart to Christ as the only Lord and Saviour – Incarnate, Crucified and Risen and the Church as His Bride.
@50
that’s interesting chris.
but i guess what is even more loving than a God giving his own body to his enemy is to bring peace to the world of such a person by chopping off his head ‘a la islam’ – wouldn’t you agree? -because it is an act of charity to prevent someone from doing what is wrong.
God Bless
As Christ said about Judas…………..it would be better if that man had never been born.
Well, Judas did end up in Hell (according to the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich). So I wouldn’t consider Our Lord giving Judas Holy Communion as a ringing endorsement.
Chris,
please stop trying to be the alternative magisterium of the Church. “…if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” (Mark 3:25)
Lucyna,
It’s not a ringing endorsement of Judas. It’s a ringing endorsement of giving Holy Communion to believers who present. And its from none other than God himself.
JPII disputed the view that Judas is in hell in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
TTM,
Perhaps it may have escaped you, but I’m the one here standing with the priest, his bishop, the Popes, and Jesus who all give Holy Communion to those not fully in communion with the Catholic Church.
The ones dividing the Church are the posters above who are attacking their bishop for doing what is right. Some of them are actively collaborating with an individual (Mr Van Holland) who I think was earlier identified on this blog as a member of a schismatic group and who is collecting and publishing information designed to defame and undermine the NZ Catholic bishops and to spread dissent and division in the Church.
That’s the alternative magisterium.
God Bless
Chris,
let’s stick to the issue at hand.
Please provide evidence that the Popes are now giving permission to spontaneously distribute Holy Communion to a random collection of Anglicans, as you seem to imply (above, and in #34).
As far as I know, Canon Law is very specific in its requirements (as I recall, being in danger of death and having the Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist are two of them).
I was just rung up about this posting the post mentioning me and my alias Dirk Van Holland: Chris Sullivan WTF! Lying now are we? You are so wrong I do not know where to even begin.
What is this schismatic group I am meant to belong too? Since I belong to none you better apologise IMMEDIATELY.
Also Chris if you know anything for my “Dirk Van Holland” work I work alone so stop with the unfounded conspiracy theories.
Also there is no error in my reporting, no agenda to discredit the Church: only fact. You talked before how Reiki was bad but you know and so does bishop Patrick that the Mercy Centre in West Auckland offers it. Both of you chose to turn a blind eye to this. Many of the thing I write about are printed somewhere in black and white. I only write against those in schism and causing dissent to try and put an end to it. Claiming I am trying to spread it… you poor confused man.
Also you are not in union with anyone. The Popes used a dispensation to give communion to Br Roger they do not advocate open communion. Bishop Patrick did not give permission to give communion to Anglicans, he has had words with priests for doing this before, but the problem is only words no actions. And if you knew the story the Anglican minister was not meant to give a homily and hold his hand up say the Eucharistic prayer, he just did without the permission of the Catholic priest present.
You did not answer Leo XIII question before are you taking a stance with is in conflict with the Church by advocating something which is not in sacred tradition and against canon law. Not ye well Chris Sullivan: There is NO conflict between Christ and His Church: only fools who think they know better.
Chris get your facts right as your unfounded claims are completely uncharitable, not in union with Christ at all
Chris making such accusations is very poor indeed, your words again Mr Dennerly/Van Holland are so false they boarder on lying.
Also you own quote undoes your argument
“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.”
As they are not members of the Church and that same Church Christ founded and gave authority to, and with that authority state only members of the Church can receive communion then it is not their due now is it. Also “When it is in your power to do it” well if a priest does not have authority then it is not in his power to do it
Chris/Simon et al,
How about we cool it down a bit? Everyone’s a bit feisty today for some reason; let’s try to keep a lid on things.
It’d be helpful if Chris could respond to Simon’s comment and then try to defuse things. Things are heated on other threads as well.
Try to play nice.
BF admin
Will tone it down but I do take defamation seriously.
I do a lot of work trying to warn people about the serious nature of the Neo-pagan/New Age rubbish that has crept into the Church: like the enneagram. We need to look towards Christ and imitate Him as he is true man. People are looking to other religions, the world, their “inner selves”, few are going to the only places they can find happiness: The Eucharist and contemplation of God. Dissent is what is leading people astray and dissenters do love their New Age/Neo-pagan rubbish
A thought occurred to me that the faithful need to exercise more humility, if the Church says stay away then we should. We could take the attitude “take the good leave the bad” i.e. judge for ourselves but is this really good witness to the faith?
Firstly what if we get it wrong we could fall into some really big traps.
Secondary what happens if someone who does not know whats what finds our you do such practices and does not know there is bad and takes on the error
Thirdly it’s a bad look. What if people think you’re a dissenter/hypocrite (for not following Church teaching), creditability is important for evangelisation. Or get the idea that you think the Church is wrong (”if that Catholic thinks the Church can be wrong then it is not the one true Church”). Or that mistakenly that the Church does not teach against the error (”Catholics aren’t really Christian as they let their members do yoga…”).
More humility needs to be shown, if the Church says stay away, show the due and just respect to the Church and do it. Humility is a mark of a saint remember, we must decrease so Christ can increase in us….
Chris #56 whew! I dont think VH deserved that? Dont shoot the messenger?
you say;”JPII disputed the view that Judas is in hell in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.”
I havent read it but a google suggests
“In his 1994 book, “Crossing the Threshold of Hope,” Pope John Paul II wrote that Jesus’ words “do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”"
do you have a better quote?
Giving Judas the benifit of the doubt and allowing for the mercy of God that we all deserve is not the same as’disputing the view’, it is rather an act of charity.
The issue is not whether he went to hell but whether recieving Eucharist unworthly was a sin. The church holds that it is. Disobedience to church law is also a sin.
Bishops fuzzy teaching and poor example on such things as intercommunion and the use of enneagrams is imprudent.
Lucyna thank you for your link. Provision has already benn made to do what you suggest. And thank you all for your spirited comments. Yee Haa!!!!!
Simon,
I was given to understand by a comment from a very senior associate of this blog, which he posted on this blog, that you were a member of a schismatic group (perhaps the SSPX ?).
Are you ?
I think your Van Holland report is totally out of order, factually incorrect and biased, a slander on the NZ bishops and many other good Catholics, and extremely divisive and damaging to the unity of the Church.
I urge you to cease and desist.
God Bless
Chris,
please read Simon’s post first before responding. Thank you.
Chris,
I suspect you may be confusing Simon with someone else who has written reports on the state of the Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand. I don’t know Simon well, but am 99.9999% certain he’s not a member of a schismatic group. It might be worth following Dei Verbum’s lead on another thread when you took exception to some of his comments.
No Chris, as I said before (please actually read posts before you go off) I do not belong to any Catholic group in schism with the Church, you are confused and made a very serious claim which “is totally out of order, factually incorrect and biased, a slander” and you will apologize or else BF Admin has told me they will delete the post in which you made your claims which meet the criteria for defamation.
In regards to the Van Holland Report the only thing you can say to try to discreet it was that Joan Chittister was not pro-abortion. No one has one valid point against the facts in the Van Holland Report despite, the only thing close is some people who are confused about the Carol Christ email section thinking I claimed that since these people got the email that they went and are involved in neo-paganism (despite the first line after the email list I state I am not saying this: some people need to read more carefully…).
Many members of the Church in New Zealand are in schism, lets make no mistake but people do not want to face up to this reality. The Van Holland Report was published by one of the biggest Catholic websites on the internet who stated it was very well research and consistent with what was happening world wide in this regard. In NZ The Van Holland Report was quoted numerous times in Ian Wisharts “The Divinity Code”, Wishart himself is looking into the movement in the protestant churches in NZ and globally.
Chris as stated before the Mercy Nuns are offer Reiki massage, and the Bishop knows about this and does nothing, I have a problem with this. If you bothered to go looking you can see for your self:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Ow_ZJ-h_qtUJ:www.reiki.org.nz/sharegroups.html+reiki+mercy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=nz
Also I have a witness who was in the mercy centre and saw the room for it, a book on it, and had course mates tell them they had received Reiki massage from one of the nuns. It is fact they are offering an occult practice. It is also fact from the Mercy sisters own publications they had invited an Australian Mercy sister who was an “ordained” reiki master to give talks and offer this service. This is complete schismatic.
For the problems with the RE curriculum I quoted official documentation to make my case. The correspondence between the theological consultant, who is the top theologian in the country, and the writers of the curriculum we see so many major errors from the writers, the error of pantheism being one of the biggest. They even had a positive word to say about masturbation. Fr Williamson constantly was pointing out major errors which show the writers did not have a firm grasp of the Catholic faith. This is fact and on diocesan record. That THREE bishops at the time are also on public record saying agendas were being worked “in dedicated ways” and that the process need to be put onto more of a Catholic path is a serious matter. That’s not going into the stuff that was also published in schools today which directly conflict with Catholic teaching and thought.
This is fact. The inappropriate books that students were recommended to read (some with CDF notifications against them) this is fact.
I could go on and on. Chris you are the one making unfounded claims, not me. Apologize for you slander or the BF Admin will have to remove your post
Oh just FYI I am writing another big work (not as big as the Van Holland Report) based on works by NZ neo-pagans/witches who mention many times the involvement of “Christian Feminists” in the neo-pagan movement in New Zealand.
Dei Verbum stated before “do not shoot the messenger” I think the problem is many people did not understand the message. This work is aimed to give people a better understanding of what the neo-pagan movement “within the Church” actually is as I do not think people get those who are involved are really outside the Church and why it is really bad the Bishops are not doing anything about it as it is destroying the unity of the Church and spreading dissent and heresy/apostasy
you are confused and made a very serious claim which “is totally out of order, factually incorrect and biased, a slander” and you will apologize or else BF Admin has told me they will delete the post in which you made your claims which meet the criteria for defamation.
Simon (and others),
That is not what BF Admin said. Since you have chosen to comment publicly on offline emails, here is what you were told: “Admin will consider your request [to delete parts of a comment] if Chris shows an unwillingness to retract or apologise.”
Simon Dennerly,
Because you say you are not a member of any schismatic group I apologise and retract what I said above about you being “earlier identified on this blog as a member of a schismatic group”. It was my honest understanding based on my recollection of what a senior associate of this blog had posted on this blog.
I still think you are way off beam in your Van Holland report.
If you repeat slanderous and inaccurate accusations in your Van Holland report such as that Sr Joan Chittister supports abortion, then how can anyone give much credence to anything else in your report ?
I hope you have apologised to Sr Joan and removed that defamatory material from your report.
This is complete schismatic.
That’s rubbish. Reiki might be dangerous but it does not amount to schism.
I think you need to apologise for defaming the Sisters of Mercy by accusing them of being schismatic.
God Bless
Would be interested in more information about Reiki as I know people involved in it.
God Bless
Wikipedia is very sceptical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki
God Bless
Simon,
The Catholic Culture website is still carrying your Van Holland report which defames Sr Joan Chittister as being pro-abortion :-
I do hope you are going to be as enthusiastic about cleaning up your own defamatory claims as you seem to be about those made concerning you
God Bless
First of all BF Admin: “Since you have chosen to comment publicly on offline emails here is what you were told: “Admin will consider your request [to delete parts of a comment] if Chris shows an unwillingness to retract or apologise.”
I would like to point out the rest of the email:
“Admin will consider your request if Chris shows an unwillingness to retract or apologies. The best course of action is probably to post this comment.”
And that’s what I did at your prompting, posted this comment I just did not chose to post an off line email without permission.
Secondly Chris being charitable I am assuming your cannot remember the debates on if Chittister is pro-abortion or not. In truth I did remove the word militant later on, and intended to do so before the VH Report went out, but it is clear that this point is in dispute.
For example from one post:
Chris: “Some of it is obviously incorrect – for example the allegation that Sr Joan Chittister is pro-abortion (we dealt with that on this blog a week or so ago).”
JP III: Did we deal with that? I thought it was proven quite clearly that she was pro-abortion?
Also if you were correct it is a logical fallacy to discount the whole report on one point being incorrect (especially if it is a minor side statement and not a central issue). This is called the fallacy of Composition:
“An argument in which one assumes that a whole has a property solely because its various parts have that property. Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity”.
And it is very ambiguous that you make such claims without proving facts.
Finally to be a Reiki master and believe in such things is heresy, plain and simple. The whole idea is based on Buddhist belief which contradicts the Church’s teaching on the occult and is hersey therefore is Schismatic
Chris,
Rather argue the points on the Van Holland Report or be quite, using innuendo against Simon is uncharitable and destroys whats left of your creditability.
Also I am shocked by your statement that the use of Reiki (the occult) is not schismatic. Heresy is believing something less or something more on doctrines of the faith. Annointinf of the Sick, not Reiki!
Also I think you owe more people apologies for your earlier statement:
“The ones dividing the Church are the posters above who are attacking their bishop for doing what is right. Some of them are actively collaborating with an individual (Mr Van Holland)… designed to defame and undermine the NZ Catholic bishops and to spread dissent and division in the Church.”
Who are these people you refer to? You did not even know who Simon Dennerly actually was, can you name the people you are referring to?
From Canon law:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
So for the Sisters of Mercy to be practicing the occult (or sharing in the sin by knowing their sisters practice it and say nothing, concealment etc) against the Magisterium which is the Bishops and the Pope in union with the Deposit of the Faith, then they would meet the criteria for schism.
It makes me sick that nothing is being done about this.
Many Church Councils have condemned occult practices issuing anathemas against the practice and so since the Pope and the Bishops recognise the authority of these Councils if you do not submit to the ban on the occult you then refuse to submit to the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him: which is schism.
Leo makes a good point we he said “Anointing of the Sick not Reiki” as by turning to the equivalent of a voodoo doctor over the Sacraments of Church you are treading the path to damnation… All spiritual power rather comes from Christ or the Devil and by choosing magic over sacrament you have taken yourself out of union with God and His Church and put your self in the Devils pocket…
I have just read all the recnt posts……I’m baffled by Chris’ accusation about Simon being a member of a Schismatic group……….isn’t this extremely hypocritical considering that Chris tells us he prays as a Muslim, and considers himself as such…..as well as going Eucharistically to Mass. His words not mine.
Anyway its Friday lunchtime…….no doubt he is busy, hungry too
Simon,
“Leo makes a good point we he said”
Hahahahahaha. Can’t for the life of me understand why you might agree with him. Perhaps you two should meet offline and have a chat.
Chris,
> “Would be interested in more information about Reiki as I know people involved in it.
Here are a few links related to Reiki, the Enneagram and the New Age in general:
Catholic Answers Live (MP3 Audio):
Clare Merkle – The Occult Origins of Reiki
Fr. Mitch Pacwa – Astrology, Reiki, & the Enneagram
Catholics United for the Faith:
Faith Facts: Reiki
Faith Facts: The Enneagram
The Holy See:
Jesus Christ The Bearer Of The Water Of Life: A Christian reflection on the “New Age”
The Captain,
remember when we were meant to meet off line for a chat then you copped out, good times…
Here is a section on Reiki Massage from the Van Holland Report:
Reiki Massage
Reiki Massage is part of the Chakra occult system, especially amongst Buddhist groups. The concept has to do with the eastern belief of energy flow and how one person can transfer energy to another person to increase their health and well being, or to heal them. The way this energy transfer is worked is by slowly passing the hands over the person’s body without touching them, but not too far off so the energy can be transferred. Reiki is condemned by the Church as to open yourself up to such practice, and many other eastern ones such as yoga, is to invite possession by demonic influences.
It is believed that the ‘discoverer’ of Reiki massage was Dr. Mikao Usui, a Japanese Buddhist and Occultist. Most of these energy transfer massages in their belief required the building up of energy and passing it on, therefore depleting the energy of the person transferring it. Dr Usui claimed he tapped into his eighth Chakra and was filled with Reiki energy therefore allowing the Reiki Master to transfer energy to the other person without depleting any of their own energy. New Age practitioners of Reiki claim the practice originates from Atlantis. One becomes a Reiki Master, and therefore being able to perform it, by having the ability transferred to them by another Reiki Master, like a caricature of Apostolic Succession through Ordination.
A person I interviewed during my investigations described how she went on a course recommended by the Courts after being a victim of a violent crime. To her surprise the course was held at the Sisters of Mercy “Mercy Oasis Centre” in Ellerslie, Auckland. She stated that Mercy Sisters offered the service of Reiki Massage for those who attended the course, and some took the offer up. She said there was a special room put aside for Reiki. Of note however, is that none of the sisters were involved in taking the course.
I found on “www.reiki.org.nz” that Mercy Oasis was listed as a location under the section “Reiki Share Groups”. That the Mercy Nuns feel quite comfortable to advertise publicly that they provide such Occult services shows in my opinion they have crossed a very important and dangerous line.
Simon,
It was proven quite clearly by quoting and referencing her actual statements that Sr Joan Chittister is against abortion.
The accusation that she is pro-abortion is incorrect and defamatory.
Simon, you have a responsibility to correct it in your Van Holland reports circulating on the internet.
Doing Reiki massage is no more schism than having acupuncture.
If you think the Sisters of Mercy being advertised as doing reiki massage amounts to schism than it is apparant that your ideas on what schism is are profoundly at variance with the Church.
There are plenty of things that members of the Church do which are ineffective, wrong, and even dangerous but they do not amount to heresy or schism. That would require a Papal teaching against Reiki and deliberate and obstinant refusal to obey the Pope.
Rather than condemn others in the Church with whom you disagree, and accuse them of heresy and schism, you would do better to dialogue with them and try to understand what they are doing and perhaps persuade them of their errors by your words of love.
Remember the words of Our Lord about first approaching people in private.
It makes me sick that nothing is being done about this.
I for one trust my bishop’s judgement on this matter way more than I trust the wild, incorrect and divisive accusations found in the notorious Van Holland report.
God Bless
“I for one trust my bishop’s judgement on this matter way more than I trust the wild, incorrect and divisive accusations found in the notorious Van Holland report.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Humility often gets lost in all of this, doesn’t it.
TTM,
Thanks for the links. The CUF one on Reiki was good (CUF are usually good).
God Bless
Chris, Chris, Chris
“Rather than condemn others in the Church with whom you disagree, and accuse them of heresy and schism, you would do better to dialogue with them and try to understand what they are doing and perhaps persuade them of their errors by your words of love.”
Depends what they are doing……..somthings are very clear……..some need a more enlightened viewpoint.
In your professional opinion how long should one dialogue…..?
Personally I think love also means calling a spade a spade especially if the spade claims it is a spade and knows it really shouldn’t be one.
Benedicta,
If one is concerned about Reiki massages then surely the thing to do is to approach the Sisters of Mercy and explain why you think Reiki is medically ineffective and possibly spiritually dangerous.
Most people doing spiritual retreats etc are interested to know if what they are doing is potentially dangerous.
Providing, of course, that one approaches them in the right way. Which is not to start out by complaints to the bishop and accusing people of heresy and schism (all that does is get people’s backs up).
how long should one dialogue
The papal documents don’t mention any limits and St Paul said one should always be prepared to offer good reasons for the faith (its hard to do that without some sort of dialogue).
God Bless
Again I say
-
Personally I think love also means calling a spade a spade especially if the spade claims it is a spade and knows it really shouldn’t be one.
The problem I have with your ‘thesis’ #88 is the assumption that the good sisters don’t know all about Reiki, Catholicism et al…..yet by their designated place within the Church and all the vocational support ag nauseum, they are in fact the ones in the privileged place to know. I don’t think lack of knowledge is the issue here but their own interpretation of what is Catholic faith. And so the Bishop is expected to ‘guard the sheep’. Even if he doesn’t it doesn’t make it right.
Benedicta,
Well, we’d hope that they would know that !
But Fr Pacwa’s testimony (see above) shows that enneagram was being taught in the seminary in the 1970’s and that priests were teaching it to others so I think that there really is a fair bit of misunderstanding around even in religious orders.
Sometimes it takes a while for new things to be properly evaluated by the Church and the message to filter thru to the faithfull.
I don’t even know if the sisters are actually the ones doing or teaching any Reiki. It might be that someone else uses their facilites to do it.
God Bless
Chris I might agree with you if Reiki was the only thing they are doing but it goes far beyond that not only to things like Dream Interpretation but inviting speakers out like Joan Chittister who remember this:
“A reporter asked keynote speaker Sister Joan Chittister if the American Church as an institution was ready to stand in opposition to Rome. “Do you want an answer or a prayer?” she replied. “Oh, God I hope so!”
“Stand in opposition to Rome” “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Huh.
Also there is also the infallible defined teaching on women priests the majority of the Sisters of Mercy reject, indeed one Mercy from the Wellington Catholic Education Centre called for the NZ bishops just to go a head and ordain women. Elaine Wainwright’s heretical views are well know, especially her “quietly moving bricks”. Both are considered in good standing in the order. Lets not forget the leadership of the order inviting a Call To Action member to teach the pantheistic New Cosmology which calls for the Church to be complete restructured etc. The Mercy Sisters have a lot to answer for.
Also as neither you or the Captain (who is getting to be more like you every day) have actually contested even a single point of the Van Holland Report it just shows that you cannot find anything to fault it on. Face it both of you have nothing and just going for character assassination. Will pray for both of you.
Chris even Paul found it necassary to chastise Peter.
are you saying that Bishops are infallible and beyond reproach.
Catholics have a moral duty to point out errors yes even to a Bishop. They certainly should expect a reasonable response from someone in authority.
the problem for orthodox catholics is that while they know where the line in the sand is and can raise concerns when the line is crossed, there is a group in the Church who believe that they are only subject to personal revelation and can believe anything they like and teach others their views as if it is catholic truth.
In doing do they confuse and mislead.
Open discussion is healthy but heresy needs to be identifed for what it is.
Simon,
Standing in opposition to some non-doctrinal thing Rome puts out is not schism. Praying that the US Church would do so when it ought to do so is not schism either. It’s just disagreeing with some non-doctrinal thing.
The teaching on not ordaining women priests is not infallible. Like you, I used to think it was infallible. But Cdl Ratzinger pointed out that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not definitive. In Ratzingers opinion this is infallible under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium but he’s offered no proof that this is actually the case. The bishops were never polled to ask them if they considered the matter ought be be held by Catholics as definitive as Lumen Gentium 25 requires.
Therefore, as Cannon Law requires that the infallibility of a teaching must be manifest before it is held to be infallible, this particular teaching cannot be seriously considered infallible. One day it could change.
Polls show that most Catholics reject the teaching against ordaining women to the priesthood. Like it or not, that’s the sensus fidei.
We all just have to learn with the fact that many Catholics do not agree with everything the Popes teach. Historically, that has always been the case. That doesn’t automatically put them in schism.
There nothing heretical in seeking to move bricks.
I think you are trying to do a good thing (oppose what you see as error) but you are somewhat misguided.
The way to advance these issues is in Love, prayer, dialogue and by advancing good arguments. Call for crackdowns against those we oppose in the church will only split the Church.
Thank you for your prayers, will keep you in my prayers to.
God Bless
This is all rubbish. Ordination of women is not a possibility with the Church now or ever – it has been defined. What we hear is ongoing complaint.
It will never change, women won’t be ordained – the reasons are far too deep for it too change. The complementary nature of the covenant as defined by scripture and the Church. Only a male priest can stand for Christ at the consecration. Impossible to change – you would have to change the Church’s understanding about the Eucharist.
Benedicta,
Yes, but a woman can stand for Mary and all graces are chanelled thru her as Mediatrix of all Graces, including the graces which effect consecration.
It’s not the understanding of eucharist or priest that would have to change to ordain women priests.
It’s the understanding of Mary.
The reason we hear ongoing complaint is that people have not heard convincing reasons not to ordain women priests. They will continue to complain until they hear convincing reasons. And Aquinas’ argument about women being in subordination no longer cuts the mustard
God Bless
To smiley you type a : and then a ) with no spaces in between.
God Bless
Ok Chris, from your statements
“That would require a Papal teaching against Reiki and deliberate and obstinant refusal to obey the Pope.”
“Standing in opposition to some non-doctrinal thing Rome puts out is not schism”
Rome does not have to mention something by name, Reiki is the occult and a form of magic as from an earlier post:
“Leo makes a good point when he said “Anointing of the Sick not Reiki” as by turning to the equivalent of a voodoo doctor over the Sacraments of Church you are treading the path to damnation… All spiritual power rather comes from Christ or the Devil and by choosing magic over sacrament you have taken yourself out of union with God and His Church and put your self in the Devils pocket…”
The Church has an outright ban on the use of the occult as any power not of God is from the Devil. The Church does not say “you can practice some forms of the occult, we rather you do not” or “unless we ban it by name its ok”. The Church takes a very dim view of drawing power from Satan!!! Also as pointed out before it is not the one issue with the Mercy Sisters it is what I listed above and more. The Bishop should out of paternal correction confront them with these errors and try to get them to repent, as staying quite about it is abandoning the Sisters to their sin which is very unloving and the Bishops themselves share in that sin by silence and concealment.
As for women priests (just a note: not having a go at you but I believe you are wrong here):
“In Ratzingers opinion this is infallible under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium but he’s offered no proof that this is actually the case. The bishops were never polled to ask them if they considered the matter ought be be held by Catholics as definitive as Lumen Gentium 25 requires.”
The Bishops do not need to be polled for this. The Church is entrusted with the Deposit of the Faith, it cannot come up with novelties which is what women’s ordination would be as it has not been the practice always and every where of the Church (indeed it has never been done, only attempted by heretical sects). If it has not been done in 2000 years it cannot be done. As others have had this debate with you before I ask you write Bishop Patrick and ask him about the matter and he will set you straight.
Also not having a go at you but your statement:
“We all just have to learn with the fact that many Catholics do not agree with everything the Popes teach. Historically, that has always been the case. That doesn’t automatically put them in schism.”
I find it odd you think its ok not to agree with the Pope over this but I cannot disagree with the Bishops. I am not in opposition to the Bishops or trying to undermine them but I have a problem with many things they do which put them out of union with the Church or cause scandal or division with the Church in New Zealand.
For example I have a problem with Bishop Cullinane’s comment on his diocesan website a few years back, which he never retracted, that Christ did not start the sacrament of Holy Orders, the Church started that well after Christ’s death. So he in fact disputes the sacrament of Holy Orders and Apostolic succession. This is an infallible doctrine of the faith he has denied and that’s not the only thing he is shaky on. His diocese has become highly dissenting and the fruits of this can be shown that over the last 5 years the Mass attendance in PN Diocese has fallen 18%, that’s almost 1 in 5 people stopped going to Mass (and the Mass attendance numbers were not high before. This is the sort of thing I take issue with the Bishops about. I do what I do as I worry for their spiritual well being and try to get them to stop things they should not be doing, I am not attacking them I am trying fraternal correction out of love.
Simon,
I agree that full Reiki is of occult origin and Catholics should not do it.
But its very likely that some Reiki practicioners do not intend or know it is occult and that they may do the massage technique without the occult practices. As Catholics do with yoga.
Merely doing Reiki does not amount to schism which would have to be a direct and obstinant refusal to obey. In first instance the matter would have to be dealt with by the bishop and he’d have to instruct them to desist. This matter apparantly hasn’t even got that far so its way too early to start talking schism.
By all means oppose reiki and point out its problems. That’s a good thing to do. But you will do more harm than good by accusing people of schism over it and denouncing the bishop because he decides not to act against it.
Bishops do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. They are very busy (85% of their time is spent dealing with problems instead of getting on with organising good work) and some things just slip past. A bishop is unlikely to get very upset if he sees an ad that reiki massage is done at some retreat house. And sometimes bishops tolerate things that are bad because to act against them would, in their judgement, do more harm than good. They also consider who is making the complaint.
God Bless
Simon,
I agree with you about Christ establishing the sacrament of Holy Orders. Trent defined that. I think infallibly (I would have to check). It’s a matter I once took up with Sr Joan Chittister as she’d expressed a similar opinion.
Perhaps Bp Cullinane meant that the details of Holy Orders were worked out by the Church over time.
On women priests:
To be infallible, there has to be a defining act. Some sort of act by which we know the matter really is infallibly defined. Like a vote of the bishops dispersed (LG 25) or an exCathedra papal statement.
It just won’t wash to say “the church has always done this” because that exact same argument was used for slavery, for the death penalty, for torture, against religious freedom etc.
I don’t see that ordaining women priests would be quite the novelty you seem to think, if one looks at it from a Marian perspective. Mary acted as a priest in offering sacrifice (her son) at Calvary. And there is a long tradition in the Church of Mary as priest.
Just because a thing has never been done does not mean the Church will never do it. For example, we never had girl altar servers but now we do, we never had a papal teaching against the death penalty, or slavery, or for religious freedom, but now we do.
But I do agree that currently the Church has no power to ordain women priests and will not have any such power until a Pope dogmatically defines that such a power exists (which he may never do). I think it is wrong and dangerous and schismatic to start ordaining women priests without papal authority.
One has to understand that there are some very strong feelings on this matter and considerable frustration on both sides, and they unfortunately seem to be heating up with women trying to force the issue by illictly ordaining women and small but increasing numbers of priests and bishops standing with them. There are all the elements for a “perfect storm” showdown which will not do anyone any good.
I think it is more honest, and helpful to reconciling the various parties, to recognise that this teaching is not infallible, that it might change, that the Church has not advanced particularly convincing arguments, but also that the church currently has no power to ordain any women priests.
God Bless
I see what you are saying but I still disagree. Given the subject of the post I will say we should leave this for another thread more on this topic, although still think you should write to Bishop Patrick about this matter and the intercommunion issue to get his side of the view.
Sadly as for Bishop C, no he meant it which concerns me greatly. It is things such as these I question them about; I do not lightly do this. You should be in union with your bishop but you cannot do this on matters were he is not in union with the Magisterium or the Pope.
The divisions in the Church come from people being allowed to do what they should not and others not being listened to or ignored (especially when complaining about certain people doing what they should not).
Bring it back to topic there are a lot of New Age/Occult practices being allowed to happen which should not, sadly they are offered mainly by the Sisters of Mercy, a once great order. I want Bishop Pat to sort the matter out for their sakes so they are freed from this error as it is merciless to leave someone to their sin.
We all want the best for the Church, but some people have lost the plot. We should pray for them but also take action: out of love.
Simon,
Have you approached the Mercy Sisters about Reiki ?
These things are often best addressed at a local/personal level.
Sometimes all one can do is plant a seed that will later bear fruit in prayer.
God Bless
“the Captain (who is getting to be more like you every day)”
Why, thank you.
“have actually contested even a single point of the Van Holland Report it just shows that you cannot find anything to fault it on”
Um, you’re wrong there. I think you’ll find my lack of contesting your “report” is also known as “not dignifying it with a response”. In fact, I think you’ll find a multitude of self-respecting Catholics in this country doing the same thing for exactly that reason. Don’t go getting too big for your little boots Mr Dennerly, it’s only a steeper inevitable fall you’re setting yourself up for.
Chris,
> “Polls show that most Catholics reject the teaching against ordaining women to the priesthood. Like it or not, that’s the sensus fidei.”
Sensus fidei is not a Catholic version of democracy. Lumen Gentium, 12, which speaks of the collective infallibility of sensus fidei, states the following immediately after it:
When sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) is lacking due to unfaithfulness, one can’t expect to arrive at sensus fidei (sense of the faith). Denying this, one risks contending that the Holy Spirit is divided in Himself, putting His guidance of the Magisterium in opposition to His guidance of the body of the faithful.
Sensus fidei was manifested in the case of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, due to the faith and obedience of the believers, and because the entire body of believers were focused on the truth. When the cultural ideology takes precedence over the faith, however (as is evident today), they find not the reality but things of their imagination – whatever they want to find. This lack of truth is manifest in their lack of obedience – these naturally tend to go hand in hand (John 8:39,44), since even before the creation of the world (ie. the fallen angels).
We find it difficult to see this, because it requires supernatural faith – we believe in order to understand. Afterall, all and any truth we have come gratuitously from God. The reservation of ordination to men alone is, I think, impossible to accept while remaining in the order of natural reason alone (although I do think there are important clues to be found here).
The answer lies in our only hope of salvation – Christ, and His gifts of the supernatural, theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.
Hey Chris there’s a few misunderstandings you’ve posted about infallible teachings that deserve to be addressed:
The teaching on not ordaining women priests is not infallible.
Yes it is.
But Cdl Ratzinger pointed out that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not definitive. In Ratzingers opinion this is infallible under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium but he’s offered no proof that this is actually the case.
Not quite correct, John Paul II confirmed that the teaching is an infallible teaching of the Church. The confirmation was in Ordinatio Sacredotalis but the infallible teaching was already possessed by the Church through the Ordinary Universal Magesterium.
Cdl Ratzinger’s letter was not required to offer any proof to that at all. The letter was to clarify the situation, and John Paul II approved the letter.
The bishops were never polled to ask them if they considered the matter ought be be held by Catholics as definitive as Lumen Gentium 25 requires.
The bishops were never polled, that is correct. But that is not a requirement and never has been a requirement and Lumen Gentium 25 does not create a requirement for the Pope to poll the bishops. It is important Chris that we don’t insert ourselves as a second-tier magisterium that imposes restrictions where there is no authority to do so.
Therefore, as Cannon Law requires that the infallibility of a teaching must be manifest before it is held to be infallible, this particular teaching cannot be seriously considered infallible.
Not quite true, that is a requirement for a definitive declaration of an infallible teaching, ie an ex cathedra statement or by an Ecumenical Council. The Church authorities are clear on this, and also are the canon lawyers. It doesn’t actually make any sense to apply that requirement to ordinary universal magisterium teachings, which by definition are non defined.
Polls show that most Catholics reject the teaching against ordaining women to the priesthood.
That is not relevant here. Most infallible declarations on teachings arise when the teaching comes in to serious dispute. Again Chris it is important that we don’t insert ourselves as a second-tier magisterium that imposes restrictions where there is no authority to do so.
To be infallible, there has to be a defining act.
Only for ex cathedra and Ecumenical Council statements, note for Ordinary Universal Magesterium teachings.
Some sort of act by which we know the matter really is infallibly defined. Like a vote of the bishops dispersed (LG 25) or an exCathedra papal statement.
Whoever told you that a vote of the bishops dispersed is referred to in LG 25 was making that up.
But I do agree that currently the Church has no power to ordain women priests and will not have any such power until a Pope dogmatically defines that such a power exists (which he may never do).
That’s a very sever misunderstanding of the Ordinary Universal Magesterium.
Cardinal Bertone wrote a very good document explaining all my points and more when he was an Archbishop, it’s quite involved but very good and clarifies all the misunderstandings outlined above:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM
Simon, Captain,
Personally, I think we ought to recognize that there are real and pressing issues identified in the Van Holland Report, and that it reflects many of the unspoken concerns the members of the Church have in New Zealand.
May I suggest that we do take attentively to the valid points made, even if some points of contention may be identified? Also, if points are seen to be made in ways that may harden hearts, perhaps here is a forum where suggestions can be made in fraternal charity to improve them, so they may best achieve the good?
the infallible teaching was already possessed by the Church through the Ordinary Universal Magesterium.
Prove it.
All sorts of things have been claimed to be taught under the OUM. Eg torture, execution of heretics, just wars, limbo etc.
Absent a defining act, no one can be certain that something is actually infallibly taught under the OUM.
Thanks for the ewtn link. Will read it later when i get time.
God Bless
Yes Captain, lets show some Christian charity I would hate to think your personal dislike for me was replacing factual statements.
To point out again parts of the Van Holland Report were published in Ian Wisharts book the Divinity Code. Wishart, a major NZ journalist and magazine editor, who is research the Neo-pagan movement in Christian churches in NZ thought it was creditable. The head of Catholic Culture, one of the worlds biggest Catholic websites and whose articles the NZ Catholic publish, thought it was creditable as it fit with the general movement. Indeed the Van Holland Report was the major head in a Catholic Culture news mail out.
Lets not forget the report quotes published articles written by the great names of Catholic publications worldwide, such as AD 2000 and the Wanderer, as well as major secular news agencies. All these articles were on Neo-Paganism some mentioning a certain someone who is in this country and whose published works contradict Church teaching.
Lets not forget the quoting of official Church documents such as the theological correspondence from the top theologians in the country constant picking out major errors form the curriculums writers, letters from the Bishops of the time, highlighted the recommended reading of books for Catholic students condemned by the CDF, and clearly pointing out what was wrong with material that was published.
It might interest you to know that they were a few threats of legal action none of which I dignified with a response, and I heard nothing more since. That might have something to do with the several lawyers and two magazine editors who went over it to fact check it and decleared it free from defamation, so such people knew they did not have a leg to stand on.
This is not to mention the well over a hundred emails of support from people citing that they to have come across and have stories of their about issues raise by the Van Holland Report. Of course these are from people I do not know, Catholic people I know also have such stories.
So the Captain I might not be a big fancy journalist like you who in your lastest article used such fine and sophisticated words such as “nincompoop”, “twit”, “woohoo” and “Woopdefrickendoo” and had that immortal conclusion “Palin is pants” but I do my research well.
As TTM stated
“I think we ought to recognize that there are real and pressing issues identified in the Van Holland Report, and that it reflects many of the unspoken concerns the members of the Church have in New Zealand”
I love the Church, period. Unfortunately there are many things people are doing that are harming it that need to be stopped. For this to happen they need to be identified and discussed and action taken.
He he he
O my goshings o my goshings
You knows Gaptains, I fink it is about tymes now dat we discussing your anger problems. Is you and Grissy Gakes relatings? Are yous his sisdas and he your brodas?
[ADMIN WRITES: THE REST OF THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED FOR FAILING TO ADHERE TO BEING FRANK'S COMMENT POLICY]
the infallible teaching was already possessed by the Church through the Ordinary Universal Magesterium.
Prove it.
Pope John Paul II defined it in OS. If you asked the Pope when he was alive if he confirmed the Ordinary Universal Magestrium teaching in that document he would have said yes.
There’s a quote in Cardinal Bertone’s article from JPII where the pope confirms exactly that.
Surely the burden of prove in that case would be on you to prove otherwise rather than on the Pope to prove to you. Otherwise you’re setting yourself up as a second-teir magisterium that neds to aprove the Magesterium, which is crazy stuff.
The good Cardinal does a much better job than I would of going through all your objections and some more and explaining why they don’t apply, or have simply been made up. I do recommend that you read it when time permits.
> “Prove it.”
I think we need to see it with supernatural faith and the corresponding ‘obedience of faith’ (Dei Verbum, 5). Remembering that we have no higher authority in the Church, we ought to adhere to the Pontiff’s explicit delineation in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as well as in his approval of the CDF document. It is to be held as infallible, following the directive found in Lumen Gentium, 25:
1. I don’t even know what “Palin is pants” is supposed to mean.
2. When our “religious professionals” turn to subjectivist spiritualist practices such as reiki, cynical onlookers, such as myself, wonder at the intellectual capacity and honesty of the New Zealand system.
Wasn’t there a time when Catholic religious founded HOSPICES and HOSPITALS and aimed to be objectively productive rather than inhabiting the soft-headed loony fringe?
Back again
Keep up the good work Simon. You do a great job, you are on the side of truth. If you get a lot of opposition and you are within the Church’s teachings it is probably to be expected today.
I remember just before I came back into the Church after a long absence not aware of some practices in the local Church – pluralism, new age particularly. I remember reading in Church papers (not NZ Catholic) some expressions of this and I almost didn’t come back because of it.
We need people like you Simon, I only wish and wonder often if there is more I could do.
[ADMIN WRITES: This comment has been deleted because it refers to a comment that has been removed for failing to adhere to Being Frank's comment policy.]
“I don’t see that ordaining women priests would be quite the novelty you seem to think…I think it is more honest … to recognize that this teaching is not infallible, that it might change…”
Admin: Do we have to put up with this sort of language on a Catholic blog ? (just kidding chris
)
“Mary acted as a priest in offering sacrifice (her son) at Calvary. And there is a long tradition in the Church of Mary as priest.”
chris, you are confusing the royal priesthood of the faithful with the ministerial priesthood. yes, Mary is a priest, but not a ministerial priest. the ministerial (or ordained) priesthood is at the service of the royal priesthood of the faithful – it is ordered to help the people of God live of the Divine Life, won for us by the Only High Priest, Christ, and given by means of the sacraments. Mary, stood at the foot of the Cross, offering and perpetuating her yes to the Father, and offering her Son to the Father. she stands there, in a certain sense, representing humanity, representing all of us, and representing the immaculate Church, and offers her Son, in a full capacity, because she has received in a full capacity. she has opened herself and utterly relied and depended upon God, and received completely the Revelation of God – on behalf of humanity. she offers her Son, and offers the Blood and the Water, the pierced Heart of the Lamb to the Father, after Christ has died; hers is an offering of the superabundance of God’s Mercy poured out to us from His pierced Heart by the Blood and the Water; and has a unique link to Christ’s one and only priesthood. In a certain way, Christ’s priesthood is extended into her, and she offers His pierced Heart…and that is what we are called to do, in the royal priesthood of the faithful, when we go to Mass, and also during our daily life (we see this aspect of our faith highlighted in the Divine Mercy chaplet) – but that offering by us, through our participation in the One High Priesthood of Christ, is made possible by the service and gift of Christ to us of the ordained priesthood, which is also a participation in the One High Priesthood of Christ, which allows that victim to come onto the Altar so that we can make the offering in deep union with Mary, who lived that royal priesthood perfectly – offering her Son to the Father at the foot of the Cross. The royal priesthood is the higher priesthood, and the ministerial priesthood is at its service, and enables it to be fully itself.
have a good evening cobbers
Dave,
Agree with what you say, but I think that reducing the priesthood of Mary to the equivalent of the royal priesthood of the faithful is a severe under-recognition of her Queenship and role in salvation.
What’s essential to the priesthood has always been offering sacrifice. Not just a sacrifice of one’s own time and resources and sufferings. But the sacrifice of someone else’s body.
And that’s precisely what Mary did at Calvary.
Ann it’s distinct and different to our own sacrifices in the royal priesthhod of all the faithful because we offer our own bodies not that of another as the ministerial priesthood does.
God Bless
Chris,
> “Agree with what you say, but I think that reducing the priesthood of Mary to the equivalent of the royal priesthood of the faithful is a severe under-recognition of her Queenship and role in salvation.”
I think there is a misunderstanding here of the dignity of the royal priesthood. We are not reducing Mary’s priestly role at the foot of the cross – rather, we are recognizing the elevated status that the Church as a whole enjoys in her royal priesthood, within which Our Lady is the supreme model. Allow me to clarify by answering the following statement you make:
> “it’s distinct and different to our own sacrifices in the royal priesthhod of all the faithful because we offer our own bodies not that of another as the ministerial priesthood does.”
This is not the case. It seems there is a root misunderstanding here about the role of the royal priesthood, as well as the ministerial priesthood. There is no dichotomy, just complementarity. Just as Mary was able to offer up Christ in union with His initiative of the ministerial offering, so the faithful also offers up Christ in union with the ministerial offering made present at the alter by the ordained priesthood. The laity are not simply bystanders in the offering that Christ makes. They actively offer to the Father the Body and Blood of Christ, in union with His offering made present by the ordained priesthood, which is why we can offer our own selves at all, by uniting our selves and the world to the Holy Sacrifice (are we worthy to offer anything to God, apart from Christ?).
Lumen Gentium explains this very succinctly:
The authority of Christ cannopt be separated from His sacrificial offering. Christ entrusted his authority, His sacrifice is uniquely His own offered for the Church. Symbols are powerful, the male priesthood is in the place of Christ. He was male. It isn’t about persons doing jobs it is about unique roles – those roles are covenantal.
Christ receives from the Father and we receive from Christ. The male priesthood stands for Christ here in that we receive Christ through the male, as Christ was. Mary received Christ and was not sent Mary stands with us as the Church and receives Christ. Mary did not offer up Christ at the Passion she was a witness to it, the Father offered up Christ.
Thanks dave – beautiful post at 114.
Hi Benedicta,
we must be careful not to fall into the dichotomy that is sometimes presented in this issue.
We do in fact offer up Christ, but not within the same role. As LG states above, “Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.”
dave,
> “we see this aspect of our faith highlighted in the Divine Mercy chaplet”
Good point. The decade prayer of the chaplet encapsulates the royal priesthood at its best:
Hi TTm
No dichotomy intended. I do realise we can offer up the Body and Blood of Christ as the common priesthood. The difference is that Mary represents the Church at the Passion and as we offer up Christ she also. But the essential offering of Christ is the action of the Father. In that way the Eucharist is God’s action not ours, and we receive it and also offer it. But not in the same way as the Priest who stands for us. For me it is symbolism of the Covenant, also the Covenant is relational which is receiving and giving.
I would think if as Chris suggests it is through the priesthood of Mary then in fact there would be no need for ordaination at all, women or men, any member of the common priesthood of the Church could consecrate the Eucharist.
Still learning to express these things in the right language…….
Chris,
You’ve mentioned that before. I’d like to know where you got this interpretation of LG25? As el wardo pointed out:
I’d like to get your take on this, because I’ve heard you quote it before. I never thought LG25 meant that the Church was a democracy and that the bishops have some sort of voting form they need to use before something is infallible.
Who told you that the bishops need to be polled?
Benedicta,
> “I do realise we can offer up the Body and Blood of Christ as the common priesthood.”
Ah, OK. I hadn’t thought of the Father as being the one who offers (I have thought of Him as the one offered to), but in a way I guess He is – as Abraham offered his only son, the Father sends His only son for our sake. Christ is the high priest in the order of Melchizedek, so He does offer Himself at Calvary though, so perhaps it is Trinitarian. Hmm… the (theological) plot thickens!
I think you do make a good point with regard to the male symbolism. God is male in relation to us, because He is the initiator of the covenant. In the covenant of marriage, it is the man who proposes, and the woman receives and reciprocates – this sybolism reflects a higher reality, in the covenantal relationship between the heavenly bridegroom and bride, Christ and His Church. I think this is why the priest is male – he acts in the initiative of Christ to make the Sacrifice present at the alter, while the Church receives Him in humility and reciprocates, in offering Him to the Father together with themselves and the world.
James,
As far as I know, there is no dogmatic definition that the Pope has any power to declare a teaching infallible under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium polling the bishops dispersed.
The only authoritative basis for the power to define a doctrine infallible is Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (and it is not dogmatic ie not itself infallible).
LG25 clearly says that the bishops dispersed have to be in agreement.
The only way to tell if the bishops really are in agreement is to ask them.
It’s a fact that the bishops were not polled on ordaining women priests and that many bishops actually support ordaining women (some of them have already illictly started doing it).
In contrast, the dogmas against abortion and killing innocents defined in Evangelium Vitae were arrived at infallibly under the OUM because the bishops were polled on these and came back and said they must be definitively held.
The idea that something is infallible under the OUM without any actual colsulting of the bishops has no basis in any defined dogma.
See the Levels of the Magisterium table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium which is the standard table of the levels of teaching authority one will find in a good textbook of Catholic theology.
One has to be very careful of saying that such and such is taught infallibly because its has been taught everywhere and always. Because everywhere and always is by its nature extremely hard to prove. And many things were once considered taught everywhere and always (eg the right to torture, slavery, death penalty, the teaching against religious liberty, the Just War etc).
God Bless
He is the one who proposes
You’ve never had a woman propose ?
God Bless
TTM #123
I think the Covenant complementary roles of male and female also offer a wonderful insight into the unique spirituality of women. As Christ is male and Christ is God, also woman is represented by Mary as the covenant female, also as in Bride. As the male stands alongside Christ in the covenantal order so woman faces Christ.
There was a devotion popular in France in the late 19th Century, Therese of Lisieux alluded to it. Contemplating the Face of Christ. I find this a particularly unique insight into the spiritual potential of the female relationship with God. What do you think of this?
Chris #124 just a point, when it comes to things like infallibility etc you like to really dissect the ‘letter of the law’ that is you become very legalistic, looking for the loopholes. As has been mentioned sensus fidei is the faith of the Church which all hold together in faithfulness. The magisterium has a unique role in teaching. The spirit of being truly Catholic is to joyfully assent to the faith of the Church, not look for loopholes so you ‘cherry pick’ your doctrines or teachings, surely that is how to love the Church and thereby love God here also.
If you want to do more, you’ll have to stop being an international blogger and become a theologian so you can more effectively take the Church apart ‘brick by brick’.
Benedicta,
agreed, on all points
Chris,
> “You’ve never had a woman propose ?
Have you?
As far as I can tell by experience and social convention, they usually give various ‘hints’ – I’d be uncomfortable if they proposed!
Benedicta,
OK.
I accept the current position but the Church herself requires we be very careful before saying that a teaching is infallible.
This one is not manifestly evident.
And it’s important to be clear on it, because the unity of the Church is at stake.
God Bless
Chris,
> “This one is not manifestly evident.”
Is that not up to the Holy See to define? I’m sure the good people at CDF, plus the Pope, knew what the Canon Law said before making their statement – I’d say they’d have the author-ity (the author’s rights)!
Hi Chris
From your own personal perspective the unity of the Church doesn’t depend on that Cannon Law. (It is easy to point the finger to that thing over there, turn it around on yourself all the time). The only way to ensure the unity of the Church is to establish an exclusive loving seeking relationship with Jesus Christ in one’s own life. To be faithful to Him no matter what, be faithful in genuine prayer and seek the Truth that the Church teaches and just receive its teachings like gifts to be explored with joy as they hold the key to your freedom forever. Love God and the Church like a child – with trust.
Benedicta,
yah, it comes down to child-like trust, doesn’t it, in our Mother Church. It’s part of the interrior grace of the Holy Spirit that makes it possible, I think. As Dei Verbum, 5, says:
TTM,
Scripture is full of women proposing.
Ruth to Boaz, Judith to Horosethenes, Deborah, Tamah to Judah, Eve to Adam.
And, most preeminently, the Caananaite woman to Jesus. Whose persistence paid off.
The idea that women had purely passive awaiting male initiative has no basis in scripture.
It’s just a more modern and sophisticated version of the old idea that women couldn’t be ordained because they were inferior to and subordinate to, men.
God Bless
[ADMIN WRITES: THE REST OF THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED FOR FAILING TO ADHERE TO BEING FRANK'S COMMENT POLICY]
Hehehehe wat a jokes. You knows Grissy Gakes, if I was agtually means wat I was saying, then I would has haf been understandings. But da factings dat yous is belives wat you is been writings…
Beingfrank Admin – How abouts a bit of consistancy.
Hi Chris,
The article from Cardinal Bertone that I referred to earlier goes through all your issues on the Ordinary Universal Magesterium,I really encourage you to read it:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/MDPD.HTM
El,
Thanks. I read it with interest.
It doesn’t appear to be an official stmt of the SCDF, just Abp Bertone’s personal opinion (it’s not signed by Cdl Ratzinger, the then head of the SCDF).
Abp Bertone advanced no dogma of the Church to back up his assertion that a Pope’s non-definitive judgment that a doctrine is infallibly taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium actually establishes that his judgement is infallibly correct.
The elephant in the room here is that there is no dogmatic definition anywhere of any papal power to rule a doctrine infallible under the OUM short of exCathedra definition.
The only doctrinal basis for the infallibility of the OUM (and it is a non-dogmatic basis ie not infallible) is Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 25 which requires that the bishops dispersed “are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held”. The Pope saying they are in agreement does not establish that they actually are in agreement (it is known the bishops were never consulted and many bishops disagree with the Pope on it).
Therefore, this teaching has not been taught infallibly. It might one day change.
God Bless
Hey Chris
It doesn’t appear to be an official stmt of the SCDF, just Abp Bertone’s personal opinion (it’s not signed by Cdl Ratzinger, the then head of the SCDF).
I’m not sure what your point is there as if it had been an official statement of the SCDF, you’re reply would have been to point out that it is not an infallible statement.
Abp Bertone advanced no dogma of the Church to back up his assertion
You seem to be saying here that it needs to have been infallibly taught before it can be considered the teaching of the Church. Quite often on this blog you appear to require something to have been infallibly taught before you’d recognise it as the Church’s teaching, saying things like “show me where that has been definitively taught”. I don’t know why you think that way, but to reverse it on you, please show me where has the Church has definitively taught that a teaching of the Church must have been infallibly taught before it is to be considered a teaching of the Church?
You seem to be saying here that it needs to have been infallibly taught before it can be considered the teaching of the Church.
No, I’m not.
It’s the non-infallible teaching of the Church.
Binding in a disciplinary sense but not irreformable.
I agree with JPII that the Church currently has no power to ordain women.
I don’t agree that the Church teaches this with the certainty of infallibility.
I think this is a teaching that the Church could well change.
God Bless
Chris
Subjectivity trying to defend itself by being legalistic and criticises the Church for being legalistic……ad nauseam.
The problems in the Church today are subjectivity and relativism – yours is subjectivity in legal drag.
Chris,
> “The idea that women had purely passive awaiting male initiative has no basis in scripture.”
Right, but I never said anything about passivity. There is such a thing as active submission, and the Church practices this in prayer, but marriage proposal (which is what I was referring to, in relation to Christ and His Church, as well as to natural marriage) is usually a male initiative (be it in response to hints or otherwise).
TTM,
Ruth proposed to Boaz. Heck, she even slept at his feet on the threshing floor to make her intentions clear !
Many of the theories advanced against ordaining women are contary to scripture and are based more on certain cultural norms and miscogynism.
God Bless
Many of the theories advanced against ordaining woman are contrary to scripture…..
That’s a bit of a jaw-dropper, Chris.
The Old Testament is full of situations where men only are the priests. The Tribe of Levi was appointed priests – the men only.
I’d like your take on scripture to support your statement.
…..based on certain cultural norms and misogynism
Hmmmm……. a classic peice of feminist diversion. So Christ was *bound* by cultural norms when he selected all men for his priests, when there were plenty of very capable women around? I think not. And of course, Christ was a mysogynist.
Yeah, Right. (Tui Brewery, where are you?)
This thread is pants.
Don,
For example, the scholastic theories of Aquinas et al, who said that women could not be ordained because they were subordinate to men, clearly contradicts the key leadership role of women in many places of scripture (Deborah, Judith, Ruth, and of course Mary and the women who held the Church together at Calvary when most of the male leadership ran away and the male Pope denied he even knew Jesus).
The scholastic reason for not ordaining women is clearly misogynist and the Magisterium raedily admits this.
Jesus, of course, is not a misogynist. And he called women to be his apostles (the word means messenger or one sent) when he sent the women to announce his resurrection.
God Bless
There is a long tradition of Mary Magdelene as an Apostle, Aquinas called her “Apostle of the Apostles” :-
God Bless
Chris
In attempting to explain a truth we may do it a disservice. This may be the case on your Aquinas example but it doesnt change the rule.
Who cares about scholastic reasons?
As we discuss woman in the Church we may develop a more mature understanding of the roles of men and woman in the Church. But this may or may not lead to any change in practice.
(off post but…) Sara Palin is attractive because she seems to have political savy but not at the expense of abandoning her nuturing role as a mother, in this she could bring a great gift to govt that we have not seen in our ‘NZ govt womin’ who act as pseudo men and are actually anti feminine and anti men.
Dei,
When one reads the Fathers against ordaining women one finds a consistent misogynism. It wasn’t just Aquinas.
Scholastic reasons are important because, correct or incorrect, they have shaped the Church’s understanding. You are right that its time to move on from some of them as recent Popes have pointed out.
God Bless
Chris,
> “Ruth proposed to Boaz. Heck, she even slept at his feet on the threshing floor to make her intentions clear !”
Show me one verse from Scripture that has a woman asking a man, “will you marry me?”. Not including bold hints (which would be more like, “will you consider asking me to marry me?”).
> “Many of the theories advanced against ordaining women are contary to scripture and are based more on certain cultural norms and miscogynism.”
In #128 and #140, I was referring not only to cultural norms, but to natural law. You notice that it’s cross-cultural, which is a big hint.
Introducing the idea of misogyny is really a straw man – do you really think that faithful Catholics, ordinarily angered by such injustice, would hold to reserving ordination to men based on this? No, we believe because Peter has spoken.
To clear the magisterium of the straw-man charge of misogyny, I present to you the Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women.
TTM,
As JPII said, what the world needs is witness to the faith, not more and more words.
Actions speak louder then words.
In the upcoming synod on the Word of God the Vatican invited a bunch of observers and experts. Only one third of them are women.
Now, that was a huge improvement on the participation of women over previous synods. But it only happened because of intensive behind the scenes lobbying.
And when one considers all the male bishops invited to the Synod, only about 8% of the invited participants are women.
Are we expected to believe that female experts of scripture in the Church are only 8% as good or as numerous as the men ?
There is a problem in the Catholic Church with its recognition and openness to the role of women, especially in leadership. The problem of ordination is a consequence of the wider exclusion of women.
God Bless
Chris,
let’s face it, the radical feminists have contaminated the academia so much that we’re lucky to have 8% who are authentically Catholic. When agenda is exchanged for truth, we’ll see an increase in number (as the headline suggests: 25 Women To Participate in October Synod, Largest Number Ever).
Perhaps it’s time they dealt with the log in their own eye before accusing the Church of a splinter in her’s.
TTM,
If 25 out of over 300 participants is the Largest Number Ever then I think we have a long way to go !
Let’s be honest, this is hard evidence of anti-women prejudices in the higher levels of ecclesisatical power. And not just in this one synod but in a whole serious of them (this one is actually the best).
God Bless
Perhaps as more Sara Palins take their place in the world you will see more real woman with more influence. The present feminist mob are largely pushing boundaries and their own agenda.Loyal Catholic woman are not threatened by men in authority any more than other men are. This is a red hearing Chris!
Chris,
> “this is hard evidence of anti-women prejudices
Is it? I just don’t see the evidence. I’ve been presented so far with no evidence, hard or otherwise, but accusations and insinuations with very little basis in real life. Personally, I think #151 is self-evident to anyone vaguely familiar with the Catholic academic scene, but in the end the readers can make up their own mind.
i think that post #152 and many others from you chris, are hard evidence of anti-church prejudices. if you think it is just about numbers then you are reducing the church by measuring her through quantative means. what about all the children (and their ideas) who have never been consulted at synods?
TTM,
The hard evidence is that only 8% of the invited synod participants are women. In previous synods it was even worse. There is a consistent pattern here and it is one of the exclusion of women from the higher levels of the Church.
This is against what John Paul II taught about the special and unique contribution of women. The Church is missing out on something extremely important because we’re missing much of the feminine perspective. The Catholic Church is right – there is something to sexual complementarity and the Church is the weaker for only breathing with one lung when we ought to be breathing with two.
I do give credit for the Holy Father who has spoken out on the need to do more to involve women at senior levels in the Church. But it’s clear that there is still a long way to go.
dave-morgan,
Well, if you want to consider the contribution of women scripture scholars to be on the same level as children …..
God Bless
Chris,
> “ The hard evidence is that only 8% of the invited synod participants are women”
No, it isn’t hard evidence, because it involves speculation as to the cause. It involves other pieces of evidence to back up such speculative explanations, and frankly I don’t see much evidence of misogyny (in fact, JP2’s letter in #149 and the general attitudes in the Church attest to the very opposite), but I see plenty of evidence of radical feminists and their defenders accusing the Church of it in order to push their agendas. Knowing that such attitude and agenda are in themselves countering the possibility of admitting them to synods and such gatherings (which are about truth, not agendas), I’d be more inclined to think that this is the true cause. Ironic, but predictable.
> “Well, if you want to consider the contribution of women scripture scholars to be on the same level as children”
I think this movement toward misrepresenting peoples’ intentions is precisely what discredits radical feminists and their supporters.
TTM.
Thumbs up, brother.
I actually know a couple of extremely capable women who are not really interested in joining in on this type of gathering.
They are immensely proud to follow the teaching of their bishop, and do it better than most men are able to.
These are the true *Feminine* voices of the Church .
ttm well said.
chris, i find it strange that you say that those numbers show “hard evidence of anti-women prejudices in the higher levels of ecclesisatical power” and then try to justify that comment by a document that speaks on the dignity of women and calls all (the church and society) to respect and honour women.
your conclusion cannot be upheld by any serious person who thinks properly. ttm is right, you mention a stat, then fall into your own speculation as to the cause, and then try to justify that with a document from the church that doesn’t say anything about your dubious conclusion.
that is a fallacy in logic: “post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this therefore because (on account) of this” – or to say it more clearly: “no women, or very few women on church synods, therefore the church is prejudiced against women”. That is terrible reasoning.
it would be like me saying to you: “you claim to be catholic and open to life, but you only have one child, therefore, you are a hypocrite”. one can’t conclude that without taking into account that there could be many other reasons why you might have only one child while being completely open to life.
“I think this movement toward misrepresenting peoples’ intentions is precisely what discredits radical feminists and their supporters.”
from post # 157, well put ttm.
This is what the Catechism says on women being ordained to the priesthood: