Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
I used standard fare in the wrong context, not sure what word/phrase I am looking for. What I meant to say was this would probably not shock many conservative/traditional Catholics because it happens with enough regularity. Look up the Assisi Meetings
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a Catholic and as someone who greatly respects eastern and western liturgical tradition, I find this to be so embarrassing. How a priest could allow this in the church for which he was responsible and allow whomever those lay people were onto the altar is beyond me. Scandalous, to be sure. Despite strides being made in recent years to rediscover tradition, re-enchant the sacred liturgy, re-orient focus etc. there is still so much of this mentality within the church. That aside, hopefully, the church was not used until the Rite of Reparation of a Profaned Church was performed.
ReplyDeleteSo you consider Catholic ceremonies any more God-pleasing than those ones? That's pretty ecumenical of you.
ReplyDeleteIn as much as throwing a dart at a dart board and missing is better than throwing it at someone's elephant. Yes.
DeleteThis is the logical outcome of Vatican 2. Don't you see the effects of 50 years worth of syncretism...?
ReplyDeleteAgree. This isn't the only instance of Catholic Churches being used for non-liturgical, non-christian purposes. Some within the clergy and laity don't see the wrong of this practice. To my knowledge, this isn't the practice of the Orthodox Churches. Shame their example isn't followed by some within the hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteIIRC, a couple of months ago there was some online outrage about an instance, when one church in Russia was used for some gymnastic shows. So you are not exactly correct in this one.
DeleteWhen the only people who will come to your church are tourists with their cameras, pagans invited to march around with their diety and musicians paid to sing, next will be the attorneys selling the property turning it into a warehouse or a nightclub.
ReplyDeleteThey should have waited to bring Ganesh to the church for the Blessing of Animals on the feast of St. Francis.
ReplyDeleteAre we sure the Church never canonized St. Ganesh by mistake, like St. Jehoshaphat?
DeleteIt isn't often you see a real elephant in the room that is an elephant in the room. Yes, they might want to consecrate the place anew. I recall 1974 or so when my church (Episcopal) had an event at the "national" cathedral that included the muslim call to prayer from the pulpit. Just as vile. Even in the 10th grade I knew the place had something wrong, it has gotten ever worse. These folks should figure out how to prevent this in the future, once you start it's awfully hard to stop.
ReplyDeleteHave you given up the Episcopal church?
DeleteChrismated in January 1984, happily.
DeleteGlory to God!
ReplyDelete