Posted on 09/08/2002 7:30:52 PM PDT by american colleen
While Father Z isn't sure about Mahony's plans for a priestless Church, he believes the archdiocesan hostility to traditional Catholicism has taken its toll on vocations. "I do know that a lot of priests have left. The cardinal likes a certain kind of priest. You can tell that they don't want vocations, because they do nothing to inspire vocations. He's purposely put a very liberal, feminist Sister (Kathy Bryant) as the vocations person.
"I think if we got a reasonable archbishop of Los Angeles, all of a sudden things would just switch. There's such a small minority of the real liberals and 'protestantized' Catholics that things would switch right away."
If Father Z's assessment of Mahony seems to contradict his gentle public image, Father Z is not alone in his view. Both Father Y and Father Z are firghtened of Mahony and spoke only on assurance of anonymity. "The cardinal is a tough man," one explained. "He will just crush you. He won't stop. I know of a priest who spoke out against something the cardinal was behind and he would not back off until the priest resigned. He even threatened to withdraw financial support. He has a lot of power because Los Angeles is one of the richest dioceses in the world and money is power. That's one of the biggest ways he throws his weight around.
"I pray for a real conversion (for Mahony). If he were to convert he would just be a powerhouse for the Church. He is a very engaging person. When he's in your presence, he really wins you over. He has a way of gauging you and he holds all his cards to his chest. He lets you break the ground and, once that happens, he's very agreeable to whatever you say. Everyone walks away from him saying, 'what a wonderful man!' When you're with him one on one, he really does fool you. It's when you find out what he's done later that you realize what you're dealing with, and it's not gentle. I know a lot of priests who have suffered under him. If you want holy priests, you need a holy bishop."
I attempted several times to reach Sister Kathy Bryant for response. She did not return my phone calls before this article went to press.
(Excerpt) Read more at losangelesmission.com ...
PS. I am not trying to lecture anyone here; just making a few suggestions.
Salvation
I think a few of us did do some inquiry about allend's banning... I like him as well. Here is the response I got from Angelo:
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)
Posted by angelo to PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain; ksen; ELS; american colleen; All
On Religion Sep 11 1:42 PM #23,847 of 23,880
Well, here's the scoop on allend. From what I have been able to determine, JR is aware of his banning and may personally have been the one to pull his account. He was not banned for any specific violation of forum rules, but rather for expressing political views that are presently out of favor with forum management. I suggested to allend a couple of different options he may wish to pursue. If anyone wishes to discuss this with me further, e-mail me at freeperangelo@yahoo.com.
Well, Alec Guiness was a Catholic convert. Does that count?
Absolutely! But sometimes (for me, anyway) the language in official documents is ambiguous and it drives me nuts! Plus I love the human "conversation" we have here.
One question that I had/have that I couldn't find a direct answer to is regarding the end of the Mass. I believe the priest is supposed to say "Mass is ended. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord." Well, at the Mass I most often attend, the priest says "Mass is ended. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and each other. May his light shine down upon you, May (and he goes on for about 5 more lines)" - so FR is great for things like that when you can't find an answer or the answer you find isn't clear. As an aside, I think the priest might be wrong in my parish because the Masses on EWTN do not end this way. Also, I saw bits and pieces of the 9-11 memorial Masses at St. Pat's in NY and at Our Lady's Cathedral in Washington yesterday... neither of the Cardinals closed the Mass with anything beyond "Mass is ended. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord."
I'm mindful of being too technical... I don't want to be the Catholic police, or something, so maybe I shouldn't be noticing stuff like this, I don't know.
The Apostles were, each and every one of them priests and bishops. The earliest fragments of the liturgy of the Mass date to approximately 120 AD, when disciples of the Apostles were still in leadership such as St. Ignatius of Antioch. Those fragments are probably older than the earliest existing copies of the books of the New Testament.
It would be more historically accurate to say that the early Christian (i.e Catholic) Church existed without copies or even originals of substantial portions of the New Testament since those portions had yet to be written than to suggest or claim or declaim that it existed without priests.
For example, it is manifestly obvious that the early Christian Church and some of its activities are described in the Acts of the Apostles as history and not as prophecy. Obviously, St. Paul was writing after the facts described. St. Stephen was martyred by Saul and his non-Christian associates before the former Saul could write about the incident as Paul. The Apocalypse or Revelations seems to have been written very late in the first century and after the deaths of most of the twelve Apostles and many of their contemporary priests.
There is a historical continuum that ought to be observed by those who argue in good faith (small f). On a matter of such importance as the Christian Faith, people living in 100 AD had a good idea of what happened in 50 AD and passed it on orally and in writing and discussed such matters as earnestly as we do today. Substitute freely each subsequent 50 year period and cumulate because, just as we care what happened in, say, the 2nd century as to Christianity and Christians, so have our predecessors. In this sense, it is more than a little pretentious to assume that what is not in Scripture did not occur in spite of any and all non-denominational evidence. It would fall into the same category as the calculations of Bishop Usher of the soi disant and misnamed (Anglican) Church of Ireland that the world was created approximately 4,000 B.C because of his wrinkle on the ages and intersections of the lives of the old Testament patriarchs or the idea that dinosaur fossils are a cosmic joke because they could not have existed since the Scriptures fail to mention them.
The answer to your question is: Without those specific priests who are validly consecrated as bishops, there can be no Apostolic Succession. Without Apostolic Succession, there is no authority to ordain priests. Without priests, there will be none of the following sacraments: the Holy Eucharist (and the Real Presence of Jesus Christ: Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity therein), Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Extreme Unction. In such an event, the gates of hell will have prevailed which is impossible because it is guaranteed in the Peter passage of Matthew that they will not and the Scriptures tell no lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.