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 ...
It's called "ex opere operato". I think the Catechism talks about it in par 1258? Without this, valid sacraments would be in question.
Sad, isn't it, that a whole generation grew up learning morals from George Lucas and Jim Henson.
I'll say.
Though I admire the production values, I've never been a Star Wars fan. I remember seeing the first installment in the series -- was it 1977? -- and sputtering to my date, lacking the critical (not to mention philosophical) language to explain my instinctive antipathy. There was so much artistic dishonesty and incoherence, one scarcely knew where to attack first. One thinks of the homage to popular pieties about savvy, independent females (audiences swallowed whole the vulgar and idiotic notion of a "princess" with the speech and deportment of a suburban American teenager). Then there's the pandering to unthinking loyalties: the Empire is evil because its soldiers have frowny-masks instead of faces (implicitly soulless, they are non-persons, sub-humans who can be be killed off like so many cockroaches). The "Nazi-style" helmets (cleverly lampooned in Spaceballs) complete the manipulative cartoon treatment.
Nowhere is it explained why Empire is objectively evil and Federation good. Nor is the Manichaeism of Force vs. Dark Side resolved (probably can't be if Lucasfilms is going to crank out more sequels ;-)). Are they equal? If so, why are both not worthy of veneration? Is the Force a higher power (and why does something benevolent and anti-authoritarian call itself "the Force" anyway)? If the force is benevolent, why does it lend itself to manipulation and the clouding of men's minds, as it does when Obi-Wan Kenobi deceives the guards?
I realise this is just a movie (even if I pay it the compliment of approaching it seriously), and certainly don't intend to hijack this thread. But I did want to register my discomfort with its question-begging insinuation that "non serviam" is the proper model for human life.
Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, not your corrupt man-made organization.
Point by point:
Without those specific priests who are validly consecrated as bishops, there can be no Apostolic Succession
Correct, there is no Apostolic Succession.
Without Apostolic Succession, there is no authority to ordain priests.
Correct there are no "ordained priests". Christ is the only "priest".
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.
Correct. Of this list, only Communion is Biblically valid. The rest are man-made. Communion required no priest and is not the "Real Presence". Few Catholics even believe that one.
Now my turn:
From Romans Chapter 1:
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
i.e. Those bringing idolatry and statue worship into Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) will be plagued with homosexual tendencies (Have you guys detected any of this kind of behavior lately?).
And from 1 Timothy Chapter 4:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Forbidding the priests to marry and abstaining from meat on certain days. Are these two of your demonic doctrines?
and all the Catholics manage without me. How many even notice my absence? Few, I suspect, can name the last time I took an extended break. (This disappoints my pride to no end, of course.)
When you are not around, there is quite a large gap in our Caucus. I notice it very much, and noted your extended break too, as do others, and I hope you are able to resume your activity level, Mrs. Patent permitting of course.
We ought to be allies on 95% or so of issues related to Christianity but noooooo, we can't have that because there are those who define their faith by its disagreements with Rome. Why is it necessary to constantly butt in on discussions such as this where you have absolutely no horse in the race? You are not a Catholic. None of us, even if aggravated, would accuse you of sharing the qualities of Mahoney, a genuine enemy of your faith as well as ours.
Have you ever considered the possibility that your attempts in such a fashion to share with Catholics what is most precious to you (your faith) will be received as an aggravation by Catholics who are perfectly conversant with the Roman Catholic Faith which, whatever anyone may fantasize to the contrary, was founded upon Peter and continues to this day? You can pick off a weak straggler or two, some "Catholics" ignorant and insufficiently catechized in the Faith (especially those with marital difficulty or similar vulnerabilities), some who have a need for exciting and emotional performances, some with a need for the simplest of explanations consistent with their own preferences, but, in religious terms, you'll never take Texas (i.e. the knowledgeable and capable and well-informed and catechized Catholics who would be your real prizes if you could get them). We will have our Mass. We will have our sacraments. We will have the Church of Jesus Christ as He founded it for us, together with priests, bishops, popes, all seven sacraments, the ancient creeds of the Faith and, yes, the Scriptures which we passed to those who are "reformed." That doesn't mean that we will not be annoyed by constant nagging to (hurry, hurry, look, see) what will never be a substitute for Roman Catholicism.
Sorry, you are my brother or sister in Christ via baptism but to the extent that you deviate from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, I am going to view you as wrong. No amount of nagging will do other than give rise to a hostility that is utterly unnecessary. You are free to embrace the truths of Roman Catholicism. If you do not, that is your call via the free will that was your gift from God. In any event, stop picking at scabs.
Treat each other as you would Christ. Sometimes that necessitates hard words, but be clear about why you say them – you should believe they will bring the subject or others closer to God.
I would however add Polycarp's name to yours as being missed when your not around. It seems I look for one or both when I find a posting on Catholicism.
I answered the question in the title of the post my first reply:
Does Mahony Want A Priestless Church?
A Priestless Church was good enough for the Apostles. What is wrong with a Priestless Church?
Since my initial post I have been responding to questions posed to me and to insults hurled at me:
i.e. From SMEDLEYBUTLER:
Sit up a little higher in your chair so the point doesn't sail so far over it. I'll spell it out simpler since comprehension isn't one of your strong points.
Again from SMEDLEY:
Your ignorance of Catholicism and Scripture is overwhelming.
As far as minding (my) own business goes: I have been responding to the 7-8 replies I have received questioning my beliefs (and intelligence, for that matter).
I do not wish to pick off the weak from Catholicism. I wish that those of you who are strong, who have the courage and intelligence to be on this forum debating the corrutpion of the leadership (such as Mahoney) that goes to the core of the Roman Catholicism Church would be "picked off" and would use your talent and energy to win others away.
Revelation 17, in discussing the organization based in the "city on seven hills" (Rome) says:
Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Short of replying to additional replies directed to me, I will not post anymore to your thread.
Furthermore, it is quite evident that most AmChurch bishops have absolutely no intrention of cleaning up their cesspool seminaries.
Sorry, but all you get is the stragglers, the uncatechized, and the rest that I previously mentioned. Your wish for Catholic warriors to apostasize and lead others out of the Church just never does seem to materialize, does it?
No one would have been posting to you if you had not intruded on turf not your own in the first place chewing the the same old tiresome slipper. As for me, it was the first time I had noticed your existence.
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.