Announcement

**robrecht** · 04-01-2014, 07:30 PM

I love many of the unpopular dogmas of the Catholic Church, but perhaps not for the same reasons as most Catholics.

I really respect papal infallibility, as one pole of various models of leadership and responsibility, as well as conciliarism, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, individualism, and quietism, but the typical defense of infallibility (papal and magisterial) is immature in my opinion. Nobody is infallible. We do the best we can, but need not be defensive or argumentative when we get something wrong. Better to own up to it, humbly admit we were wrong, and that we have learned something. Instead, when Catholic popes and councils change their opinion on something, they bend over backwards explaining how their opinion has not really changed, that whatever is new is really old and what everyone thought the church was saying previously was not really what the church meant because, well, we were right all along.

I love the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth, but do not think celibate prelates should spend much time thinking about Mary's hymen. Sorry, but, seriously, a miraculous birth, not just a virginal conception, but a magical, miraculous virgin birth as well?

But here's the real kicker. A friend of mine in graduate school was studying to be an Episcopalian priest. She really struggled in her scripture courses because she did not know the original languages. Previously, I had given a retreat for high school kids and met her daughter, who urged her parents to invite me over to their house. That's how I got to know the family. The father and I were best friends from Day One. He was an Austrian Catholic and we drank more than our fair share of ice cold Austrian Riesling until very early in the morning many, many nights and I ended up spending most weekends at their house. The mom was serving as a deacon in the local Episcopalian church so I ended up going there for church serves on Sunday mornings. Parishioners, neighbors, kids, dogs, were in and out of their house at all hours. Their family was the center of the church and it was an extended family of worship, service and communal fun and relaxation in the midst of the work-a-day worries of the rest of the week. I began to see a model of the church that was grounded in human love, family, and respect for all comers, regardless of their station in life or their outlook on life and politics. It was so refreshing, delightful, and inspiring. When I would go back to the dead services of the old, imported, sexless or worse, Catholic priests, it was depressing and lifeless. Sometimes scandalous. Or worse. I learned that the Catholic Church is just wrong about their requirement for an all celibate priesthood, and wrong about women's ordination as well. After spending so much time with my adopted family of fun-loving Episcopalians, I just could not find any inspiration in the dead churches of Catholic Europe. Eventually, my friend graduated, and because I had patiently helped her pass her scripture courses, and knew her level of training better than anyone, she asked me to testify to her preparedness for ordained service at her ordination ceremony. I felt very proud and humbled to be asked to perform this important role and wore my Franciscan habit as an expression of ecumenical hope for greater Christian unity of the churches so that we might all be a better witness as the body of Christ in our world of suffering, tears, and injustice.

I would never convert to Anglicanism or become an Episcopalian, in part because I do not want to belong to a church founded by a wife murderer, but, more importantly, because I was born, raised, and educated Catholic and I cannot, and would not want to, change that. I am as Catholic as anyone I know, and I know an awful lot of very pious and devoted Catholics. Most importantly, I could never leave the Eucharist, especially devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, the little old ladies of the Rosary Society, and all the courageous and long suffering nuns who selflessly do the lion's share of the work and leadership of the church, all the while being underappreciated and even maligned. You cannot easily change something which has been a part of your soul from before your birth just because you think your church leadership is a little behind the times. OK, a lot behind the times. Part of the value of our Catholic church is that it has more or less successfully preserved the Christian scriptures and witness over many, many centuries. No easy task. It is expected that it would become a rather conservative institution in order preserve the deposit of faith over such a long period of centuries. And I respect that. Just don't always agree.

Ok, that's my 3 or 4 theses. Not as many as Martin Luther, but I'm not as wacko as he was either.

Pax et bonum, robrecht

**Just Some Dude** · 04-01-2014, 07:41 PM

Sounds like something that should be in Ecclesiology.

That said, I still dislike how Catholics don't let their priests/bishops marry, call the Pope the vicar of Christ on earth (don't hate church hierarchy though), and I'm distrustful of prayers to the saints/Mary. Also think that there are some misuses of monasticism (thankfully, no forcing people into it though), have heard stories of priests telling the laity to not read the Bible but just listen to the priest, and am under the impression that Catholics are more willing to practice religious syncretism than Protestants. Also not a fan of Anslem's penal substition theory of atonement, which has taken root everywhere, but that's more excessive devotion to one guy's idea than church-wide practice (and its a Protestant problem too).

Course, on the other hand, I disagree with the idea that the Catholic "rule" over Europe constitutes as a religious dark age. My Baptist upbringing, an wrongheaded upbringing that has more in common with modern atheist understandings of the medieval period than what actually seems to have happened. Also, even though I have no idea if Catholics consistently hold to this, but after reading "Socratic Logic" by Peter Kreeft (and being unable to see a Protestant writing such a book) and actually being impressed with said logic and philosophy in said book (I'm generally skeptical of modern logic and philosophy), I'm more sympathetic to Catholics than my upbringing would lead me to do. Again, not sure if Catholics actually consistently hold to a "old, traditional, Socratic logic;" it's more than I was just generally impressed with said book, and I have a hard time seeing a Protestant break through the modern haze to write such a book (mainly cause of my personal experience, have no idea if this is an objective observation though).

Also, since it was bought up, what are your main arguments for a females in the priesthood (i.e., priestesses) in the Christian church? I know you've had a good experience with some, but unlike other religious offices I see in the Scriptures - especially prophet, but also judge (Deborah), maybe even apostle (Junia), as well as deaconesses - I still don't see any room made for female priests (all male at all times, unlike the others), nor do I know of any particularly good argument for suddenly allowing such. I know that the Old Testament priesthood is fundamentally different than modern priest/pastors (and females preaching I can't oppose, as that was part of the role of the Old Testament prophetess), but I still don't know of any strong reason to change what was in place.

**robrecht** · 04-01-2014, 08:08 PM