|
Post by Dr. Marcus De Brun on Aug 22, 2013 9:27:19 GMT
We are living in a time that is repeatedly referred to as 'Post Catholic Ireland'. Christianity in Ireland is in serious trouble. Young people have abandoned the Church, and yet the majority cling to the rituals and the notion of a Church. The majority and the formal structuresd of the state have rejected Catholicism in its traditional form, and yet the majority have not rejected the notion the concept or the reality of God. Why must God be defined in the alienn context of a church that has become alien to the majority? Why do the leaders of the Irish Church, put the institution before God? Why can opur church leaders not re-invent our Church and transform it into a vehicle for the transmission of Christs teachings. Our Church has lost its God and our God has lost its Church. Constantine, Martin Luther, Christ himself ..all iconoclasts, not afraid to put God before the Church and thereby preserve all that is good and all that is sadly dying before our eyes. Why must we continue to wait upon saviours?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 22, 2013 11:55:18 GMT
This has been tried a good few times down the centuries. There was the Nestorians, the Manichaens, the Albigensians, the Arians, the Waldensians, the Old Catholics, the Lollards, the Shakers, the Quakers, the Hussites, the Puritans, the Pietists, the Anabaptists, the Donatists and literally thousands of other denominations, not to mention all the untold millions who adhered to their own personal brand of Christianity.
Inevitably, they disappear, or drift away from their original teachings, or both. We are seeing this happen with European Protestantism in our own day. Can you imagine if Luther were to walk into a Lutheran service today? He would probably run screaming to the nearest Catholic church.
Breaking with Rome has been tried, and tried, and tried again. It never works.
If Christ's teaching is plain to understand, why are there so many different Christian sects, all of them convinced they are restoring the true Gospel, despite their (often spectacular) differences in doctrine?
And why is the Catholic Church still going strong after so many centuries? Why is the election of the Pope front-page news on every newspaper in the world? Why will hundreds of thousands of people attend Mass in Ireland this Sunday, and next Sunday?
Why do you assume the leaders of the Irish church put the institution before God? Why do you say our Church has lost its God? These claims are not obviously true and, despite common practice, require some evidence to support them.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 25, 2013 17:03:27 GMT
The original post begs the question in that it assumes that the very concept of a church (as distinct from the particular forms it takes) is a purely human invention and can be remodelled and discarded at will. The New Testament certainly suggests that Jesus established hierarchical structures (the distinction between the Twelve and the Seventy, the granting of the Keys to Peter), that the Apostles decided significant issues for the majority and possessed teaching authority which was meant to be passed on "till the end of time". Surely the question is not whether the Church "has become alien to the majority" but whether it is true? The majority can be wrong, you know. Martin Luther and Constantine are not altogether happy examples; it would be just as easy to point to reformers who worked within the church without abandoning it (Francis of Assisi, John Henry Newman). As for Jesus, are you really saying HE was just another reformer rather than God Incarnate?
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 8, 2013 20:58:06 GMT
The objection, to the notion of breaking with Rome, appears to come in the following forms
"Breaking with Rome has been tried, and tried, and tried again. It never works"
and
Martin Luther and Constantine are not altogether happy examples; it would be just as easy to point to reformers who worked within the church without abandoning it (Francis of Assisi, John Henry Newman).
Essentially breaking with Rome 'wont work" and as much success can be achieved by promoting change within the Church.
In the first instance 'tried and tried again and never works'. Evolution whether cultural social intellectual or Spiritual is predicated upon the aspiration the hope for change being actuated into the attempt for change. In the context of our own dogmatics, Christ's presence upon the earth ended in His crucifixion, His torture and a pain that he pleaded to be relieved of. The possibility of failure is little different to the possibility of pain, if we are afraid of the prospect of failure we may indeed shy away from the attempt, but it does not follow that because failure is likely that it is a certainty. Often the immediate objectives of any attempt may not be realised and failure can be assumed, however out of failure success can arise in a form that was not envisaged at the outset. The resurrection can perhaps be considered in such a light.
The reality of our current social model is that the Church has been abandoned by a great many people, they are not inherently bad, nor are they foolish or misguided. God, and the philosophy of Christ, the moral supremacy of Christian ideals, have not been abandoned by the majority.
When we speak of the success or failure of previous breaks with Rome we are applying various standards, varied notions of success, be they numerical members of the church or, the establishment of physical structures with some permanence. and so on.
My point is precisely this, that Christ has is no longer present in the Roman Catholic Church, it's institutions and its formalities. He resides where there is pain and hurt, where there is need for change,where there is little hope of success. Ireland and the earth are facing into a series of approaching endpoints, the impending collapse of global ecology, the collapse of social morality as seen in the rape of little children, the dominance of the materialist model for social function and so on.
Perhaps at no time in the past have we been so under threat as a species, and the biggest threat to us is from ourselves. Mankind is in dire need of spiritual, moral and philosophical guidance. Communities are indeed of ministers of the faith and ministers of philosophy, yet the present structures of the church prevent this process, prevent a counter, a revolt against the consumption, immorality and intellectual paralysis that has come to define modern life.
A break with Rome and the establishment of a modern Irish Church based upon Christian ideals, with married clergy, openness towards marginalised members of the community, new priests, a new clergy would breath new life into our faith and would help save us from ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by Tertium non datur on Aug 6, 2014 0:27:24 GMT
The original post begs the question in that it assumes that the very concept of a church (as distinct from the particular forms it takes) is a purely human invention and can be remodelled and discarded at will. The New Testament certainly suggests that Jesus established hierarchical structures (the distinction between the Twelve and the Seventy, the granting of the Keys to Peter), that the Apostles decided significant issues for the majority and possessed teaching authority which was meant to be passed on "till the end of time". Surely the question is not whether the Church "has become alien to the majority" but whether it is true? The majority can be wrong, you know. Martin Luther and Constantine are not altogether happy examples; it would be just as easy to point to reformers who worked within the church without abandoning it (Francis of Assisi, John Henry Newman). As for Jesus, are you really saying HE was just another reformer rather than God Incarnate? What reforms did John Henry Newman ever make in the catholic church? He spent the first forty four formative years of his life worshipping a heretical Christian church.! He eventually saw the light and converted to catholicism. The political catholics in the Vatican then promoted him to high office as a pawn to lure English intellectuals toward Rome.[All part of the grand plan for the reconversion of England to catholicism] Poor Newman.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 12, 2015 23:59:24 GMT
Hello,
I just wrote in the forum on atheists and want to continue the point on renewal here, and leave the atheist thing back there. Likewise I'm trying out thoughts to be put on the right path. Thanks.
Anyone who has come across the life of Saint Francis or has been touched by the life of a saint, draws I think, strength to their belief in Christ that the Catholic Church's union is of a heavenly importance. I draw strength from Saint Francis and Padre Pio.
To say break with Rome, well you know, we could agree in some sense for I am aware that the Church in the modern era, mirroring the ideology of the power centres, has been centralising to a perverse degree. Somewhat so that the Church has taken on the ideology of the power centres. That is like modern states are centralised on a power centre which decimate the communities of the nation and instead administer to a mass of individuals, the church following the power centres lead, has grown in the modern era to being priests administering to a mass of powerless individuals. Our nations are not mere individuals! We have communities! And our church isn't a mere mass of individuals we are communities! If the church could stop seeking honour from the power centres and taking on their latest fashion in thought, or art or political philosophy, if it could just stop and think for itself based on a Christian vision. If it needs help to then surely a good example would be to find a time when the Church was flourishing! When it was dynamising society like the yeast in the dough. And yes in the formative era of Europe we call the middle age, Christianity was flourishing, nations weren't a shapeless mass of individuals -that's a protestant/secularist ideology!- the church and the nations were communities. Those monasteries that were the centres of which lay people built their lives around come to mind and the various lay positions of grey friar.
So no to a break with Rome but yes too in the sense of decentralisation, of decolonisation. To see again reality as it is, disbelieving the false reality which the power centres present to us. Tell Catholics they are a people yes! The bishops have been lately but represent to them that they are Communities and people have been lied to for so long by the secularist power centres that they are a mere mass of individuals, that we need to shape our churches as communities, as real communities, and then we can see that we are actually His Body alive, and well and celebrating. With our own language and vision. And attractive life. and then we would dynamize society. We can start in Ireland by getting rid of our 12th century diocesan structure. That is a structure for the dead civil structure of the 12th century. Organise the diocesan boundaries based on real communities. For how can we believe you if you tell us we are a people, a community, without organising us as one. Instil in local Churches of nations, the impulse to think for themselves, find their own art forms, not borrowed fashion from Italy or France- because of centralisation- which fills the Irish churches say, but native forms! Let this impulse spread through the Church, let it be central to Catholic education and encourage as a part of Catholic education critical thinking, and the study of a few Catholic texts but thoroughly. Theology is for you, its for the people, and if we are a people of God, then everyone should make a contribution to a people's theology. Not just professionals who like professionals protective of entry to new candidates, encourage others to study theology officially, learn the language, until they talk like them and which is just a way of seeking worldly power. No, in the formative age of Europe, as we know by the art forms and language of Ireland, and our peasant based Christianity, all the people contributed to theology. Christ was in their hearts.
Rome stop seeking honour from the power centres by being hid bound and colonised by the world, sand up for yourself and us, look to Christ. When the power centres were urbanising communities, you followed suit and began a process of urbanisation of Catholicism and destroyed local native traditions. Think of it in Ireland. The Church in the modern era has been influenced with gaining influence by the power centres.
That's the way to renewal, living communities and out of that collaboration a living language imbued with vision offering life to all people.
Without community-no new language -without new language - no renewal. It all begins with acknowledging that "modernity" is essentially a protestant/secularist creation presenting a false reality to the Catholic community of communities, which is the Church. And the false reality being assented to by bishops and priests seeking honour from the world by following its fashions in thought, art, philosophy and etiquette.
"Yes and no to a break with Rome" I like it.
Please put me on the right track if I'm in serious error.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jun 13, 2015 10:11:03 GMT
There are certainly arguments for greater decentralisation of the Church, although I'd be wary of them on account of how the central bureaucracy can put the brakes on some of the crazier ideas of the various different local authorities. The central authority also provides a greater degree of unity between the Church in different countries, which I think is very important.
I wouldn't see a degree of decentralising as a 'break with Rome' though. THAT I would firmly oppose, precisely because it is a rejection of our faith.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 13, 2015 15:31:47 GMT
I agree. I am against in every way a break with Rome and would never wish to be seen or thought to promote it, it is a rejection of our faith.
The post was provocative and I apologise I was only using the terms "yes and no" thing provocatively and inherently in that is a cancelling out of each other. Leaving me where I am an Orthodox Catholic who is well grappling with some problems faced by the Church in the present.
I am wholeheartedly opposed to all aspects of decentralisation which would encourage the things you gave in your arguments. I used the term decolonisation with decentralisation and using them together, well I'm trying to express something. If the Church is serious about evangelisation, and if we accept that Christ needs to be preached in the most effective manner, which is effective in terms of the locale, from the national, to the diocese, to the parish. Then a sort of decolonisation needs to occur, an over dependence on centralised authority which is related to a protestant/secularist view of man and society. And the representation of Christ in terms that speak to all these different locals, which will be different. This view is latent in Vatican II and the present Popes' encyclicals. I'm critical of Vatican II by the way, just pointing out that it is latent there.
I think Rome is trying to encourage this "decolonisation" for want of a word, with "the people of God" and the emphasis that we partake in Christ's role in our baptism, I'm not so sure is it- as prophet, and there's two others... priest, king? (Pardon my ignorance. I want to be honest, and so depict the degree to which I've grasped our Church's teaching, as I think its more revealing about many things and so helpful, then if I quickly googled it and put it in. I'll research it at the end of this post) I have heard the Church in my life time emphasise these aspects a lot and so I think there is a movement away from a mentality to another one.
I don't think its impossible to encourage more community in the Church whilst putting "brakes on some of the crazier ideas of the various different local authorities". I think some creative ideas could be thought up always putting the authority of the bishops through the pope as primary. Recently I read a vision of Pobal Phadraig- an assembly of the Irish church both religious and lay people in national synod in Armagh under the chairmanship of the Bishops. Which would have deliberative and consultative powers. Considering the potential of such an assembly and its office in Armagh, with all its work of lay people and religious, and journals, and research that could be around, it. Considering the Bishops would be chairmen in such an assembly and under their authority, and how this would represent to people that they are in fact a people, a people of God, and that they would see themselves as a Body. I thought it was an attempt. I disagreed with it. I mean there would clearly need to be more envisioning of how it would fit in with the Bishops conference, etc. And there is the worry that it would fuel this democracy in the Church thing. But it was an attempt. And there needs to be more of them to reconcile the two together - of Unity and yet real local Catholic communities dynamising society. And frankly I think if we are serious about evangelisation, building a community of Catholics, and so enhancing collaboration, community has to be central to an evangelising effort. Isn't it? If there's anyone that thinks of a renewal without communities then please write, I'm just experimenting with the idea that community in evangelisation is vital.
What I think is that we should look at when the Church was flourishing and evangelising society well. I think it is reasonable to examine the Middle Age and see if that sheds light on our problem. I mean is there anyone out there that can give a brief sketch of the defining characteristics of the Church -including its structure and the relation between the local and the Chair of Peter?
I think the Church will succeed in balancing the two. That's what's tentatively going on now. There's a lot at stake. The experiment of parish councils. It was an attempt. But I think such things can de done more thoughtfully. There must only be a handful of parish councils in Ireland, if that, that could be considered in their structure and culture, as real models. But I do admire the efforts and the attempt that they represent. I don't know. Perhaps as some traditionalists tell me, they are diabolical? Has there been a discussion on what people thought of parish councils in this forum, I would be interested in people's views on them?
I apologise as I am aware at perhaps there is a spirit to all that I am writing that perhaps is not all of God. I'm trying to work out these thoughts on this forum, as I think people will give me some points.
But taking a time when the Church was flourishing and comparing it to today is a start.
You know somewhere in this forum I read that the Eastern Orthodox Church is a kind of federation of Churches. I mean that's different and it has remained a broad union hasn't it. Granted these are very different times. I read that on that subject it was said that there may be a relation to the federalist like structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its co-operation with or subservience under totalitarian regimes. There could be a relation but there's a very good argument that there isn't. I'm not for a more federalist structure for the Church (although I am for a federal Ireland). Its just that other examples sheds light on ours.
I again apologise for any germ of heresy that may be here. Just trying to envision the Church today and in the future and wrestling with concepts. By the way I should say as in other posts I'm in this forum in a way to work out the theories of Desmond Fennell in 'Beyond Nationalism'. These theories will be latent in my contributions to the forum at this time, and as I said my posts are obviously not completely and an accurate presentation of his views.
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Praise be to God and thank You Lord for my faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 12:29:49 GMT
Break with Rome? I'm surprised we are still connected. You wouldn't think it given the sound of the filthy heretics running around this country.
Look at the likes of Tony Flannery or the Association of Heretic Priests. Why do you think they want a bigger break from Rome? They've done enough damage as it is.
Also, it is impossible for a genuine Catholic church to break from Rome. Since Rome is the seat of the Holy Father, God's representative on Earth, it is of utter importance to be connected to it. Calling for anything less is nothing short of Protestantism.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 14, 2015 15:33:09 GMT
"Communion with Rome is dearer than life"-- Lord Acton. Ironically a liberal Catholic himself, but not liberal enough to be wrong on this crucial matter...
|
|