Discussions I'm Following

For my own sanity, and enjoyment, I'm following two discussions.

One is on liturgy here

And the other is on the old faithful topic of Faith & Reason, here.

Both excellent topics. I have a few points I'd like to make eventually, but I have to find my copy of "Fides et Ratio" first to review some of the highlighted points.

I wrote a paper on it last year. It mainly highlighted

1. That John Paul II wanted to re-establish man's capacity to know things by reason
2. The relationship between Faith and Reason
3. And that human testimony is, in fact, a valid and reliable form worthy of trust.

Quite interesting stuff.

Post over at BeDeviant

I just posted over at bedeviant.com. The question was great, in my opinion; in few words, describe the lay vocation (stated a little differently).

I thought it was cool until it turned insanely 'non-denominational-esque'. Which is expected, since I can see that this is the trend that many Lutheran youth workers are leaning in general. I know, because I did it once too. Here is my response after reading response and response about the 'old-traditional, outdated' (and Biblical, I might add) way of doing things.

Wow. I have to say that I completely disagree with this, based on theology and experience, although it makes sense based on our differing experiences (I'm a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism and Non-denominationalism, I'm 23).

I don't mean to be a constant nag, but how do we deal with the ordained ministers of the New Covenant that are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff)? How about in James, for example, when somebody is sick, the elders are called in and not just 'normal laity'? How about the myriad of quotes from the years of the Apostles regarding them being the Bishops and the laity listening to them? What is the meaning of excommunication that the Scriptures talk about?

I believe there is more to hierarchy then some sort of 'un-cool thing of the past'. It's Biblical. Paul himself was an Apostle, a Bishop, who, precisely because he was a pastor, gave commands to people.

Lastly, if what you are saying is true, and much of it is, how do you deal with the following verses in Titus 1?
7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
9 he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
10 For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.

Sounds pretty hierarchical to me. Where is that in today's 'modern' trends?

One more thing. I can't say I "completely" disagree. Of course, as Hebrews points out, we are all priests of the New Covenant who are all supposed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Instead of getting rid of the offices which Jesus gave through Paul, we should just come to a better understanding and embracing of the lay vocation, without diminishing the beauty of the ordained ministry. Both are equally holy. Both are equally given. Both are equally necessary for the Kingdom of God. And we ought to discern which vocation Jesus gives to us and pray for the grace to accept it with courage and joy.

Now, they have great points. And yes, there was a great period of time where most of the evangelization was expected to be done by the great religious orders, like the Dominicans and the Franciscans. They did a great job, by the way. But Jesus through the Second Vatican Council reminded the Church of the gift of his Holy Spirit given in the sacraments, especially in Baptism and Confirmation, in which we are each enabled to evangelize. I think that is what the post was getting at and I highly doubt that any writer was intentionally trying to beat-down the Church specifically.

I had a good time reflecting on this, however. :)

LJCNIA.

You're kidding me

I just read a story about Bishop Morlino of the Diocese of Madison and his decision to ask a catechist in his diocese to stop teaching things that are contrary to the Catholic faith. As I'm googling the whole thing I come accross a blog post this is pro-this particular woman.

Now anti-Catholic or anti-Magestisterial commentary is not the most, well, rare thing out there in the blogosphere; it is, rather, quite rampant. Yet what got me even more in this case is that the author is not even a Catholic! So we have an Episcopalian giving her view on why the Catholic bishop should not have fired somebody who wasn't teaching Catholicism. Wow, he's really a mean guy isn't he? Please. I expect my math teacher to teach math. I expect my superviser to supervise. I also expect my Catholic bishop to teach Catholic things, whether or not they are 'nice.' If you don't like being Catholic, don't be Catholic. Nobody forces you; religion is one of those volunteer-things. Easy.

Here's the link to the story.

I thought about posting a comment, but it was posted in March. I'm a little late.

I'm a Catholic and although I don't adhere to Episcopalian teachings, I sure as Hell would not step in and tell the Episcopalians how to run their community. Back off.