I am writing this to give my opinion about bishops who are, with good reason (not witch hunt false charges), attached to the sexual abuse charges of either covering up or, equally as bad, being negligent in overseeing the purity of spiritual subordinates.
I believe every one of you who covered up or who looked the other way, or who should have investigated but did not, should offer your resignations. This is why.
Being a bishop does not, no matter how much the verbiage and process sound like it, confer higher status or spirituality. I'm saying this in comfort, not in criticism. You must not become so attached to the responsibilities, authority and prestige of being a bishop so much that you view stepping away from it as a diminishing. The highest genuine honors of serving God, and one's flock, is to be a parish priest or priest to a community, or even the contemplative life.
If any of you bishops (including ones who are not in some sort of hot water) cannot follow the imagery I am going to offer you, you have to do some prayer and soul searching.
Imagine that you are no longer serving a bishop's capacity, but you are back to being a parish priest, or one attached to a seminary in a formation capacity, or even entering contemplative service in a monastery. How much of this image makes you feel diminished? Compare this to the feeling of release and of being freed of burdens that separate you from first hand contemplation of God through celebrating the Mass, hearing confessions, prayer, etc.
It is not just humility that caused many saints, when priests, to literally flee when the role of bishop was thrust upon them. Most saints genuinely preferred being parish priests, or members of a community, or contemplatives than they did seeking that princely office. Some of them feigned madness or stupidity to avoid it ha.
If you are really in service to God and his flock, most of you should feel that if your bishop responsibilities were taken from you, that it would be a relief and that once again you are getting down to the brass tacks (American slang for back to the basics, the fundamentals). The more a person seeks being a bishop (or outside the Catholic church, giving themselves that title) the more I wonder why they are seeking it so very much. Usually the answer is that it is viewed as a promotion.
Friends, brothers, though, remember one thing. A promotion upward in human circles is usually a lateral promotion or a downward promotion away from God. Layers of artificial concerns intrude upon even the most well meaning bishop's office. If you stop thinking of a bishop's chair as being a promotion or "increased authority," you will move closer, again, to God. This is why I think this is a valuable mental imagery exercise of visualization for even well functioning bishops who are serene and capable in their calling. Once in a while remember that it's not really a promotion and, further, the most humble duties of a priest is usually that which is closest to God's heart.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Honoring always JMJ.
Showing posts with label bishops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bishops. Show all posts
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Saddened so many bishops have died in February
I have not missed the sad numerics of how many Catholic bishops have died in the past twenty days in February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Joseph_O%27Donnell Retired, 77.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_dos_Reis_Rodrigues Retired, 90.
Cipriano Calderón Polo, 81, Spanish Bishop of Thagora (1989–2003).
Sefafín Vásquez Elizalde, 86, Mexican Bishop of Ciudad Guzmán.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kim_Sou-hwan 86.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tsien_Chih-ch%27un Retired 83.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jerome_Welsh 87.
***
Yes, it is true, these were for the most part retired men blessed in their length of life.
But it is a good time to remember that few people work harder than a priest, a bishop. They rarely have "time off," say nothing of a weekend, or a holiday. For all the slagging that the Catholic Church has gotten over the few and the terrible involved in abuse and cover-up, it would be a shame to not remember that many bishops still worked tirelessly to their deathbeds, and even if retired, often celebrated Mass and constantly prayed for everyone, Christian and not, believing and unbelieving. Two of the retired bishops who passed were American.
So in twenty days seven bishops have died.
It is a good time to pray for all who have vocations, pray for more to be called to vocations, and have some thankfulness for the good priests and bishops, especially the elderly, who served with very little in return of a material nature, or of respite from the day to day responsibilities for souls. I'm not even listing here the priests and men and women religious who have died this month, but the news there is sad too, especially as a Spanish priest in Cuba was murdered, and eight nuns died (and a ninth seriously injured) in a bus crash where brakes failed, in Indonesia. Prayers for all who give so much all their lives, even when it is cut short. But today I want to especially point out those who never really had a single "day off," the elderly bishops who have served their entire lives for God and for the flock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Joseph_O%27Donnell Retired, 77.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_dos_Reis_Rodrigues Retired, 90.
Cipriano Calderón Polo, 81, Spanish Bishop of Thagora (1989–2003).
Sefafín Vásquez Elizalde, 86, Mexican Bishop of Ciudad Guzmán.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kim_Sou-hwan 86.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tsien_Chih-ch%27un Retired 83.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jerome_Welsh 87.
***
Yes, it is true, these were for the most part retired men blessed in their length of life.
But it is a good time to remember that few people work harder than a priest, a bishop. They rarely have "time off," say nothing of a weekend, or a holiday. For all the slagging that the Catholic Church has gotten over the few and the terrible involved in abuse and cover-up, it would be a shame to not remember that many bishops still worked tirelessly to their deathbeds, and even if retired, often celebrated Mass and constantly prayed for everyone, Christian and not, believing and unbelieving. Two of the retired bishops who passed were American.
So in twenty days seven bishops have died.
It is a good time to pray for all who have vocations, pray for more to be called to vocations, and have some thankfulness for the good priests and bishops, especially the elderly, who served with very little in return of a material nature, or of respite from the day to day responsibilities for souls. I'm not even listing here the priests and men and women religious who have died this month, but the news there is sad too, especially as a Spanish priest in Cuba was murdered, and eight nuns died (and a ninth seriously injured) in a bus crash where brakes failed, in Indonesia. Prayers for all who give so much all their lives, even when it is cut short. But today I want to especially point out those who never really had a single "day off," the elderly bishops who have served their entire lives for God and for the flock.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Interview with Archbishop Naumann re culture
I really enjoyed this "Interview With Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City." This type of personal, cultural and theological perspective is very important for the bishops of the Church to provide.
http://www.zenit.org/article-24301?l=english
http://www.zenit.org/article-24301?l=english
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Listen to the Bishops to understand Christ
One of the bishops made this statement at their conference press conference:
"Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis said during a press conference at the Bishops’ conference in Baltimore.
The usual people who attack Catholics have posted in "comments sections" their misunderstanding of this quotation.
The Bishops are not saying they would die to pass a law against abortion and "take away rights."
The Bishops are saying they would willingly die if their death would cause the urge and desire for abortions to end. They are not speaking of the law, since even when the laws existed so did abortions. The Bishops are saying they would give up their own life gladly if in return there was a miracle and no one wanted and desired abortions any more.
THAT is genuine Christ consciousness. Look no further for a genuine example. I, of course, feel the same way as the Bishops.
I feel great pride in their marvelous manifestation of faith and testimony for life, and congratulate them in this statement which expresses Christ consciousness more than anything else, except a statement of belief in God, which of course is always the primary testimony from any believer.
"Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis said during a press conference at the Bishops’ conference in Baltimore.
The usual people who attack Catholics have posted in "comments sections" their misunderstanding of this quotation.
The Bishops are not saying they would die to pass a law against abortion and "take away rights."
The Bishops are saying they would willingly die if their death would cause the urge and desire for abortions to end. They are not speaking of the law, since even when the laws existed so did abortions. The Bishops are saying they would give up their own life gladly if in return there was a miracle and no one wanted and desired abortions any more.
THAT is genuine Christ consciousness. Look no further for a genuine example. I, of course, feel the same way as the Bishops.
I feel great pride in their marvelous manifestation of faith and testimony for life, and congratulate them in this statement which expresses Christ consciousness more than anything else, except a statement of belief in God, which of course is always the primary testimony from any believer.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bible Reading: St. James 5:1-6
Come now, you rich, weep and howl over your miseries which will come upon you. Your riches have rotted, and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you, and will devour your flesh as the fire does. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who reaped your fields, which have been kept back by you unjustly, cry out; and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have feasted upon earth, and you have nourished your hearts on dissipation in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the just, and he did not resist you.
***
This is from the Epistle of St. James the Apostle, who was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. This is St. James "the lesser" (that means younger), not St. James the Greater, also an Apostle, whose memorial day is this week.
I hadn't intended to include a fire and brimstone kind of Bible reading tonight, but the book fell open to this section and I realized there are some good points I can make that touch on current topics (the Bible always has comfort and insight even for the most modern problems).
First, a little bit about St. James. Known as a pillar of the Christian community in the decades after Jesus, St. James also retained and demonstrated great knowledge of the Jewish roots in the Old Testament. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is known to have been at the council of Jerusalem around the year 50. St. Paul consulted with him about the Gospel. He was esteemed by the Jews and called "James the Just," yet was nonetheless martyred by them in the spring of 62.
And so, you can read this letter, this Epistle written by the man who was also Bishop of Jerusalem, and see that there are elements that already demonstrate the "teaching" role of a bishop in his diocese. So you could view the section that I cite above as kind of the "fire and brimstone" part of one of his sermons as part of exhortation and instruction through his diocese. So you can see that already around three decades after the Lord Jesus Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, St. James was visibly performing a role that we see in Catholic bishops today. This is another example of the continuity of the Church as established by the Apostles and its organization. Think about it. Here is one of the Apostles, bishop of the city where Jesus had been crucified just several decades prior. St. James the Greater had been martyred (the first of the Apostles to so die) in the year 42, so it was a continually hazardous place, the city that was the very cradle of what would be the Catholic Church through the presence of Jesus Christ. I'll return to that point after first discussing some of the commentary about this passage that I'm citing here.
The most important point is that while it is vehement it is not an "anti the rich" sermon. It is an anti the unjustly rich sermon. St. James is criticizing the rich who do not pay the wages due to their employees and he is also criticizing the rich who hold money back when it could be put to good use. So this text cannot and should not be cited as justification for either side of the so called "prosperity Gospel" debate. It does not condemn people who are rich; it condemns the people who are unjustly rich. Likewise, though, it does not endorse being rich because of some argument that God wants people to make as much money as possible. Clearly St. James recognizes that morally correct wealth relies on fair and prompt payment to the workers and active use of the wealth for good and charitable purpose on earth. This is what he means by not storing it up, it rusts, and so forth. St. James is not saying that the rich cannot have holdings or savings. But he is strongly implying that their wealth must be refreshed and used in the community, and not hoarded.
Doesn't it make you wonder if there had been some scandal or some specific outrageous cheating of the poor workers by the wealthy that inspired this part of what sound much like a sermon? I point this out to remind you that yes, that was probably the case, just as how bishops speak out, often making real waves (like in the Eucharist controversies) in response to specific events within their diocese. The difference is that these would not be wealthy Christians that he is railing against, as in his flock, but these are more "social injustice" commentary toward wealthy merchants and landholders in Jerusalem. Remember, the early Christians, most especially the Apostles, were always simultaneously preaching to their early fledgling Christian flock and to evangelize and hope to convert the large majority around them of Jews and Gentiles. So early "sermons" by the Apostles always had two audiences at the same time: the small numbers of faithful believers and the huge numbers of those who still opposed them, or who had not heard and accepted the word yet.
This is why notice how very neatly St. James concludes this section with reference to "the just" who was condemned and put to death but did not "resist you." St. James is clearly aligning Jesus, who meekly and without resistance had everything, including his life, taken from him with the desperately poor workers who are deprived of their wages by people who do have the means to pay them. This is very astute preaching if you remember that indeed his audience would be both the converted but especially the not yet converted. This section is undoubtedly representative of his actual words on a number of occasions where he preached. You can also just with this small analysis of his words here understand how the Jews might have admired his sense of justice, hence giving him that nickname of "James the Just," yet still be driven to martyr him because of their disbelief in the Christian doctrine.
I hope that this is helpful at once again showing how a reader of scripture can glean a lot of insight into what it would have been like "looking over the shoulder" of Jesus' Apostle who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Returning to that topic, I want to remind you that what Jesus essentially said to Peter is that wherever you establish yourself, that is where I will build my church. So Peter, after a time as Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, to the heart of the Empire to evangelize, and established the bishop's seat in Rome. Therefore as Bishop of Rome this is where Peter established the Church, and the Papacy. Jesus gave the physical placement of the heart of the future Church within a person, a man, to establish, not the sentimental or spiritual location. This is why Rome is the home of the Papacy and the Vatican, and not Jerusalem, where one might have otherwise assumed. I thought that comparing St. James being Bishop of Jerusalem with Peter's movement to Antioch and then Rome to be Bishop of Rome, and hence the first Pontiff, would make the organization of the very earliest Church and its continuity into its present form be easier to see and, honestly, to admire. Jesus knew what he was doing when he sent the Apostles out to become what would be the role models and actuality of bishops, while one man, Peter, would be the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself where he established his staff, which would be... Rome!
***
This is from the Epistle of St. James the Apostle, who was one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. This is St. James "the lesser" (that means younger), not St. James the Greater, also an Apostle, whose memorial day is this week.
I hadn't intended to include a fire and brimstone kind of Bible reading tonight, but the book fell open to this section and I realized there are some good points I can make that touch on current topics (the Bible always has comfort and insight even for the most modern problems).
First, a little bit about St. James. Known as a pillar of the Christian community in the decades after Jesus, St. James also retained and demonstrated great knowledge of the Jewish roots in the Old Testament. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and is known to have been at the council of Jerusalem around the year 50. St. Paul consulted with him about the Gospel. He was esteemed by the Jews and called "James the Just," yet was nonetheless martyred by them in the spring of 62.
And so, you can read this letter, this Epistle written by the man who was also Bishop of Jerusalem, and see that there are elements that already demonstrate the "teaching" role of a bishop in his diocese. So you could view the section that I cite above as kind of the "fire and brimstone" part of one of his sermons as part of exhortation and instruction through his diocese. So you can see that already around three decades after the Lord Jesus Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, St. James was visibly performing a role that we see in Catholic bishops today. This is another example of the continuity of the Church as established by the Apostles and its organization. Think about it. Here is one of the Apostles, bishop of the city where Jesus had been crucified just several decades prior. St. James the Greater had been martyred (the first of the Apostles to so die) in the year 42, so it was a continually hazardous place, the city that was the very cradle of what would be the Catholic Church through the presence of Jesus Christ. I'll return to that point after first discussing some of the commentary about this passage that I'm citing here.
The most important point is that while it is vehement it is not an "anti the rich" sermon. It is an anti the unjustly rich sermon. St. James is criticizing the rich who do not pay the wages due to their employees and he is also criticizing the rich who hold money back when it could be put to good use. So this text cannot and should not be cited as justification for either side of the so called "prosperity Gospel" debate. It does not condemn people who are rich; it condemns the people who are unjustly rich. Likewise, though, it does not endorse being rich because of some argument that God wants people to make as much money as possible. Clearly St. James recognizes that morally correct wealth relies on fair and prompt payment to the workers and active use of the wealth for good and charitable purpose on earth. This is what he means by not storing it up, it rusts, and so forth. St. James is not saying that the rich cannot have holdings or savings. But he is strongly implying that their wealth must be refreshed and used in the community, and not hoarded.
Doesn't it make you wonder if there had been some scandal or some specific outrageous cheating of the poor workers by the wealthy that inspired this part of what sound much like a sermon? I point this out to remind you that yes, that was probably the case, just as how bishops speak out, often making real waves (like in the Eucharist controversies) in response to specific events within their diocese. The difference is that these would not be wealthy Christians that he is railing against, as in his flock, but these are more "social injustice" commentary toward wealthy merchants and landholders in Jerusalem. Remember, the early Christians, most especially the Apostles, were always simultaneously preaching to their early fledgling Christian flock and to evangelize and hope to convert the large majority around them of Jews and Gentiles. So early "sermons" by the Apostles always had two audiences at the same time: the small numbers of faithful believers and the huge numbers of those who still opposed them, or who had not heard and accepted the word yet.
This is why notice how very neatly St. James concludes this section with reference to "the just" who was condemned and put to death but did not "resist you." St. James is clearly aligning Jesus, who meekly and without resistance had everything, including his life, taken from him with the desperately poor workers who are deprived of their wages by people who do have the means to pay them. This is very astute preaching if you remember that indeed his audience would be both the converted but especially the not yet converted. This section is undoubtedly representative of his actual words on a number of occasions where he preached. You can also just with this small analysis of his words here understand how the Jews might have admired his sense of justice, hence giving him that nickname of "James the Just," yet still be driven to martyr him because of their disbelief in the Christian doctrine.
I hope that this is helpful at once again showing how a reader of scripture can glean a lot of insight into what it would have been like "looking over the shoulder" of Jesus' Apostle who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Returning to that topic, I want to remind you that what Jesus essentially said to Peter is that wherever you establish yourself, that is where I will build my church. So Peter, after a time as Bishop of Antioch, went to Rome, to the heart of the Empire to evangelize, and established the bishop's seat in Rome. Therefore as Bishop of Rome this is where Peter established the Church, and the Papacy. Jesus gave the physical placement of the heart of the future Church within a person, a man, to establish, not the sentimental or spiritual location. This is why Rome is the home of the Papacy and the Vatican, and not Jerusalem, where one might have otherwise assumed. I thought that comparing St. James being Bishop of Jerusalem with Peter's movement to Antioch and then Rome to be Bishop of Rome, and hence the first Pontiff, would make the organization of the very earliest Church and its continuity into its present form be easier to see and, honestly, to admire. Jesus knew what he was doing when he sent the Apostles out to become what would be the role models and actuality of bishops, while one man, Peter, would be the Vicar of Jesus Christ himself where he established his staff, which would be... Rome!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Converting bishops would show huge humility
Any of the Church of England priests who are married can convert to Catholicism and take orders. However, married bishops cannot. The fact that certain Church of England bishops would lead their flocks to communion with the Catholic Church, knowing that they cannot remain bishops, is a HUGE example of pious humility.
Think of how these bishops would "follow Christ" to the Catholic church, bringing their flocks, and then having to lay down their apostolate as bishops, and become priests again, do so with gladness and in service of God. That would be a remarkable statement and a role model for the century, really. Why do I say that? Because it is exactly an antidote to the heretical grasping of the priesthood by those who are not able to be priests (the so called "women" priests) who do so just for the "power" and because it's "their right." What an impressive counter demonstration of truly living one's vocation. It is exactly what I was blogging about a few days ago when I pointed out that many of the holiest saints fled the responsibility of being bishop (or even pope) when it was repeatedly offered to them. To keep one's eyes on Christ, and on the flock, regardless of where one is in the so-called "power hierarchy" would be a remarkable demonstration and role modeling for all Christians, in truth.
Prayers for those and their flock who are exploring this journey "back home" "to Rome."
Think of how these bishops would "follow Christ" to the Catholic church, bringing their flocks, and then having to lay down their apostolate as bishops, and become priests again, do so with gladness and in service of God. That would be a remarkable statement and a role model for the century, really. Why do I say that? Because it is exactly an antidote to the heretical grasping of the priesthood by those who are not able to be priests (the so called "women" priests) who do so just for the "power" and because it's "their right." What an impressive counter demonstration of truly living one's vocation. It is exactly what I was blogging about a few days ago when I pointed out that many of the holiest saints fled the responsibility of being bishop (or even pope) when it was repeatedly offered to them. To keep one's eyes on Christ, and on the flock, regardless of where one is in the so-called "power hierarchy" would be a remarkable demonstration and role modeling for all Christians, in truth.
Prayers for those and their flock who are exploring this journey "back home" "to Rome."
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wow, am I sick of the subject...
... and have been for a long time.
Every time some "feminist" plasters her face all over the press and the pulpit about her "rights" it's yet another time it's not about her humble and pious love of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It's like in their list of things to care about, humility and love of God is at the bottom of the list, instead of the top.
I know it is a hard statement to make, to basically attack someone's faith, but I'd have to be an idiot and blind to not see what the motivations of these people are. I do not doubt their belief in God, but they obviously think he is something to be manipulated and "interpreted." And that is as bad, honestly, as no belief at all, because if you are a "church leader" and hold that viewpoint, you lead others astray from the core understanding that God is if anything not manipulable or changeable. That is the whole point about God: he is unchanging forever and ever.
Every time some "feminist" plasters her face all over the press and the pulpit about her "rights" it's yet another time it's not about her humble and pious love of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It's like in their list of things to care about, humility and love of God is at the bottom of the list, instead of the top.
I know it is a hard statement to make, to basically attack someone's faith, but I'd have to be an idiot and blind to not see what the motivations of these people are. I do not doubt their belief in God, but they obviously think he is something to be manipulated and "interpreted." And that is as bad, honestly, as no belief at all, because if you are a "church leader" and hold that viewpoint, you lead others astray from the core understanding that God is if anything not manipulable or changeable. That is the whole point about God: he is unchanging forever and ever.
Church of England: chickens on roost approach
Not surprisingly they are determined to have "women bishops."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2264484/Church-of-England-set-to-split-over--women-bishops.html
***
Here's the problem. It's not a faith to these people, and it's not about God or Jesus Christ, it's about the church as a corporate entity with "power" to be obtained as the "ladder" is climbed. Don't believe me? Read this snip:
Dr Rowan Williams took to the floor of the debating chamber and said he had "not very comfortably" come to the conclusion that provisions must be made for traditionalists.
He said: "I am deeply unhappy with schemes or solutions which involve the structural humiliation of women, who are elected to the episcopate and end up haggling about the limits to their authority."
"Humiliation" of women? "Limits to their authority?" There's the difference between the true Catholic Church and those who schismed in a nutshell. Those who schismed from the Catholic Church claim that Catholics are all about "heirarchy" and "power," but that is a lie and is actually projecting onto Catholics their own schismatic unconscious value system. Non denominationals want to "form" their "own" churches, and intepret the Bible their "own" way. Church of England "feminists" want "a piece of the pie," just like they were greedy executives crawling up the pay scale. It's disgusting.
If you spend any time reading about the saints during the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church, you will find many examples of extremely holy men who RAN from being given the Bishop rank. I can flip through my encyclopedia of saints and come up with examples very quickly. There is a long and solid, consistent history of saintly men, many of whom were miracle workers or mystics, who ran from having the "next rung on the ladder" thrust upon them, not because they could not "handle the job" but because to them, the life is all about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Few men have "angled" for "the top job," which is why when a Pope is named he goes to "the Crying Room" to robe.
The lack of Christ orientation and lack of humility in the Church of England ASTOUNDS me. That they openly refer to it as the glass ceiling power grabbing power ladder climbing game ought to be the source of deep shame for all of them, yet obviously, it is not. What a disgrace. I hope that many "traditionalists" (aka "the faithful") will come to Rome.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2264484/Church-of-England-set-to-split-over--women-bishops.html
***
Here's the problem. It's not a faith to these people, and it's not about God or Jesus Christ, it's about the church as a corporate entity with "power" to be obtained as the "ladder" is climbed. Don't believe me? Read this snip:
Dr Rowan Williams took to the floor of the debating chamber and said he had "not very comfortably" come to the conclusion that provisions must be made for traditionalists.
He said: "I am deeply unhappy with schemes or solutions which involve the structural humiliation of women, who are elected to the episcopate and end up haggling about the limits to their authority."
"Humiliation" of women? "Limits to their authority?" There's the difference between the true Catholic Church and those who schismed in a nutshell. Those who schismed from the Catholic Church claim that Catholics are all about "heirarchy" and "power," but that is a lie and is actually projecting onto Catholics their own schismatic unconscious value system. Non denominationals want to "form" their "own" churches, and intepret the Bible their "own" way. Church of England "feminists" want "a piece of the pie," just like they were greedy executives crawling up the pay scale. It's disgusting.
If you spend any time reading about the saints during the two thousand year history of the Catholic Church, you will find many examples of extremely holy men who RAN from being given the Bishop rank. I can flip through my encyclopedia of saints and come up with examples very quickly. There is a long and solid, consistent history of saintly men, many of whom were miracle workers or mystics, who ran from having the "next rung on the ladder" thrust upon them, not because they could not "handle the job" but because to them, the life is all about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Few men have "angled" for "the top job," which is why when a Pope is named he goes to "the Crying Room" to robe.
The lack of Christ orientation and lack of humility in the Church of England ASTOUNDS me. That they openly refer to it as the glass ceiling power grabbing power ladder climbing game ought to be the source of deep shame for all of them, yet obviously, it is not. What a disgrace. I hope that many "traditionalists" (aka "the faithful") will come to Rome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
