A member of our community sent me a link to the "Open Tabernacle-Here Comes Everybody" blog. I was quite impressed by the dialogue on our Roman Catholic Womenpriest movement. The author provided a historical framework, which I think is quite important:
"In the very early Church, there was no distinct, set-apart clerical elite. Even as there emerged distinct roles for deacons and bishops, their roles were markedly different to those we know today. “Deacon” took their title from the Greek for “to serve”, while bishops were “overseers”, leading small local teams – with the emphasis on team work and leading. Worship was in small congregations, led by its own members, who were not professional clergy. "
"Over the centuries that followed, by a gradual process the bishops began to reserve for themselves an increasing degree of power over the rest of the Church, while the bishops of Rome asserted increasing claims to authority over the other bishops (a claim that was for a long time vigorously contested, particularly by the Eastern church.) "http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/do-it-yourself-catholicism/
"Here comes Everybody" could be the motto of the RCWP movement too!
In his book, the Future of Eucharist, Bernard Cooke observes that a new understanding of the resurrection in the Vatican ll church has broadened the church's understanding of "real presence" and helped people to appreciate Christ's dynamic presence in the believing community. According to Cooke, while individuals may have specific functions within the gathered assembly, the entire community performs the euharistic action (p. 32) If this is so, then the gathered assembly is the celebrant of Eucharist. It is the community that "does" the Eucharist, not the presider alone.
This is the reason that at Mary Mother of Jesus Inclusive Catholic Community's liturgies, the gathered assembly extends hands in blessing and recites the words of consecration with the presiders, not the presiders alone. This is also the reason that we invite the community to participate in a "dialogue homily." At our celebrations, our motto is "here comes' everybody" and, of course, this means all are welcome to receive Eucharist at the banquet because Christ's love embraces all.
Bridget Mary Meehan, RCWP
9 comments:
Sigh----head shake------
The Eucharistic celebration is the sacrifice of the whole community indeed, but it is OFFERED by the
Priest not "everybody." The priest is the one who heads and directs the worship of the community. Trying to argue that "everyone" offers the sacrifice of Mass, is like trying to argue that at an ordination, the priests ordain the candidates along with the bishop, simply becasue the priest lay hands on the candidates like the bishop does. At Mass, the priest offeres the Atonement Sacrifice, the people offer their response of thanksgiving, their sacrifice of praise.
"Everybody" does NOT consecrate the bread and the wine, the priest consecrates the bread and the wine. While the people do have a part in the Eucharistic Prayer (the acclamations) the actual consecration is proper to the role of the priest, not "everybody." (Again, see above where I use the example of priests laying hands on the ordination candidates.)
In the second place, the form of woship and governance which took place in the early Church should not be surprising. The historical context of these celebrations until about the fourth century was a Church under persecution. Consequently it is no surprise that the congregations were small, and took the form of "house churches."
As for the bishops working as a team, so what? So their leadership took the form of collegiality. What does that say except what it says? There is no one today in the Roman Catholic Communion who maintains that bishops cannot lead through collegial leadership, and no one who maintains the pope cannot do so. It is simply a matter of style. Perhaps one could argue the bishops nor pope lead in the style of leadership Vatican II called for, but that is a different argument. It seems implicit in Bridget Mary's post is that becasue the bishops functioned in more collegial way in the early Church, it therefore follows bishops did not possess the ultimate authority in the community.
What has remained consistent is that the pope exercises a primacy of jusristiction over the universal Church. What has also remained consistent is the fact that the "overseers" had supreme authority within their dioceses, or communities.
Those who are a part of the Roman Catholic Communion, recognize that the Church is indeed a "Here comes everybody" Church. However Bridget Mary, it does not follow that the roles are the same for "everybody." It does not follow that in order for "everybody" to be equal, they must have the potential to perform the same roles.
If I have spelling erros, please forgive! My spelling is, I grant, atrocious.
Unfortunately, Catholic Apologist, the Church today may claim to be truly welcoming, and to act collegially, but the simple fact is that this not the way empirically, that it presently functions.
Bishops know that the "collegial" consultations that take place with the Vatican are nearly all one way, and lower down the line, the same principle applies between bishop and priests. As for the laity, there is no consultation at all, in spite of the lip service paid to the sensus fidelium.
On the "welcome", this does not extend to gay and lesbian Catholics who dissent in good conscience with the Church;s stated teaching, nor does the "welcome" to women include any welcome to ministry - which is why the Womenpriests movement became necessary.
Bridget Mary, as the writer of the Open Tabernacle piece on womenpriests, and as the promoter of the tag line "Here Comes Everybody", I am delighted to find that we are clearly on much the same wavelength.
I would like to actively promote your blog at the Open Tabernacle, and also to copy your accompanying reflection on Eucharistic Ministry there. Please email me if you do NOT want this extra exposure, or indeed if you would like to co-operate more actively with us.
Terence,
I am not disputing whether or not the Church acts collegially. Certainly Vatican II called for a more collegial approach, and arguably the Church has some growth to do on that front. My overall point, which you seem to have missed- was that whether or not the bishops in union with the pope act "Collegially" or "Authortarian" does not impact the fact that they are the rightful leaders of the Church, and we are to obey them.
As for "Welcoming" gay and lesbian couples who "Dissent from Church teaching in 'good' conscience" (As if one could do such a thing) I am not sure what you mean. Are there any Catholic Churches which you are aware that have refused gay and lesbian couples entrance to Mass? It is one thing if they are going to come in and cause a scene, but if they come to Mass and sit quielty like everyone else, they are not going to be asked to leave. So what exactely do you mean when you say the Church is not welcoming to them? I mean I for one am not accustomed to going around to the people gathered for Mass and asking them their sexual orientation, and I am not aware of priests or congregants who do so. Even if I knew a gay or lesbian couple was present, I am not going to ask them to leave, nor am I aware of priests or congragants who would!
That being said- I think what you really mean is that the Catholic Church does not condone their life style or life choices. If that is what you really mean, that is true, however what would you like The Church to do about that? By what authority is The Church to change it's teaching? The Church is not like the American Government. The Church does not govern by the consent of the governed, nor does she take a poll and ask what she should teach and believe. The Church exists to serve, protect, and hand on the Holy And Inerrant Word of God. The Church can't just go around changing it's Faith simply becasue the Faith it professes is not in vogue!
The bishops may be the "rightful leaders" of the Church, but that does NOT mean they are always right in everything they say. Church teaching itself recognises the importance of conscience, and that where we dissent in good conscience we have an obligation to disobey.
On gays and lesbians, "welcome" should be more than just permission to come in, but recognition that double standards are applied to them and to others who dissent on say, contraception; that serious and reputable theologians and biblical scholars are challenging the view that Scripture opposes loving same sex relationships; and that for the first thousand years and more the Church recognised numerous gay saints and consecrated openly gay bishops.
The Church has a wide range of teachings that we are called to obey, in addition to those on sexual ethics. One of those is built on principles of justice. another on that of truth.
Terence,
Indeed, one's conscience is one's highest guide. However, people who say this tend to leave out the other part of the equation: one has a duty to form and inform their conscience according to the teaching and Faith of the Church. Seconldy, one is not free to make a decision in conscience against clear and definitive Church teaching. Conscience is a judgement about the rightness of wrongness of an act, and one may not judge an act right which the Church has judged to be wrong. This idea that Vatican II teaches that we have an obligation to "disobey" is shere nonsense.
It is true Terence that the bishops and pope are not always correct in everything they say. So what? Who said they were? The charism of infalliblity aside, we do not obey the bishops and pope becasue we think everything they say is correct, but becasue they are the rightful leaders of the Church. In short, Terence, we do not obey the bishops becasue of any merit on their part, but becasue God has willed it so.
As for gays and lesbians getting a double standard- I disagree. The Church only makes a public issue of something when absolutely required. For example- there are many pro-choice "Catholics" (I use the term "Catholic" loosely with such people) yet the Church goes after the pro-choice politicians, not the pro-choice person in the pew. Why? Becasue the pro-choice politician is PUBLIC with his sin and obstanancy, and consequently the Church must deal with this in the public sphere. It is the same with the gay or lesbian couple. The Church generally would not so anything in the public sphere unless the person forced the issue.
Generally speaking, unless a homosexual person/couple forced the hand of the Church, or dares the Church to refuse them communion or something, they are generally left alone- just like everyone else in the pew. That is my experience. I mean- yeah-- something is going to be said if a homosexual person/couple/people come to Mass and cause a disruption with their rainbow sashes, or costumes, or makeup, etc. But aside from this, priests might exhort in a general way God's teaching regarding sexuality from the pulpit, but it is up to the individual to apply it to their life. If they choose not to, my attitude is- just like any other sinner (myself included) they do so at their own spiritual risk. But priests have the duty to warn them.
Tell me Terence- if I knew you were about to fall off a cliff, and I did not warn you, would you call me intolerant, or would you expect me to at least warn you before you continued on your path?
"Apologist":
I have nothing more to say to you.
Terence,
Too bad. I was enjoying our dialog.
With all due respect, this is what I don't understand. You folks want to write what you write, but when it is challanged, you shut down and refuse to say anything. If you really believe what you write, defend it, don't shut down and "I have nothing more to say" as though someone like me is just too stupid to understand the intricacies of the issues.
Terence, if Vatican II says we may "disobey" clear and direct Church teaching "in good conscience" produce a list or lists or the document, or documents that say that. Provide references, page numbers, etc. (That would be your oppertunity to show me I am wrong Terence.)
As for the rest, I have no issue that you disagree Terence. I don't take it personally, where you seem to take it personally. Why? Why can't we have a dialog? I appreciate that Bridget Mary allows for this on her website. I have not insulted you, you have not insulted me, I was enjoying our dialog, and you shut down. Why?
Again, this is your oppertunity to vindicate your position.
I'm sorry if I offended you, That was never the intention. Nor am I unwilling to defend my views: I do that constantly at my own blog, "Queering the Church", and I also post at "The Open Tabernacle".
I just don't see that a comment thread such as this is a particularly constructive way to conduct an necessary debate, with just the two of us paying attention,and we start from such differing perspectives that we will never agree.
You believe that we must opey the bishops of the Church because they are the rulers of the Church, and God has willed it so. I simply do not accept that. My reading of Scripture and of history is that the church began with collegial decision making, and over time those with a little bit of authority gradually usurped more and more, eventually transforming teaching authority into legislative control.
The first I will accept - but also note that any good teacher will expect his students to question that with which he doe not agree, until he can be persuaded by argument or direct evidence.
The legislative authority of the Church I do not accept, as the only authority for that is their own say so. (Before you come back with the "On this rock" arguments from Scripture, there are also alternate interpretations of that passage.)
If you really do enjoy dialogue with me, you are welcome to do so at Queering the Church (http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com ) or at Open Tabernacle, ( http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/wp-admin/
where I will feel that there are also other readers paying attention.
(If I am wrong, and there are indeed other people following this little interchange with any interest, speak up, and I will continue it here after all.)
Post a Comment