Ask-A-Catholic

[ravenlorre]

As with any other question you might ask any member of any religious group -- You'll get two or three different answers from Catholicism's own, owned resources.

Yes, I know.  That's why I asked ravenlorre.  From what I've seen, he's intelligent, even-handed, and straightforward.  (I don't post much, but I'm a prodigious lurker...)


ravenlorre:
If you'll indulge me a little more, could you explain the difference between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" methods of birth control?  For example, can you tell me why the "rhythm" method is acceptable, but the Pill is not?  (Since they both have the same goal.)

Thanks for the compliments - it is really hard to know how one comes across online

Yeah - I can try.  I should tell you that although I admire the Church for being consistent on the issue of valuing life - I am not a big fan of it's stance on birth control.

From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life.  The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting. 

For me, it is splitting hairs, but I know many Catholics who really believe in the benefits of family planning.  I also have a good friend who is a conservative, fundamentalist Christian, with whom I still engage friendly dialog; seriously investigated Catholicism and discovered reasons for not joining; however, adopted the practice of rejecting all birth control accept for the rhythm method.

blessings

[zoonance]

No group is free from scandal and the recent poor press concerning priests is a tragedy that hurts all of us.  This and the unfortunate monestary births history records do suggest that human beings have a hard time with legitimate sexual expression for procreation only and that this expression has occasionally led to disasterous and unfair characterizations of the rest.  Hope these comments do not come across in anyway as accusatory.  Sexual indiscretions are no stranger to any group.   Even without catechisms for church doctrine, scripture also gives us doctrine on sexuality that is way too often ignored to the absolute shame of the church.

[ConnieLard]

I have a question.  I recently attended a contemplative retreat based on the writings of Thomas Merton and would like to find a group of people in my area of like mind.  Do most Catholic churches have groups similar to this?  Do you think most would be open to a non-Catholic joining a study group or prayer group?  I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to approach this?

Hi Connie,

I love Thomas Merton!  Unfortunately, you may have to dig a little to find groups that meet together in the Catholic Church - Protestants are the best at organizing small groups in my opinion - Catholics need to catch up.

The good news is that groups do exist - I am an oblate at a monastery in Oregon, for example.  I would recommend reading "A Cloistered Walk" by Kathleen Norris is you haven't already - she is a Presbyterian who decided to become an oblate (without becoming Catholic) and she does a nice job of explaining the process and what exactly an oblate is.  If you are interested I can give you more information, as well.  In general, monasteries are a great place to go to for personal retreats and spiritual renewal - I can give you more information about how to find one in your area if you would like.

Also, I am apart of a dynamic group in my church (you do not have to be catholic to join) that is focused on merging social service and faith - it is called Just Faith - you can look it up on the web if you are interested. 

Finally, have you heard about Lectio Divina?  It is a method of prayer that focuses around the scriptures - many Catholic Churches has groups that meet together to pray through specific scripture.

blessings

I have read "A Cloistered Walk" as well as "Amazing Grace".  Loved both.  I guess I just need to explore a little to find out what is available in my area.  I have heard/ read about Lectio Divina, but didn't know there were groups formed for the purpose of doing this.  I will check out Just Faith on the web as you suggested.  Thanks for all the suggestions.  I have long suspected that I would feel more at home in the Catholic Church or at least a more liturgical church than the one I was born into and still worship with. 

[ravenlorre]

I have read "A Cloistered Walk" as well as "Amazing Grace".  Loved both.  I guess I just need to explore a little to find out what is available in my area.  I have heard/ read about Lectio Divina, but didn't know there were groups formed for the purpose of doing this.  I will check out Just Faith on the web as you suggested.  Thanks for all the suggestions.  I have long suspected that I would feel more at home in the Catholic Church or at least a more liturgical church than the one I was born into and still worship with. 

Well, I will love hearing about you experience, whatever group you decide to get involved with.

blessings

[Quinn]

From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life.  The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting. 

I'm confused.  The rhythm method involves refraining from relations at certain times, right?  So isn't that also blocking the egg and sperm from meeting?

Yeah - I can try.  I should tell you that although I admire the Church for being consistent on the issue of valuing life - I am not a big fan of its stance on birth control.

For me, it is splitting hairs

So what I hear you saying (please correct me if I misunderstand) is that you comprehend the Church's viewpoint, but do not necessarily share that viewpoint?


BTW, I guess I should tell you that I am not asking idly.  My 19 year old daughter has been dating a sweet Catholic boy for a couple of years.  Marriage has not yet been put on the table (I hope they realize they're too young just now!) but it might well be someday.  So I have a kind of vested interest.  I appreciate all that I'm learning from you.

[mllevaleur]

From the Church's point of view, the rhythm method plans for a family, but it does not actually block a potential life.  The Pill and condoms, on the other hand, block the egg or the sperm from meeting. 

I'm confused.  The rhythm method involves refraining from relations at certain times, right?  So isn't that also blocking the egg and sperm from meeting?

If I may, I think I'll interject myself into this friendly discussion and add a bit of my own understanding!

First, one teensy distinction...the rhythm method was one that assumed a woman ovulated on day 14, and encouraged couples to time things accordingly...which was great if a woman happened to always ovulate on or around day 14.

Modern natural family planning is much more accurate, as it doesn't rely on a "day", but on signs of fertility. The couple learns to discern the signs that point to ovulation, whether that's on day 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, etc. It's the signs that matter, not the day upon which it falls.

With that said, Catholics believe that God designed the marital embrace a certain way, we say that it must be "ordered" properly.  Tied up with intercourse, naturally, is procreation and unity. Now, God designed the woman to have cycles of fertility and infertility each month. To work "with" this design, we belive, is not contrary to nature or God's plan, it is simply using what God already gave us to prudently plan family size. Each sexual act must be "ordered" properly, that is it must be open to life. If I may speak bluntly, this means that with each sexual act, a man's seed must end up in the proper place, and a woman's body mustn't have been artificially rendered infertile. This is called being "open to life," or "properly ordered towards procreation." Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean each act must be an attempt at procreation specifically, or that each eact must end in procreation. It just needs to be properly ordered towards it.

To try and rip intercourse apart from its proper order, we believe, turns what is supposed to be an act of total self-giving, into one of potential selfishness. It becomes easy to seek intercourse for one's own pleasure, and not to give oneself wholly to one's spouse, because you're holding a very intimate part of yourself back (potential fertility). There is a barrier between the couple when they hold their fertility back artificially which, we believe, prevents total unity between spouses and God.

Now, to work WITH the fertile and infertile periods of time that God Himself designed is not seen as wrong, because each act is ordered properly. Nothing artificial is blocking fertility, neither spouse is holding anything back.

So, when a husband and wife decide that this month they need to avoid pregnancy, they must decide to abstain from sexual relations during the window of fertility. This involves self-sacrifice...they're not so focused on seeking pleasure that they're willing to frustrate God's design and have intercourse in a disordered way. They'd rather work with God's design, practice self-control and decide for a time, together, to abstain. When the window of fertility closes, they may come together again, in the properly ordered way and still prudently avoid children if that is what they have discerned is best at the time.

Let me provide an analogy that might help. Say we have two people who want to lose weight.

One of them decides to watch their diet, to abstain from overindulging in food when they know they can't afford the calories, to exercise, and to lose weight in a healthy manner. It's not always easy, it involves self sacrifice, but it works with the body's natural functions.

The other decides they just like the pleasure of eating so much, that they're not going to stop overindulging, but instead they'll just eat what they want and then purposely throw up afterwards. In this way, they're getting the pleasure of indulging in overeating, but they're not holding themselves accountable for the consequences...the calories and weight gain. They're frustrating the natural design of the body, and trying to work around it in order to "have their cake and eat it too." They could just stop overindulging, and practice self sacrifice, but they simply don't want to.

We could say, "But isn't it the same in the end? They both want to lose weight, what's the difference?" Clearly, the difference is that one way is healthier, mentally and physically. (As with all analogies, this is certainly not a perfect one, but I hope it helps explain why having the same end does not mean the means to get to that end are unimportant.)

This is how the Church sees the issue of natural methods of family planning vs. artificial birth control.

Not to mention all the related health risks. It's interesting that "the pill" is the only "medicine" a woman takes that is intended to temporarily "break" something that is actually working properly.

And don't get me started on the laziness of doctors who prescribe it as a bandaid for symptoms rather than actually attempting to get to the root of the problem and fixing it. It's a bit of a hot button issue for me, as I firmly believe, all morality aside, many women aren't getting the treatment they need.

But I'll stop there, lol. I hope that helps a bit.

[mllevaleur]

What were the methods of birth control before 1930?

I imagine something like this:

Looks like it wouldn't be prudent to risk adding to our family at this time...well, abstinence it is!

A bit of a shock to our modern ears, isn't it? This probably resulted in needing much more "serious" reasons for avoiding another pregnancy than we often have today, though. I think, also, that providentialism was likely much more common. (Whatever happens, happens...we'll just take 'em as they come.)

For better or for worse.

[ravenlorre]

If I may, I think I'll interject myself into this friendly discussion and add a bit of my own understanding!

Thanks for your impute - you really added to the discussion.

blessings

[Quinn]

Stephanie, thank you for your interpretation of your Church's stance on this issue.  I wonder, would the Church ever consider an exception to the "natural

[janine]

(Isn't there an Ask-A-Catholic place to go on the Internet, live chat, just like the Ask-A-Rabbi thingy?

And do you think the answers would be any different from an Italian cardinal, a South American Jesuit and a middle-aged CYO sponsor from Poughkeepsie?)

[mllevaleur]

Stephanie, thank you for your interpretation of your Church's stance on this issue.  I wonder, would the Church ever consider an exception to the "natural

[Mere Nick]

If we aren't blessed with children in the future, we hope to adopt.

My wife has told me before about some of the various folks we know that tried to have children of their own, don't seem to be able to, adopt, and then the wife all of sudden gets pregnant.  Have you noticed it? Is there really something to that or is it just a coincidence?

[Mere Nick]

I have a couple of questions for any Catholics that might want to answer.  Some may have been asked earlier, but I tend to skip real long posts.

1.  When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice).  Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?

2.  If it is, how does it get back down here from heaven?

3.  I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion.  Is that becoming pretty widespread?

Thanks.

[ravenlorre]

1.  When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice).  Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?

Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way.  It is a mystery.  The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.

2.  If it is, how does it get back down here from heaven?

Jesus is all-present and His sacrifice is timeless.

3.  I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion.  Is that becoming pretty widespread?

The Catholic Church has always approved of baptism by full immersion and baptism by sprinkling.  Now that clean water is plentiful, new churches being built, install full baptismals. 

blessings

[CSloan]

1.  When I eat and drink the communion with others, I often think of what I think I understand Catholic teaching to be about the bread and wine (or grape juice).  Is it an actual Catholic belief that it is the genuine body and blood of Christ, the exact same body and blood that walked around over there around Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago?

Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way.  It is a mystery.  The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.

So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?

3.  I've seen reports and pictures that some Catholic congregations are starting to baptize folks by immersion.  Is that becoming pretty widespread?

The Catholic Church has always approved of baptism by full immersion and baptism by sprinkling.  Now that clean water is plentiful, new churches being built, install full baptismals. 

blessings

Theres been clean water in America for a long time, I've never heard clean water being the issue with full immersion baptism with catholics.

[Bon Voyage]

Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?

[ann]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.  

Hope she told you Catholic is Christian!!!!!

[mllevaleur]

If we aren't blessed with children in the future, we hope to adopt.

My wife has told me before about some of the various folks we know that tried to have children of their own, don't seem to be able to, adopt, and then the wife all of sudden gets pregnant.  Have you noticed it? Is there really something to that or is it just a coincidence?

I belong to an offshoot of the NFP board I mentioned above that is specifically for women dealing with infertility. I can count, right off the top of my head, about 7 or 8 couples that this happened to. It's really astounding!

[mllevaleur]

Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?

This might help answer that question as best we can. (JPII isn't exactly around to answer it himself anymore, so we can only speculate! Certainly, though, we know it isn't because he viewed Islam as equal to Christianity or just as true. We know this because he said so elsewhere.)

[ravenlorre]

Catholics believe that the actual Blood and Body of Christ is present in the form of the bread and the wine in a special way.  It is a mystery.  The idea behind it is that the sacrifice of Christ is available for all people during all time periods - during the Mass the Church participates in His one sacrifice.

So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Theres been clean water in America for a long time, I've never heard clean water being the issue with full immersion baptism with catholics.

Hmm,,,,well considering that America is not a Catholic nation and has only been around for 250 years, let alone the fact that clean running water has only been available to the masses for the past 70 or so years; and the Catholic Church has been around for 2000+; not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never opposed baptism by full-immersion; I think my point is quite plausible - you can read an entire article on the subject at newadvent.com.

I was baptized by sprinkling as a baby in the Presbyterian Church and then after being put on a guilt trip by a church that I wanted to join as an adolescent (ended up being a quasi-cult - the minister did not stop large groups of congregates from actually worshiping him), I succumbed to their demands that I be baptized by immersion.  I was later excommunicated and shunned after choosing to attend a college that the minister didn't approve of.

Anyway, I refused to get baptized ever again after that experience and I told my concerns and position to the Catholic Church and was relieved to learn that they only believe in one baptism - sprinkled or immersed.

blessings

[CSloan]

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

[ravenlorre]

Why did the Pope kiss the Koran?

Well, I can only guess, because I am not him.

John Paul the II believed in focusing on the similarities between religions, rather than on the beliefs that divide us; he also believed as CS Lewis did, that other religions contain partial truth - they are almost right in a lot of areas - they are simply missing the most important part - Christ; therefore they have a great deal to offer us.

I believe the Pope was showing respect for the similarities between Islam and Christianity and attempting to reach out to his neighbors in love.

This goes along with the post I wrote about the importance of knowing yourself well enough that you can see the world from another's perspective without taking on their belief system.  The Pope was not threatened by Islam because he knows himself and his faith in Christianity well enough that he was able to take on another perspective without agreeing with it.  He was exercising empathy and love for his neighbor.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Why did you start attending a catholic church after being a born again for 9 years?

Well, I met a Catholic women in my graduate program and I asked her why she was Catholic instead of Christian.   

Hope she told you Catholic is Christian!!!!!

LOL - yeah she told me a lot of things I didn't want to hear at the time, but I am thankful that I stuck around to listen to her and continued to investigate the Catholic Church on my own.  I've been Catholic for about 7 years now and it has been a wonderful Christian experience.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

I think you better tell me where I have been divisive first, so that I do not do it again in my explanation of Holy Orders

blessings

[CSloan]

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

I think you better tell me where I have been divisive first, so that I do not do it again in my explanation of Holy Orders

blessings

My question wasn't about protestant divisons, rejection of the apostolic order, or other reformers, it was about the practice of the table. You started addressing things I don't really see as relevant to the question. It was a yes or no thing.

[ravenlorre]

So if my protestant congregation practices the Lords Supper, would this same presence be found in the bread and fruit of the vine?

No.

Without getting into all this divisiveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

  Part 2, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 1, SubSection 1, Heading 2

1142: 12 Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. 13 The ordained minister is, as it were, an "icon" of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop's ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.

Holy Orders is the authority of the Keys, given by Christ to Peter, to continue ordaining priests and bishops in the succession of the Apostolic Church.  The Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican Churches retain Holy Orders today  The Priesthood is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist.

My question wasn't about protestant divisons, rejection of the apostolic order, or other reformers, it was about the practice of the table. You started addressing things I don't really see as relevant to the question. It was a yes or no thing.

Sorry I gave you some history and context - I will try to be as concrete and literal in my answers as possible in the future.  Of course, if that is really what you are looking for - why ask me?  You can always find pure Catholic doctrine in a number of online Catechisms?

blessings

[CSloan]

Of course, if that is really what you are looking for - why ask me?  You can always find pure Catholic doctrine in a number of online Catechisms?

If your not interested in discussing these topics with me, I understand.

[mllevaleur]

Holy Orders is the authority of the Keys, given by Christ to Peter, to continue ordaining priests and bishops in the succession of the Apostolic Church.  The Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican Churches retain Holy Orders today  The Priesthood is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist.

Actually, due to changes in their rite of ordination and core beliefs, Anglican Orders are no longer considered valid or apostolic by the Catholic Church.

There's a pretty good summary of why that is and more about Anglican Orders on New Advent. 

[mllevaleur]

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

Catholics believe that in order for a valid sacrament to occur, a validly ordained priest must perform the consecration of the Eucharist.

[CSloan]

Not according to Catholic teaching because most churches that came out of the Reformation did not retain Holy Orders (priesthood passed down from Jesus to Peter - Anglicans are the exception in this case).  Orthodox Churches also retained Holy Orders during the schism of 1045 AD.  Without Holy Orders, the communion meal remains merely symbolic of the Lord's Supper.  Although, Luther stopped short of believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (that Christ is only appearing as bread and wine), he taught that the Spirit of Christ was in the Eucharist in a special way.  Later Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox and Wesley believed that the Lord's Supper was symbolic.

Without getting into all this divisveness about protestants and reformers, can you explain what the "Holy Order" has to do with Lord's Table?

Catholics believe that in order for a valid sacrament to occur, a validly ordained priest must perform the consecration of the Eucharist.

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

[ravenlorre]

If your not interested in discussing these topics with me, I understand.

I am interested in our conversation; I simply want to make sure that you are receiving the information you require.  If Stephanie and I are not providing them, please refer to the Catholic Catechism.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Actually, due to changes in their rite of ordination and core beliefs, Anglican Orders are no longer considered valid or apostolic by the Catholic Church.

There's a pretty good summary of why that is and more about Anglican Orders on New Advent. 

Wow that is new to me - thanks M

blessings

[ravenlorre]

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).

We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

blessings

[CSloan]

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).

We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

blessings

I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.

[ravenlorre]

I thought we all Christians were called to the priesthood. (1Peter 2:5 and 2:9)

The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system, which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people". See also Schaff "The Principle of Protestantism, German and English" (1845).

We agree in one respect. The non-Catholic doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is not an idea that the Church rejects. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says clearly that all of God's faithful people share in the priesthood of Christ by virtue of their baptism: "Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church 'a kingdom, priests for his God and Father'" (CCC 1546, cf. Rev. 1:6, 5:9–10). Further, it says, "The whole Church is a priestly people. Through baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the 'common priesthood of all the faithful.' Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of holy orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the head in the midst of the community" (1591). In other words, the existence of a common priesthood for all God's people does not exclude a special calling for the pastors of the Church to be priests.

blessings

I've never seen a passage that that would suggest theres a higher calling for a pastor beyond being a pastor.

If the Bible doesn't contradict it and Tradition supports it; the teaching passes the muster.

blessings