Pope may allow married men as priests.

gordon 2

Senior Member
#2
There is a willingness in the church to think outside of the box now, to experiment in new ways to minister, especially in the face of dominant secularism -- the new ism of society and cultures along with the present shortages of candidates to the clergy. Some of this change is due to necessity and some is simply feeling out what works in a world with a new ( historically new) and ingrained way of thinking and being. Much more than before new ways of doing things are due to other than clergy doing them presently out of necessity. Lay ministers are doing more work in the church now than ever before. For example clergy are doing less funerals than previously the case and tradition. Lay ministers and deacons are doing them more and more... etc...
 
Last edited:

hobbs27

Senior Member
Thread starter #3
There is a willingness in the church to think outside of the box now, to experiment in new ways to minister, especially in the face of dominant secularism -- the new ism of society and cultures along with the present shortages of candidates to the clergy. Some of this change is due to necessity and some is simply feeling out what works in a world with a new ( historically new) and ingrained way of thinking and being. Much more than before new ways of doing things are due to other than clergy doing them presently out of necessity. Lay ministers are doing more work in the church now than ever before. For example clergy are doing less funerals than previously the case and tradition. Lay ministers and deacons are doing them more and more... etc...
Thats an interesting point of view. This makes me wonder just how much tradition is actually setup in what was historically new at the time?

The Catholic church was created in the third century ad, so that was a lot of time from the infant first century Jewish cultured church to the third century Hellenistic period....thats a lot of cultural change and that could always present problems in understanding the original intent of scriptures.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
#4
Thats an interesting point of view. This makes me wonder just how much tradition is actually setup in what was historically new at the time?

The Catholic church was created in the third century ad, so that was a lot of time from the infant first century Jewish cultured church to the third century Hellenistic period....thats a lot of cultural change and that could always present problems in understanding the original intent of scriptures.

Tradition in the cult has always changed in the church. (However tradition in formulating what is truth has not.) For some change is too quick for some too slow. Change was the same with the religious or the Hebrews... their laws and practices changed with time and were not fixed from the days of Moses as we somethings would tend to understand. I think historians point out that laws and practices were added as the Israel went along, although core beliefs and understanding were maintained for the most part.

I'm not aware of this change ( 3ed century) you indicate from the perspective of how people organized as to what was true and what was not, as is the case today with Secularism's discipline of reason and science and the Christian or Jewish dependence on an alliance with the divine.

Simply the world, nations, cultures and the ways of understanding or appreciating "what is" changes. The change in today is like a glazier slipped off the polar cap so impressive as to change the land geography, only the geography is reality and the polar cap slipped of is the ism come about by the scientific method and dependence on the physical senses only as assessment tool along with reason as only reliable. The witness of God or the testimony of the church does not change but since the world changes, the means of witness can change and has changed and will change again.

Where you use the intent of scripture, I would sub God's intent or intent of God because we do not witness to the scripture, we witness of the living God . ( That is the The Lively One that is personally met by the individual believer from which we get our license to understand reality.)

I think I get your point however... The church has to minister outside of the box B) when no one thinks or lives in the box B) anymore and have all congregated to box C. So the church has to adapt to the lay of the new world.

I think that box C today is secularism, not as a movement, as a way of understanding existance which has fully captured the world. It is an ism ( a new one) that has so consumed the human spirit that it is very very difficult to impress other than to a few that it is simply a dogma unable to take in and determine all of truth an that indeed all of reality is taken in by man's alliance with God-- the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus the Messiah, the only Holy Spirit.... to be specific.

Question: Do you think the scientific method ( the discipline) as we know it today is fixed for all time?
 
Last edited:

hobbs27

Senior Member
Thread starter #5
Yes, and another underlying point is. The study of ancient Hebrew language, and cultures may be more trustworthy in understanding the scriptures than accepting any long term traditions in any church.

Even the most traditional has changed in important doctrines such as salvation and Baptism.
 
#6
Churches of all denominations change from their beginnings to some extent. More than others as I can't see the Baptists ever getting rid of baptizing.
Some Churches do have women preachers that never had them in the past.

Getting back to the OP, I wonder if if has something to do with some of the child abuse cases? It could be the Pope figures they are losing out on a lot of very qualified clergy.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
#7
Churches of all denominations change from their beginnings to some extent. More than others as I can't see the Baptists ever getting rid of baptizing.
Some Churches do have women preachers that never had them in the past.

Getting back to the OP, I wonder if if has something to do with some of the child abuse cases? It could be the Pope figures they are losing out on a lot of very qualified clergy.
I think that the catholic celibate clergy has been disengaging from the church long before the child abuse cases came to light. The disengagement started in the 1960s and was on full swing in the 70s.

I don't expect that many married or celibate candidates, nor their families, will jump at the call to the clergy any time soon. In other words I don't think many married candidates will suddenly appear on the scene.

The parents of today are more guarded than in the past regards the promotion of the ministry to their children for many reasons. I think that for those parents who are in Christ, they see a real risk that being clergy today is casting individuals into a life of complexity and frustrations which some come out of with injured spirits --- to the point of being worse off when they walk out then when they went in.

Paul's model for the clergy in 2 Timothy is interesting in that it counters spirit injuring worldly lust. Secularism today does the same thing. Both models ( the covenant with God model) and the secularism ( covenant with reason and science model) have the greater good as the focus to action. And each views the other's model to be error. As far as the church is concerned the powers and the principalities have changed perhaps... It is not uncommon today that people ( believers) believe that the works of faith don't need the church any longer... to appreciate the motivations for such works or to perform them. The risk however is that these works might be seen to testify to man himself, that through his wits alone and without God that man is on a level foundation.

In many ways the church is and has been fighting windmills since the mid 20th century...
 
Last edited:
#8
Churches of all denominations change from their beginnings to some extent. More than others as I can't see the Baptists ever getting rid of baptizing.
Some Churches do have women preachers that never had them in the past.

Getting back to the OP, I wonder if if has something to do with some of the child abuse cases? It could be the Pope figures they are losing out on a lot of very qualified clergy.
I would say more that the child abuse cases are perhaps a symptom of the unhealthy and unnatural practice of forced celibacy. It is not a natural state for a human being, and acting against your instincts for an extended time can cause issues, IMO.
 
#9
Celibacy is a works related thing like fasting or wearing long sleeve shirts in the summertime as a way of self-repentance.

I guess if one can pull it off it may make one "something" but I'm not sure what. Irritable at the very least.

I would agree that short term sacrifices would be OK but not long term ones.
 
#10
Celibacy is a works related thing like fasting or wearing long sleeve shirts in the summertime as a way of self-repentance.

I guess if one can pull it off it may make one "something" but I'm not sure what. Irritable at the very least.

I would agree that short term sacrifices would be OK but not long term ones.
Except that wearing long-sleeved shirts doesn't contradict your second-strongest built-in human instinct. Fasting isn't comparable unless you make it permanent. :)
 
#11
Except that wearing long-sleeved shirts doesn't contradict your second-strongest built-in human instinct. Fasting isn't comparable unless you make it permanent. :)
Paul said "it’s better to marry than to burn with passion."
Maybe some individuals have this gift but as you mentioned, most don't.
 

Israel

Senior Member
#13
In Christ there is neither clergy nor laity.
 
Last edited:

Israel

Senior Member
#15
We are all born again residents...in a house built by One.
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
#16
We are all born again residents...in a house built by One.
Ok... and I'm willing to micro and macro manage in tongues, but we are called to testify...as a house. So who has the last word on the order of interpretation and worship, on testimony?

And who serves the poor and who serves the rich that are poorer after the feasts?

Is it common in medicine that a nurse is to over rule the doctor. And the doctor is he to lord it over those to be served? Who advocates for the sick?

I think the house's assembly is needful of a president... so that as all testify to God it falls orderly on those being ministered to.
 

Israel

Senior Member
#17
Ok... and I'm willing to micro and macro manage in tongues, but we are called to testify...as a house. So who has the last word on the order of interpretation and worship, on testimony?

And who serves the poor and who serves the rich that are poorer after the feasts?

Is it common in medicine that a nurse is to over rule the doctor. And the doctor is he to lord it over those to be served? Who advocates for the sick?

I think the house's assembly is needful of a president... so that as all testify to God it falls orderly on those being ministered to.
You'd have to ask the Builder of the house.
 
Top