artintel wrote:
Priesthood celibacy existed for centuries in the Catholic Church and never had been a challenge as it has now. Similarly, when we look at the traditional RCs - e.g., SSPX , we see that there is no problem with the celibate priesthood quantity and quality. There is something inherently questionable with the V2-RC policy. For example who and how the trainees are processed through the vocations studies. I’ve read much literature on this – there is evidence that there’s a significant filtering process. This may also partially account for the borderline sexual orientation issues that constantly emerge; the inclusion and disqualification of members based on their social views; acceptance of the V2-RC/Modernist rather than Thomist scholastic views.
I’ve read and listened to Dr. Scott Hahn tapes and CD-based lectures to help me pinpoint his contribution. I noted that due to his professors during his original Protestant formation he acquired a less than Christian Covenant interpretation. There is a Covenant perspective in Orthodoxy – the first and second covenant, the Eucharist, the Kingdom of God foundations and pillars, and the geometric natural law foundation, which do not exist in Scott Hahn’s teachings. He doesn’t connect all the dots and always leaves the Christian waiting in expectation for something that is never delivered. Having found this, I looked for the cause and it was found in the Modernist RC subtle metamorphosis – we see the form but the content/substance has changed.
There a lot more that can be examined, and the Orthodox Christian Church must be aware of the full extent, otherwise it will succumb to the same initial and follow-up changes into a post-Christian theology.
I would say that, in the past, the Roman Catholic Church did not have the problem of today in enrolling men into the ranks as priests. Historically, there have been times when clerical celibacy was a problem (Gregorian and Lateran reforms seeking to enforce clerical celibacy), but I think if we look to the early 20th century, we find the situation in which clerical celibacy was not a major issue, and there was no priest shortage as today. Ireland alone produced thousands of priests. Nowadays, the Irish seminaries are nearly empty. .
There are some difficulties with certain aspects of the Vatican II documents (Directory on Ecumenism comes to mind), but the real problems are in the post-Conciliar documents. I think the RCC shot itself in the foot (or head) when it sought to accomplish two things: a return to the sources (ad fontes) in liturgy and theology, and an updating of the Church to better articulate the faith for modern man. There was an idea popular during and after the Council that the Tridentine Latin Mass needed to be corrected. Certain prayers had crept in that were either repetitive or unneeded. The laity were thought to not be actively involved enough, etc. Fr. Alexander Schmemann, who observed the Vatican Council, was similiar in the respect that he sought to correct the Liturgy and practices within it (e.g. infrequent communion). And the Melchite bishops too sought to bring back the vernacular for the Latins. While there were many good changes, however, they were much outweighed by disasters. In changing from Latin to the vernacular, Latin became dropped altogether, and Gregorian chant faded into oblivion. In pursuit of a \"noble simplicity\" high altars were stripped and eliminated, along with the relics contained within. Whereas before V2, the Roman Canon was the standard Eucharistic prayer, after V2 other canons were added, some created, others culled from ancient documents. At the same time, entire sections of the Offeratory were cut out. The Liturgy essentially lost its organic development and took on the form of a human construction. At the same time, the Mass was made so as not to unduly offend Protestants. This is part of what I see as an error of judgment: trying to change the church into terms translatable to modern ways of thinking.
I took a Biblical Theology class with Scott Hahn and so was exposed firsthand to his covenant beliefs. Dr. Hahn emphasized the difference between covenants and contracts in ancient culture, and how even with covenants there are different types of covenants. He also showed that the covenants in the Bible are all made on a mountain, that they contain blessings and/or curses, and how the covenant of Christ incorporates all previous covenants. It was all interesting, but it seemed to me that he was giving it way too much attention, more than other themes. I think that he gives covenants significant attention because study of the covenants played a major role in leading him to the Roman Catholic Church, if I remember correctly from his conversion story.
