DeathScythe wrote:Seph, you get your own post.Negative. Trads are always suspicious of priests and bishops who don't want to dress like priests and bishops. For Catholics, it's not just a job, it's a state of being, an "ontological" change. When priests don't want to dress the part, it usually means they are pushing the idea that there is not much difference between clergy and laity.
What if they don't dress the part, but also aren't pushing the idea of clergy and laity being the same? For instance, if the message is that the clothes don't make the faith, or the clergyman? I know; I have a protestant mindset.
One blog I follow is by a Catholic priest. He tells stories about how when he travels, he wears the uniform because in past times, he has been approached by those who've sought spiritual advice, confession, etc. The uniform isn't about, "Oh, look at me, I'm a priest!" but rather, "If you need help, I'm a priest."
Pushing deacons as subs for priests... Right now this year, there is a synod that is going to meet in South America where it is expected that married priests will be on the agenda, allowing men of good character (read married deacons, etc.) to join the priesthood.
I'm getting the impression that deacons are allowed to be married, but above that rank, you're not? (I really know nothing.) I'm also getting the impression that you would be similarly opposed to priests being married. This is because Jesus wasn't married? Anyway, if the receptive individuals you find in an indigenous population that you want to bring into the Catholic faith are almost exclusively married, what's the better strategy to pushing deacons?
I started working on this post from the bottom up, so scroll all the way down for my description of deacons. Men who become deacons have to be married already and if they are, they cannot progress up, they are stuck as Permanent Deacons. Single men cannot get married after becoming deacons. It is usual for them to progress on to being priests. That's correct, Jesus was not married. It's not that one doesn't want married deacons vs. unmarried deacons, it's that those who push married deacons hard usually have ulterior motives as I've noted, e.g. they object to unmarried priests, so they push married deacons until it becomes a fait accompli.
Nothing wrong with a Bible translation, if translated well. But it's not his job to be pushing /his/ version of the Faith. In the quote above, it talks about incorporating indigenous traditions. That is usually code for other less benevolent things.
This is a fundamental difference between us I wasn't expecting. Protestantism pushes a "personal relationship" with Jesus/God and you're supposed to...interpret. As far as incorporating indigenous traditions, you're probably thinking something like Santeria, while I'm thinking...Christmas falling on the Winter Solstice....Easter being named for the Saxon goddess Eostre....I'm avoiding some more controversial ones to not offend you.
Santeria, sure. Are you familiar with Santa Muerte? But I was actually thinking of things like "liturgical dance" and other things like that, half naked ladies dancing around the aisles. That is one of the stereotypes that trads immediately call to mind, having all too often seen such displays at papal masses when the pope has gone to visit somewhere where dancing may be a thing in native rituals.
Whatever he was doing, it didn't work, at least as far as spreading the Catholic Faith:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dsncr.html Scroll down to the table with figures on the numbers of Catholics, priests, religious, etc. In 1958, the year before Bishop Ruiz was appointed, the percentage of Catholics was 97.4 percent. In 2000 when he retired, it was 76.9 percent. Given the years on either side give figures in the sixties, I'm assuming that was some kind of misreporting.
That's all well and good. The Church should work to alleviate the suffering of the poor. But a priest's first duty is the saving of souls, getting his flock into Heaven. Earning the plaudits of marxists while watching the percentage of Catholics in the diocese fall by twenty or thirty percent suggests to me that he failed fundamentally as a bishop.
That is a really interesting link; I love data. Supplemental reading about Chiapas tells me that there was a lot of immigration to the region from other indigenous groups (not Mestizos, the previously converted), and the poplulation change shown here would support that.
Are there sizeable populations of unconverted natives in Central America? That's interesting.
You must consider the drastic change in the total when looking at the percentage. At no point does the number of Catholics decrease during his tenure. It actually almost doubles, from 609k at the start in 1958, to 1.18M when he leaves the Chiapas Diocese in 2000. (Remember that the Vatican puts a stop to his programs in 2002). You do see a slight drop in "Diocesan Priests", with an explosion of deacons though, to your point. You also see a major gain in "Religious Priests".
It would be nice to know what kind of religious priests those were. For instance, Jesuits are notorious SJWs. As for the almost doubling of the Catholic population while the number of diocesan priests falls, that's not so good either. That's like watching class sizes explode and making no effort to hire more teachers to bring the ratio back down. Diocesan priests are the ones who are in the trenches making sure the people have access to the sacraments, teaching people the Faith, etc.
I should probably find out what these things actually mean, and what a deacon is, for instance. We'll save that for my next post. This is long.
In the Church today, there are three levels of the clergy: deacons, priests, and bishops. Cardinals and the Pope are merely bishops who hold higher, more elevated offices. Without getting into it too deeply, deacons are there to assist priests during the Mass. They baptize and officiate at wedding I think. They can't hear confessions or perform the Last Rites when someone is dying. Men who are already married can become deacons, but single men who become deacons must remain unmarried. Deacons have for many centuries formed one step in the formation of priests. Married men were allowed to become deacons after Vatican II.