Bricker, you forgot your smiley.
Everyone, let’s not derail this discussion with a separate discussion of celibacy, please.
My glib reply was going to be, “Doed he recognize them back?” 
But I actually read the link, so it looks like he does. Ignorance fought. Of course, it’s debatable whether or not these are *Roman *Catholic churches, in the most nitpicky sense.
Not very debatable. They’re in communion with the Church of Rome, which is pretty much what “Roman” means. The part of the Roman Catholic churches which follow the Western rather than the Eastern tradition is called the Latin church.
They’re already taking measures like that around here in Montana, but it’s getting to the point where even that isn’t enough: The parishes are just too far apart for it to be practical to shuttle the priests around. Some far-flung churches only get a true Mass once a month or so, with the other weeks having services using pre-consecrated hosts, and officiated over by deacons or nuns.
And the priest shortage can’t be blamed on priests being male only, nor on celibacy, given that both of those rules have been in place for many centuries, and it’s never been a problem before now.
[quote=“doreen, post:15, topic:551361”]
So name every catholic school in the country St Pius the <nth>, no problem =)
Well, yes and no. The Ukrainian, Greek, Melkite, and other Eastern Catholic churches largely use the Byzantine Rite. The church which uses the Latin Rite is called the Roman Catholic Church.
This usage needs to be carefully distinguished from the one, originated among Anglo-Catholics in England, that insists on calling that whole church in communion with the Pope, which calls itself the Catholic Church, as the Roman Catholic Church, trying to draw the distinction between that and Anglo-Catholicism. Catholics tend to get grumpy about that usage, with good reason.
I believe the reason for that was,Henry the 8th broke away from the church of Rome and set himself up as head of the Anglo Church,since the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t accept the fact that Henry had no authority to do so, they consider it no longer part of the catholic church. although I believe they do consider the ordinations valid, because of the Bishops who also broke ranks with Rome, but had authority to ordain Priests.
For the most part, yes, but any women who are ordained break the chain in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This is actually currently the single largest barrier to reconciliation between the Anglicans and Catholics (though there are also plenty of smaller barriers).
Part of being (Roman) Catholic is accepting the hierarchy of the church, from the Pope to Arch-bishop, to bishop, to priest. I’ve always taken it that the Eastern Catholic Churches maintain their own hierarchy while agreeing to all the doctrine put forth by the Pope, and part of this is a long tradition that includes using a different form of Mass (if I understand it correctly).
The Society of St Pius X was excommunicated more for their leader’s rogue bishop ordinations than their staunch traditionalism, even if those traditionalist feelings were the reason the ordinations were not approved by the Vatican. Some members broke with the society and formed a new order with the same traditionalist beliefs, but willing to accept orders from the Pope. Interestingly enough, a cousin of my mothers was ordained into SSPX just about the same time the order was excommunicated, which has led me to investigate this subject somewhat.
Congregations are in some sense free to break with church hierarchy as long as they recognize that they’re no longer Roman Catholics. Directly refusing certain orders of a superior in the church leads to excommunication, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to hell - it just means that you’re no longer a member of the RCC. Keep in mind that excommunication is not something the church confers about and makes a ruling - it is something that they state you have done yourself by violating Canon Law and are making explicit that you are no longer welcome. “Threatening excommunication” generally means “I’m going to give you another chance to do the right thing, this time making explicit that not following this particular rule is a violation of Canon Law with the effect of excommunication.” If the congregation has a strong enough case they may be able to go to the arch-bishop or higher to see if they can get a superior to their own bishop to agree with them, but I’m not sure if that kind of thing ever happens. Of course, I’m not sure if what they’re planning on doing actually is a violation of Canon Law (I’m certainly not versed at all in it), but this situation definitely could lead to some sort of schism based solely on organizational issues.
Keep in mind that while the Anglican church effectively separated from the Roman Catholic Church because Henry VIII wanted an annulment, one of the main reasons he didn’t get it was that his supposed-never-wife was the sister of the guy who effective had the Pope imprisoned. These sorts of annulments were supposedly given all the time, and effectively the only reason why the annulment didn’t happen was circumstance that had nothing to do with doctrine. Since he couldn’t get his simple adminisitrivia done correctly, he decided that the Catholic Church in England was no longer ruled by the Pope, with effectively no doctrinal changes. There certainly have been since then, and as mentioned they interfere with reconciliation, but the initial schism was almost all organization-based.
I will state that I might be completely and utterly wrong about most of this due to it being mostly personal recollection and self-investigation of the subject matter. I will gladly submit that I am wrong if someone has more experience in how these things work.
Women used to be viewed a lot differently, though (at least outside the RCC–the views on women there don’t seem to have changed much). So it might not necessarily be the direct cause (women who feel they have a vocation to the priesthood can’t be ordained) as an indirect one (people, male or female, who feel that women should be able to be priests leave the RCC).
Henry VIII also liked the idea of being able to run his own kingdom AND church without the Vatican butting in, and having the chance to seize the very wealthy assets of the RCC in England. The British monarch still remains Defender of the Faith and also Supreme Governor of the Church of England, although virtually all of her acts in that capacity are on the advice of the duly-elected secular government of the day: Supreme Governor of the Church of England - Wikipedia
It’s a contentious subject. The current Catholic position is stated in the 1896 Papal Bull issued by Leo XIII "“Apostolicae Curae”, which says that Anglican ordinations are invalid because of changes made in the ordination rites during the reign of Edward VI. So, right now, Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism have to be reordained.
What the hell kind of bullshit website is THAT??? Catholicism is an evil cult? :dubious:
I hate to tell you, but Catholics don’t worship saints. I suggest you make yourself familiar with what a saint really is, and pay attention to the second verse of the Hail Mary (“pray FOR us sinners”)
BTW, there’s a link to Jack Chick’s site at the bottom of this page. 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:
I have my issues with the church (major ones), but I was raised Catholic, and I can tell you that website is full of shit.
The complaint that Catholics worship saints is a pretty common one among other Christian denominations, especially conservative ones. IME, anyway.
That site’s pretty extreme though. If you poke arround there are links to Kent Hovind, Jack Chick (of all people!) and Texe Marrs.
Yeah, I’m just pointing out that it’s a pretty common misconception (or intentional distortion).
And, to be fair, there are a lot of self-described Catholics who get it wrong, too, and do engage in something uncomfortably close to worship of the saints.
This Is how I see it. If one asks a friend or others to pray for them or a loved one, then I would ask those who accuse Catholics of worshiping the saints: Do you then worship the person you are asking to pray for you? It is the same thing!!
Part of the problem is that when you (or your maiden aunt) loses a set of car keys, the story later gets told as: So I said a prayer to Saint Anthony, and when I turned around to pick up my sweater, THERE they were, right on the chair! And I KNOW I looked in that exact spot at least three times!
To avoid confusion over whether Catholics worship saints, the story need to go: So I said a prayer to Saint Anthony, asking him to intercede for me, and when I turned around to pick up my sweater, THERE they were, right on the chair! And I KNOW I looked in that exact spot at least three times!
'Cos, otherwise, non-Catholics think you’re talking about actually asking Saint Anthony to return your lost objects, instead of asking him to ask God to return them.
I’m curious if these same people complain if you ask your manager for a raise, since your manager isn’t the one funding your paychecks.