Hypothetical situation for priest


#1

say a priest is riding the bus in a poor area when he witnesses a crime in progress like an assault or theft. Could he get involved and physically take down/strike the offender?


#2

[quote="notredame_999, post:1, topic:214182"]
say a priest is riding the bus in a poor area when he witnesses a crime in progress like an assault or theft. Could he get involved and physically take down/strike the offender?

[/quote]

If he was big enough:)


#3

[quote="notredame_999, post:1, topic:214182"]
say a priest is riding the bus in a poor area when he witnesses a crime in progress like an assault or theft. Could he get involved and physically take down/strike the offender?

[/quote]

It is up to the individual, just as it is for non-priests.

Why think any differently?


#4

I was just thinking about the priesthood, and even though priests are not required to take a vow of poverty, I would do my best to imitate that. Which means no personal vehicle, walking to places and taking the bus. I would also be able to evangelize that way. But that also means more chance for crime and getting involved.


#5

Diocesisan priests do not take a vow of poverty, and since they often have to visit many people and go to many places, in the US they often really need a car. Imagine if they could only do half as much because they only took busses? Think of the people who would not receive Last Rites, etc.


#6

[quote="notredame_999, post:4, topic:214182"]
I was just thinking about the priesthood, and even though priests are not required to take a vow of poverty, I would do my best to imitate that. Which means no personal vehicle, walking to places and taking the bus. I would also be able to evangelize that way. But that also means more chance for crime and getting involved.

[/quote]

Many dioceses give an allowance for the purchase of a vechicle becuase one is needed by a parish priest.

As said best in this next post.

[quote="St_Francis, post:5, topic:214182"]
Diocesisan priests do not take a vow of poverty, and since they often have to visit many people and go to many places, in the US they often really need a car. Imagine if they could only do half as much because they only took busses? Think of the people who would not receive Last Rites, etc.

[/quote]

Yes, what happens after the buses stop running and you are on call and need for a sick call at the hospital? Or you are needed asap, do you tell them they must wait for the bus schedule?


#7

A diocesan priest does not take a vow of Poverty. Priests in many religious orders do.OK, in just a few short days we’ve gone from could you be ordained, to you already ordained, in working in ministry. How time flies.:slight_smile:

I’ll play the game though. You see a crime in progress, it’s a judgment call. It depends on the circumstances. As a retired cop I can tell you, it’s often sufficient, even advisable to simply be a good witness.


#8

As a secular priest, you can join a third order or confraternity and take the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity and obediance. However, the vows for a secular priest or lay person is different than for a religious living in a community. For instance, the vow of poverty would not expect you to live without a car, but that car should not be a BMW M3. A simple plain jane parish car such as a 10 year old beige Ford Taurus would however be fine. As others have said, as a parish priest you would need a car…

Forgive me for saying it, but you do ask some very odd questions about the priesthood…


#9

[quote="jimcav, post:8, topic:214182"]
As a secular priest, you can join a third order or confraternity and take the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity and obediance. However, the vows for a secular priest or lay person is different than for a religious living in a community. For instance, the vow of poverty would not expect you to live without a car, but that car should not be a BMW M3. A simple plain jane parish car such as a 10 year old beige Ford Taurus would however be fine. As others have said, as a parish priest you would need a car...

Forgive me for saying it, but you do ask some very odd questions about the priesthood...

[/quote]

What questions did you have a problem with?
I think questioning the latin-rite practice of mandatory clerical celibacy is perfectly acceptable considering the history of a married priesthood in the latin church up into the second millenium, the existence of a traditonally minded eastern catholic married priesthood, the recent acceptance of married Anglican clergy by Pope Benedict XIV, and the significant number of homosexuals in today's Catholic Church.
In regard to Fatima, no, I do not believe the Pope has consecrated Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary. This was a deliberate compromise with communist soviet leaders aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church during Vatican II. "Blessed" John XXIII didn't even believe in Fatima according to Fr. Malachi Martin R.I.P. This was the same pope who was ordered by heaven to release the third secret by 1960, but for whatever reason he didn't, and by not doing so he screwed up.
I believe the new mass is a valid mass, but it is protestant inspired. I can say this because priests facing the people during the consecration, complete elimination of latin, stripping the alter rails, the abandonment of confession- these are all things Martin Luther strived for. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre r.i.p. articulated this very well.
I hope I have made myself clear. I really don't see my views as being radical. If my views are radical, than the whole Catholic Church before Vatican II was radical.


#10

[quote="notredame_999, post:9, topic:214182"]
What questions did you have a problem with?
I think questioning the latin-rite practice of mandatory clerical celibacy is perfectly acceptable considering the history of a married priesthood in the latin church up into the second millenium, the existence of a traditonally minded eastern catholic married priesthood, the recent acceptance of married Anglican clergy by Pope Benedict XIV, and the significant number of homosexuals in today's Catholic Church.
In regard to Fatima, no, I do not believe the Pope has consecrated Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary. This was a deliberate compromise with communist soviet leaders aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church during Vatican II. "Blessed" John XXIII didn't even believe in Fatima according to Fr. Malachi Martin R.I.P. This was the same pope who was ordered by heaven to release the threvelation third secret by 1960, but for whatever reason he didn't, and by not doing so he screwed up.
I believe the new mass is a valid mass, but it is protestant inspired. I can say this because priests facing the people during the consecration, complete elimination of latin, stripping the alter rails, the abandonment of confession- these are all things Martin Luther strived for. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre r.i.p. articulated this very well.
I hope I have made myself clear. I really don't see my views as being radical. If my views are radical, than the whole Catholic Church before Vatican II was radical.

[/quote]

You are aware that Fatima is a private revelation and is not dogma. No Catholic, not even the pope, is required to believe in it.

Also, as for the Consecration of Russia, which came from a private revelation and there for not part of the Deposit of the Faith, was done by Pope John Paul II, he stated that he did so and Sr Lucia, the visionary of Fatima, said that Heaven has accepted it. So you think Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia have lied to us?


#11

[quote="ByzCath, post:10, topic:214182"]
You are are that Fatima is a private revelation and is not dogma. No Catholic, not even the pope, is required to believe in it.

Also, as for the Consecration of Russia, which came from a private revelation and there for not part of the Deposit of the Faith, was done by Pope John Paul II, he stated that he did so and Sr Lucia, the visionary of Fatima, said that Heaven has accepted it. So you think Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia have lied to us?

[/quote]

Do you think Pope John XXIII disobeyed the will of heaven by not revealing the third secret by 1960?


#12

How many times must it be said. Fatima is a private revelation and not part of the Deposit of the Faith. No Catholic is required to believe in any private revelations.

From the Catechism…

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.
Also as a consecrated religious in the Church I refrain from sharing my beliefs on private revelations as some may view those beliefs in a different light than that of just another lay persons beliefs.

I see you failed to answer my question as to whether or not you believe that PopeJohn Paul II and Sr Lucia are liars.


#13

So you can’t comment on my question because its a “private revelation” that no catholic is obligated to believe in, but you want me to answer your question on that same revelation?


#14

[quote="notredame_999, post:13, topic:214182"]
So you can't comment on my question because its a "private revelation" that no catholic is obligated to believe in, but you want me to answer your question on that same revelation?

[/quote]

I did answer your question. The answer is no Catholic is required to believe in it and it is not part of the Deposit of Faith, it is not part of Public Revelation, so there can be no binding commands contained within it.

So no the Pope did not "disobey" as there was no binding command contained within the private revelation.


#15

[quote="ByzCath, post:14, topic:214182"]
I did answer your question. The answer is no Catholic is required to believe in it and it is not part of the Deposit of Faith, it is not part of Public Revelation, so there can be no binding commands contained within it.

So no the Pope did not "disobey" as there was no binding command contained within the private revelation.

[/quote]

THAT'S the part he seems to be having trouble with.


#16

I was just thinking the same.


#17

Acutally, according to Sr. Lucia there were numerous binding commands attached to it.

This explains it.
fatima.org/essentials/opposed/cvrup3.asp


#18

[quote="notredame_999, post:17, topic:214182"]
Acutally, according to Sr. Lucia there were numerous binding commands attached to it.

This explains it.
fatima.org/essentials/opposed/cvrup3.asp

[/quote]

Sorry, it is a private revelation that does not require belief of any Catholic.

That is a fact and so there can be no binding commands contained within it.

I also do not use web sites of suspended priests who are disobedient to the Church.

It seems that many wish to make Fatima a part of the Dogma of the Church but it is not by definition. It is a private revelation.


#19

You are contradicting Sr. Lucia herself then


#20

So technically by your logic, even the Pope himself doesn’t have to belive in Fatima?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.