Listening to this in the Theogy Dept Lounge of my Liberal leaning Jesuit university. So grateful for these podcasts! Wish more of my colleagues spoke like this!
Very good dialogue! Admiring the thoughtful insights on what is happening in the universal Church today. The Rahnerian influence on the Synod on Synodality is very clear. Rahner was "the theologian" to read and study during the 1980s and 1990s in Argentina when Bergoglio was a priest and Bishop
Larry, new news..... When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. 8 And then the Lord will disclose these things,
Thanks guys, I was wondering if I was the only one that was too nauseous to vote….i was an old time Catholic democrat. The female orientation thing is the logical progression of modern feminism.
This was a great discussion, but regarding the traditionalists: I left seminary. A number of my friends left the seminary or religious Orders. Why did we leave? Because we were offered either the Pius IX traditionalist option or else the Vatican II option (which includes Communio thinkers such as yourselves). The centerpiece of this complex issue is Vatican I. Pastor Aeternus is really just absurd. It represents a dogmatic decision to make the Catholic Church an institution ordered around modern notions of power. Now the traditionalists point to Vatican I as dogma which must be upheld, along with the spirit of Pius IX which it represents. At this point the Vatican II theologians get out their earplugs and blindfolds, promptly putting them on. The impasse is obvious, but for the clear-eyed seminarian there are two options: Pius IX traditionalism, or else a Vatican II perspective unwilling to reckon with the dogmas of Pastor Aeternus. Intellectual dishonesty or intellectual dishonesty. Of my peers who left seminary, I am the only one to remain Catholic (so far). So when I hear Chapp berate the traditionalists or Howsare talk about doctrine “settled in a definitive way,” the elephant in the room is Vatican I.
How about the historical fact that the church allowed itself to be subsumed by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire? That improved the empire but it certainly damaged the spiritual vitality of the church, which is why so many headed for the desert to seek sanctity. The church has more often than not been content to cooperate with the rich and powerful in ways that are antithetical to the gospel.
I don’t know if you answer stuff, but I’ve had two thoughts regarding some of the synodality stuff. First, I wonder, considering what happened in the sixties in society, if Vatican 2 is a victim of horrible timing. In the same way, given some of those you quoted, and what I observe, if the synod is actually missing how tired we all are with modernity. And is sort of blind a deaf to the realities on the ground and will be, I hope, a victim of bad timing as well
But I have never understood why women are excluded from the priesthood? I could understand if there was some good reason for the exclusion but its very difficult to perceive. Christ didn't appoint women to leadership positions- but there were female leaders in the ancient church.
Because Jesus was a man and the priest takes on His form. It’s called in persona Christi. Also, the priest is considered married to the Church. The Church has always been referred to as a “she.” We can’t have female priests because that would be a lesbian marriage. This also explains why we don’t have male nuns. Nuns are married to Jesus. Also, Jesus did not appoint women to be apostles. I hope this helps!
In 2000 years of Church tradition, they have never been, so the real question is why should they? This question never even came up in the first 2000 years of the Church's history, when it was when there was a very clear and healthy sense that men and women are different and play different roles, and a woman can't be a priest just as a man can't be a nun or mother. This even goes back to the Old Testament Levite priesthood. But if we have to give an answer it is this: priesthood is associated with fatherhood, it is a distinctly male way of being in which you entirely give yourself to something that is outside of you. The priest stands in an office and is entirely replaceable. He is effaced, his own person does not matter. This is entirely incompatible with motherhood, a deeply personal and intimate way of being which is reserved for the holiest and most gracious created beings to ever grace this earth: Mary and the Church herself. So in fact is BENEATH women to be priests. They are not being deprived of a position, but spared from a role of fatherhood that is beneath their motherly dignity.
To anyone reading - as you a Catholic you are required to exercise your right to vote. See the Catechism #2240 My recommendation is Trump. In this episode, they laugh a lot about Trump, but Trump is directly responsible for the overturning of Roe v Wade, which easily makes him the most effective pro-life politician of this century by a wide margrin.
Could you give me an example of an FSSP or FSSPX priest, or one from another traditionalist order who has the positions that you argue they gave? Their sermons are typically about finding salvation. I don’t know who these rad-trads are that you criticize.
You are talking about the ideal of the church but the ideal is almost never lived out. Yes, the charism of the bishop is to be docile to the spirit, but just look at church history! Just look at Pope Francis, for goodness' sake! What I have observed from most of the priests and bishops I have known is a worldly sense of power.
I’m afraid you guys are just too curmudgeonly to appreciate the radiant example of enculturation that Luce represents. I can stand criticism of Francis but for God’s holy sake leave Luce out of it
Good to see you back, Dr. Chapp. 38 minutes in and have a few disagreements already that I won't get into except for one: the revisited "we need to make the Church WEIRD again" discourse. My response: so do it. There's a younger right-wing movement consisting largely of men in their 20s and 30s that collectively self-identifies as the "dissident right." It's a term almost too broad to be meaningful, and encapsulates more an attitude toward the current regime (and even more broadly toward modernity) than a list of proposals. While they broadly support Trump, they aren't MAGA in an explicit sense (at least, it isn't their political priority) as they know there's more interesting things going on. This "group" (if you want to call it that) more or less falls into two sides: the Christian side (which contains a lot of younger Catholics) and the Nietzschean/vitslist side, which has largely influenced many on the Christian side (and vice versa). On the Christian side, figures like Auron MacIntyre, the Distributist. On the vitalist side, figures like Bronze Age Pervert, Lomez (Jonathan Keeperman), Zero HP Lovecraft, probably throw Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land in there. Re-weirdifying the Church is figuring out what these figures are doing/their thought that is so interesting to younger right-wing men, and specifically what the Church has proposed in lieu of it. Because I have a feeling these vitalist takes, though fresh, are older than they are (and probably older than Nietzsche too) and the Church has broadly already responded, though not in a way understandable to lay modern minds. Pope Francis' new encyclical was a good start to this. Maybe you could expound on it. Thanks again for the content
Listening to this in the Theogy Dept Lounge of my Liberal leaning Jesuit university. So grateful for these podcasts! Wish more of my colleagues spoke like this!
Holiness not power is the currency of the Church, so when Saint Catherine of Siena told the pope, whose name I can’t remember, he went.
Very good dialogue! Admiring the thoughtful insights on what is happening in the universal Church today. The Rahnerian influence on the Synod on Synodality is very clear. Rahner was "the theologian" to read and study during the 1980s and 1990s in Argentina when Bergoglio was a priest and Bishop
Chapp does it again, great video!
Larry, new news..... When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: “The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. 8 And then the Lord will disclose these things,
Thanks guys, I was wondering if I was the only one that was too nauseous to vote….i was an old time Catholic democrat. The female orientation thing is the logical progression of modern feminism.
You should talk to Joseph Minich about modern atheism.
This was a great discussion, but regarding the traditionalists:
I left seminary. A number of my friends left the seminary or religious Orders. Why did we leave? Because we were offered either the Pius IX traditionalist option or else the Vatican II option (which includes Communio thinkers such as yourselves). The centerpiece of this complex issue is Vatican I. Pastor Aeternus is really just absurd. It represents a dogmatic decision to make the Catholic Church an institution ordered around modern notions of power.
Now the traditionalists point to Vatican I as dogma which must be upheld, along with the spirit of Pius IX which it represents. At this point the Vatican II theologians get out their earplugs and blindfolds, promptly putting them on. The impasse is obvious, but for the clear-eyed seminarian there are two options: Pius IX traditionalism, or else a Vatican II perspective unwilling to reckon with the dogmas of Pastor Aeternus. Intellectual dishonesty or intellectual dishonesty. Of my peers who left seminary, I am the only one to remain Catholic (so far).
So when I hear Chapp berate the traditionalists or Howsare talk about doctrine “settled in a definitive way,” the elephant in the room is Vatican I.
How about the historical fact that the church allowed itself to be subsumed by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire? That improved the empire but it certainly damaged the spiritual vitality of the church, which is why so many headed for the desert to seek sanctity. The church has more often than not been content to cooperate with the rich and powerful in ways that are antithetical to the gospel.
I don’t know if you answer stuff, but I’ve had two thoughts regarding some of the synodality stuff.
First, I wonder, considering what happened in the sixties in society, if Vatican 2 is a victim of horrible timing.
In the same way, given some of those you quoted, and what I observe, if the synod is actually missing how tired we all are with modernity. And is sort of blind a deaf to the realities on the ground and will be, I hope, a victim of bad timing as well
exactky!!! the lobbyists want to change doctrine to suit themselves.
Trump: Dumb like a Fox.
Kamala: Fox like a Dumb.
But I have never understood why women are excluded from the priesthood? I could understand if there was some good reason for the exclusion but its very difficult to perceive. Christ didn't appoint women to leadership positions- but there were female leaders in the ancient church.
Because Jesus was a man and the priest takes on His form. It’s called in persona Christi. Also, the priest is considered married to the Church. The Church has always been referred to as a “she.” We can’t have female priests because that would be a lesbian marriage. This also explains why we don’t have male nuns. Nuns are married to Jesus. Also, Jesus did not appoint women to be apostles. I hope this helps!
@@catholicrakelle Does that mean that woman cannot be an image of Christ?
@ No it means they can’t be in persona Christi because they don’t have a male body. They are still made in the image of God.
In 2000 years of Church tradition, they have never been, so the real question is why should they? This question never even came up in the first 2000 years of the Church's history, when it was when there was a very clear and healthy sense that men and women are different and play different roles, and a woman can't be a priest just as a man can't be a nun or mother. This even goes back to the Old Testament Levite priesthood. But if we have to give an answer it is this: priesthood is associated with fatherhood, it is a distinctly male way of being in which you entirely give yourself to something that is outside of you. The priest stands in an office and is entirely replaceable. He is effaced, his own person does not matter. This is entirely incompatible with motherhood, a deeply personal and intimate way of being which is reserved for the holiest and most gracious created beings to ever grace this earth: Mary and the Church herself. So in fact is BENEATH women to be priests. They are not being deprived of a position, but spared from a role of fatherhood that is beneath their motherly dignity.
To anyone reading - as you a Catholic you are required to exercise your right to vote. See the Catechism #2240
My recommendation is Trump. In this episode, they laugh a lot about Trump, but Trump is directly responsible for the overturning of Roe v Wade, which easily makes him the most effective pro-life politician of this century by a wide margrin.
This week we lost Gustavo Gutierrez. I guess in his honor I'll ask if you feel closer to the poor, to the Sermon on the Mount?
Maybe I'll write in Peter Sonski.
Could you give me an example of an FSSP or FSSPX priest, or one from another traditionalist order who has the positions that you argue they gave? Their sermons are typically about finding salvation. I don’t know who these rad-trads are that you criticize.
You are talking about the ideal of the church but the ideal is almost never lived out. Yes, the charism of the bishop is to be docile to the spirit, but just look at church history! Just look at Pope Francis, for goodness' sake! What I have observed from most of the priests and bishops I have known is a worldly sense of power.
I’m afraid you guys are just too curmudgeonly to appreciate the radiant example of enculturation that Luce represents. I can stand criticism of Francis but for God’s holy sake leave Luce out of it
Good to see you back, Dr. Chapp. 38 minutes in and have a few disagreements already that I won't get into except for one: the revisited "we need to make the Church WEIRD again" discourse.
My response: so do it.
There's a younger right-wing movement consisting largely of men in their 20s and 30s that collectively self-identifies as the "dissident right." It's a term almost too broad to be meaningful, and encapsulates more an attitude toward the current regime (and even more broadly toward modernity) than a list of proposals. While they broadly support Trump, they aren't MAGA in an explicit sense (at least, it isn't their political priority) as they know there's more interesting things going on.
This "group" (if you want to call it that) more or less falls into two sides: the Christian side (which contains a lot of younger Catholics) and the Nietzschean/vitslist side, which has largely influenced many on the Christian side (and vice versa). On the Christian side, figures like Auron MacIntyre, the Distributist. On the vitalist side, figures like Bronze Age Pervert, Lomez (Jonathan Keeperman), Zero HP Lovecraft, probably throw Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land in there.
Re-weirdifying the Church is figuring out what these figures are doing/their thought that is so interesting to younger right-wing men, and specifically what the Church has proposed in lieu of it.
Because I have a feeling these vitalist takes, though fresh, are older than they are (and probably older than Nietzsche too) and the Church has broadly already responded, though not in a way understandable to lay modern minds.
Pope Francis' new encyclical was a good start to this. Maybe you could expound on it.
Thanks again for the content