My friend wants to be a priest?

scumbag sqpants

Does he need the leaving cert as a requirement, points etc?

PDN

He'll need a heck of a lot more than a leaving cert.

I'm not sure if Ireland is the same, but in the US a College degree is required followed by a further 4 years study at seminary. For those with no College degree then 8 years of Seminary is needed.

philologos

Three years at the Church of Ireland Theological College:
http://www.citc.ie/courses.htm

robindch

scumbag sqpants wrote: »

Does he need the leaving cert as a requirement, points etc?

Given that almost nobody's studying to be priests these days, I'd imagine that most people who apply would probably be accepted.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Given that almost nobody's studying to be priests these days, I'd imagine that most people who apply would probably be accepted.

That would be a false assumption. Part of the process is discernment of vocation to decide whether the candidate has a true vocation from God. Also gay men would probably be turned away. It's getting harder to get into the priesthood, not easier.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Also gay men would probably be turned away.

Why would that even be an issue? I thought priesthood involved giving up sexuality unless there are ways of existing as a married priest?

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Why would that even be an issue? I thought priesthood involved giving up sexuality unless there are ways of existing as a married priest?

That was recent directive from the pope. It's like putting a straight man in a convent. Too much temptation...

Akrasia

what? during the training at the seminary?

It takes 7 years to train as a priest. They take an arts degree in theology (and another subject, like sociology or psychology) as part of their training so they need to meet the course requirements for that degree (usually a bit lower than the requirements for a general arts course) but its a very rigorous training it should not be underestimated.

Run_to_da_hills

With the way things are going the Catholic Church will either have to allow marriage or some sort of fast tracking of vocations because pretty soon there won't be enough of them to go around. I would say any Tom Dick or Harry could get into the priesthood if they wanted to at this stage.

kelly1 wrote: »

Also gay men would probably be turned away. It's getting harder to get into the priesthood, not easier.

I doubt if the church could tell whether some one was gay or not at the initial interview. Most gays that would join would more than likely be closet cases.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

what? during the training at the seminary?

It takes 7 years to train as a priest. They take an arts degree in theology (and another subject, like sociology or psychology) as part of their training so they need to meet the course requirements for that degree (usually a bit lower than the requirements for a general arts course) but its a very rigorous training it should not be underestimated.

I assume that is for Catholicism. From the Church of Ireland Theological College it seems to suggest 3 years.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Also gay men would probably be turned away. It's getting harder to get into the priesthood, not easier.

Things must definitely have changed since the days when I knew quite a few priests personally, around half of whom are gay. Did the pope issue this following the disclosures in the seminary in Austria, was it two years or so ago? I vaguely recall him saying something, but can't remember what.

But as rtdh says, with Dublin producing only three priests in the last three years or so, to replace the 600 in the county, the church will have to give some serious consideration to changing its house rules more generally if it wants to survive.

Run_to_da_hills

There is no time frame mentioned in scripture for the any office of the clergy. however there are certain credentials required. I.E. The person should be married, have experience and not be an novice, not materialistic or greedy for money and not fond of the bottle.


"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil". 1 Timothy 1 3.

diddley

'It's like putting a straight man in a convent. Too much temptation...'

Lmao! A modern Irish convent?

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote: »

That was recent directive from the pope. It's like putting a straight man in a convent. Too much temptation...

Can gay men become nuns, then?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

That was recent directive from the pope. It's like putting a straight man in a convent. Too much temptation...

But if a gay or straight man had a calling to be celibate what is the difference?

JCB

scumbag sqpants wrote: »

Does he need the leaving cert as a requirement, points etc?

The Maynooth Pontifical Website for more information is www.maynoothcollege.ie

From their website I think it says that you do a B.Th (theology) first and then postgrad after that to become a priest.

Contact them, they'll have all the info

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With the way things are going the Catholic Church will either have to allow marriage or some sort of fast tracking of vocations because pretty soon there won't be enough of them to go around. I would say any Tom Dick or Harry could get into the priesthood if they wanted to at this stage.

The priesthood is not a popularity contest and should not be cheapened to get 'bums on seats' as it were.

There are standards, as kelly1 mentioned, and if Catholic communities have to survive without a priest then more involvement from lay people will be (and already is) necessary.

The Catholic Church in England has had to put up with this for years.

The priesthood is considered very special by Catholics. Any tom, dick or harry cannot just walk in.

Run_to_da_hills

JCB wrote: »

The priesthood is not a popularity contest and should not be cheapened to get 'bums on seats' as it were.

There are standards, as kelly1 mentioned, and if Catholic communities have to survive without a priest then more involvement from lay people will be (and already is) necessary.

The Catholic Church in England has had to put up with this for years.

The priesthood is considered very special by Catholics. Any tom, dick or harry cannot just walk in.

It certainly has been cheapened to a far worse level than a popularity contest with the appalling cover ups in the past of convicted of child sexual abuse offenders such as Fr Brendan Smith, Fr Sean Fortune, and FR Jeremiah McGrath and the countless hundreds of other priests. I don't think your average Tom Dick and Harry would not have stooped as low to these appalling levels.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It certainly has been cheapened to a far worse level than a popularity contest with the appalling cover ups in the past of convicted of child sexual abuse offenders such as Fr Brendan Smith, Fr Sean Fortune, and FR Jeremiah McGrath and the countless hundreds of other priests. I don't think your average Tom Dick and Harry would not have stooped as low to these appalling levels.

Unless you are a Donatist, then no any sacrifice performed by such priests remain valid.

This should not take from the pain endured by any person who has been sexually abused, by priests, swimming instructors, or fathers and uncles and so on.

Do you think the role of 'father' or 'uncle' has been cheapened by the very small minority of those who abuse children?

Run_to_da_hills

JCB wrote: »

Unless you are a Donatist, then no any sacrifice performed by such priests remain valid.

This should not take from the pain endured by any person who has been sexually abused, by priests, swimming instructors, or fathers and uncles and so on.

Do you think the role of 'father' or 'uncle' has been cheapened by the very small minority of those who abuse children?

I am on about the manner in which these apalling atrocities were covered up. One person in particular whose position it was to over see these cases suppressed is now premoted to the current position as the Bishop of Rome. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-details/Pope+'led+cover-up+of+child+abuse+by+priests'/article.do

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I am on about the manner in which these apalling atrocities were covered up. One person in particular whose position it was to over see these cases suppressed is now premoted to the current position as the Bishop of Rome. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-details/Pope+'led+cover-up+of+child+abuse+by+priests'/article.do

Okay....

While that is terrible, it doesn't make any difference to the generic priest's role and doesn't take from the sacredness of the priesthood.

Think about it, how could it? As a continuance from Jesus, no matter how corrupt the person, the gift from Jesus remains untarnished. Being human, we are broken vessals anyway, which is why Jesus came in the first place to redeem us.

Run_to_da_hills

JCB wrote: »

Okay....

While that is terrible, it doesn't make any difference to the generic priest's role and doesn't take from the sacredness of the priesthood. .

This is what I cannot understand; we are led to believe even though someone has been convicted of such appalling crimes, all the masses that they had practiced in the past were all considered valid, including transubstantiation and confessions. I find this very hard to comprehend. Christ cannot possibly be working through these people irrespective of what they were thought during their vocations.

JCB wrote: »

Think about it, how could it? As a continuance from Jesus, no matter how corrupt the person, the gift from Jesus remains untarnished. Being human, we are broken vessals anyway, which is why Jesus came in the first place to redeem us.

I would disagree; the Holy Spirit cannot possibly do the will of God through a corrupt being like a pedophile or a sex offender or someone like the Pope who tried to cover this up in the past. The spirit of Satan can only be working through these beings and not the Holy Spirit. I already mentioned about the letter in 1 Timothy Chapter 3 about the office of the clergy, the words "blameless" , "vigilant", of "good behavior" stand out. If someone cannot hold these attributes they cannot hold any office in the church.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is what I cannot understand; we are led to believe even though someone has been convicted of such appalling crimes, all the masses that they had practiced in the past were all considered valid, including transubstantiation. I find this very hard to comprehend. Christ cannot possibly be working through these people.

As opposed to who?......You?

Do you consider yourself perfect enough to receive the message of God?

I am not in the business of ranking evilness. Evil is here, we're human, it lives within us. Jesus blessed us though we are not worthy and bestowed upon gifts like the Presence of the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist.

rtdh wrote:

I would disagree; the Holy Spirit cannot possibly do the will of God through a corrupt being like a pedophile or a sex offender or someone like the Pope who tried to cover this up in the past. The spirit of Satan can only be working through these beings and not the Holy Spirit. I already mentioned about the letter in 1 Timothy Chapter 3 about the office of the clergy, the words "blameless" , "vigilant", of "good behavior" stand out. If someone cannot hold these attributes they cannot hold any office in the church.

If you are a Donatist at least admit it, so I know where you stand.

Most priests are outstanding btw, I have huge admiration for their courage especially after the awful crimes committed by others.

Run_to_da_hills

JCB wrote: »

If you are a Donatist at least admit it, so I know where you stand.Most priests are outstanding btw, I have huge admiration for their courage especially after the awful crimes committed by others ..

I agree that there are some outstanding priests, both my parents had clergy in their family. It was once a great privilage to have a clergy member in any family but I think much has changed in current times.

I am not a Catholic since I left the RC Church over 20 years ago. I do not accept the docterine of transubstansiation, Confession to a priest or infant baptism so why should I accept Donatism.

For those that do not know, "Donatism" was the "error" taught by Donatus, the bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. In other words, if a Priest or Bishop who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, give holy communion or hear a confession these sacraments would be considered null and void. Im sure most Catholics to day would agree with this docterine if it was put it to them.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is what I cannot understand; we are led to believe even though someone has been convicted of such appalling crimes, all the masses that they had practiced in the past were all considered valid, including transubstantiation and confessions. I find this very hard to comprehend.

To go into more detail:
The following sung at a priest's ordination, "You are a priest forever, like Melchizedek of old"

No matter what sins a person commits they remain a priest vested with the gifts that Jesus left for mankind.

The way the church attempts to prevent abuse of this gift is as follows:

(i) to train those who receive the gift to be knowledgeable of the promise of Christ and to ensure their suitability - that they will remain loyal to their vows and not bring disgrace upon the gifts that Jesus left for us

(ii) to defrock priests who have committed grave acts - they cannot remove the gifts of Jesus from those to whom they have been entrusted but instead forbid them to exercise those gifts - in an attempt to prevent further disgrace being associated with them.

A crude anology to this may be the sanctity of marriage.
When Christians make a vow to each other before God, that commitment to marriage cannot be undone no matter how much the husband may beat his wife (which I hope we will all acknowledge is a gruesome act). We may all recoil in horror as to what has happened, but they will remain married. Of course they can separate or the husband can be prosecuted, but that marriage before God remains valid, no matter the disgrace that has become associated with the gift from God.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

if a Priest or Bishop who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, give holy communion or hear a confession these sacraments would be considered null and void. Im sure most Catholics to day would agree with this docterine if you put it to them.

The Catholic church is not run on public opinion. Jesus revealed unshakeable truths to us - they do not come under the realms of public opinion.

But to hold the donatist position, means to hold that certain sin is not forgiveable. Jesus came to save salvation to save all of us sinners, not those allowed by the courts of public opinion.

Unless for you are foresaking the nature of absolute forgiveness for those who repent, then yes those sacrifices will remain valid.

Is that your position? Did Jesus not come to forgive all sin? If so, then your point is moot.

Run_to_da_hills

JCB wrote: »

To go into more detail:
The following sung at a priest's ordination, "You are a priest forever, like Melchizedek of old"

You obviously believe in the doctrine of OSAS, i.e. "Once Saved Always Saved". I don't and I believe anyone can fall from grace after being enlightened and loose their salvation if they fall into sin. This would even apply more to clergy members because they are supposed to show an example preach the truth. There are plenty of parables in the Gospels to back this up including the one of the vineyard John 15:1,2. , Tasteless salt is worthless Luke 14:34,35,
and the fact that we must Endure to the end Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved."

I started a tread on this topic a number of months ago. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055160611

JCB wrote: »

The Catholic church is not run on public opinion. Jesus revealed unshakeable truths to us - they do not come under the realms of public opinion..

One of the reasons I left the RC is because I could not make my own opinion on anything and had to accept everything that was shoved down my troth right through primary and secondary school.

Some examples, Why were Bishops celibate when the Bible encouraged marriage among clergy members. why was a priest called "father" contrary to Matthew 23:9. I could not quiz how an ordinary man could convert a piece of bread and wine into flesh and blood even though it only tasted like ordinary bread and wine. There were heaps of unanswered questions that just did not add up. It was only until I started to read the Word of God and ask God for guidance that I got the answers.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

One of the reasons I left the RC is because I could not make my own opinion on anything and had to accept everything that was shoved down my troth right through primary and secondary school.

So is there any such thing then as truth???

If I could produce a video which proved everything the Catholic Church preaches is the word of God, would you refuse to accept it?

Or is it that you are a relativatist, or just a moral relativatist?

What makes you think you have the real truth? Could you have interpreted the Bible wrong? Was the world actually created in 7 days?

You see the problem when everyone says.......

'feck the church, i'll read this my way, since I know what's right for me',

....you don't have a church at all, just a load of heresies distorting the real truth.

Anyway, feel free to address my post when ready, you still haven't answered whether fatherhood has been cheapened by those few dads who abuse their kids and also whether Jesus came to forgive all sin.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You obviously believe in the Calvinist doctrine of OSAS, i.e. "Once Saved Always Saved". I don't, I believe anyone can fall from grace after being enlightened and loose their salvation if they fall into sin. This would even apply more to clergy members because they are supposed to preach the truth. There are plenty of parables in the Gospels to back this up. I started a tread on this topic a number of months ago. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055160611

The OSAS is not a doctrine of the Catholic church so no I don't believe it.

A gift from God, entrusted onto man, remains entrusted onto man, but that says nothing about whether someone will go to hell.

From our understanding of the Bible, once you are truly sorrowful for your sin - and let's face it only us and God knows that - then we hope for Jesus to show mercy on us like He did for the robber on the cross who believed in His unshakable truth.

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Some examples, Why were Bishops celibate when the Bible encouraged marriage among clergy members. why was a priest called "father" contrary to Matthew 23:9. I could not quiz how an ordinary man could convert a piece of bread and wine into flesh and blood even though it only tasted like ordinary bread and wine. There were heaps of unanswered questions that just did not add up. It was only until I started to read the Word of God and ask God for guidance that I got the answers.

But you don't have the answers! Sorry to be so blunt, but you have been misled or have mislead yourself. Ok there are mysteries some of which can't be explained fully. This is part of faith. Some things will never be understood until we behold the Beatific Vision.

Having said that there are many Catholics who just don't have the basic knowledge of the faith. Every objection that you have to Catholic doctrine can be explained. It's when people go forming the own interpretation of scripture or listening to false interpretations, that things go awry. It's good to read the Word of God but we are not free to adhere to interpreations which contradict the teachings of the Church which Christ founded! The Church wrote the bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore only the Church has the authority to interpret it correctly.

To address your points, if clergy were encouraged to marry, why did Paul discourage it and why was he celibate? Was he doing wrong?

And why did Paul refer to himself as a father in Christ and the faithful as his children? Do you ever call your own father "father"? If so, why do you apply this rule to priests?

The problem is that people take one isolated verse out of context and use that to prove the Church wrong. People have no right to interpret scripture for themselves. That is a God-given privilege of the Church!

God bless,
Noel.

Gone West

I know a few of the lads in the seminary, and some of how they got in.
Pm me if you like and I'll tell you a bit of it.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church wrote the bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore only the Church has the authority to interpret it correctly.

I think you're getting a little carried away, Noel. If this argument were valid (which it is not) then the Church would, at most, have the authority to interpret the New Testament.

The Old Testament, and the Apocrypha, were written by Jews under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, by your reasoning, only the Jews have the authority to interpret it correctly.

Do you see how silly this line of reasoning is?

philologos

kelly1, we all know how the church interpreted the Bible during the 16th century. History shows that it cannot be relied on entirely.

Dog Fan

I trained to be a priest a number of years ago, (but didn't go for ordination) and AFAIK the system hasn't changed much -
your friend will need to interview for either a diocese or an order, depending on where he wants to serve:
He may then be accepted for training - if it's diocesan priesthood in Ireland, then he'll end up in Maynooth.
The system in maynooth when i was there was that a seminarian would study philosophy for 2 years (diploma) or 3 (degree) depending on his academic ability.
On completion of his philosophy study, he would then go on to study theology.
During the whole time he would have a spiritual director, and a dean of formation. In his penultimate year he would be ordained Deacon, and would spend some time serving in his diocese.
All in all, 6 or 7 years depending on the philosophy segment.
For people who trained with the orders, a different system applied. As far as I remember Columbians had a formation process that lasted 10 years or so. But there, you didn't focus on the destination, but on living the life of the order during your formation - partake in the journey, if you will.

Good luck and blessings to your friend!

PDN

Dog Fan wrote: »

For people who trained with the orders, a different system applied. As far as I remember Columbians had a formation process that lasted 10 years or so.

Maybe all the cocaine makes the Columbians study slower?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

I think you're getting a little carried away, Noel. If this argument were valid (which it is not) then the Church would, at most, have the authority to interpret the New Testament.

Yes, sorry, just the NT.

Jakkass wrote: »

kelly1, we all know how the church interpreted the Bible during the 16th century. History shows that it cannot be relied on entirely.

Which cannot be relied on? The bible or the Church?

Dog Fan

PDN wrote: »

Maybe all the cocaine makes the Columbians study slower?

And maybe I should learn how to spell. columbans.

Pity I didn't think of it when i was in Maynooth though!

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, sorry, just the NT.


Which cannot be relied on? The bible or the Church?

The church as being the sole authority on scripture. The laypeople have a responsibility to make sure the church remains loyal to the Bible.

Run_to_da_hills

Jakkass wrote: »

The church as being the sole authority on scripture. The laypeople have a responsibility to make sure the church remains loyal to the Bible.

That’s exactly what happened in the reformation, the "Mother" church had gone so far away from the Bible that people got together and went back to the basics and set up the reformed churches. Unfortunately many of these so called main stream reformed churches have now equally gone astray from the word of God as the mother church that many people are now finding true faith in the smaller independent churches.

Slav

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Unfortunately many of these so called main stream reformed churches have now equally gone astray from the word of God as the mother church that many people are now finding true faith in the smaller independent churches.

Do you see Reformation as an on-going process then? Is it a good thing or a bad thing or it does not really matter? If it's not so good then is there anything can be done to stop reformed Churches to go away from the Bible?

Run_to_da_hills

Slav wrote: »

Do you see Reformation as an on-going process then? Is it a good thing or a bad thing or it does not really matter? If it's not so good then is there anything can be done to stop reformed Churches to go away from the Bible?

I would have considered there was several reformations down through history, I.e from the time of the Apostles. There has been splinter groups breaking away from the Church of Rome for centurys, many of these were suppressed and slaughtered for exposing the church.

The main reformation as we know it began in the 16th Century because of the development of the Guttenbourg printing press. Man has a habbit of taking controll of the Church and letting his docterine take precident from the word of God and scriptural meaning gets diluted and meaningless.

This is exactly of what happened to day with the vote for women clergy. When this vote was put foreward there was no thought for any scripture on the matter. In other words they left God out of the equasion.

JCB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would have considered there was several reformations down through history, Ie right down from the apostles there has been splinter groups breaking away from the Church of Rome. many of these were suppressed ands slaughtered for exposing the church.

Before I accuse you of rewriting history on this point, the fundamental Catholic church doctrines were formed before the Church was powerful enough (as you call it) to *slaughter* for exposure. I need more info here.

It could be claimed that St.Paul supressed alternative views too, when He wrote about heresies.

You're making claims of slaughter by your Christian Brethern here, the Crusades don't justify the claims you're making.

Again I urge you to feel free to address my previous post when ready.

Slav

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would have considered there was several reformations down through history, I.e from the time of the Apostles. There has been splinter groups breaking away from the Church of Rome for centurys, many of these were suppressed and slaughtered for exposing the church.

Maybe it's just my ignorance but I'm not aware of any reformations before the 16th century. Anyway my question was about post-16th century Christianity. Why did "so called main stream reformed churches" go away from the Bible? Are we expecting those Churches that are OK so far to follow that corrupted reformed Churches in their own fallacies in a while and is (was) there anything that might prevent it to happen?

This is exactly of what happened to day with the vote for women clergy. When this vote was put foreward there was no thought for any scripture on the matter. In other words they left God out of the equasion.

Well, I guess both camps can come up with their own interpretations of the Scripture so one would be convinced that it's against the teachings of the Bible to ordain ladies while the other would not see any contradictions with the Scripture.

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Maybe it's just my ignorance but I'm not aware of any reformations before the 16th century. Anyway my question was about post-16th century Christianity. Why did "so called main stream reformed churches" go away from the Bible? Are we expecting those Churches that are OK so far to follow that corrupted reformed Churches in their own fallacies in a while and is (was) there anything that might prevent it to happen?

I believe that human nature is always pulling against the work of the Holy Spirit. The Church, as a universal body comprising all true believers irrespective of congregational or denominational affiliation, is a work of God and can never be destroyed. However, individual churches and denominations are often very human institutions and can easily be corrupted.

The Church of England, for example, was a reformation church of sorts. It was founded under several influences, one of which was political (the king wanted a divorce) but others were theological (the reformers from the White Horse Inn etc).

However, by the time John Wesley came along, the Church of England was itself in need of reform. Many clergy were deists rather than theists and the CofE had become ineffective in proclaiming the Bible. So Methodism began as a reform movement within Anglicanism. Wesley was himself an Anglican priest up to his dying day - and Methodism eventually split from Anglicanism over the issue of ordaining bishops in America.

Other reforming movements have arisen within Methodism. For example, William Booth was a Methodist minister who found that the church did not want to welcome the converts he was bringing from the lower classes into their nice neat middle-class congregations. Therefore Booth separated from Methodism and founded the Salvation Army. Today much of Methodism has departed wholesale from the Bible and, for example, ordains practising homosexuals as clergy.

Reformation is like cutting the grass in a garden - it needs to be a regular occurrence. The problem was, at Luther's time, that no-one had cut the grass for so long that it was a veritable jungle.