„Readiness for the movement “is surely always necessary. The question is only: Where are we to move? And: Who precedes? Of Hw. Hendrick Jolie.

(kreuz.net) „readiness for the movement - perspectives for the Seelsorge in the diocese Limburg. “

With a Hirtenbrief under this title new bishop of Limburg has itself, Mons. Franz Peter Tebartz van Elst, turned to Whitsuntide 2008 to the church people.

Cause are due to the Gläubigen and lack of priest as well as due to the financial situation necessary restructuring measures become, which the bishop for its Diözese announces.

In the Hirtenwort it concerns to it to own stating both „a religious word “as well as over „pastorale perspectives “.

Sad memories

What is noticeable first? It is interesting that in the media - up to `the Frankfurt general Zeitung' - above all that bischöfliche word was taken up, according to which the conventional Pfarreien had been overestimated in the past „theologically “.

Who the evil author of this overestimation was, one does not say.

The word wakes sad memories of the statements of the chairman of the German bishop conference, archbishop Robert Zollitsch failed, which did not classify the Zölibat of the priest as „theologically necessarily “.

Archbishop Zollitsch at that time probably meant that the Zölibat was not a dogma and the catholic faith not in the core of references. An upsetting realization, not truely?

The effect of the erzbischöflichen words was however a completely different one:

Of course the public heard that the Zölibat in the opinion of Mons. Zollitsch is not necessary.

Razor-sharp `the Frankfurt general Zeitung' headlined on the coming day: „Zollitsch moves away from the Zölibat. “

Many unanswered questions
A similar fate could overtake the above-mentioned words of the Limburger of bishop.

Does the alleged overestimation of the Pfarreien concern their concrete territorial arrangement or their sakramentale structure?

This question is clarified insufficiently in the bischöflichen letter.

Because the bishop obviously may not talk about „structures “or „structural discussions “. Several times it warns to move structural discussions into the foreground.

Again. Does he mean a discussion over the sakramentale structure or does go it to him around discussions over variable, because time-caused structures?

It stays the impression of its own Unschärfe.

At this moment in Germany aren't the straight church structures changed? And is it amazing under these circumstances that the question about the structures particularly employs the believers?

Movement without reversal?
A further observation: The idioms „challenge/provocative “occur in the thirteen sides of the letter altogether eleven times.

Indeed places, like we all knows, each time special challenges to the church.

It harms only that this pfingstliche Hirtenbrief mentions challenge “and the call in connection with the word „to one „conscience research “only „the meditation on the priorities “.

The words „reversal “, „penalty “and „forgiveness “, which were nevertheless central contents of the Pfingstpredigt of the Petrus, come in the entire letter not pre also not the Bußsakrament, which the gentleman used in the evening of the Ostertages by donating the holy spirit (Joh 20.22).

Because the demanded „readiness for the movement gets along “- so the title of the Hirtenwortes - obviously without Metanoia, it is also concealed that with the celebration of the Eucharist - those the bishop as the center of the Pfarrei constitutes - around „the coming union with the Auferstandenen “and around „meeting “or over „community is not evenly only in the faith “, but around the victim of Christ, that brought the welfare and once and for all to the Sühne for our sins.

Since the word of „the victim does not fall “generally speaking Hirtenwort and also the word of „the cross “does not occur, it is not amazing that the bischöfliche questioning of coming union celebrations rather timid happens:

„In the long term “, so the bishop, one may regard these celebrations not as „replacement “for the Eucharist.

How ask? Are these celebrations not completely in principle no replacement for the measuring victim?

The role of the priest blurs
The latter: The priests, so the bishop, are not replaceable. At the same time he avoids it however to speak in connection with the Pfarreien of their line by the priest as herdsmen.

Reliably it is correct that the priests are assigned to represent „Christ in the Sakramenten of the church. “

Are they however not also the autoritativen teachers of the faith and the actual director/conductor of the municipalities? Or does this dimension of priesterlichen service at the end belong also to „the theological overestimation of the municipalities? “

On the other hand: In the diocese Franz Kamphaus Pastoralreferenten resided to Limburg as „quasi-municipality leaders “in parsonage buildings under bishop.

It will not be easy for the bishop to cause here again normal conditions. Perhaps no oil is to be poured here in the fire.

Result: The bishop strives itself to tune its believers for the intended changes weighed.

Since the conceptual clarity at crucial points is avoided, it remains further uncertain, where the journey goes.

„Readiness for the movement “is surely always necessary. The question is only: Where are we to move? And: Who precedes?

You invoke Excellency, we: Give to your priests and believers the necessary clarity, which all need, in order to sit down in motion.

Show humans in your diocese, where the challenges actually lie.

Do not be afraid to address the difficult conditions in the diocese Limburg - one thinks only of the Homo municipality in Frankfurt -.

That would be a genuine challenge. The believers would thank it you.

Jörg Guttenberger, Cologne: Land organist: Comparison

Naturally I do not understand, what you mean.

They state, one cannot compare both choirs with one another. Why not? If you determined quality or other differences, you had nevertheless to compare, because comparisons is called nothing else, as working out of thing in common and differences. How do you want to determine the differences without comparison, determined by you?

I have the impression, you confound to compare and equate!

LandorganistII: @Herr Guttenberger,

I admit to be able to follow you not completely straight. However, you do not see power to nothing it as indications of my limitedness. Nevertheless I assume that you understand, what I mean.

Jörg Guttenberger, Cologne: Land organist: Comparison

is called do not equate, but work out from thing in common and differences. Thus you came nevertheless by the comparison complained of by you to your opinion!

Humilitas: Movement toward difficult conditions

Good contribution. Let us hope that one itself in the diocese Limburg also on problems like the Homo municipality in Frankfurt `hinbewegt'.
That the word of the victim does not fall is naturally unfortunaty, on the other hand not particularly amazingly. One needs to look at itself only the formulations in the new measuring form, where the victim character moves into the background and totally is watered…

LandorganistII: The KCC

with the Capella Sistina to compare is an offense of the Englishmen. If I in the Vatikan which to say would have, a first measure would be the complete replacement of the choir and for the music the responsible person at pc. - Peter, inclusive. the organists.

@Stromberg

The most solemn Liturgie, also in the old rite, stands and falls with the church music. A Stümper at the organ is able to arrange more damage, than that the people turned away priests at the high altar. From its doing the municipality does not receive eh.

Brandenburgis: I did not want now by any means

the KCC disqualifizieren. Perhaps did it have to also be US and downs? Were occasionally badly prepared? Happened nearly everyone once.