It wasn't Augustine in Hippo who was seized by the crowd to be bishop. It was Ambrose in Milan. And that was a precedent no one would want to follow, even though it produced a wonderful bishop. Ambrose wasn't even baptised. He was a catechumen and the local official of the Roman Empire, and the crowd figured that if he was good enough to run the city and keep peace between the fighting factions, he was good enough for bishop.

Wasn't it Ambrose in Milan who was chosen as Bishop by the populace? Even before he'd been baptised?
I think it's important to read the Dutch text, and try to understand what they are saying before attempting a riposte/refutation. I find there's a link to the English translation of the text at the end of Jimmy's link reference to the story.
And I have read elsewhere that the Dutch hierarchy and also the Vatican have rebuked the Dutch Dominicans for this view

"Because, JoAnna, any other church they might choose to join still wouldn't be "The Church." And they know it..."
Rather like all the effort that Henry VIII went to to try to get St. Thomas More to back his divorce. He knew that More was an honest man, and wouldn't say "yes" to something just because the King wanted it. Trouble is, that's why More died rather than go along with the idea, and that's also why the Church never will go with the dissenters.

Just so everyone knows...the curia of the Order of Preachers in Rome (aka "Santa Sabina") composed a statement issued by the Vatican repudiating this nonsense from my Dutch brothers. The Dutch province went off the rail theologically long ago.
Fr. Philip, OP

It's going to get a lot worse more comical before it gets better.

Publius,
FWIW, I'm glad you're back to posting on the threads once again!
francis 03,
No worries --
You've humbled me as well in the past.
That's one of the reasons I like visiting JA.O --the learning opportunities that several folks here have to offer.

Already existent divisions, I mean.

Esau,
I agree that giving the laity control over what pastor they get is unwise both for the reasons you give and because it would tend to foment schism by exacerbating already existent decisions.

Thank you for corrigending me, Esau. I am duly humbled. And of course, the pragmatic points you make are apropros as well.

Corrigendum:
Thus, the violation of the 8th Canon of Nicea in 395; which, I might add, is the reason why Augustine himself was against it.

I'm pretty certain Augustine was basically forced by the people of Hippo to be their bishop, wasn't he?
Thus, the violation of the 8th Canon of Nicea in 395; which, I might add, is the reason why was against it.
That is not to say that just because in this instance, we obtained a great person as Augustine; I doubt that if left to the mob, there would be similar beneficial results.
Again, appointment by the laity would more so lead to, among other things, popularity contests and, not to mention, the possibility of a cult following.
You would also perhaps have the same sort of adverse political situation where the clergy would be fishing for votes of the people and even going to the extent of acquiescing to the demands (even to the moral decadence) of the people just to win any such selection!

Hmm. Maybe I was wrong. I confess I don't have documents to back up my statement; I was under the impression that most people understood that to be the custom in the Christian Roman Empire. I'm pretty certain Augustine was basically forced by the people of Hippo to be their bishop, wasn't he? I somehow had the idea that was how many local churches picked their pastors and bishops. Is that wrong?

Yes, but in Corinth the Corinthians seized that power. Just because that's not allowed doesn't mean that the power can't be delegated by the Church to the laity just as the power to appoint bishops in France was delegated to the king (who was a layman, obviously).
Publius,
Good point there --
Yet, there is still the distinct difference between an authority head and that of the mob.
I would not subscribe to such a notion due to the fact that it would more so inevitably lead to, amongst other things, some sort of popularity contest; which would not be at all conducive to the kind of spirituality that should be the aim of any such appointment.
Further, there would be more so the danger of a cult following than anything else and the possibility of disregard for Church authortiy overall, should the select individual(s) carry such weight with the people to the extent of such influence.

Because, JoAnna, any other church they might choose to join still wouldn't be "The Church." And they know it...

A possible answer to Joanna's question: They don't leave the Church because parasites can't survive without a host.

I don't understand what benefit the parasites are getting from this particular symbiotic relationship. Why not join a church that says, "Hey, do whatever you want, sin as much as you like, and Jesus will love you anyway." (Which is a grain of truth buried in a dirtpile of lies.)

Yes, but in Corinth the Corinthians seized that power. Just because that's not allowed doesn't mean that the power can't be delegated by the Church to the laity just as the power to appoint bishops in France was delegated to the king (who was a layman, obviously).

Publius,
By locals or local faithful, I took that to mean the laity.
I have yet to come over any such evidence for the appointment of ministers by such.
Thus, in that regard, the example I submitted concerning the incident at Corinth does actually apply in that it laid precedent confirming it is the Church who has the authority to appoint the clergy (e.g., local leaders, pastors, etc.) for the local churches and not the people there.

A possible answer to Joanna's question: They don't leave the Church because parasites can't survive without a host.

Solid tradition? Where?
I have no idea myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were. Regarding episcopal appointments, there's solid tradition to support them a) being chosen by a mob, b) being chosen by diocesan clergy, c) being chosen by a synod of bishops, d) being chosen by the secular Head of State, and e) being chosen by the Pope as is universal now in the Latin rite.
As far as I can recall, as attested by the Epistles of Clement (and in other works of the Church Fathers), when the Corinthians kicked out the appointed clergy and installed their own selection of ministers, Clement himself, a successor of the Apostles, disagreed with such acts and castigated the people of Corinth who were the locals that went to appoint their own ministers against those selected by the Church.
That's rather a different circumstance than the Church granting the local faithful the ability to choose their pastors, isn't it?

"There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."
Nigel Powers
:/

Jimmy, off topic, but can you cover what's happening in CT? I don't understand it well, and your insight would be helpful. Especially with Lori's ties to the KoC, it seems something has to give.

I'm actually sympathetic with the idea of letting local churches choose their pastors; there's a lot of solid tradition behind that practice.
francis 03,
Solid tradition? Where?
As far as I can recall, as attested by the Epistles of Clement (and in other works of the Church Fathers), when the Corinthians kicked out the appointed clergy and installed their own selection of ministers, Clement himself, a successor of the Apostles, disagreed with such acts and castigated the people of Corinth who were the locals that went to appoint their own ministers against those selected by the Church.

But if you choose a heretical pastor (or if the choice is itself heretical) the rest of the Church is going to have something to say about it.
I don't see how the local church could be penalized for choosing a heretical pastor if the bishops lets that priest remain in good standing. I mean, under the current system he'd just be forced on someone anyway (though if the culture of the parish were more orthodox he might be more inclined to keep his mouth shut).

I'm actually sympathetic with the idea of letting local churches choose their pastors; there's a lot of solid tradition behind that practice. But if you choose a heretical pastor (or if the choice is itself heretical) the rest of the Church is going to have something to say about it.

So the Dutch Dominicans have put out a pamphlet calling for local churches to pick their own ministers...
Nil nove sub sole!
Just as it happened once before in the past (e.g., at Corinth), so it happens again.
When will people ever learn...

I don't understand why people just don't leave Catholicism if they no longer acknowledge the teaching authority of the Pope and Magisterium.
WHY would you stay in a religion if you don't believe that religion has the authority to teach correctly?? It baffles me.

As far as I know, Pope John Paul II declared that the issue of women's ordination was closed - ain't gonna happen.
So... does this mean that the people responsible are heretics? And taking that line of thought further, would we be looking at a schism?