A Contradiction?

[JP_Marat]

Adrift posted:

"They do not support women being ordained as priest. "

RESPONSE:

Holy Orders is **one sacrament **that provides for the ordination of both deacons and priests. If one can validly receive Holy Orders, one can be ordained to either. Same sacrament, same authority.

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

I don’t know. But we have women priests.

There are NO women priests in the Catholic Church… period.

Those whom you choose to recognize, are not valid ordinations.

.

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

Why would I want anyone in my family to be a priest at all?

Finally the truth comes out…

Posters - take a close look at this person’s “RESPONSE”. It is quite telling.

.

 

[JP_Marat]

There are NO women priests in the Catholic Church… period.

Those whom you choose to recognize, are not valid ordinations.

.

RESPONSE:

All you need is a validly ordained bishop to say the proper words, and its a valid sacrament.

 

[JP_Marat]

Finally the truth comes out…

Posters - take a close look at this person’s “RESPONSE”. It is quite telling.

.

RESPONSE:

Yes. I’d prefer relatives to be gainfully employed, don’t you?

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

All you need is a validly ordained bishop to say the proper words, and its a valid sacrament.

Obviously you are not that well informed in Catholicism. Your simple implication would allow a bishop to “ordain” a child, a blind/deaf/dumb person, or perhaps your pet.

The “proper words” are the form. But a an adult non-male is not the proper matter.

IMHO I really think you are here to argue absurdity, and I even have suspicions that you are not a practicing Catholic, or are a member of a schismatic group. Sadly even some priests wish for married and/or female priests. Perhaps you have been hanging around them for way too long and have bought into their sinful agenda.

Or perhaps you are an Anglican 'Catholic" who is not happy because your faith community is beginning to admit they are not the Church Christ founded.

Whatever… live with it… there will never be a valid Catholic female “priest”… never.

.

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

Yes. I’d prefer relatives to be gainfully employed, don’t you?

No, I prefer each of us to answer a call from God as the criteria for a vocation.

Priests are not only gainfully employed, but a good priest will have the ultimate in job security.

question… What is it really that upsets you about the Catholic Church?

.

 

[Thankful10]

In Matthew 16:19 we read “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Back a few years ago the late Pope John Paul II stated the church did not have the authority to ordain women. Now I personally am ambivalent as to the whole womens ordination issue. What the church decides I abide with. But his Holiness’ statement seems to contradict Jesus’ words to Peter. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has knowledge of scripture what they think. I’m not a scripture expert in any way.

No one has the right to teach anything that contradicts the written Word of God.

Paul said: “if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned.

(Galatians 1:7-9) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. I am only repeating what we told you before; if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.” !

(1 Timothy 2:12-15) “I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray buy the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness.”

 

[JP_Marat]

No one has the right to teach anything that contradicts the written Word of God.

Paul said: “if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned.

(Galatians 1:7-9) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. I am only repeating what we told you before; if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.” !

(1 Timothy 2:12-15) “I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray buy the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness.”

RESPONSE:

“if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you,… he is to be condemned.” <<<

Paul was refering to the Jerusalem disciples from the orignal Christianity whose gospel Paul didn’t agree with.

RESPONSE:

(1 Timothy 2:12-15) “I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards, and it was not Adam who was led astray buy the woman who was led astray and fell into sin<<

And that’s the “Word of God” so no women should be teachers, speak in assemblies, or hold any positions of authority (over men).

Ya’ just gotta’ believe, right?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

RESPONSE:

I don’t know. But we have women priests.

Deaconess was NOT a HOLY ORDER, they were “ordained” but it was NOT A SACRAMENT. The main function of deaconesses was to assist WOMEN, particularly with baptism. The Church Fathers made sure people knew it was not permissible for women to be leaders of the Church or priests.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

RESPONSE:

All you need is a validly ordained bishop to say the proper words, and its a valid sacrament.

WRONG, The Church has said before women cannot be ordained priests, they Church does not have the ability, women are not valid matter for ordination, this matter is definite and cannot be reversed, to claim women can be ordained to Holy Orders is to adhere to heresy.

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp <<—women couldnt ever be priests

 

[JP_Marat]

Deaconess was NOT a HOLY ORDER, they were “ordained” but it was NOT A SACRAMENT. The main function of deaconesses was to assist WOMEN, particularly with baptism. The Church Fathers made sure people knew it was not permissible for women to be leaders of the Church or priests.

RESPONSE:

Look up one of the references I cited describing the ordination of deaconesses. It also describes that of men at that time. Please note that the **“matter” and “form” are the same **for both.

 

[JP_Marat]

WRONG, The Church has said before women cannot be ordained priests, they Church does not have the ability, women are not valid matter for ordination, this matter is definite and cannot be reversed, to claim women can be ordained to Holy Orders is to adhere to heresy.

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp <<—women couldnt ever be priests

RESPONSE:

Whoever made that claim is in error. Such a claim only exhibits the misogyny of the speaker. This is based on the longstanding Church teaching of the inferiority of women.

 

[adrift]

adrift;5939568:

RESPONSE:

Warren H. Carroll “A History of Christendom” The Catholic Encyclopedia. ? Would you narrow that down a bit. Or can I just quote you the World Book Encyclopedia as proof of anything? And after reading Warren H. Carroll’s works, do you consider them to be reliable references or apologetic texts?

Your response

I think most are on the web. Use your search function.

If you don’t wish to give links, don’t expect it from others.
Carroll’s book has a great index. Look under Assumption in the Encyclopedia.

The popes did not use the word “infallible” in either the decrees about the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

So? Again you show lack of knowledge of what infallibility is.

In Catholic

theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the chair”, refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

"That they attest that it was men only is enough

" Did they attest that Psalm 104 was literal and that the earth doesn’t move and the sun revolves around the earth? Is that proof that it is so or only proof that they were mistaken?

Huh? Perhaps you could rewrite into a more complete thought?

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

All you need is a validly ordained bishop to say the proper words, and its a valid sacrament.

This is false. You also have to have valid matter. You can’t say the words of consecration over a cow and it becomes Jesus. The same with ordination. A women will not be a priestess just because a renegade bishop says a few words.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Yes. I’d prefer relatives to be gainfully employed, don’t you?

Whoa! Talk about a telling remark

 

[adrift]

Obviously you are not that well informed in Catholicism.

.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Look up one of the references I cited describing the ordination of deaconesses. It also describes that of men at that time. Please note that the **“matter” and “form” are the same **for both.

You are mistaken and have been misled. It was not intended for them to be priestesses. Provide evidence that they ever acted as a priestesses, saying Mass, hearing confessions, blessing the sick, etc.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

Whoever made that claim is in error. Such a claim only exhibits the misogyny of the speaker. This is based on the longstanding Church teaching of the inferiority of women.

You have not provided any proof that this is so.

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5940220:

adrift;5939568:

RESPONSE:

Your response

If you don’t wish to give links, don’t expect it from others.
Carroll’s book has a great index. Look under Assumption in the Encyclopedia.

So? Again you show lack of knowledge of what infallibility is.

Huh? Perhaps you could rewrite into a more complete thought?

RESPONSE:

Infallibility is the response as to why you have to believe something when a valid reason cannot be given. It’s based on the reasoning that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from falling into error in faith or morals. But that claim can be shown to be in error.

The point you missed, evidently not familiar with the errors in infallible teachings, is that of the Council of Trent which claimed that the Church always interprets scripture correctly. This was followed about 100 year later by the condemnation of Galileo for suggesting that the earth moved contrary to the Church’s literal interpretation of Psalm 104 (among others). I thought most people were aware of this blunder in infallible teachings.

To save you having to find it on the web yourself:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the **judgment of this Holy Office **vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and **that the Earth moves **and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture;"

But the infallible pronouncement of the Council of Trent (and later Vatican I) notwithstanding, the earth is known to move and revolve around the sun. So the Church’s “declaration and defining” of scripture and what is “false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures” was an infallible error in this case.