Actually, the document demonstrates infallibility in two ways. He made the point that it was already an infallible doctrine and then he himself made an infallible statement that declared the teaching to be unchangeable in the same document at the end of it. He wanted to make it absolutely clear that it won’t happen.He’s right: Blessed Pope John Paul II was not speaking infallibly as Pope - he was citing established Church doctrine, and that will never change.
Especially in the past 50 years, the Church has been attacked over a slew of issues, yet we remain fervently committed to the Truth, so I’m not concerned about the Church’s stance. I’m more concerned that this type of thinking will lead fellow Christians astray…
Cute, but no cigar.“IT IS NOT THE STRONGEST OF THE SPECIES THAT SURTVIVES, NOR THE MOST INTELLIGENT THAT SURVIVES. IT IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE.” —Change or perish!!!
Code:CHARLES DARWIN
a bug that comes out every nine months ?.By the way, does anyone know what an CAF “observing member” is?
You have a few facts wrongMen and women were created by God as equal in dignity and worth, yet different with different roles, gifts and qualities. Male priesthood is a church tradition but not a law of God or required specifically by Jesus in the New Testament. Even if a past or current Pope decided absolutely that there will never be female priests, just as in the case of Gallileo being excommunicated for the “heresy” of believing the world wasn’t flat, a later Pope, if faced with more advanced understanding could certainly opt to allow for female priesthood. Do I think it will ever happen. Not really. Does that bother me in any way or make me feel cheated since I am female? Absolutely not. If it ever happened, I would accept it–but to me, it’s just not that big a deal. I feel loved, honored and respected in our faith–and I don’t have to see women ordained to feel that way. There are far too many really vital issues for me to be concerned with than to feel deprived that I can’t become a priest.!
That puts him in the ordination Class of 1965, right when all of the confusion began.This priest is 74 and retired.
You need to substantiate that statement>In this case it is!
Why should the biological nature of a person have any bearing on a spiritual question?Women are not biologically capable of receiving valid Holy Orders - any more than men are biologically capable of carrying a child in their wombs.
This is what I was going to state.This is what JPII stated, “the Church has no authority to ordain women”.
Touché Mumbles, Touché!!!I prefer “And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”
Truth doesn’t change.Code:-Jesus Christ
No, it stands on its own. Many liberals believe in change. Many liberal priests believe this could and eventually will change. Therefore, this case of liberal thinking is in fact heresy.You need to substantiate that statement>
How can we say definitively that it is not a matter of tradition and discipline? Jesus came to the earth as a man, and so assumed (though not rigidly or 100%) the cultural role of men at that period and in that culture. Given that He was questioned even by his own followers for talking to a woman in public, His not ordaining women could simply be a matter of prioritizing: the need to preach the Kingdom WAS more important than giving people one more stone (correction, BOULDER) to fling at him. Even 2000 yrs later, women in much of that part of the world are still struggling to have their basic human dignity respected! I don’t know if that is the reason, but I see it as a definite possibility. For that matter, one can choose any defined subgroup of people and say, "Jesus never ordained them therefore they should not be priests.This is not a matter of mere tradition or discipline; it is in fact out of the realm of authority of the Church to choose female ordination. This is what JPII stated, “the Church has no authority to ordain women”. It is in fact set into truth by Jesus’ actions, there were women in His ministry and in His presence in all of these events spoken about in Scripture, and none were ordained by Him or given the role of Apostle or leader in the ministerial sense. Jesus chose men for a reason; He is a man not a neutral gender. A tradition would have been something that started after the Church was born basically, this is no tradition. It is something the Church has stated to be outside of “binding and loosening”, outside of Peter’s control and set forth by Jesus Himself.
Also, to compare this in any way shape or form to the Galileo situation is just a simple case of apples and oranges. Although apples and oranges are more closely related that the subjects of the comparison you make.
The Church cannot and therefore will not change what Jesus Himself did. Anything else is based outside of Church teaching and causes schism. The discussion has concluded. If you choose to continue in obstinate rejection of truth, then that is your call. I will stand with Jesus in His Church.How can we say definitively that it is not a matter of tradition and discipline? Jesus came to the earth as a man, and so assumed (though not rigidly or 100%) the cultural role of men at that period and in that culture. Given that He was questioned even by his own followers for talking to a woman in public, His not ordaining women could simply be a matter of prioritizing: the need to preach the Kingdom WAS more important than giving people one more stone (correction, BOULDER) to fling at him. Even 2000 yrs later, women in much of that part of the world are still struggling to have their basic human dignity respected! I don’t know if that is the reason, but I see it as a definite possibility. For that matter, one can choose any defined subgroup of people and say, "Jesus never ordained them therefore they should not be priests.
Like the poster you responded to, I don’t see female ordination as a matter to agitate for, but I don’t see how we can establish its rightness of wrongness by simply making surface comparisons to Christ’s life. He ordained married men as Apostles…what does that say about His will regarding current Church law? God is God, He can do what He wants and He can lead the Church in the direction He chooses. If He considers that His Body has matured far enough to where women priests would help more than hurt…it’s His call. I don’t see where or how female ordination equates to sin - and if it’s not…
Change is a fact of life. The Church is constantly changing in non-essential aspects, despite the essential tenets of our faith remaining exactly the same. The history of our faith is one of change, maturation and accomodation, WITHOUT losing essential doctrine - that’s why we don’t live and worship exactly like the earliest Christians did. Nevertheless, we live and preach the same Gospel and we hold the same creed.No, it stands on its own. Many liberals believe in change. Many liberal priests believe this could and eventually will change. Therefore, this case of liberal thinking is in fact heresy.
This is called a forum for a reason: so people can debate. As I have had occasion to say to you in the past, if you can’t or won’t tolerate debate, you’re welcome to ignore the discussions. You are not welcome to scold me me like some errant child. And for the record, this was my FIRST post on the topic, so you would do well to look up words like obstinate (and heresy too, for that matter) before labeling people.The Church cannot and therefore will not change what Jesus Himself did. Anything else is based outside of Church teaching and causes schism. The discussion has concluded. If you choose to continue in obstinate rejection of truth, then that is your call. I will stand with Jesus in His Church.