J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I read elsewhere, which is gone by now, that the Bishop removed him because his views demonstrated that he was unable to celebrate a valid mass, his intent does not reflect the mind of the Church.
Bishop Rules Priest Rendered "Unfit" for Priesthood over Campaign for Women Priests
- Status
M
Mark_Marilyn
Guest
Questions:
What is the mind of the Church on this issue?
Regards, Marilyn 
What is the mind of the Church on this issue?
Code:
What, in essence, makes a ' valid' mass? How are all women incapable of what any man can do easily? :confused:
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
“According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only baptised males validly receive sacred Ordination. Through the sacrament of Orders the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, with a new and specific designation, to Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Spouse of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his entire person to the Church and by authentic pastoral charity.”
Since the priest becomes a Spouse of the Church (our Holy Mother), that’s why women are “incapable” (to use your word). And I also wonder about the use of the word “easy” in connection with priesthood and priestly function. It strikes me as anything but an “easy” vocation.
A quick answer to the validity question is that an ordained priest must fulfill his priestly function in a manner that constitutes fulfilment of the constant Tradition of the Church (and that is not mere custom, but infallible teaching) to celebrate a valid mass. If he is not of a mind to be a priest as the Tradition sets out the priestly vocation, how can he? That, it seems, was the conclusion of the Bishop who removed the priest in question.
Blessings,
Gerry
Indirectly, the recent Instruction of the ordination of gay men covers that. It states, near the beginning:Questions:
What is the mind of the Church on this issue?
Regards, MarilynCode:What, in essence, makes a ' valid' mass? How are all women incapable of what any man can do easily? :confused:
“According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only baptised males validly receive sacred Ordination. Through the sacrament of Orders the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, with a new and specific designation, to Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Spouse of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his entire person to the Church and by authentic pastoral charity.”
Since the priest becomes a Spouse of the Church (our Holy Mother), that’s why women are “incapable” (to use your word). And I also wonder about the use of the word “easy” in connection with priesthood and priestly function. It strikes me as anything but an “easy” vocation.
A quick answer to the validity question is that an ordained priest must fulfill his priestly function in a manner that constitutes fulfilment of the constant Tradition of the Church (and that is not mere custom, but infallible teaching) to celebrate a valid mass. If he is not of a mind to be a priest as the Tradition sets out the priestly vocation, how can he? That, it seems, was the conclusion of the Bishop who removed the priest in question.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
Mark_Marilyn
Guest
That’s very clever, very well done.
Actually, we have never heard of the concept “Spouse of the Church” even from certain priests and a bishop we had known.
I presume that the relationship is absolutely 100% spiritual…? --in which case, it is quite possible to have a deep and close bond in spirit between two people of either sex, between relatives, and between a person and a spiritual institution…? And the ‘side’ issue of gays in the priesthood may seem to complicate matters in the eyes of some people (not us), but the issues now seem to be interlocked, granting the existence of gay Christians (we do; we know some). Anyway, we retract any connection between priesthood and the word “easy.” It is not, and to assume any profession is ever “easy” would be a mistake. Many students have discovered this to their regret. Regards, Marilyn
Actually, we have never heard of the concept “Spouse of the Church” even from certain priests and a bishop we had known.
I presume that the relationship is absolutely 100% spiritual…? --in which case, it is quite possible to have a deep and close bond in spirit between two people of either sex, between relatives, and between a person and a spiritual institution…? And the ‘side’ issue of gays in the priesthood may seem to complicate matters in the eyes of some people (not us), but the issues now seem to be interlocked, granting the existence of gay Christians (we do; we know some). Anyway, we retract any connection between priesthood and the word “easy.” It is not, and to assume any profession is ever “easy” would be a mistake. Many students have discovered this to their regret. Regards, Marilyn
R
Reepicheep
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
I snipped some of Marilyn’s post. My own words** bolded**That’s very clever, very well done.
Actually, we have never heard of the concept “Spouse of the Church” even from certain priests and a bishop we had known.
I haven’t heard it expressed in quite that way either. However, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and the priest stands in Christ’s place in regards to the Church. So the phrase “Spouse of the Church” seems to me to express that idea well.
And the ‘side’ issue of gays in the priesthood may seem to complicate matters in the eyes of some people (not us), but the issues now seem to be interlocked, granting the existence of gay Christians (we do; we know some).
**Interlocked in what way? The existance of female Christians does not in itself prove that women ought to be ordained. Why should the existance of gay Christians be an argument for gay priests? And if the Church accepts/accepted gay priests, (which I think is in doubt), how is that proof the Church ought to accept female priests? **
Anyway, we retract any connection between priesthood and the word “easy.” It is not, and to assume any profession is ever “easy” would be a mistake. Many students have discovered this to their regret. Regards, Marilyn
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
Mark & Marilyn:
Mark & Marilyn:
Mark & Marilyn:
If by “gay Christian”, you mean those with homosexual inclinations who seek to place their lives and sexuality under God’s ordinances, the Church has explicitly declared them to indeed be on the Christian path. If by “gay Christian” you mean one who declares that acting on their inclinations is not sinful, the Church points out that this is not the Christian path – and certainly not the path for a priest.
Blessings,
Gerry
The consignment of a utterance of a Sacred Congregation of the Curia, published at the direction of the Holy Father, to the category of “clever” speaks volumes.That’s very clever, very well done.
Mark & Marilyn:
Sadly, that is utterly believable.
Mark & Marilyn:
The separation of the spiritual and the physical is Manichean, not Christian. There is no such separation in the Church, or in the priesthood. The priest is, and remains, a human, a man. The vow of celibacy reflects that is the whole person, not just some spiritual aspect of him, that is conformed by the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Mark & Marilyn:
Given the rejection of the Manichean approach, we are dealing with anything but a “side” issue. As for there being gay Christians, yes, there are, just as there are fornicating, adulterous, embezzeling, deceiving, in general, sinning Christians. But when anyone suggests that any sin is not a sin, they move far from being Christian. I may want to steal, because it is easier than working hard for a living. But if I do not, I do not sin. If I do, but repent, seek reconciliation, and work to amend my life, I am firmly on the Christian path. But if I proclaim that I am simply being as I am made when I steal, and that therefore stealing for people like me is not a sin, I cease to walk the Christian path.And the ‘side’ issue of gays in the priesthood may seem to complicate matters in the eyes of some people (not us), but the issues now seem to be interlocked, granting the existence of gay Christians (we do; we know some). Anyway, we retract any connection between priesthood and the word “easy.” It is not, and to assume any profession is ever “easy” would be a mistake. Many students have discovered this to their regret. Regards, Marilyn
If by “gay Christian”, you mean those with homosexual inclinations who seek to place their lives and sexuality under God’s ordinances, the Church has explicitly declared them to indeed be on the Christian path. If by “gay Christian” you mean one who declares that acting on their inclinations is not sinful, the Church points out that this is not the Christian path – and certainly not the path for a priest.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
Mark_Marilyn
Guest
Let me see if I understand the logic correctly so far:
Assumptions: Constant Tradition – throughout all history > priestly vocation > mind of the priest
Church = our Holy Mother
Therefore, Mother = very respectable!
…and presumably, women = …respectable; hence, violent crimes against women are reprehensible;
–Mark Vanderheyden
Assumptions: Constant Tradition – throughout all history > priestly vocation > mind of the priest
Church = our Holy Mother
Therefore, Mother = very respectable!
…and presumably, women = …respectable; hence, violent crimes against women are reprehensible;
- nothing is “wrong” with being a woman.
Also: Mother Mary = supremely respectable!
God as Father, …and absolutely nothing else?
–Mark Vanderheyden
C
Confiteor
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
Yes, women have the same potential for respectability as men, but I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at? The “news” topic is the dismissal of the priest. The ordination of women is not on the table for discussion, here, or in the Church at large. That was put to rest (again) with “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” which was later confirmed an infallible teaching. If you want to continue to advocate for something that has already been ruled out for the Church, you probably should not do so in in the context of this thread.
R
RyanL
Guest
Mark & Marilyn:
Regarding female ordination, it would be helpful to read the following excerpt from a papal encyclical:
There seems to be a sense from your posts that you believe the Church doesn’t fully appreciate women. I disagree, and with significant reason. Please read Mulieris Dignitatem. This document, more than any other, helped me to understand that the Church’s teachings are true.
Please let me know after reading this if you still feel the Church doesn’t appreciate women. I am willing to discuss the matter openly.
God Bless,
RyanL
This is probably indicative of one of two things:
- The lack of depth of theological discourse you have had with the priests / bishop.
…or… - The lack of depth of theological knowledge of these particular priests / bishop.
If such a statement would surprise them, option (2) is probably correct. If not, option (1) is probably the case.
Regarding female ordination, it would be helpful to read the following excerpt from a papal encyclical:
This is not an “optional teaching”. Catholics cannot simply “disagree” about this; it has passed to a binding matter of faith and morals. To “disagree” with this teaching is to disobey Christ (Luke 10:16), and should not be done lightly (Acts 5:5).
There seems to be a sense from your posts that you believe the Church doesn’t fully appreciate women. I disagree, and with significant reason. Please read Mulieris Dignitatem. This document, more than any other, helped me to understand that the Church’s teachings are true.
Please let me know after reading this if you still feel the Church doesn’t appreciate women. I am willing to discuss the matter openly.
God Bless,
RyanL
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
Please stay on topic. If anyone wishes to engage in a general discussion about the ordination of women, please start a separate thread on that topic. Thanks.
- Status