Catholic Women in Germany Demand Reform

[MagdalenaRita]

Junia was an apostle incarcerated at the same time at Paul. Romans 16:7.

There is much debate whether Junia was male or female or whether this person is being called an apostle or was around the apostles.

Oh, she also said Mass and heard confession.

This nothing but legend. I’m Irish. We love our legends. St. Brigid was an abbess not a priest

 

[Maximian]

No one is saying they cannot speak nor that they are obliged to leave. The point is that to insist on belonging to a church you don’t agree with is intellectually dishonest and raises a question about their integrity.

 

[stpurl]

Right. While no one is saying that a person should leave the Catholic faith at all, it is equally problematic when a person pretty much declares that the Catholic faith has left THEM “until it does what I demand it to do”. I’m not judging the hearts of these women, but as a Catholic I can’t just stand around and say, “Well, Catholics are supposed to believe that God has determined only men can be priests, has enforced it for 2000 years plus, and Popes in our lifetime have confirmed this as an infallible teaching in both encyclicals and affirmations of same, BUT if another Catholic wants to say that this isn’t ‘really infallible’ or “the pope could change it if he wants to’, in spite of the fact that two statements are absolutely categorically wrong, we just HAVE TO ‘let these women have their say and give their statements exactly the same kind of ‘weight’ that we allow for the true teachings.

Nope, it can’t be done. I would no more state that this is proper and right for a Catholic in the Church than I would state it is perfectly right and proper for a Catholic to stand up and declare that the Church should allow milk and rice cakes for the Eucharist (as long as the milk was lactate free and no RBG hormones of course) since it wouldn’t be fair to ‘keep celiac sufferers and alcoholics from the RIGHT to the Eucharist”.

It does not matter that in today’s Orwellian world black is white, white is black, and ‘niceness’ means that we must accept every statement and demand as equally worthy. . .i.e., what is ‘your truth’ is just as ‘true’ as a truth which directly contradicts it. If your Catholic truth is that women MUST be priests, then by god it is TRUE and you dast not contradict it you rigid bigot you. If your Catholic truth is that women can marry women, same thing. It is, in fact, absolute tyranny and egotism masked as ‘kindness and concern for others’. Diabolical.

 

[TMC]

No one is saying they cannot speak nor that they are obliged to leave. The point is that to insist on belonging to a church you don’t agree with is intellectually dishonest and raises a question about their integrity.

Maybe you are not saying that, but the OP suggested the leave. You are questioning their honesty and integrity, which is uncharitable at a minimum.

Most Catholics have some issue with Church teaching. Some react by asserting that they know what the Church “really” teaches better than the bishops or the Pope. We see that literally everyday on this forum. I find that more intellectually dishonest than those that admit they have an issue with Church teaching and raise that issue in an honest way.

 

[stpurl]

Most Catholics? Really? And what are the issues? Did they have a few months of quiet uncertainty followed by acceptance? That’s what MOST Catholics might have which you could call an ‘issue’.

Also, the irony with your claiming that the people who call out wrong teaching as ‘asserting that they know what the Church really teaches better than the bishops or the Pope” is astounding, because that, my friend, is exactly what the German women ‘reformers’ are claiming to do!! You are instead trying to call that intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who reject these false teachings while ignoring the fact that the ‘reformers’ are the ones truly ‘guilty’ of the actions you’re condemning. . .

 

[TMC]

Most Catholics? Really? And what are the issues? Did they have a few months of quiet uncertainty followed by acceptance? That’s what MOST Catholics might have which you could call an ‘issue’.

Also, the irony with your claiming that the people who call out wrong teaching as ‘asserting that they know what the Church really teaches better than the bishops or the Pope” is astounding, because that, my friend, is exactly what the German women ‘reformers’ are claiming to do!! You are instead trying to call that intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who reject these false teachings while ignoring the fact that the ‘reformers’ are the ones truly ‘guilty’ of the actions you’re condemning. . .

Yes, really, most Catholics.

As to your second point, please, it is more than obvious. How many threads are running right now asserting that the bishops are violating the Church’s “real” teaching one way or another – in how they administer the Mass, how and to whom they distribute the Eucharist, how and when they administer other Sacraments, etc. How many threads asserting that the Pope’s teaching on the death penalty is not really binding or authoritative, or that his encyclicals are in error and therefore not “real” Church teaching? Or questioning whether the bishops and the Popes have implemented Vatican II properly?

Your post seems to prove my point. Exactly which current teachings of the Church are “false teachings” in your view?

Asking for a change is absolutely more intellectually honest than merely asserting that the Church teaches as one wished it did, regardless of what is said by those with actual teaching authority in the Church.

 

[Maximian]

It is not uncharitable to question the integrity of someone who is doing one thing and saying another.

 

[stpurl]

I think actually you’re proving my point; you ignore the dichotomy between your condemnation of intellectual dishonesty by (supposedly) those who point out the intellectual dishonesty of people who are themselves claiming to be ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ and having more knowledge than the bishops.

For the Pope has repeatedly confirmed that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

 

[TMC]

Can you answer my question as to what “false teachings” you believe are being rightfully “rejected”?

 

[stpurl]

Can you acknowledge that those women who are arguing for ‘women priests’ are themselves guilty of “asserting that they know what the Church ‘really’ teaches better than the bishops or the Pope? That you called that ‘more intellectually dishonest’ than supposedly, ‘having an ‘honest’ issue and talking about it. . .while ignoring the fact that the women themselves are guilty of the real intellectual dishonesty that you yourself posited?

 

[TMC]

Can you acknowledge that those women who are arguing for ‘women priests’ are themselves guilty of “asserting that they know what the Church ‘really’ teaches better than the bishops or the Pope? That you called that ‘more intellectually dishonest’ than supposedly, ‘having an ‘honest’ issue and talking about it. . .while ignoring the fact that the women themselves are guilty of the real intellectual dishonesty that you yourself posited?

Are they saying that the Church currently teaches that there can be women priests? If so, then you are correct. I think they are asking the Church to change its teaching. I don’t have a problem with that. The Church is within its authority to say “no,” but they are free to ask. Whether they should ask, and how the Church should answer, are certainly matters that can be debated.

On the other hand, those that claim the Church currently teaches differently than it does (generally because they are unhappy with that teaching) are absolutely being intellectually dishonest.

Still don’t know what “false teachings” you believe are legitimate to “reject.”

 

[catholic03]

The Holy Father said in the 1990s (St John Paul II) that women can never be priests.

Women can not be priests. Pope Francis has reaffirmed this.

 

[MamaJewel]

I think they are asking the Church to change its teaching

Maybe I missed something here.
When we speak of Church teaching, it is clear biblically and doctrine that killing is wrong, short of self-defense.

But the pope and church leaders during that time authorized and blessed the inquisition. Were those popes not legitimate popes? If they weren’t, then why does the vatican offer opportunity to view the papal bulls online as if those popes represented the church when they decided to eliminate the “heretics”?

Please explain to me how there is church teaching that can’t be changed? I get it can’t be changed when declared papally infallible, but everything else is open season to change at some future point.

 

[TMC]

Maybe I missed something here.

I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with them asking for the Church to change its teaching. I am also not saying that the Church can never change any of its teaching, or that the Church should never change any of its teachings.

What I am criticizing is the notion that it is somehow improper for those that disagree with the Church to ask for a change. Anyone can ask for a change. They might not get what they ask for, but they can ask and explain why they are asking.

I am also criticizing a different kind of dissent from the Church, one that is both more common and more accepted in many circles. That is the trend of some Catholics simply asserting that the Church teaches as they wished it did. There are many examples of that on this forum pretty much daily – asserting that the Pope’s teaching on the death penalty, or his recent encyclicals are “false” for example, and therefore may be rejected by faithful Catholics.

My point is simple - the Church, through the bishops and the Pope, have teaching authority. We hope they are generally correct; we recognize they are sometimes wrong. Petitioning for change is an acceptable approach to disagreement. Simply declaring that one can effectively overrule the authority of the Pope and the bishops is not an acceptable approach, in my view. I don’t think the German women that are the subject of this thread are doing that.

To be clear, each person must follow their own conscience and comport their actions accordingly. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the assertion by some that they can speak authoritatively for the Church, over against the Pope and the bishops.

 

[stpurl]

You do recognize that the teaching regarding women priests (as in, they cannot ever be permitted) IS an infallible teaching? Set forth in the ordinary magisterium since the apostles, recently confirmed by Pope St. John Paul II in “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” and the definitive teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women confirmed as infallible by Pope Benedict XVI, and furthermore a confirmation that this belongs to the deposit of the faith and may not be changed issued by the Cardinal Prefect for the Deposit of the Faith?

Remember, for a teaching of the Church to be infallible it does not have to be declared as such ‘ex cathedra’. Or, to make it clear, there are many infallible teachings of the Church. There are only a few statements in the Church that have been made ‘ex cathedra.’ Therefore, if a teaching were only considered infallible by ‘ex cathedra’, then the doctrine of the Trinity would not, strictly speaking, be an infallible teaching. But it is. And so. . .

The teaching of the Church remains clear, infallibly clear, a teaching from the deposit of the faith: The Church has no authority to ordain women. Not then, not now, not ever.

 

[MamaJewel]

You do recognize that the teaching regarding women priests (as in, they cannot ever be permitted) IS an infallible teaching?

No, I did not know they put an infallibility stamp on it. That changes everything. (But I still believe that scripturally, the Pope can set whatever rule he deems necessary for the Church and that Christ will honor it, even if it is not what Christ wants.)

 

[MamaJewel]

This nothing but legend. I’m Irish. We love our legends. St. Brigid was an abbess not a priest

True Brid was an abbess, but she did hear confession. Brid’s works were ransacked centuries later, after her death, so like other history, it’s gone with the wind.

 

[TMC]

No, I did not know they put an infallibility stamp on it.

There is actually some dispute about this. My understanding is that the Pope opined that the teaching was infallible as the consistent teaching of the Church. He did not declare it infallible using Papal infallibility. I am sure I will be told I am wrong, but that is what many people believe. The Church does not like to clarify what is “really” infallible and what is not (and has never published a list of infallible teachings), for obvious reasons.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

But I still believe that scripturally, the Pope can set whatever rule he deems necessary for the Church and that Christ will honor it, even if it is not what Christ wants.)

No the Pope can not do anything like that. He himself is to obey Christ also. He can not change Scripture or Tradition or any infallible teachings.

but she did hear confession.

IF she did, she did not have any ability or authority to absolve anyone’s sin. She may only have been a spiritual leader perhaps, offering spiritual advice.

 

[stpurl]

Exactly. The Pope cannot change the valid matter for the Eucharist to rice cakes and grape juice, for example, even though such a change would be hailed by those with gluten allergies or those who cannot tolerate alcohol.

The thing is, there are plenty of infallible teachings, including the Trinity itself, which were never declared ‘ex cathedra’, “I the Pope declare this an infallible teaching’.

To demand that a teaching that has stood since apostolic times, I.e. that the Church has no authority to ordain women, must be given ‘ex cathedra’ or else it’s up for grabs, but to in the same breath declare one’s assent to the doctrine of the Trinity which is part of the Creed but again never given the ‘ex cathedra’ treatment, or to assent for example to the sacrament of Reconciliation and acknowledge that the priest can forgive our sins. . .again a teaching since the time of the apostles but never given the ‘ex cathedra’ statement, shows IMO that people are not being consistent when it comes to setting ‘requirements’ around Church teaching. They allow authority when it’s something they either agree with or don’t care about, but start to demand the Church jump through the ex cathedra hoop over things the Church teaches but that they wish ‘changed’.