Church strike for women's ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
And if you are Protestant - think of like this. The Old Testament is filled with figurative language.
Click to expand...
True. Protestants believe that there is figurative language in the Bible. For example, many believe that the words of he Last Supper are to be taken figuratively and not literally.
Click to expand...
And they are wrong about that because if it was figurative, Jesus would not have let all those disciples to leave Him
 
AlNg said:
There are canon lawyers and theologians who say that the pronouncement on ordination of women priests has not unequivocally met the criteria for infallibility.
Click to expand...
Martin Luther was a theologian. So?

Someone can always find someone to say anything, if one looks long enough.
 
edwest211 said:
You should write that in a letter and send it to the Vatican.
Click to expand...
There is no need for that since the Vatican knows all about Father Sullivan. In fact his student, William Cardinal Levada, held the prestigious Vatican post of Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Levada, as you know, received his doctorate under Father Sullivan.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
If you are Catholic - you should believe (or at least consider) what St. Thomas Aquinas said about the subject.
Click to expand...
Right. Are you referring to ST first part Question 9? Or to some other teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Article 1 of question 9 does say that God is immutable, but it does not go into the question of whether God can change His mind and yet still be immutable. He also refers to Malachi 3: 6 where God says He does not change. But is it possible for God to change His mind, without changing His essence? Take for example, Purgatory. God initially sets a certain punishment for that. But if a Catholic on earth applies a plenary indulgence to the soul in Purgatory, is not that certain punishment released and the soul is welcomed in heaven?
To sum up, can you kindly give us a reference to where St. Thomas Aquinas has specifically taught that God cannot change His mind even though it is recorded that God said that He would change His mind in Jeremiah 26: 3?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
If you are Catholic - you should believe (or at least consider) what St. Thomas Aquinas said about the subject.
Click to expand...
Right. Are you referring to ST first part Question 9? Or to some other teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Article 1 of question 9 does say that God is immutable, but it does not go into the question of whether God can change His mind and yet still be immutable. He also refers to Malachi 3: 6 where God says He does not change. But is it possible for God to change His mind, without changing His essence? Take for example, Purgatory. God initially sets a certain punishment for that. But if a Catholic on earth applies a plenary indulgence to the soul in Purgatory, is not that certain punishment released and the soul is welcomed in heaven?
To sum up, can you kindly give us a reference to where St. Thomas Aquinas has specifically taught that God cannot change His mind even though it is recorded that God said that He would change His mind in Jeremiah 26: 3?
Click to expand...
Again… it’s not “change His mind” the same way we change our minds. We humans typically change our minds when we realize that we were wrong about something. But God is never wrong, so He can’t “change His mind” in the human sense.

However, God can be “convinced” to grant Mercy when others ask. This is because God is Love and when we pray for the soul of others, we are showing Love.

Also, part of God’s plan IS for us to pray for one another.

So it’s not so much that He is actually changing His mind. It’s more that He allows humans the opportunity to help one another.
 
Last edited:
And Yet Cardinal Levada wrote on dissident theologians :

" Catholic theology does not recognize the right to dissent, if by that we mean adopting conclusions which are contrary to the clear teachings of the authoritative, infallible magisterium and which are presented to the public in such a way as to constitute equivalently an alternative personal magisterium"

Taking the opposite positions as Sullivan. Explain.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am a voice in the wilderness (or maybe I just didn’t read everyone’s response) but I have said it on other threads: I don’t agree with ordaining women, but if I did, where are all the women taking their vows as Sisters. Do they know they can teach and counsel and there are limited cases, but nuns have received permission to officiate weddings in special circumstances. If they are so serious on wanting to serve the church and take holy orders, it’s available now. If women truly felt the call and there were a high amount of sincere women out there becoming nuns, then I could understand why they might say “how about our roll gets expanded”. But there are not.
 
Nicene said:
Taking the opposite positions as Sullivan. Explain.
Click to expand...
Father Sullivan does not believe that his view is dissent. But is an authentic teaching on what is required for a pronouncement to be infallible. Similar to what the canon lawyer has written in the article on Canon Law Made Easy.
 
Do you imply that Father Sullivan is a heretic or a Pontius Pilate? I see that (unlike you) the Vatican has rather high opinions of him? And do you believe that the authors of Canon Law made easy are also heretics or that these canon lawyers are Pontius Pilates?
 
Last edited:
Of course not. That is because it is not a definition of the word. It is only what is possibly implied when using the term in this context.
 
Good. I hope they stay on strike 'cause the Church is better off without these modernists in the pews.
They’re only harming themselves with this so-called strike.
Stay away, or repent and return, but for goodness sake leave your stupid progressive agenda’s out of Christ’s Church.
 
Progressives are not interested in progress. They are only interested in getting their way.
 
Well he obviously doesn’t. And if God don’t want it, it ain’t possible.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Progressives are not interested in progress. They are only interested in getting their way.
Click to expand...
And in changing settled Church teaching to suit their secular values. Even if it destroys the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Well, one doesn’t read much about such scandalous activity in the Eastern churches. But of course they will be profoundly affected by any schism.
 
There will be no female priests in the Catholic church. Ever.
Period. The end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top