Church strike for women's ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably because they’re not the ones whose patriarch is the Pope. They have their own Patriarchs who are subject to the Pope.
 
It would cease to be the Catholic Church. Ditto if same sex “marriage” is ever adopted. In either case, the result will be a mighty big schism.
 
prayerrider said:
It would cease to be the Catholic Church. Ditto if same sex “marriage” is ever adopted. In either case, the result will be a mighty big schism.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be.

We know what Jesus told Peter about what will happen when His church is tested by the “gates of hell”. So we know something like this won’t happen.
 
Well, such a schism would result in at least two bodies. The true, holy and orthodox Catholic Church might be the smaller of the two. The other would be indistinguishable in moral theology and secular accommodation from the episcopalians.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention, that part of the problem is the demasculinization of the Church, and by extension of the portrayals of God, which adds further fuel to men not remaining in the Church, and the cycle continues.
 
By “destroy” I mean destroy the current, strained unity, i.e. a big schism. That is very possible.
 
Last edited:
Card. Müller on deaconettes. “No.”

wdtprs.com

Card. Müller on deaconettes. "No."

I am reminded of years in the past when I would sometimes be challenged again and again for decisions I had made. I eventually would say, "I have two answers. There's a short answer and a long answer." "What's the short answer?" "No." What's the long answer?" "Noooooooooooooo." Meanwhile, L
wdtprs.com wdtprs.com
“InfoVaticana: You have written several books on women and the priesthood. There’s been a commission on the female diaconate. Do you believe that there will be an opening to the female diaconate and therefore, in the future, to the priesthood of women?

Cardinal Müller: No. Dogmatically it is not possible. The pope does not have the power and authority to change the sacraments. And there was never a sacramental diaconate for women. And some historical data cannot be interpreted in this sense, and the Church has never dogmatically said that it is possible for women to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. There is only one sacrament of Holy Orders: bishop, priest and deacon, and the sacrament cannot be separated or distinguished.
Click to expand...
 
This particular essay does not mention women’s ordination. It may well be a cut an paste from a previous writing, for all we know, or he may have been falling back on the two examples that are always used and did not give any thought to women’s ordination. Now I respect that not all the clergy agree all the time, but St. John Paul stated:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
Click to expand...
His intent seems clear to me, and was followed up with:
Dubium : Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum : Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
Click to expand...
 
I do not doubt that was what was meant. However, how skewed is it to thing of the need to be masculine as a Church when if we were to have any gender it would be feminine. Feminists miss this point. One of the symbols of the all male priesthood is that the priest, in persona christi, are servants to the bride, the feminine church. We are not called to be macho, but meek and humble like sheep.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,…
Blessed are those who mourn,…
Blessed are the meek,…
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,…
Blessed are the merciful,…
Blessed are the pure in heart,…
Blessed are the peacemakers,…
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,…

It may well be in the culture of the world today we need a little demasculization to be men in the eyes of God.
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t thinking in terms of society, but of individual responses to the temptation to equate masculinity with machoism. This was a heck of a lot worse when Jesus spoke from the Mount, but speak he did.
 
Not quite accurate. The male only priesthood hasn’t been dogmatically defined per se… yet it remains an infallible teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. Much like the teaching on contraception. We are not bound only by dogmatic definitions, but the entire body of teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. St John Paul II definitively clarified that the ordinary magisterium has always taught that women cannot be ordained priests, but he stopped short of promulgating a formal dogma.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top