Criticisms of Pope Francis reassertion of Catholic dogma on female ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesus_Is_God_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jesus_Is_God_1

Guest
“The Catholic Church doesn’t trust women with their own bodies and medical decisions. Why would anyone expect the Church to trust women to become decision-making leaders in any way, shape or form?” — Meaghan Schurr

“It is heartbreaking. Born and raised Roman Catholic, I left the church in 1988 because of its laws on annulment, its refusal to ordain women to the priesthood and its frequent intellectual intolerance. I have long prayed to be able to return and was excited when Pope Francis came into power, but this development will keep me from returning. I am a practicing but homesick Episcopalian.” — Eileen Tess Johnston

“As a man, I am offended. Everything about the church is male, including all the rules that they follow. Just by closing this door, they are telling us quite loudly that (in my opinion) women are not worthy of the priesthood and that they are not able to fulfill the obligations. Oh well, what do you want from a boys’ club?” — Claude Dubé

“This is reason No. 1 I left the Catholic Church. I had a baby girl and realized that I could not honestly tell her that she could be anything when she could never be the leader of her church.” — Arlene Kock Hogan

“I think it’s interesting that one of Jesus’ closest friends and confidantes was a woman, but there are no female priests, bishops or cardinals. Sadly, ‘what would Jesus do’ isn’t something that is important to the Catholic Church.” — Julie Van de Linder

How as Catholics should we respond to these criticism? How would you respond to each of these criticisms?
 
Nice loaded terms.

Leader…worthy…decision-making…

Men are not worthy of the priesthood either.

Priests may have to be leaders and decision makers, depending on their assignments. But that’s not the essence of their vocation.

It shows how they misunderstand the role of the priest. They may not say it outright, but clearly they think it’s some king of prestige, rank, position that can somehow be earned.

It’s always about me and what I want, not what truth is being taught.
 
Do not take these things to heart; people who criticize the Church on these issues will also condemn it for the stances it takes on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion and a plurality of other things. For we follow the Church not because we interpret and apply the doctrine and statutes of the Church ourselves but because she has been entrusted with a divine authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ to proclaim His message to all the nations. The gaining of wisdom is realized only when we acknowledge there is One wiser than us.
 
These are the types that fell asleep or skipped CCD or religion classes. They were never taught the term IN PERSONA CHRISTI.
 
Austere said:
Do not take these things to heart; people who criticize the Church on these issues will also condemn it for the stances it takes on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, abortion and a plurality of other things. For we follow the Church not because we interpret and apply the doctrine and statutes of the Church ourselves but because she has been entrusted with a divine authority from Our Lord Jesus Christ to proclaim His message to all the nations. The gaining of wisdom is realized only when we acknowledge there is One wiser than us.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
Of course those who leave had one or more things to be unhappy about. This is a surprise how?

If the Holy Church tripped over herself changing everything that didn’t jibe with the current culture, many times more would have left. Why not, after all, as there would be nothing timeless to cling to?

ICXC NIKA
 
jediliz said:
These are the types that fell asleep or skipped CCD or religion classes. They were never taught the term IN PERSONA CHRISTI.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. 13 years of Catholic primary and secondary education (that I was by no means asleep in) including being taught the term In Persona Christi, and I share some of the opinion Ms. Hogan in the OP expresses. Particularly now that I too have a daughter. That said I also came to the understanding, which many of those commenters in the OP apparently haven’t, that the RCC is not in a position to change it’s position on female ordination. To the point that even if a future Pope did desire to change the church’s position he would simply not be able to do so by virtue of the RCC’s position on certain teachings being infallible dogma and thus unable to be changed. 🤷
 
There are many women who remain happily within the Church and affirm the all-male priesthood.

There was a small exodus of women in the 80’s and 90’s when this was a hot issue, but it was only a small percentage.

Meanwhile, the denominations which have accepted female ordination are all declining, and the Catholic Church, while also declining in absolute terms, is both stronger than the others numerically, and also stronger in adherence to all traditional Christian beliefs.

Also, women continue to make up at least 50% of practicing Catholics. My observation of any church service is that it’s actually more than 50% women.

My point?

These people talk about “I left the Church because…” as if their vote is important. Well, if it’s going to be a vote, then the male priesthood have been voted in.
 
Feminists are falling under the delusion that to be “equal” in the eyes of God, means that we are the “same.” Men and women are not the same and never will be, no matter what the PC police dictate. Men have their place and women have theirs. That is the natural order of things.

The Pope is the leader of the Universal Church and the successor of Peter and Europe’s last absolute monarch. He has spoken. He said “NO” and that is good enough for me. Disobedience is not pleasing to God.
 
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I do believe however that women will be allowed to become Deacons. Jesus Apostles were all men. Christ did not choose a women to be one of his Apostles. If he had then you would have a good argument. Jesus has given his authority to the Pope to make the decisions for his Church.
 
PassingSoul said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I do believe however that women will be allowed to become Deacons. Jesus Apostles were all men. Christ did not choose a women to be one of his Apostles. If he had then you would have a good argument. Jesus has given his authority to the Pope to make the decisions for his Church.
Click to expand...
Not in all things.

Things of divine law are unchangeable. This includes things like the matter of the sacraments: wheat bread and grape wine for the Eucharist, oil for Confirmation, water for baptism. And a human male for ordination.

The Church would not do it because she cannot do it. She was not given this authority by God. God forbid we get a lousy Pope down the road who’s swallowed the whole feminist nonsense, but if we indeed get such loser as a Pope, try as he might, he cannot do it. If he were to make the attempt to definitively define otherwise, he would be prevented from doing so. Worst case, by death.
 
PassingSoul said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I do believe however that women will be allowed to become Deacons. Jesus Apostles were all men. Christ did not choose a women to be one of his Apostles. If he had then you would have a good argument. Jesus has given his authority to the Pope to make the decisions for his Church.
Click to expand...
NO way to being deacons! This isn’t the age where baptism is done in the nude (“deaconesses” were non ordained that helped clothe with the baptism garment).
 
I recognize none of those names. Who are they? (Don’t answer). They do not have a problem with Pope Francis. They do not have a problem with the Catholic Church.

They have a problem with Jesus Christ.
 
Padres1969 said:
Not necessarily. 13 years of Catholic primary and secondary education (that I was by no means asleep in) including being taught the term In Persona Christi, and I share some of the opinion Ms. Hogan in the OP expresses. Particularly now that I too have a daughter. That said I also came to the understanding, which many of those commenters in the OP apparently haven’t, that the RCC is not in a position to change it’s position on female ordination. To the point that even if a future Pope did desire to change the church’s position he would simply not be able to do so by virtue of the RCC’s position on certain teachings being infallible dogma and thus unable to be changed. 🤷
Click to expand...
If the Church admits that one dogma is false and/or open to change, then why should we assume the others are true? Women have never been clergy in the Church and this cannot change. If this changed then we might as well throw out other doctrines such as the real presence, the second coming of Christ, even the Trinity! See what this all leads to?

The Church believes itself to be the bride of Christ, and Christ did promise us that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church. With the help of the Holy Spirit, the Church is free from error because the goal of the Church is indeed to spread the gospel and message of Jesus to all nations. The gospel does not and cannot change. The Church does not change. Many splinter groups of Christians have broken off from the Church attempting to act in place of the Church, claiming to act in the authority of Christ, but this simply cannot be done.

Are you up for some St. Augustine quotes?

**“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches.” - St. Augustine of Hippo (Against Letter of Mani [396 A.D])

“The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all the heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.” - St. Augustine of Hippo (Against Letter of Mani [396 A.D])**

Here’s a little something from the Bible as well.

**“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” - Hebrews 13:8
**
 
Mass attendance & participation is predominately female. If the Church is a boy’s club, it isn’t doing a very good job at it, at least in the US.
 
there were lots of women around Jesus, including His mother. He revealed Himself to women. He gave them a more promenate role than anyone else. Yet He didn’t make any of them an Apostle. He had a reason. Jesus was not limited by cultural norms. If He wanted women to be priests He would have selected His Apostles from both men & women.

Jesus didn’t for a reason. We have theological reason/theories regarding why He didn’t, but he one thing we know for sure is that ordination for men only is Dogma. And no human has the ability to change Dogma.

If a women would become a priest, he whole Church would fall apart, not because of the woman but because then all Dogma (for example the Dogma of the Holy Trinity) would be called into question.

People who want female priests fail to understand this simple point. Or they understand it and distruction of the Church is their goal.
 
If the Church were going to ordain women (which she hasn’t got authority to do), she’d have done it already. Seriously, 2,000 years is a long time to change something like that). Interestingly, everything I have read that says early Christian clergy (not the aforementioned “deaconesses” as they were never ordained to Holy Orders) were female…ummm, doesn’t give a single example of a female bishop of presbyter. I even have a “history” book published by national geographic that says the early Church’s leaders were both male and female…but gives no references or examples. Seriously though, what is with this push to ordain women? I don’t understand why some women want to do something because a man does. I mean, I think motherhood is beautiful. I really do. But I don’t want to be a woman!
 
jediliz said:
NO way to being deacons! This isn’t the age where baptism is done in the nude (“deaconesses” were non ordained that helped clothe with the baptism garment).
Click to expand...
The Church could hypothetically bring back the office of deaconess and allow them to carry out certain functions deacons do that don’t require ordination. They would not just be female deacons, though, but something different.
 
Jesus_Is_God said:
If the Church admits that one dogma is false and/or open to change, then why should we assume the others are true? Women have never been clergy in the Church and this cannot change. If this changed then we might as well throw out other doctrines such as the real presence, the second coming of Christ, even the Trinity! See what this all leads to?
Click to expand...
If the Catholic Church reverses itself on even ONE dogma, that’s the end of it. Nothing she says or has ever said or ever will say will hold any water. The Church would have been proven to be a fraud and would be worth squat.

IF this ever happens (mind you, this won’t) my only logical response would be to cease the Christian life. My only governing principles will be reason and civil law. Everything else, such as moral teachings, liturgy, theology, etc. would mean absolutely nothing. I would have to continue believing in a God, because it would be unreasonable not to; obviously he exists. But things like the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, Sacraments…out the door.

IF this ever happens. Which it won’t, for the reasons I outlined. There is no middle ground. Either the Church is divine and infallible, or it is a diabolical fake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top