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.
The Church will always be at odds with the world’s notions of power, position, and authority.
The poor people who are quoted do not know what the Church proposes. When I say “poor” I mean impoverished. That poverty is the fault of all of us, but especially catechists who don’t understand servant leadership, and don’t understand the relationship between equality and uniqueness.

The teaching of the Church as expressed most profoundly by JP2 is just beginning now to bear fruit.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html
 
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?

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
**
Click to expand...
On that we don’t agree. But it’s no matter, as I said. I’m well aware of the RCC’s position on the issue and that it can’t throw off that position no matter what may come.
 
Padres1969 said:
On that we don’t agree. But it’s no matter, as I said. I’m well aware of the RCC’s position on the issue and that it can’t throw off that position no matter what may come.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t really have what could be characterized as a position.
The Church observes that human beings are a unity of body and soul. The soul is not more meaningful or significant than the body, or vice versa. We are a unity. In today’s culture that idea is anathema. There is a separation of body from soul, a dualism, and a loss of the meaning of physical human existence.
A human body has meaning. It is deeply significant.

The Church also observes the central reality of our salvation: Christ is God incarnate. He has full human nature. He is born of a woman in time and space, as a man.
The Incarnation has unavoidable meaning. It is not an accident. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from his Incarnation.
 
goout said:
The Church doesn’t really have what could be characterized as a position.
The Church observes that human beings are a unity of body and soul. The soul is not more meaningful or significant than the body, or vice versa. We are a unity. In today’s culture that idea is anathema. There is a separation of body from soul, a dualism, and a loss of the meaning of physical human existence.
A human body has meaning. It is deeply significant.

The Church also observes the central reality of our salvation: Christ is God incarnate. He has full human nature. He is born of a woman in time and space, as a man.
The Incarnation has unavoidable meaning. It is not an accident. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from his Incarnation.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a position to me 🤷
 
I imagine there are some folks who have a problem with the fact that Jesus was a man. Doesn’t it seem unfair that there was only one Saviour, and he was man? Wouldn’t a just God have appeared as a brother and sister team of equals? 🤷
 
Padres1969 said:
On that we don’t agree. But it’s no matter, as I said. I’m well aware of the RCC’s position on the issue and that it can’t throw off that position no matter what may come.
Click to expand...
If women were ever clergy, surely there would have been better documentation if it. There is no mention of women ever being priest or bishops. I’m aware there were “deaconess” in the early Church, although this doesn’t necessarily mean they were ordained. The Church is indeed more open to the possibility of female deacons, and more study is needed, but women can and will never become part of the priesthood. Women have never been priest. Women will never be priest.
 
Padres1969 said:
Sounds like a position to me 🤷
Click to expand...
Gravity exists. Do you take a position on it, or do you accept it because it happens to exist whether you believe in it or not?

As you’ll see in Ed West’s link, Pope St. John Paul II expressed very clearly that the Church does not ‘take a position’ on the question of whether a woman can be a priest. It is not the Church’s ‘job’ to decide, to ‘take a position’ on whether a woman can or cannot be a priest. The Church does not have the authority to ordain a woman. The Church is also the Bride of Christ and in mystic union with Him. If The Church does not have the authority, that doesn’t mean that hey, Jesus can, and He might do it some day, and ‘let’ the Church do it too. It means that the Church reflects, as it always does, the Truth revealed by Christ through the Holy Spirit.

We don’t have to know why it exists. Heck, even when it comes to gravity, we can know a lot, but we will never know everything about gravity in our lifetime, because we do not know how gravity came about, since we do not know how the universe itself came from nothing, nor do we know what will happen to gravity, and the universe, when it all ceases to be. Just as we don’t have to know how every process in a car ‘works’, all the scientific theory, all the history, everything down to the secrets of each atom involved, in a car in order to drive it. . .and in fact, knowing a lot of details about something such as how the process of vulcanization led to tires but not knowing how to start and stop an engine, won’t help us drive at all.

And it strikes me that, quite frankly, if many posters here were approached by God Almighty and He GAVE them the reason face-to-face that only men could be priests, they would STILL call Him ‘unfair’ and, “OK, yes, but WHY are you being so mean to women?”
 
Padres1969 said:
Sounds like a position to me 🤷
Click to expand...
Taking a position means that you and I are proposing something, or seeing something, from two different viewpoints.
Please reread my post and tell me what specifically we differ on.
 
Wesrock said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wish they would. I posted on this some while ago; it was a strong Anglican tradition too. Deaconess order. Wonderful.
 
porthos11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This! Especially what I highlighted with red.
I used to be in this camp. I was being mentored by the women who started it.
I am now a very strong supporter of an all-male priesthood, now that I truly understand what the priesthood is.
What changed my mind was hearing the stories of men contemplating the call. Every single one of them talked about “God called me”, “God wants me to…”, “This isn’t me, it’s God. Being a priest is the last thing that crossed my mind!”
Contrast that with the talk with other women in the movement where everything was “I, I, I, We, we, we…” and very little about God’s will. :sad_yes:
So grateful to the faithful, holy priests who stuck by me as I came to see the errors of my ways. :getholy:
 
Oneofthewomen said:
This! Especially what I highlighted with red.
I used to be in this camp. I was being mentored by the women who started it.
I am now a very strong supporter of an all-male priesthood, now that I truly understand what the priesthood is.
What changed my mind was hearing the stories of men contemplating the call. Every single one of them talked about “God called me”, “God wants me to…”, “This isn’t me, it’s God. Being a priest is the last thing that crossed my mind!”
Contrast that with the talk with other women in the movement where everything was “I, I, I, We, we, we…” and very little about God’s will. :sad_yes:
So grateful to the faithful, holy priests who stuck by me as I came to see the errors of my ways. :getholy:
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing that!
 
wonder how all these reflections jibe with Anglican and other denoms that have women clergy?
 
edwest2 said:
The Radical Feminist desire. Being a priest is not a job title. Humility and service are the issues, along with obedience. Not a pointless power struggle.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

Man, and woman, are not God.

Ed
Click to expand...
Yes 👍
The priest is a servant. The Pope is the servant of the servants of God, not merely an office of power for the sake of power. Any authority is exercised in service.

A vocation is a call from God, not just another job.
 
goout said:
Yes 👍
The priest is a servant. The Pope is the servant of the servants of God, not merely an office of power for the sake of power. Any authority is exercised in service.

A vocation is** a call** from God, not just another job.
Click to expand...
That is what the Scottish Presbyterians say re their clergy, be they male or female ; and interestingly that in some cases “The call” is for the person and not for the family
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top