English bishops defend male-only priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The lavender boys are at it again! They respond when they need not for no other reason than to give a group, a very small group, of malcontents the attention they crave. This is a common tactic of the ‘magic circle’ (aka The Catholic Bishops conference of England and Wales) they use the people that they really support (Catholic Women for Ordination - or some similar name) to corrupt the authentic teaching they so despise. They aren’t normally as subtle, but I guess the Holy Fathers imminent visit to the U.K is making them hold back. This is the last part of the last paragraph to the above link. Catholics will understand it as patent nonsense:

“The tradition of male priests must not become a subject to score empty political points on, be it through equality legislation or poster campaigns. And finally,** until the thousands of women who have already committed to the Church through Holy Orders demand the right to be priests, there is no genuine case for change**.”

Compare this to the Church’s official teaching on the priesthood. Pope John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on May 30, 1994, Pope John Paul II declared that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be held definitively by all the church’s faithful. And the official Responsum stated that the teaching was from The Deposit of Faith i.e., unchangeable. Even the ultra liberal theologian Francis Sullivan writing in the heretical Tablet (mouthpiece of the sweet smelling lavender boys) realised this,'Hence I take the C.D.F.‘s statement to mean that it is a clearly established fact that the world-wide Catholic episcopate is in agreement with Pope John Paul II in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed doctrine that must be held definitively by all the faithful’ (The Tablet, Dec 95). Yet the alleged bishops of England are saying that if a certain number of religious “demand” that women should be ordained it can be reviewed? Surely, if a fast order cook from Idaho can see the clear teachings of the Church and the erroneous teachings of these bishops the Holy See can also see? But take heart! The old order is passing away, and they know it.

'In the Church’s latest statement on this matter, Pope John Paul II, using his full authority as the successor of Peter,** states categorically that the Church cannot — not will not, but cannot — ordain women**, now or in the future. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets it out clearly, quoting the decree Inter insigniores:

“Only a baptized man (vir) receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html
 
THE LACK provision for women to become Catholic priests is not the result of sexism 2000 years ago, its because women cannot fulfill a basic function of the priesthood, ‘standing in the place of Jesus,’ Fr Stephen Wang said yesterday in a statement sent out by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales.
scobserver.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/catholic-church-defends-male-only-priesthood/
:clapping:

It’s so nice to see priests standing up and defending the doctrines of the Church. They’re know that they’re going to get hell for it, but they do it anyways. God Bless 'em.
 
Oh, guys! I just read through the original link and it is a mix of what was said by the bishops official representative along with the authors personal opinion:blush:
me culpa me culpa me culpa :tsktsk::tsktsk: I must :highprayer: for forgiveness 😊 :crying:
 
I think people just need to get over the fact that the priesthood is not just another job that any women can do as well.
 
I think people just need to get over the fact that the priesthood is not just another job that any women can do as well.
Exactly! I have a friend who is a female youth pastor and I have a hard time communicating this problem to her.

What it really comes down to is this–if you accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God then you’re all set. What it seems like, especaially amongst Mainline Protestatans (and people in the Catholic Church too!) is that people see the Bible as a product of its time. Maybe somewhat inspired, but not inerrant and perfect. People think that the writers just didn’t like women.

Now, us Catholic, Orthodox and many Fundamentalist and Evangelical protestants accept this.

I just don’t get why the rest don’t…seems like their churches are a “product of the times” themselves… 🤷
 
Exactly! I have a friend who is a female youth pastor and I have a hard time communicating this problem to her.

What it really comes down to is this–if you accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God then you’re all set. What it seems like, especaially amongst Mainline Protestatans (and people in the Catholic Church too!) is that people see the Bible as a product of its time. Maybe somewhat inspired, but not inerrant and perfect. People think that the writers just didn’t like women.

Now, us Catholic, Orthodox and many Fundamentalist and Evangelical protestants accept this.

I just don’t get why the rest don’t…seems like their churches are a “product of the times” themselves… 🤷
Yes, according to them the period and society Jesus lived in did not honor women and therefore a woman Apostle would have been outright rejected by society. So they believe that Jesus just conforms to society. So then they should also explain why Jesus healed and preached during Sabbath when in the society he was in, Sabbath was most sacred and no one would dare perform any work on Sabbath Jesus broke many norms, I can’t see why women Apostles would have been an issue if Jesus was only worried about the gender discrimination of his time. Obviously the issue is far more than gender discrimination.
 
Yes, according to them the period and society Jesus lived in did not honor women and therefore a woman Apostle would have been outright rejected by society. So they believe that Jesus just conforms to society. So then they should also explain why Jesus healed and preached during Sabbath when in the society he was in, Sabbath was most sacred and no one would dare perform any work on Sabbath Jesus broke many norms, I can’t see why women Apostles would have been an issue if Jesus was only worried about the gender discrimination of his time. Obviously the issue is far more than gender discrimination.
I can’t agree with you more my good man! (please, I hope you’re a man 😛 )

I had this exact same discussion with my mother about a month or so ago. Jesus surprised a lot of people with his teachings, women apostles would have been congruent with his radicalism. (not a bad thing)

Heck, I think the fact that Jesus didn’t even chose his own Mother, Queen of Heaven to be an apostle gives enough credence to the fact there need not, well cannot, be female priests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top