Excommunication looms for American Maryknoll active in 'Womanpriest' rites

[Iowa_Mike]

Posted in Error

 

[udoc89]

I would hope Mike, that they would either come to their sences (I can’t spell wort a darn, was that right? ) or become Episcalpes.

I am an ex-Episcopalian–I like your spelling better!

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Regardless of what you believe, it is critical to point out that Iowa Mike is misquoting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis! Pope JP2 the Great did NOT write “as supreme pastor and teacher, with the authority of Jesus Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul and my own authority” nor did he write “forever and ever and ever” (which would be an awfully hyperbolic and vernacular statement anyway for a formal encyclical). Truth be told, he didn’t even say “forever”. These words may be a valid interpretation of the meaning and intent, I don’t know, but enclosing it in quotation marks indicated falsely that these were the Holy Father’s actual words. I acknowledge that Iowa Mike’s later post quoting O.S. again, did quote it correctly. BTW, I am not sure of my belief on women’s ordination - I am always thinking, praying, examining my conscience about the issue but am inclined to trust Holy Mother Church on this one. What I know for sure however, is that if opponents of ordaining women need to resort to putting their own words in the mouth (pen) of Pope John Paul II in order to strengthen their position, it calls that position into question…

Please explain, since I lifted the citation directly from the encyclical, how I misquoted Pope John Paul II. Have you ever read the encyclical and do you know what weight encyclicals carry?

Also the Pope does not need to sit in a special chair, wear a special hat or say the ‘magic words’ to speak definitively. In Ordinatio Sacradotalis, he did speak definitively:

When the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

In Ordinatio Sacradotalis, and I quote from the Encyclical, he said:

… 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… (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4)

He spoke in virtue of his ministry, on a matter of faith and morals, invoked Lk 22:32,

but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

(used in all ex-cathedra pronouncements), declared that the church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women and declared that his judgement is to be held definitively by all the Church’s faithful.

Those are the words. This teaching is final and immutable.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[RWMorris]

Somebody who is actively procuring and enabling the killing of innocent human beings shouldn’t be excommunicated?

I’m not defending these politicians or their morality, but they are not religious leaders, only secular leaders. Christians should take that into account; I’m sure the Church holds Priests to a higher standard. The standard I am speaking of here is not one of moral conduct in and of itself, but a moral leadership standard that must be set a bar higher than for the laity.

I do believe the Bishops should publicly announce that those politicians who support FOCA or any bill that increases or maintains the status quo in relation to abortion are not welcome to receive the Eucharist. The vast majority of Catholics apparently are not well catechised on this issue. The Church needs to make her stand on right to life issues publicly and perfectly clear to the whole world.

Having said all that, I do recognise the danger of the Church “meddling” in politics, and I think that is one of the main problems holding back many Bishops from being more vocal. But the right to life issue is too important to not “tell it on the mountain”.

 

[HappyRevert]

Somebody who is actively procuring and enabling the killing of innocent human beings shouldn’t be excommunicated?

I think the short answer is yes they should be excommunicated. I believe (this is my opinion only) that the Church has been very cautious because they have been hoping that Catholics - in particular politicians - could be brought back in line with the church’s teaching. With the recent political happenings particularly with FOCA on the horizon they may be forced into taking a stronger public position. As a citizen, I’m on the fence with a religious organization telling my politician how to vote, but it certainly does cause scandal and confusion when self-proclaimed Catholics are advocating allowing living children outside of the womb who were delivered for an abortion be left to die without any consideration or medical assistance.

We do live in interesting times…

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I think the short answer is yes they should be excommunicated. I believe (this is my opinion only) that the Church has been very cautious because they have been hoping that Catholics - in particular politicians - could be brought back in line with the church’s teaching. With the recent political happenings particularly with FOCA on the horizon they may be forced into taking a stronger public position. As a citizen, I’m on the fence with a religious organization telling my politician how to vote, but it certainly does cause scandal and confusion when self-proclaimed Catholics are advocating allowing living children outside of the womb who were delivered for an abortion be left to die without any consideration or medical assistance.

We do live in interesting times…

The way I see it, the pro-abortion ideology isn’t viable and should be aborted itself.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

I’m not defending these politicians or their morality, but they are not religious leaders, only secular leaders. Christians should take that into account; I’m sure the Church holds Priests to a higher standard. The standard I am speaking of here is not one of moral conduct in and of itself, but a moral leadership standard that must be set a bar higher than for the laity.

I do believe the Bishops should publicly announce that those politicians who support FOCA or any bill that increases or maintains the status quo in relation to abortion are not welcome to receive the Eucharist. The vast majority of Catholics apparently are not well catechised on this issue. The Church needs to make her stand on right to life issues publicly and perfectly clear to the whole world.

Having said all that, I do recognise the danger of the Church “meddling” in politics, and I think that is one of the main problems holding back many Bishops from being more vocal. But the right to life issue is too important to not “tell it on the mountain”.

The judge in Italy who ruled that the woman over there could be removed from life support should be excommunicated if he is Catholic.

 

[beherenow95]

Please explain, since I lifted the citation directly from the encyclical, how I misquoted Pope John Paul II. Have you ever read the encyclical and do you know what weight encyclicals carry?

Also the Pope does not need to sit in a special chair, wear a special hat or say the ‘magic words’ to speak definitively. In Ordinatio Sacradotalis, he did speak definitively:

When the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

In Ordinatio Sacradotalis, and I quote from the Encyclical, he said:

He spoke in virtue of his ministry, on a matter of faith and morals, invoked Lk 22:32, (used in all ex-cathedra pronouncements), declared that the church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women and declared that his judgement is to be held definitively by all the Church’s faithful.

Those are the words. This teaching is final and immutable.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike,

Sure, I read it at:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

There’s nothing about “forever” and nothing about “supreme pastor”. BTW … OS is not an encyclical, but an apostolic letter which is at a lower level of formal authority. I’m not saying it’s not an infallible teaching; there are arguments for and against its infallibility (is ordination perahps more a matter of practice and custom than of “faith and morals”?). Maybe it could be infalliable. I don’t claim to know; just trying to clear up the facts.

Peace and Gob bless,
“beherenow95”

 

[RWMorris]

… With the recent political happenings particularly with FOCA on the horizon they may be forced into taking a stronger public position. As a citizen, I’m on the fence with a religious organization telling my politician how to vote, but it certainly does cause scandal and confusion when self-proclaimed Catholics are advocating allowing living children outside of the womb who were delivered for an abortion be left to die without any consideration or medical assistance.

We do live in interesting times…

We shouldn’t tell them how to vote, but we should tell them, at minimum they are not welcome at “the Lord’s Table”. I will not disagree with you, it is time for a “wake-up call” for these wayward Catholics, and our Protestant brothers and sisters should demand the same from their members who are politicians.

 

[RWMorris]

The judge in Italy who ruled that the woman over there could be removed from life support should be excommunicated if he is Catholic.

I can’t disagree. Hopefully, it would lead to the judge’s repentance and reconciliation.

 

[RWMorris]

… BTW … OS is not an encyclical, but an apostolic letter which is at a lower level of formal authority. I’m not saying it’s not an infallible teaching; there are arguments for and against its infallibility (is ordination perhaps more a matter of practice and custom than of “faith and morals”?). Maybe it could be infallible. I don’t claim to know; just trying to clear up the facts.

Peace and Gob bless,
“beherenow95”

I sounds like he meant infallibly, I believe he meant it infallibly, but I’m like you; I don’t know for sure. How important is infallibility in this argument?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike,

Sure, I read it at:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

There’s nothing about “forever” and nothing about “supreme pastor”. BTW … OS is not an encyclical, but an apostolic letter which is at a lower level of formal authority. I’m not saying it’s not an infallible teaching; there are arguments for and against its infallibility (is ordination perahps more a matter of practice and custom than of “faith and morals”?). Maybe it could be infalliable. I don’t claim to know; just trying to clear up the facts.

Peace and Gob bless,
“beherenow95”

You continue to look for specific papal words but seem to miss the message of the Apostolic Letter (which is one of the common forms of Papal instruction of the Faithful). I quote paragraph 4 from the letter itself:

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

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.

He spoke ‘in virtue of my ministry’ which is the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church. He said the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church [infallible in and of itself]. Please note the capital “T” used…this means it is a Tradition that cannot be changed unlike a small “t” tradition (e.g. eating meat on Friday) which can be changed. He goes on to say that in spite of this teaching in some places is considered still open to debate or a matter of changeable discipline and that the purpose of the letter is to resolve the debate. In the letter he declares

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.

This is infallible and immutable instruction from the Pope.

I don’t know how the Pope could have been more clear. As I said before the Pope does not need to sit in a specific chair, wear a particular hat, use some unique phraseology or publish in some defined way to speak infallibilty, check out Vatican I.

As far as I’m concerned this matter is closed but I will leave you with the following link that debates the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacradotalis.

catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[beherenow95]

You continue to look for specific papal words but seem to miss the message of the Apostolic Letter (which is one of the common forms of Papal instruction of the Faithful). I quote paragraph 4 from the letter itself:

He spoke ‘in virtue of my ministry’ which is the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church. He said the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church [infallible in and of itself]. Please note the capital “T” used…this means it is a Tradition that cannot be changed unlike a small “t” tradition (e.g. eating meat on Friday) which can be changed. He goes on to say that in spite of this teaching in some places is considered still open to debate or a matter of changeable discipline and that the purpose of the letter is to resolve the debate. In the letter he declares This is infallible and immutable instruction from the Pope.

I don’t know how the Pope could have been more clear. As I said before the Pope does not need to sit in a specific chair, wear a particular hat, use some unique phraseology or publish in some defined way to speak infallibilty, check out Vatican I.

As far as I’m concerned this matter is closed but I will leave you with the following link that debates the infallibility of Ordinatio Sacradotalis.

catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Hello,

Yep I’ve read that one in the past and again today. It’s opinion - well argued opinion I must admit. Like I said, I don’t want to argue about the infallibility of OS. I personally very much respect the letter and the church’s present teaching on the issue but do harbor some doubts about its infallibility and immutability. And the arguments for and against that have all been done.

Was just trying to point out that in order to make it look more definitively infallible, words were added to the Holy Father’s words in the letter. These represented someone’s (possibly valid) interpretation rather than his real words, and doing so makes one stop and wonder why it would be necessary to do that if the words really spoke for themselves. The main thing was I didn’t want anyone to read the quote, think it was really a verbatim statement, and form their conscience accordingly or go off quoting it to someone else.

As a general question not specifically about OS - not arguing anything but just curious - does anyone know, or have an opinion, why a Pope who wanted to declare something infallibly would be indirect and drop hints about it, instead of just saying “this is infallible”? I mean I know Jesus Himself didn’t always speak directly, but is there some specific reason why the Holy See would want to leave the faithful guessing like this? Are they trying to give us a challenge, make us think a little? I suppose that would be a good thing

Peace and God Bless,
“beherenow95”

 

[beherenow95]

Hello,

Yep I’ve read that one in the past and again today. It’s opinion - well argued opinion I must admit. Like I said, I don’t want to argue about the infallibility of OS. I personally very much respect the letter and the church’s present teaching on the issue but do harbor some doubts about its infallibility and immutability. And the arguments for and against that have all been done.

Was just trying to point out that in order to make it look more definitively infallible, words were added to the Holy Father’s words in the letter. These represented someone’s (possibly valid) interpretation rather than his real words, and doing so makes one stop and wonder why it would be necessary to do that if the words really spoke for themselves. The main thing was I didn’t want anyone to read the quote, think it was really a verbatim statement, and form their conscience accordingly or go off quoting it to someone else.

As a general question not specifically about OS - not arguing anything but just curious - does anyone know, or have an opinion, why a Pope who wanted to declare something infallibly would be indirect and drop hints about it, instead of just saying “this is infallible”? I mean I know Jesus Himself didn’t always speak directly, but is there some specific reason why the Holy See would want to leave the faithful guessing like this? Are they trying to give us a challenge, make us think a little? I suppose that would be a good thing

Peace and God Bless,
“beherenow95”

Oh, haha, after rereading that catholicity elcore thing, I see where you got your misquote - that page said “what if” JP2 had written OS as follows, and then they go on to include their hypothetical version containing all that supreme and forever stuff. Easy to see how one might think it was the real thing. They do conclude “Words would have been added, but not any meaning”, but although there are a lot of pretty good points in that article, their support for that last statement is very brief and kind of weak.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Hello,

Yep I’ve read that one in the past and again today. It’s opinion - well argued opinion I must admit. Like I said, I don’t want to argue about the infallibility of OS. I personally very much respect the letter and the church’s present teaching on the issue but do harbor some doubts about its infallibility and immutability. And the arguments for and against that have all been done.

Was just trying to point out that in order to make it look more definitively infallible, words were added to the Holy Father’s words in the letter. These represented someone’s (possibly valid) interpretation rather than his real words, and doing so makes one stop and wonder why it would be necessary to do that if the words really spoke for themselves. The main thing was I didn’t want anyone to read the quote, think it was really a verbatim statement, and form their conscience accordingly or go off quoting it to someone else.

As a general question not specifically about OS - not arguing anything but just curious - does anyone know, or have an opinion, why a Pope who wanted to declare something infallibly would be indirect and drop hints about it, instead of just saying “this is infallible”? I mean I know Jesus Himself didn’t always speak directly, but is there some specific reason why the Holy See would want to leave the faithful guessing like this? Are they trying to give us a challenge, make us think a little? I suppose that would be a good thing

Peace and God Bless,
“beherenow95”

My last comment on this subject…

He did speak emphatically…and people should take it to form their conscience, should quote it, should live it and should preach it.

We are at an impasse, good luck and God bless.

Iowa Mike

 

[ritthichai]

Does anyone know, or have an opinion, why a Pope who wanted to declare something infallibly would be indirect and drop hints about it, instead of just saying “this is infallible”?

As a non-Catholic I believe the Holy See has recognised that infallibility and alleged infallible statements ex cathedra can also have negative and wholly unanticipated aspects, though pandering to those Catholics who feel their religion has to provide certainty.

For example, doesn’t the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception force the Church down the route of claiming that the soul inhabits the body from the moment of conception, thereby wholly denying Catholics the right to terminate unwanted early pregnancies - whereas St Augustine clearly taught that the soul could not survive in an unformed body so abortion was not murder. There were a variety of opinions - see religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

I myself feel that prohibitions on abortion AND contraception should be mutually incompatible, especially in a religious environment where women are treated like lepers if they have a baby outside marriage (which was the case until very recently).

And to make an infallible statement that women cannot be priests would mean that to change that decision (when a more enlightened hierarchy comes into power) would mean throwing out the whole concept of infallibility also - wouldn’t it? Maybe not a bad idea - the whole concept of infallibility was only pushed through in 1870 and offended many - including John Henry Newman - who is about to be raised to the altars of the church, I read.

The objections against women priests in the Catholic Church are illogical and irrational. They will be overcome in the end: once the Catholic Church wakes up and realises that the liberals are offended and leaving, and that all die-hard conservatives will inevitably die off, then she will change.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

As a non-Catholic I believe the Holy See has recognised that infallibility and alleged infallible statements ex cathedra can also have negative and wholly unanticipated aspects, though pandering to those Catholics who feel their religion has to provide certainty.

For example, doesn’t the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception force the Church down the route of claiming that the soul inhabits the body from the moment of conception, thereby wholly denying Catholics the right to terminate unwanted early pregnancies - whereas St Augustine clearly taught that the soul could not survive in an unformed body so abortion was not murder. There were a variety of opinions - see religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

I myself feel that prohibitions on abortion AND contraception should be mutually incompatible, especially in a religious environment where women are treated like lepers if they have a baby outside marriage (which was the case until very recently).

And to make an infallible statement that women cannot be priests would mean that to change that decision (when a more enlightened hierarchy comes into power) would mean throwing out the whole concept of infallibility also - wouldn’t it? Maybe not a bad idea - the whole concept of infallibility was only pushed through in 1870 and offended many - including John Henry Newman - who is about to be raised to the altars of the church, I read.

The objections against women priests in the Catholic Church are illogical and irrational. They will be overcome in the end: once the Catholic Church wakes up and realises that the liberals are offended and leaving, and that all die-hard conservatives will inevitably die off, then she will change.

With all respect your understanding of the Catholic Church is totally off the reservation as are your views about infallibility, Christ himself gave Peter the keys to heaven (infallibility) and…the Church as always held that abortion and contraception are intrinsic moral evils.

With regard to female priests the constant and universal teaching of the Church has always been that women cannot be ordained priests and Pope John Paul II ended all debate with Ordinatio Sacradotalis…the issue is immutable Church teaching. There is nothing confusing, illogical or irrational about the Church’s position.

With respect to St. Augustine…he believed that ensoulment occurred at 40 days. His views were based on the medical understanding of the day which have substantially changed. He never approved or supported abortion.

With respect to your view that as old people die off the Church teachings will change. Catholics believe that doctrine revealed via scripture, Apostolic Tradition (capital T), solemn pronouncement or the ordinary and universal magesterium of the Church are infallible and are absolute truth…absolute truth does not change.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[RWMorris]

… doesn’t the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception force the Church down the route of claiming that the soul inhabits the body from the moment of conception,

No.

… thereby wholly denying Catholics the right to terminate unwanted early pregnancies

What right?

whereas St Augustine clearly taught that the soul could not survive in an unformed body so abortion was not murder.

No he didn’t.

There were a variety of opinions - see religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm …

There are a variety of opinions now. Opinions are not truth, they are not objective, and many times they are out and out lies. And you might try choosing a better source than an anti-Christian one.

Tolerance

is the virtue of the man without convictions.

• G K Chesterton

 

[Coleski]

There is something about women priests that smacks of paganism. It is perhaps the feminine connection with nature. We always speak of Mother Nature and Father God. The Episcopalian Church has a woman high Bishop who actively supported the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson, a man who abandoned his wife and children for a gay lover. I’ll bet that Episcopal Churches with women priests end up with fewer and fewer men attending. I’ll take it as Gods’ decision that Jesus was a man and appointed the very masculine Peter as His first Pope. Lest we forget, men are to be the spiritual leaders of their families. One of Adam’s gravest sins was that he stood passively by while Eve engaged the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. It is no accident that the likes of Mary Daly emerge from their vows spewing venom towards God and men. I was at a Seminar at a Passionist monastery where women were acting as priests while doing a very pagan blessing of the hands. During the ceremony God was never mentioned while womens hands were made sacred. We must always avoid confusing the creature with the creator lest error of pantheism sneaks into the door. Have you ever checked the isle of the New Age section in a book store and noted that 80% of the time those browsing are women?

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Martin Luther was a man of integrity. Why?

When he found he no longer believed the Church’s teaching, he left. It was the honest thing to do, given his disbelief.

Nowadays, dissenters and heretics stay within the Church and try to sabotage it from within.

Pray for the conversion of sinners, especially those who are dear to us.

God bless… - Rob in Oregon