Female ordination in light of Vatican II

[pnewton]

I beg your pardon. I answered Mr. Thompson in post no. 23, indicating that I support female ordination—firstly, by virtue of being an Episcopalian (otherwise I’d be something else). Now as far as the Roman Church is concerned, I’m merely on the outside looking in—but I offered to Mr. Thompson that were I a Roman Catholic, I would also favor it (at least a lot more than I favor the changes of Vatican II)… If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck—well, the same goes for a newly-minted version of Catholicism resembling the Christian religions of the man-made variety.

An error in the begining is an error indeed.

Thomas Aquinas

 

[angelic06]

I beg your pardon. I answered Mr. Thompson in post no. 23, indicating that I support female ordination—firstly, by virtue of being an Episcopalian (otherwise I’d be something else). Now as far as the Roman Church is concerned, I’m merely on the outside looking in—but I offered to Mr. Thompson that were I a Roman Catholic, I would also favor it (at least a lot more than I favor the changes of Vatican II).

What I would like to discuss is the apparent door being opened for radical change, even when the Church has previously ruled against it. I established the terms of discussion early on; if there seems to be a “hodgepodge of ideas,” it’s only because Vatican II offers a wide variety of examples to choose from.

Read the OP. Or read the title of the thread. I am interested in female ordination in light of Vatican II. I think it’s a worthwhile intellectual exercise. Vatican II set a huge precedent: serious matters of tradition and Church teaching were turned virtually on their heads. Now if you think I have “no direct evidence whatsoever” for this hypothesis, then kindly present a historical instance which would affirm the implementation of the Novus Ordo. Since the development of the liturgy was always of a slow and organic nature, why are the sweep and scope of the Novus Ordo changes (in a very short period of time) not considered a rupture in continuity? And why does the design of the new Mass so closely mirror the Protestant model, since many of the Protestant changes were solemnly condemned at the Council of Trent? If something can be heterodox one day and orthodox the next, then I don’t know what. All I can do is suggest that female ordination is at least negotiable under these circumstances.

The victimology has nothing to with it. Statistically speaking, women are far less likely to rape or molest than men are. But that wasn’t even my point. I spoke of women possibly having more concern for the victims than certain men in the Church have apparently had. That, admittedly, is mere speculation, since we can’t go back in time and replace Bernard Law with a lady Cardinal.

The texts themselves are blameworthy, as Onegin has already indicated. To give another example: Sacrosanctum Concilium not only allows for “radical change” (§40), but it explicitly permits the diocesan bishop to decide on the extent of vernacular usage: “it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used” (§36.3). A vast majority of the bishops (and they were the Council, after all, so their interpretation should reflect the Council’s intent) went home and established all-vernacular services in every parish in their diocese, in contradiction of the Council of Trent: “If any one says that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; let him be anathema.” On a practical level, what Trent forbade was almost universally implemented, and Vatican II expressly allowed for it. In the document. No distortion required.

Whether you and Geo. Weigel like it or do not, “Catholicism Lite” triumphantly marches on. Considering the continued closings of inner-city churches with their vintage design, and considering all the new ground being continually broken for ugly architectural monstrosities in the suburbs, the Novus Ordo boldly persists. A recent Georgetown study indicates that less than 25% of Catholics attend Mass weekly—that’s what I’d call “taking it lightly.” You can lay the blame for that on the liberals’ doorstep it you care to, but I have my own theory: a self-contradicting authority renders itself irrelevant, and many Catholics have easily clued in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck—well, the same goes for a newly-minted version of Catholicism resembling the Christian religions of the man-made variety.

You still have not provided any evidence to support your personal desire for female clergy other than by going to the NO vs. TLM analogy. And I consider Dr. Weigel’s analysis better than yours.

As far as the liberal vs. traditional architecture, who do you think it is that got us these monstronstrous churches a la merry go round?

As you say, if it quacks like a duck…and it is sick, it will drown like a duck, like both Anglicanism and liberal Catholicism.

Catholicism Lite marches triumphantly on, as you say…into the grave (both figuratively, as well as literally—as in their followers are going of to their eternal place, whatever it is, and nobody wants to replace them). Have a blessed Eastertide!

 

[Yggdrasil]

An error in the begining is an error indeed.

Thomas Aquinas

Feh. Old St. Thomas would’ve carefully illustrated the fallacy in the error. He would’ve had the charity to give correction, and wouldn’t have settled for a quoted little quip. But he was an original. So was Mahalia Jackson. “Give me that old time religion; hallelujah, good enough for me.”

 

[Aramis]

This was a point of contention between sacramental theologians prior to Trent, but St. Thomas Aquinas appears to have endorsed the long form-only position. And in any case, De Defectibus clearly affirms it. St. Pius V says that the words of consecration are everything from Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei to remissionem peccatorum.

It should be noted, however, that Pope St Pius V did not suppress the Byzantine liturgy of the Italo-Albanians… which has a very different anaphora (and in a different language)…

So the full text, while requisite to be taken straight from the missal, is not the sole effective form of the anaphora.

 

[Yggdrasil]

It should be noted, however, that Pope St Pius V did not suppress the Byzantine liturgy of the Italo-Albanians… which has a very different anaphora (and in a different language)…

So the full text, while requisite to be taken straight from the missal, is not the sole effective form of the anaphora.

Right. De Defectibus has two qualifiers in this discussion: 1. it refers to the Roman Missal, and 2. it even allows for a change in the wording, so long as the change does not affect the meaning. The Novus Ordo change, however, nevertheless contravenes St. Pius’ stated teaching. “For all” refers to the sufficiency of the sacrifice, but “for many” refers to the efficacy. It is the latter that correctly signifies the Eucharist.

St. Pius is declaring that if a long form is going to be employed (as it is in the Roman Rite), then all the words constitute the form and all the words must signify the effects.

How this affects Eastern liturgies is (I assume) the least of anyone’s concerns, since the validity of their sacraments has never been terribly controversial. Mark Thompson has ably pointed out that some of the Eastern Churches use the short form, but as far I’m aware none of their words of consecration contain “for all.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The basis for the OP’s idea is that because there was a change in discipline (the form of the Mass is a matter of discipline) and a bad English translation of the Mass that this somehow means that we can change a dogma of the Church.

Just does not hold water.

 

[Yggdrasil]

The basis for the OP’s idea is that because there was a change in discipline (the form of the Mass is a matter of discipline) and a bad English translation of the Mass that this somehow means that we can change a dogma of the Church.

Just does not hold water.

Just to be technical: it’s not only the English translation. Paul VI used “per tutti” in his Italian Masses, and I believe the French translation carries the sense of “for all” as well. So the error can’t be attributed solely to a dropped ball at ICEL. It seems to be the preferred post-conciliar rendering. Benedict XVI is certainly not bound by regional translations in his papal Masses, and yet he used “for all” at Yankee Stadium (despite his knowledge of the controversy and his formidable command of both English and Latin). And finally, it’s not just the translation of the Mass, it’s the sacred Canon of the Mass and particularly the very words of consecration. The consequences are the validity of the sacrament. That’s a high-stakes gamble.

As for the all-male clergy being a dogma, I’d be interested to know if an Apostolic Letter is sufficient for establishing a *solemn ex cathedra dogmatic *teaching. It doesn’t matter either way, of course. John Paul II does insist that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” but he does not specify that it must be held forever. St. Pius, on the other hand, insisted in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum that the codified Roman Missal was to be sung or read “in perpetuity.” So if a phrase like “this ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever” can be disregarded by a future assemblage of Apostles (as Vatican II did), then so can John Paul II’s judgment on female priests.

If the Apostles don’t have to agree across time, then everything is provisional. If ecclesial office is above the faith, above tradition, and above sacramental theology, then what’s the use in having those things? The Church is One, and therefore her unity must be found both in time and throughout time. Otherwise anything goes. That’s my point, which I maintain is sound.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just to be technical: it’s not only the English translation. Paul VI used “per tutti” in his Italian Masses, and I believe the French translation carries the sense of “for all” as well. So the error can’t be attributed solely to a dropped ball at ICEL. It seems to be the preferred post-conciliar rendering.

Technically three language translations do not make a preference.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Technically three language translations do not make a preference.

It removes the “accident at ICEL” theory, though. North America, France, Italy, and the UK constitute a large and influential swath of the Catholic world. That it was the preferred reading is admittedly my own speculation, but the fact that popes knowingly took it up lends it support. Missals had been translated successfully from Latin into the vernacular for years, but only after Vatican II did specific and corresponding pan-linguistic errors in the consecration show up. And rather than being read silently by the faithful, they were now being recited by the celebrant at the altar. If anyone wanted to cast doubt on the validity, they could hardly have done better.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

As for the all-male clergy being a dogma, I’d be interested to know if an Apostolic Letter is sufficient for establishing a *solemn ex cathedra dogmatic *teaching. It doesn’t matter either way, of course. John Paul II does insist that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” but he does not specify that it must be held forever. St. Pius, on the other hand, insisted in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum that the codified Roman Missal was to be sung or read “in perpetuity.” So if a phrase like “this ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever” can be disregarded by a future assemblage of Apostles (as Vatican II did), then so can John Paul II’s judgment on female priests.

First off, when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that Pope John Paul II said it infallibly. It would not surprise me one bit if Pope Benedict reaffirmed the statement and used the words “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” just to end this debate.

 

[Yggdrasil]

First off, when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he stated that Pope John Paul II said it infallibly. It would not surprise me one bit if Pope Benedict reaffirmed the statement and used the words “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” just to end this debate.

Also, a Pope cannot decry an ordinance or discipline is to be always followed. Popes ONLY have infallibility when speaking ex cathedra in regards to faith and morals. A Pope could not say that “priest celibacy is forever to be retained” and it must be so. That’s not how Catholicism works.

Then what can I say? You issue your correction not only to me, but to St. Pius V and the Tridentine Fathers as well. The Quo Primum was more than just the solitary theological musings of St. Pius; it had the full force of the canons of the Council of Trent on the liturgy behind it. If a pope, wholly in league with a Holy Council, can’t issue a decree that is binding in perpetuity, then you’re stuck with the terribly awkward fact that the Quo Primum is worded precisely as such.

As for faith and morals, the Mass pertains to the faith. The two are inextricably entwined. As the Church teaches, there is “an ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist,” which is to be always and forever preserved in the Mass. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the canons of Session 22 of Trent, where solemn anathemas were pronounced for holding an improper understanding of the Mass. An orthodox view of the Mass is de fide. The Quo Primum safeguards the Tridentine canons; it derives its perpetuity thus.

 

[dans0622]

In light of Vatican II, “tradition” does not seem to carry the weight that the opponents to female ordination are assuming. Radical change appears permissible.

Hello,

I think this problem could be solved by reading the documents of Vatican II, and everything else that has been done and said since then (and before then), in the light of the tradition of the Church. The Church develops and has developed ever since the beginning. People can be committed to looking for “radical change” so that they can justify other “radical changes.” The problem is, looking at the legitimate development of the Church and saying there is “radical change” is itself a radical change and is outside the tradition of the Church. This seems to be the point of Pope Benedict’s 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia.

Dan

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Then what can I say? You issue your correction not only to me, but to St. Pius V and the Tridentine Fathers as well. The Quo Primum was more than just the solitary theological musings of St. Pius; it had the full force of the canons of the Council of Trent on the liturgy behind it. If a pope, wholly in league with a Holy Council, can’t issue a decree that is binding in perpetuity, then you’re stuck with the terribly awkward fact that the Quo Primum is worded precisely as such.

As for faith and morals, the Mass pertains to the faith. The two are inextricably entwined. As the Church teaches, there is “an ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist,” which is to be always and forever preserved in the Mass. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the canons of Session 22 of Trent, where solemn anathemas were pronounced for holding an improper understanding of the Mass. An orthodox view of the Mass is de fide. The Quo Primum safeguards the Tridentine canons; it derives its perpetuity thus.

Quo Primum was not infallible, it was a statement on discipline as the form that the Mass takes is a matter of discipline, not doctrine or dogma, and no pope may bind a following pope in matters of discipline.

This has been discussed ad nauseam in the past on this forum, just do a search.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Hello,

I think this problem could be solved by reading the documents of Vatican II, and everything else that has been done and said since then (and before then), in the light of the tradition of the Church. The Church develops and has developed ever since the beginning. People can be committed to looking for “radical change” so that they can justify other “radical changes.” The problem is, looking at the legitimate development of the Church and saying there is “radical change” is itself a radical change and is outside the tradition of the Church. This seems to be the point of Pope Benedict’s 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia.

Greetings, Dan.

I missed Benedict’s 2005 Christmas address, but I don’t imagine he was saying we’re prohibited from supposing that certain developments in the Church might be “radical.” Such a notion would strap an extremely tight straitjacket onto individual conscience.

My hypothesis in the OP rests on some observable evidence. Now perhaps this change is radical, and perhaps not—but I would truly like to know how the sweep and scope of the Novus Ordo changes to the Mass (in shorter than a decade) is anything less than radical when looked at “in the light of the tradition of the Church.” I have wondered a couple times already on this thread if someone would be kind enough to demonstrate how the quick manufacture of the Novus Ordo squares with the history of slow and organic development of the liturgy. It doesn’t appear to, but I am certainly open to evidence.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Quo Primum was not infallible, it was a statement on discipline as the form that the Mass takes is a matter of discipline, not doctrine or dogma, and no pope may bind a following pope in matters of discipline.

The form that the Mass takes must correspond to the faith. It cannot take just any old form. It cannot be played around with willy-nilly.

When John Paul II said that the prohibition on female priests “is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” his statement was no different than the Tridentine canons which insisted on anathemas for anyone taking a wrongful view of the character of the Mass. Both are matters of discipline, inextricably entwined with the faith. Logically this extends to the Quo Primum’s statements regarding perpetuity. If not, then one is only left to wonder why on earth they’re in there. It remains for you to explain why an Apostolic Constitution that allegedly isn’t to be observed “henceforth and for ever” says precisely that it is.

 

[Spirithound]

I see your point. Another argument might be to describe the “subsists in” teaching that arose with Lumen Gentium and was confirmed in Ut Unum Sint.

Either the fullness of Truth IS the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church as was taught prior to *Lumen Gentium *or the Fullness of Truth “subsists in” the Catholic Church but is not exclusive to it and “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines” as Lumen Gentium states.

I have just learned that “subsist” is a Latin translation of the Greek “hypostasis”.

Jesus is man, and Jesus is God, and his human nature and divine nature exist in a hypostatic union. It seems a similar thing can be said about the Church and Truth.

 

[doughnut]

Just to sidetrack a bit, how do you address a female priest? Father? or?

 

[dans0622]

Greetings, Dan.

I missed Benedict’s 2005 Christmas address, but I don’t imagine he was saying we’re prohibited from supposing that certain developments in the Church might be “radical.” Such a notion would strap an extremely tight straitjacket onto individual conscience.

My hypothesis in the OP rests on some observable evidence. Now perhaps this change is radical, and perhaps not—but I would truly like to know how the sweep and scope of the Novus Ordo changes to the Mass (in shorter than a decade) is anything less than radical when looked at “in the light of the tradition of the Church.” I have wondered a couple times already on this thread if someone would be kind enough to demonstrate how the quick manufacture of the Novus Ordo squares with the history of slow and organic development of the liturgy. It doesn’t appear to, but I am certainly open to evidence.

Hello again,

I do see your point. At the same time, when a person knows the “novus ordo,” as it is supposed to be celebrated, and then, for the first time, attends a traditional latin Mass, it is not difficult to know what is going on. The relationship between the two is not hard to see. (At least, that is my own experience.) So, I would not agree with your characterization of the “quick manufacture” of the newer form of the Mass.

The fact is, the supreme authority in the Church is capable of determining what is necessary for the validity of sacraments. So, you can have rites as different as those of the East and West but still all are considered valid, licit, worthy of reverence, etc.

Regarding your previous and subsequent comments about Quo primum. You have to remember that Popes have used all sorts of ornate formulas of promulgation of laws. Quo primum is just that–a document that enacts law. Even today, the Pope will use the same sort of language. For example, you find this: “Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised. I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.”

This is from John Paul II when he promulgated the Code of Canon Law. Does this mean that no one can ever change what is in the Code? Obviously not. He changed it. Benedict has changed it.

Again, I can see the difficulty you present. The language used here and in Ordinatio sacerdotalis can seem to be equivalent. But, the context and specific wording can help make it clear that one statement regards law, the other regards faith/morals.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The form that the Mass takes must correspond to the faith. It cannot take just any old form. It cannot be played around with willy-nilly.

When John Paul II said that the prohibition on female priests “is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” his statement was no different than the Tridentine canons which insisted on anathemas for anyone taking a wrongful view of the character of the Mass. Both are matters of discipline, inextricably entwined with the faith. Logically this extends to the Quo Primum’s statements regarding perpetuity. If not, then one is only left to wonder why on earth they’re in there. It remains for you to explain why an Apostolic Constitution that allegedly isn’t to be observed “henceforth and for ever” says precisely that it is.

For the form of the Mass to be a matter of faith and morals and there by dogmatic then all the Masses before Quo Primum must have been invalid because they were not the same form as was defined then. The form is a matter of discipline and can change as evidenced by Quo Primum.

No pope may bind a later pope on matters of discipline.

This is what the Church says.

If you wish to argue with the Church then would you mind supplying your credentials that give you such authority to over ride what the Church Teaches?

 

[edwest2]

Just to be technical: it’s not only the English translation. Paul VI used “per tutti” in his Italian Masses, and I believe the French translation carries the sense of “for all” as well. So the error can’t be attributed solely to a dropped ball at ICEL. It seems to be the preferred post-conciliar rendering. Benedict XVI is certainly not bound by regional translations in his papal Masses, and yet he used “for all” at Yankee Stadium (despite his knowledge of the controversy and his formidable command of both English and Latin). And finally, it’s not just the translation of the Mass, it’s the sacred Canon of the Mass and particularly the very words of consecration. The consequences are the validity of the sacrament. That’s a high-stakes gamble.

As for the all-male clergy being a dogma, I’d be interested to know if an Apostolic Letter is sufficient for establishing a *solemn ex cathedra dogmatic *teaching. It doesn’t matter either way, of course. John Paul II does insist that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful,” but he does not specify that it must be held forever. St. Pius, on the other hand, insisted in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum that the codified Roman Missal was to be sung or read “in perpetuity.” So if a phrase like “this ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever” can be disregarded by a future assemblage of Apostles (as Vatican II did), then so can John Paul II’s judgment on female priests.

If the Apostles don’t have to agree across time, then everything is provisional. If ecclesial office is above the faith, above tradition, and above sacramental theology, then what’s the use in having those things? The Church is One, and therefore her unity must be found both in time and throughout time. Otherwise anything goes. That’s my point, which I maintain is sound.

“anything goes” That pretty much says it. There will be no wiggle room for this one. The Church is not a business. Most of the changes attributed to Vatican II were never authorized by Vatican II. A handful of radicals decided to rearrange the furniture.

catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=44&articleID=4710&class=Features&subclass=Feature%20articles

God bless,
Ed