Female ordination in light of Vatican II

[dprewett]

you can argue this point all day long. Their will never be ordained women in the church. Translations and Mass have nothing to do with it. The OP is just taking some obscure point to try and prove something that is not going to happen. Female priestestes or what ever will not change problems that are in all of society. If this would happen then the church would have a split and those that chose preistese or what ever would be nothing more than another protestant denomination that is not in communion with the one holy apostalic church.

 

[Aramis]

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

Mother Heretic.

More seriously, while the Eastern churches do not accept women for presbyteral nor episcopal ordination, their female senior monastics are addressed as Mother, as deacons are Father Deacon and senior male monastics are addressed as Father.

Therefor, female clerics (Deaconesses) should be Mother Deaconess.

Any female priest, however, would be a heretic.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Mother Heretic.

More seriously, while the Eastern churches do not accept presbyteral nor episcopal ordination, female senior monastics are addressed as Mother, as deacons are Father Deacon and senior male monastics are addressed as Father.

Therefor, female clerics (Deaconesses) should be Mother Deaconess.

Any female priest, however, would be a heretic.

Is it only senior male religious? I was told that any consecrated male religious (that is any religious in vows) is addressed as Father.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Most of the changes attributed to Vatican II were never authorized by Vatican II. A handful of radicals decided to rearrange the furniture.

That doesn’t address the primary issues I’m raising. The first is simply the *Novus Ordo *itself (which is the universal standard everywhere, and is endorsed by nearly all Catholic clergy, including the pope. You can call him a radical if he fits your definition, but he’d be more than just one in a small handful). The second is the use of “for all” in the Words of Consecration, which is not limited to the English translation—it too, has been endorsed (and actually recited) by the post-conciliar popes. They hardly represent some outré minority.

 

[Yggdrasil]

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.

You are ignoring the historical context completely. Diversity of form indeed had served the Church very well for the fifteen centuries prior to the Reformation—at which point, then, a crucial threat was presented. Preserving the integrity of the liturgy became inextricably entwined with the faith: “either through the wickedness of the times, or through the carelessness and corruption of men, many things seem already to have crept in, which are alien from the dignity of so great a sacrifice.” Trent issued its decrees (and the Quo Primum) so that the Mass may, with “all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity.”

Bold and definitive steps were taken to ensure the perfect purity of the Mass, including codifying the Ordinary permanently. The fact that the Quo Primum was honored for nearly four hundred years prior to Vatican II would seem to indicate its binding in perpetuity. And the fact that once the QP was breached, the Mass resembled nothing so more than the Protestant service, indicates that it was to be followed as strictly as it was prescribed.

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

This misses my point. An Apostolic Constitution, affirming the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, can codify and promulgate a universal standard of the Mass. You keep wanting to present the Mass as merely a form of discipline, when Trent has solemnly ruled that the form of the Mass is equally as much an issue of faith (preserving “the perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist”). You’re taking an extreme black-or-white approach, when in fact this is very much a gray area. If matters of the Catholic faith are not inextricably tied up in the form of the Mass, then neither are matters of the faith involved with the gender of the clergy. You can’t have it both ways.

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?

I guess I forgot to mention it—I’m Jupiter, and I want my religion back! I decided I’d start with the female priesthood.

 

[Yggdrasil]

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.

Greetings to you, Dan.

I’m not sure if we should frame our discussion in terms of anecdotal evidence, because I’m of the mind that when a person knows the Novus Ordo, an introduction to the Latin Mass can often be disorienting and befuddling. Such has been my experience in talking with various “cradle Catholics” born after Vatican II and discovering the Tridentine Rite, one of whom told me, “it’s like two different religions!” But we needn’t concern ourselves with our subjective observations.

Tending towards something more empirical: what I’m wondering is where the precedence is for the entirety of the Novus Ordo changes in such a short span of time. Where, for example, in tradition, have the Offertory prayers undergone such drastic revision (I daresay evisceration) in less than a decade? Where, in tradition, have the penitential orisons been split into three different options, one of which eliminates the Confession altogether?

I’m not suggesting that the Tridentine Missal dropped from the sky on Pentecost—everyone admits a development of the liturgy over time. But the tradition of the development has always been of a slow and organic nature. The Byzantine Churches evolved the Great Litany where the Latin Churches largely did not. The Rite of Salisbury in England added the Hail Mary prayer where other rites didn’t. Changes like these are incremental: some antiphons added here, a prayer or two pruned there. The result is that diversity happens—indeed this is not in dispute. As far as Eastern and Western rites are concerned, I fully agree with you that different Christian rites can be equally as valid and worthy of reverence. Deo gratias. What I’m concerned with is the collected magnitude of all the Novus Ordo changes being made so quickly. And the troublesome part (for Catholics, at least) is that the *Novus Ordo *corresponds more with the liturgy of the Protestant Reformers in England than it does with other Christian rites.

As for validity, of course, that depends on the sacramental form. The “supreme authority” publicly stated the determining factors for validity with De Defectibus in 1570. Any subsequent authority must play by the same rules of sacramental theology (if, at least, there is to remain any real integrity to sacramental forms. Otherwise the Church could rule that “abracadabra” suffices for a form, and insist on its validity “because I say so!”) The strange part here is that the Roman Church prides itself on ostensibly combating relativism.

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.

I think the important distinction to keep in mind is that “ornate language” can easily be assumed when concerning something like the promulgation of a Code of Canon Law. The fact that canon law is subject to periodic change is taken for granted. On the other hand, the solemn decrees of a council are of another nature. The notions that “in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is offered to God” and that the Mass is “offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities” are de fide beliefs for Roman Catholics, punishable by excommunication. Since the Quo Primum was promulgated as a safeguard of the solemn decrees and canons at Trent, the language contained therein can’t quite be excused as florid overstatement intended solely for effect. It is precisely the context of the Quo Primum (in re Trent) that differentiates it from matters of discipline.

Thank you for your patience and civility.

 

[Aramis]

Is it only senior male religious? I was told that any consecrated male religious (that is any religious in vows) is addressed as Father.

Varies by tradition. Especially in the case of the ECC’s… But always for monks of the Great Schema, and for monastic superiors, and for one’s spiritual father…

Novices are under temporary promises.

But note that Rassaphore monks are not under formal vows, but have committed to the monastic life in perpetuity. Some traditions call them father as well. Others do not. Their brother monks call them brother.

The Stavrophore, aka Lesser Schema, monks are under formal vows. Most traditions call them Father; they might be addressed as brother by other monks.

Schemamonks, aka Monks of the Greater Schema, are always addressed as Father unless entitled to “Elder”…

Note that some superiors (Hegumen) are not Schemamonks; further, it’s possible for a rassaphore to be put forward for ordination… and thus be father hierodeacon even tho not stavromonk.

 

[SarahFae]

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 saw this along the thread and needed to comment. “Subsists” means exclusively exists in the Catholic Church and nowhere else. It is stronger than saying merely “exists.” By using such specific wording, the Council confirmed that the Church is necessary for salvation.
And the “elements of sanctification” found in other churches (such as the Eastern Orthodox) or ecclesiastical communities (Protestants) means that the Church partially exists in those communities insofar as they those elements, and believers of those churches and communities can still be saved.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I see your point. Another argument (rather than the pro multis approach) might be to describe the “subsists in” teaching that arose with Lumen Gentium and was confirmed in Ut Unum Sint. Personally, that is one of my biggest problems with the Vatican II documents that present the “rupture” from prior Tradition. This is also why I don’t agree with the “hijack” theory of the Council. What is taught here is not an erroneous interpretation but what the documents themselves actually state!

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.

This, at least to me, presents one of the most obvious contradictions between Pre and Post Conciliar theology.

It’s obviously a poor choice of wording and leads to confusion (which is why it was rejected at Vatican I), but I don’t think that means it’s impossible to reconcile to the doctrine that the true Church is the Catholic Church. There are several more difficult passages from Lumen Gentium and especially from Nostra Aetate.