Fr. Pfleger calls for women priests, cardinals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
csuliman said:
And when did the Church become so close minded that merely advocating for women priests is Heretical?
Click to expand...
it’s Scriptural, C. it’s not just Tradition or traditional, it’s a practice based in the Word of God.

women may serve within the church, but they are not to head a local church, or teach / have authroity over men within the wider Church.

1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Timothy 3:1-3, Titus 1:6-7.

it is better to follow the Bible and crucify the flesh, than to assume that God is ok with whatever we see as reasonable or permissable. times change, but God’s words and statutes do not. and His ways are not our ways.
 
I believe those who advocate women priests have been poorly catechized.

May I recommend the talk by Peter Kreeft titled “Priestesses”? It can be downloaded on his website.
 
The CCC states in chapter 1577 that: "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 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.67 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.

Yet Fr. Pfleger is disobedient to the very clear teaching of the Church in this regard. Seems he wishes to be Pope instead of priest.

Next he will want to make references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be gender neutral:eek:
 
Perhaps many letters to Cardinal George are in order, for he is responsible for Fr. Pfleger.
 
I haven’t heard what Fr. Phleger said and have no sound card on this computer.
But it is a shame that people can’t recognize that there is a right time and place for speculative theology that presses up against the prevailing wisdom and a wrong place. The homily is the wrong place.

I don’t so much resent those who want to ponder why it is that women can’t be priests. I do find it surprising that a priest can’t find more pressing issues to discuss in a homily.

I tend to personally agree that it is worth thinking about making the Cardinal office open to holy, mature and accomplished women religious. Like all Cardinal appointments, it should be a papal priviledge. The office of Cardinal has no theological requirement for its holder to have Holy Orders. (There may be a disciplinary Canon Law stipulation, but I think it is rather recent.) Is there really anybody here who thinks the College of Cardinals wouldn’t have been all the richer had Mother Theresa been invited to join decades ago? Mother Angelica? (oh the possibilities! :D)
 
markeverett49 said:
Perhaps many letters to Cardinal George are in order, for he is responsible for Fr. Pfleger.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Cardinal George is only too keenly aware of that fact. 😉

Before we get too critical of Cardinal George, we should keep in mind that:

  1. *]Thing happen behind the scenes in these scenarios that we do not know about (nor do we necessarily have a right to know about).
    *]Some people are easier to lead than others.

    I trust that Cardinal George is more well-informed and knows better than I do how to handle the situation.
 
I emailed Fr. Robert Barron thru his site WordOnFire.org and will let everyone know if I get a reply. He is close to Cardinal George from what I can determine.
 
markeverett49 said:
I don’t think the Church permits laypeople to make findings of heresy. They may bright (bring?) concerns to rightful authority, but beyond that they are not permitted to go.
Click to expand...
Your thinking is correct.
Thanks for stating this so clearly.
 
catharina said:
Your thinking is correct.
Thanks for stating this so clearly.
Click to expand...
What are you two talking about? Heresy is not subjective is it objective. You don’t have to judge it because it has already been judged and defined. Saying there is no God is Heresy, saying Jesus Christ is not God is Heresy, saying Mary was not sinless or a virgin would be Heresy, and promoting womens ordination is Heresy, and has been defined so by the Church.
 
markeverett49 said:
I don’t think the Church permits laypeople to make findings of heresy. They may bright concerns to rightful authority, but beyond that they are not permitted to go.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t mean that we don’t recognize it when we see it. You are right, we need many prayers for the Cardinal and his flock.
 
Inhimthroughher said:
What are you two talking about? Heresy is not subjective is it objective. You don’t have to judge it because it has already been judged and defined. Saying there is no God is Heresy, saying Jesus Christ is not God is Heresy, saying Mary was not sinless or a virgin would be Heresy, and promoting womens ordination is Heresy, and has been defined so by the Church.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, we are not entitled to make that call, to name that error.
That’s a matter for action by the CHURCH.
Get it?

Appeal to the Church with your concerns, if you wish -
but don’t make the call of HERETIC.
 
manualman said:
The office of Cardinal has no theological requirement for its holder to have Holy Orders. (There may be a disciplinary Canon Law stipulation, but I think it is rather recent.)
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you consider recent. But I think the last non-ordained Cardinal was made a Cardinal in the mid 19th century.
 
When he’s Pope he can change it, until then Fr, don’t hold your breath.
 
catharina said:
Nonetheless, we are not entitled to make that call, to name that error.
That’s a matter for action by the CHURCH.
Get it?

Appeal to the Church with your concerns, if you wish -
but don’t make the call of HERETIC.
Click to expand...
You are right we cannot define what Heresy is or chose what is heretical or not. Lucky for us the Church has defined Heresy, and has made the call on women’s ordination. It is Heresy and has been defined so by the CDF. We are not only entitled but required to rebuff the sinner when we see it. It is a work of charity and mercy. This idea of not calling a spade a spade is what has gotten is in all of the trouble we are in.
 
grace_singh said:
it’s Scriptural, C. it’s not just Tradition or traditional, it’s a practice based in the Word of God.

women may serve within the church, but they are not to head a local church, or teach / have authroity over men within the wider Church.

1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Timothy 3:1-3, Titus 1:6-7.

it is better to follow the Bible and crucify the flesh, than to assume that God is ok with whatever we see as reasonable or permissable. times change, but God’s words and statutes do not. and His ways are not our ways.
Click to expand...
But the Bible has to be interpreted and there are alternative interpretations of the quotations above.

1 Timothy 2,11-15
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.” (verse 11)
To whom should women be submissive? Since in our text the object is not specified, it is inappropriate to assume that man (universally) is the object. Since the Letter was written to deter women from submitting to false teachers, “the admonition to learn with all submission seems to imply a learning from true teachers” (Redekop; Padgett). “Just as wives (Titus 3:5), children (1 Timothy 3:4), and slaves (Titus 2:9) must be submissive within their households,… so the community (especially women in our case), should not have contempt for their ministers.” (Fiorenza, p.289).
Click to expand...
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (verse 12)
There is no doubt about the fact that the author of 1 Timothy had imposed a prohibition on women that forbade them to teach or to have authority in his Christian assembly.
However, the main question is: was this just a local and temporal prohibition, or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come?
We can deduce that it was only a temporary and local prohibition from the following considerations:
Click to expand...
When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.
The overall meaning of this verse is, therefore: “Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)
Click to expand...
I do not accept that the conservative interpretation of the bible must be taken as authoritative. When Titus 2:9 states:
9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Click to expand...
Does that mean we should accept slavery as right and that slaves should just submit to their masters and shut up?
 
csuliman said:
And when did the Church become so close minded that merely advocating for women priests is Heretical? Should we never challenge the decisions of the Church?
Click to expand...
It certainly is heretical, according to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Note in particular this quote from near the bottom:
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.
Click to expand...
Faithful Catholics can question the wisdom of (but not defy) disciplinary decisions, like the formerly mandated use of Latin in the liturgy, or even clerical celibacy, although a homily at Mass is certainly not the time for that. But we cannot call into question the Church’s solemnly defined dogmas and call ourselves faithful Catholics.

(For the record, I support clerical celibacy, but it is not heretical for someone to call it into question.)
 
Fr. Pfleger is doing his parish a grave disservice by teaching them false teachings and has no business being in ministry. The reservation of ordination to baptized males only is defined dogma supported by Scripture and Tradition, and may never be changed. Women will never be priests, and if one cannot accept this dogma, they don’t have the right to call themselves Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top