R
redcatholic
Guest
Those are not questions to ask of either one of us. I doubt the bishop is ignorant, I doubt he has forgotten.
"German archbishop calls for open debate about women priests in the Catholic Church"
- Status
K
KMC
Guest
I disagree 100%. We discuss those kinds of questions in my theology classes quite often.
R
redcatholic
Guest
If it’s discussed in your theology class then I think it certainly is ok for bishops to discuss. I am pretty traditional, I think female priests are an impossibility, I also think there is a whole lot of hypocrisy about which bishops we as laity say things about and which ones we can’t. Are these forums open to criticism of all bishops. All he is saying is we can and should. Discuss it with open minds.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Minds “open” to what?
Catholic theology about papal infallibility covers the definitive statement Pope St. JPII made declaring for all time that
So no, we may not keep “open minds” to the possibility of priestly ordination of women.
We may keep our minds “open” to having discussions with people who don’t yet understand this truth, so long as our part in that discussion is always ordered towards ultimately helping the other person come to understand what the Church infallibly, irrevocably teaches.
But no, we may not keep “open minds” to the possibility that the person we’re discussing with may be ‘right’, and female priestly ordination be possible. They’re not right, the infallible magisterium has already definitively ruled on this in a way that cannot be countered without undermining Catholic theology of papal infallibility at its root.
We should no more “discuss with open minds” whether Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. Certain teachings are a done deal, resolved, no longer open for discussion. It’s not about hypocritically criticizing certain bishops while not criticizing other bishops… while recognizing that heretical bishops have always existed, it’s not actually about criticizing bishops per se at all. It’s about drily observing what is theologically possible and what isn’t.
And @Genesis315 makes a good point about the scandal a bishop causes if he encourages the “deliberate introduction of doubt” about a teaching that has already been definitively and infallibly declared by a pope exercising his ex cathedra authority. Whatever kind of discussion will be conducive to helping people grow in understanding the teaching about the sacrament of ordination, surely teaching the faithful (by example) to ignore papally infallible statements is not part of the most prudent picture?
Last edited:
K
KMC
Guest
I should have been more clear on what we discussed. We discussed levels of magisterial teaching: 1) Reveal truths 2) Definitive truths that are logically or historically connected to revealed truths and 3) non-definitive teachings, and we discussed levels of assent associated with each teaching. JP2’s teaching on the inability of the Church to ordain women falls into the second level, which requires “definitive assent.” We never discussed the idea that some bishops are exempted from the levels of required assent, because they are not.
We never discussed the pro’s and con’s of ordaining women…because the matter has been definitively settled. It’s over.
Now regarding your comment: “criticism of all bishops.” I never criticized “all bishops.” I didn’t even criticize this bishop, I only said the matter has been settled. The bishop in question does OWE an explanation as to what he actually thinks is open to debate, and how his statement is not contradictory to a settled teaching. We, as the lay faithful, have the duty to defend the Church’s teaching. That is the purpose of my posting here.
Blessings!
P
pnewton
Guest
The article was behind a pay wall, so I could not read the AB’s reasoning. The matter is settled, but the truth should not fear debate. I could understand having dialogue about the issue to help teach the faithful why it is not possible.
M
Montrose
Guest
Such a debate would be pointless. How an individual bishop thinks about a subject is irrelevant when it contradicts the Church. There will NEVER be female priests. It is impossible.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Time wasted trying to court the irreligious citizenry of the remains of Christendom who couldn’t care less.
T
Theosis
Guest
Inasmuch as people would like women to be priests… I ask why? Because some women want to be? So would this archbishop want this be because he wants to win the favor of some women?
For almost 2000 years now, we, the Catholic Church, have maintained that woman cannot become priests because a priest is the representative of Jesus. In Priesthood and in the Sacraments, the priest acts “in persona Christi;” and, inasmuch as some don’t like this, Jesus in His human nature is a man. That’s the simplistic answer and defense of Sacred Tradition.
We all must keep in mind that we as Catholics hold that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are what hold up the Catholic Faith. Not one of these three pillars of the faith can be lessened or given more dominance over the other pillars. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are like a tripod holding up the Faith; if one is given dominance over the others, it becomes unbalanced.
For some reason, it seems many would have the Magisterium as a pillar that dominates the other two pillars. Keep in mind Protestantism is a sect of Christianity that gives dominance to Sacred Scripture and essentially disregards Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. But this is not orthodox Catholicism, good theology or balanced.
For almost 2000 years now, we, the Catholic Church, have maintained that woman cannot become priests because a priest is the representative of Jesus. In Priesthood and in the Sacraments, the priest acts “in persona Christi;” and, inasmuch as some don’t like this, Jesus in His human nature is a man. That’s the simplistic answer and defense of Sacred Tradition.
We all must keep in mind that we as Catholics hold that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are what hold up the Catholic Faith. Not one of these three pillars of the faith can be lessened or given more dominance over the other pillars. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium are like a tripod holding up the Faith; if one is given dominance over the others, it becomes unbalanced.
For some reason, it seems many would have the Magisterium as a pillar that dominates the other two pillars. Keep in mind Protestantism is a sect of Christianity that gives dominance to Sacred Scripture and essentially disregards Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. But this is not orthodox Catholicism, good theology or balanced.
O
OraLabora
Guest
A « debate » on women’s ordination does not mean that women’s ordination will be the result of that debate.
I’m more fearful of those who would shut down dialogue on controversial issues that those who seek it. If women’s ordination is not meant to be, it won’t. The Holy Spirit will see to it.
We therefore have little to fear from debating the issue. We have much to gain however, from dialogue even with those who disagree with us.
I’m more fearful of those who would shut down dialogue on controversial issues that those who seek it. If women’s ordination is not meant to be, it won’t. The Holy Spirit will see to it.
We therefore have little to fear from debating the issue. We have much to gain however, from dialogue even with those who disagree with us.
O
OraProNobis333
Guest
You know the bigger question I have about female ordination is this.
The Catholic Church says that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood (of which I agree). The same Church also has taken the position that ordaining women to the Diaconate is open to discussion. How can this be? There are Seven Sacraments in the Catholic Church. One of them is Holy Orders. There is only “one” Sacrament of Holy Orders. If a woman could allegedly be ordained as a Deacon, receiving the same ontological mark as her male counterparts, then there is no actual argument against the possibility of female priests or bishops. To suggest women could be ordained deacons but denying the possibility to be ordained priests is to confuse sacramental theology and would mean there are more than one Sacrament of Holy Orders, or simply that we don’t understand it. Rome likes to put itself in moral conundrums these days.
The Catholic Church says that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood (of which I agree). The same Church also has taken the position that ordaining women to the Diaconate is open to discussion. How can this be? There are Seven Sacraments in the Catholic Church. One of them is Holy Orders. There is only “one” Sacrament of Holy Orders. If a woman could allegedly be ordained as a Deacon, receiving the same ontological mark as her male counterparts, then there is no actual argument against the possibility of female priests or bishops. To suggest women could be ordained deacons but denying the possibility to be ordained priests is to confuse sacramental theology and would mean there are more than one Sacrament of Holy Orders, or simply that we don’t understand it. Rome likes to put itself in moral conundrums these days.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Are you fearful of Pope St. John Paul II?
This pope — this sainted pope — clearly intended to ‘shut down’ further ‘dialogue’ on this topic.
This issue is not controversial. It’s closed.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
But can never, ever contradict it.KMC:
And the current and future Theology of Pope Francis could surpass his.
K
KMC
Guest
Pope Francis cannot change a definitive truth of the Church…and he recognizes that fact. This is basic Catholic theology.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
M
MNathaniel
Guest
The thing I’m saying can’t ever be contradicted is Pope JPII’s formal declaration, by explicit reference to his papal authority, he was declaring a definitive type of judgement that the Church does not have the authority to ever change this teaching.MNathaniel:
Opinions can be.
Remember that is just a letter.
Was the letter done Ex-Cathedra?
For all intents and purposes, my understanding is that Pope JPII’s statement here is an example of ex cathedra teaching. He doesn’t have to actually be sitting on a certain piece of furniture when he says something. What matters is the form of the words he uses — not the medium of their conveyance.
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Does not sound to final in my opinion.
I’ve read a lot of his statements he answered to questions lately and he tends to leave some wiggle room by not giving a decisive “YES” or “NO” on any question.
I will not respond any more to this thread. Agree to disagree.
Sounds like he left possibility for a change in direction.
I’ve read a lot of his statements he answered to questions lately and he tends to leave some wiggle room by not giving a decisive “YES” or “NO” on any question.
One word would have put it to rest forever. “YES”. That would have left no room for any debate.
I will not respond any more to this thread. Agree to disagree.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
How so?
If an issue is closed, then ‘dialogue’ only serves to make the person trying to argue to ‘open’ it feel validated because the argument is permitted. And the person who is simply reiterating the closed teaching is often jockeyed into a position of looking like a bad guy, ‘intolerant’, ‘rigid’, ‘closed minded’, unwilling to consider others, etc. And the people in the middle ‘viewing’ are far more likely to see the ‘open minded’ person as the centrist, the welcoming, the tolerant, and to gravitate toward that position.
No, the only people who are helped by dissident behavior are the dissidents themselves who take advantage and wind up swaying and corrupting others.
And it is not intolerance to maintain a closed position.
God is a Trinity. But gosh, there are people out there who argue that He is One (Unitarians, Jews, Muslims); those who argue that he is Two, Those that argue that He should be Four —with Mary as part because feminists, etc…
As a Catholic, are you seriously stating that it is really ‘good’ to open our minds to allowing all those positions to be debated and discussed with the idea that they are ‘equivalent to’ the Catholic teaching, or ‘have not been decisively address’ through the teaching of the Trinity? What exactly is the end result?
If the end result would or could be that those who hold the wrong position could be brought to the right one, that would be fine.
But the whole ‘women priest’ situation by no means is open (ha) to coming about to the correct teaching. . .
And the God is One. God is Two, God is ‘force’, God is Four etc people are not at all open to “God is One-inThree”. No, they are all about the bully pulpit.
And the so-called ‘dialogue’ is absolutely one-sided because it is all about THEM presenting THEIR ‘ideas and feelings’ and being ‘respected’. And “respected’ or ‘listened to’ today means not “yes I am listening and responding” but “you are absolutely right’. If you don’t knowledge that they are right, you aren’t listening, you aren’t respectful, you aren’t tolerant, you aren’t open.
But they, who do not listen to, respect, acknowledge or hear YOU;, well that’s because YOU aren’t ‘listening’.
If an issue is closed, then ‘dialogue’ only serves to make the person trying to argue to ‘open’ it feel validated because the argument is permitted. And the person who is simply reiterating the closed teaching is often jockeyed into a position of looking like a bad guy, ‘intolerant’, ‘rigid’, ‘closed minded’, unwilling to consider others, etc. And the people in the middle ‘viewing’ are far more likely to see the ‘open minded’ person as the centrist, the welcoming, the tolerant, and to gravitate toward that position.
No, the only people who are helped by dissident behavior are the dissidents themselves who take advantage and wind up swaying and corrupting others.
And it is not intolerance to maintain a closed position.
God is a Trinity. But gosh, there are people out there who argue that He is One (Unitarians, Jews, Muslims); those who argue that he is Two, Those that argue that He should be Four —with Mary as part because feminists, etc…
As a Catholic, are you seriously stating that it is really ‘good’ to open our minds to allowing all those positions to be debated and discussed with the idea that they are ‘equivalent to’ the Catholic teaching, or ‘have not been decisively address’ through the teaching of the Trinity? What exactly is the end result?
If the end result would or could be that those who hold the wrong position could be brought to the right one, that would be fine.
But the whole ‘women priest’ situation by no means is open (ha) to coming about to the correct teaching. . .
And the God is One. God is Two, God is ‘force’, God is Four etc people are not at all open to “God is One-inThree”. No, they are all about the bully pulpit.
And the so-called ‘dialogue’ is absolutely one-sided because it is all about THEM presenting THEIR ‘ideas and feelings’ and being ‘respected’. And “respected’ or ‘listened to’ today means not “yes I am listening and responding” but “you are absolutely right’. If you don’t knowledge that they are right, you aren’t listening, you aren’t respectful, you aren’t tolerant, you aren’t open.
But they, who do not listen to, respect, acknowledge or hear YOU;, well that’s because YOU aren’t ‘listening’.
S
stpurl
Guest
Ex Cathedra is NOT the only medium for expression of infallible teachings.
If Pope John Paul II had stated in a ‘letter’ that the Eucharist must be confected with wheat bread and grape wine (which is the Catholic teaching), would you argue that MAYBE it can be changed to Beer and pizza because hey, it isn’t an EX CATHEDRA teaching?
If Pope John Paul II had stated in a ‘letter’ that the Eucharist must be confected with wheat bread and grape wine (which is the Catholic teaching), would you argue that MAYBE it can be changed to Beer and pizza because hey, it isn’t an EX CATHEDRA teaching?
- Status