"German archbishop calls for open debate about women priests in the Catholic Church"

[OraProNobis333]

There is plenty that the Post Vatican II Church espouses that contradicts the Pre Vatican II Church, so I wouldn’t say that. The smoke of satan (by way of modernism) has crept into the Church slowly over the last 100 years (or more). The Church has thus far proven inept at combating this heresy. We must double and triple our prayers and support for our Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. While many of these men are actively causing this spread, how will the Church ever correct itself if we don’t stand behind our leaders prayerfully? When I was in the TLM crowd, I found it all too easy to simply dismiss these men as schismatics/heretics/etc. And even when in some specific cases that may be true, it was doing nothing to rectify the situation. I, as a layman, have no authority to affect change in the Church directly. But I can do my bit, indirectly, by inundating Heaven with prayers on behalf of these clergy (all clergy for that matter).

I must say, there is so much confusion in the Roman Church today and the ongoing liturgical war was robbing me of my peace. The TLM side of the argument knows no peace because they “know” what the Church should be and see that it is not where it’s supposed to be. The other side of the argument is either ignorant of the traditions of their own Church or simply don’t give it the importance it deserves (I know this is a generalization and is not representative of everyone. I am only making this claim based on my own personal experiences in more than a dozen diocesan churches as well as three different TLM communities). What finally brought me peace and helped me to understand the current mayhem in the Roman Church was simply to leave it. By becoming a Byzantine Catholic, it has allowed me the distance from the Roman squabbles over heterodoxy/orthodoxy, this liturgy vs that liturgy, communion on the tongue vs in the hand, etc. Sometimes an outside/objective view of a situation is what helps us discern the way forward. I could never see it while I was so entrenched in the liturgical wars.

To add for clarification, by leaving Rome I don’t mean leaving the Catholic Church. I am still a Roman Catholic though I am beginning the long process of changing canonical churches to become a Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian).

 

[KMC]

Does not sound to final in my opinion.

“If we read carefully the declaration made by St. John Paul II, it goes in that direction,” Francis replied.

I would suggest reading up on Catholic theology, particularly what the Church teaches about “definitively held teachings.” I would also look at Pope Francis’s style of answering questions…his answer here is in that same style.

Here is a link to an article to help you understand:

The Three Levels of Magisterial Teaching - Catholicism.org

The inability of the Church to ordain women is in the second level.

 

[MNathaniel]

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.

Person asked: “But really forever?” the journalist asked. "Never?"

"If we read carefully the declaration made by St. John Paul II, it goes in that direction," Francis replied.

Sure, our current Holy Father does have this tendency to speak imprecisely in casual conversation. Goodness, perhaps even in writing. And I’d agree that his failure to speak precisely and decisively may often leave issues seeming ‘open’ when they aren’t.

But he can’t actually contradict the undeniably definitive thing that JPII said. And honestly I read his words that you quoted here, and I don’t actually think Pope Francis fails to understand the situation. He has a very roundabout way of talking to journalists, but when he tells a journalist that a previous pope’s declaration goes “in the direction” of “really never?.. forever?” I honestly read that as Pope Francis’s table manners polite way of saying “Yes, really never, forever.”

It’s not personally the way I might choose to communicate, but I don’t know the pressures Pope Francis is under. Maybe he thinks he has to talk this way while other people gradually get on board with reality.

 

[MNathaniel]

What finally brought me peace and helped me to understand the current mayhem in the Roman Church was simply to leave it…

To add for clarification, by leaving Rome I don’t mean leaving the Catholic Church. I am still a Roman Catholic though I am beginning the long process of changing canonical churches to become a Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian).

I’m glad to hear that you found a solution that brought you peace, while keeping in full Communion with the Catholic Church.

It’s vaguely on my radar too that I might eventually make such a move if necessary, but in the meantime I think God allowed me to enter the Church in the Roman Rite and I should try to remain and help sort through any issues within this rite if possible, rather than leaving the ‘mess’ to others, if that makes sense.

If I find my own salvation threatened though (for whatever perceived, personal reason), or otherwise truly believe I could better serve God and neighbour in a different way, and switching rites seems part of a necessary solution, I can see myself doing that too. We have to put our own gas masks on before we can help others.

In my case I don’t particularly engage in the ‘liturgical wars’ on either side, so that probably wouldn’t be a deciding issue for me.

 

[OraProNobis333]

I tried holding that mindset as well but in the end found it too emotionally and spiritually taxing. Laity cannot change anything in the Church as we lack authority to make or influence any decisions. And it’s supposed to be this way, the Church isn’t a democracy after all. That said, when one is confronted by so much error and negativity and every time you try to speak or act against it you get derided as being “rigid” or a “traditionalist” it can be very discouraging. I will pray you meet with more success than I did in trying to help the Roman Church, but it is certainly good to know that you have an Eastern Church near you if you need to find a refuge.

In the Early Church Rome was regularly petitioned and praised for its orthodoxy in helping the Eastern Churches combat and correct the errors of their day. With Rome struggling with so many errors of the modern day (and not doing so well in my personal opinion), perhaps it will be Rome looking East and the Eastern Churches helping Rome navigate these raging waters back into orthodoxy? The Catholic Church is made up of 23 sui juris Churches after all, not just Rome. That’s my opinion anyhow (and granted, it’s not a very popular one and routinely gets people upset with me, though this is never my intention).

 

[pnewton]

This pope — this sainted pope — clearly intended to ‘shut down’ further ‘dialogue’ on this topic.

This issue is not controversial. It’s closed.

An issue can be controversial, and closed, just like it can be closed, and still discussed. St. John Paul did indeed shut discussion. However, that does not mean a subsequent Pope could not allow discussion, as that is a matter decided by a current pope. Nor does in mean a bishop cannot ask for discussion. I do not see the request going anywhere, but the request itself is not a matter of disobedience or dissident.

But can never, ever contradict it.

And that is a limit which will define any future discussion.

 

[ThomasMT]

His theology surpasses ours.

It doesnt surpass settled doctrine

 

[pnewton]

Sure. We could even discuss it here! I think this is an argumentum ad adsurdum, but if you wanted to…

 

[pnewton]

I did not say it was absurd. You added the phrase, “as if they were open to change.” This is not something the Archbishop said. This is not something I said. That addition is a straw man.

 

[Montrose]

To add for clarification, by leaving Rome I don’t mean leaving the Catholic Church. I am still a Roman Catholic though I am beginning the long process of changing canonical churches to become a Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian).

You are not leaving Rome. ALL Catholic Churches submit to Rome.

 

[OraProNobis333]

That’s not exactly true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are equal to Rome in all things. They share communion with Rome and accept Rome’s dogmas in order to honor the office of St. Peter. But in my experience, the Eastern Catholics (like the Eastern Orthodox) see the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St Peter, the Vicar of Peter (not the Vicar of Christ). I can also say with some confidence that if Rome ever reached the point that it wanted to revisit Vatican I’s claim to universal jurisdiction (what the East calls papal supremacy) in order to make some changes, the Eastern Churches (Catholics and Orthodox alike) would rejoice and welcome the effort.

Personally, I think this is the direction Rome is heading. Pope Francis working to diminish the papacy, reforming the curia and kicking a lot of papal power down to local synods of Bishops (diminishing the monarchical approach in favor of a collegial model that is used in the East) supports this. I would not be surprised to see the definitions of Vatican I rolled back or be “developed” further, to reach a place that Eastern Catholics/Orthodox would agree to.

Eastern Catholics, at least the Byzantines, identify with the Orthodox more than Roman Catholicism. They overlook the things Rome demands obedience to, for the sake of maintaining communion. For example, Rome declared the Filioque/double procession of the Holy Spirit to be dogmatic. Yet the Eastern Catholics do not teach it or use it in their Liturgies. The Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are dogmatic teachings of the Roman Church, yet neither are taught in the Eastern Churches (although I’d wager they “are” taught, but in very different ways emphasizing the same teaching very very differently).

Rome likes to think itself the Catholic Church in full. But this is not true. The Catholic Church is not Rome. The Catholic Church is made up of 23 sui juris Catholic Churches, of which Rome is the largest. But it is no more or less important than any of the other Catholic Churches.

Without wanting to sound rude, Rome is seen in the East as a big brother known for bullying. It’s not a myth that Rome has routinely persecuted the Eastern Catholic Churches. It wasn’t until the Second Vatican Council that they were fully allowed to be fully Eastern (as though it was ever up to Rome to decide that lol).

 

[Montrose]

That’s not exactly true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are equal to Rome in all things. They share communion with Rome and accept Rome’s dogmas in order to honor the office of St. Peter. But in my experience, the Eastern Catholics (like the Eastern Orthodox) see the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St Peter, the Vicar of Peter (not the Vicar of Christ). I can also say with some confidence that if Rome ever reached the point that it wanted to revisit Vatican I’s claim to universal jurisdiction (what the East calls papal supremacy) in order to make some changes, the Eastern Churches (Catholics and Orthodox alike) would rejoice and welcome the effort.

Correct me if I misunderstood you but you seem to be suggesting that the Eastern Catholic Churches do not accept Papal supremacy. They do of course but just wondered if you agree or not.
Please note I am not talking about Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[OraProNobis333]

I would argue that Eastern Catholics accept papal primacy (which the Orthodox claim to believe as well). The Eastern Catholics accept dogmatic pronouncements made by the Holy See, seemingly on a case-by-case basis. They might accept them on paper, but it doesn’t always transfer down to the parish level. Case in point, despite Rome making the Filioque a dogmatically binding teaching on the Catholic Church, most Eastern Catholic Churches have never used it and continue using the original form of the Creed in their Liturgies. They might accept the Immaculate Conception on paper, but many (not all) Eastern parishes continue to hold the Orthodox understanding of Mary being immaculate. The Eastern Catholics still view Rome as being the big brother (the early church understanding). They don’t necessarily acknowledge Rome as king (which is what papal supremacy is all about).

Interestingly enough, Rome has since walked back the binding nature of the Filioque in a joint statement with one of the Orthodox Churches in America. So if Rome is willing to admit that it can make mistakes in what previous popes state are dogmatically binding, then this brings the entire nature of the papacy into question. It is entirely possible that we will see Rome gradually moving away from its monarchical top-down clerical structure, and move back into it’s original/collegial/conciliar form (the way the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still operate).

 

[Montrose]

Interestingly enough, Rome has since walked back the binding nature of the Filioque in a joint statement with one of the Orthodox Churches in America. So if Rome is willing to admit that it can make mistakes in what previous popes state are dogmatically binding, then this brings the entire nature of the papacy into question. It is entirely possible that we will see Rome gradually moving away from its monarchical top-down clerical structure, and move back into it’s original/collegial/conciliar form (the way the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still operate).

An infallible teaching by definition cannot be in error and cannot be changed. It is impossible.

 

[OraProNobis333]

Tell that to the USCCB. Because, they certainly did. And Rome has done nothing to correct it. Even John Paul II invited the East to sit down and talk about papal infallibility/papal supremacy/etc. And Pope Francis seems to be furthering that agenda in how he has diminished the authority of the papacy, reformed the curia, and kicked a lot of power down to local synods of bishops. Rome is gradually tip toeing back to a conciliar/collegial model that mirrors Eastern Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox alike).

 

[stpurl]

In your opinion.

 

[pnewton]

@ OraProNobis333
This is not the apologetics forum. Can you attack Catholicism over there, if you must.

 

[AlNg]

he doesn’t have the authority to disregard an infallible papal definitive statement

How do you know that the statement was infallible?

 

[Montrose]

How do you know that the statement was infallible?

Extract from the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
on the Teaching Contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

“In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent: it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium , 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis . In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote adfidei depositum pertinens . In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.”

 

[MNathaniel]

That little ‘like’ heart I just gave you isn’t big enough. Here’s another: