In big shift, Pope names 6 women to Vatican senior official roles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was even a monastery in France in medieval days where there were two adjoined monasteries, one of men, one of women. The abbess ruled over both and had authority over the male monks.
That was also true of St. Hilda of Whitby in the 7th century. I’m sure there were others. Surely St. Teresa also exercised spiritual authority over the male Carmelites…
Arguably Mother Angelica was, at the height of her ministry, more “powerful / influential” in the US Church than the average bishop.

I can’t recall the specifics now, but I know there was at least one abbess in Spain who was privileged to wear the mitre and exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a physical territory that extended well beyond her abbey walls. The priests within the geographic jurisdiction of the abbey effectively reported to her. She had the administrative responsibilities of a bishop…effectively the power of governance without the power of orders.
 
i thought that the Jews are our elder brothers in the faith? Do you agree?
 
Would that disqualify them as our elders brothers in the faith today?
Are the Jews of today our elder brothers in the faith?
 
Does God speak through the Church? If there is a dogmatic church teaching, did it come from God or did it come from men?
 
As I see from your profile of “Christian” as opposed to “Catholic”, would it be a reasonable assumption that you do not accept Catholic teaching? That you would not accept me as a Catholic stating what the Church is, or what the Magesterium is, or even what dogma and doctrine are? That as far as you’re concerned, no matter what I or other Catholics state, you are convinced that the Church ‘makes up’ doctrines on its own? And that unless you find something ‘in the Bible’ and from Jesus Christ Himself, you aren’t going to accept it as being “God’s teaching”?

Even though Jesus never codified the Bible, you seem to accept IT as God’s teaching though.

Even though Jesus never specifically stated the doctrine of the Trinity, you seem to accept it as God’s teaching.

What really surprises me here though is that male priesthood is right there ‘’in the Bible’. It’s not even like the Immaculate Conception (that is in the Bible, along with Mary’s perpetual Virginity and purgatory, though not so explicitly stated) which are the usual Protestant stumbling blocks.

Although considering so many (not all) Protestants likewise seem to ignore John 6 for a ‘symbolic Eucharist’ and Jesus’ words about divorce, perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised.
 
Some Anglicans do, yes. And? Your point would be? Obviously some of their hierarchy decided to interpret Scripture in a different way about 40 years ago. Now, by what authority did they do that?

Can the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

I’ll ask you to ponder this. As a non-Catholic Christian, there are obviously going to be some things that other nonCatholic Christians do or believe which do not jibe with your beliefs. You might be perfectly fine with infant baptism, for example. However Baptists and other groups do not believe in infant baptism.

Both ‘groups’ will claim Scriptural authority for their position. Who is right? You simply cannot say that the Baptist view is ‘right for the baptists but not for others who interpret differently’ because God does not teach one thing to ‘one group’ and something completely different to another, and claim both as ‘truth’.

So again I’ll ask you: Do you believe that the Catholic Church makes up its own doctrine from ‘men’? If so, exactly how can you tell? If ‘woman priests’ are authentic God-breathing teaching, where is it in Christian practice prior to AD 1976 or so, and where is it in Scripture, and who has the authority to interpret?
 
But today there are women Jewish rabbis? Did God teach that a woman could be a rabbi? Where did God Himself teach that the Church has no authority to ordain women ?
Well Jesus is God and teaches us through logical reasoning. He teaches us this at The Last Supper. Jesus has His twelve Apostles with him, fulfilling the twelve tribes of Israel. What did the twelve tribes have? Priesthood. What does a priest do? Offer sacrifice. At the Last Supper, Jesus tells His twelve to “Do this in remembrance of me.” The Greek for “Do this” means to offer sacrifice. His disciples were Jews so they understood 100% that they were being ordained priests because Jesus just told them to offer sacrifice. Jesus didn’t ordain any women or tell them to offer sacrifice. So we understand through Jewish context, linguistics, Biblical typology, and history that Jesus ordained men as priests and we are 100% sure he never intended to ordain women as priests.
 
The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church (FYI, composed of many organizations), the Oriental Orthodox communion (ditto), and the Ancient/Assyrian Churches of the East: I count 5. Plus all the splinters, because true priests and bishops do not exist only within a Church structure.
 
It’s my understanding that the Church teaches that God’s covenant with the Jewish people still stands.

I believe Catholics are advised to not seek the conversion of the Jews.

Maybe I’m wrong.
 
we are 100% sure he never intended to ordain women as priests.
If ‘woman priests’ are authentic God-breathing teaching, where is it in Christian practice prior to AD 1976 or so, and where is it in Scripture, and who has the authority to interpret?
male priesthood is right there ‘’in the Bible’
That is curious because the Roman Catholic woman that Pope Francis has appointed to the Vatican finance council says that women priests are possible.

 
You say that, but then do not actually cite to any of the teachings of the Church. Given your many erroneous statements on Church teaching, I have to ask what your background is. Are you a catechized Catholic?

Regardless, here is the actual teaching of the Church as to the salvation of our elder brothers in faith.

From the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.
The teachings of the Church on Judaism and Jews are summarized by the Church in a fairly recent Vatican document, which is found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html#5._The_universality_of_salvation_in_Jesus_Christ_and_God’s_unrevoked_covenant_with_Israel

Relevant to this discussion is this quote:
From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God.
 
It’s my understanding that the Church teaches that God’s covenant with the Jewish people still stands.
That is correct.
I believe Catholics are advised to not seek the conversion of the Jews.

Maybe I’m wrong.
Sort of. The Church’s guidance on the issue is found in the link I put in my last post. The Church has rejected an “institutional Jewish mission.” Christians are still called to bear witness to all people, but are advised to do so in a “humble and sensitive manner.”
 
The position you are putting forth is simply not the Church’s teaching. I have no problem with you putting it forward as your personal belief. But this forum is used by many people to learn about the Catholic faith and constantly putting forward your own beliefs as the Church’s teachings is simply wrong. I have pointed to current authoritative Church documents that conclusively set out the Church’s teachings. Do you accept the authority of the Church, the bishops in Council and the Pope to say what the Church teaches?

This is also wrong. Vatican II was an ecumenical council and had full teaching authority. No Pope has said otherwise. In fact, the document I quoted is titled “Dogmatic Constitution”. Couldn’t be much clearer than that.

Yes, Pope Benedict said we interpret VII in a spirit of continuity with all that came before, which is what he did when he wrote the Catechism that you appear to reject. Its is more than odd that you quote Pope Benedict as an authority and then proceed to reject his express teaching!
 
The teachings of the Church, unfortunately, are not always spoken correctly by any individual Christian, let alone one layperson appointed to a job deciding to let her ‘opinion’ out there.

Am I to gather that if a person hired to work on an Anglican committee decided to opine that the Church should look into canonizing animals because St. Francis obviously looked on them as ‘brothers and sisters” that you would delightedly tell me that “The Anglican Church says we can have animal saints now?”

Edited to add. . .ohh wait, I just saw this ‘person’ was appointed to the FINANCE committee. Because of course, when I want to listen to an expert on Catholic history and dogmatic teaching, the first person to consider is someone who has been appointed to the FINANCE committee. Naturally her words have the power of the entire hierarchy behind her oh wait no.
 
Last edited:
LOL, not at all. I am saying that you are wrong. I am saying that the Popes and the bishops are the ones with authority to interpret that Deposit of Faith, that they have done so, and that they see it differently than you. You are saying that the bishops and the Popes are all wrong, and that you (and not they) know what the Church “really” teaches.
 
Yes, and we know this in part because the “pre-Vatican II position” was not the same as the position of the early Church, which was much closer to today’s teaching than to the ugly things that were being said and done at some points in Church history
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top