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.
LOL, seriously? Yes, I have read the Bible. The whole thing. Lots of times. Have you read the Church’s actual teachings?

I am well aware that some Doctors of the Church said some anti-Semitic and frankly terrible things about Jews over a thousand years ago. The Church does not cling to those errors. Why do you?
 
You have cherry picked quotes from hundreds of years ago that you seem to believe have an authority and meaning that has not been grasped by the Popes and the bishops. I have explained that you are wrong by providing extensive links to the actual current Church teaching that is directly on point. You continue to insist that you know better than the Church what the Church teaches.

Tell me, if you are right, how did St. John Paul go so far astray? Why is Pope Benedict so woefully uneducated as to the Church’s teaching? How do you explain that they read the Deposit of Faith differently than you? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, they understand what the Church teaches better than you?
 
Last edited:
Yes i would say so, at least if you interpret it such. Of course I read here on CAF that people interpret these declarations differently and not in the same way as you do. In any case it seems that there have been errors which have been taught. Take for example, the case of torture. It was taught that the Inquisition could use torture to extract confessions. Now however, it is taught that torture is an intrinsic evil. Similarly with burning heretics alive at the stake. Today no one recommends it, but in the past it was an approved punishment for heretics or for witches.

It may have been a past teaching, but it is not the teaching today.
 
Last edited:
I thought that the Holy Father has declared that Catholics should not pursue the conversion of Jews.
 
stpurl said:
The teachings of the Church, unfortunately, are not always spoken correctly by any individual Christian
Click to expand...
Yes, but apparently, the Holy Father did not have any problem appointing her. There are many, many women who are against women priests, and yet the Holy Father has chosen to fill this Vatican position with someone who favors women priests.
 
What exactly is evil and wrong?

How do you know it is a dogma, and it is not just the personal opinion of a few popes?
 
You need look no further than Jesus Himself. He ordained men to follow Him. Sinful men at that. If He was interested in having women be ordained would not His Mother who was blameless before God not literally be THE sole perfect example? No priest/bishop/pope alive can hold a candle to Our Lady. Christ was followed by many worthy women who “didn’t” betray Him the way St. Peter did. Yet He did not ordain them. When a priest hears confessions and says a Mass, he acts In Persona Christi. Christ comes and works through the priest to offer Himself in oblation, absolve sins, etc. Christ was a biological male. Women cannot become men. Therefore it is impossible for women to be ordained.

I don’t understand why some fringe elements try to push for an ordained female diaconate. The diaconate and priesthood are different in function and what they are called to do but they receive the same Sacrament of Holy Orders. It’s ridiculous to suggest that while ordaining women to the priesthood is absolutely out, it may be sacramentally possible to ordain women to the permanent diaconate. There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders. One can’t be ordained to one without possibility of being ordained to the other.
 
i don’t see the proof that it is a dogma. You sayso, but where is it written down somewhere that it is a dogma that a Jew who does not convert will go to hell. I can see where it was an opinion of a Pope or of a Council at one time, but I don’t see the word dogma used in this opinion?

So according to your sayso not converting Jews is evil and wrong? How are we supposed to explain the following:

Pope Benedict Benedict approvingly quoted Cistercian abbess and Biblical writer Hildegard Brem: “The church must not concern herself with the conversion of the Jews, since she must wait for the time fixed for this by God.”

 
OraProNobis333 said:
If He was interested in having women be ordained would not His Mother who was blameless before God not literally be THE sole perfect example? No priest/bishop/pope alive can hold a candle to Our Lady.
Click to expand...
How many priests can hold a candle to St. Joseph, the perfect foster father? If Jesus was interested in having foster fathers ordained as priests, would not St. Joseph be the perfect example? Does this rule out the possibility that foster fathers cannot be ordained as priests?
OraProNobis333 said:
He ordained men to follow Him.
Click to expand...
But did Jesus ordain any Vietnamese to the priesthood? Since Jesus did not ordain any Vietnamese men to the priesthood, does that mean that Vietnamese men cannot be ordained to the priesthood?
OraProNobis333 said:
I don’t understand why some fringe elements try to push for an ordained female diaconate.
Click to expand...
Why does Pope Francis appoint a woman who is advocating for women priests ?
 
AlNg said:
When and where did God Himself teach this? If you let me know, I can pass this information along to the local priest.
Click to expand...
Here.

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...p-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
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...
 
I thought that was a declaration of Pope John Paul II ? You say that that was God Himself speaking?
 
Pope ST John Paul II was reiterating the continued teaching of the Church . . .which came from God Himself.

Apparently it is difficult for a non-Catholic to accept that the Church has authority to hold and keep the Catholic faith which comes to us through God’s word (the Scriptures), the apostles (who spread the gospel), and the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised, verbally and in written word, to send upon the Church to bring us to all truth.

The Pope did not ‘make up a teaching there’. He simply reminded all people what God had revealed through God’s own words, God’s own choice, God’s own consistent ‘holding’ throughout the centuries, and the Spirit’s confirmation of the same, that “The Church has no authority to ordain women”.

Look at the statement if you will.
He isn’t saying, “I the Pope say no ordaining women.”

He says “The Church” —that is, the entire faithful—‘has no authority’. OK, but we know that the Church does have certain authority, i.e. ‘Bind and loose’, the authority to forgive sins.

But the Church does not have ‘unlimited authority’ to bind and loose. The Church does not have the power to bind something that God has already loosened, NOR does it have the power to loosen something that God has already bound.

That’s why the Church cannot change the matter of the Eucharist to beer and pizza, or change marriage into the union of two men or two women. Likewise, it cannot change ordination into allowing ‘women priests’.

It cannot be done per God’s decision, not ‘men’s.
 
It’s just silly.

They Church has settled the matter of women priests.

More often than not I see folks brow beating those proposing women ordination with lofty defenses of this and that aspect of papal authority.

Why even go there? It’s settled.

If folks want to go on about women’s ordination that’s their thing- it’s not going anywhere.

It’s as if they feel threatened.
 
Yes, but it has to be understood in light of the living Magisterium. The Church has always understood that there is baptism by desire…this is even definitively taught by Trent. The Church has always always understood that there can be invincible ignorance. Today, mediating on those two truths, we’ve come to accept that God, by means known only to himself, may save many outside the visible bonds of the Church…for lack of a better phrase - “baptism by implicit desire”. God has bound salvation to the sacraments, but he himself is not bound by the sacraments. Its the same cases with unbaptized babies or aborted babies who dies…the Church has dogmatically taught that those who die in “original sin alone” go to hell…yet the living Magisterium instructs us to trust in the mercy of God. Baptism is the normative way to be cleansed of original sin…but cannot God act in some other way if He so chooses?
 
Excuse me? One priest speaking his opinion is somehow your ‘go to person’ over the Pope (and Pope Benedict confirmed Pope St John Paul II’s confirmation)?

Well, THERE’S your problem. Apparently if the Catholic Church’s teachings agree with you, Then they’re OK. If they don’t, you seem to believe pulling out some priest or theologian whom you claim ‘differs’ from the teaching somehow invalidates the teaching.

What a remarkable trick that is. Unfortunately, “America” is not the Magesterium, and Father Sullivan, God rest his soul, is not the Vicar of Christ, the Magesterium, etc.
 
stpurl said:
Excuse me? One priest speaking his opinion is somehow your ‘go to person’ over the Pope (and Pope Benedict confirmed Pope St John Paul II’s confirmation)?
Click to expand...
Your comments are irrelevant to the point being made. The teaching was definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith. Since it was definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith, it was not God Himself who was teaching this. Otherwise, whenever a Pope speaks, it is God Himself Who is teaching, which is not true.
 
AlNg said:
Your comments are irrelevant to the point being made. The teaching was definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith. Since it was definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith, it was not God Himself who was teaching this. Otherwise, whenever a Pope speaks, it is God Himself Who is teaching, which is not true.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that St John Paul held that the teaching was definitive, which expresses his opinion that it was unchanging. Which is a very high order teaching, but not technically infallible. In other words, he opined that it was probably infallible, but did not declare it infallible. Which means another Pope or Council could overrule his opinion and change the teaching. I do not expect that to happen in my lifetime, but I also don’t expect to live forever. In the meantime, that is the teaching of the Church.
 
TMC said:
My understanding is that St John Paul held that the teaching was definitive,
Click to expand...
It does look that way to many others also. As Father Sullivan has pointed out the teaching is definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith. I.e., it was not God Himself who was teaching this. A poster here claims that it was God Himself who taught this.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
It does look that way to many others also. As Father Sullivan has pointed out the teaching is definitive but not a matter of divinely revealed faith. I.e., it was not God Himself who was teaching this. A poster here claims that it was God Himself who taught this.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think your and my opinions on this are the same or very close. There can be no doubt what the teaching of the Church is. There is no doubt that John Paul called it “definitive” and that no subsequent Pope has expressed any interest in revisiting that. But “definitive” and “infallible” are different (and neither come directly from the mouth of God).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top