Is it ok to advocate or agitate for women's ordination?

[TMC]

Would have been, “there is salvation to those outside the Church’.
That is NOT the teaching though. That would have been a 180 and not a development.

This is certainly how the current teaching would have been viewed two or three hundred years ago. The Church now teaches that atheists may be saved, Muslims may by saved, Jews may be saved, Protestants may be saved. We now understand that the salvation of those outside the Church is spiritually connected to the Church, such that we can say they are saved through and in the Church, but no one would have agreed with that before the modern development. To them, the teaching that atheists and Muslims can be saved without conversion and baptism would have seemed to be an abrupt reversal from past teaching.

In retrospect, we understand that as a development of existing doctrine, but Catholics from the past would absolutely have viewed it as a “180” from their understanding of the doctrine. Which is why I said that developments are often only understandable as such in hindsight, and that without discussion, we can not know how new developments may arise.

 

[stpurl]

It’s easy for you to CLAIM that ‘Catholics 300 years ago would have seen this as a 180.”

Really? What makes Catholics living in AD 1960 so radically ‘different’ that THEY managed to accept this teaching without problem?

It’s not like there was a mincing baby step made in 1600, and then 1700, then 1750, 1800, 1850, 1900, 1950, wow, suddenly we understand it so differently from what ‘they knew’ in 1600!

If Catholics living in 1600 had been given the same type of explanation for the development that Catholics got in 1960, they’d have had the same kind of response. Assent.

 

[TMC]

It’s easy for you to CLAIM that ‘Catholics 300 years ago would have seen this as a 180.”

Well, we know that many Catholics in the 20th Century saw this as a 180. There was some significant resistance to the new development of this doctrine, and it took time explain the teaching and get people comfortable with it. Some never got comfortable, which is obviously unfortunate.

If Catholics living in 1600 had been given the same type of explanation for the development that Catholics got in 1960, they’d have had the same kind of response. Assent.

I agree they would have likely reacted much as people did in the 60’s and 70’s. Many in the 1600s would have assented, but some would have resisted, just as happened in the 20th Century. But all would have recognized that the teaching was different, whether called a change or a development.

 

[Walk-worthy]

It’s common knowledge that the church is on a down hill slide. People leaving in droves. Ordinations are in the single digits. Parishes closing. Diocese paying millions in law suit damages. Rome is focused on …of all things…Climate Change!

If you follow this trend to a logical outcome, I would say it’s only a matter of time that we see women ordination! Unless the Lord returns in the interim!

If we continue down the slippery slope of modernism, I’ll be looking for a new church! I will no longer be able to embrace a church that can’t reform and repent.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

gama232:

1. Two words: Humanae vitae .
   [/quote]

Yours truly is ~ 1.5 months older than HV.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

If we continue down the slippery slope of modernism, I’ll be looking for a new church! I will no longer be able to embrace a church that can’t reform and repent.

First of all, remember this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Second, don’t confuse the Church, which IS infallible, with Churchmen who may or may not be infallible. Churchmen may finagle things but they cannot impose as infallible teaching women’s ordination on the Church when PJPII definitively declared the opposite in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which was posted earlier.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

1. Two words: Humanae vitae .

Yours truly is ~ 1.5 months older than HV.
[/quote]

I was seven years old and not yet a Catholic when HV came out. As I grew older and became aware that some Catholic families were very large, and learned what birth control was (from the media), I found the Church’s teaching incomprehensible. Finally, in my mid-teens, the Holy Spirit went to work on me, I found the Catholic Faith, and I came to accept all teachings of the Church. I knew “right off the bat” that dissent from any of the Church’s teachings was bogus, which put me at odds with the vast majority of Catholics in this country, but I did not care — I knew I was right and they were wrong. My objections to this kind of “cafeteria Catholicism” were very much disliked among my fellow parishioners. I have not changed my mind to this very day.

 

[Walk-worthy]

My dear Margaret Ann, I’m not leaving the faith. I would never do that! Christ is and will always be my savior! I will have to serve Him in ways that do not include the physical “apostate” church.
Scripture says to come out from among them and be a separate people!

WW

 

[Anicette]

I would call it wrong because it brings division among faithfull on what should not been a debate anymore.
Yes, i would call it a sin. Some would disagree. And it is not up to me to judge souls.

 

[Walk-worthy]

I can not fix the problems within the church. It will take a miracle to fix the church! I do not pray for schism. I pray for a return to the Gospel and traditional values. If that doesn’t happen, I won’t have to leave the church; the church will have left me! I can’t put it any simpler!