JP2 was going to allow women to be priest?

[archangel04]

At work today, this girl who had returned to the church was informing me about this lady who was preaching from the pulpit during the homily. According to my friend, she is a theologian and a deacon. I asked her what Church she went to, and I looked it up and is authentic teaching. I gave a comment how I never heard of women deacons, but assured her that if this was true, then that’s as far a woman would ever get. She got mad! She told me how the next big change in the church would be to allow women to become priest. I am sorry, but I had to chuckle. I told her that the rule of priest being celibate would change before women could become priest. I tried to explained to her the reason for not having women as clergy, but she just kept blasting me on how women would do better, and how the sexual abuses could have been prevented if women were allowed to be priest. Now she stated to me that JP2 was considering allowing women to be ordained I’ve never heard anything about this, so I wonder where did she get the idea?

 

[1ke]

Considering that JPII wrote this:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I don’t see how she could have a leg to stand on with that claim.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If you use a really, really twisted kind of reasoning like so:

JP2 was hearing from some of his priests and bishops that they and their congregations were debating over the issue of women as priests.

JP2 after prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to ‘still’ the tongues and make quite clear the Church’s teachings and the fact that the Church has not now, had not then, and will not ever have the “authority” to ordain women. . .went to the trouble of writing out and making this totally clear. . .

Therefore, since JP2 was ‘considering’ what the priests and bishops were asking,. . .

Voila! JP2 by this ‘twist’ of reasoning was ‘considering’ women as priests!!!

Welcome to LiturgicalSpeak, dissenter-style. Tie-dye, felt banners, and strumming-and-a-grinning optional but highly encouraged.

 

[FickleFreckled]

Aw, c’mon, Tantum Ergo…not all of us strummers-and-grinners think women should be priests… :tsktsk:

 

[kage_ar]

Sure, and he was going to allow oreo cookies to be used as hosts

 

[Just_Lurking]

Women deacons are not allowed in the Catholic Church under both 1917 canon law and 1983 canon law.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Would the OP mind providing a link to the “Church she went to and authentic teaching?”

Just because a Church might list itself as “Catholic” doesn’t mean it is. I’ve seen Churches listed as, say, “St. Mary, a Catholic Church” and lo and behold, when I check the diocese web site, there ain’t no sech a church in the diocese. Or (to give another example), we could have a church listed as St. Woozits, and the diocese duly notes a St. Woozits. . .but the priest at St. Woozits is, in defiance of his bishop, teaching that God is a Quartet, not a Trinity. Just because he is a real diocesean priest in a real church doesn’t necessarily ASSURE that he is really teaching authentic teaching. (Now, most of the time we do have wonderful priests who DO teach the truth, praise God. . .that’s one reason why we tend to ‘trust’ that a priest is ‘telling the truth’, because so many of them do, and it’s something we expect. But that is also a way that a very very few unscrupulous and dishonest priests can cause such damage. . .because their congregations accept their dishonest teachings as ‘truth’.) We need to be as ‘wise as serpents and as meek as doves’ and be sure that we keep ourselves educated about the TRUTHS of Catholicism.

 

[quiet52]

The OP’s friend must have attended an Episcopalian or Anglican service. Their churches usually have saints’ names, their priests and deacons (both genders) wear vestments, their liturgy is similar to the Catholic liturgy. Their beliefs change through time though, by human vote.

 

[archangel04]

Women deacons are not allowed in the Catholic Church under both 1917 canon law and 1983 canon law.

Thank you!

Would the OP mind providing a link to the “Church she went to and authentic teaching?”
.

stapostle.org/index2.php
I think this is the Church because she menition how they had a youth program for age 20’s-30’s
members and how they have a special mass around 6 for young adults and even for “singles”. I will find out for sure tommarow when I see her at work.

I checked the diocese of Joliet and they are listed on the site

 

[bluelake]

Considering that JPII wrote this:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I don’t see how she could have a leg to stand on with that claim.

The Bible teaches pastors are to be the husband of one wife.
Also womwn are to be silent in the church. If she has a question she should ask her husabnd about it later.
However, women during the early church were considered second class citizens.
Some countries still practice this today. Muslims are a good example.
Personally, I’m against women preachers. I’m also against women that join the service when they have small children and go overseas and leave their babies with someone else to love and care for.
I could not even think of leaving my babies with anyone else for longer that a sunday school lesson, let alone leave the country and leave my precious baby with someone else.
God have mercy.

bluelake

 

[benedictgal]

I would write to the pastor. There are several red herrings here, female priesthood matters not withstanding.

First of all, no lay person, be that individual male or female, has any business preaching during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is a major liturgical abuse condemned and reprobated by Redemptionis Sacramentum and the GIRM:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,142 “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.143 In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.144

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.145 This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.146

Second, what this person is saying is simply not true.

If the pastor does not take any action, then the next course of action would be to write to the bishop, sending him copies of the letter written to the pastor and mailing everything certified, return receipt requested. Finally, if the bishop takes no action, then the final recourse is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

I realize that the OP heard this second-hand, but, this is a serious problem that, if true, needs to be addressed.

 

[Pawel_J]

What would happen if an Anglican priest, being a woman, decided to convert to Catholic. I have heard that the Catholic Church guarantees all Anglican priests, who decide to convert, to preserve their clerical status.

 

[Seatuck]

What would happen if an Anglican priest, being a woman, decided to convert to Catholic. I have heard that the Catholic Church guarantees all Anglican priests, who decide to convert, to preserve their clerical status.

They would assume the role of lay people. Even male Anglican Priests have to undergo discernment as to whether they can receive Holy Orders. It isn’t a guaranteed thing. Also , this process has been opened up to the Anglican church who are in disagreement with their church on matters of faith and morals. The concept of female clergy is one of those matters.

 

[Pawel_J]

They would assume the role of lay people. Even male Anglican Priests have to undergo discernment as to whether they can receive Holy Orders. It isn’t a guaranteed thing. Also , this process has been opened up to the Anglican church who are in disagreement with their church on matters of faith and morals. The concept of female clergy is one of those matters.

… But Vatican has already confirmed, that married Anglican priests will be accepted into Catholic priesthood. So we will probably have instances of married Catholic priests very soon.

 

[srlucado]

… But Vatican has already confirmed, that married Anglican priests will be accepted into Catholic priesthood. So we will probably have instances of married Catholic priests very soon.

We already do. Not far from my home there’s an Anglican parish that converted en masse to Catholicism, including the married priest.

And he’s not the only one.

 

[centurionguard]

… But Vatican has already confirmed, that married Anglican priests will be accepted into Catholic priesthood. So we will probably have instances of married Catholic priests very soon.

Yes; the Vatican does accept married Anglican priest into the Catholic priesthood (“In the same light as does the Catholic Church accepts married deacons into the Church.”)

However; a married deacon by Church law cannot enter the Catholic priesthood unless HE is single. One should also realize that the Catholic Church has never accepted FEMALE Anglican priests into the priesthood.

Final point to make is that NO Pope has the authority to change the institution of Men Only becoming priest. JP2 has already made statement to that fact. Why? Because it was Jesus Christ Himself (“the Son of Almighty God”) who officially instituted the Priesthood. And the wisdom of Jesus Christ far surpasses human wisdom concerning the priesthood.

 

[St_Francis]

Thank you!

stapostle.org/index2.php
I think this is the Church because she menition how they had a youth program for age 20’s-30’s
members and how they have a special mass around 6 for young adults and even for “singles”. I will find out for sure tommarow when I see her at work.

I checked the diocese of Joliet and they are listed on the site

I don’t know if this is the church your friend mentioned, because their deacons do not include a woman.

One of the reasons someone might have brought up the Epsicopal church is that some of the call themselves Catholic–they will say “Anglo-Catholic” to differentiate themselves from “Roman Catholics” but at other times I have heard them call themselves only Catholic.

 

[Aramis]

One should note, however, that Deaconesses were ordained in the early church (apostolic constitutions), and were ordained like deacons. (ibid.)

The use of deaconesses, however, has faded from use. In this case, either JP II was wrong, or the majority of the early church were licitly but invalidly ordaining women, or one is misreading what HH JP II wrote. I suspect the later.

His holiness makes clear that women can not be ordained priests (as he used “sacerdotalis”), but that wording doesn’t include deacons, and definitely doesn’t include the minor orders (Subdeacons, Lectors, Acolytes, Candlebearers*, Cantors*, Exorcists*, Thurifers*, Porters*).

The issue of the Deaconess is one that Rome isn’t willing to touch. I suspect the reasoning is that the specific role is vague, and that, even if it is a female subdeacon, rather than female deacon, people would see it as a step towards the sacerdotal presbyterate, which we “know” is in fact impossible to do validly. We know it because female priests were in fact anathematized by one of the councils.

• The various minor orders asterisked were not universal.

 

[blackrobe]

… But Vatican has already confirmed, that married Anglican priests will be accepted into Catholic priesthood. So we will probably have instances of married Catholic priests very soon.

Not so. Each case is considered individually. We already have married Catholic priests from several denominations but each person’s situation is evaluated and judged individually. There is no blanket acceptance of converts to the priesthood.

AMDG
jsa

 

[drforjc]

One should note, however, that Deaconesses were ordained in the early church (apostolic constitutions), and were ordained like deacons. (ibid.)

The use of deaconesses, however, has faded from use. In this case, either JP II was wrong, or the majority of the early church were licitly but invalidly ordaining women, or one is misreading what HH JP II wrote. I suspect the later.

His holiness makes clear that women can not be ordained priests (as he used “sacerdotalis”), but that wording doesn’t include deacons, and definitely doesn’t include the minor orders (Subdeacons, Lectors, Acolytes, Candlebearers*, Cantors*, Exorcists*, Thurifers*, Porters*).

The issue of the Deaconess is one that Rome isn’t willing to touch. I suspect the reasoning is that the specific role is vague, and that, even if it is a female subdeacon, rather than female deacon, people would see it as a step towards the sacerdotal presbyterate, which we “know” is in fact impossible to do validly. We know it because female priests were in fact anathematized by one of the councils.

• The various minor orders asterisked were not universal.

It is not certain that the word “ordination” in the apostolic constitutions referred to the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders, regardless of the ceremony looking “like” (your word) male deacons.