Priest stripped of his duties after performing Mass with a woman priest

[mdmpsyd]

Oh I’m just dying to see the primary sources for THAT one.

I wasn’t sure if the part in red was a signature or part of your response. In any event, the Holy Father was not speaking ex cathedra. The number of times any pope has so spoken can be counted on one hand.

As far as sources, I refer you to the couple spoken of by Paul–Prisca and Aquila. I was going to go into the exegetical process that would shed light in this issue but then asked myself, “why?” The biggest obstacle in understanding the Truth is a firmly held belief.

As far as the distinction between ministerial and baptismal priesthood goes, there is a long bibliography on books on eclesiology, any of which would shed light on this issue but presenting it would shed light on this issue but that would be throwing pearls before swine. Raymond Brown presents several of these in many of his texts–starting with his two volume text on the Gospel of John in the Anchor Bible series and in his book, The churches the Apostles left behind.

On a personal note, for what it’s worth, when a classmate was being ordained, I asked Bishop Pelotte (and I probably spelled his name wrong) if it would be possible for the congregation to come and lay hands on my friend after the formally ordained had already done so. His response, while not binding on the faithful, was interesting–“The Church does not tell us **how **it [sacramental ordination] happens or exactly **when **it happens, only that it **does **happen.” The comments afterwards from the bishops, priests, and those not formally ordained was that this had been the best example of the ministry of the Church that they had seen in a long time.

 

[Brendan]

I wasn’t sure if the part in red was a signature or part of your response. In any event, the Holy Father was not speaking ex cathedra. The number of times any pope has so spoken can be counted on one hand…

Perhaps you have not read the documents of Vatican II. I would recommend Lumen Gentium.

In there you will note the ways in which the Church teaches infallibly. The primary means is the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Those are the myriad of teachings that have been handed down to us from Christ via the Apostles.

That is where the VAST majority of infallable teachings come from.

'Ex Cathedra" and even Eccumenical Councils are the ExtraOrdinary Infallible Magisterium. You are correct, THOSE are rare.

But the teachings of BOTH are held to be infallible.

The teaching against the sacerdotal Ordination of women is an element of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It requires no ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Pope, as it is ALREADY in infallible teaching. The purpose of ‘ex cathedra’ statements is not to infallibly declare what is already infallible.

I refer you to the couple spoken of by Paul–Prisca and Aquila

Yes, Paul noted that the Apostles knew both of them well and though highly of them. But where exactly does Paul mention that the Apostles ordained them. Having an Apostle think well of you does not equal Holy Orders

As far as the distinction between ministerial and baptismal priesthood goes

Again, Lumen Gentium goes into great depth on the distinction. I would recommend reading that to see what the Church teaches ( assuming, of course, that you are not one of those who deny Vatican II)

 

[Lochias]

As far as sources, I refer you to the couple spoken of by Paul–Prisca and Aquila. I was going to go into the exegetical process that would shed light in this issue but then asked myself, “why?” The biggest obstacle in understanding the Truth is a firmly held belief.

Translation: “No proof.”



I recommend you re-educate yourself in your Catholic faith, in order to avoid gaffs like these in the future and to ensure you’re not misrepresenting the Catholic faith to the rest of the world.

 

[jwinch2]

In any event, the Holy Father was not speaking ex cathedra.

That would be wrong.

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

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

I strongly suggest you read the documents of Vatican I on what it means for the Pope to make an infallible statement. Per the documents of the council, later further explained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, when the Pope declares that something is “definitive”, he is making an Ex Cathedra statement.

Furthermore, even if it had not been infallibly defined, which it has, it would still be incumbent on Catholics to accept the teaching. Many things which are dogmatic have never been defined as such by the Pope or the College of Bishops. For example, we profess in the Apostle’s Creed that Mary is “Ever Virgin” even though this has never been infallibly declared.

In a Nov. 24 address to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope John Paul expressed regret that many Catholics apparently think they are at
liberty to dismiss doctrines they don’t agree with unless it is formally stated that they
are infallibly proposed.

Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added,
“That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions
of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a
solemn judgment or definitive act.”

 

[mdmpsyd]

Perhaps you have not read the documents of Vatican II. I would recommend Lumen Gentium.

As I have read, several times, in English and in the Latin.

In there you will note the ways in which the Church teaches infallibly. The primary means is the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Those are the myriad of teachings that have been handed down to us from Christ via the Apostles.

That is where the VAST majority of infallable teachings come from.

Not all teachings are considered to be infallible, thus the distinction between doctrine and dogma.

'Ex Cathedra" and even Eccumenical Councils are the ExtraOrdinary Infallible Magisterium. You are correct, THOSE are rare.

Yes, Paul noted that the Apostles knew both of them well and though highly of them. But where exactly does Paul mention that the Apostles ordained them. Having an Apostle think well of you does not equal Holy Orders

Where does Paul say that most of the people in ministerial capacity were ordained? Or, perhaps, the only people in ministerial capacity are those who were explicitly so mentioned?

 

[epan]

The Pope has ruled definitively that women cannot be priests. That’s why.

Has he stated this with infallible authority, or is it only an opinion, at this time?

 

[mdmpsyd]

Which requires one to have their conscience properly formed. Cardinal Newman knew this and would have never taught otherwise.

How much of Blessed John Cardinal Newman have you read? Did you read from his letters where he was addressing those from the Anglican Church who were raising questions about his defection? Specifically, the authority of the Pope? Going by memory as the text is packed away at a relative’s, and as the text I have was in French: “There is no authority on earth stronger than one’s conscience–not even the Pope.” It is a bit disingenuous to say that unless your conscience conforms to what it is told to believe it is unformed or uninformed.

You can read more of what he had to say in these matters in his writings in and of Vatican I where he also argued against defining the doctrine of papal infallability. Yes, that was also a surprise to me to learn that it took so long for this to become codified into church law.

 

[nordskoven]

A female cannot atone for the “Sin of Adam.” It is a forensic fantasy, a legal impossibility. Woman & Seed have their own, distinct grant of ultimate power and authority from God: WAR AGAINST LUCIFER & SEED. That means all those lovely ladies beheading, spiking brains, and effecting hangings were just doing their divine job. Man’s job is as steward of life, even unto offering his life for Woman & Seed. That includes atonement for the Sin of Adam, man’s singular, several, separate distinct and unique problem. When Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, sin and death came into the world. Not so with the Woman. Male sacrifice started with Adam’s boys and continued to the present.

God cursed Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed in Genesis 3:15.
“I (God) will put enmity between thee (Lucifer) and the woman; thy seed and her Seed; and s/he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his/her heel.” How seemly would it be for a woman to stand on the altar and offer the body and blood of Jesus like an Alter Maria; as if the Virgin Mary were sacrificing her divine Child in some kind of Moloch ritual? Ugh. Feh. The same interior decorator culture that is urging women to become priestesses has marginalized great and heroic females in modern Catholic culture. That’s exemplified by the dumping of neat, powerful, wise and loving nuns in backwaters while promoting interior decorator-loving nuns to academic and parish greatness. What a trap. Don’t fall for it. Satan wants women off the job and wants kids D.O.A. with fake nuns as deathscorts walking her into the abortion clinic. And that’s the answer to W.W.S.D., What Would Satan Do?

May the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, the perfect fulfillment of the Woman & Seed curse upon Lucifer & Seed, grant all their family the purest hearts and surest wills and highest success in going for the proverbial head shot.

 

[mdmpsyd]

Furthermore, even if it had not been infallibly defined, which it has, it would still be incumbent on Catholics to accept the teaching. Many things which are dogmatic have never been defined as such by the Pope or the College of Bishops. For example, we profess in the Apostle’s Creed that Mary is “Ever Virgin” even though this has never been infallibly declared.

Would you like to look again? Neither the “old” liturgy nor the “new” one, include the word “ever.”

 

[jwinch2]

Would you like to look again? Neither the “old” liturgy nor the “new” one, include the word “ever.”

My apologies, the Confiteor says “ever virgin”, while the Apostles Creed states “communion of saints”. I had them mixed up in my head for a moment, but should have caught it. Regardless, neither has been infallibly declared, yet we are to believe them as Catholics.

 

[jwinch2]

How much of Blessed John Cardinal Newman have you read? Did you read from his letters where he was addressing those from the Anglican Church who were raising questions about his defection? Specifically, the authority of the Pope? Going by memory as the text is packed away at a relative’s, and as the text I have was in French: “There is no authority on earth stronger than one’s conscience–not even the Pope.” It is a bit disingenuous to say that unless your conscience conforms to what it is told to believe it is unformed or uninformed.

You can read more of what he had to say in these matters in his writings in and of Vatican I where he also argued against defining the doctrine of papal infallability. Yes, that was also a surprise to me to learn that it took so long for this to become codified into church law.

Many argued against a definitive statement on papal infallability, particularly until a formal definition of what that meant was presented to the council fathers. Regardless, the doctrine exists, and the Pope has used it in the case of a male only priesthood.

In addition, you should probably read a bit more on conscience. I’ve read Newman, quite a bit in fact, but I’ve also read several others who speak on the proper role of conscience. At the end of the day, it is the magisterium of the Church who defines doctrine, not one Cardinal, even one such as Newman. You are partially correct in that the Church teaches that one should always follow their conscience. However, the second and equally important part is that the Church teaches that one has the duty to properly form ones conscience. There are only a few ways that this can play out:

1. 
   *]A person knows what Church teaching is and follows it. This is virtuous and helps one get to Heaven.
   *]A person has a properly formed conscience and wants to follow it, but sins anyway. This person has chosen condemnation providing that they violated their conscience under their own free will. If they were forced to not follow their conscience, then they have not chosen to reject God’s love. And of course, if this person repents and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, they are freed from condemnation. In fact, seeking repentance can be a virtuous act in itself, in that you are following a correct conscience in an attempt to align your will with God’s will.
   *]A person does not know what Church teaching is and thus, makes the wrong decision. However, they have no idea that there even is Church teaching on the issue. This is unintentional ignorance. This is not virtuous and will not help one get to Heaven. However, one is also not condemned for this.
   *]A person does not know what Church teaching is and makes the wrong decision. However, they do know that the Church has teachings on this issue, but have not bothered to learn them. This is willful ignorance. One has condemned his/herself for this barring repentance.
   *]A person knows what the Church teaches and decides to do what they want or advocate for something contrary anyways. This is rejection. One has chosen condemnation for this barring repentance.

 

[jwinch2]

There is very strong evidence that women priests existed in the early church.

Still waiting for this by the way.

 

[jwinch2]

Has he stated this with infallible authority, or is it only an opinion, at this time?

The Pope invokes the infallibility of the Church by making “definitive statements”. When he declares that something is to be “definitively held as part of the deposit of Faith”, he has made an infallible statement by virtue of the Office of Roman Pontiff. To properly understand the doctrine, one needs to not just rely on hearsay as there are many false understanding of the doctrine, and the level of binding of other teachings upon Christians. Gasser’s Relatio on the Limits and Conditions of Papal Infallibility was the official definition used presented to the Council Fathers at Vatican I which swayed their opinions towards the acceptance of the doctrine as properly defined. This has been discussed and presented in various ways since that time, as well as restated in the documents of Vatican II.

“Infallibility is a property of the Magisterium in its activity of teaching, not a property of magisterial statements. The statements protected by infallibility are said to be
definitive,which means that these statements are not subject to rejection or correction
by any other authorities in the Church.” (Avery Cardinal Dulles, Magisterium, p. 66)

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus 4:9)

Even if he had not, Catholics would still be bound to accept the teaching. The idea that only Ex Cathedra statements are authoritative and binding is erroneous.

Dr. Baglow’s talk in this CD set breaks this down quite well. In fact, the whole conference is excellent. catholicproductions.com/store/audio/apostle_peter_conference/apostle_peter_set.html

 

[Lapey]

Would you like to look again? Neither the “old” liturgy nor the “new” one, include the word “ever.”

What exactly are you saying? The 4 Marian dogmas are not dogma? Or, are you saying they have never been infallibly pronounced by past Holy Fathers? Are you saying Mary’s “ever virgin” status is not true?

It seems to me that you are on a mission to denounce the teachings of the Church; sorry if I read you wrong, but this is what you appear as. What is your purpose, to try to cause confusion?

There is nothing out there that can be produced to demonstrate past female ordination. There is nothing out there where a legitimate authority has questioned Mary’s status as “ever virgin”. So why do you?

I’ve had these discussions before and it always comes back to the same thing, we must conform to Church teaching. If your conscience is in opposition to Church teaching, then it is ill-formed. The Church is the fullness of the truth, She is headed by Jesus and guided by the Spirit, follow Her not your own agenda.

 

[mdmpsyd]

Has he stated this with infallible authority, or is it only an opinion, at this time?

It is clearly your opinion.

 

[mdmpsyd]

A female cannot atone for the “Sin of Adam.”

Correct. And neither can any priest. That atonement was made, once, for all, through the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus.

 

[mdmpsyd]

My apologies, the Confiteor says “ever virgin”, while the Apostles Creed states “communion of saints”. I had them mixed up in my head for a moment, but should have caught it. Regardless, neither has been infallibly declared, yet we are to believe them as Catholics.

If by “are to believe,” means that they are both among the beliefs we hold in common then you are correct. On the other hand, if you mean that we are required to believe both, then you are in error.

 

[JerryZ]

That’s a nice “because I said so” answer. And for many of us, that’s good enough for us to follow the authority of the church. That isn’t the ONLY reason, though. There IS a reason God designed the church this way, and it most certainly isn’t “just because.” Why didn’t God authorize the church to do so? The exploration of that answer can be quite an adventure.

In my reversion days, learning the “Whys” behind the teaching surely helped me fall in love with the law, the church, and therefore Christ even more, because I became so in awe of how absolutely beautiful the teachings were, why they were, and the fact that each teaching is connected to another, and you can’t have one without the other. When you put the puzzle together, then all of them make sense. IN understanding THIS teaching, one might start to accept others, such as artificial birth control, confession, purpose of marriage, etc.

So “because the church said so” does not negate me saying “it’s degrading to women”.
Explanation:

People often view the church’s “hierarchy” as some sort of triangle top down power. THis is the opposite:

Picture an upside down triangle. The pope is at the bottom, IN SERVICE to the church. He has the weight of the world’s souls on his shoulders. Above the pope are the cardinals, then bishops, priests, then laity at the top, with women as the crown of creation. Women have the very special place of bearing children as mothers. This is their role. Men, in EPH 5 are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which is to die for her to get her to heaven. Men, in accepting the call to the priesthood, humble themselves in the service to the church, “decreasing” if you will (John of the Cross way). Thus, needing the sacramental grace to live out such a state. Priests are meant to “die” on the cross at the mass. Women are NOT called to die on the cross, they are called to be under the mission, to allow men to love them, to be actively and openly receptive. To have them try to be priests is dragging them to a “lower” state, not intended for them, degrading to their dignity as crown of creation. Motherhood is, in a way, for the purpose of this picture, a “higher” calling.

It’s basic chivalry really.

Wow! :tiphat: Thank you so much for that beautiful explanation.
Totally agree with Holy Mother Church.

 

[mdmpsyd]

Many argued against a definitive statement on papal infallability, particularly until a formal definition of what that meant was presented to the council fathers. Regardless, the doctrine exists, and the Pope has used it in the case of a male only priesthood.

No, but you are free to believe what you wish.

In addition, you should probably read a bit more on conscience. I’ve read Newman, quite a bit in fact, but I’ve also read several others who speak on the proper role of conscience. At the end of the day, it is the magisterium of the Church who defines doctrine, not one Cardinal, even one such as Newman.

And yet, there was nothing in Blessed John Cardinal Newman’s writings that would block his progression to sainthood.

You are partially correct in that the Church teaches that one should always follow their conscience.

That’s not quite what I said, but that’s OK.

However, the second and equally important part is that the Church teaches that one has the duty to properly form ones conscience. There are only a few ways that this can play out:

1. 
   *]A person knows what Church teaching is and follows it. This is virtuous and helps one get to Heaven.
   *]A person has a properly formed conscience and wants to follow it, but sins anyway. This person has chosen condemnation providing that they violated their conscience under their own free will. If they were forced to not follow their conscience, then they have not chosen to reject God’s love. And of course, if this person repents and receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, they are freed from condemnation. In fact, seeking repentance can be a virtuous act in itself, in that you are following a correct conscience in an attempt to align your will with God’s will.
   *]A person does not know what Church teaching is and thus, makes the wrong decision. However, they have no idea that there even is Church teaching on the issue. This is unintentional ignorance. This is not virtuous and will not help one get to Heaven. However, one is also not condemned for this.
   *]A person does not know what Church teaching is and makes the wrong decision. However, they do know that the Church has teachings on this issue, but have not bothered to learn them. This is willful ignorance. One has condemned his/herself for this barring repentance.
   *]A person knows what the Church teaches and decides to do what they want or advocate for something contrary anyways. This is rejection. One has chosen condemnation for this barring repentance.

1. 
   You are missing one other very important one: The individual knows what the church teaches, why the church teaches it, the person’s conscience has been formed (in the sense that his or her frontal lobes are developed such that he or she is capable of weighing all the arguments), and is still compelled to believe otherwise. That is the situation that Blessed Newman was referring to when he said that there was nothing on this earth with more authority than one’s conscience.

 

[mdmpsyd]

Still waiting for this by the way.

asked and answered–not necessarily by you.