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

  • Thread starter Thread starter austenbosten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aaah, deep sigh. If the heavens were to open up and a voice were to tell you that you were wrong, would you chalk it up to some form of a nightmare?
This hasn’t happened to me that I have been told I was wrong by the heavens opening up. However, The same is true for you being wrong. Jesus has said that what is bound on earth by His Church will be bound in heaven do you chalk it up some form of a nightmare? I trust the Church Jesus established and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. There is no need than of a voice directing me personally as Jesus provided His Church.
Pearls can’t sidestep and if they could … are you referring to yourself as swine?
I am referring to your excuse for not providing the strong evidence that you claimed to have. Did you forget you wrote that?
It is Christmas eve, we are about to celebrate our Awesome God sanctify our human existence by becoming one of us. Don’t think of your self as a pig. And may the God who passes ***ALL ***understanding bless you and keep you close to His/Her heart.
O.K. I get it you made a claim that you cannot substantiate. There is no "strong evidence. Got it:thumbsup:
 
My first reaction to that statement is that I doubt that most women would agree.
If a woman agrees or disagrees does not reflect on the truth of the statement. Most women might not agree that abortion, birth control or immodest dressing hurts their soul but it wouldn’t change the fact that it does.
The next reaction is to wonder if you believe that the Church has never Ben erroneous, when it comes down to change?
This is such a muddled statement that you would have to restate it to be understood what you mean.
The third reaction would be to wonder if anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history does not believe that the Catholic Church does not eventually bend to overwhelming societal pressure?
You are referring to what exactly? The Church in regards to her teaching on faith and morals have never altered. There are those who are confused by what is officially taught. I do not know if you are one of those since your statements are so vague and on the surface false.
 
You might not of noticed the sentence: **Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. ** The author of this article does not have the authority to proclaim something as dogma. Without explicit statements, you have no dogma. You have teaching, which is very well summarized in the link below, but that is not the same thing as dogma.
There are four Marian dogmas:

  1. *]Divine Motherhood
    *]Perpetual Virginity
    *]Immaculate Conception
    *]The Assumption

  1. All of above require assent even though not all were declared in explicit ex cathedra statements by the Pope.
    It is the explicit statements that makes something dogma rather than doctrine.
    When one examines the evidence, clear and consistent teaching on the issue is seen throughout the history of the Church, from the early Church Fathers, to multiple ecumenical councils, to magisterial teaching.
    No disagreement on the history, only in your inference that that history is sufficient to identify something as dogma.
    Now, please present the “strong” evidence, which you claim exists, regarding women priests in the early Church.
    Once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Specifically, why I have no intention of going into an exegesis of the subject. You have not demonstrated any willingness to understand (I am not saying “agree”) and without the willingness to admit that God’s design might be a little more complex than we would like to admit, such an effort would be like playing a symphony to a deaf person.
 
You might not of noticed the sentence: **Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. ** The author of this article does not have the authority to proclaim something as dogma. Without explicit statements, you have no dogma. You have teaching, which is very well summarized in the link below, but that is not the same thing as dogma.

It is the explicit statements that makes something dogma rather than doctrine.

No disagreement on the history, only in your inference that that history is sufficient to identify something as dogma.

Once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Specifically, why I have no intention of going into an exegesis of the subject. You have not demonstrated any willingness to understand (I am not saying “agree”) and without the willingness to admit that God’s design might be a little more complex than we would like to admit, such an effort would be like playing a symphony to a deaf person.
Please provide any evidence of anything you claim;
  1. Early Church female priests-
  2. Perpetual virginity of Mary as doctrine and not dogma-
There are 4 Marian dogmas-

Mother of God the Son

Perpetual Virgin

Immaculately conceived

Assumed into heaven

Just for your information, the Church has it right and you and society have it wrong. Your writings have absolutely no authority bunch much bias towards your own personal opinions. Another FYI for you, the Church doesn’t buy your opinions!

Removed some comments that could appear uncharitable.
 
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.
You should discern that part in red, his signature, for the truth. It is there, one just needs to be attune to the Church and not society in order to see it.
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.
You make a very good case for your statement here. The world’s very strong belief that it can tell the Church what is truth is so strong, that the world cannot see the Truth of Jesus Christ. Please provide documentation that these people were ordained to the priesthood; not baptized into the universal priesthood, the ministerial and sacramental priesthood.
As far as the distinction between ministerial and baptismal priesthood goes, there is a long bibliography on books on ecclesiology, 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.
Not too sure what to make of this statement. Are you calling us who hold to what Mother Church says is true as swine? Please provide documentation that Fr. Raymond Brown states that universal priesthood and sacramental ministerial priesthood are the same. Why should I look to the Anchor Bible for anything that I should be learning from Mother Church? Has the church decided to adopt the AB as it’s designated bible? If the AB or it’s commentaries lead me away from my Catholic roots, I shall reject it. If this leads you to believe that the Church is wrong in anything, you should reject it.
So, let me see if I understand. If the priest in question had not done as he did, because he had been compelled by law, tradition, or whatever then we are on the same page. However, if he rejects his properly formed and informed conscience and did not act as he did then we have what your are calling sin. It is a good thing he said the mass with that female.
This is talking in circles, we’ve been over this. You have a duty to follow your conscience, yes! You have a duty to form and inform that conscience, yes! When it is in opposition to truth in Church teachings, what are we to do? You say go with it, it must be right because my conscience is telling me so, it must be God telling me the Church is wrong on this one thing…I don’t think so. You must learn, discern and conform. To do otherwise is to obstinately refuse to obey Church teachings, and can cause danger to your immortal soul.
Are you under the illusion that there is an objective basis to any of this?

I notice that you do not disagree that Blessed Newman said that there was no higher authority than one’s conscience. Any kind of sophistry that comes down to “if you do not believe as you are told, you conscience isn’t formed,” really invalidates what a conscience is supposed to do.
Same as above, the conscience is not the full deposit of truth, Mother Church is. Now go and teach your conscience that!
I’m sorry, which Lateran council are you referring to? Every reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary refers to it as doctrine, not dogma.
Mary’s virginity before, during and after the birth of Jesus is dogma, in spite of the fact that there was no one definitive statement by a pope to say it is so. This is not the qualifier in which dogma is defined.

There you go. I have pointed out several INCORRECT statements from you on this thread. (From the private message you sent me in reply to my message.) Please provide that evidence that you so proudly talk about.👍
 
You might not of noticed the sentence: **Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. ** The author of this article does not have the authority to proclaim something as dogma. Without explicit statements, you have no dogma. You have teaching, which is very well summarized in the link below, but that is not the same thing as dogma.

It is the explicit statements that makes something dogma rather than doctrine.

No disagreement on the history, only in your inference that that history is sufficient to identify something as dogma.
You are wrong. The Church teaches that Mary’s perpetual virginity is to be held as dogma. Period.
Once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Specifically, why I have no intention of going into an exegesis of the subject. You have not demonstrated any willingness to understand (I am not saying “agree”) and without the willingness to admit that God’s design might be a little more complex than we would like to admit, such an effort would be like playing a symphony to a deaf person.
You wrote nothing except to make reference to one Bible passage. Now, show us where there is teaching by the Church that this alludes to women being ordained to the priesthood. Show us this “strong evidence” you claim to have.
 
Once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Specifically, why I have no intention of going into an exegesis of the subject. You have not demonstrated any willingness to understand (I am not saying “agree”) and without the willingness to admit that God’s design might be a little more complex than we would like to admit, such an effort would be like playing a symphony to a deaf person.
**You wrote nothing **except to make reference to one Bible passage. Now, show us where there is teaching by the Church that this alludes to women being ordained to the priesthood. Show us this “strong evidence” you claim to have.
O.K. I get it you made a claim that you cannot substantiate. ** There is no "strong evidence.** Got it:thumbsup:
 
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
Munificentissimus Deus
. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Catechism
510 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is “the handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38).
 
You speak in riddles and I am disingenuous?
Where is the riddle?
With the ability to follow and truth one’s own conscience comes great responsibility to form it properly to Church teachings.
No, the responsibility is to be properly informed of church teaching–what is taught and why it is taught.
If a person finds themselves outside of this teaching he/she is required to learn why.
“Required” is terminology consistent with control. As if the obligation to do so comes from some external authority. What you are describing is the very process of exercising one’s formed and informed conscience. To go off willy nilly with no regard for anything but yourself is not an act of conscience. To endeavour to understand all aspects of the issue–or at least as many as is reasonable given our limited human nature, to weigh those different perspectives within the context of where it comes from (listening to a physician about issues of medicine may weigh heavier than listening to your mother in law), and then forming conclusions, conclusions that you can own rather than be told what to conclude ==> That is the process.
Discern the truth and follow the truth.
We are in perfect agreement. Amazing.
That is not forcing someone to choose against their conscience.
Correct–not the process that I described.
Right is right, simple as that. My wife and I can choose to use birth control and our consciences be fully of the belief that there is nothing wrong with it and after all the learning still choose to use it; but we would still be in grave sin if we do. Why is that; because it is wrong even though I don’t think it is. I would be obstinately rejecting truth which is not a good thing for my immortal soul.
Is anyone familliar with Kohlberg’s theory of moral development?

If you were a parent, and maybe you are, would you rather have your grown children follow your instructions simply because they are your instructions?
You need to re-read and further study this section of the CCC.
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.
👍

Now that you have completely shown me the error of my ways (cough cough), I feel safe in assuming that you try to be a man of god, ministering as best as you know how. I am respectfully asking you to never never again send me a personal message. I will ignore whatever you happen to write in the forum as it is more than clear that you take enjoyment in trying to be a bully and I can easily ignore those postings. Do not invade the personal space of my message box.
 
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20120405_messa-crismale_en.html
Two things, above all, are asked of us: there is a need for an interior bond, a configuration to Christ, and at the same time there has to be a transcending of ourselves, a renunciation of what is simply our own, of the much-vaunted self-fulfilment. We need, I need, not to claim my life as my own, but to place it at the disposal of another – of Christ. I should be asking not what I stand to gain, but what I can give for him and so for others. Or to put it more specifically, this configuration to Christ, who came not to be served but to serve, who does not take, but rather gives – what form does it take in the often dramatic situation of the Church today? Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church? We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date. But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for all true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?
 
There is very strong evidence that women priests existed in the early church.
Professor Giorgio Otranto in
his "Note sul sacerdozio femminile nell’antichita in margine a una
testimonianze di Gelasio I: in “Vetera Christianorum” 19 (1982), 342-60
concludes, “The data gathered on the priesthood of women in antiquity are
few and meager”.
 
This priest had to know that there would be repercussions to doing this.
 
The Church teaches that, because of out baptism, WE ARE ALL priest, prophet, and king (or queen).
Uh, no the Church does not. While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).
There is very strong evidence that women priests existed in the early church.
There is no such evidence. There is evidence of a few women ministering to other women in the early days of the Church, however they never reached the ranks of clergy not even as deacons. see: Have women ever been allowed to be deacons?

Recommended reading on the topic of can women be priests:

Women and the Priesthood
Why can’t women be priests?
Why is there so much talk of women’s ordination?
Why Can’t Women Be Priests? by Jason Evert
 
And there is Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium on the differences between the Common Priesthood and the Ministerial Priesthood
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity.
LG 10.
 
[The Church teaches that we are all priest, prophet, and king by our baptism]
Uh, no the Church does not. While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).
Yes, yes, it does.
God commanded Israel to consecrate priests, prophets, and kings to Him by anointing them on the forehead with oil. We enter into this three-fold office of Christ – as priest, prophet, and king – in our Baptism: after we are washed in the water, we are anointed on the head with oil.
The offices of priest, prophet, and king are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and we are baptized into Him. We all share in some way in these offices, although the manner in which the ordained ministers of the Church (especially bishops) do so is very different from the manner in which the lay and religious members of the Church do.
Priest - offering sacrifice. There is the baptismal priesthood, by which we all share in Christ’s priesthood, enabling us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God, and to join ourselves to the offering of Christ in the Eucharist, offering the Eucharist with the ordained priest. There is also the ministerial priesthood, a deeper participation in Christ’s priesthood.
Prophet - teaching. All of us are called to spread the Gospel, whether by our lives or our words. The ordained are specially called to teach, and thus they can read the Gospel and preach the homily at Mass; bishops are the official teachers of the faith in their diocese.
King - serving. Christ is the perfect King who truly loves His subjects: He died for them! The kingship of Christ is one of service. When we perform works of mercy and charity, we are serving others as Christ does. Sometimes this service does require what we would consider to be “ruling” – setting down laws and disciplines for our well-being – and that belongs to the ordained ministers to carry out, particularly pastors of parishes and dioceses.
 
I am pretty sure we were talking about holy orders not the baptismal (lay or common) priesthood here. As long as we are quoting Shea, let us quote what he says about holy orders vs the lay priesthood in the same article:
What then is a priest? A priest is one who offers sacrifice. And the only sacrifice a real priest can offer is the sacrifice which God himself made and commanded us to participate in: the sacrifice of Christ. This means that insofar as every baptized person is acting as a priest, he or she is doing so by participating in some way in the sacrifice of Christ, because that’s the only sacrifice there is to offer God. A priest who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders offers that sacrifice in a unique way in the Eucharist, which is a participation in the fullness of that sacrifice since it is Jesus Christ Himself. But all of us lay participants in the baptismal priesthood, when we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, are joined to that sacrifice, which is the source and summit of our worship.
So getting back to the original subject. Women were never clerical priests in the Catholic Church, even in the early days. It really misses the point to hint at “well we are all ordained priests because of baptism, so it doesn’t matter.” The Church never taught that and never, as far as I can tell, intended that. In fact the apostalic priesthood is a fundamental corner stone of the Church from the beginning when Christ formed it.
 
It seems that the priest did not violate any biblical law, but rather the church’s controversial doctrine which has been receiving increasing scrutiny in the recent past. I think’s it’s time to consider ordaining women as priests. Most other religions do. Why not allow women to serve God in the same capacity that a male (priest) can?
What part of “The Church does not possess the power to ordain women as priests” do you not understand? Seems as though our Late Holy Father John Paul II made that pretty clear.
 
[The Church teaches that we are all priest, prophet, and king by our baptism]
The Church also teaches that the priesthood of our baptism isn’t the same as the ordained priesthood. The priest in his ordained priesthood, acting in the person of Christ, offers the sacrifice of Christ on the altar, and we laity in our baptized priesthood participate by our worship in the pew and offering our sacrifice in the collection plate which is brought up to the altar. This is how the Church teaches that we all participate in the sacrifice of the Mass. We are all part of one body, but not all the parts of the body are the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top