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

[jwinch2]

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?

Present your “strong” evidence you claim exists regarding women priests in the early Church.

 

[estesbob]

8:14 PM Christmas Eve, as I type ths.

Be safe!

 

[epan]

Be safe!

Thanks. Have a joy filled Christmas.

 

[Lochias]

My first reaction to that statement is that I doubt that most women would agree.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I think most women would.

The next reaction is to wonder if you believe that the Church has never Ben erroneous, when it comes down to change?

This is a vague statement. What kind of change are you referring to?

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?

The Church’s doctrines and rules have not changed for 2000 years. Please describe an example wherein you think the Catholic Church has “bent to overwhelming societal pressure.”

 

[epan]

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I think most women would.

Most? Are you male or female? You don’t say in your profile.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

So, we are not required to accept the 4 Marian dogmas now? I guess we can just toss out the Council of the Lateran.

 

[Lochias]

Most? Are you male or female? You don’t say in your profile.

Male. You?

 

[mdmpsyd]

So, we are not required to accept the 4 Marian dogmas now? I guess we can just toss out the Council of the Lateran.

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.

 

[epan]

Male. You?

U apparently didn’t check my profile. But you make my point for me. Thanks!

 

[Lochias]

U apparently didn’t check my profile. But you make my point for me. Thanks!

That’s dandy. A point is useless if you’re not going to share.

Edit: Also, I may simply not know where to check, but I can’t find the answer in your profile, either. Care to just answer the question, like I did for you, or shall we continue to beat around the mulberry bush 'til you’re bored with that?

 

[epan]

That’s dandy. A point is useless if you’re not going to share.

Edit: Also, I may simply not know where to check, but I can’t find the answer in your profile, either. Care to just answer the question, like I did for you, or shall we continue to beat around the mulberry bush 'til you’re bored with that?

The photos of me might be a clue.

Anyway. What is your point, other than sexism? Do you have anything cogent?

Ask any competent Jew. God has no gender. Using gender laden pronouns is a human proclivity. This might be an area for improvement for Catholicism.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

There are four Marian dogmas:

1. 
   *]Divine Motherhood
   *]Perpetual Virginity
   *]Immaculate Conception
   *]The Assumption
   
   All of above require assent even though not all were declared in explicit ex cathedra statements by the Pope. 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.
   
   Now, please present the “strong” evidence, which you claim exists, regarding women priests in the early Church.

 

[Lochias]

The photos of me might be a clue.

Thank you for completely and utterly failing to answer a simple Male / Female question in favor of sounding smug and superior. Really, it kind of boggles the mind.

Anyway. What is your point, other than sexism? Do you have anything cogent?

My point is that you had an opinion, and only an opinion. Given the level of communication you prefer to engage in, I can’t think very highly of it.

Ask any competent Jew. God has no gender. Using gender laden pronouns is a human proclivity. This might be an area for improvement for Catholicism.

And yet, God chose to identify with us as a Father. Ask any competent Jesus. This might be an area for improvement for the Methodist church.

 

[Lapey]

The photos of me might be a clue.

Anyway. What is your point, other than sexism? Do you have anything cogent?

Ask any competent Jew. God has no gender. Using gender laden pronouns is a human proclivity. This might be an area for improvement for Catholicism.

A simple answer to the question would have been more appropriate and much more respectful. However, the remainder of your post doesn’t demonstrate the greatest amount of respect either.

Why is it when someone disagrees it’s because of an “ism?” Is this the new way of attempting to cause fear or embarrassment in order to sway the other’s opinion? His point was, if he doesn’t mind me chiming in, simply put that if a woman truly understands her being and her Church and most importantly her God; she understands and relishes in the fact that she is fully woman and not a man. Can you understand this simple fact?

As far as “competent Jews” are concerned, they know and understand that Jesus, whether He is the Messiah or just another prophet was in fact a man. There are no Jews that I have ever met, heard, or witnessed in any way shape or form speaks to the contrary.

The priesthood is the priesthood of Jesus Christ, not God the Father. And yes, I mean God the Father because that is what Jesus called His father, “father”. You will find nothing feminine or womanly in scripture in referencing God; why should there be a need to feminize God? This is the fact that truly puzzles me. Do women need God the Father to be less masculine to make themselves feel better about being women??? This is the part of this topic that should cause women to become incensed with this. Not because they cannot be priests, but because people think women need to be able to serve as priests in order to be fully operational. Well my BROTHER, women are perfectly created and fully operational as women. Mary was quite content with being the Mother of our Lord and not our lord.

This is one of the current time fallacies that has infiltrated the Church and is doing great damage. Men are created to be men, and women are created to be women. That is what God the father intended and Jesus promulgated. The Church has no authority to change that and She will not ever change it. If this is changed, we will know that Mother Church has truly been infiltrated with modernism and time for a great saint to become the next doctor of the Church and bring reform in Her.

Catholicism has it right; She holds the fullness of the truth with Jesus Himself as the Head of His body. The Church does not change to the times, She never will.

 

[Lapey]

Exactly what I said.

That is more than a little bit disingenuous. “Unless you believe what I tell you to believe, you are ill-informed.” Why bother having any teachings at all on the role of one’s conscience?

You speak in riddles and I am disingenuous? With the ability to follow and truth one’s own conscience comes great responsibility to form it properly to Church teachings. If a person finds themselves outside of this teaching he/she is required to learn why. Discern the truth and follow the truth. That is not forcing someone to choose against their conscience. That person fully has the choice with free will to choose otherwise.

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.

You need to re-read and further study this section of the CCC.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

 

[tobbias88]

He told the newspaper. “I wasn’t trying to show off for the ladies.”

Interesting that he felt he had to say that or even deny it. Sounds like he & the swinging priestesses enjoy notoriety. At 92 he should know better but then Jesuits were always an extremely vain, arrogant lot. Perhaps it’s time to silence them again as the Pope did in 1773. I notice he is also keen on ‘gay rights’ antiwar and other fads.
Whatever happened to his rule of Obedience? I guess it went the way of Chastity & Poverty as with so many clerics these days. A sad bad mad example to the rest of the world & young RCs in particular.

 

[Lapey]

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.

No, it was not good that he dissent from the Church, and thus was sanctioned properly for his disobedience. See there consequences for following erroneous consciences. The sin is not only if you go against the conscience, but if one chooses to follow a conscience which is in direct opposition to Church teaching, knows it, and still believes in his own authority and not the Church’s authority.

Are you under the illusion that there is an objective basis to any of this?

Are you of the illusion that truth is relative? I am of the understanding that truth is objective, there is only one truth. That Truth is Jesus Christ who is the Head of His Church.

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.

Like most relativists, you seem to think the conscience has only one responsibility, to be followed. In so this responsibility of formation is relegated to a simple glance over one’s shoulder. Sorry but the responsibility is much greater. In fact you could say it is or GRAVE importance.

 

[Lapey]

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?

Pearls can’t sidestep and if they could … are you referring to yourself as swine? 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.

Political correctness gone amuck. Sad, because these erroneous teachings can and do lead souls away from Mother Church, and in turn away from Jesus Himself.

The heavens did open up and give us the answer, His name is Jesus. HE came, as a MAN and reconciled us to the one whom Jesus called HIS FATHER.

This is bad theology you are living under. If women are offended by me mentioning God as the masculine Father in a homily, then they have been misled by society. Sadly, society is backed up by rogue priests like this one who was rightfully removed from service. It is unfortunate he was not removed sooner as to lessen the detrimental affect on the formation of consciences in his pastoral care.

He will wear the millstone of those he has led astray. I pray for his conversion and repentance!

 

[Lapey]

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.

There are four dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation.

1. Divine Motherhood

Mary’s divine motherhood was proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

1. Perpetual Virginity

The expression perpetual virginity, ever-virgin, or simply “Mary the Virgin” refers primarily to the conception and birth of Jesus. From the first formulations of faith, especially in baptismal formulas or professions of faith, the Church professed that Jesus Christ was conceived without human seed by the power of the Holy Spirit only. Here lies the decisive meaning of expressions such as “conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary,” “Mary’s virginal conception,” or “virgin birth.” The early baptismal formula (since the 3rd century) state Mary’s virginity without further explaining it, but there is no doubt about its physical meaning. Later statements are more explicit. Mary conceived “without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth” (Council of the Lateran, 649).

1. Immaculate Conception

The solemn definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is like Divine Motherhood and Perpetual Virginity part of the christological doctrine, but it was proclaimed as an independent dogma by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” (December 8, 1854). Though highlighting a privilege of Mary it in fact stresses the dignity and holiness required to become “Mother of God.” The privilege of the Immaculate Conception is the source and basis for Mary’s all-holiness as Mother of God.

1. The Assumption

This marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

dogma - is an article of faith revealed by God, which the Magisterium of the Church presents as necessary to be believed (simple wiki definition)

Dogma is required to be believed, not just for good reading. Belief in the resurrection of Jesus is required, it is dogma. If you do not believe a dogma, take Ever Virgin for instance; it would be your responsibility to learn, discern and conform. It is a required belief to be called Catholic.

Can one still follow his/her conscience and choose not to believe it? Yes, but this will never change what is truth.

 

[Lochias]

A simple answer to the question would have been more appropriate and much more respectful. However, the remainder of your post doesn’t demonstrate the greatest amount of respect either.

Why is it when someone disagrees it’s because of an “ism?” Is this the new way of attempting to cause fear or embarrassment in order to sway the other’s opinion? His point was, if he doesn’t mind me chiming in, simply put that if a woman truly understands her being and her Church and most importantly her God; she understands and relishes in the fact that she is fully woman and not a man. Can you understand this simple fact?

As far as “competent Jews” are concerned, they know and understand that Jesus, whether He is the Messiah or just another prophet was in fact a man. There are no Jews that I have ever met, heard, or witnessed in any way shape or form speaks to the contrary.

The priesthood is the priesthood of Jesus Christ, not God the Father. And yes, I mean God the Father because that is what Jesus called His father, “father”. You will find nothing feminine or womanly in scripture in referencing God; why should there be a need to feminize God? This is the fact that truly puzzles me. Do women need God the Father to be less masculine to make themselves feel better about being women??? This is the part of this topic that should cause women to become incensed with this. Not because they cannot be priests, but because people think women need to be able to serve as priests in order to be fully operational. Well my BROTHER, women are perfectly created and fully operational as women. Mary was quite content with being the Mother of our Lord and not our lord.

This is one of the current time fallacies that has infiltrated the Church and is doing great damage. Men are created to be men, and women are created to be women. That is what God the father intended and Jesus promulgated. The Church has no authority to change that and She will not ever change it. If this is changed, we will know that Mother Church has truly been infiltrated with modernism and time for a great saint to become the next doctor of the Church and bring reform in Her.

Catholicism has it right; She holds the fullness of the truth with Jesus Himself as the Head of His body. The Church does not change to the times, She never will.

Thank you, Deacon, for your response here. Agreed 100%, and you’re always welcome to chime in as far as I’m concerned.