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

[livingwordunity]

That is simply because there is no argument. As the beer and chips analogy illustrates, a priest or bishop can say the Mass completely and take special care to recite the words of institution over the gifts of chips and beer with full intention to have transubstantiation take place; however, after all is said and done the gifts are still simple chips and beer.

A well intentioned but mislead bishop may intend to ordain a woman go through all of the prescribed rituals and “ordain” a woman; after all is said and done she is still a woman, not a woman priest. Now we can believe anything we like, but it doesn’t make it so.

I can believe that the beer and chips have become the body and blood of Christ, but we would be fooling ourselves much like the women who believe they are priests in the Latin Rite Catholic Church are fooling their selves in said belief.

So to say that there is an impasse is not accurate. There is disobedience and ignorance but no impasse.

I once heard a Protestant pastor on the radio say that he thought communion could be done with Pepsi and chips.

 

[choliks]

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.

I’m quite surprised this went unnoticed.

 

[jwinch2]

I’m quite surprised this went unnoticed.

More likely ignored.

 

[Lochias]

You missed the point, completely. But that’s OK. It might be a case of, “La La La!”

By all means, educate me. What’s the point?

 

[epan]

Here is the opinion of a priest and professor of Catholic theology, taken from a PBS interview: pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-11-2013/roman-catholic-women-priests/14476/

One really must wonder how much of this opposition is just historic bias.

REV. THOMAS RAUSCH (Professor of Catholic Theology, Loyola Marymount University): The Catholic Church is not ready for the ordination of women right now.

GONZALEZ: Father Thomas Rausch is a priest and professor of Catholic theology at L.A.’s Loyola Marymount University.

RAUSCH: As far as the church is concerned, these are not valid ordinations. Ordination is an act of the whole church, and this is not an act of the whole church. In a sense, this is an act against the communion of the whole church. It is very difficult to call yourself a Roman Catholic if you are not living in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and communion means you are recognized by the bishop and you have this network of relationships, which is…It’s the kind of glue that holds the Catholic Church together

GONZALEZ: The theological justification most often cited for barring women from the Catholic priesthood goes back to Jesus’ choice of men only to be his disciples. That was followed by centuries of male-dominated customs developed within the church.

RAUSCH: I think that, you know, the culture was patriarchal. It was very much male-centered. Males were educated. They took roles of leadership. They played leading roles in the churches. So I think those cultural reasons really have to be taken into account in order to understand the exclusion of women from ordained ministry in the life of the church.

 

[jwinch2]

Here is the opinion of a priest and professor of Catholic theology, taken from a PBS interview: pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-11-2013/roman-catholic-women-priests/14476/

One really must wonder how much of this opposition is just historic bias.

Since you have obviously not listened to this, I will link it again.
peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Also, here are two solid books which explore the subject in depth.
amazon.com/The-Catholic-Priesthood-Women-Teaching/dp/1595250166/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0940535726/theofficiapet-20

 

[epan]

Since you have obviously not listened to this, I will link it again.
peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Also, here are two solid books which explore the subject in depth.
amazon.com/The-Catholic-Priesthood-Women-Teaching/dp/1595250166/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2
amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0940535726/theofficiapet-20

Thanks for the links. I doubt that I will find the time to listen to an hour long lecture, nor will I probably read a book on the subject. I am behind enough in my other reading. This subject is interesting, as is the entire subject of how patriarchal traditions play out over time to make way for women in our society, and the opposition to that change… which Professor Rausch alludes to. I understand that Benedict declared the practice of women’s ordination a grave sin, in 2008, and that change comes slowly to the Church. I’m not really competent enough as a theologian to form an opinion on whether the alleged justification is the tail wagging the dog, or whether it’s legit.

I am curious what the polls say? Do the majority of Catholics oppose the ordination of women?

Has Benedict spoken on this infallibly, or was this one of his opinions?

 

[Lochias]

Thanks for the links. I doubt that I will find the time to listen to an hour long lecture, nor will I probably read a book on the subject. I am behind enough in my other reading.

Cop-out.

This subject is interesting, as is the entire subject of how patriarchal traditions play out over time to make way for women in our society, and the opposition to that change… which Professor Rausch alludes to.

No, he doesn’t. He states that Church cannot condone the ordination of women, then goes on to state that society at that time was largely patriarchal. He does not ever link the two as cause-and-effect.

Let’s repeat this for the sake of those that can’t take an hour out of their time to learn something new:

---

THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN***. That was Jesus’ choice, not ours.

THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. It would be like trying to create a functioning car out of rice paper and hope.

I understand that Benedict declared the practice of women’s ordination a grave sin, in 2008, and that change comes slowly to the Church.

What you apparently do not understand is that the Church cannot change the rules of faith. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. It would be like making a sandwich out of iron sheets and brass tacks, and expecting someone to eat it.

I’m not really competent enough as a theologian to form an opinion on whether the alleged justification is the tail wagging the dog, or whether it’s legit.

That much is obvious, so far.

I am curious what the polls say? Do the majority of Catholics oppose the ordination of women?

Who cares? The Church isn’t a democracy. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, even if only one person acts right.

Has Benedict spoken on this infallibly, or was this one of his opinions?

Don’t know. Why don’t you look it up, and find out?

 

[Ender]

This subject is interesting, as is the entire subject of how patriarchal traditions play out over time to make way for women in our society, and the opposition to that change… which Professor Rausch alludes to.

I suppose there are two ways of understanding why Jesus chose only men as his disciples/apostles: his choices were limited by the patriarchal nature of society at the time or he deliberately chose men for this position. It does seem a bit strange to suggest that the creator of the universe had his choices limited by the habits of the society in which he himself decided to appear. That really does seem a hard assumption to swallow.

I understand that Benedict declared the practice of women’s ordination a grave sin, in 2008 …

I don’t know what Benedict said in 2008 but the definitive statement about women’s ordination was made by JPII in 1994 and he did not declare it a grave sin. What he said was that it was not the Church’s decision to make and she had no authority confirm women into the priesthood.

… and that change comes slowly to the Church.

In this case the change will never happen since this is not something the Church gets to decide.

Has Benedict spoken on this infallibly, or was this one of his opinions?

As JPII pointed out, this is an infallible teaching.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Thanks for the links. I doubt that I will find the time to listen to an hour long lecture, nor will I probably read a book on the subject.

Interesting tactic that you would then try to debate the subject without knowledge of the opposing argument. How will you know just what to refute?

This subject is interesting, as is the entire subject of how patriarchal traditions play out over time to make way for women in our society, and the opposition to that change… which Professor Rausch alludes to.

More’s the pity that you couldn’t take time to listen to the links provided…Kreeft expounds on this by saying that to argue that Jesus was in any way bowing to the cultural norms of his day is to accuse Him, the Supreme, Holy and Perfect One, of being sexist.

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks for the links. I doubt that I will find the time to listen to an hour long lecture, nor will I probably read a book on the subject. I am behind enough in my other reading. This subject is interesting, as is the entire subject of how patriarchal traditions play out over time to make way for women in our society, and the opposition to that change… which Professor Rausch alludes to. I understand that Benedict declared the practice of women’s ordination a grave sin, in 2008, and that change comes slowly to the Church. I’m not really competent enough as a theologian to form an opinion on whether the alleged justification is the tail wagging the dog, or whether it’s legit.

The bottom line is that there are deep theological reasons for a male only priesthood which are inexorably tied to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and the nature of God himself. However, you will remain ignorant since you can’t be bothered to study it.

What is telling is that your admitted incompetence does not seem to be preventing you from rendering an opinion or stopping you from calling the Church’s teaching into question. In the amount of time you have spent looking for people who disagree or arguing from a position of ignorance, you could have listened to Dr. Kreeft’s talk more than once.

The fact that you have time to argue something which you admit to knowing nothing about, but not the time to actually learn the subject tells me that you are not really interested as you claim to be, but actually just looking to take shots at the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I.m.h.o., the bottom line is this:

Do we, or do we not truly believe/assent to the OHCAC as receiving, in its head and through its appointed leaders, the gift of the Holy Spirit which Jesus promised to us in Scripture. The guidance of the Church, through the Holy Spirit, makes it incontrovertible that the ordained (ministerial) priesthood is male. That fact is a role, a function. It does not establish a hierarchy of importance relative to gender. Women have not only important roles in the Church, but critical roles and irreplaceable roles, and in leadership. Nor does the differentiation of roles pertain to the Gifts of the Spirit, which is something else entirely.

Those of us who have been the beneficiaries of wisdom and other inspiration from wonderful Sisters and lay female leaders have experienced what is also in the theology and spirituality of Catholicism: men are not “above” women in the Church in terms of value to the Church, and certainly not in terms of value before God. Men are side by side with women, playing different roles. God does not “respect” (judge by) position. That is scriptural, by the way.

Second, the activity and mental energy of any Church member should be personal sanctification and nothing else (which includes of course love of neighbor, which is central to that road). As a woman, I don’t understand all the fuss about the topic, never have. Why? Because when I enter any Catholic Church, there is God Himself. That’s the Center, that’s the activity, that’s the mental energy. There’s nothing political about it. He transcends everything, and in His presence, everything else is meaningless by comparison.

The priest for me is in persona Christi when he confects those sacraments. Therefore, the priest must be male, not female. And the sacraments and Christ’s presence are what is important – not some off-topic political battle which has nothing to do with the centrality of God. Anyone who makes this an issue has lost the entire message.

God is genderless.
Jesus had and has gender.
Jesus’ ordained ministers have a specified gender. They are not both genders or bi-gendered or transgendered.
Gender is relevant to function and not to spiritual status or to equal and full accessibility to God, or to the ability to share/minister to others in roles other than sacramental.
God is as fully accessible to every female as God is to every male, in whatever position.

God is universal; he is not restricted to one gender, and is beyond such categories. God is not “contained” inside a (male) priest. That’s a ridiculous concept for an infinite God. And it’s why the “battle” for female priesthood is an absurd “battle.”

 

[estesbob]

Here is the opinion of a priest and professor of Catholic theology, taken from a PBS interview: pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/january-11-2013/roman-catholic-women-priests/14476/

One really must wonder how much of this opposition is just historic bias.

More likely the bias of today’s culture. God chose what time, and culture in which to found his Church. The idea that somehow we are more enlightened than all who went before is the heigth of arrogance

 

[benjohnson]

More likely the bias of today’s culture. God chose what time, and culture in which to found his Church. The idea that somehow we are more enlightened than all who went before is the heigth of arrogance

That’s very insightful - Jesus could have very well made a female a disciple if he chose to. He was already ‘violating’ the customs of the time by choosing tax collectors, uneducated fishermen and other outsiders.

 

[Brendan]

That’s very insightful - Jesus could have very well made a female a disciple if he chose to. He was already ‘violating’ the customs of the time by choosing tax collectors, uneducated fishermen and other outsiders.

Or even breaking cultural taboos such as talking with strange Samaritan women at wells.

The idea that God Himself was somehow prevented or incapable of making a free choice in whom to call as an Apostle is simply absurd.

 

[curlycool89]

Has Benedict spoken on this infallibly, or was this one of his opinions?

This letter bears the Benedict’s signature from his time as head of the CDF, where he declared that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis belongs to the Deposit of Faith that requires assent from all Catholics.

 

[Suudy]

More’s the pity that you couldn’t take time to listen to the links provided…Kreeft expounds on this by saying that to argue that Jesus was in any way bowing to the cultural norms of his day is to accuse Him, the Supreme, Holy and Perfect One, of being sexist.

Exactly. I was reading through this thread and thought of this same segment.

Now, it’s one thing for non-Christians to miss this point. And perhaps even lay Christians. But a professor of theology to fall into this trap? Sigh.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitable discuss the issues and not each other

 

[epan]

Cop-out.

No, he doesn’t. He states that Church cannot condone the ordination of women, then goes on to state that society at that time was largely patriarchal. He does not ever link the two as cause-and-effect.

Let’s repeat this for the sake of those that can’t take an hour out of their time to learn something new:

---

THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN***. That was Jesus’ choice, not ours.

THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. It would be like trying to create a functioning car out of rice paper and hope.

What you apparently do not understand is that the Church cannot change the rules of faith. THE CHURCH CAN’T ORDAIN WOMEN. It would be like making a sandwich out of iron sheets and brass tacks, and expecting someone to eat it.

That much is obvious, so far.

Personal attacks aside, I do actually have a very busy life, sometimes going for a day or two without sleep. Not that I owe you an explanation.

But, there are denominations which ordain women, and some Catholic bishops have done so. So, this issue might not be as “black and white” as you suggest.

Who cares? The Church isn’t a democracy. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, even if only one person acts right.

Yet, the Catholic Church has changed it’s teaching on money lending, grounds for annulment, burning of heretics, treatment of Jews, and other issues. So, why not this issue, too?

Don’t know. Why don’t you look it up, and find out?

 

[estesbob]

Personal attacks aside, I do actually have a very busy life, sometimes going for a day or two without sleep. Not that I owe you an explanation.

But, there are denominations which ordain women, and some Catholic bishops have done so. So, this issue might not be as “black and white” as you suggest.

Yet, the Catholic Church has changed it’s teaching on money lending, grounds for annulment, burning of heretics, treatment of Jews, and other issues. So, why not this issue, too?

Actually they haven’t changed their teaching on what you list but regardless are totally irelevant.Just because some in our culture view Faith through the prism of liberal views on " diversity" does not trump 2,000 years of tradition and teachings.