E
Priest stripped of his duties after performing Mass with a woman priest
- Status
Suudy
Active member
It is quite irrelevant what other denominations have done. Indeed, as Dr Kreeft points out in his talk, priestesses are not a new concept. They existed before and after Christ and the founding of His church. What the do or think has no bearing on the Catholic Churchâs position on the ordination of women.
Within the Catholic Church, it isnât even close to grey.
Which of these was declared infallibly?
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT
E
Ender
Guest
What other denominations believe is irrelevant to what the Catholic Church believes.
Iâm sure some have kept mistresses too but their behavior - or more accurately misbehavior (assuming any has actually done this) - does not determine Church doctrine.
It really is difficult to imagine an issue that is more black and white to the Church than this one. Regardless of the fantasies of some individuals there will never be Catholic priestesses. We are no more likely to see that come to pass than to see a new gospel added to the Bible.
Ender
E
epan
Guest
Of course, that is your opinion, which is fine and currently in vogue in the Catholic Church. This is one of Benedictâs talking points. Yet, theologians⌠and published Catholic theologians, at that, disagree with your opinion. Yes, we all have opinions, and that is the point.
Ostensibly, it doesnât matter to Catholics what is going on in other denominations, and culturally, but as history has shown⌠it actually does. The Church got out of the science business once it was burned by the likes of Tyco Brahe and Galileo. The Catholic Church did very demonstrably propagate a policy of severe discrimination against Jews for seven centuries. This is historic fact. I bring this up not to bash the Church, because my point is that everything has an historic and cultural context. The Catholic Church is no exception. It is just popular right now for conservatives Catholics to claim that the contrary it true, which also lends credence to my opinion. It is a fad.
I can point you to a Catholic publication, and by that I mean published by⌠I think Notre Dame Theology School, by an advisor to the Pope on Vatican II, that takes for granted that the Church changes its moral position over time. My claims are not âoff the wall,â but the considered opinion of some pretty serious and well informed Catholic theologians.
That is my take on it. Obviously you disagree.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
This is pretty vague. If the âtheologiansâ were relating shifts in emphasis, shifts in theological language, shifts in explanation of doctrine, in sacramental understanding, shifts in priorities, shifts in practices, shifts in discipline, and expansion of how the Church describes herself, including an understanding of how she functions, then those are potentially correct contexts for the concept of âchange.â
However, not a single element of that has anything to do with core doctrine. So, if those theologians are stating that core doctrine has âchangedâ (not the wording of it or the understanding of it or the explanation of it or teaching of it, but the facts of the doctrine itself), then those theologians, whatever their titles, are in error. How do I know this? How can I state that factually, not as âmy opinion?â Because anyone truly educated in the faith knows that doctrine proceeds not from theologians or local parish priests, let alone from what is popular among the laity, but only from the Magisterium in Rome. Only. Nothing else is a source of authentic doctrine (which is a doctrine which also derives from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, by the way â i.e., what was always held to be true and fundamental in the Church).
So, if youâre going to state with any credibility whatsoever that University of Notre Dame theologians claim that Church doctrine has changed, you will need to share with us which specific doctrines they are speaking of. I canât think of one right now. No settled dogma. No settled doctrine. There are wish-fulfillments, both by some theologians and many lay people, and also by various CAF posters
, that âthe Church would change,â but so far that has not happened when it comes to doctrine.Your âtakeâ is either a result of a misunderstanding, or the persons to whom you refer are in error.
F
fordhamstudent
Guest
Roman Catholic Womenpriests want to create WomenChurch so they can make men pay for over 2000 years of misogyny, sexism, androcentric theology and oppressionâand they say they are representative of a catholic or universal Churchâif you believe that I have a bridge to sell you⌠The role of women in the Church is affirmed by the Church by virtue of their baptism and confirmation, as participating in the prophetic, priestly, and regnal office of Christ, and in doing the apostolate, but this does not give them a right to the ministerial priesthood or even infer that they have the potential to be priests. Bad theology will never convince the Church to become who She is not or to sell out to modern social fads in order to cease to be a Catholic Church and thereby become another religionâwhich is what would happen if the Church surrendered to feminist theology.
The role of women in the Church is affirmed by the Church by virtue of their baptism and confirmation, as participating in the prophetic, priestly, and regnal office of Christ, and in doing the apostolate, but this does not give them a right to the ministerial priesthood or even infer that they have the potential to be priests. Bad theology will never convince the Church to become who She is not or to sell out to modern social fads in order to cease to be a Catholic Church and thereby become another religionâwhich is what would happen if the Church surrendered to feminist theology.
E
Ender
Guest
You list your religion as âdiscerningâ so it is not surprising that you are not too familiar with how the Church sees herself (regrettably, a lot of Catholics are similarly uninformed). You make no distinction between changes the Church can make and those she cannot, and women priests certainly are in the latter group. Understand what is involved here: the Church has definitively stated that it is an infallible teaching that women may not become priests. Changing this teaching involves not merely the question of the priesthood but the Churchâs teaching on infallibility and in fact the very core of what the Church believes about herself. If she were to change on this point, after having claimed to be infallibly correct before, it would destroy the basis for all of her teachings, nothing she said would have merit. This point seems lost on those who argue for women priests.
P.S. If this point is not well grasped it is nothing to the confusion regarding Galileo.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
I am not expressing my 'opinion" I am stating the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church is not ruled by 'opinion". It is ruled by the Truth as passed down from Jesus through his Church for the last 2,000 years. I am somewhat puzzled that you would refer to the statements of the Vicar of Christ as âtalking pointsâ. It makes me wonder of you look upon this through he prism of 21st century liberal thought rather than first century teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Why is our culture so much more enlightened than all that went before us? Why did Christ allow his Church to be in error for 2,000 years?Was Jesus sexist?
E
estesbob
Guest
Galileo, like the inquisition and the crusades, are always thrown out as examples of why the chichi is indeed wrong about their teachings on (fill in the blank). And as you note about Galileo few really understand what actually happened.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
epan,
I also think itâs easy to confuse coincidence with change, in this regard:
The Second Vatican Council encouraged an enlargement of the role of the laity in many levels in the Church. The laity, not the ministerial priesthood. The categories of those roles included formal study, catechetical leadership, non-priestly liturgical functions, and all the other roles not assigned to ordained ministers, because the latter always have had exclusive and permanent roles which cannot be shared with non-ordained ministers. The Sacrament of Holy Orders qualitatively distinguishes the role of ordained ministers from non-ordained, as that Sacrament provides a permanent distinction. (If you had happened to study Catholic sacramental theology, this would be evident to you.)
If the Second Vatican Council had occurred 100 years earlier than it did, that decreed enlargement of lay responsibility would probably have been virtually (not by decree, but by cultural assumption) respective to men, because of the culture of the time. But in a Western, free, inclusive, 20th-century society, which also coincided with more self-realization on the part of women, what that lay enlargement looked like, especially in the U.S., was that it was gender-inclusive. That is a cultural effect, not a cultural cause.
I also think itâs easy to confuse coincidence with change, in this regard:
The Second Vatican Council encouraged an enlargement of the role of the laity in many levels in the Church. The laity, not the ministerial priesthood. The categories of those roles included formal study, catechetical leadership, non-priestly liturgical functions, and all the other roles not assigned to ordained ministers, because the latter always have had exclusive and permanent roles which cannot be shared with non-ordained ministers. The Sacrament of Holy Orders qualitatively distinguishes the role of ordained ministers from non-ordained, as that Sacrament provides a permanent distinction. (If you had happened to study Catholic sacramental theology, this would be evident to you.)
If the Second Vatican Council had occurred 100 years earlier than it did, that decreed enlargement of lay responsibility would probably have been virtually (not by decree, but by cultural assumption) respective to men, because of the culture of the time. But in a Western, free, inclusive, 20th-century society, which also coincided with more self-realization on the part of women, what that lay enlargement looked like, especially in the U.S., was that it was gender-inclusive. That is a cultural effect, not a cultural cause.
L
Lochias
Guest
Indeed, you donât. But you can come here to post without sleep for two days? Apparently, itâs just a matter of priority in what you choose to learn and argue.
There are people in the world who murder others, too. Are you telling me that, just because someone decides to break the rules, that the rules themselves are suddenly under suspicion?
None of those teachings changedâŚthe guidelines and rules regarding them have expanded over the years as our understanding of various things has grown, but the core of those teachings has never, ever changed.
(Though I have no idea what youâre referring to insofar as the âtreatment of Jewsâ goes.)
E
estesbob
Guest
Chill Lochias. No one is obligated to answer anyones questions.
L
Lochias
Guest
Just making a point. If heâs not going to research the points heâs being presented with, then debate with him is largely a waste of time and energy.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
One more thing:
Value does not equal function. The equation of value with function is an artificial one and a cultural assumption. It is not philosophically, morally, or spiritually based.
Morally, philosophically, and spiritually, the Catholic Church is categorically the most equality-minded institution on earth. Irrespective of gender, of race, of age, of ability/disability, of role (ordained vs. non-ordained ministers), of sinfulness, of moral and spiritual burdens & struggles (which include all human beings), all human beings are considered equal in value before God and before the Church. The Church has never arrogated to itself any knowledge about supposedly differential value assigned to any individual before God. All are equally entitled to share in Godâs bounty and equally sanctifiable. Function within the institution of the Church has nothing to do with that.
Further, function does not limit any individual, quantitatively or qualitatively, from his or relationship with God. Nor do circumstances limit that individual. God is unboundedly available to each of us, irrespective of our roles and functions in and outside of the Church. The sacramental and prayer life of the Church is equally available without distinction to every member. This fact adds an element of absurdity to the (artificial) âbattleâ for an elusive âequalityâ supposedly âsignifiedâ by ministerial priesthood.
It makes the striving for an equality which they already have, categorically, look silly and embarrassing on the part of those with such a misguided goal. It also shows them to be theologically ignorant or at least misinformed.
Finally, the striving for an elusive âstatusâ is based, consciously or unconsciously, on secular notions of âpower.â But power in the spiritual sense (in the way Jesus Christ Himself spoke of it) is not related to function, position, or status â a theological fact which makes these âmovementsâ again embarrassing in their lack of Scriptural understanding, on top of their lack of understanding of the spirituality of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in particular.
Value does not equal function. The equation of value with function is an artificial one and a cultural assumption. It is not philosophically, morally, or spiritually based.
Morally, philosophically, and spiritually, the Catholic Church is categorically the most equality-minded institution on earth. Irrespective of gender, of race, of age, of ability/disability, of role (ordained vs. non-ordained ministers), of sinfulness, of moral and spiritual burdens & struggles (which include all human beings), all human beings are considered equal in value before God and before the Church. The Church has never arrogated to itself any knowledge about supposedly differential value assigned to any individual before God. All are equally entitled to share in Godâs bounty and equally sanctifiable. Function within the institution of the Church has nothing to do with that.
Further, function does not limit any individual, quantitatively or qualitatively, from his or relationship with God. Nor do circumstances limit that individual. God is unboundedly available to each of us, irrespective of our roles and functions in and outside of the Church. The sacramental and prayer life of the Church is equally available without distinction to every member. This fact adds an element of absurdity to the (artificial) âbattleâ for an elusive âequalityâ supposedly âsignifiedâ by ministerial priesthood.
It makes the striving for an equality which they already have, categorically, look silly and embarrassing on the part of those with such a misguided goal. It also shows them to be theologically ignorant or at least misinformed.
Finally, the striving for an elusive âstatusâ is based, consciously or unconsciously, on secular notions of âpower.â But power in the spiritual sense (in the way Jesus Christ Himself spoke of it) is not related to function, position, or status â a theological fact which makes these âmovementsâ again embarrassing in their lack of Scriptural understanding, on top of their lack of understanding of the spirituality of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in particular.
E
epan
Guest
True. I was referring to the likes of John T. Noonan, respected jurist and consultant to the Vatican. He points out that the Church has a history of moral relativism. This denial is just an anomaly associated with Benedict XVI. My sense is that it will pass, and the Church will continue to progress, though slowly and deliberately.
C
curlycool89
Guest
The Church does not practice moral relativism because moral relativism is a self-contradictory idea in and of itself (it is not internally logically coherent).
James Rachels pointed this out quite a while ago in philosophical ethics (not even Christian ethics, but by the basic rules of logic). Moral relativism is a self-defeating idea.
E
epan
Guest
This is a tough one to discuss, because the Catholic Church has a long and admirable history of modifying its moral positions with progress. But, because the rate of societal change has outpaced its ability to adapt, it has trenched in to deny its history. This canât e sure, which is why I call it a fad.
It seems in literature and in history that every great man has a great flaw. Benedict seems to personify that truism
Suudy
Active member
I fail to see how this is moral relativism. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (emphasis mine):
Moral relativism has the unusual distinctionâboth within philosophy and outside itâof being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in metaethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong. The term âmoral relativismâ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes âmoral relativismâ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
Changes in Church practice are not ârelative to some group of persons.â Nor are they relative to some time in history. Rather, as you say, it is progress through better understanding. The change isnât based on conformity to a particular group, but to Truth.
But, again, this is quite beside the point. The topic here is priestesses, which has been declared infallibly to be impossible. The Church has never changed its position on dogma. If one thinks that progress on moral issues (which, by the way, priestesses isnât even a moral issue) indicates that there will (or should?) be progress on dogma, they would be greatly mistaken.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Name one actual moral doctrine which has changed. Not an explanation of a moral doctrine. Not an understanding of a moral doctrine. Not a very different way of explaining the same moral doctrine which has been in place since the earliest traditions of the Church, but a different position on a single moral doctrine. We have not yet seen you come up with that. These are merely unsubstantiated statements on your part which you keep repeating as if fact. Until you cite examples, it is impossible to take you seriously, since every educated Catholic posting and lurking knows how the Church actually works when it comes to moral positions.
A âmoral positionâ is not a liturgical custom, not a style of lay or ordained ministry, not the language & terms used in catechetical instruction, not sacramental rites, not emphases. But moral positions: The precepts of the Church; the Commandments generated by God Himself
; the Magisterial teaching on life issues (life itself, family, sexuality, reproduction), etc. Which ones of those can you demonstrate --with or without the help of shadow theologians at an institution of higher education â have changed?This is very offensive. Again, you have not demonstrated any âflawâ in PBXIII. He has reiterated the unchanging Truth, which it would not seem that you have the authority or background to refute as Truth. Nor (again) have you provided us with examples.
L
Lochias
Guest
Well, without studying what Church authorities have actually said in full context over the last 2000 years, your opinions are a little hard to take very seriously.
- Status