Questionable statement at RCIA tonight

[Scotty_PGH]

I heard something at my RCIA class tonight that surprised me a bit. Let me preface by saying I might be misinterpreting this incident. If it sounds that way to you, please do say so.

Tonight we discussed the Sacrament of Holy Orders. At one point, the discussion turned to the shortage of vocations. A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear a statement like this, which sounds pretty radical. The RCIA director scrambled for a moment, then charitably mentioned that female ordination would probably not solve the shortage of priests, since other Christian denominations ordain women, but are still short on clergy.

Later, in response to another person’s statement on how deep the Church’s traditions run, she warned against getting locked down in “traditionalism,” saying, “Just remember, Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This really shocked me. I took this to mean that both Tradition (as taught by the Church) and traditionalism (as lived by the faithful) are somehow wrong.

Am I correct in interpreting these statements as radical?

 

[MrS]

Yes

 

[MrS]

It really sounds like she needs to be asked directly to give an answer directly to some serious questions. If ANY are in doubt, the pastor needs to know.

Lack of discipline from others in the Church is no excuse to expect and demand orthodoxy… especially from the religious.

Good luck, do it soon.

 

[Lisa_N]

Scotty you would be right on point. What was the age group of this sister? I find the older sisters tend to be a bit more “children of the 60s” with the more rebellious attitude.

I think the point that other denominations having problems attracting clergy regardless of allowing female ordinations or married ministers is also right on the mark…or should I say right on the money. I watched an ETWN program about a religious who said that our whole culture has rejected selflessness and self sacrifice. It is not considered as noble as it once was. I think this is more of the issue than celibacy or female ordination. After all to be any kind of ordained minister requires as much education as to become a physician or attorney but the financial rewards are far lower. The clergy in general has become less and less appealing as a profession.

Lisa N

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In the latest document elucidating why women can’t be priests, the Holy Father clearly ennuciated why he was issuing the teaching (I don’t know if it qualified as an encyclical or not). He used the words “to remove all doubt” and invoked his role and authority “to strengthen the brethren.” That makes it clear cut: women can’t be priests, the opinion of an American nun (and both my godmother’s are nuns) notwithstanding.

 

[4_marks]

Scotty PGH:

I heard something at my RCIA class tonight that surprised me a bit. Let me preface by saying I might be misinterpreting this incident. If it sounds that way to you, please do say so.

Tonight we discussed the Sacrament of Holy Orders. At one point, the discussion turned to the shortage of vocations. A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear a statement like this, which sounds pretty radical. The RCIA director scrambled for a moment, then charitably mentioned that female ordination would probably not solve the shortage of priests, since other Christian denominations ordain women, but are still short on clergy.

Later, in response to another person’s statement on how deep the Church’s traditions run, she warned against getting locked down in “traditionalism,” saying, “Just remember, Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This really shocked me. I took this to mean that both Tradition (as taught by the Church) and traditionalism (as lived by the faithful) are somehow wrong.

Am I correct in interpreting these statements as radical?

Get used to it if you want to become a Catholic. There are people in the Church (clergy, religious and laity) that have certain issues and agendas. There always has been since the Church began and I believe there always will be for as long as the Church remains.

When I was a seminarian, a friend gave me a subscription to Fidelity Magazine. The looks that I would get from some people just for receiving such a “traditional” and “conservative” publication.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Scotty PGH:

I heard something at my RCIA class tonight that surprised me a bit. Let me preface by saying I might be misinterpreting this incident. If it sounds that way to you, please do say so.

Tonight we discussed the Sacrament of Holy Orders. At one point, the discussion turned to the shortage of vocations. A Sister who attends the class (she’s actually the parish social service minister) said that the Church could help the situation by reconsidering some of its policies. I asked her to be more specific. She said she was talking about celibacy and “the male/female roles.” I, and others in the room, took the latter to mean female ordination. Needless to say, I was shocked to hear a statement like this, which sounds pretty radical. The RCIA director scrambled for a moment, then charitably mentioned that female ordination would probably not solve the shortage of priests, since other Christian denominations ordain women, but are still short on clergy.

Later, in response to another person’s statement on how deep the Church’s traditions run, she warned against getting locked down in “traditionalism,” saying, “Just remember, Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This really shocked me. I took this to mean that both Tradition (as taught by the Church) and traditionalism (as lived by the faithful) are somehow wrong.

Am I correct in interpreting these statements as radical?

"She said she was talking about celibacy " She is correct that this is a “policy” more specifically a Law of the Church that could be changed. Will it solve anything I doubt it and would probably create more problems.

“the male/female roles.” In this she is wrong. This is NOT a Church Law or Policy, but an infallible Church teaching that cannot change.

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” I have read his before It may verywell be from a Church Father? The Tradition which is the 2000 years of Church teaching and on which the teaching preventing the possibility of female Ordination is based

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Lisa N:

Scotty you would be right on point. What was the age group of this sister? I find the older sisters tend to be a bit more “children of the 60s” with the more rebellious attitude.

She looks to be between 65-70.
Lisa N:

I watched an ETWN program about a religious who said that our whole culture has rejected selflessness and self sacrifice. It is not considered as noble as it once was. I think this is more of the issue than celibacy or female ordination.

Interestingly, this is exactly the answer I gave when responding to the original question. It seems pretty common sense to me.

 

[mtr01]

“the male/female roles.” In this she is wrong. This is NOT a Church Law or Policy, but an infallible Church teaching that cannot change.

JKirkLVNV:

In the latest document elucidating why women can’t be priests, the Holy Father clearly ennuciated why he was issuing the teaching (I don’t know if it qualified as an encyclical or not). He used the words “to remove all doubt” and invoked his role and authority “to strengthen the brethren.” That makes it clear cut: women can’t be priests, the opinion of an American nun (and both my godmother’s are nuns) notwithstanding.

I completely agree with both of you. To remove all doubt, here are the exact words from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis :

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.

I don’t see how anyone see see the above statement and deny that it fulfills all 3 requirements of an infallible pronouncement.

Women will never be ordained priests…no ifs, ands or buts.

 

[Catholic2003]

mtr01:

I don’t see how anyone see see the above statement and deny that it fulfills all 3 requirements of an infallible pronouncement.

But for the record, Cardinal Ratzinger does exactly that. The statement is a fallible affirmation of an infallible truth.

mtr01:

Women will never be ordained priests…no ifs, ands or buts.

This is certainly true.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Yes. The odd thing is, she also said “It doesn’t mean anything will ever change, but they do need to look at it.” So if she realizes female ordination or an end to the discipline of celibacy will likely never happen, why bother clamoring for a review?

 

[IPTgrad]

It always bothers me when those involved in handing on the faith either have a skewed understanding of the faith themselves or have purposely twisted the truth to suit their own agendas. Without judging which category this sister belongs in (many religious orders have been “hijacked” & those belonging to them have been catechized & indoctrinated in every which way you can imagine!), we must pray for her & others like her who propagate nonsense to our most vulnerable… those who are seeking communion with us.

We must also be there, ready to charitably point out what is true. The good thing is that, working from Church documents, we have the means to prove in writing what is true. We also have the power of the Holy Spirit to help us discern the proper way to approach situations. We must continue this struggle bathed in prayer, praying especially for the gifts of the Holy Spirit (listed in Isaiah 11:2-3) to guide our words and actions.

 

[mtr01]

Catholic2003:

But for the record, Cardinal Ratzinger does exactly that. The statement is a fallible affirmation of an infallible truth.

Hmmm, I wasn’t aware of that, do you have a reference or a link to the statement? (Not that I am questioning you, but just for my own knowledge’s sake).

 

[Catholic2003]

mtr01:

Hmmm, I wasn’t aware of that, do you have a reference or a link to the statement? (Not that I am questioning you, but just for my own knowledge’s sake).

You can read the whole long discussion in this thread. Post #8 has the specific statement I was referring to.

 

[Maccabees]

Scotty run from this RCIA program and the hippie nuns this isn’t catholcism. Find another parish to teach you catholcism because you aren’t getting it at your parish.

Look for the closest abbey and get a religious person their to get you confirmed your getting your mind poisened right now.
You asked to join the catholic church not the anglican church.
I would be mad if I where you. Your getting cheated in the joke known as RCIA.

 

[mtr01]

Catholic2003:

You can read the whole long discussion in this thread. Post #8 has the specific statement I was referring to.

Ah ok, that thread kinda died off right as I joined, and I do remember hearing something about this statement. Anyhow, as most of the posters from that thread, I don’t know if I understand it any more clearly at this point

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Maccabees:

Scotty run from this RCIA program and the hippie nuns this isn’t catholcism. Find another parish to teach you catholcism because you aren’t getting it at your parish.

Look for the closest abbey and get a religious person their to get you confirmed your getting your mind poisened right now.
You asked to join the catholic church not the anglican church.
I would be mad if I where you. Your getting cheated in the joke known as RCIA.

While I appreciate the sentiment, rest assured I’m pretty well catechized already, thanks to a number of Apologetic works I read along my (re-)conversion path. I’m just trying to finish up this RCIA program without making any waves so I can be received into the Church.

There are three parishes close by me, all of which are on the liberal side. I did some advanced scouting, and this seems to be the most traditional of the three.

 

[Maccabees]

I wasn’t questioning your knowledge as you seem to recognize heresy when you heard it. But rather this program isn’t exactly helping you grow so I would opt for a better one. Its sad that it seems this is the best parish around you. Where do you live San Francisco, Boston?

 

[trevor]

Very radical. Also, there is nothing wrong with Sacred Tradition. Jesus did not read the New Testament and honored traditions that were passed down during His life.

Pray for this person. Sometimes I feel like we are on an island, surrounded by people on the inside, trying to destroy our beloved Church. Of course they can’t because it was founded by God.

Stay strong,
Trevor

 

[TNT]

Maccabees:

I wasn’t questioning your knowledge as you seem to recognize heresy when you heard it. But rather this program isn’t exactly helping you grow so I would opt for a better one. Its sad that it seems this is the best parish around you. Where do you live San Francisco, Boston?

Not to poke my nose in, but PGH in scotty’s name is short for Pittsburgh, Pa.
It was the old train abbreviation for people’s baggage destination, like the airlines today.
He’s also a TLM advocate, so I would not worry about losing him to some nut in RCIA.