Should female saints be doctors of the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraditionalCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melchior said:
It seems reasonable. But I see how the “teach” part might be strioctly liturgical, but the “have authority” part seems extra liturgical. Also, women teaching children is different than women teaching adult men. No?

Dave
Click to expand...
This seems like such a strange statement, since adult men must first be children? So therefore they were taught by a women.
 
I just wanted to add, that two male Doctors of the Church off the top of my head, Sts. Alphonsus Liguori and Francis de Sales, cite and quote Sts. Teresa and Catherine in their works to support their own doctrine. Again, they must understand what these great saints have to say as having some sort of authoritative weight (you can see the law training of those two men in their works, as they both always cite many authorities to back up what they are saying, especially St. Alphonsus).
 
Sr_Sally said:
I hope you have looked into his authority to do that and have rectified whatever might have been lacking in her confirmation! Hopefully without another 3 hour sermon!
Click to expand...
Sr Sally—why did I not think of that? Wow!
Maybe her confirmation is not valid?
Since discovering the sede thing is truly only a “theory” and not a doctrine of the church (as we had been led to believe) we have to reassess everything we had been told.
 
Sorry to sound redundant, but there are already some female saints who are doctors of the church. My patron saint, St. Catherine of Sienna, is one of them. 🙂
 
st_lucy said:
This seems like such a strange statement, since adult men must first be children? So therefore they were taught by a women.
Click to expand...
But boys are not men. And the verse is specific to women teaching and having authority over men. Children of course, are subordinate to their mothers and other women. You would not say it’s strange that a boy can’t be married because he is a future man would you? 😉
 
because Men and Women have equal dignity (but women have the better part!).
 
I voted no. I’m not sedevacantist, and I’m also not an sspx member, but I very much agree with Bishop Williamson on many of his statements, especially regarding women. He presents a woman as a woman, and that’s something we don’t see a lot of these days.
 
HailMary said:
does that mean, consequently, you disagree with the Church? I can’t see how you can have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I agree with the Church in matters of faith and morals, and follow the law of the Church. Not every statement from Rome is protected by the Holy Ghost. I stand by the teachings of Jesus Christ through the Church. I’m not saying these Saints don’t have a lot to offer, I love them dearly, esp. St. Catherine, I really don’t believe that they’d be too happy about being declared “doctors.” It’s not Gospel, just my personal opinion.🙂
 
latinmasslover said:
I really don’t believe that they’d be too happy about being declared “doctors.”
Click to expand...
I can try to understand that, but its not for their glory only, that is the proximate end, its for Christ’ glory they were proclaimed Doctors right?

To be a Doctor basically means you’ve contributed a lot and the Church, the Bride of Christ, which wills to recognize that. Thats pretty noble and humble since its simple truth.
 
latinmasslover said:
I agree with the Church in matters of faith and morals, and follow the law of the Church. Not every statement from Rome is protected by the Holy Ghost. I stand by the teachings of Jesus Christ through the Church. I’m not saying these Saints don’t have a lot to offer, I love them dearly, esp. St. Catherine, I really don’t believe that they’d be too happy about being declared “doctors.” It’s not Gospel, just my personal opinion.🙂
Click to expand...
I know that a canonisation (in these days where the Pope declares saints) is actually considered to be an infallible act. To disagree with the declaration of any saint would be sinful.

What process is gone through in regard to Doctors of the Church? I imagine it’d be almost as rigorous, since one of the requirements is a life of eminent sanctity, and thus quite possibly the declaration of a Doctor is an infallible declaration too. So you could possibly be rejecting infallible teaching by rejecting the women Doctors of the Church.

As for their own feelings - most of the Doctors were equally humble and would’ve been equally uncomfortable with public recognition. Aquinas himself said towards the end of his life that everything he had written was straw. It isn’t relevant in regard to their fitness for such a status.

As for these female saints not having teaching authority or authority over men - St Teresa was spiritual director to numerous men, including at least one of her own brothers, for starters. And her writings, for the most part, were designed for instruction. No-one in the Church seems to have had any problems with either role (spiritual direction of men or catechetical writing) for her.

If no-one criticised her having this sort of authority or doing this sort of teaching during her life, then surely her being a Doctor of the Church is not an insurmountable step 🤷
 
latinmasslover said:
I voted no. I’m not sedevacantist, and I’m also not an sspx member, but I very much agree with Bishop Williamson on many of his statements, especially regarding women. He presents a woman as a woman, and that’s something we don’t see a lot of these days.
Click to expand...
What in your opinion is a “woman”?
 
LilyM said:
I know that a canonisation (in these days where the Pope declares saints) is actually considered to be an infallible act. To disagree with the declaration of any saint would be sinful.

What process is gone through in regard to Doctors of the Church? I imagine it’d be almost as rigorous, since one of the requirements is a life of eminent sanctity, and thus quite possibly the declaration of a Doctor is an infallible declaration too. So you could possibly be rejecting infallible teaching by rejecting the women Doctors of the Church.

As for their own feelings - most of the Doctors were equally humble and would’ve been equally uncomfortable with public recognition. Aquinas himself said towards the end of his life that everything he had written was straw. It isn’t relevant in regard to their fitness for such a status.

As for these female saints not having teaching authority or authority over men - St Teresa was spiritual director to numerous men, including at least one of her own brothers, for starters. And her writings, for the most part, were designed for instruction. No-one in the Church seems to have had any problems with either role (spiritual direction of men or catechetical writing) for her.

If no-one criticised her having this sort of authority or doing this sort of teaching during her life, then surely her being a Doctor of the Church is not an insurmountable step 🤷
Click to expand...
The infallibility of canonizations is debatable (and I say that only because I’ve heard arguments both ways from both sides-trads and liberals); this is something I’m looking into. This isn’t an aspect of the Faith I have really studied yet which is why I’m not making a rigorous defense. Personally, I see it as “cave-in” to the feminist movement and for the time being, I’m not exactly for it. With more study and prayer my position may change, but I believe that Bishop Williamson has defended his position well and I happen to agree with the good man.
 
LilyM said:
I know that a canonisation (in these days where the Pope declares saints) is actually considered to be an infallible act. To disagree with the declaration of any saint would be sinful.
Click to expand...
I do not think saints are protected by a charism of infallibility.

Of course, women can be Doctors of the Church. The title has to do with the substance of their teaching, not the gender of the teacher.
 
latinmasslover said:
The infallibility of canonizations is debatable
Click to expand...
When the Church declares someone to be in Heaven, they are in Heaven. That is an infallible statement.

“And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
 
Kelly said:
What in your opinion is a “woman”?
Click to expand...
What I meant by my previous statement was that he emphasizes the dignity of womanhood, true femininity. He beautifully explains the role of women in the spiritual/material world in such a way that it makes me proud to be a woman. Feminism tends to make women out to be nothing if they’re not equal to/better than a man in every way, shape, and form. Everything has to be so “equal.” A woman in our society who doesn’t pursue a career and wants to be a wife and mother is referred to as “barefoot and pregnant,” her husband being a sexist hick. The good Bishop makes the case for women in a true Christian light, and honestly I don’t see how any Christian woman can disagree with his statements (regarding women, not female doctors of the Church).
 
HailMary said:
When the Church declares someone to be in Heaven, they are in Heaven. That is an infallible statement.

“And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mean for it to sound like I didn’t believe they’re not. I only meant to say that I’ve heard conflicting “official” Church teaching on the matter.
 
HailMary said:
Interesting…which ones?
Click to expand...
The infallibility of canonisations is really a topic for another thread.

Suffice it to say that here’s what the CCC says on the matter:

*828 By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.303 *

Sounds like a solemn teaching, intended to be binding on the whole of the Church for all times, on a matter of faith and morals (the state of the souls of the canonised) to me. Seems to fit the definition of infallible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top