Should female saints be doctors of the church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraditionalCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
For almost as long as I can remember, we Roman Catholics have been praying for Christian unity and that includes the Lutherans.

To suggest that the Lefebvre pack did not (and does not still) teach that they (sspx) are above the laws of the Church and are free to ignore the warnings of the Pope is to suggest that they are not in error. They are in error and have chosen to remain so.
Click to expand...
yeah, but why on earth would they want to remain separated from the church? that is the thing that bugs me! especially now that the motu proprio is released, you’d think they’d make an effort at least to reconcile with rome? but why aren’t they doing so? that is the million$ question isn’t it? it just baffles me as to exactly WHY they wont make a sincere EFFORT to come home? what do they expect to come home? the whole church go back to tradition? do they want the church to admit V2 was not proper? it was a valid council. whether they like it or not. i don’t know why they wont make a sincere effort to come home. why keep yourself separated from your family? that makes no sense to me at all. none.

its like trying to figure it out, you might as well sit there and scratch your head and roll your eyes and just sit there and think as to why anyone would want to be separated from their family.
its beyond me. it truly is. seems to me maybe there are bishops in their own society that might oppose coming home? that if it is true, makes zero sense to me. what do they REALLY want and what do they REALLY expect from the Vatican? what is it they want? i don’t get it. i guess i just ought to nevermind huh?:rolleyes:
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Congregation for Causes of the Saints says this:

Canonization is the supreme glorification by the Church of a Servant of God raised to the honours of the altar with a decree declared definitive and preceptive for the whole Church, involving the solemn Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

This is expressed unequivocally in the formula: "Ad honorem Sanctae et Individuae Trnitatis… auctoritate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra… Beatum N. N. Sanctum esse decernimus ac definimus, ac Sanctorum Catalogo adscribimus, statuentes eum in universa Ecclesia inter Sanctos pia devotione recoli debere".

Beatification, on the other hand, consists in the concession of a public cult in the form of an indult and limited to a Servant of God whose virtues to a heroic degree, or Martyrdom, have been duly recognized, as is pointed out by the respective formula:
“…facultatem facimus ut Venerabilis Servus Dei N. N. Beati nomine in posterum appelletur, eiusque festum… in locis ac modis iure statutis quotannis celebrari possit”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20050929_saraiva-martins-beatif_en.html

The underlined portion describes a situation where infallibility would necessarily apply.
 
A moderator, I’m sure, will correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that this thread has drifted.

The question of whether female saints should be doctors of the church is answered by the facts: there are some who have been declared so by papal authority. Pretty much a closed question.

Discussion of the status of SSPX, declaration of martyrs, blesseds, and the process of canonization are different subjects.
 
mystified said:
A moderator, I’m sure, will correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that this thread has drifted.

The question of whether female saints should be doctors of the church is answered by the facts: there are some who have been declared so by papal authority. Pretty much a closed question.

Discussion of the status of SSPX, declaration of martyrs, blesseds, and the process of canonization are different subjects.
Click to expand...
before they decide to close it, i’d like genesis to help me out in my question. so please mods, don’t close it until he has a chance to answer it! thanks! i appreciate your kindness!
 
HailMary said:
The Church is infallible in the common doctrine of morals; the canonization of saints pertains to the common doctrine of morals, and so falls under the infallibility of the Church
pp. 122 from above quoted text.
Click to expand...
This was never questioned until Msgr. Escriva was canonized. The SSPX then went crazy and started suggesting that we don’t need to buy all canonizations.
 
TraditionalCath said:
yeah, but why on earth would they want to remain separated from the church? that is the thing that bugs me! especially now that the motu proprio is released, you’d think they’d make an effort at least to reconcile with rome? but why aren’t they doing so? that is the million$ question isn’t it? it just baffles me as to exactly WHY they wont make a sincere EFFORT to come home? what do they expect to come home? the whole church go back to tradition? do they want the church to admit V2 was not proper? it was a valid council. whether they like it or not. i don’t know why they wont make a sincere effort to come home. why keep yourself separated from your family? that makes no sense to me at all. none.
Click to expand...
Same reason someone would want to be separated from God…Pride.
 
Back to the poll.

I answered Yes!

But then I think I am a bit biased.

After all, two of the three female Doctors of the Church come from the Carmelite family. One O.Carm., and one O.C.D.
 
TraditionalCath said:
i see. there has to be other reasons aside from pride that keep them from coming home.
Click to expand...
Pride goes before the fall. The Holy Father said “do not do this or that.” They said “forget about you. WE know BETTER.” The Holy Father followed through with the censure. What is their motive if not pride? Think they’ll tell anyone?
 
TraditionalCath said:
i wanted to see what everyone’s opinion on this is because of the hot topic on CAF here about sspx bishop williamson’s attitude towards it is. so here goes, cast your vote and feel free to comment, but please, keep it charitable:)
Click to expand...
I voted yes. Whatever Williamson says should not affect us at all because he holds no authority whatsoever in the CC, as he is in schism. Rome has spoken, that should be enough.
 
thedavidwilson said:
While they have not published any heretical material, thier actions are against the Catholic Church.QUOTE]

As are some actions of the Pope (not many, but some), and many actions/words of bishops in union with him…why are they not disciplined for the outright heresy they preach? I’d chance my salvation and the salvation of my loved ones with a priest who preaches Catholicism verses a very watered-down “Christianity.” (Note: I’m not saying that to not side with the SSPX means that one isn’t truly Catholic; there are some things they say that I absolutely do not agree with.) Being in “schism” doesn’t make one wrong about everything (to say otherwise is to contradict V-II and JPII).
Click to expand...
 
latinmasslover said:
thedavidwilson;2873952:
While they have not published any heretical material, thier actions are against the Catholic Church.QUOTE]

As are some actions of the Pope (not many, but some), and many actions/words of bishops in union with him…why are they not disciplined for the outright heresy they preach? I’d chance my salvation and the salvation of my loved ones with a priest who preaches Catholicism verses a very watered-down “Christianity.” (Note: I’m not saying that to not side with the SSPX means that one isn’t truly Catholic; there are some things they say that I absolutely do not agree with.) Being in “schism” doesn’t make one wrong about everything (to say otherwise is to contradict V-II and JPII).
Click to expand...
I can think of no actions/words of the Pope (or of his bishops) that are “against the Catholic Church.” Have I misunderstood your meaning?
Click to expand...
 
latinmasslover said:
thedavidwilson;2873952:
While they have not published any heretical material, thier actions are against the Catholic Church.QUOTE]

As are some actions of the Pope (not many, but some), and many actions/words of bishops in union with him…why are they not disciplined for the outright heresy they preach? I’d chance my salvation and the salvation of my loved ones with a priest who preaches Catholicism verses a very watered-down “Christianity.” (Note: I’m not saying that to not side with the SSPX means that one isn’t truly Catholic; there are some things they say that I absolutely do not agree with.) Being in “schism” doesn’t make one wrong about everything (to say otherwise is to contradict V-II and JPII).
Click to expand...
Care to explain exactly what “heresy” the Pope has preached?
I think I’ll cast my lot with the Pope, rather than your “priest who preaches Catholicism.”
Click to expand...
 
Melchior said:
I voted no. For the same reason they should not be priests. More specifically it seems to violate what St. Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:12 about women teaching men (theology). It seems tough to get around since he appeals to creation to show this is not cultural but structural and in good order. Women are also not the heads of households if the husband is living either. And men can’t give birth. We have different roles.

On the other hand I think there is a reasonable argument that women doctors of the church are approved by the Bishops and therefore they are only teaching in the context of their writings being approved and under the paternal hierarchy. So I guess I am not cemented to my position. But I don’t think a woman should directly teach adult men as EWTN seems to be promoting with new shows these days. Not that a woman can’t be more knowledgable than a man, but why would Saint Paul forbid it if we can now allow it? If a women can’t give a homily why can she have a call in show where she answers men’s theological questions or be a church authority?

Dave
Click to expand...
I believe it all boils down to how we, as Catholics, are taught to read Holy Scripture. In this case, it seems clear that St. Paul was writing in a cultural sense, in particular at a time when the majority (and of course, there are always exceptions) of women in the world were not as well educated as the men in their families/households. This is not to put down the men, it was the culture of the times. And it lasted for a long long time. Shoot, up until the 1960’s there were quotas in some of the Ivy League schools so not too many women would be let into law school or medical school!

Taking that into consideration, I read the passage alluded to as St. Paul directing the Church to not let those who have been poorly educated in the faith to speak in Church, rather than specifically females. If I read that passage in a literal sense, it is applicable to not allowing someone teach in RCIA who has never even read the Catechism.

Does that make any sense?
 
LSK said:
I believe it all boils down to how we, as Catholics, are taught to read Holy Scripture. In this case, it seems clear that St. Paul was writing in a cultural sense, in particular at a time when the majority (and of course, there are always exceptions) of women in the world were not as well educated as the men in their families/households. This is not to put down the men, it was the culture of the times. And it lasted for a long long time. Shoot, up until the 1960’s there were quotas in some of the Ivy League schools so not too many women would be let into law school or medical school!

Taking that into consideration, I read the passage alluded to as St. Paul directing the Church to not let those who have been poorly educated in the faith to speak in Church, rather than specifically females. If I read that passage in a literal sense, it is applicable to not allowing someone teach in RCIA who has never even read the Catechism.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
I’m happy to see that someone is at least taking this passage into account. The only reservation I have with your analysis is this: If he meant to refer to all uneducated people why didn’t he just address his comments to all uneducated people?

CDL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top