Should female saints be doctors of the church?

[Hesychios]

I will not be voting.

My idea (or opinion, I guess) of a Doctor of the church is that the person is a seminal teaching source. Someone who encapsulates the Faith for the rest of us, it is a very rare gift. In other words this is not just some honorific, or an excuse to give a popular saint special acknowledgement. It is a rather scholarly role, and an interpretive role. Baing a mystic does not disqualify one, but being only a mystic (I think) would.

Augustine and John of Damascus are two excellent examples of real teaching Doctors of Faith. So then, my question is, are there people who have served this function well? If so, then they deserve the recognition, we need to know who they are so we can study them.

If they are just saints with large followings, if their writings and lives are just recaps of what others have done before, I think no, because all saints do that.

I don’t think this should be a gender-specific honor. Not even considering what St Paul wrote. He was a real Doctor of the church, Doctor #1 in fact, but he (like all the rest) was not infallible.

Michael

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

The SSPX are wary of his canonization because some who knew him were not allowed to speak in this regard since what they had to say may have…slowed his canonization.

 

[latinmasslover]

Same reason someone would want to be separated from God…Pride.

A rather presumptuous statement

They don’t “return” now for the same reason they didn’t then: Rome says “you will interpret Vatican II the way we say to interpret it” and they say “we will interpret it from a Catholic viewpoint.” That simple.

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;2877710:

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.”

Good point. If we have another “Pope Alexander VI” it will be nice to know that I can become his mistress simply because he’s the Pope and gives the okay. Yay!

 

[Hesychios]

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.”

It must be remembered that it is not the canonization process that puts one into heaven.

The process is engaged in trying to discern whether they are already in heaven. Quite different.

It is the discernment that can be considered infallible, IF the process is legitimate. I think that must be the debateable part.

I am of the opinion that if the process is corrupted, it is not an infallible discernment, although it could by chance be correct it could also be incorrect. The sin would be on those who misused their mandate, not the fault of those who venerate a person under punishment!

Anyway, the one who really loses out is the supposed saint, who will not reap benefit of prayers from the faithful.

 

[LilyM]

Good point. If we have another “Pope Alexander VI” it will be nice to know that I can become his mistress simply because he’s the Pope and gives the okay. Yay!

In what parallel universe of yours has fornication become heresy? Besides which, note that even at his worst Alexander never TAUGHT officially that fornication wasn’t a sin - the commandments against it still stood and still stand. He was in sin and never said otherwise. THAT is infallibility - the Holy Spirit’s guidance - at work for you, in a negative sense of protection from error rather than a positive sense of revealing and proclaiming truth.

What you ARE doing is falling for your own heresy (Donatism I think it is) - the idea that the personal sin of any priest or Pope invalidates their exercise of their office. Heresy and schism, yes, they do, since these impact their ability to teach.

But since we aren’t, and can’t possibly be, privy to the state of soul of most, if not all, priests or Popes, the idea that their personal sins such as fornication invalidate their teaching authority is patently a ridiculous notion - we would never be sure we’d received a valid sacrament of heard a truly infallible teaching.

Jesus said to the Apostles (and the bishops and Popes as their successors) ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’ not ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, but only if you’re sinless and seen to be sinless’

 

[Hellisreal]

[-:

dixieagle/-];2879611]latinmasslover said:

Good point. If we have another “Pope Alexander VI” it will be nice to know that I can become his mistress simply because he’s the Pope and gives the okay. Yay!

Why stop with him? You only know he was a real character. How about all the Popes who may have done things we dont know about?
I think your sarcasm and mocking of someone’s personal sin because they are a Pope is crude.

Read Matthew 5:21-24

Take that to heart please.

 

[dixieagle]

dixieagle;2879611:

Good point. If we have another “Pope Alexander VI” it will be nice to know that I can become his mistress simply because he’s the Pope and gives the okay. Yay!

OK…now I REALLY don’t get you…

 

[latinmasslover]

In what parallel universe of yours has fornication become heresy? Besides which, note that even at his worst Alexander never TAUGHT officially that fornication wasn’t a sin - the commandments against it still stood and still stand. He was in sin and never said otherwise. THAT is infallibility - the Holy Spirit’s guidance - at work for you, in a negative sense of protection from error rather than a positive sense of revealing and proclaiming truth.

That’s the whole point I’m trying to make: the Pope’s every statement/idea/action is not infallible. I wasn’t implying that because he’s a sinner we shouldn’t listen to him, or just because he makes some bad judgments that we should throw everything he says out the window. The example I used was extreme, but only to make the point obvious.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX are wary of his canonization because some who knew him were not allowed to speak in this regard since what they had to say may have…slowed his canonization.

What cause do they have to be wary of something that the Church has always considered infallible? Oh yeah, because they thought he was a modernist. My SSPX friends always swore up and down that he would never, ever be canonized because he didn’t oppose VII or the Novus Ordo. When I asked them if they’d accept it if it happened they give me a hardy “Sure but it’ll never happen”. Of course, now they question the canonization because it quite, quite frankly, shattered their dreams of their being no saints who could ever support VII. :doh2:

We’ve done 8 pages for 3, count them 3 people who side with Bishop Williamson’s wacky ideas. Remeber, this is a man who thinks the Sound of Music has pornographic elements, that the Holocaust was made up by the Jews, etc., etc., etc. If people want to believe his judgment over 2 Holy Fathers then, I’d think, that would be quite telling. Sorry. The “he’s just a little crazy” argument is getting old.:whacky:

 

[catharina]

We’ve done 8 pages for 3, count them 3 people who side with Bishop Williamson’s wacky ideas. Remeber, this is a man who thinks the Sound of Music has pornographic elements, that the Holocaust was made up by the Jews, etc., etc., etc. If people want to believe his judgment over 2 Holy Fathers then, I’d think, that would be quite telling. Sorry. The “he’s just a little crazy” argument is getting old.:whacky:

Plus, no one gets excommunicated for being crazy. He could have been committed (confined) for treatment or had his faculties (priestly) suspended or removed - but not excommunicated if his problem is “he’s crazy.”

 

[latinmasslover]

What cause do they have to be wary of something that the Church has always considered infallible? Oh yeah, because they thought he was a modernist. My SSPX friends always swore up and down that he would never, ever be canonized because he didn’t oppose VII or the Novus Ordo. When I asked them if they’d accept it if it happened they give me a hardy “Sure but it’ll never happen”. Of course, now they question the canonization because it quite, quite frankly, shattered their dreams of their being no saints who could ever support VII. :doh2:

We’ve done 8 pages for 3, count them 3 people who side with Bishop Williamson’s wacky ideas. Remeber, this is a man who thinks the Sound of Music has pornographic elements, that the Holocaust was made up by the Jews, etc., etc., etc. If people want to believe his judgment over 2 Holy Fathers then, I’d think, that would be quite telling. Sorry. The “he’s just a little crazy” argument is getting old.:whacky:

The only opposition Abp. Lefebvre had with the Second Vatican Council was its very ambiguous wording. Nothing heretical, but close. Any SSPX member who says it’s full of heresy, or anyone for that matter, has it confused. I don’t know how St. Josemaria felt about the New Rite as he’s not a saint I’ve studied much, but that doesn’t change the fact that his canonization went through too easily. My favorite priest, who I’m sure will not have to pass through Purgatory after he dies, says the New Mass as well as the Tridentine. He’s very unhappy having to say the Novus Ordo and he says it only through obedience. He’s a very holy priest, firm but incredibly kind. St. Josemaria may have felt likewise.

Your 3 of 8 comment doesn’t exactly prove your point, as Jesus makes it clear that the majority isn’t usually on the right path. If you want to play the numbers game regarding the popes, fine. Look at the Inquisition: Pope John Paul II ask forgiveness for it, when it was approved by Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Leo X. I don’t have a direct quote for this on hand, but I read that St. Teresa of Avila said it wasn’t severe enough (when I find it I’ll post it.)

So Bishop Williamson is extreme in some cases; what of it? He’s not perfect, and doesn’t claim to be. Pope John Paul II was very liberal in some cases? Does anyone say anything about that? No, all you say is “he’s the Pope, there’s no way he could ever make a mistake!” That isn’t Catholic teaching. Ever wonder why some refer to Catholics as “papists?” The opinion often expressed should clear that up. The SSPX is not infallible, and some go to extremes, just like some “orthodox” Catholics, and the Liberal Catholics. If the SSPX were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then the laity wouldn’t be permitted to attend their chapels for Mass.

One thing I would like to know is this: Why is it that pro-Vatican II, pro-New Rite conservative Catholics insist we should not say anything bad about any priest or bishop, no matter how liberal, yet always name-call when it comes to the SSPX? Why condemn the “schismatic” SSPX and treat them like they’re the most ignorant fools ever to walk the planet, yet remain pleasant and loving toward the schismatic Orthodox? …heretical Protestants? …fallen away Catholics? Seems a little hypocritical to me. Keep in mind something the Church loves to emphasize with nonCatholics these days: the Pope is still a bishop and, like any bishop, is able to make mistakes. He is not perfect. He cannot err in proclaiming a matter of faith/morals. Please save your animosity for those who are destroying the Church from within, not those who wounded someone’s pride and got punished.

 

[Sure]

The only opposition Abp. Lefebvre had with the Second Vatican Council was its very ambiguous wording. Nothing heretical, but close. Any SSPX member who says it’s full of heresy, or anyone for that matter, has it confused. I don’t know how St. Josemaria felt about the New Rite as he’s not a saint I’ve studied much, but that doesn’t change the fact that his canonization went through too easily. My favorite priest, who I’m sure will not have to pass through Purgatory after he dies, says the New Mass as well as the Tridentine. He’s very unhappy having to say the Novus Ordo and he says it only through obedience. He’s a very holy priest, firm but incredibly kind. St. Josemaria may have felt likewise.

Your 3 of 8 comment doesn’t exactly prove your point, as Jesus makes it clear that the majority isn’t usually on the right path. If you want to play the numbers game regarding the popes, fine. Look at the Inquisition: Pope John Paul II ask forgiveness for it, when it was approved by Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Leo X. I don’t have a direct quote for this on hand, but I read that St. Teresa of Avila said it wasn’t severe enough (when I find it I’ll post it.)

So Bishop Williamson is extreme in some cases; what of it? He’s not perfect, and doesn’t claim to be. Pope John Paul II was very liberal in some cases? Does anyone say anything about that? No, all you say is “he’s the Pope, there’s no way he could ever make a mistake!” That isn’t Catholic teaching. Ever wonder why some refer to Catholics as “papists?” The opinion often expressed should clear that up. The SSPX is not infallible, and some go to extremes, just like some “orthodox” Catholics, and the Liberal Catholics. If the SSPX were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then the laity wouldn’t be permitted to attend their chapels for Mass.

One thing I would like to know is this: Why is it that pro-Vatican II, pro-New Rite conservative Catholics insist we should not say anything bad about any priest or bishop, no matter how liberal, yet always name-call when it comes to the SSPX? Why condemn the “schismatic” SSPX and treat them like they’re the most ignorant fools ever to walk the planet, yet remain pleasant and loving toward the schismatic Orthodox? …heretical Protestants? …fallen away Catholics? Seems a little hypocritical to me. Keep in mind something the Church loves to emphasize with nonCatholics these days: the Pope is still a bishop and, like any bishop, is able to make mistakes. He is not perfect. He cannot err in proclaiming a matter of faith/morals. Please save your animosity for those who are destroying the Church from within, not those who wounded someone’s pride and got punished.

You should pray that the Pope will be enlightened as you clearly are.

No one that I’ve seen on this board criticizes the SSPX yet gives other schismatics a free pass. It seems that most around here criticize those who deviate from Church teaching no matter if they are liberal or traditional. And just so we’re clear, the orthodox priests and heretical protestant ministers did not possess the Truth and then make a conscious choice to walk away from the Church. The SSPX did.

Anyway, let’s not get sidetracked on the SSPX again.

Back to the topic…Bp. Williamson is pretty much off the deep end and I would think it likely that, when the SSPX returns from schism, he might not come home with them.

 

[bear06]

]The only opposition Abp. Lefebvre had with the Second Vatican Council was its very ambiguous wording. Nothing heretical, but close. Any SSPX member who says it’s full of heresy, or anyone for that matter, has it confused. I don’t know how St. Josemaria felt about the New Rite as he’s not a saint I’ve studied much, but that doesn’t change the fact that his canonization went through too easily. My favorite priest, who I’m sure will not have to pass through Purgatory after he dies, says the New Mass as well as the Tridentine. He’s very unhappy having to say the Novus Ordo and he says it only through obedience. He’s a very holy priest, firm but incredibly kind. St. Josemaria may have felt likewise.

It’s not really what you think about St. Jose Maria Escriva. It’s about what the SSPX thinks of him.

Your 3 of 8 comment doesn’t exactly prove your point, as Jesus makes it clear that the majority isn’t usually on the right path. If you want to play the numbers game regarding the popes, fine. Look at the Inquisition: Pope John Paul II ask forgiveness for it, when it was approved by Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Leo X. I don’t have a direct quote for this on hand, but I read that St. Teresa of Avila said it wasn’t severe enough (when I find it I’ll post it.)

I didn’t make a 3 of 8 comment. It was a 3 of 103. And sorry, when 103 fairly educated, faithful Catholics are in a room together not to mention a few Holy Fathers I’m probably gong to go with the vast majority and not Williamson.

Bishop Williamson is extreme in some cases; what of it? He’s not perfect, and doesn’t claim to be. Pope John Paul II was very liberal in some cases? Does anyone say anything about that? No, all you say is “he’s the Pope, there’s no way he could ever make a mistake!” That isn’t Catholic teaching. Ever wonder why some refer to Catholics as “papists?” The opinion often expressed should clear that up. The SSPX is not infallible, and some go to extremes, just like some “orthodox” Catholics, and the Liberal Catholics. If the SSPX were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then the laity wouldn’t be permitted to attend their chapels for Mass.

Straw argument not made.

One thing I would like to know is this: Why is it that pro-Vatican II, pro-New Rite conservative Catholics insist we should not say anything bad about any priest or bishop, no matter how liberal, yet always name-call when it comes to the SSPX?

This is another huge straw argument. You seem to think if you say it enough, it’ll be true. Maybe you’ve missed the debacle in SF. We pro-VII people do take on the likes of the Fr. Meriwethers, Greeleys, Sparks,etc. of this world. We’re far more inclined to call a spade a spade. We don’t give a free pass to Greeley and we don’t give one to Williamson.

Why condemn the “schismatic” SSPX and treat them like they’re the most ignorant fools ever to walk the planet, yet remain pleasant and loving toward the schismatic Orthodox? …heretical Protestants? …fallen away Catholics? Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Just for the record, my comments in this conversation have been limited to Bishop Williamson who has made more than one outrageous statement. Like I said, to follow him we’d have to use the “even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in awhile”. He’s one of the leaders of a schismatic movement and his mentality should be taken into account. Should one really be relying on a blind squirrel, as a rule, in matters of Faith? BTW, the protestants don’t claim Catholicism as their Faith, the SSPX do.

Keep in mind something the Church loves to emphasize with nonCatholics these days: the Pope is still a bishop and, like any bishop, is able to make mistakes. He is not perfect. He cannot err in proclaiming a matter of faith/morals. Please save your animosity for those who are destroying the Church from within, not those who wounded someone’s pride and got punished.

Again, straw argument. Nobody said he can’t make mistakes. We just disagree with where he can make mistakes. And believe me, I am very concerned with those who are destroying the Church from within.

 

[latinmasslover]

You should pray that the Pope will be enlightened as you clearly are.

No one that I’ve seen on this board criticizes the SSPX yet gives other schismatics a free pass. It seems that most around here criticize those who deviate from Church teaching no matter if they are liberal or traditional. And just so we’re clear, the orthodox priests and heretical protestant ministers did not possess the Truth and then make a conscious choice to walk away from the Church. The SSPX did.

Thanks for informing me that Vatican I can be thrown out the window to fit an ideal. I wasn’t aware of that. I also wasn’t aware of the new doctrine that seems to have emerged from Vatican II stating that the pope is perfect in every way, shape, and form.

I was referring to the charity that people use when addressing the Orthodox/Protestants. The Orthodox and the Protestants did possess the fullness of truth, until they rebelled. Likewise, Lefebvre had it also until he rebelled. It’s half-witted to say that the condemnation doesn’t apply to the Orthodox and Protestants, but does to the “lefebvrists.” Why is charity shown to those who oppose the Church but not to those within?

 

[latinmasslover]

Nobody said he can’t make mistakes. We just disagree with where he can make mistakes. And believe me, I am very concerned with those who are destroying the Church from within.

Actually, that’s exactly what is implicated by the majority of conservative Catholics, that the Pope could never make a mistake when it comes to every statement/action said/performed.

Personally, I believe that Abp. Lefebvre should’ve waited with the consecrations. He didn’t. Was it schismatic or merely disobedience? I don’t know. But I won’t take the word of a bishop at the drop of a hat who chooses to publicly rebuke one who holds the Faith while allowing many others to continue who are actually leading the faithful on the road to hell. Prioritization needs to happen in Rome, the real problems need to be addressed. A group of the faithful practicing the Catholic Faith ought to be left alone while something is done about the bishops with a “to-each-his-own” mentality regarding faith and morals. They’re the ones destroying the Church, misrepresenting Vatican II, abusing the New Rite to make it even more unappealing, from within. After all, they’re “in union with Rome.”

 

[bear06]

Actually, that’s exactly what is implicated by the majority of conservative Catholics, that the Pope could never make a mistake when it comes to every statement/action said/performed.

Prove it. There is a far cry between official Church teachings and private decisions, actions, etc.

Personally, I believe that Abp. Lefebvre should’ve waited with the consecrations. He didn’t. Was it schismatic or merely disobedience? I don’t know. But I won’t take the word of a bishop at the drop of a hat who chooses to publicly rebuke one who holds the Faith while allowing many others to continue who are actually leading the faithful on the road to hell. Prioritization needs to happen in Rome, the real problems need to be addressed. A group of the faithful practicing the Catholic Faith ought to be left alone while something is done about the bishops with a “to-each-his-own” mentality regarding faith and morals. They’re the ones destroying the Church, misrepresenting Vatican II, abusing the New Rite to make it even more unappealing, from within

 

[latinmasslover]

Prove it. There is a far cry between official Church teachings and private decisions, actions, etc.

 

[catharina]

Excommunications do not take place often or lightly. When a bishop chooses to defy the warning of the Holy Father, then he has chosen excommunication (defiance) over obedience. For the faithful to consider whether an excommunicant is correct in his ongoing “teachings” is so inadvisable as to be unthinkable.

On either side of the aisle, whether Fathers Greeley and Curran or Father Z, none have chosen to break with Rome. The Wiiliamson and company did choose to break with Rome. That means the others named are not in the same pew or church as Williamson - that is, as Lefebvre and his followers. Personal opinion as to what he should have done is irrelevant since the Church, the Holy Father, has spoken as to what he should have done. While we’re generalizing, I can assure you that many were saddened by the fact that to the best of our knowledge, Lefebvre chose to die as an excommunicated priest.

 

[bear06]

bear06;2892943:

Prove it. There is a far cry between official Church teachings and private decisions, actions, etc.

. That’s all I’ve ever said and then many, not all, conservatives make the Pope out to be infallible always: “How dare you disagree…the Pope said it, therefore it’s correct…you’re saying the Pope’s wrong…” comments like that are my proof. You’re right, there’s a bid difference between infallible Church teachins and others, which is all I, and most other “trads” point out.

You’ll have to give actual examples. Everyone is quite good at documenting where we think the Pope is infallible and why. For instance, we’ve pointed out the negative infallibility of disciplines and back it up. It’s ridiculous to go on and on saying that we say whatever the Pope does is infaliible. I can’t think of one that has said this.