SSPX Bp. Williamson opposed to female “Doctors of the Church”: are his reasons good? [Fr. Z]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BobP123 said:
It’s just his opinion, folks. Whether or not the Bishop approves or disapproves (or even anyone on this board, for that matter), it doesn’t really matter. The Church has decided, and that’s that.

Having said that, why did Pope Paul VI remove St. Philomena from the feast calendar? Didn’t this undermine her status as a saint? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Because there was no such person - the word “Philomena” means “(female) Friend of God,” and at one time it was customary to write the word “Philomena” on the tombs of Christian women when they died. Later generations mistook the word for a name, and started praying to “St. Philomena” - this was during a period of time when strict investigations into Saints were not really the norm - it was just assumed that if the people were praying to her, then she must be a Saint, so the name ended up on the calendar.

As of right now, we have no way of knowing which of the many possible "Philomena"s the people were praying to, so this name has been taken off of the Calendar.

As for teaching, Christian women have been teaching men about the Good News ever since Mary Magdalene brought the good news of the Resurrection to the Apostles on Easter Sunday morning - and not only did Jesus not have a problem with that, He was the one who commanded her to do that. 🙂
 
latinmass said:
Allowing women to be Doctors in the Church is not a breaking of doctrine, or breaking an infallable teaching of the Pope. But, it does break tradition, just as allowing girl altar servers does. Practices such as this confuse the roles of women in the Church, thus confusing women in the Church, to the judgement of those who cross these lines and approve it. As I said before, we are all equal before God, but we do have different roles. Women do not have teaching authority over a man, as St. Paul wrote.Making a women a Doctor blurs this. We must form our concious on the teachings of the whole Catholic Church, not only on the theologions and modernists since Vatican 2. Can the Church make errors of judgement on issues that are not infallable? Of course. I choose to obey God rather than men. Obedience to someone who is disobedient, is disobedience. There is no pointing fingers on judgement day. Pray for discernment.
Click to expand...
Declaring a Saint to be a Doctor of the Church does not blur anything to a sincere, obedient Catholic. The Church can make NO error in regard to this. NONE. ZIPPO. ZILCH.

Jesus said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. He DIDN’T say that they would not prevail until Vatican 2.
 
latinmass said:
Allowing women to be Doctors in the Church is not a breaking of doctrine, or breaking an infallable teaching of the Pope. But, it does break tradition, just as allowing girl altar servers does. Practices such as this confuse the roles of women in the Church, thus confusing women in the Church, to the judgement of those who cross these lines and approve it.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how. If a woman has a God-given talent, she sins by not using it to spread the Gospel.

Remember what happened to the slave who buried his talent? Imagine how the Master would have reacted to him if he had buried someone else’s talent, and forbidden her to use it to build up the Master’s kingdom.
 
This thread gives perfect proof to what Karl Keating said a few years ago.

Schism leads to heresy
 
childofmary1143 said:
This thread gives perfect proof to what Karl Keating said a few years ago.

Schism leads to heresy
Click to expand...
Come on now—don’t drag Karl Keating into this. It is just an opinion --and no one here–is in a position to throw stones and call it heresy.
 
catharina said:
When Williamson chose excommunication rather than faith, he chose “derision and scolding.” More importantly, he chose to be separated from our faith. Would I want his status? No.

Have I always loved the “Latin Mass” without reservation? Yes.
Click to expand...
Provide one document from Rome --which says the SSPX do not have the Faith. Provide a document-- where Rome refers to the SSPX as heretics.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Still it would have been nice if someone had made an attempt to show that women can teach men in Church and in what capacity. Ah, well, attacking people is so much more fun…I guess.🤷

CDL
Click to expand...
The only thing women are not allowed to do is preach a homily from the pulpit or ambo during Mass. Women have been doing the rest since Biblical times - it was a woman, after all, who was entrusted with the good news of the Resurrection. 👍
 
Walking_Home said:
Provide one document from Rome --which says the SSPX do not have the Faith. Provide a document-- where Rome refers to the SSPX as heretics.
Click to expand...
They aren’t heretics. (Yet.) They are schismatics. But schism leads to heresy, so heresy is not far behind.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
And this is why I’m was sadden by Pope Benedict’s attempt to compromise with the SSPX by allowing the TLM to be used, which is was really about.
Click to expand...
Actually he wants the Church to return to its reverant ways of worship, and knows this will help in this process. He explicitly stated his beliefs in the text of Summorum Pontificum, and in his adjoining letter to the Bishops.
SSPX is an extremist group that doesn’t recognize the Papacy since Pius X. Why would a duly elected Pope, attempt to compromise with them?
Click to expand...
Jim
Click to expand...
The SSPX recognizes all Popes up to the current one. I have not even heard of a sedevacantist that starts with Pius X, they at least start with Pius XII .
 
jmcrae said:
But schism leads to heresy, so heresy is not far behind.
Click to expand...
How do you arrive at this conclusion?

And, while you bring up heresy, how do you explain the Church’s attempts to reconcile with heretics at Vatican II while punishing its own members who chose to keep the Traditional Faith alive?
 
BobP123 said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Because they’re too busy trying to find “common ground” with protestants, muslims, jews, pagans, buddhists, and any other “religion” around town. From the SSPX I’ve talked to, they are very devout Catholics, and Rome should spend more time trying to bring them back into full communion.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Because they’re too busy trying to find “common ground” with protestants, muslims, jews, pagans, buddhists, and any other “religion” around town. From the SSPX I’ve talked to, they are very devout Catholics, and Rome should spend more time trying to bring them back into full communion.
Click to expand...
They could bring themselves into full communion quite easily, if they really wanted it. Lots of people have switched from SSPX to FSSP, with no painful side effects. 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
They could bring themselves into full communion quite easily, if they really wanted it. Lots of people have switched from SSPX to FSSP, with no painful side effects. 🙂
Click to expand...
This is true, but the Church could also do more by having more dialogue with the SSPX. They can’t however, because they are too busy trying to dialogue with pagans.
 
jmcrae said:
They could bring themselves into full communion quite easily, if they really wanted it. Lots of people have switched from SSPX to FSSP, with no painful side effects. 🙂
Click to expand...
Not unless you’re willing to dismiss Protocol 1411, which bound the order to celebrate the Novus Ordo when required. I know that bothered many FSSP followers.
 
jmcrae said:
They aren’t heretics. (Yet.) They are schismatics. But schism leads to heresy, so heresy is not far behind.
Click to expand...
Then the right thing to do–is wait for Rome (if ever) to declare them as heretics. So no one here–should be throwing the heretic stone around.
 
TraditionalCath said:
what are we good for then in his eyes? hmm huh hmm?:mad:
Click to expand...
Nuns and baby makers ? 😃

Just kidding of course.

Now if he had said something like, “nuns are not of Apostolic Succession, therefore…”, he might have something at least worth looking at. But if he thinks the Church will retract on this issue, he is wrong.

On the OP…
The SSPX should come home and accept that VII happened and is history. It would be good for the Church and help the SSPX attain a lot of what they strive for in the first place.
 
Walking_Home said:
Provide one document from Rome --which says the SSPX do not have the Faith. Provide a document-- where Rome refers to the SSPX as heretics.
Click to expand...
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I have stated that Bishop Williamson is excommunicated and in schsm. I have called no one a heretic. You can quite easily find your own documentation as to the schimatic standing of sspx. Why pretend that I’m required to give it to you?
 
catharina said:
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I have stated that Bishop Williamson is excommunicated and in schsm. I have called no one a heretic. You can quite easily find your own documentation as to the schimatic standing of sspx. Why pretend that I’m required to give it to you?

Quote=catharina
When Williamson chose excommunication rather than faith, he chose “derision and scolding.” More importantly, he chose to be separated from our faith
Click to expand...
Well catharina–you did state he separated from our faith–that would mean he no longer holds the Catholic Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top