The ordination of women as priests

[drforjc]

It was my understanding their opinion was specifically asked for by the vatican

They are consulted for informational purposes but the Magisterial authority lies with the Pope and the bishops teaching in union with him.

 

[Rence]

As far as my confusion, it’s sincere. By what you’ve said, can I gather then that you only believe in the things that the Church teaches which you understand, or which you like? I don’t mean this to sound harsh, but I very much do not understand that kind of “faith” at all. There’s no leap or real trust involved…It’s just, keeping the things that strike your fancy and throwing out the rest. The marriage analogy doesn’t really work because human beings are fallible and imperfect. We’re talking about God and the Church here.

**Are you telling me you completely totally accept everything handed down to you by the Church? There’s nothing you doubt or don’t agree with? They say it, you believe it, that’s it? I’m not asking you if you obey or disobey the teachings. I’m asking you agree with every single thing? Be honest. If you do, and you’re being honest, perhaps you have the calling to be a saint? I personally do not.

Believing that I have to believe everything the Church hands down to me implies I have no free will, that I have no brain to think with, that I am a dog that simply obeys without the capacity to reason or understand. That’s not what we are.

Yes, human beings are fallible and imperfect and that’s why I used the marriage analogy. God is indeed Perfect. However, the human element of the Church is NOT. They make mistakes, they fall into sin, and they misunderstand. Like it or not, the human element of the Church is just that: human. We cannot deny (I don’t deny) that the history of the Church is littered with mistakes and bad decisions and evil. If the Church has made mistakes and bad decisions, how can I believe EVERYTHING they hand to us, without any regard to the fact that they are human and are bound to err. God can do anything, and yes, he gave the leaders of the Church special graces, but that did NOT eliminate free will, or the fact that that those humans who received those graces will allow themselves to only be open to God’s influence. They’re only human. How are we assured that the humans who are supposed to receive God’s influence are only reacting to God’s influence and not their own personal beliefs? We can’t. Otherwise, we’d have to blame the personal mistakes of previous Popes on God. Which isn’t so.

We ALL only believe the things we understand, how can you believe something just because someone says to? IMOHO those are only words that one is speaking. You can’t put belief in you like running a liquid into a funnel into its recepticle. If it doesn’t sound right to you, it just doesn’t.

I trust the Church enough not to completely turn my back on Her when her human leaders have done horrible things and instead, I trust Her that much that I look to the good things, and of course, the cessation of doing the horrible things.**

You’re right that the things you mention (Eucharist, Our Lady, etc.) are wonderful doctrines and sacraments, and no I’m not suggesting that you reject them too. But how can you believe they are true if you don’t trust the Church which gave them to you? If the Church is wrong about the priesthood, then how do you know it’s right about the Eucharist and the Blessed Mother? That’s what I don’t understand…basically, what do you base your faith on if not on objective truth?

**Because I believe and understand the Eucharist, Trinity, Blessed Mother, etc. They have a place in my heart and mind. I have NO doubt about them whatsoever. I DO base my faith on the objective truth. And while the truth of the Eucharist, Trinity and Blessed Mother have a place in my heart and mind, other issues, (like the subject of this thread) just don’t make sense to me, they are not rational to me, and to me they fall under “this is a mistake. If I pray for them, maybe it can be fixed”. However, the fact that I accept the teachings of the Church in this matter, even though I don’t agree with it, indicates that I am being objective. If I wasn’t being objective, I wouldn’t accept it at all and would do as I please. Being objective means drawing your own conclusions with the evidence before you without persona bias. If I allowed myself to NOT be objective, I’d be acting rather than accepting and praying **

 

[CradleCath]

" or something along those lines… At least that is how I read it.

That’s how I read it, too…& why I showed him that the premise upon which he based his argument for changing the rules about women priests…is a** false premise**. The Apostles & the Fathers did not change anything that was taught to them by Christ, either by His Words or His Actions. Therefore any argument based solely on this false premise is pretty much worthless.

 

[Rence]

. The Apostles & the Fathers did not change anything that was taught to them by Christ, either by His Words or His Actions. Therefore any argument based solely on this false premise is pretty much worthless.

It wasn’t a false premise. This was already addressed in post #80 and #82

 

[peary1]

First off, let me say that I DO NOT under any circumstances agree with the ordination of women as priests. Not at all. However, I do have a sister my age who thinks that the Church’s not allowing women to become priests is unfair and sexist. She doesn’t understand why this shouldn’t be allowed when a woman could be “just as good or even better” as a man at being a priest. I think her problem with this stems from the fact that, even though the apostles were obviously all men, this could be seen as just something that made sense at the particular period in history when Christ lived rather than a specific regulation. I’m not really sure what to say to her about that, so help please. Thank you for your time.

Well, just ask your sister why she thinks Christ never ordained women, and that, among the 12 apostles, only men were given “the keys” to heaven…and when the Church emerged from the persecutions, and were gathered at Nicea for the council, why were there only men there?

 

[SunnaB16]

Before his conversion to Catholicism, GK Chesterton had problems with a number of Church teachings. In the end, and in humility, he concluded that the Church with Her 1900 years of Wisdom knew better than he did.

The priest as with all our sacraments is a sign and symbol. As the represenative of our Lord on earth, as he speakes the words of consecration, he is a sign of the living Lord. Jesus was a man, as such the priest should be the same.**THe****re are other **post on this thread that give all the doctrine behind the teaching.

Peace,
FAB

“…the doctrine behind the teaching.” But its being ignored. The teaching on male-only priesthod is Dogma, and so, cant be changed. It`s pointless telling anyone to pray for it to be changed.

If we were to believe only what we can understand, it`d be chaos.

Those of us who deny the possibility of priestesses arent following our own opinions; were submitting to the Church`s INFALLIBLE teaching from God Himself, using our free will. After all, we could use our free will to dissent. Following the Church prevents us from going down blind alleys.

The terrible sins and mistakes of individuals or groups of Catholics have nothing to do with Faith and Morals. As an entity, the Church is spotless; but many of Her body cells are downright cancerous, and it`s been like that right from the start.

 

[ac_claire]

Are you telling me you completely totally accept everything handed down to you by the Church? There’s nothing you doubt or don’t agree with? They say it, you believe it, that’s it? I’m not asking you if you obey or disobey the teachings. I’m asking you agree with every single thing? Be honest. If you do, and you’re being honest, perhaps you have the calling to be a saint? I personally do not.

I have no illusions of being a saint here on earth, believe me. But to answer you, yes I do totally accept everything handed down to me by the Church. Is there anything I doubt or don’t agree with? Not really. In the past there have been a couple of issues (Immaculate Conception is the main one) which I doubted. Because I just didn’t understand the concept and I didn’t understand why the dogma was necessary. I resolved this when I decided that I trusted the Church as the pillar and guardian of the truth, and I accepted that the Church *probably *knows more about this theology stuff than I do. I decided that I wanted to believe it even though I found it difficult.

Once I’d done that, God gave me the gift of understanding…so now I not only accept but I also believe in and understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The important part of this is that the understanding came *after *I surrendered my will on the matter to God. I think a lot of it comes down to humility.

Believing that I have to believe everything the Church hands down to me implies I have no free will, that I have no brain to think with, that I am a dog that simply obeys without the capacity to reason or understand. That’s not what we are.

No, not at all. Trusting that the Church is what she says she is has nothing to do with giving up our free will or our ability to reason. Free will is the whole point. You have to *choose *to believe.

(Sort of related point: I can’t remember who it was now, but I remember one of the saints described the human soul as being made up of two things-- a will and an intellect.)

Yes, human beings are fallible and imperfect and that’s why I used the marriage analogy. God is indeed Perfect. However, the human element of the Church is NOT. They make mistakes, they fall into sin, and they misunderstand. Like it or not, the human element of the Church is just that: human. We cannot deny (I don’t deny) that the history of the Church is littered with mistakes and bad decisions and evil. If the Church has made mistakes and bad decisions, how can I believe EVERYTHING they hand to us, without any regard to the fact that they are human and are bound to err. God can do anything, and yes, he gave the leaders of the Church special graces, but that did NOT eliminate free will, or the fact that that those humans who received those graces will allow themselves to only be open to God’s influence. They’re only human. How are we assured that the humans who are supposed to receive God’s influence are only reacting to God’s influence and not their own personal beliefs? We can’t. Otherwise, we’d have to blame the personal mistakes of previous Popes on God. Which isn’t so.

I think you’re confusing the Catholic Church with individual Catholics here. Individual people (leaders) in the Church’s history have been imperfect and sinful. But in *teaching on faith and morals *the Church is infallible. The Church has never erred in that regard, which every saint and scholar of the Church will tell you. Do you believe that? The faith of the Church has been protected from unscrupulous people by the Holy Spirit for the past 2000 years. That’s how we’ve even had anti-popes sitting in Peter’s chair, and all number of scandals, but still the Church has never descended into teaching heresy of any kind.

Because I believe and understand the Eucharist, Trinity, Blessed Mother, etc. They have a place in my heart and mind. I have NO doubt about them whatsoever. I DO base my faith on the objective truth. And while the truth of the Eucharist, Trinity and Blessed Mother have a place in my heart and mind, other issues, (like the subject of this thread) just don’t make sense to me, they are not rational to me, and to me they fall under “this is a mistake. If I pray for them, maybe it can be fixed”. However, the fact that I accept the teachings of the Church in this matter, even though I don’t agree with it, indicates that I am being objective. If I wasn’t being objective, I wouldn’t accept it at all and would do as I please. Being objective means drawing your own conclusions with the evidence before you without persona bias. If I allowed myself to NOT be objective, I’d be acting rather than accepting and praying

I think our difficulty here in this conversation so far comes from our definitions of “accept”…I wouldn’t say that thinking “this is a mistake. If I pray for them, maybe it can be fixed” counts as accepting a doctrine of the Church. It just means that you don’t protest against it publically. But you still don’t believe it; you still don’t accept it as truth.

Now, I understand that you do believe the teachings on the Eucharist and the Blessed Mother, as you’ve said. You’ve explained how you feel about them, and that they have a place in your heart, etc. (which is great) But I still don’t understand *why *you believe in them. Again, sincere question.

 

[Rence]

Now, I understand that you do believe the teachings on the Eucharist and the Blessed Mother, as you’ve said. You’ve explained how you feel about them, and that they have a place in your heart, etc. (which is great) But I still don’t understand *why *you believe in them. Again, sincere question.

Apparently I was given the gift of understanding of the Eucharist and Blessed Mother. There apparently can be no other reason.

 

[SunnaB16]

Apparently I was given the gift of understanding of the Eucharist and Blessed Mother. There apparently can be no other reason.

The fact that you dont understand a Church teaching re Faith and Morals doesnt make that teaching false. Is there a bit of pride mixed in? Dont you think that the 2,000 years old Church, whose Soul is The Holy Spirit, might have more Wisdom and Knowledge than we, as individuals, would have? Chestertons conclusion, and he was no dope.

The reason against priestesses proceeds ultimately from the very Inner Life of God. So, a denial of one teaching puts a fault line through the whole structure. Youre playing with heresy. All of the praying in the world cant reverse a dogma that`s set in eternity (as they all are). Praying for understanding, and all of the other gifts of The Holy Spirit, would be better.

Using your reasoning, any Catholic who can`t see the “Why” of any Church teaching can give it the flick. So we end up with spiritual anarchy. Luther and others did that …

There`s no such thing as “Cafeteria Catholicism” re Faith and Morals.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hopefully this is fairly short and not too dramatic.

Why is it that those of us who agree with Church teachings (which we have carefully studied and accept as truth) are viewed as 'not thinking with our own mind?"

I mean, whose mind am I using if not mine? I’m not part of the Borg!

Why are we only ‘independent’ if we’re ‘protesting’ something.

And yes, for the record, I accept everything the Church teaches as well. After due consideration and study. And at 53, it’s not like I haven’t had years to actually DO that kind of study.

 

[ac_claire]

The fact that you dont understand a Church teaching re Faith and Morals doesnt make that teaching false. Is there a bit of pride mixed in?

Rence, this is exactly the point. You seem to think that since you can’t understand the Church’s teaching on the priesthood, it can’t be true. How is that not pride?

Not piling on you, remember I had the same issue with the IC…

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

CradleCath;6224104:

It wasn’t a false premise. This was already addressed in post #80 and #82

Misquoted, but it is a false premise. Because there wasnt a clear understanding of when the soul came into the body does not mean that abortion has EVER been accepted. This is a poor example of the point you are trying to make. I understand what you are trying to get at, but it is a DOGMA. something unchanging, unchanged, and unchange-able. Period.

Hopefully this is fairly short and not too dramatic.

Why is it that those of us who agree with Church teachings (which we have carefully studied and accept as truth) are viewed as 'not thinking with our own mind?"

I mean, whose mind am I using if not mine? I’m not part of the Borg!

Why are we only ‘independent’ if we’re ‘protesting’ something.

And yes, for the record, I accept everything the Church teaches as well. After due consideration and study. And at 53, it’s not like I haven’t had years to actually DO that kind of study.

X2 and thanks for the Star Trek Reference.

FSC

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Are you telling me you completely totally accept everything handed down to you by the Church? There’s nothing you doubt or don’t agree with? They say it, you believe it, that’s it? I’m not asking you if you obey or disobey the teachings. I’m asking you agree with every single thing?

That is what Faith is.

“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”
— St. Augustine of Hippo

Be honest. If you do, and you’re being honest, perhaps you have the calling to be a saint? I personally do not.

All of us are called to be Saints.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All of us are indeed called to be saints --very well said.

To immediately take that ‘off the table’ by saying right from the start, "Hey, I’m not cut out to be a saint’ is actually a denial of God if by that statement one is already ‘limiting’ just how much he or she will give to God.

Because we are supposed to give God EVERYTHING. Not just from our ‘surplus’, the left-overs. We’re supposed to give Him everything. . .

Otherwise, we’re putting limits on Him by putting limits on us. We’re saying, "Yes, God, I know with your help I could be a saint, but that’s too much work. I just want to ‘slide in’.

Who was it, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who once said, “If I aim for heaven, but miss, there’s always purgatory. But if I aim for purgatory, and miss. . .there’s only hell?”

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Hopefully this is fairly short and not too dramatic.

Why is it that those of us who agree with Church teachings (which we have carefully studied and accept as truth) are viewed as 'not thinking with our own mind?"

I mean, whose mind am I using if not mine? I’m not part of the Borg!

Why are we only ‘independent’ if we’re ‘protesting’ something.

And yes, for the record, I accept everything the Church teaches as well. After due consideration and study. And at 53, it’s not like I haven’t had years to actually DO that kind of study.

I think that if you have studied and thought about it and prayed about it, then you are most certainly using your own mind, as long as those conclusions reached are from your own mind and heart.(Which, from your end statement, it seems like you have) Conversely, I could ask the opposite, why are those who disagree looked down upon as heretics and “corrupt”, when they are also doing the same? Especially if we happen to be younger (I’m almost 21, and not even out of college). Not saying you, but some others tend to jump on people who disagree, even if they have done a lot of thinking and research on the subject as well.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I think that if you have studied and thought about it and prayed about it, then you are most certainly using your own mind, as long as those conclusions reached are from your own mind and heart.(Which, from your end statement, it seems like you have) Conversely, I could ask the opposite, why are those who disagree looked down upon as heretics and “corrupt”, when they are also doing the same? Especially if we happen to be younger (I’m almost 21, and not even out of college). Not saying you, but some others tend to jump on people who disagree, even if they have done a lot of thinking and research on the subject as well.

Because Faith has nothing to do with studying and thinking, other than so much as those can be vehicles for Gods grace. Faith is to believe ALL that God has revealed for the simple reason that God has revealed it not because we have thought about it and find it agreeable. What God has revealed as His Truth is One Truth so anything that contradicts it is erroneous and false and comes not from God who is the author only of Truth.

Faith is not a gift we give to ourselves through our the exercise of our intellect it is a grace given by God to those humble enough to accept it. Once received the intellect can then be used to defend it and explain it to others but our own minds are not the author, source or judge of it.

Ultimately Faith requires LEAP.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Because Faith has nothing to do with studying and thinking, Faith is to believe ALL that God has revealed for the simple reason that God has revealed it not because we have thought about it and find it agreeable. What God has revealed as His Truth is One Truth so anything that contradicts it is erroneous and false and comes not from God who is the author only of Truth.

Faith is not a gift we give to ourselves through our the exercise of our intellect it is a grace given by God to those humble enough to accept it. Once received the intellect can then be used to defend it and explain it to others but our own minds are not the author, source or judge of it.

Ultimately Faith requires LEAP.

I think I was more referring to the poster that was talking about disagreements, and people not “Thinking for themselves” because they agree with what the church says. I think faith is a very personal thing, and should not be taken lightly. Faith is something to me, that you should know and trust in your own soul that it is right, but also after really thinking about it, and knowing a good deal about what you believe in, not only to be able to defend yourself, because God knows how many people will attack you for it, but also for a peace of mind. It’s the peace of mind that says that you have put TIME into your beliefs, and learned about them, and accept them for what they are, and trust that this is the right way. I am not saying that ANY faith is inherently right or wrong, but that it is something that should be serious, personal, and thoughtful, as well as respectful to others who have not reached the same conclusions. It is a leap, yes, but one should always seriously research, and combine faith and reason. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Do you realize how ridiculous your argument sounds coming from a self proclaimed “discordian”? I thought you only believed in chaos?

I think I was more referring to the poster that was talking about disagreements, and people not “Thinking for themselves” because they agree with what the church says. I think faith is a very personal thing, and should not be taken lightly. Faith is something to me, that you should know and trust in your own soul that it is right, but also after really thinking about it, and knowing a good deal about what you believe in, not only to be able to defend yourself, because God knows how many people will attack you for it, but also for a peace of mind. It’s the peace of mind that says that you have put TIME into your beliefs, and learned about them, and accept them for what they are, and trust that this is the right way. I am not saying that ANY faith is inherently right or wrong, but that it is something that should be serious, personal, and thoughtful, as well as respectful to others who have not reached the same conclusions. It is a leap, yes, but one should always seriously research, and combine faith and reason. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I think I was more referring to the poster that was talking about disagreements, and people not “Thinking for themselves” because they agree with what the church says. I think faith is a very personal thing, and should not be taken lightly. Faith is something to me, that you should know and trust in your own soul that it is right, but also after really thinking about it, and knowing a good deal about what you believe in, not only to be able to defend yourself, because God knows how many people will attack you for it, but also for a peace of mind. It’s the peace of mind that says that you have put TIME into your beliefs, and learned about them, and accept them for what they are, and trust that this is the right way. I am not saying that ANY faith is inherently right or wrong, but that it is something that should be serious, personal, and thoughtful, as well as respectful to others who have not reached the same conclusions. It is a leap, yes, but one should always seriously research, and combine faith and reason. They are not mutually exclusive.

But what is the source of the faith, who are you putting faith in? This is key.

I am not saying faith and reason are mutually exclusive I am trying to point out that faith requires trust, sometimes unconditional, in the source of faith, for a Catholic that source we put our faith in is God who teaches us through His Church, if you do not have faith in the Church but believe you know better then you do not have what is understood by Catholics as Faith.

Faith can exist without any understanding at all, it needs humility and trust but not understanding. At the same time Faith in my experience actually supports reason and reason when correctly used supports Faith.

 

[Rence]

The fact that you dont understand a Church teaching re Faith and Morals doesnt make that teaching false.

**Yep, that’s correct. **

All of the praying in the world cant reverse a dogma thats set in eternity (as they all are). Praying for understanding, and all of the other gifts of The Holy Spirit, would be better.
**
It really shouldn’t matter to anyone what another prays for. With all due respect, it’s really not appropriate to tell people what they should or shouldn’t pray for. **

.