Traditional Catholics and Women Cardinals

[otjm]

Can you just see Nancy Pelosi as a cardinal?

“Thou art Cardinal Pelosi, of the Order of Machiaveli…”

But wouldn’t that be a step down from popess of the church of democratic catholics of the cafeteria?

 

[trickster]

It would just promote the false idea that women could ever become priests and give liberals something more to cling to and ammunition to spread their false ideas to impressionable people.

Oren. The relationship between women cardinals and ordination are two separate things; I believe most people - including the “liberals” are smarter than one would assume…they understand very well that the role of the cardinal is different than the pastoral responsibility of the priest. I think when we put artificial barriers such as "promoting false ideas that women can become priests’ is spreading misinformation…and not helpful to the promise the appointment of women cardinals could hold for the church.

Trickster

 

[trickster]

On the contrary, I do think that is the deeply-held ultimate desire and goal of the most vocal proponents.

OK. We agree to disagree on what motivates the voice for women cardinals… and to move forward on the appointment of women cardinals can be sensibly administered by clear direction from the Vatican. The Vatican and this pope do not have to (and knowing Francis) be bullied into this incredible conspiracy of the left on using this issue to push an unrelated issue… don’t mind me, on a roll

Trickster

 

[trickster]

St. Catherine of Sienna had a lot of influence with the Pope. If these women want influence with the Pope then they should become HOLY enough to get it. Of course that is a stupid thing to say, since if that is why they want holiness they will never become holy

k, you lost me on that one

Trickster

 

[trickster]

I believe some are going in the wrong direction with the Holy Fathers comments that “expanding the roles of women” means “looking where we can theoretically put a woman for the sake of squashing current social opinion”. Clearly any Catholic who believes that a title is the means to making a profound influence on the Church, fails to see the great history and lesson the Holy Catholic Church has to give, and that is those who follow the will of God are the ones who influence His Church.

How is it broken?

In the sense that the position of women in the church are not working or washing for women in the church…and for more of us in the church…these women have been characterized by conservatived catholics as not being holy or connected with Spirit… .and being connected with spirit is often chaotic…

Trickster

 

[trickster]

Can you just see Nancy Pelosi as a cardinal?

Are you minimizing my question? I do think it is a legitimate question that has to be taken seriously. I do believe that traditional catholics have the greatest challenge to reconcile the possiblity of women cardinals and their love for Latin, and forms of the Mass that reflect western europe, the latin roots of the church… and the sentiments of another time…(or at least the interpretation of scripture and church teaching from the sentiments of anoteher time… I

Trickster

 

[trickster]

It’s not so much of a red flag as an understanding of the fact that the apostolic arguement is based on the Hebrew tradition of the day. It could be a selective interpretation of the things Jesus did and said. Evidence of women priests is existent, women played huge roles in pastoring home based churches in early Christianity and so forth. What is the male reality that uniquely qualifies us as guys to be priests? If it is just the apostolic tradition, then I think that tradition needs to be studied more and not just assumed… it is not heretical as I am not disagreeing with it, I am just stating that it doesn’t make sense…I am also by the way not lobbying for women priests…so there is your red flag my friend… it’s called critical analysis and thinking.

Cheerz
trickster

 

[trickster]

Again Jharek, the issue of women being priest has nothing to do with the ability to appoint women as cardinals…not sure why people are so stuck on that conspiracy theory?

Trickster

 

[trickster]

The Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that this is false. It’s quite preposterous since the assumes the divine mission of the Son of God and King of the Universe was frustrated by the human traditions of the time.

Rather: Jesus chose the apostles to be men because being of the male sex is inherent to the sacramental priesthood. This is not something up for debate.

I will start from your second point. No one is debating this…the point is what is within the male sex that is inherent in sacramental priesthood? And why would this inherent characteristic exclude women. I am not debating I am learning by asking questions.

On your first point. Jesus did operate within the culture of his time and place. Render to Ceaser what is Ceasar…he followed all the traditions of the Hebrew people at the time… he chose vocations that were consistent with boys and men of his day… and so forth…so not sure if I am following your point that Jesus was frustrated with human traditions… he worked within the existing culture of hisday and time. I have reread your first statement and there are a possible number of interpretation of what yousaid… so my response could be a bit off cause i don’t quite understand your point in the first statement…look forward to a clarification

Trickster

 

[trickster]

I am not exactly sure where you are going with this. The secular media might be going there, and the Loonies of the Left (as in, Call to Action and their ilk) might be going there, but they both were going there before anyone proposed that women’s positions in the Church might need examining. In fact, they were going there several papacies ago.

Bishops are not ordained Cardinals. They are given the title of Cardinal. Other than having some specific duties, such as electing the next Pope, and generally being tied to a specific See (e.g. Chicago; when Archbishop George was moved from the Portland Archdiocese to the Chicago Archdiocese, it was a foregone conclusion he would be made Cardinal, even though that did not happen immediately upon his taking over the Archdiocese) there is not a whole lot that Cardinals do that bishops and archbishops don’t do.

Since it is not a part of or intrinsic to the priesthood, talk of the possibility of women becoming Cardinals as a subterfuge to women’s ordination is just silliness; as silly as the Loonies various proposals.

Theoretically it is possible. Likely it is not. But neither is it some sort of subterfuge.

Thank you… awesome posting… I am hopeful that I see the first women cardinal in my lifetime… and with this dialogue coming out of Ireland,… it is exciting… our church never stays still it progresses always towards its goal and mission…

Trickster

 

[YoungTradCath]

Thank you… awesome posting… I am hopeful that I see the first women cardinal in my lifetime… and with this dialogue coming out of Ireland,… it is exciting… our church never stays still it progresses always towards its goal and mission…

Trickster

The Church’s goal and mission is to create female cardinals?

 

[edwest2]

That’s not the Church’s goal and mission. There is Canon Law:

“Can. 351 §1. Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of the priesthood and are truly outstanding for doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.”

Source: vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html

The god change, also called progressivism, is not a part of this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[trickster]

Eeeks, thats not good is it Sorry to hear…the Irish also have a lot of good dialogue out of that country too… so take comfort in a balanced view of Irish thinking…

Trickster

 

[trickster]

No response necessary We agree to disagree I would think at this point in time

Trickster

 

[trickster]

The Church’s goal and mission is to create female cardinals?

Not at all YoungTradCath, the church’s goal and mission is to spread the good news of Christ to the ends of the earth… the discussion about the potential of women cardinals is about institutional reform of the Vatican, balancing the knowledge of men and women … .even at the symbolic level as symbols are important indicators of leadership and belief…we have distinguised the issue of women cardinals as separate from ordained priests…that is not what this conversation is about…now, I am interested in exploring next steps in what would be a practical way of moving forward with a progressive idea that would be seen as inclusive by the women of today and would improve the corrupt segments of the Vatican’s human elements…and nothing about the teaching of the church is up for discussion in all of this… that is why it such an interesting topic with real potential to make felt impacts on our life as Catholics… it is indeed quite an exciting prospect…

Trickster.

 

[trickster]

That’s not the Church’s goal and mission. There is Canon Law:

“Can. 351 §1. Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of the priesthood and are truly outstanding for doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.”

Source: vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html

The god change, also called progressivism, is not a part of this.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, Ed you are correct in the what canon law is saying…however…other posters have noted that this canon law… like the ones on celebacy,(and perhaps retiring popes) are created at the instituitional level for good governance of the institution of the church, they are not divinely inspired and therefor can be repealled and re-instated to allow for women cardinals who are not ordained priests.

Progressive thinking, my friend is very much a part of this…it was in fact progressive for Benedict XVI to break with a 600 year old tradition around popes dying on the job to what the canon law actually says… progressive challenges often pull out the difference between what is law, teaching and what has become tradition and practice…which we can become addicted to…

Nice to hear from you again Ed… it’s been a while.

Trickster

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I see this in much the same way I see the idea of deaconesses…unordained women who do works of charity (the Church has always said that the ancient deaconesses were not ordained. I don’t know why we need them, as we already have nuns): I think this is being flogged and flogged at us as a foot in the door. You can’t talk the feminists/NCR types into the fact that they weren’t ordained. They want it anyway. They eventually get it. Then they push and push for “ordained” deaconesses. They wear some pope down, who stipulates that it’s only the diaconate. Having achieved that, they push for the priesthood and episcopate. We can say over and over “but women can’t be ordained” and the ones pushing for it don’t hear it.

Women cardinals? Better we should dispense with the College of Cardinals altogether. Each country could have a primate and the primates could be summoned to elect the pope…or all the archbishops (you’d have to shift the election to St. Peter’s Basillica, as there are something like over 600 of them). The clerical curia officials could be monsignorii or plain “Father.”

This is not to say that women could not be involved in leadership roles in the Church. Lay women could head dicasteries. Women could be papal nuncios and legates, or even papal secretary of state. They serve as diocesan chancelors here, I believe.

 

[YoungTradCath]

“Progressive” has even less of a definition than “liberal” or “conservative.” I truly hate the word.

 

[Cojuanco]

Progressive has a definition. The problem is that most of the people who use the term are not really progressive at all. How is returning to the infanticide of the early Roman Empire progress, for example?

 

[trickster]

“Progressive” has even less of a definition than “liberal” or “conservative.” I truly hate the word.

You know my take on this is simple. I don’t think labels are helpful as their are a limited human construction called words and communication. We all know that the church is called to conversion…conversion is a process that happens as long as an organism (biological or institutional) exists. We need to make changes in the church that do not effect the deposit of faith, nor what has been spoken upon by infallibility. The last time a pope spoke on an infallible level was Vatican II in the early 60s. Pope John Paul II in his 26 or whatever years did not speak infallibally once. Yet he did much to change our church and get it up to speed.

This pope has been accused of being liberal simply becasue he wants people to experience and know the entirety of the church teaching and not remain as 'one-issue" catholics. I support change, but not change for change’s purpose.

Progressive - I think has an implication of linear thinking that moves from old to new and I am not sure what liberal stands for…it has a long history in western socieyt around the age of enlightenment and all that stuff…way above my pay scale…I support a changing church and we have the best man for the Petrine Ministry working for us in Rome… Pope Francis himself.