Vatican makes attempted ordination of Women a grave crime

[catharina]

Hold your water!! Aren’t the Holy Father and the Pope the same person? I thought the Holy Father and the BISHOPS made up the magersterium? Am i wrong?

Not to distract you,
but what does ‘hold your water’ mean?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Not to distract you,
but what does ‘hold your water’ mean?

It means don’t get so excited. Thank you for your reply. I reiterate your pst that says the Pope along with the bishops decide the rules. I am saying there was no imput with all the bishops that this should rise to the level of church DOCTRINE. I am questioning this.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

My dear, I already SAID you’re correct.
Yes, of course, the Holy Father and Pope
are two different names for the same person.

Now, ahem? A number of people have addressed your post.
Yet you’ve responded to none of them. WHY?

I’ll get back to you tomorrow. I’m to tired to do the necesary research tonight.
BTW thanks for the condescending attitude.

 

[Phemie]

It means don’t get so excited. Thank you for your reply. I reiterate your pst that says the Pope along with the bishops decide the rules. I am saying there was no imput with all the bishops that this should rise to the level of church DOCTRINE. I am questioning this.

Doctrine has always been that only men can be ordained. What JPII said was that the church had no authority to change that doctrine.

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
   Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[catharina]

It means don’t get so excited. Thank you for your reply. I reiterate your pst that says the Pope along with the bishops decide the rules. I am saying there was no imput with all the bishops that this should rise to the level of church DOCTRINE. I am questioning this.

Research? What research?
What gathering of the Bishops “should have happened” when the Tradition is obvious?

 

[catharina]

1. It means don’t get so excited. Thank you for your reply. I reiterate your pst that says the Pope along with the bishops decide the rules. I am saying there was no imput with all the bishops that this should rise to the level of church DOCTRINE. I am questioning this.

1. I’ll get back to you tomorrow. I’m to tired to do the necesary research tonight.
   BTW thanks for the condescending attitude.

1. What? You ask, I and others answer.
   You ignore answers.
   All have said the SAME thing.
   Traditions has defined this teaching. Hello.
2. Research? What research?
   What ‘gathering of the Bishops should have happened’ when the Tradition is obvious?
   Your demanding attitude (while ignoring answers) has exhausted me too.

So, Good night.

ONE MORE TIME:
Research? What research?
What gathering of the Bishops “should have happened” when the Tradition is obvious?

 

[catharina]

Doctrine has always been that only men can be ordained. What JPII said was that the church had no authority to change that doctrine.

Precisely.
All have answered that TRADITION is already in place.

 

[Junebug999]

I’m happy to see this addressed appropriately. Women seeking ordination should stop in the Church. It’s a major distraction from the Church’s mission, and allthe other issues. It’s just silly…IMHO : )

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

'Silly is a good adjective. Absurd is compliments it well also!

I’m happy to see this addressed appropriately. Women seeking ordination should stop in the Church. It’s a major distraction from the Church’s mission, and allthe other issues. It’s just silly…IMHO : )

 

[JadeStarr]

I believe that the Church has remained fully authentic in its teaachings.
What is your objection, what is angering you?

The other poster is not angy, just making a point. Why did you see anger? It’s truly okay by me if the Church doesn’t want women as priests, however I suspect that this will change in the future as fewer men become priests.

You can’t have a church without staff.

Thanks for acknowledging that I was right about the last time Papal Infalliability was invoked.

 

[JadeStarr]

The Holy Father and the Pope make up the Magesterium.

Now PLEASE read all of the preceding posts. Thank you.
(There could be no NEW decison! Why should anyone “meet” about it?)

I thought the Holy Father was the Pope.

 

[catharina]

I thought the Holy Father was the Pope.

Indeed. Let me correct that.
The Holy Father (the Pope) and the bishops make up the Magesterium.

 

[catharina]

The other poster is not angy, just making a point. Why did you see anger? It’s truly okay by me if the Church doesn’t want women as priests, however I suspect that this will change in the future as fewer men become priests.

You can’t have a church without staff.

Thanks for acknowledging that I was right about the last time Papal Infalliability was invoked.

The other poster said:
Originally Posted by Califman831
Our Church needs to stick with the authentic teachings of Christ and stop butchering the faith to satisfy modernism.

“Butchering the faith” sounds extremely angry to me.
Not to you? Fine.

The teaching banning women from the priesthood will never change.
That teaching is a part of Church Tradition and a true reflection of the Gospels.

So much for your suspicions … .

 

[rlg94086]

It’s truly okay by me if the Church doesn’t want women as priests, however I suspect that this will change in the future as fewer men become priests.

You can’t have a church without staff.

Since the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women, it is impossible to make that change. Ordinations are increasing, though still not fast enough to keep up with the increase in Catholics. I think we will see further growth in ordinations and the possibility of more married priests in the future.

 

[Dale_M]

It’s truly okay by me if the Church doesn’t want women as priests, however I suspect that this will change in the future as fewer men become priests.

I don’t think so. The male priesthood is a fundamental doctrine and part of the Catholic Church’s view of the different natures of men and women.

Sacrifices will need to be made to deal with the growing priest shortage, such as assigning a priest to multiple churches and allowing a deacon or lay person to look after the material welfare of the parish. This is already being done:

The highest percentages of multiple parish pastoring are found in a region that includes Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, where 48 percent of the priests serve more than one parish. At 78 percent, the Diocese of Rapid City is second only to the Diocese of Crookston, Minnesota, where 94 percent of the priests cover two or more parishes.

Schuth discovered that more than 50 percent of priests in four other states were offering pastoral care to multiple parishes: Arkansas, Maine, Mississippi, and Idaho. The lowest percentages-less than 10 percent-were in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Nevada.

When dioceses began to experiment with this ministry 15 to 20 years ago, it was typically women religious who filled the role. More often today one finds permanent deacons or lay women with a master’s degree and training who are meeting the need.

uscatholic.org/church/2010/04/roamin-collar-multi-parish-priests

A more light-hearted look at what is being done is in the following article. It also mentions that once the burden of pastoral work is removed, it is sometimes possible to use priests who are currently in non-parish ministries.

One of the strategies getting a little play around dioceses lately is to invoke church law, specifically canon 517.2. It starts offby saying that “if, because of a lack of priests, the diocesan bishop has decided that participation in the exercise of the pastoral care of a parish is to be entrusted to a deacon or to another person who is not a priest. . .” and then goes on to explain how the process is implemented. It’s come to be known as the “517.2 model” of parish staffing. So now, when you go knocking on the rectory door, there’s a slim chance that the person who answers will be wearing Liz Claiborne instead of clerical tailor R.J. Toomey, smell more like Mary Kay than Ethiopian myrrh, and be carrying a baby instead of a breviary.

The number of these “other persons” running parishes is multiplying like dandelions on a spring lawn. No sooner does Father retire to Florida with his golf clubs than Mom takes the helm at the church office. Right now there are around 700 parishes of approximately 19,000 in the United States with “not-a-priest” leaders.

The first job of the pastoral coordinator is to dig up a priest to do the weekends. That’s where guys like me come in. There’s a whole population of priests out there who work in hospitals, prisons, or hold other administrative positions. I’m a writer. And I know you’re going to find this hard to believe, but, as the bishops like to point out, some priests just don’t have what it takes to be a pastor. Imagine that!

uscatholic.org/church/2010/04/whos-boss

And, of course, foreign priests are being imported from lesser developed nations. But this really isn’t fair to those countries, which often have a worse priest shortage.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I was having an interesting exchange with Contarini, who favors WO, and he maintains men and women have the same nature as human beings, just different bodies. And if men and women have different natures, Christ having the male nature, women cannot be saved by Him because they lack His nature and are alien to him. It’s really interesting exploring the concept of natures. I’d like to hear other people’s reply to his argument. I am very anti-WO myself. Contarini was talking about how men and women have the same nature, just different bodies. But to me men and women are spiritually, metaphysically, and biologically different in nature. But his argument is that, by my definition of “natures” being different, women would be inelligible to be saved seeing as how the Lord is of a different nature from women. Interesting argument to be sure.

Since the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women, it is impossible to make that change. Ordinations are increasing, though still not fast enough to keep up with the increase in Catholics. I think we will see further growth in ordinations and the possibility of more married priests in the future.

 

[JadeStarr]

I was having an interesting exchange with Contarini, who favors WO, and he maintains men and women have the same nature as human beings, just different bodies. And if men and women have different natures, Christ having the male nature, women cannot be saved by Him because they lack His nature and are alien to him. It’s really interesting exploring the concept of natures. I’d like to hear other people’s reply to his argument. I am very anti-WO myself. Contarini was talking about how men and women have the same nature, just different bodies. But to me men and women are spiritually, metaphysically, and biologically different in nature. But his argument is that, by my definition of “natures” being different, women would be inelligible to be saved seeing as how the Lord is of a different nature from women. Interesting argument to be sure.

I believe that every woman has an inner man and every man has an inner woman. I’m not
talking about lust or desire or anything of that nature, just saying that we humans are not
that different. I don’t follow the idea that being female disqualifies women from being saved.
I understand the part about Lord being of a different Nature than women but why would that make women ineligible for salvation?

 

[JadeStarr]

The other poster said:
Originally Posted by Califman831
Our Church needs to stick with the authentic teachings of Christ and stop butchering the faith to satisfy modernism.

“Butchering the faith” sounds extremely angry to me.
Not to you? Fine.

The teaching banning women from the priesthood will never change.
That teaching is a part of Church Tradition and a true reflection of the Gospels.

So much for your suspicions … .

No, it’s graphic, but not angry. I don’t know about Church Traditions, but haven’t other
traditions been changed? Do you have any concrete reason that addresses this issue?

 

[catharina]

I was having an interesting exchange with Contarini, who favors WO, and he maintains men and women have the same nature as human beings, just different bodies. And if men and women have different natures, Christ having the male nature, women cannot be saved by Him because they lack His nature and are alien to him. It’s really interesting exploring the concept of natures. I’d like to hear other people’s reply to his argument. I am very anti-WO myself. Contarini was talking about how men and women have the same nature, just different bodies. But to me men and women are spiritually, metaphysically, and biologically different in nature. But his argument is that, by my definition of “natures” being different, women would be inelligible to be saved seeing as how the Lord is of a different nature from women. Interesting argument to be sure.

I have no doubt that men and women share a common “human nature.”
Men have a certain role and tasks.
Women have some other certain role and tasks.

 

[catharina]

No, it’s graphic, but not angry. I don’t know about Church Traditions, but haven’t other
traditions been changed? Do you have any concrete reason that addresses this issue?

In your opinion, it’s not angry.
IMO, the use of inflammatory rhetoric
(“butchering the faith”) indicates anger.

The Tradition of the Church (not traditions, per se) admit of NO changes.
As in: Catholics must accept both Scripture and Tradition.

Hope that helps you.