Vatican makes attempted ordination of Women a grave crime

[philiswilling]

Thanks. As a new comer I don’t know all the correct posting rules. I will look for this multiple quote feature. But really, what has that got to do with anything I posted? Women priests, pediphile punishment and homosexual/ pediphile ordination. It’s like I am being told I stepped out of line on Roberts Rules to Order.

Thanks for making the laicization process more clear in my mind. That was helpful.

I appreciate your concern for statements I make that may put me apart from the church. But that is in your opinion based on the facts as you know them.

I find so many issues today with behavior, morals and ethics that do not fit into my understanding of Christ and his teachings/ gospels. Therefore I do not believe those behaviors to be protected by him.

I feel like I made my thoughts and concerns heard. But just because someone says I’m wrong or walking a thin line well that is thier belief which they are entitled to. And I think that in my last message I spent a lot of energy to try to get others to see it my way, which isn’t my job. I can see that now. I don’t feel a need to take you away from your beliefs and that is how my last post sounded after I reread it. I regret that.

So I’m also not suggesting that your opinions based on the facts you have are not important to me. They are. I will try to not be so arguementative next time. That really was not my orignal intention.

There is a lot I question and some information or facts I had which have become obsolete, for me. God did not give me free will and a conscious to not use them. Some things are just wrong, no matter how many words have been written to the contrary. Some of these things I have expressed by email to our Holy Father and cc’ed my Cardinal and parish priest. Correct to do-I hope so. Do I feel good about it-yep. I’m I correct on the issues-I think I am today.

But I also found a Jesuit priest who agreed to work with me after I have read a couple of books he recommended and which I am reading. He knows most of what I have expressed so far.

Peace and Joy

If you respond to multiple people, you might want to learn to use the multi-quote feature for clarity. I think this is the paragraph directed to me:

Is your life so lineal and either-or? Probably not and the processes in the Church aren’t either.

Yes, I have children.

First of all, starting the laicization process doesn’t mean the police *aren’t *called. I don’t know where you live, but in the US, the police are involved in cases of suspected clergy abuse. As stated earlier in this thread, in some countries, to call the authorities might endanger the life of the victim. That’s why the “rules” are developed nationally rather than universally. Here in the US, anyone working with children, not just priests, is reported if abuse is suspected. That’s the “order” as you call it. It already exists. Many of us are teachers and other professionals in the Church and are also mandetory reporters. The authorities don’t always act the way you would like. One of the recent “big” cases involved a priest who was reported to the authorities numerous times but the police couldn’t find enough evidence to prosecute. The Church can’t throw the priest in jail on her own authority. The Bishop can remove the priest from ministry, even if the police do nothing.

The Church does not wait for the authorities to remove a priest from ministry or to start the laicization process. All three things are happening simultaneously.

As I stated before, excommunication isn’t the right punishment for this type of sin. First of all, excommunication is temporary while laicization is permanent. Second, as horrible as the sin of abuse is, it is a sin against a person, not against the Church. Same thing for murder, by the way. Excommunication is almost always for sins against the Church such as heresy.

This is incorrect. Once a priest has been removed from ministry, which happens long before he goes to prison, he can no longer administer the Sacraments even if he hasn’t been laicized. The only usual exception is to hear the confession of a dying man. Sometimes the Bishop will allow the priest to say private Masses, meaning only he (the priest) is present.

Please be careful with statements like this. This belief is even more seriously wrong than your support of women’s ordination. This is a heresy that was dealt with by the early Church (4th century). It’s called Donotism. The Church has very clearly stated that the personal holiness of the priest has no bearing on the validity of the Sacraments he celebrates - especially confecting the Eucharist.

 

[philiswilling]

I think that “Too Late.”, might have just been referring to a prior statement suggesting that women ordination can’t or couldn’t happen-something like that.
I agree with you-the Holy Spirits time is not our time. I also appreciate your “God in Her infinte wisdom”. I’m not into He or Her anymore. There is a move to all inclusive language. With what little I know about it today, it seems like a good thing.
Peace and Joy

Philiswilling, I’m not sure what it is too late for. I agree that the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, and rather slowly. This current movement may die out, or it may continue to attract dissident Catholics to a new sect.

I trust that God in Her infinite wisdom will guide humanity in the right path. God’t ime is not our time!

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Get over this women priests thing, isn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t happen.

Not yet.

 

[philiswilling]

Of everthing I wrote, you skipped over all the real issues to concentrate only on my last sentence of that paragraph?
I’m still in the RCC regardless of your critique. I beleive I know what it teaches, perhaps not as well as you. I have been surprised in the last few years by how it has acted. And those actions conflict seriously with the Church of Christ. It is within our perogative to judge the Church. Have you ever read any of its history. There are many low points. It’s a wholly other matter to judge God. The pope goes to confession everyday because like us he is a sinner and he has to wonder all the time if he is making correct decisions. But he is a human being; and his counselors are human as well. More than enough room for human error. So questioning on opinion or rule or statement doesn’t mean I question God.

I think your last sentence sums everything up. If you stay here, you might only be confused by what the Catholic Church really teaches and how it seriously conflicts with this religion that you have made up. It is our position to learn from the Church, as the Bride of Christ and the representative of God’s kingdom. It is not our position to judge the Church, or to judge God, by our own transient standards.

 

[StAnastasia]

I agree with you-the Holy Spirits time is not our time. I also appreciate your “God in Her infinte wisdom”. I’m not into He or Her anymore. There is a move to all inclusive language. With what little I know about it today, it seems like a good thing.
Peace and Joy

God is beyond gender. If referring to God as exclusively male is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine. If referring to God as revealing both female and male qualities is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine.

I don’t tend to think of God as gendered – the enormous, bearded, white-haired Republican-in-the-sky. But gendering God can help some people, and that is fine. Several of our pirests refer to “God our mother and father.”

StAnastasia

 

[rschermer2]

hmmm… would you be willing to tell us the names of these two “rebel bishops?”

I’m not saying you are wrong, and certainly God the Father is traditionally referred to with male pronouns. And (for obvious reasons) so is Christ. But the Holy Spirit?

Do you have any authoritative citations to back up that claim, or is it conjecture to say that the Holy Spirit should be referred to as male?

I would think the Holy Bible would be pretty authoritative and when the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and they conceive Christ, I would say that’s a pretty good indication that the Holy Spirit is or rather is properly referred to as male…unless you think that a female can get a female pregnant…

Thanks,
RS

 

[rschermer2]

Not yet.

EVER

 

[philiswilling]

How can you possibly be coming to an understanding that I just created my own church? You just copied most of what I said and made this declaritive statement. What did you read specifically that indicated I created another protestant church? Waht is that central fact? The church can teach truth. I have some questions on the actions of our church. Our church has done some wrong things. Christ left us his church but he also expects us to care for it and nuture it. Since Vatican II we are all church, all one body. Is that brand new or was that Christs intention all along?

You have invented your own religion and that’s the central fact of your post.
Jesus left for us His Church - as our mother, teacher and servant, and as His bride.
In those roles, the Church teaches us Truth, because the Church has that authority.

Your objections and inventions are simply that.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Not yet.

Never will.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I would think the Holy Bible would be pretty authoritative and when the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and they conceive Christ, I would say that’s a pretty good indication that the Holy Spirit is or rather is properly referred to as male…unless you think that a female can get a female pregnant…

If God is omnipotent can’t She do anything She wants?

 

[rschermer2]

rschermer2;6864627:

I would think the Holy Bible would be pretty authoritative and when the Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and they conceive Christ, I would say that’s a pretty good indication that the Holy Spirit is or rather is properly referred to as male…unless you think that a female can get a female pregnant…

If God is omnipotent can’t She do anything She wants?

Yes and Jesus could have too but referred to God as Father and since Jesus is a male (unless you dispute that too) and God the Father is a male, and the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary it would seem normal and natural according to Natural Law to refer to the Holy Spirit as male and I think referring to any one of the persons of the Trinity as female is a misguided attempt to make women or oneself feel better about themselves…since it really doesn’t matter as I’m sure gender is not something that is that important its just since in the bible it leans toward using male pronouns and specifically male actions we should respect that. The Holy Trinity is neither male nor female.

 

[curlycool89]

God is beyond gender. If referring to God as exclusively male is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine. If referring to God as revealing both female and male qualities is helpful to some people’s spirituality, fine.

I don’t tend to think of God as gendered – the enormous, bearded, white-haired Republican-in-the-sky. But gendering God can help some people, and that is fine. Several of our pirests refer to “God our mother and father.”

StAnastasia

I guess you don’t really love God then. You know, since Jesus (who was a dude if you want to check) told us to call God our Father. That is why the prayer starts as “Our Father” and not some fuzzy-wuzzy kumbaya all inclusiveness BS. Throughout the entire scripture’s you’ll find references to God in masculine terms, and out of obedience to God we refer to Him how He asked us to refer to Him. To say otherwise is a slap in God’s face; it’s to say “You’re not perfect enough as You are (which is blasphemous, because God is perfect), so I’m going to add something to ‘fix’ You”.

If you’re uncomfortable with how God has asked us to refer to Him, then that is your problem, not God’s. And you’re just going to have to get over it because no matter how many times you say it, it’s still wrong. No matter how many people say it, it’s still wrong.

EVER

True dat!

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I guess you don’t really love God then. You know, since Jesus (who was a dude if you want to check) told us to call God our Father. That is why the prayer starts as “Our Father” and not some fuzzy-wuzzy kumbaya all inclusiveness BS. Throughout the entire scripture’s you’ll find references to God in masculine terms, and out of obedience to God we refer to Him how He asked us to refer to Him. To say otherwise is a slap in God’s face; it’s to say “You’re not perfect enough as You are (which is blasphemous, because God is perfect), so I’m going to add something to ‘fix’ You”.

If you’re uncomfortable with how God has asked us to refer to Him, then that is your problem, not God’s. And you’re just going to have to get over it because no matter how many times you say it, it’s still wrong. No matter how many people say it, it’s still wrong.

True dat!

The Our Father in original aramaic does not translate out to father in English. Scroll down and you will see the translation.

bradstevens.com/articles/the_lords_prayer.htm

Changes things…doesn’t it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Our Father in original aramaic does not translate out to father in English. Scroll down and you will see the translation.

bradstevens.com/articles/the_lords_prayer.htm

Changes things…doesn’t it?

Ummm. no. You see, Mr. Stevens is not quoting the ‘Original Aramaic’ from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, is he? Whatever he’s gotten hold of he says is EXCERPTED in the gospels, as in a ‘portion’ got put in there and the ‘whole’ is someplace else . . .someplace, perhaps, “gnostic?”

 

[StAnastasia]

EVER

Not in our lifetme, at least.

 

[StAnastasia]

I guess you don’t really love God then.

Yes, I do.

not some fuzzy-wuzzy kumbaya all inclusiveness BS.

Sounds like you have anger issues!

Throughout the entire scripture’s you’ll find references to God in masculine terms, and out of obedience to God we refer to Him how He asked us to refer to Him.

Of course – the writers were men!

To say otherwise is a slap in God’s face; it’s to say “You’re not perfect enough as You are (which is blasphemous, because God is perfect), so I’m going to add something to ‘fix’ You”.

More anger issues.

If you’re uncomfortable with how God has asked us to refer to Him, then that is your problem, not God’s.

I don’t recall having said I’m uncomfortable with referring to God as a man.

And you’re just going to have to get over it because no matter how many times you say it, it’s still wrong.

More anger issues. You would probably not like my parish, or my diocese for that matter, where most worshipers are gender inclusive in our liturgical language.

No matter how many people say it, it’s still wrong.

Your opinion.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Ummm. no. You see, Mr. Stevens is not quoting the ‘Original Aramaic’ from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, is he? Whatever he’s gotten hold of he says is EXCERPTED in the gospels, as in a ‘portion’ got put in there and the ‘whole’ is someplace else . . .someplace, perhaps, “gnostic?”

I live in a very conservative diocese. The prayer in aramaic is taught to show how we do not take the bible literally. Believe me when I tell you if there were something controversiall in the translation they wouldn’t be using it to train catechists.

 

[rschermer2]

Not in our lifetme, at least.

Until the Kingdom comes.

 

[rschermer2]

I live in a very conservative diocese. The prayer in aramaic is taught to show how we do not take the bible literally. Believe me when I tell you if there were something controversiall in the translation they wouldn’t be using it to train catechists.

Conservative diocese may be your opinion, I’m curious to know who the bishop is in your diocese. You can’t say ‘if there were something controversial in the translation they wouldn’t be using it to train catechists’ because there is a diocese in Quecbec where they are allowing a priest who is pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro women priests etc etc. basically everything opposite of what the church teaches with regard to sex and marriage, he is training catechists as well…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If this is something that your diocese uses, why is it in a kind of ‘blog’ thing by somebody named “Brad Stevens” of Austin, Texas? Why isn’t it in your catechist handbook with footnotes and scholarly links?