C
Corinthians
Guest
Heretic! Blasphemer!
What would you do if the next Pope allowed the Ordination of Women?
- Status
S
SHEMP
Guest
Impossible
T
TobyLue
Guest
It is my understanding (someone correct me if I’m wrong), but the pope does not have to use the words “I am speaking ex cathedra” As long as the pope speaks
----In the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
----in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
----he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church…"
And as posted by byzcath these conditions have been met. The Pope never said that **he **didn’t have authority to ordain women. He said “THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY”. So no matter who becomes pope, he cannot change what the universal church has taught. So the statement “that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” means exactly what it says. The matter is closed. No further discussion. Why do we keep coming up with these “what if’s”. What is the purpose of “debating” this issue? Why not debate something like “What would happened if some day we decided to kill a dead horse?” Or, “lets debate as to how we can draw a square circle or draw a four-sided triangle.” Makes about as much sense.
----In the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
----in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
----he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church…"
Code:
If these conditions are met then the encyclical is infallible and cannot be changed.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
This is certainly true.
The conditions for the extraordinary papal magisterium, a.k.a. papal infallibility, a.k.a “ex cathedra”, have not been met by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated this point-blank.
That women cannot be ordained as priests is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium. This is a different mode of infallibility than papal “ex cathedra” infallibility.
B
BulldogCath
Guest
What! What do you call Ecumenism! Pope after Pope spoke out against it-and Vatican II and Pope JPII ran with it-it was the cornerstone of his Papacy.
**You will see woman priests shortly, this is already being primed at the seminary level, as most seminaries wont allow you in unless you are OK with woman ordination, as they are paving the way for the Priests and Bishops-when the reach that level of decision making-to allow it. **
It has been 40 years since Vatican II and all of those liberal priest who were ordained in the 60’s on up are now Bishops, Cardinals, and possibly Pope soon. And they will ALLOW it.
It was the master plan of Vatican II. The same press that is in Love with Pope JPII and actually considered him CONSERVATIVE because he would not allow woman ordination. That is considered conservative???
TobyLue:
**You will see woman priests shortly, this is already being primed at the seminary level, as most seminaries wont allow you in unless you are OK with woman ordination, as they are paving the way for the Priests and Bishops-when the reach that level of decision making-to allow it. **
It has been 40 years since Vatican II and all of those liberal priest who were ordained in the 60’s on up are now Bishops, Cardinals, and possibly Pope soon. And they will ALLOW it.
It was the master plan of Vatican II. The same press that is in Love with Pope JPII and actually considered him CONSERVATIVE because he would not allow woman ordination. That is considered conservative???
O
otm
Guest
Either you are not very widely traveled, or you are very myopic.
You most certainly were talking about rites; you were talking about the Roman rite as currently promulgated as opposed to the previous Roman rite. Don’t weasel around.
I am not denying there have been abuses. But I am tired of people acting as if it is all abuse. Good Masses are not a rarity.
Common sense is.
D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
BulldogCath said:
**THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! AAAARRRRRHHHHGGGG!
**Jus playin’ wit ya, BD.
Thank heaven we have the SSPX to guard the deposit of Faith. What would we do without these staunch defenders of Tradition, Honor, Integrity, the Papacy…errrr…I mean…Tradition…and…uhhhhhh…incense???
If God wanted his Church to have girl priests, it would’ve happened centuries ago, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not inspired by a tiny group of bellowing Amazons.
D
Deacon2006
Guest
Women cannot receive Holy Orders anymore than a corn chip can become the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if a priest says all the right prayers it will remain a corn chip. The church did not decide the matter of this sacrament, God decided.
God designed men to do many things, one of which was to act for God through His Holy Orders. The choices of God do not have any hurtful or negative repercussions on the dignity of women for those who are properly disposed in mind and heart; those who feel alienated by the choices of God need to discern their motives.
If you just scarp a little below the surface you find out that many who want priestesses really are advocates of highly immoral and disordered policies camouflaged as women’s issues (read contraception and abortion) and gender issues (read gay marriage)
*And many found this teaching too hard and they walked away. *
God Bless
God designed men to do many things, one of which was to act for God through His Holy Orders. The choices of God do not have any hurtful or negative repercussions on the dignity of women for those who are properly disposed in mind and heart; those who feel alienated by the choices of God need to discern their motives.
If you just scarp a little below the surface you find out that many who want priestesses really are advocates of highly immoral and disordered policies camouflaged as women’s issues (read contraception and abortion) and gender issues (read gay marriage)
*And many found this teaching too hard and they walked away. *
God Bless
T
tcaseyrochester
Guest
I voted that I would accept the teaching, but I can vote that way because I know it will not happen. Not now, not ever.
Never never never, the teaching of Jesus Christ is the teaching of God and will never be “overruled” by any Pope.
Do not worry yourselves over this, the whole issue is a secular creation of the American media.
Never never never, the teaching of Jesus Christ is the teaching of God and will never be “overruled” by any Pope.
Do not worry yourselves over this, the whole issue is a secular creation of the American media.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What looks like a denial, can always be qualified into being an affirmation. So “Christ is not God” can always be interpreted as meaning “Christ is God”. And that is equally true - for He is man as well. It is also possible that some theological statements are in fact meaningless; this is a big question in itself.
There is a way round every single proposition one cares to make - no statement is so beyond interpretation, that it cannot be made to mean something other than it seems to. There is always a way to “get round” even the most challenging problems. Sometimes, it does look as if theologians and apologists are not much more than Papal “spin-doctors”. There is also the debate about the status of religious language - one’s philosophical views about meaning and language and semantics, can hardly avoid influencing what one makes of theological assertions.Most - all ? - religious arguments are about the use of language, and the ways in which it is intended, and understood. Past prohibitions of the ordination of women could always be explained away as really meant to be affirmations of their dignity, which was now being recognised by allowing their ordination to the Priesthood.
There is nothing new in this - Papal Infallibility (for example) has been defended by some remarkable, and conflicting, interpretations of past events. Catholics have come to very different conclusions about certain episodes in Church History, but concluded that these episodes are not problematic for the dogma - probably they began by accepting the dogma as true, and went on from there. If that approach is adopted, no amount or quality of objections will ever unsettle a single dogma; because the truth of the dogma is the assumption on which reasoning that vindicates it is is built; the argument defending its truth is circular.
Whether all these word-games are honest or rational, is another matter. They may convince Catholics - whether they will convince anyone else, is another matter. Some of them have analogies in Protestant Fundamentalism: Protestant Fundamentalists are concerned to ensure the inerrancy of the Bible - Catholics are usually more concerned to ensure the inerrancy of the Church.
To answer your question:
Hypothetical questions can’t be answered; but if it happened, the Church would still be the Church. It’s done so many daft things in the past, that even if ordaining - or not ordaining - women is one of them, another daft thing is unlikely to make a difference.
##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I don’t think it will ever happen and I hope it never does.
As Mother Angelica says, **“Can you imagine going to confession to a WOMAN??” :nope: :nope: **
Shannin
Why not ?
The Torah is full of assertions that the various parts of the Law of Moses are to endure “for ever” - but what Christian thinks that the Law of Moses is still all in force ?If there can be Gentile priests in the priesthood founded by Christ, which was nothing to do with the “everlasting” Aaronic priesthood - why should the sex of the priest be any more unalterable than the supposedly unalterable and eternal Law of Moses ?
In any case, there is no objection to confessing to a woman even now - as long as one realises that this is a devotional practice and not the Sacrament of Reconciliation ##
F
fix
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## What looks like a denial, can always be qualified into being an affirmation. So “Christ is not God” can always be interpreted as meaning “Christ is God”. And that is equally true - for He is man as well. It is also possible that some theological statements are in fact meaningless; this is a big question in itself.
There is a way round every single proposition one cares to make - no statement is so beyond interpretation, that it cannot be made to mean something other than it seems to. There is always a way to “get round” even the most challenging problems. Sometimes, it does look as if theologians and apologists are not much more than Papal “spin-doctors”. There is also the debate about the status of religious language - one’s philosophical views about meaning and language and semantics, can hardly avoid influencing what one makes of theological assertions.
Most - all ? - religious arguments are about the use of language, and the ways in which it is intended, and understood. Past prohibitions of the ordination of women could always be explained away as really meant to be affirmations of their dignity, which was now being recognised by allowing their ordination to the Priesthood.
There is nothing new in this - Papal Infallibility (for example) has been defended by some remarkable, and conflicting, interpretations of past events. Catholics have come to very different conclusions about certain episodes in Church History, but concluded that these episodes are not problematic for the dogma - probably they began by accepting the dogma as true, and went on from there. If that approach is adopted, no amount or quality of objections will ever unsettle a single dogma; because the truth of the dogma is the assumption on which reasoning that vindicates it is is built; the argument defending its truth is circular.
Whether all these word-games are honest or rational, is another matter. They may convince Catholics - whether they will convince anyone else, is another matter. Some of them have analogies in Protestant Fundamentalism: Protestant Fundamentalists are concerned to ensure the inerrancy of the Bible - Catholics are usually more concerned to ensure the inerrancy of the Church.
To answer your question:
Hypothetical questions can’t be answered; but if it happened, the Church would still be the Church. It’s done so many daft things in the past, that even if ordaining - or not ordaining - women is one of them, another daft thing is unlikely to make a difference.
It would seem you intend to say anything can be justified? That would mean man could never really know the truth.
B
Brendan
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
Men and Women are different Biologically, and they differ Ontologically as well.
The Sacraments of the Eucharist are Ontological in Nature. In ways the Church does not understand, but accepts; the Ontology of the male is suited for confecting new Ontological life (as int he Eucharist or Absolution), as the Biology of the female is suited for confecting new Biological life.
When you have a Biological question, one seeks out a specialist in Biology for the answer (physician, professor ect…). If one has an Ontological question, one seeks out an Ontological specialist (the Church) for the answer.
A human is made up of two ‘parts’ the physical and the spiritual, body and soul, biological and ontological.
Men and Women are different Biologically, and they differ Ontologically as well.
The Sacraments of the Eucharist are Ontological in Nature. In ways the Church does not understand, but accepts; the Ontology of the male is suited for confecting new Ontological life (as int he Eucharist or Absolution), as the Biology of the female is suited for confecting new Biological life.
When you have a Biological question, one seeks out a specialist in Biology for the answer (physician, professor ect…). If one has an Ontological question, one seeks out an Ontological specialist (the Church) for the answer.
D
demmy
Guest
I pray it happens not in case it happens, i’ll pray harder. 
M
Mom_of_5
Guest
The Church will allow the male priests to marry before women will be ordained priests. So, not in any of our life time, will women be ordained. Women have come a long way in our church. There are many places for us that were not there 50 years ago. In 1950 we could not imagine a women as Eucharistic Minister, reading scripture, etc. For that matter, no one but the priest gave communion. Both men and women are given a larger role in todays church.
We should not be upset that we are leaning a bit to the “protestant” way of worship. I for one “old” person really enjoy todays music and the inclusion of the laity in the mass. I think that the Holy Spirit has lead us to these changes, the Lord is smiling as we celebrate the mass.
Those who decided not to go to church anymore when Latin mass became a mass of the past, were looking for an excuse to bow out. I heard a lot of …".I don’t like change", "the mass is no longer beautiful “, “too Protestant”…” on and on. I love understanding what the priest is saying without having to read the right side of the prayer book. For those of you who are too young to remember…The mass was in Latin on the left side of the prayer book, English on the right. I do love Latin hymns, have you noticed?? They are “coming back”.
Love and peace
We should not be upset that we are leaning a bit to the “protestant” way of worship. I for one “old” person really enjoy todays music and the inclusion of the laity in the mass. I think that the Holy Spirit has lead us to these changes, the Lord is smiling as we celebrate the mass.
Those who decided not to go to church anymore when Latin mass became a mass of the past, were looking for an excuse to bow out. I heard a lot of …".I don’t like change", "the mass is no longer beautiful “, “too Protestant”…” on and on. I love understanding what the priest is saying without having to read the right side of the prayer book. For those of you who are too young to remember…The mass was in Latin on the left side of the prayer book, English on the right. I do love Latin hymns, have you noticed?? They are “coming back”.
Love and peace
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The one statement need not imply the other - man’s ability to engage in that kind of reasoning is real, but it does not imply that we can’t know the truth with certainty: what we know as a triangle, is still different in shape from what we know as a square, even if we throw out thegeometry of the last three thousand years. “Triangle” can signify what we mean by “square” only if we take the view that names are more important than what they name.
Things are more complex when we move from geometry to ethics, religion, history, philosophy and theology - because these deal with human beings, and with entities less directly known to us than geometrical figures. Geometry is less ambiguous, and more readily measured: something is either square in shape - or it is not. Even if one believes that it is in principle impossible to draw a square. That which corresponds to what is conventionally known as a square in its shape, is still a fact of experience.Unlike a lot of theological and historical things: in principle, we might agree that cruelty is wicked and unChristlike - but, what is a cruel act ? Is it, for example, cruel to burn heretics ? We might think so: but, even if that is granted, cruelty can always be redefined as “tough love”. If it is allowable to hurt children by slapping them so that they don’t put their hands in a fire - maybe it is allowable to burn Christians in this life so that they do not burn in the next. The question is one of definition, and of ethics. It would not be unduly difficult to argue that Catholics have never committed atrocities - to argue either that they have shown a lot of tough love; or, that to commit atrocities is proof of not being Catholic. FWIW, I don’t think either argument is ethically responsible.
What I do think, is that we should look very carefully at what arguments are used for theological & doctrinal positions. For example: do people reason backward from the positions they hold, to the premises on which they base those conclusions - or, from, conclusions to premises ? Do they argue from the fact that something is a dogma, to how it should be interpreted - or from its interpretation, to the dogma which it is used to justify ?
IOW: what is the connection between dogma, history, theological reasoning, ethics, truth, and faith in Christ ? It’s complex; which is one reason not everyone is Catholic: faced with the same facts, Christians may well make different connections between them - what is more important to one, is less so to another. For example: Catholics emphasise the words of the Roman legate Philip, that “Peter has spoken through Leo” at the Council of Chalcedon - the Orthodox, notice that the Roman Bishop was expressing the Catholic faith in the Incarnation. Rome sees the acclamation as evidence of Roman supremacy - the Orthodox, see it in as showing that his doctrine was orthodox. Both notice things that are real, but they draw different conclusions because the realities they see are interpreted by what is already in their minds.
So long as we recognise:
- that there is a world of entities external to man’s intellect
- a difference between entities in the world
R
rsagebrush
Guest
I attend the Latin Mass as regularly as possible. Wish that all Diocese made easy access to them. I have no trouble understanding the Latin and what is being said.
There is also no party atmoshphere before or after the Latin Mass as I have observed in the New Mass. Yet people look more satisfied.
Also there appears to be many more sinners attending the Latin Mass as numerous people appear to have to opt out of recieving the Eucharist.
The chanting is just heavenly!
There is also no party atmoshphere before or after the Latin Mass as I have observed in the New Mass. Yet people look more satisfied.
Also there appears to be many more sinners attending the Latin Mass as numerous people appear to have to opt out of recieving the Eucharist.
The chanting is just heavenly!
I
ICXCNIKA
Guest
I’d get a sex change.
F
fix
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
All this is settled when one accepts that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. She is the teacher and interpreter. Your post seems to be an argument for self interpretation of the moral law and all truth? We accept one authority.
V
vegpotter
Guest
Immediately talk to someone about entering the seminary. I’m not kidding–if given the chance, I’d become a priest in a heartbeat!
- Status