Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?

[simpleas]

Before I can reply, I need to understand what “women as priestess of our Lord Jesus Christ” actually means in this century. The only priestess I know lived in pagan temples centuries ago. Please update me.

There are probably a few priestess around now. What I meant by a priestess of Our Lord Jesus Christ was as an equal to the duties a priest carries out.

It seems like a very strange notion for a women to be a priest, but we have women saints, holy women, a woman gave birth to God, Christ appeared first to women, who believed.

I don’t know of any actual text were it states that Christ said only males would be able to spread the word, act in the personna of him, making all of the decisions that effect both male and female spiritually.

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for your enlightening posts.

Just had a thought.

Maybe you and I are strawman and strawwoman.

 

[steve_b]

So women as priestess of our Lord Jesus Christ would be leading people away from God?

By virtue of our baptism we are all in the priesthood of believers of the unordained type. Ordained priests otoh are reserved for men only.

To further make the point, allow me to repeat a quote I gave previously from then JPII that closes all debate on this issue

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.*
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

In a short few sentences, JPII summed up and finished the issue

He made an infallible statement there. The language for a papal infallibile statement is there. Therefore, It can NOT be reversed by any future council or pope…

In extension, to do otherwise would be acting against the will of God. And there are always consequences for that.

I would also make the point again, that anyone who as JPII said (treat this issue as open, or like some disciplinary issue that can change), they have been instructed by JPII’s statement that this is NOT open, it is NOT a disciplinary issue, it is closed. And by virtue of his office ( JPII quotes Jesus words to Peter, who confirms the bretheren) JPII shuts down all future debate on the matter. If anyone who knowing this statement of his, continues to push for women priests, they are sinning gravely against charity towards God and His Church.

As an aside, that’s the advantage of having Divinely established supreme authority. Without it, it’s just one person’s opinion against another.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Before I can reply, I need to understand what “women as priestess of our Lord Jesus Christ” actually means in this century. The only priestess I know lived in pagan temples centuries ago. Please update me.

There are probably a few priestess around now. What I meant by a priestess of Our Lord Jesus Christ was as an equal to the duties a priest carries out.

It seems like a very strange notion for a women to be a priest, but we have women saints, holy women, a woman gave birth to God, Christ appeared first to women, who believed.

I don’t know of any actual text were it states that Christ said only males would be able
to spread the word, act in the personna of him, making all of the decisions that effect both male and female spiritually.

I am so sorry to say this. My request to be updated regarding a priestess of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this century has been sidestepped.

Which century, what duties, and which religion are being referred to in this reply.
“What I meant by a priestess of Our Lord Jesus Christ was as an equal to the duties a priest carries out.”

 

[grannymh]

Were you able to watch/listen to the video from post #13?

Yes. I am so sad that viewers will be cheated out of the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep, please be at peace,

We do respect our sisters and brothers who have different opinions. That, my friend, is not the problem.

As we follow the theme, such as it is, of this thread, we look for Catholic doctrines which are currently being challenged by anyone. That is step one. Thank you for providing some examples.

Step two is to discover the effects of Catholic challengers. For example. Is there a received impression that it is o.k. for ordinary folk to simply substitute a personal interpretation for a Catholic teaching? That includes substituting an author or speaker’s personal interpretations for a Catholic teaching.

Long range, step three is to determine whether or not, permission to oppose a Catholic doctrine leads away from the deep meanings of God being present in the Catholic Eucharist.

Hi Granny!

I have a little challenge for you. Every time we get to the end of a discussion, I make a point of saying that I accept your point of view, even though we disagree, as Catholic.

I have never stated anything that was against Catholic teaching. I have indeed stated what particular teachings I find problematic. However, you don’t seem to acknowledge my own views, and my hesitations, as still coming from someone who is in communion with you, and I get the same impression from Steve and many, many others. I don’t hear “respect” in that silence.

Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters. I will be posting soon a thread on this very issue. A pastoral approach would not be one of alienation, for that solves nothing. Such alienation only emphasizes that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution. Yes, indeed, the opiate of the masses.

God delights in differing opinions.

There, I said it!

I dunno. Maybe I listen to too much bluegrass music. Bluegrass gives a look at tragedy and discord and horror and laughs at the whole works. Unity in humor, in humility, in gratitude. Some people takes things very seriously. Listen to more bluegrass, I say. Goes for me too.

Jesus loves bluegrass.

Shoot, there I go bein’ blasphemous again…

Jesus would have played the banjo, if he had one.

God Bless you, Granny.

 

[Nita]

There are probably a few priestess around now. What I meant by a priestess of Our Lord Jesus Christ was as an equal to the duties a priest carries out.

It seems like a very strange notion for a women to be a priest, but we have women saints, holy women, a woman gave birth to God, Christ appeared first to women, who believed.

I don’t know of any actual text were it states that Christ said only males would be able to spread the word, act in the personna of him, making all of the decisions that effect both male and female spiritually.

He “states” it (teaches it) by what He did.
Nobody was holier than Mary, but Our Lord did not call her to be one of the apostles who were directed to offer the New Covenant sacrifice of the Mass and forgive sins – priestly activities.

In the Mass, where the priest speaks in the person of Jesus, he says “This is My Body”. (Jesus had a male body.). It would really be a biological contradiction for a female to be mouthing the words “This is My Body”.
(And I’m well aware of the Gal. 3:28 passage.)

 

[James82]

Hi Granny!

I have a little challenge for you. Every time we get to the end of a discussion, I make a point of saying that I accept your point of view, even though we disagree, as Catholic.

I have never stated anything that was against Catholic teaching. I have indeed stated what particular teachings I find problematic. However, you don’t seem to acknowledge my own views, and my hesitations, as still coming from someone who is in communion with you, and I get the same impression from Steve and many, many others. I don’t hear “respect” in that silence.

Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters. I will be posting soon a thread on this very issue. A pastoral approach would not be one of alienation, for that solves nothing. Such alienation only emphasizes that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution. Yes, indeed, the opiate of the masses.

God delights in differing opinions.

There, I said it!

I dunno. Maybe I listen to too much bluegrass music. Bluegrass gives a look at tragedy and discord and horror and laughs at the whole works. Unity in humor, in humility, in gratitude. Some people takes things very seriously. Listen to more bluegrass, I say. Goes for me too.

Jesus loves bluegrass.

Shoot, there I go bein’ blasphemous again…

Jesus would have played the banjo, if he had one.

God Bless you, Granny.

I think you have to understand too where steveb and co. are coming from. This is an intensely personal issue, in as much as they can see the collapse of other communions that have brought about female ordination.

Sacred Scripture tells us to be both ever vigilant and sober against that which will do us harm.

St. Paul is very clear in Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The Gospel in the sense that St. Paul expresses it is not the four ‘Gospels’ as we might understand them, but the entire catalogue and litany of both oral and written instruction.

We can then infer from both St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s direct instruction regarding the role of women in Church matters that a female priest would be directly contrary to the Deposit of Faith (2 Tim 1:14).

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters. I will be posting soon a thread on this very issue. A pastoral approach would not be one of alienation, for that solves nothing. Such alienation only emphasizes that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution. Yes, indeed, the opiate of the masses.

God delights in differing opinions.

OneSheep:
Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters. I will be posting soon a thread on this very issue.

granny:
I still have my eyesight and therefore I have recognized all kinds of differing opinions on Catholic doctrines here on CAF. On this thread, I have asked members of CAF to bring forth the Catholic doctrines which are currently being challenged by differing opinions. Thank you for your contribution.

As for appreciating that Catholics have differing opinions on matters, frankly, when those opinions lead away from the truth, I do not appreciate them.

OneSheep:
A pastoral approach would not be one of alienation, for that solves nothing.

granny:
When the differing opinions go against Catholic doctrines, that already is alienation.

OneSheep:
Such alienation only emphasizes that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution. Yes, indeed, the opiate of the masses.

God delights in differing opinions.

granny:
It is a good thing I am sitting down.

Going back to the OneSheep comment, “A pastoral approach would not be one of alienation, for that solves nothing.” That is a good idea. We do not want to alienate anyone. However, watering down Catholic doctrines to meet people’s requests is not a good idea. Watering down and/or omitting some basic Catholic doctrines leads to the idea that anything goes because the Catholic Church is moving into a new era, emerging as free from basic truths like Original Sin and the primary significance of the Real Presence of God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Here is my problem. If alienation only emphasizes “that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution.” – What is the pastoral approach?

Here is a bigger problem. What is being implied by inserting “human institution”? Who would refer to the Catholic Church as an “human” institution when the Catholic doctrine is that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ? Who would refer to the Catholic Church as an “human” institution when the Divine Jesus Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist within the Catholic Church? What is the reasoning behind “God delights in differing opinions.”?

OneSheep:
Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters.

skip to end

God delights in differing opinions.

granny:
Your request is denied.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, dear Granny,

I’m glad you appreciated my additions to this thread. I think I’m about done, now, I’ve said most of what I want to say. I challenge the implied doctrine of exclusivity, Granny. It is not pastoral. The only way that it would be pastoral is if the sheep were being led by doctrine itself, and only doctrine.

Doctrine, indeed, is important. However, as Pope Francis says,

“A Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message. He knows that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not easy, but that it does not depend on him. He must do everything possible, but the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it]

How does one know when one is actually worshiping doctrine vs worshiping God?

As for appreciating that Catholics have differing opinions on matters, frankly, when those opinions lead away from the truth, I do not appreciate them.

The truth is an encounter, Granny. If a person encounters a witness that communicates non-acceptance, closed-mindedness, and refusal (see line 1 of the quote above) they will mirror the same to the deliverer. Does exclusivity communicate truth? Not the God I know. Not the truth I know. However, I can appreciate that your own opinion on the matter falls within the community of Catholics. It is okay to want to communicate exclusivity. Now, when I ask if you can accept my point of view as Catholic, I know, you refuse my request. I accept yours, you don’t accept mine. Which of us is communicating the truth? Both, perhaps? Yes, both. There is some truth, I think, in both of our views. Neither one of us has the complete picture, IMO.

So, do you judge that Fr. Rohr leads people away from the truth? Me? Pope Benedict? I know, you will pick the formers, not the latter. I have encountered Truth, and Fr. Rohr has also. Now that he communicates his encounter of truth, you are thinking that he leads people away from the truth. Are you saying that the Spirit is only found in your version of the teachings? That brings us back to the issue of exclusivity.

granny:
When the differing opinions go against Catholic doctrines, that already is alienation.

The truth is an encounter, Granny, it does not enter into an encyclopedia.

OneSheep:
Such alienation only emphasizes that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution. Yes, indeed, the opiate of the masses.

God delights in differing opinions.

granny:
It is a good thing I am sitting down.

To me, if God did not delight in differing opinions, He would not have given us free will. Communion is not about having the same opinion, Granny, are you understanding me?

We can find communion of opinion in “places” like talk radio and zealous political groups. They find community in their doctrine, if someone has a different opinion, they are out. The Church is much, much different than that, Granny. A world of difference.

Here is my problem. If alienation only emphasizes “that God does not want us to be free, that God wants our minds and opinions to be under control of an human institution.” – What is the pastoral approach?

The pastoral approach is an emphasis on Eucharist. That despite differing opinions (head thing), we all follow Christ, who shows us love (heart thing) and are grateful for the incarnation.

Here is a bigger problem. What is being implied by inserting “human institution”? Who would refer to the Catholic Church as an “human” institution when the Catholic doctrine is that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ? Who would refer to the Catholic Church as an “human” institution when the Divine Jesus Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist within the Catholic Church? What is the reasoning behind “God delights in differing opinions.”?

The Church is a human institution, God exists within the humans.

OneSheep:
Here is my request: recognize and appreciate that many Catholics have differing opinions on matters.

skip to end

God delights in differing opinions.

granny:
Your request is denied.

I understand your refusal, but please remember I still include you in Catholicism even though you do not include me.

I continue to extend my hand in invitation, Granny!

 

[grannymh]

A tiny clarification.

There is no “implied doctrine of exclusivity” in the Catholic Church. Please refer to this quote in post 86.

“A Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message."

The Gospel message proclaims the truth of the universal Good Shepherd Who gives us His command in Matthew 28: 18-20. “All nations” means everyone is invited.

Truth is an encounter with Jesus hanging bloody on His cross. This crucifixion is re-presented in a non-bloody manner in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because it is the primary truth of the Holy Eucharist. At the Last Supper, Jesus said “This is my body.”
This is the institution of the Catholic Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This Sacrament means that we receive Jesus, True God and True Man in Holy Communion.

The main priority of the Eucharist is that we encounter God. That is the truth.

Not only is the Eucharist the source of our Faith, it is the summit of our Faith.

 

[OneSheep]

I think you have to understand too where steveb and co. are coming from. This is an intensely personal issue, in as much as they can see the collapse of other communions that have brought about female ordination.

Hi James!

I do understand, James. I see a little fear in the word “collapse”.

Actually, I don’t have a problem with fears. It is natural. We all have them. They are a bit enslaving, but we can work on them, with the help of Abba.

Here in America, the most common religious “affiliation” is Catholic. The second most common one is “ex-Catholic”. Is this a collapse? No, IMO. People who do not take their faith as a matter of importance are not going to Church any more. It is becoming more acceptable in our society to avoid communion. These people leaving are not the faithful, they are the non-evangelized. They have not had that “encounter” the Holy Father refers to.

The question is, are people dedicated enough to communion, to Eucharist, to break bread with people of the opposite point of view? I am that dedicated to communion. Are you? Do you join me at the “table of plenty”? Yes, this is intensely personal. Eucharist is intensely personal, and intensely communal. Do you see what I mean?

Have a great day!

 

[OneSheep]

Steve, my brother:

All of these Catholics differ with your opinion on the matter:

womenpriests.org/teaching/mag_con2.asp

So, the question is, have you judged all of these groups uncharitable, or are you able to be in communion with them?

This isn’t about my opinion. All that I’ve been saying is from quotes from Church docs, here:…

the list of people you present, are they observing the decree conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church (priesthood is for men only) ? No

By their active and continued dissent on that matter, are they docile in charity? No

By their active disssent with the Church on this issue THEY are the ones being uncharitable towards God and His Church.

Everything I’ve said, is not my opinion. I’ve quoted from Church documents. Don’t make this about me.

So, let me understand this correctly. It is not you who has judged all those people uncharitable, but the Church? Hmmm. well, I am part of the Church, and I do not find their views uncharitable. Do you see what I mean? We are Church.

Differences of opinion are uncharitable? Wait for my next thread. I hope to post it today.

Therefore, since the groups you list, dissent from a decree, that the legitimate authority of the Church on this subject has given, they sin against charity.

So, in your opinion, they sin against charity. Has the Church specifically said that these specific groups have sinned against charity? No, that is your opinion. If the hierarchy has put out no opinion, but you have a definite opinion, then your opinion is in dissent of the hierarchy.

I find good intent, charity, in your opinion. In my opinion, you mean well, you intend to uphold the security that we find in tradition. So, my friend, here is the challenge: Can you find the good intentions of those you have deemed uncharitable? This is called “giving the benefit of the doubt”, which is in itself a charitable effort.

Give it a try, and seek help from others you trust if you cannot find the way.

Peace

 

[grannymh]

The question is, are people dedicated enough to communion, to Eucharist, to break bread with people of the opposite point of view?

If this is a real ceremony or ritual, please describe it in detail so that those who wish to take part in it can do so. If it is symbolic, how is it accomplished so that there is reality to it?

It is that continual reference to a group of persons holding opposite views while breaking bread, which makes me wonder if that means that it is o.k. to consider the Catholic Consecrated Bread and Wine as symbolic in nature. That would certainly challenge the Catholic doctrines of the Catholic Eucharist. A symbolic spirit of the Eucharist in lower case would avoid any serious discussions about Jesus Christ bleeding on His chosen cross. And there are lots of people who get concerned when there is blood.

 

[grannymh]

. So, my friend, here is the challenge: Can you find the good intentions of those you have deemed uncharitable? This is called “giving the benefit of the doubt”, which is in itself a charitable effort.

Give it a try, and seek help from others you trust if you cannot find the way.

Peace

“Giving the benefit of the doubt” is a good thing to do when one first listens to some strange things about the Catholic Church per se. It is a charitable effort. But, it is not rose-colored glasses.

 

[OneSheep]

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Pope Francis stressed the courageous attitude of Paul St Paul at the Areopagus, when, in speaking to the Athenian crowd, he sought to build bridges to proclaim the Gospel. The Pope called Paul’s attitude one that “seeks dialogue” and is “closer to the heart” of the listener. The Pope said that this is the reason why St Paul was a real pontifex: a “builder of bridges” and not of walls. The Pope went on to say that this makes us think of the attitude that a Christian ought always to have.

news.va/en/news/pope-francis-at-wednesday-mass-build-bridges-not-w

(bolding is mine)

God Bless.

 

[grannymh]

From the same article I quoted earlier:

Pope Francis stressed the courageous attitude of Paul St Paul at the Areopagus, when, in speaking to the Athenian crowd, he sought to build bridges to proclaim the Gospel. The Pope called Paul’s attitude one that “seeks dialogue” and is “closer to the heart” of the listener. The Pope said that this is the reason why St Paul was a real pontifex: a “builder of bridges” and not of walls. The Pope went on to say that this makes us think of the attitude that a Christian ought always to have.

news.va/en/news/pope-francis-at-wednesday-mass-build-bridges-not-w

(bolding is mine)

God Bless.

Great quote! Thank you.

I do wonder …
if everyone noticed that St. Paul’s attitude is one that “seeks dialogue” without the added qualification that everyone’s opposing opinions are accepted even when they oppose Divine Revelation.

 

[steve_b]

I think you have to understand too where steveb and co. are coming from. This is an intensely personal issue, in as much as they can see the collapse of other communions that have brought about female ordination.

Sacred Scripture tells us to be both ever vigilant and sober against that which will do us harm.

St. Paul is very clear in Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

The Gospel in the sense that St. Paul expresses it is not the four ‘Gospels’ as we might understand them, but the entire catalogue and litany of both oral and written instruction.

We can then infer from both St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s direct instruction regarding the role of women in Church matters that a female priest would be directly contrary to the Deposit of Faith (2 Tim 1:14).

Nicely said

 

[steve_b]

Good Morning, dear Granny,

I’m glad you appreciated my additions to this thread. I think I’m about done, now, I’ve said most of what I want to say. I challenge the implied doctrine of exclusivity, Granny. It is not pastoral. The only way that it would be pastoral is if the sheep were being led by doctrine itself, and only doctrine.

Doctrine, indeed, is important. However, as Pope Francis says,

“A Christian must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message. He knows that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not easy, but that it does not depend on him. He must do everything possible, but the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it]

How does one know when one is actually worshiping doctrine vs worshiping God?

The truth is an encounter, Granny. If a person encounters a witness that communicates non-acceptance, closed-mindedness, and refusal (see line 1 of the quote above) they will mirror the same to the deliverer. Does exclusivity communicate truth? Not the God I know. Not the truth I know. However, I can appreciate that your own opinion on the matter falls within the community of Catholics. It is okay to want to communicate exclusivity. Now, when I ask if you can accept my point of view as Catholic, I know, you refuse my request. I accept yours, you don’t accept mine. Which of us is communicating the truth? Both, perhaps? Yes, both. There is some truth, I think, in both of our views. Neither one of us has the complete picture, IMO.

So, do you judge that Fr. Rohr leads people away from the truth? Me? Pope Benedict? I know, you will pick the formers, not the latter. I have encountered Truth, and Fr. Rohr has also. Now that he communicates his encounter of truth, you are thinking that he leads people away from the truth. Are you saying that the Spirit is only found in your version of the teachings? That brings us back to the issue of exclusivity.

Ahhhhh Fr Rohr. I thought so. It explains your positions.
womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=11460

 

[simpleas]

By virtue of our baptism we are all in the priesthood of believers of the unordained type. Ordained priests otoh are reserved for men only.

To further make the point, allow me to repeat a quote I gave previously from then JPII that closes all debate on this issue

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.
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

In a short few sentences, JPII summed up and finished the issue

He made an infallible statement there. The language for a papal infallibile statement is there. Therefore, It can NOT be reversed by any future council or pope…

In extension, to do otherwise would be acting against the will of God. And there are always consequences for that.

I would also make the point again, that anyone who as JPII said (treat this issue as open, or like some disciplinary issue that can change), they have been instructed by JPII’s statement that this is NOT open, it is NOT a disciplinary issue, it is closed. And by virtue of his office ( JPII quotes Jesus words to Peter, who confirms the bretheren) JPII shuts down all future debate on the matter. If anyone who knowing this statement of his, continues to push for women priests, they are sinning gravely against charity towards God and His Church.

As an aside, that’s the advantage of having Divinely established supreme authority. Without it, it’s just one person’s opinion against another.

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.

No disrepect intended, but how can the pope (then pope) say this? If the church is guided by the holy spirit, through men, then it could in fact change?