D
diggerdomer
Guest
According to Catholic teaching, everyone present offers the Mass, everyone present sacrifices.
- Status
D
diggerdomer
Guest
According to Canon Law and Church teaching, the CDF does not have the authority to teach infallibly nor declare that a certain teaching is taught infallibly. I have no problem with that. Do you?
In other words, if the Pope (or bishops in communion with the Pope) didn’t clearly teach something infallibly, then the CDF has no authority to declare such teaching as being taught infallibly.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, but not everyone offers a sacrifice that atones for the sin of others. The priest stands in place of Christ who offered his life for the sins of others. When the Mass is said the words are, ‘this is my body which will be given up for you.’ Not, this is a symbol of the body of Christ which will be given up for you. The priest offers himself in a different way.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You say what JPII said? What do you mean? What will you say when asked if you as a Catholic believe women can be ordained?
(Let’s assume it’s not an infallible teaching)
**
But it’s to be held, definitively, by you that women cannot be ordained, yes? ** So, Vince, you must* definitively *say, when asked if women can be ordained, “No, they cannot be ordained. That’s definitive.” Right?
When they say, “Are you sure?” You say, "The Holy Father says that ‘all doubt has been removed.’ "
If asked, “Is it is open to judgment?” You say, 'Nope, it’s not open to judgment."
Right, Vince?
That is to be held by all faithful Catholics. All doubt has been removed.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Right. It’s amazing that people think that something like this, because they say it has not been taught infallibly (and I do disagree with that assessment if one understands the concept of infallibility as presented in the Catechism). . . is gonna ‘change’.You say what JPII said? What do you mean? What will you say when asked if you as a Catholic believe women can be ordained?
(Let’s assume it’s not an infallible teaching)
But it’s to be held, definitively, by you that women cannot be ordained, yes? So, Vince, you must* definitively *say, when asked if women can be ordained, “No, they cannot be ordained. That’s definitive.” Right?
When they say, “Are you sure?” You say, "The Holy Father says that ‘all doubt has been removed.’ "
If asked, “Is it is open to judgment?” You say, 'Nope, it’s not open to judgment."
Right, Vince?
That is to be held by all faithful Catholics. All doubt has been removed.
Like suddenly Pope Mutabilius in AD 2090 will say, “From now on the Church has been given authority to ordain women so. . .line up ladies”. . .and we’ll all say, 'well of COURSE, because that’s all we were waiting for, was the authority to be given, now that all the ‘pre Vatican people’ have died off because they were the ones keeping the poor Holy Spirit hostage all those centuries when the progressives would have welcomed him. . ."
V
Vince1022
Guest
As I said before, I accept Pope John Paul II’s teaching. Was I not clear on that? Thanks.You say what JPII said? What do you mean? What will you say when asked if you as a Catholic believe women can be ordained?
(Let’s assume it’s not an infallible teaching)
**
But it’s to be held, definitively,** by you that women cannot be ordained, yes? So, Vince, you must* definitively *say, when asked if women can be ordained, “No, they cannot be ordained. That’s definitive.” Right?
When they say, “Are you sure?” You say, "The Holy Father says that ‘all doubt has been removed.’ "
If asked, “Is it is open to judgment?” You say, 'Nope, it’s not open to judgment."
Right, Vince?
That is to be held by all faithful Catholics. All doubt has been removed.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
See the Catechism 1348 and following.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Read it, not sure why you suggested I read this, or where your coming from.
I don’t think any of my post’s contradicted this.
Did my posts give that impression?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh! Yes. I can be a bit obtuse sometimes.
If you’ll forgive my persistence…
So, if questioned about women’s ordination you, as a Catholic, would respond how?
(“I would say what Pope JPII says” is a bit obfuscatory, IMHO.)
IOW, you would say that all doubt has been removed and it’s been definitively stated that women cannot be ordained, correct?
E
EquusNomVeritas
Guest
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I trust then Cardinal Ratzinger’s judgment and interpretation of this as an infallible teaching through whichever channel necessary (papal infalliblity or ordinary magisterium). You clearly do not. Your cite Canon Law as your source: fine, but that’s not an infallible source, either (see this thread), and its subject matter is practice, not faith and morals.
It seems clear to me that neither the former Pope, JPII, nor our current pope and former prefect for the CDF had the need to make any additional remarks to clarify why this was or wasn’t a fallible statement. Perhaps the day will come when a pope decides to write this as a specific dogmatic definition with all the special phrases which come with the other two ex cathedra pronouncements, perhaps it will not. I hold with both of these mens’ opinion–infallible or otherwise–that this is an infallible part of the deposit of faith already, and that a further declaration really isn’t needed–save perhaps an explicit declaration ex cathedra, made for the sole purpose of removing any shadow of a doubt. Unfortunately, I don’t think ex cathedra pronouncements work this way with things that are already a part of the deposit of faith, so we are at an impasse. :banghead: Perhaps the solution is the somewhat less redundant, and yet somewhat more redundant seeming possibility of an ex cathedra statement (or council declaration) noting that the teaching concerning ordination is infallible, though I suppose that councils can reaffirm dogma as dogma.
Finally, it is not my position that the dogma is infallible just because the CDF declared it to be so. Rather, it is my position that this is and always has been an infallible part of the deposit of our faith, which was reiterated (fallibly or otherwise) by our last pope, and that the CDF’s part in all of this was meant only to clarify that this is the case.
Even assuming that this position is not infallible (and I harbor no doubts about this being an infallible statement), it does not seem to me that there will be a change in my lifetime. This is close enough to infallible for me, since I agree with the reasons for ordaining only males to the priesthood, infallible or no. If you also agree with these reasons–indeed, if you accept this teaching as “authoritative and binding” (and I think you mentioned that you do)–then we are effectively debating the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin. :angel1:
V
Vince1022
Guest
I would say I agree with Church teaching, though I also think the question is not completely and definitively closed to further development (i.e. it’s not taught infallibly).Oh! Yes. I can be a bit obtuse sometimes.
If you’ll forgive my persistence…
So, if questioned about women’s ordination you, as a Catholic, would respond how?
(“I would say what Pope JPII says” is a bit obfuscatory, IMHO.)
IOW, you would say that all doubt has been removed and it’s been definitively stated that women cannot be ordained, correct?
Does that help? thanks!
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Where do you get the idea that the priest “offers” something that everyone present doesn’t also offer?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Of course Canon Law is not infallible. Neither is the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As the Church teaches.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Everyone offers something that no one else offers.
To explain, Paul writes of the different gifts we have; some have gifts of healing, some prophecy etc. He further illustrates this through the imagery of a body; all have a role to play but not the same one and no role is better, or superior to another role. In offering our lives to God, we offer it in different ways. Doctors do not offer themselves to God in the way teachers do, because they are not teachers.
The manner in which the priest offers himself is different to everyone else as he is standing in place of Christ. Not everyone stands in place of Christ during the Mass. If they did, the whole ethos of the Mass would change. The priest uses the term ‘this is my body’ because Christ is operating through him in a manner he is not operating through anyone else. If Christ was operating in the same manner through everyone, anyone could say the Mass. This again would change our whole understanding of the Mass.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Thanks. It does indeed help.
However, you would be incorrect to say that the question is not definitively closed. “All doubt has been removed”, says JPII. And “this judgment is to be held definitively.”
Yes?
E
EquusNomVeritas
Guest
On this point we agree. The Church also teaches that women cannot be ordained as priests–we both agree to this too, the difference being to whether we accept this as infallible or not. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere at this point on that particular topic, so please allow me to ask a different question.
Question: does it matter to you whether not this teaching is infallible? You’ve already stated that you accept this as binding and authoritative. It seems to me that the only thing that infallibility adds is whether or not the teaching will change in the future. I’ll answer my own question as applies to me. In my last post, I said as an afterthought that
By which I meant the following. Whether infallible or not, I accept this teaching as both authoritative and binding, in much the same way as I accept any teaching concerning discipline to be authoritative and binding. Thus, for example, there is the fast before communion. It’s a discipline, a practice, but not a dogma: it can be (and has been) changed. However, I do not dissent against this fast, and will even from time to time offer a defense of it (however tepid). I would not think to “lobby” the Church to change this practice, save for dire circumstances (for example, if the fast included–as it does not–water and medication, and this put health and lives at risk, I might consider writing to my bishop).
In the particular case of the teaching regarding males, females, and ordination, the teaching has never changed. There is not any time to which we might point for which we have solid and conclusive evidence to confirm that women were validly ordained to the priesthood with the blessing and consent of the pope and the whole Church (sorry for the long sentence). Indeed, most (possibly all) the arguments I have ever seen for changing this teaching hinge on a faulty premise regarding men and women as being, not merely equal and complementary, but rather ontologically the same and interchangeable. Thus, from the evidence presented to me (however complete), I conclude that there will be no change in this teaching in the near future, even if we assume it to be fallible. So much for speculation.
Finally, as regards the criterion I laid out above regarding practice, there are not “dire circumstances” pertaining to this teaching. That is to say, lives (for that matter, peoples’ health) are not at stake. The teaching is not a scandal–recent pr blunder regarding norms for sex abuse and the ordination of women not withstanding–save for those who so desire to make one of it, so there really aren’t souls at stake.
Therefore, even if I were to concede that this is not absolutely infallible in the fullest sense of the word, it is still practically infallible: its status as infallible or not changes nothing in my giving full assent to the teaching. Thus, for practical purposes at least, it actually does not matter to me whether or not this is an infallible teaching. I have bound to it my intellect and my will, and I have no intention of working in any way to unbind either, be it by praying to God to see it changed, by “lobbying” my bishop (and beyond), or by publicly dissenting from it. I furthermore will go beyond this by siding against any who work in such ways to change this teaching in public forum or private discussion, as my abilities, time, and energy allow. So help me God.
G
Greg27
Guest
The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and some conservative Anglicans, strongly believe the ordained priesthood is reserved for men alone. Various reasons have been given for this, but the main ones seem to be that in the NT, Jesus only ordained men as the key leaders of the church, and also the historical church never developed a practice of ordaining women into ministries of leadership. It does not seem to be so much about gender as such, as about the lack of historical evidence from the Bible and church tradition supporting the argument women should be ordained to the deaconate, priesthood and episcopate. Thus many conservatives in Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy regard the ordination of women as an unwarranted ‘innovation’ designed to accomodate the centuries-old traditions of the church to modern demands of women for freedom, dignity and equality with men in the church.
Also, many Protestant churches don’t appear to be comfortable with women in leadership roles because certain passages of scripture appear to condemn it, i.e. passages in the Letters of Timothy for example.
The other argument in favour of women’s ordination is that the refusal to ordain women is not based on lack of evidence but more on a patriarchal culture which came from Israel and Roman/Greek culture and reproduced the social and cultural inequality outside of the church within the church. This patriarchal inequality is reproduced through the history of the church and infects the essence of the church itself, to the top of the episcopate. The exclusion of women from leadership in the church though in modern times is unjust, considering that women are now admitted to secular occupations that were once the exclusive perserve of men only (i.e. law, medicine, science, engineering, politics, the military, etc).
I can see the merits of both sides. I personally don’t have a problem with women’s ordination since from the early days of the church women have played key roles, though those roles may have been toned down due to sexist presumptions on the part of Biblical and church writers. Still, many people feel uncomfortable with the idea of women’s ordination so I think where it is allowed (i.e. in the Anglican church) it should not be forced on conservative branches that do not want it. There are many ways women can positively take part in the church without being ordained. But I think the notion of a male-only ‘off-limits’ zone for women in a professional occupation is becoming increasingly alienating and irrelevant in the 21st century when most places on Earth are giving women their humanity and rights and recognition, not as an inferior ‘second sex’, but as full members of the human family. I see no reason why this recognition should extend to allowing women to take full part in all levels of the ordained ranks of ministry. But it is for each communion to decide for itself on the question.
Also, many Protestant churches don’t appear to be comfortable with women in leadership roles because certain passages of scripture appear to condemn it, i.e. passages in the Letters of Timothy for example.
The other argument in favour of women’s ordination is that the refusal to ordain women is not based on lack of evidence but more on a patriarchal culture which came from Israel and Roman/Greek culture and reproduced the social and cultural inequality outside of the church within the church. This patriarchal inequality is reproduced through the history of the church and infects the essence of the church itself, to the top of the episcopate. The exclusion of women from leadership in the church though in modern times is unjust, considering that women are now admitted to secular occupations that were once the exclusive perserve of men only (i.e. law, medicine, science, engineering, politics, the military, etc).
I can see the merits of both sides. I personally don’t have a problem with women’s ordination since from the early days of the church women have played key roles, though those roles may have been toned down due to sexist presumptions on the part of Biblical and church writers. Still, many people feel uncomfortable with the idea of women’s ordination so I think where it is allowed (i.e. in the Anglican church) it should not be forced on conservative branches that do not want it. There are many ways women can positively take part in the church without being ordained. But I think the notion of a male-only ‘off-limits’ zone for women in a professional occupation is becoming increasingly alienating and irrelevant in the 21st century when most places on Earth are giving women their humanity and rights and recognition, not as an inferior ‘second sex’, but as full members of the human family. I see no reason why this recognition should extend to allowing women to take full part in all levels of the ordained ranks of ministry. But it is for each communion to decide for itself on the question.
A
adrift
Guest
I like you have not read all the thread so sorry if someone has already addressed this.
A woman cannot ordain, here confessions, offer the Mass, Give the sacrament of the sick, or confirm.
L
LilyM
Guest
Or officiate at a marriage, or be deacons.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I agree; and in my posts I did not mention the fact that in the Catholic tradition, a woman cannot ordain, confirm or offer the sacrament of the sick.
- Status