Right. But, as it has not been taught infallibly, theologically this issue deserves further exploration and discussion.Fair enough.
The matter is closed and has been definitively taught.
(I don’t mean that this thread is closed–not that I have the power to declare it so.I simply mean that while we can and ought to discuss amongst ourselves, Catholics are not free to declare that women’s ordination is legit.)
Of course not. I understand infallibility. What’s your point? Where has the Church taught, infallibly, on this topic? Nowhere. If you disagree, please provide a reference. Thank you.
The diaconate is part of Holy Orders, according to Catholic teaching.
That is incorrect.
“Seems” is exactly right. That’s why the issue is not closed regarding whether or not it’s taught infallibly. Thank you for confirming my point. Read Canon Law. There’s no “seems” in Canon Law.
Well, we are certainly free to discuss it here on CAFs. But the matter has been definitively proclaimed.
It’s often put into practice at parishes that have a pastoral administrator.Wow - never noticed that Canon before
I can’t imagine it ever being put into practice though - it’s not like there’s ever an emergency situation where marriges MUST be solemnised within a particular timeframe, unlike, say baptism which sometimes must be performed in circumstances where there is a danger of death.
If all doubt has been removed, why was it not taught infallibly?
Hi bibleguy,Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?
Why does it need to be taught infallibly if all doubt has been removed?
Because to consecrate is to offer a sacrifice of bread and wine. Only a priest can offer a sacrifice. Even in the Old Testament. Take the case of Melkizedek. He only appeared in a short part of the Bible, its like he came out of nowhere and disappeared to nowhere. His only role in the Old Testament was to offer Abraham’s sacrifice.
Its probably in use for mission areas where lay missionaries would Baptize and Marry the natives until a church can be established and a priest is sent to the area. Baptism also has a clause in Canon Law that lay persons cannot licitly baptized except in cases of necessity. However, should a bishop, priest or deacon not be present, a Catechist may be designated as a minister of Baptism. A missionary is a Catechist. So I figure these two Canons go hand-in-hand for mission areas. We who live in big cities may never see such circumstances, but somewhere in the world today it definitely happens.Wow - never noticed that Canon before
I can’t imagine it ever being put into practice though - it’s not like there’s ever an emergency situation where marriges MUST be solemnised within a particular timeframe, unlike, say baptism which sometimes must be performed in circumstances where there is a danger of death.
Again, I understand the need for a lay missionary woman in a remote area to be able to baptise - emergencies arise where baptism needs to be done quickly. I don’t understand the need for a lay missionary to be able to perform marriages.
If all doubt was intended to be removed, why not teach it infallibly?
Interesting, does this idea has any Christian reference?My understanding is that the reason the Levitical priesthood was male was because Adam, who was the one who broke fellowship with God through sin (Eve’s sin did not, in and of itself, do this - it was not until Adam also partook with her in sin that the bond was broken) was male.
Because it was the male who broke the bond, it is the male who must restore it, by means of sacrifices for sins, and by means of the priesthood. Thus, only males could become priests (even Deborah, though she was a Judge and a warrior, was never a priest) - and thus, Jesus, being born a Son, became the second Adam, to undo what was done by the first Adam, and following that, the Christian priesthood is also males only.
Women have other, equally important work to do in God’s kingdom - not least, giving birth to new members of it, and training them up to worship God in holiness and in truth.
I believe there is a Catholic theologian who has written on this topic. I wish I knew who it was as I would love to get my hands on their work.
Because all doubt has been removed.
Can you please cite your source that says that teachings that have been taught infallibly (please also cite an example of a statement you consider infallible) do not have room for development and further understanding.
For two baptized persons who are in no way impeded from marriage, the sacrament is conferred with the mutual exchange of vows. That remains a valid, sacramental marriage even if it is never consummated. (Prior impotence, of course, would be an impediment to marriage. The couple must have at least the ability to complete the marital act.) Consummation of the marriage makes it indissoluble except by death, but the sacrament along with its graces occurs with the mutual public consent.
He said, “I declare” - it’s infallible.
