Women in the Priesthood

[PaulAndrew83]

Before I deal with bobzills post I will point out a few problems with yours. The reason is that Bobzills post just shows that he does not distinguish at all between change corruption and development. The fact that he thinks the filioque is an example to bolster his case is kind of hilarious.

TRADITIONAL ANG

 A few quick and scattered thoughts.

 (1) Trying to make **slavery** something less than evil is tricky. And why would the church teaching change to satisfy the Spanish? Most of the slaves from Africa, of course, went to Latin America. My daughter teaches in Brazil and has seen its impact.

One must distinguish between actions and actual doctrines. If one does not do this one could not be at home in any philosophy or religion because they all have their issues.

I did advise bobzills and tonyrey to actually do some reading on the history of slavery because its a topic that is easily as complicated as trying to understand the development of the immaculate conception. Which most people cannot do. Its a waste of time discussing this in this topic because it needs its own. The only thing is that some seem to think it is an example of substantial change in Church teaching when it isn’t.

 (2) Trying to sweeten the **Inquisition **is a curious maneuver, also. It also evil. Even Thomas Aquinas stated that heretics should be delivered over to the civil authorities to be executed. Some of these postings suggest that there are still a few hold-outs who would endorse that position. Read "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX, which helps explain why many Protestants were concerned about Catholic power. Fortunately, nearly all US Catholics - clergy and laity - today endorse the separation of church and state, thanks be to God.

I would endorse the inquisition. Far too many people blow it out of all proportion. I kind of laugh when people bring it up and have no real idea what it did, or even the reasons why it did. If you want to have a discussion about this with me I will, but not in this topic.

Also I wouldn’t be trying to sweeten it at all. I would certainly have burned calvin, luther, henry VIII et al.

 (3) The **annulment** process is very flawed. Many marriages that begin on firm ground turn sour for a wide variety of reasons, so the efforts to prove that they were invalid from the start are suspect. Money and social position play a role. Many people remarry without an annulment because they neither have the money or don't want to wait. Thousands of such second marriages are in Protestant churches or have JPs to officiate.

Agree, annulment is abused frequently and therefore bobzills shouldn’t be trying to use it as an example either.

 (4) **Limbo** may never have been an official doctrine, but it certainly was taught in the parochial school my wife attended.

I don’t see how this matters, It was the accepted scholastic solution to two opposing but not contradicting truths. I do not see how any catholic can reject this out of hand. But then again it shouldn’t be used by bobzills because there is no evidence of substantial change.

 (5) There never was a time when all Christians recognized the **Papacy** as the final authority within the church. That, of course, was a major reason for the split in - when was it - 1089? There also were Armenians and Copts and others who never recognized the Vatican as the center of church authority.

Newman stated there was far more evidence for the Pope being the final authority than for almost any other Christian doctrine. However there have always been and always will be HERETICS. I have a book filled almost to the brim with early Church fathers stating this teaching.

 (6) I'm not sure how any of this is related to **women in the priesthood**. I believe that within the next 50 years the RCC will have women deaconness who will be able to "hatch, match and dispatch.'  Phebe (Phoebe) appears to have been a deaconness in the early church.

Decaonesses in the early Church did not have the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is the difference. The idea that women could be priests is a corruption of all teaching about this sacrament.

 God bless the whole world - no exceptions based on creed, race, gender, nation, economic status, etc. And may God help religion become a bridge and not a barrier among Christians and between people of all faiths.

God is truth. The devil spread lies. Hence there will always be heresy/lies about God. Between truth and error there will always be a difference. Even unaided human reason should be able to see this.

Paul

 

[bobzills]

I did advise bobzills and tonyrey to actually do some reading on the history of slavery because its a topic that is easily as complicated as trying to understand the development of the immaculate conception.

This is excellent advice. In following your recommendation here, I came across the follwoing items:
“Dr. George Brest, a non-Muslim historian says, “Christianity did not object to slavery. Politically or economically, it did not encourage the believers to oppose the traditions of their generations as regards slavery. Christianity did not even discuss the problem and said nothing against the rights of slave owners. It did not urge slaves to demand their freedom and did not basically ask to free the slaves.” “

“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.” (Timothy I 6:1)

“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.” (Leviticus 25:44)
“in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals.”
I also checked out the 33 page article from Yale University on slavery, by professor Sweet:
“The first transnational, institutional endorsement of African slavery occurred in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas, which granted King Afonso V or Portugal the right to reduce to “perpetual slavery” all Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ” in West Africa."
yale.edu/glc/events/race/Sweet.pdf
Also, there appears to have been a Council teaching:
“If anyone, on the pretext of religion teaches another man’s slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good will and respect, let him be anathema.”
340 A.D., the Church Council of Gangra in Asia Minor
Canon 3. C.J.C. Decriti Gratiani,11, C.XVII, Q.IV, c.37.

However, currently the teaching is that men should not own slaves. So the teaching here has changed, has it not?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

In my studies of the changes in the teaching of the RCC, it seems pretty clear to me that there have been a lot of changes which people have said would not happen.

Seriously go and read Newman’s essay on development. Until you read this you will continue to not understand development versus change.

Where I say lol you should understand that to mean that it is eminently obvious that you are wrong.

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father

lol. Already pointed this one out earlier.

1. Forcible kidnapping of a six year old boy is allowed.

Perhaps you refer to the Jewish boy who was baptized by one of the Catholic housemaids because they thought he was going to die. The decision was made that the Boy could not be raised in a religion that was no longer valid in the eyes of God. I don’t think he was 6 at the time tho. I would probably have done the same.

1. Slavery. Priests and bishops can hold slaves.

Already told you go do some reading.

1. Torture. It is OK to torture someone in order to extract a confession.

Inquisition. I smell the need for reading.

1. The Blood was shed for all.

lol. Intent = Jesus shed for all. Effect = shed for many due to rejection. lol.

1. After 15 years of marriage, you can get an annulment because your husband spends too much time now in the gym.

Abuse of practice. lol.

1. Limbo

I one again smell the need for reading.

1. In order to be saved, it is absolutely necessary for you to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
2. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439:: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity."
3. Nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

This time I will be extra helpful.

Read Father Most.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/browse.cfm There are three or four good articles on this here. In one he specifically shows that teaching has not changed, so you should be able to stop being unable to distinguish change versus development.

1. Heresy is a sin which merits death. Heretics deserve the death penalty.

Go read some more.

I don’t see how you can deny that all of these teachings have in fact been changed or reevaluated so that they no longer mean what they originally were supposed to mean.
Now if they have changed these teachings, then why would it be inconceivable that at some distant time in the future, they may succeed in changing the current rules on the restrction against women priests?

Going back to my original piece of advice, read Newman’s essay on development of Christian doctrine.

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

This is excellent advice. In following your recommendation here, I came across the follwoing items:
“Dr. George Brest, a non-Muslim historian says, “Christianity did not object to slavery. Politically or economically, it did not encourage the believers to oppose the traditions of their generations as regards slavery. Christianity did not even discuss the problem and said nothing against the rights of slave owners. It did not urge slaves to demand their freedom and did not basically ask to free the slaves.” “

“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.” (Timothy I 6:1)

“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.” (Leviticus 25:44)
“in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals.”
I also checked out the 33 page article from Yale University on slavery, by professor Sweet:
“The first transnational, institutional endorsement of African slavery occurred in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas, which granted King Afonso V or Portugal the right to reduce to “perpetual slavery” all Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ” in West Africa."
yale.edu/glc/events/race/Sweet.pdf
Also, there appears to have been a Council teaching:
“If anyone, on the pretext of religion teaches another man’s slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good will and respect, let him be anathema.”
340 A.D., the Church Council of Gangra in Asia Minor
Canon 3. C.J.C. Decriti Gratiani,11, C.XVII, Q.IV, c.37.

However, currently the teaching is that men should not own slaves. So the teaching here has changed, has it not?

Let me be more specific. Read something CATHOLIC.

 

[bobzills]

Let me be more specific. Read something CATHOLIC.

The Bible and the Council teachings are Catholic and a reading of what they have taught indicates that the teaching on slavery has changed, as have so many other teachings.
There is the concept of development of doctrine. It is not inconceivable, in my personal opinion, that even this concept may be developed and broadened sometime in the distant future so that they will allow women to be priests. Of course, maybe then people will be lol just as you are lol now.

 

[bobzills]

Perhaps you refer to the Jewish boy who was baptized by one of the Catholic housemaids because they thought he was going to die. The decision was made that the Boy could not be raised in a religion that was no longer valid in the eyes of God. I don’t think he was 6 at the time tho. I would probably have done the same.

Well, has the teaching on whether or not it is allright to kidnap a Jewish boy from his parents changed or not?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

The Bible and the Council teachings are Catholic and a reading of what they have taught indicates that the teaching on slavery has changed, as have so many other teachings.
There is the concept of development of doctrine. It is not inconceivable, in my personal opinion, that even this concept may be developed and broadened sometime in the distant future so that they will allow women to be priests. Of course, maybe then people will be lol just as you are lol now.

Read a Catholic article, considering slavery over its history and the actions and teachings of the Church with regards to the differing historical periods. Its far more complicated than most people would have you believe. Slavery has had different incarnations from ancient times, to roman times to medieval serfdom to the actions of the slave-traders in Africa and slavery in north America. Before you can bring this topic up you would need more than just a few quotations and a secular article.

Well, has the teaching on whether or not it is allright to kidnap a Jewish boy from his parents changed or not?

Has it you? The pope who made that decision is now beatified. Perhaps you would like to find for me the official teaching it was ok and the official teaching that it wasn’t.

---

I am now coming to the opinion that it is waste of time posting in this topic for two reasons.

Those are that the reason that you two (tonyrey, bob) actually think the teaching can change are deeper than just this one issue.

The problem is the way you two actually think about anything. Substantially your way of thinking is modernist. I know you will try and shout me down for using that word because suddenly I am calling you heretical. But your defence of the idea that women can be Priests is actually heretical so its not like I am actually in the wrong.

You need to start thinking about the very nature of Truth. This is the root problem in your minds. You do not actually understand this concept.

---

edit: Substantially your way of thinking could justify a number of church teaching changes.

For example. It is no longer considered morally wrong to steal. It is no longer considered morally wrong to kill innocents. etc.

Paul

 

[bobzills]

edit: Substantially your way of thinking could justify a number of church teaching changes.

For example. It is no longer considered morally wrong to steal. It is no longer considered morally wrong to kill innocents. etc.

Paul

Let’s look at the last one that it is no longer considered morally wrong to kill innocents.
Has there been a change on that or not?
Well, I have argued that it was morally wrong to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In my personal opinion it was wrong because it involved the killing of innocent children. Civlians were needlessly killed and there were other ways of ending the war. However, on this very forum, Catholic Answers Forum, I was subject to a massive barrage of personal attacks, saying that my reasoning was faulty and the dropping of the A-Bomb on Japan was justified because it saved thousands of American lives. To me, this sounds like a clear case of the end justifying the means. I see that you have also begun the ad hominem argument as others before you have. You now call me a heretic. Of course, we read that according to St. Thomas Aquinas, heretics deserve to be exterminated. Fortunately, the Church has changed its position on that one, or else I would be in serious trouble, especially if you were in charge. Generally what I have noticed, is that people will resort to an ad hominem argument when they realise that their case is hopeless. They have run out of arguments to support their position, so instead of focussing in on the question at hand, they will attack the integrity, personality or character of their opponent.
With reference to heresy, let me ask a simple question:
Is it heretical to believe that a person can be saved without being subject to the Roman Pontiff?
It looks to me like the reasonable answer to thsi question is as follows:
At one point in time it was considered heretical, but at the present point in time it is not.

 

[bobzills]

. Substantially your way of thinking is modernist.

With reference to modernism, it would be helpful to have a definition of the term so that we know exactly what we are talking about here. For example, I have heard it said by some conservative Catholics, that many of the ideas which sprang forth in the Catholic Church after Vatican II were reflective of a modernistic way of thinking. Do you agree with that or not?

 

[slyboots]

What has this to do with Women in the Priesthood?
You are speaking on wholly different issues. Please return to the subject.

 

[PJM]

=dmar198;5203129]I know the Scripture references about the male-only priesthood, and I have resources to point me to the Tradition of the Church that agrees –

but I would like a resource that gives a good philosophical base upon which to build those things. Could someone point me to an article, or a two-to-three page essay, or something like that, which clearly explains the male-only priesthood? I imagine it would take into account the Catholic understanding of maleness and femaleness as two complimentary expressions of human nature, etc.

Thanks in advance.
God bless!

His Holiness JP II proclaimed that “the Church lacks the authority to Ordain women!”

Not will not, CANNOT!

1. Issue of physiology: “Do this in memory of Me” a mandate requiring male gender
2. Ordination is a Sacrament instituted by Chrsit Himself, the Church lackc the power to change it
3. Sacred Tradition

**APOSTOLIC LETTER ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”(1)

1. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination

**."(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”(10)

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.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

 

[bobzills]

What has this to do with Women in the Priesthood?
You are speaking on wholly different issues. Please return to the subject.

I thought it might be relevant to mention some of the other big changes in Church teaching, because obviously, it would be a big change if there ever were women priests.
The idea would go something like this:
There have been changes in teaching in the past.
Therefore it is not inconceivable that there might be a change in the specific teaching under discussion sometime in the distant future.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Bob with all due respect
Name one.

Name one where a Pope has taught on faith or morals AND where that same Pope has said that neither he nor the Church has the authority to change said teaching, AND where said Pope has written that “all doubt be removed” AND THEN
a later Pope has tossed the former Pope’s teaching out like so much garbage.

Name one.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/81...0F0269FBF92945626A99339DAB12EE30A760B0D811297

 

[Roy5]

Traditional Ang

Is the Ang for Anglican - or anger?

I really don't have time for this, but here goes.

1. You try to sugarcoat slavery. I think of Columbus, that celebrated Catholic, who brought oppression and worst from Spain to the New World. 

 Oh, by the way, maybe some Irish Catholic readers (who were oppressed for so long) didn't know that Pope Adrian IV presented Ireland as a 'papal fief' to the King of England!  Not such a bright move. The date slips my mind but about 1100???

 2. The Inquisition wasn't so bad, was it? Maybe some exaggerations, and both Catholics and Protestants were guilty of horrendous acts of violence against one another. My mother's ancestry was Belgian. The father was ordered to appear before the City Council in Ghent as he had become a Huguenot. He and his family fled that very night to France, until France also was murdering Protestants left and right (e. g., St. Bartholomew Massacre), He then went to England and from there as a Puritan to the USA.

  My father's family was French Catholic, became Baptist in Quebec, and came to the USA to escape the wrath of Catholics who viewed them as traitors. Catholicism has almost completely lost its influence today in Quebec and all of Canada. Protestantism isn't doing very well there, either.

  Frankly, we need to stop nurturing these historic evils and work toward reconciliation and understanding. The amount of hostility toward Protestantism here stupifies me. Somehow I thought that became sparse after Vatican II.

(At least you’re not like PaulAndrew82 who said he would have burned Calvin, Luther, etc. He sounds like a ‘real true follower of Christ’ - kidding - who told us to beware of judging and even to love our enemies. It’s that attitude which once fed anti-Catholicism here and elsewhere.)

  3. I happen to believe in birth control. Long story not relevant here.

  4. You seem to  imply that all those who didn't follow the Holy See in Rome must have been heretics. Have it your way. I sympathize with 'heretics' (being one myself, I presume) as they think for themselves and aren't afraid to separate themselves from the crowd. I have read widely in church history and have a very different impression of the early church and the role of Rome in it. 

  5. I thought Deacons could 'hatch, match and dispatch' - baptize, officiate at weddings and preside at funerals. Am I wrong? If so, I apologize, but that has been my understanding for years. It certainly is true in some denominations (e. g., Methodists).

   It's sad that there is so much hostility remaining among Christians, certainly here on CAF. I am disillusioned, as I have admired John XXIII so much and thought his kindness and charity had taken hold within the RCC.

   Keep happy and healthy. God bless the whole world - no exceptions.

 

[adrift]

Adrift:

Before I start, please see the article from Angelfire & this Orthodox “Deaconess” Ordination:

I was wondering what you meant by before I start The sites were very interesting and proved my point that there is much debate over this.
from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Deaconesses
tt=74

We cannot be sure that any formal recognition of deaconesses as an institution of consecrated women aiding the clergy is to be found in the New Testament. There is indeed the mention of Phebe (Romans 16:1), who is called diakonos, but this may simply mean, as the Vulgate renders it, that she was “in the ministry * of the Church”, without implying any official status. Again, it is not improbable that the “widows” who are spoken of at large in 1 Timothy 5:3-10, may really have been deaconesses, but here again we have nothing conclusive. That some such functionaries were appointed at an early date seems probable from Pliny’s letter to Trajan concerning the Christians of Bithynia (Ep. X, 97, AD 112) There he speaks of obtaining information by torture from two ancillae quae ministrae dicebantur, where a technical use of words seems to be implied. In any case there can be no question that before the middle of the fourth century women were permitted to exercise certain definite functions in the Church and were known by the special name of diakonoi or diakonissai.*
As you can see a different take from your quoted website.

That note is very important - It means the Deaconess doesn’t take part in the Divine Liturgy or what we call the Mass. The Eastern Orthodox are very careful to make sure there will be NO question of women being ordained as priests.

We have a different understanding of priesthood. Where you don’t connect the Deacon as part of the priesthood, we do. To ordain a woman to be a deacon is the same as ordaining her to the priesthood.

The Early Church understood far better than we do the difference between the Holy Deaconate & the Sacred Priesthood. The Early Church understood far better the difference between those who serve and those who offer sacrifice, between those who assist and those who stand in the place of Christ.

I would disagree that the early church saw a difference between the male deacon and the priesthood.

Regarding the rest, I’ve never heard of ANY woman Apostles.

There is a debate over Romans 16:7.

Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles; who were also in Christ before me.

There are those who say this means they were apostles and others who say it means that the apostles knew them.
Here is that verse in many translations

Just an addition, in the Latin rite marriage is conferred not by a priest or a deacon but by the couple. The priest or deacon is the witness for the Church.

 

[adrift]

Now this teaching has been changed. I can understand how these teachings have been changed with reference to the development of doctrine. So, it is my personal opinion, that it is not inconceivable that the doctrine limiting the priesthood to men might also be changed under some sort of similar argumentation, perhaps having to do with cultural conditions or with a further understanding of the restriction as being largely disciplinary and cultural.

I would disagree that the teaching has changed. You have presented it in a distorted way.
To give some context

The Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’, in which Pope Boniface VIII asserted his rights against King Phillip the Fair of France, is a landmark in the history of the doctrine of Papal Primacy.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. - in the writings of non-Catholic authors against the definition of Papal Infallibility, the Bull … was used against Boniface VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner not justified by its content. The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Europe. ‘Unam’ is frequently quoted, and misquoted, by anti-Catholics trying to prove that Boniface VIII, and Popes in general, are arrogant and evil men, intent on extending their own power.”

Most of what you claim has been changed was never taught the way you present it. You seem to believe that if a pope does evil that it shows that the teachings have changed. Most of what you have presented you could not show that the Church ever taught it.

 

[bobzills]

I would disagree that the teaching has changed. You have presented it in a distorted way.
To give some context

Most of what you claim has been changed was never taught the way you present it. You seem to believe that if a pope does evil that it shows that the teachings have changed. Most of what you have presented you could not show that the Church ever taught it.

But is it true that it has been reinterpreted? As it is quoted it seems pretty strong. The quote that I have seen is as I gave it to be:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
I would be interested to know if this quotation is incorrect as you seem to imply that it is?
Of course, there are other teachings along the same line as that:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, :
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity"
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
If you would compare that with what is taught today, I don;t see how you cannot say that this teaching has changed, perhaps under the sanction of development of doctrine, but still it is not taught today as it is quoted here. The statements given here seem to be pretty absolute and unconditional in nature.
It is true of course, that the declaration of Pope John Paul II is also pretty absolute and unconditional: “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.”
But are not the other statements pretty much unconditional also, and have they not been reinterpreted to allow for non-Catholics to be saved by one means or another. In fact, Cardinal Kasper was quoted as saying something to the effect that the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews, and I did not see any retraction of that, did you?
The issue here is whether or not women can be priests. According to the declaration of Pope John Paul II, it looks like they cannot ever be ordained as priests. But if other teachings have been reinterpreted or developed, then why would it be impossible in this case?

 

[po18guy]

On June 6 1997 at a general assembly of the Catholic Theological Society of America 216 out of 248 members voted “yes" to the resolution that “There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching (namely, the teaching that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught and requires the definitive assent of the faithful) and its grounds in Tradition.There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question not only among theologians but also within the larger community of the Church.”

Francis A. Sullivan SJ, emeritus professor at the Gregorian University, Rome, the leading theological authority on the magisterium, has expressed strong disagreement against the claim of infallibility made by the Congregation for Doctrine. His main reasons were that the conditions for such an infallible teaching have not been met since there has been neither consultation with all the bishops nor with the Catholic faithful.
“The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be ‘manifestly established’ (Canon 749 §3). Not only the Pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, must be proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way.”
Theological Studies, vol. 58, September 1997, pp. 509-515.

Elizabeth A. Johnson, professor of theology at Fordham University analyzes three reasons given by those who oppose women’s ordination:

1.The example of Jesus.
But Jesus did not ordain twelve men." Such an interpretation is an anachronism projected backward onto the Gospels in the light of later development."
Even if we suppose Jesus did ordain men it does not follow that women are to be excluded forever.The Spirit guides the Church to do many things that Jesus did not do.

1. Tradition.
   Pope Benedict himself has stated “Not every tradition that arises in the Church is a true celebration and keeping present of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition. Consequently, tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically”. A tradition appropriate in the past is often no longer appropriate in a new cultural context. It may be based on cultural attitudes rather than divine revelation. Antiquity is not the sole criterion of an authoritative tradition.
   “At one time it was official church teaching that it was unlawful for married couples to take pleasure in the marital act; that killing infidels was a way to salvation; that taking interest on a loan was forbidden; that slavery was permissible; that discrimination against Jewish people was legitimate; that biblical scholars could not use historical critical methods on Scripture texts.”

Studies of the tradition of a male priesthood reveal that it was based on the conviction that women are unsuitable because of the inferiority of their sex and their state of subjection in the social order, e.g. Apostolic Constitutions (Bk III, c 6)
St John Chrysostom argues from “the greatness of the tasks a bishop must perform” that women are unsuitable.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” (*1 Timothy *2,13-14). This was often used as the scriptural basis for the belief that women are inferior to men, more easily led astray and therefore unsuitable for ordination. It is now rejected by the Church.

1. The need for iconic resemblance.

This is the weakest argument because “women are icons of Christ, imago Christi, in every essential way. There is a natural resemblance between women and Jesus Christ in terms of a common humanity and participation in divine grace. To teach otherwise is a pernicious error that vitiates the power of baptism.The naive physicalism that reduces resembling Christ to being male is so deviant from Scripture and so theologically distorted as to be dangerous to the faith itself.”
*Disputed questions: authority, priesthood, women *by Elizabeth A. Johnson, Commonweal, vol…123, January 26 1996, pp. 8-10.

This post appears to be a vain intellectualization relying upon a dissident Catholic Priest and varied non-authoritative persons which have only coincidentally come down on your side of the argument. The quote from Benedict XVI was not made in response to the instant topic, and is applied out of context. Since each and every “source” cited has no dogmatic authority within the Catholic Church, their rendered opinions remain exactly that. They should shut up or join the Episcopalian Church.

History records that Jesus commissioned and sent forth men alone. If you are interested in “fairness” or “justice”, why not work on getting men the ability to produce children?

Or, would that be judging God’s work?

 

[bobzills]

This post appears to be a vain intellectualization relying upon a dissident Catholic Priest and varied non-authoritative persons which have only coincidentally come down on your side of the argument. The quote from Benedict XVI was not made in response to the instant topic, and is applied out of context. Since each and every “source” cited has no dogmatic authority within the Catholic Church, their rendered opinions remain exactly that. They should shut up or join the Episcopalian Church.

History records that Jesus commissioned and sent forth men alone. If you are interested in “fairness” or “justice”, why not work on getting men the ability to produce children?

Or, would that be judging God’s work?

Are you referring to Father Sullivan as being a dissident priest? I thought that Father Sullivan was a highly respected Catholic theologian. What are your credentials to set yourself up as a judge and jury over the credentials of Father Sullivan? Have you taught at the Gregorian university in Rome? Here are some of the books written by Father Sullivan:

Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, 1982
Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, 1983
The Church We Believe In: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, 1988
Salvation Outside the Church? 1992
Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, 1996
From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, 2001
How many theological books have you published.
Father Sullivan was the dean of the Gregorian University in Rome from 1964 to 1970. Were you ever dean at a Pontifical univesity? Further, William Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, received his doctorate under Sullivan in 1971. how many doctoral students have you had and how many are currently serving at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
I don’t see where you have the authority or the competence to call Father Sullivan a dissident.

 

[bobzills]

As I read through what Father Sullivan has written, I find that he more or less has given the same argument that I have given here. To quote from his article which appeared in The Tablet 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646:"…the history of Catholic doctrine provides some examples of propositions that, up to a certain point in time, seemed to be the unanimous teaching of the whole episcopate and yet, as a result of a further development of doctrine, are no longer the teaching of the church.

To give an example: The bishops gathered at the Council of Florence in 1442 no doubt expressed the common teaching of the whole episcopate at that time when they said that all pagans and Jews would certainly go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. This is certainly not the doctrine of the modern Catholic Church. Other examples of doctrines that had a long tradition but were subsequently reversed concerned the morality of owning slaves and exploiting their labor, and the obligation requiring rulers of Catholic nations to prevent the propagation of Protestantism in their territories."
"THE CHANGES IN CHURCH DOCTRINE that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all. There is no denying the fact that many of the reasons given in the past to justify the exclusion of women from the priesthood are such as one would be embarrassed to offer today. No doubt, better reasons than those have been presented in the recent documents of the Holy See.

The question that remains in my mind is whether it is a clearly established fact that the bishops of the Catholic Church are as convinced by those reasons as Pope John Paul evidently is, and that, in exercising their proper role as judges and teachers of the faith, they have been unanimous in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed truth to which all Catholics are obliged to give a definitive assent of faith. Unless this is manifestly the case, I do not see how it can be certain that this doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. ".