T
tonyrey
Guest
“rabbling” is an argumentum ad hominem. Consensus does not necessarily mean the majority. Most people have neither the time not inclination to think about the subject.
- Status
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Probably because we accept the teachings of The Church rather than trying to argue for change what won’t be changed.
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Please.You may want to consider abstaining from sterile statements.
You wanted to know the difference between two words. Two words that I would think you’d know the difference to. I’m providing you a source for just such a task.
And YOU may want to abstaining from trying to “prove” an unproveable.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Many theologians from all over the world have rejected the claim that the exclusion of women from priestly ordination has been infallibly decided by the ordinary universal magisterium.
womenpriests.org/teaching/mag_con2.asp
R
Roy5
Guest
MARK MY WORD
What are traditionalist Catholics going to do when the Church begins to recruit married men into the priesthood, and eventually make women Deaconesses (at least) with the privileges/duties and today’s Deacons? Mark my word: it will happen.Those who believe that this could not happen, that the celibate-male only priesthood is permanent, will have a hard time adjusting… Or, will they split off, as this and that faction already has done, and condemn the Vatican as unauthentic and heretical?
What are traditionalist Catholics going to do when the Church begins to recruit married men into the priesthood, and eventually make women Deaconesses (at least) with the privileges/duties and today’s Deacons? Mark my word: it will happen.Those who believe that this could not happen, that the celibate-male only priesthood is permanent, will have a hard time adjusting… Or, will they split off, as this and that faction already has done, and condemn the Vatican as unauthentic and heretical?
Code:
How wonderful it would be if the Catholic Church were to loosen up, become less rigid both theologically and liturgically. I'm sure millions of Protestants would be pleased to have a united Christian Church with room for free dialogue and respect for differences of conscience. As it is now, for every person who becomes Catholic in the USA today, four leave the church. Some posters obviously don't care, but I'm sure Christ would love one flock with sufficient room for diverse views.
Already American Catholics have a wide variety of opinions on all sorts of things. A US Catholic magazine poll found that more than half reject transubstantiation, for example. By the way, do such doubters automatically excommunicate themselves because of such 'heresy'? If God wanted us all to believe precisely alike, He should have made scripture clearer. Brilliant scholars hold differing positions on a huge number of theological questions, each basing his/her opinion on the Bible. I find no problem with such differences myself. I honor honest scholarship.
God bless you and the whole world - no exceptions! That also includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, others. Nearly all humanity seeks and reveres God regardless of the various perceptions of the Almighty.
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
Theologians? A bunch of individuals who reject Church dogma are theologians?
That will convince us.
Why are you allowing all of these false individuals and their teachings to keep you away from Christ’s Church and His Divine Mercy? No one in their right mind (conscience?) would allow this.
Eddie Mac
E
Eddie_Mac
Guest
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
LOL, then it wouldn’t be the Catholic Church. I may as well go to one of the two mega-churches (and trust me, we have PLENTY of protestant mega churches here in Dallas) I see on my way to work - which is 10 minutes away. MUCH MUCH closer than the nearest Catholic church to me. Or better yet, walk across the street to this wee protestant church in front of my apartment complex (that’s THREE protestant churches I see on my way to work.) I’ll get the joy of having juice and crackers on a Sunday morning, rather than the Holy Eucharist. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. 
Better yet, protestants may want to quit protesting the Catholic church. Come back home to The Truth.
Better yet, protestants may want to quit protesting the Catholic church. Come back home to The Truth.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
The Vatican has deemed it infallible, but womenpriests says no. I’m supposed to take their word for it? I bet if I looked hard enough, I could find some people that will say cake and coffee could be used for the Eucharist. A priest could even attempt to consecrate them, but cake and coffee they will remain.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Please forgive my ad hominem.
Why do you think they don’t have the inclination to think about it? Because their consensus is to stick with Tradition.
H
Handsome_Danger
Guest
I’ve already given you the pertinent verses from the Catechism in previous posts.
That is not what i am saying. I am saying that in order to form our conscience correctly, we are aided by the teaching authority of The Church. However, obstinately believing something that goes against an infallible church teaching means that the conscience was not well formed in the first place…since it would have clearly not been formed through the teachings of The Church. You can’t say you love your parents and then swear at, abuse and otherwise mistreat them…these aren’t acts of love. Likewise, you can’t say you believe in the authority of The Church and then ignore that authority (on matters of faith and morals, of which, this topic is one) just because you FEEL there is no reason to obey. That is not an act of obedience.
So if I believe that arbitrarily murdering people is a good thing…and I REALLY believe that is true, then I am morally obliged believe that? It doesn’t seem that you really have a grasp at what the purpose of The Church is, exactly.
That absolutely does not make an ounce of sense. Again, The Church affirms that murder is wrong. However, what happens when my conscience tells me it’s not? How can I be faithful to both? Should I be faithful to The Church only when her teachings and my conscience agree? Sounds like Protestantism to me.
By the dictionary definition of ‘heretic’ (a person who holds religious beliefs in conflict with the dogma of the Church), yes.
That is not left up to by the laity. Excommunication is regarded as a last resort, and is always for rehabilitative purposes. Very rarely do people believe what they do within the context of what it takes to be formally excommunicated.
Sure. In the supernatural order, Jesus always described himself as the ‘bridegroom’ to the Church (‘Bride of Christ’). The Sacraments, and especially the Eucharist, were instituted by Christ to be physical, sensual, tangible. As such, what is physically done, and who is physically doing it during the sacraments is of utmost importance. We can see this in marriage. The priest is not the minister of the sacriment…the couple getting married are. Which is why two men or two women or anything but a man and a woman cannot marry…they cannot properly carry out the sacrament. Likewise, during the Eucharist, Christ, a male, ministered the sacrament, as the bridegroom, to His Church…His bride. This is how sacraments work, they convey a deepness that words alone cannot. So it’s not just the words that matter during sacraments, but it’s also every other little detail. He was giving up His body, for His bride. When the priest ministers the sacrament, he is acting in Persona Christi. If you put a female in there, you now have a bride, giving up her body for her bride…it breaks the meaning of the sacrament.
HD
H
Handsome_Danger
Guest
Let me also clarify my above answer to this question. By a dictionary definition, that is a heretical belief. However, just as not every grave sin is a mortal sin…there are mitigating circumstances that would keep someone from formally being labeled a heretic. First off, that isn’t the laity’s decision, but guessing that you have shown a lack of understanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments, the Catechism and ecclesiastical documents, I’d guess that just holding that belief without fully understanding the situation, you wouldn’t fall into that category.
If anyone disagrees, please let me know.
HD
T
tonyrey
Guest
What are your theological qualifications and experience compared with the following?
*]The Catholic Theological Society of America
*]Nicholas Lash, professor of divinity, Cambridge University, UK
*]Francis A. Sullivan SJ, emeritus professor Gregorian University Rome
*]Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., professor of theology at Fordham University, New York
*]Gisbert Greshake, professor of theology at the University of Freiburg, Germany
*]Ann O’Hara Graff, professor of theology at Seattle University, Washington
*]Peter Hünermann, professor of theology at Tübingen University, German
It would be interesting to know how you would refute their analysis of the situation …
T
tonyrey
Guest
You clearly believe your understanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments, the Catechism and ecclesiastical documents is superior to:
*]The Catholic Theological Society of America
*]Nicholas Lash, professor of divinity, Cambridge University, UK
*]Francis A. Sullivan SJ, emeritus professor Gregorian University Rome
*]Elizabeth A. Johnson, C.S.J., professor of theology at Fordham University, New York
*]Gisbert Greshake, professor of theology at the University of Freiburg, Germany
*]Ann O’Hara Graff, professor of theology at Seattle University, Washington
*]Peter Hünermann, professor of theology at Tübingen University, Germany
(amongst many others)
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is it an act of love to exclude women from the priesthood? To say I FEEL (equivalent to shouting) is an argumentum ad hominem. Do the theologians I have listed also feel that some women have a vocation to the priesthood?
Your analogy of murder with belief that women may have a vocation to the priesthood is preposterous.
HD You are confusing symbolism with ontological fact. Jesus was giving himself up for everyone, not only members of the Church but every human being, both male and female.
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
Yes.
When the Pope says something that is definitive and states that he is removing the matter
from the table for discussion then it is an infallible statement.
Therefore all those individuals you mentioned are all wrong.
They are as it were nothing to the Popes single statement.
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. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Of course it is ex cathedra.
Everything about this statement makes it infallible.
Paul
F
foundthelight
Guest
There is an old saying to the affect that if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it is most likely a duck.
The above people are in serious disagreement with the teachings of the Church. Just because one likes what they say doesn’t make their opinions right.
P
PaulAndrew83
Guest
I would certainly claim to be superior in my understanding of the Church than these people. These people cannot even understand the nature of an infallible pronouncement for one thing. They are desperately trying to state that their theological errors regarding Holy Orders are not.
In fact all of their qualifications mean nothing because it does seem that a case can be made that they are only qualifications in theological error rather than qualifications in theology.
They may in fact know more about their theological errors that I do except for the fact that they are in error lol
Paul
H
Handsome_Danger
Guest
The Church isn’t excluding them…it’s just not doing what it cannot do.
Nonsense. It’s putting emphasis on the word ‘feel’…showing its subjective nature. Learn logic before you start throwing around terms you only have a passing familiarity with.
Why? We are talking about inability to change doctrine, not the act of murder as morally equivalent to ordination of women to the priesthood. It’s a perfectly sound theological argument.
He was indeed giving Himself up for everyone…combined…as the Church, Christ’s Bride. YOU are confusing the nature of sacraments with some superstitious hand waving that are devoid of true meaning. Exactly why Protestants think they can use grape juice and Ritz in place of unleavened bread and wine.
Your little list of theologians are a small group of people that hold a position contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Since even the Pope cannot change doctrine, I would have to say that there’s more than a sure chance that they’re wrong on the subject.
Thus far, you have been presented with many sound theological arguments, and have yet to show the logical fallacy in them. On the other hand, every single thing you post, ad nauseam, have been successfully refuted multiple times. We’re all open to debate, but you have to know how to debate, and not just go on like a conspiracy theorist.
HD
G
GodIsGracious
Guest
Handsome Danger, I went to your blog and saw your entry on women priests. I followed the links to the news articles and was … appalled. Some of those women aren’t even celibate!
That’s just freaky. And when I saw those pictures my heart sank. There was just something creepy about all of it. I noticed also that those ordinations did not take place in a Catholic church. Gee. I wonder why.
That’s just freaky. And when I saw those pictures my heart sank. There was just something creepy about all of it. I noticed also that those ordinations did not take place in a Catholic church. Gee. I wonder why.
- Status