Women in the Priesthood

[PaulAndrew83]

Stuff

Since you were so kind to quote Newman, perhaps you would like to quote from his famous work on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Then you would have to drop your incredibly distorted view of devlopment. That goes for Bobzills as well.

Paul

 

[omg]

You are telling a lie about being catholic or that there are female Deacons in your Church.

I hate to tell you I am not lying and I am sorry you do not believe it it has happened with in the las yr. So don’t call anyone names till you know the truth and yes I am very Catholic.
God Bless you

 

[bobzills]

I hate to tell you I am not lying and I am sorry you do not believe it it has happened with in the las yr. So don’t call anyone names till you know the truth and yes I am very Catholic.
God Bless you

When a friend of mine was in the hospital, he was visited by a lady who brought the Eucharist. Now if a female Catholic is going around to hospitals giving the Eucharist to Catholic invalids, what name would you give to the type of service that she is providing. Is she not performing the task of a female deaconess?

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Are you suggesting that “maleness” is supernatural? Perhaps you think God is a male as well!

TonyRey:

As a Catholic, you’re required to accept the Teachings of the Catholic Church. One of them is the Male-Only Priesthood. This isn’t a Practice or a Discipline. This is a Dogma of the Church.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION
TO MEN ALONE

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”

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.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Our Lord walked into a Jewish society that had been created by God, that followed a Torah inspired by God, and that had been instructed by Prophets sent by God.

Before founding His Church, our Lord contradicted almost every dicta of Jewish & Gentile societies - “Love & pray for your enemies.” “Forgive for those who spiteful use & wrong you.” “If someone compels you to walk one mile, insist on walking a second with them.” “If someone smacks you on one check, offer them the other.” “If someone takes your cloak, give them your coat as well.” “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Peacemakers shall be called the children of God." and more…

And, Then He voluntarily gave Himself over to the torturer and the executioner and allowed Himself to suffer the most heinous form of execution man has devised, all the while forgiving those who tortured and put Him to death…

He then founded a Church that promptly prohibited its adherents from engaging in Emperor Worship & other Cultic behaviors which were needed to get ahead in Roman Society, and Abortion, Artificial Contraception & Pater Familias, all of which were widely practiced in Roman society. and, This Church required husbands not only to be faithful to their wives (adultery in the Roman Empire was common), but also to “love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it”.

And, You want us to believe that instituting a female priesthood would have been too much of a stretch for our Lord and His Church? - With the MOTHER OF GOD, the Holy and Immaculate Theotokos walking next to Him and sitting in counsel next to the Apostles? The ONE WOMAN ALL of the Apostles would have listened to if HE had made HER head of HS Church! Do you really think ANY of the disciples would have had any difficulty choosing the woman who stayed by Jesus at the cross over the blustering moron who denied Him 3x when accosted by a CHAMBER MAID? Esp. If Our Lord had chosen her to lead this bunch? They were even staying IN HER CLAN’S HOUSE!

In any debate, the Burden of Proof is NOT on those defending the Status Quo, esp. when those defending the Status Quo have the legitimate claim of INFALLIBILITY and INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The Burden of Proof is on the one who is pushing for the CHANGE, and that’s the one who’s refusing to accept the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, but you have to do better than point to an ecclesial body which doesn’t even have VALID ORDERS or VALID SACRAMENTS. Women may make fine Protestant Ministers, just as men make fine Babysitters. But, If you want someone to be a MOTHER, you need a woman, and if you want someone to be a priest, you need a man. One is a matter of physical biology and emotional psychology. The other is a matter of spiritual ecclesiology.

If you don’t like this, I suggest you have a long discussion with the ONE who’s Present in the Tabernacle and that you ask HIM for the gift of faith and acceptance.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

When a friend of mine was in the hospital, he was visited by a lady who brought the Eucharist. Now if a female Catholic is going around to hospitals giving the Eucharist to Catholic invalids, what name would you give to the type of service that she is providing. Is she not performing the task of a female deaconess?

Bob:

Here are two articles you might want to look at (Eastern Orthodox):

DEACONESSES

Deaconesses were ordained in the altar by a bishop by the imposition of hands. They were robed in a stichar and an orarion (deacon’s stole). They were addressed as “reverend”, “Most honorable” or “most pious”. The episcopal prayers of ordination of a deaconess have not been revoked by the Orthodox Church and they can still be found in the books.

The deaconess had specific duties. Among them was to instruct privately female candidates for baptism, to assist at their baptism which was by total immersion, they did the anointing with oil at the baptism as it was not considered proper for the male clergy to touch a woman, they visited and cared for the sick, they were present at interviews of women with the bishops or priests, they dismissed women catechumens from the church and kept general order in the women’s section of the church (men and women were segregated as they were up to about 25 years ago in our churches in America), and they did other duties delegated by the bishop like helping the poor. They were in a sense the educators of women in the faith and social workers. Deaconesses were ordained in the Eastern Church as late as the 12th century. The office was disused in the Western Church somewhat earlier.
angelfire.com/pa/deaconess/article.html
This next link is from an Orthodox Liturgy. Although they use the term “Female Deacon”, I believe they’re referring to the “Deaconess”. I also don’t know if this is a trial liturgy, or one that’s been in use for a while…ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON
This prayer is less specific than that for male Deacons and makes no reference to the ‘service of the Mysteries’. On the other hand there is no distinction between the sexes with regard to the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ conferred by ordination.
anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm
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. Please read the first Article, very carefully.

I haven’t been to sleep in 20 hours. I’d better go to sleep before someone starts using me as stand-in for Day of the Living Dead. :hypno::coffeeread:

Good MANE.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Ender]

When a friend of mine was in the hospital, he was visited by a lady who brought the Eucharist. Now if a female Catholic is going around to hospitals giving the Eucharist to Catholic invalids, what name would you give to the type of service that she is providing. Is she not performing the task of a female deaconess?

No. She is performing the task of an extraordinary minister of holy communion just as you see being done every Sunday in most churches. Women performing such roles are no more deaconesses than are the men who perform them (EMHC) deacons. This is as much a lay position as that of lector or usher.

Ender

 

[foundthelight]

I hate to tell you I am not lying and I am sorry you do not believe it it has happened with in the las yr. So don’t call anyone names till you know the truth and yes I am very Catholic.
God Bless you

Is your congregation in communion with Rome?

 

[adrift]

There are incontrovertible references to female apostles, leaders of communities, presbyters and deaconnesses in the New Testament. They had disappeared by the fourth century. Why? By choice? You underestimate the extent of male domination in Christian and non-Christian societies.

There is much debate over what you are calling incontrovertible. The so called female apostle is more than likely not being called an apostle but being said that she is known to the apostles. I have never seen a reference to a female presbyter. As for deaconesses, these women were not ordained. There is no evidence that they were. Why did they disappear? Because there role, to safeguard women, were no longer needed.

The priesthood beginnings was instituted by God. He is the one who decided no women. To say it is cultural is to deny God’s power. To say the Church is making a mistake is to deny the Holy Spirits guidance. To speculate that Jesus could have been a woman or born into another society denies God’s plan.

 

[bobzills]

No. She is performing the task of an extraordinary minister of holy communion just as you see being done every Sunday in most churches. Women performing such roles are no more deaconesses than are the men who perform them (EMHC) deacons. This is as much a lay position as that of lector or usher.

Ender

I don’t say that we are going to see female deaconesses or female priests in the near future. However, looking over all of the changes that have taken place in the RCC, I would say that it is not inconceivable that this position could change under the theory of development of doctrine.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I don’t say that we are going to see female deaconesses or female priests in the near future. However, looking over all of the changes that have taken place in the RCC, I would say that it is not inconceivable that this position could change under the theory of development of doctrine.

Bob:

The Theory of “Development of Doctrine” is a theological construct, and even under this theory, NO doctrine can be developed which controverts or contradicts previous Church Teaching. Although the Church (esp. in the East) has had Deaconesses (please read my previous post & the included links on the subject), the Church has always taught that women could never be ordained as priests due to the nature of Christ and the nature of the priesthood. This isn’t a “Civil Rights Issue”, and has nothing to do with “Societal Development”.

The Church’s Doctrine of the Male Only Priesthood has to do with the fundamental natures of MAN & WOMAN, & of the PRIESTHOOD & THE CHURCH and of the relationship and the MYSTERION of those relationships. Just as Christ gave and gives Himself for His Church, so a husband is to give himself for his wife. and, Just as a husband is to give himself for his wife, so the priest, acting in Persona Christi and as the husband of the Church, is to give himself for the bride he shares with Christ, Christ’s Church.

NO woman could ever hope to be ever able to do that, just as NO man could ever hope to ever bear and give birth to children. Neither of these are a Human Right - Both of these are a Service for another.

The position of the Catholic Church, both East & West, on this issue from the beginning is clear. Please don’t use the fact the Eastern Orthodox ordain Deaconesses as an argument for the Ordination of women to the Priesthood. The Orthodox will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Holy Deaconate is no more a steppingstone to the Sacred Priesthood than the Basement is to the 2nd floor of a house.

I hope this ends this part of the discussion.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[bobzills]

Bob:

The Theory of “Development of Doctrine” is a theological construct, and even under this theory, NO doctrine can be developed which controverts or contradicts previous Church Teaching. Although the Church (esp. in the East) has had Deaconesses (please read my previous post & the included links on the subject), the Church has always taught that women could never be ordained as priests due to the nature of Christ and the nature of the priesthood. This isn’t a “Civil Rights Issue”, and has nothing to do with “Societal Development”.

The Church’s Doctrine of the Male Only Priesthood has to do with the fundamental natures of MAN & WOMAN, & of the PRIESTHOOD & THE CHURCH and of the relationship and the MYSTERION of those relationships. Just as Christ gave and gives Himself for His Church, so a husband is to give himself for his wife. and, Just as a husband is to give himself for his wife, so the priest, acting in Persona Christi and as the husband of the Church, is to give himself for the bride he shares with Christ, Christ’s Church.

NO woman could ever hope to be ever able to do that, just as NO man could ever hope to ever bear and give birth to children. Neither of these are a Human Right - Both of these are a Service for another.

The position of the Catholic Church, both East & West, on this issue from the beginning is clear. Please don’t use the fact the Eastern Orthodox ordain Deaconesses as an argument for the Ordination of women to the Priesthood. The Orthodox will tell you in no uncertain terms that the Holy Deaconate is no more a steppingstone to the Sacred Priesthood than the Basement is to the 2nd floor of a house.

I hope this ends this part of the discussion.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

So we do agree that there have been female deaconesses in the Church.
We do not agree on my opinion that it is conceivable that the teaching against women priests could change under a reevaluation of the issue and redefinition of it as an essentially disciplinary and cultural one.
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. One or more legal loopholes or extensions has been devised to cover the fact that an essential change has not taken place, when in fact a change has actually occurred. It is true, that you could invoke the theory of development of doctrine to support the change. But it is my contention, that it is not inconceivable that the experts in the legal wording of Church rules will be able to find a formula which will provide adequate support for a change in the teaching against women priests. For example, it could be alleged that the previous restriction was disciplinary and it was a misinterpretation or a mistranslation to say that it was doctrinal. Or some other loophole could be found.
LEt me give you some examplex of the changes in teaching:

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
2. Forcible kidnapping of a six year old boy is allowed.
3. Slavery. Priests and bishops can hold slaves.
4. Torture. It is OK to torture someone in order to extract a confession.
5. The Blood was shed for all.
6. After 15 years of marriage, you can get an annulment because your husband spends too much time now in the gym.
7. Limbo
8. In order to be saved, it is absolutely necessary for you to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. Heresy is a sin which merits death. Heretics deserve the death penalty.
    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?

 

[tonyrey]

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

There are some anti-women-priests on this forum who do believe heretics deserve the death penalty! The spirit of the Inquisition lives on…

 

[Traditional_Ang]

There is much debate over what you are calling incontrovertible. The so called female apostle is more than likely not being called an apostle but being said that she is known to the apostles. I have never seen a reference to a female presbyter. As for deaconesses, these women were not ordained. There is no evidence that they were. Why did they disappear? Because there role, to safeguard women, were no longer needed.

The priesthood beginnings was instituted by God. He is the one who decided no women. To say it is cultural is to deny God’s power. To say the Church is making a mistake is to deny the Holy Spirits guidance. To speculate that Jesus could have been a woman or born into another society denies God’s plan.

Adrift:

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

Deaconess
angelfire.com/pa/deaconess/article.html
Order for the Ordination of a Woman Deacon (Deaconess)
anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

And this note from Post #246:
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.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5258975&postcount=246
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.

Regarding the rest, I’ve never heard of ANY woman Apostles. There were women who helped the Apostles - Some were Deaconesses, & some provided financial support or owned homes Churches met in. There were disobedient “Self-Styled” Apostles (both men and women) who were referred to in the Epistles of St. Paul. and, There were “Jezebels”, women referred to in the Book of Revelation. NONE of these could be seen as being APOSTLES or having APOSTOLIC SANCTION to act in the role of priests or Bishops.

The Gnostic churches (heretical) did stuff such as what was described, and I understand there may be one or more situations where women were caught after they had resorted to subterfuge. But the Early Church (first 10 Centuries) NEVER willingly ordained a woman as a priest or Bishop, and on the VERY FEW occasions they did, they quickly remedied the situation - That included readministration of the Sacraments they had done with valid Sacraments (Orders, Confirmation, Communion, Penance, Marriage) - All except Baptism, because even laity can Baptize if necessity.

You Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Bob:

You are right that it is YOUR OPINION that the TEACHING on the Male only Priesthood is of a Disciplinary or Cultural Nature. This means that neither you nor Tony Rey understand the ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE PRIESTHOOD.

We do not agree on my opinion that it is conceivable that the teaching against women priests could change under a reevaluation of the issue and redefinition of it as an essentially disciplinary and cultural one.

I’m not going to deal w/ #1 here - Too much history & complicated theology. #2 is ludicrous - The Church has never allowed the kidnapping of children, and has been far too often the victim of kidnappings (St. Patrick). #3 - The Initial Teaching of the Church was that slaves were to be treated as Brothers & Sisters & were NEVER to be mistreated or exploited. Did you know that if a priest/Bishop & his slave had food for only ONE the slave was to EAT, and the priest/BISHOP was to FAST? Did you know that for much of the Church’s history, SLAVERY WAS A TEMPORARY STATE, and children born to slaves weren’t slaves? Did you know the Church changed its teaching because the Spanish refused to follow the Church’s strict rules on the treatment of the slaves they had made of the “Indigenous peoples”?.. “Because of the HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS…”

#4 - The Church allowed Civil Authority a LOT of Leeway it probably shouldn’t have allowed. In fact, many of those who were on trial in CIVIL COURTS took refuge in the Courts of the INQUISITION, because the Inquisition gave guarantees unknown in most of the world until the American Bill of Rights: 1. Assistance of Counsel; 2. Right to confront witnesses for prosecution; 3. Right to compel witnesses to testify in one’s defense; 4. Right against Self-Incrimination; & 5. Right to Trial by Jury…

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
2. Forcible kidnapping of a six year old boy is allowed.
3. Slavery. Priests and bishops can hold slaves.
4. Torture. It is OK to torture someone in order to extract a confession.
5. The Blood was shed for all.
6. After 15 years of marriage, you can get an annulment because your husband spends too much time now in the gym.
7. Limbo
8. In order to be saved, it is absolutely necessary for you to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
9. 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."
10. 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.

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?

#5 - I don’t know what you’re referring to. Jesus Christ died once and for all for all men, but some will reject His generous offer. That’s why St. Matthew’s Gospel says,
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:26-28 RSV
“FOR ALL” in the present Novus Ordo is a MISTRANSLATION. I wouldn’t go hanging anyone’s hat on that.

#6 - The situation in the American Catholic Church and Annulments is SCANDALOUS. The Pope agrees with you, and has been giving some of these people some real tongue lashings over it. I’ve never heard of anything such as you’ve described, but Kennedy’s Annulment was bad enough. If you’re describing your own situation, you have my sympathy (Remember, I’m the guy who’s had the brain surgery and who has a missing disc). and, I suspect this is the reason for your argument…

#7 - Limbo was never an Official Teaching of the Church. It was a Pius Belief - An attempt to put together the Need for Baptism & Membership in the Catholic Church with the desire for Mercy towards those children killed by Herod & those children who died before they could be baptized. What theologians forgot was that God thought of this a long time before they ever could, and that He would have made Provision for just such eventualities.

#8 - #10: I’ve not seen a Conciliar Document that says all have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. This may be hard for you to believe, but all Christians once accepted the Primacy of the See of Peter & the Authority of that See to decide Issues of Controversy… 9 only says what the Athanasian Creed says, and that was accepted by the Anglican Communion until the Liberals took over in the 1960’s - That’s why I tried once to use it as a basis for discussion with some EO Brothers. 10. God decides who is included in the Catholic Church & who isn’t - That means the person you described will probably meet you at the gates, if you don’t screw up.

I’m trying to help 300,000 Anglicans (Cardinal Levada is trying to get more to join the party) swim across the Tiber, and I’m having to do what?

Please stop arguing and pray and talk to the Lord about this. It really is past time for me to go to bed. Good Night

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

There are some anti-women-priests on this forum who do believe heretics deserve the death penalty! The spirit of the Inquisition lives on…

Tony Rey:

You have NO IDEA what’s in a person’s heart, and NO RIGHT to make such a FALSE ACCUSATION about anyone on this board! You do understand this type of accusation, which is purposely designed to delegitimize a viewpoint by delegitimizing those who hold that viewpoint has NO PLACE in civilized discussion, let alone on a Catholic Board, where issues are supposed to be discussed in CHARITY.

We both know you’d NEVER accept such an accusation if someone made it about you or one of your friends, so why did you make this FALSE ACCUSATION about others on this board? Did the fact that they disagreed with you justify the FALSE ACCUSATION? Did their INTOLERANCE justify the FALSE ACCUSATION? Was this FALSE ACCUSATION made as a TACTICAL MOVE to clear some posters out of the debate? Did that justify it?

You owe everyone here, including those who had nothing to do with this discussion, an apology…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[guanophore]

WOMEN PRIESTS AND MARRIED CLERGY

 I believe the church needs to move to be relevant to a changing society. To me, that may mean having women priests and certainly a married clergy. But as a Protestant, I know my views won't impress many.

The perspective is unimpressive not because you are Protestant, but because the premise upon which it is based has always been the root of heresies.

  What impresses me is that nearly every Catholic I know (and they are many, many) believes in a married priesthood and well over half favor women clergy.

This an accurate commentary on the vast majority of “cafeteria Catholics” in the US. Latin Rite. Personnally, I think they are Protestant, and just don’t know it.

A married priesthood would attract a large number of healthy new priests,

What is the basis for this assertion? What evidence do you have that married persons are more “healthy” than celibate?

What you are implying is that celibacy is “unhealthy”.

t and apparently there were married priests for the first hundreds of years of the church. I’ve read that this came to an end because of simony as well as the wish of the church to better control its priests and their assets???

No, actually, it started when Jesus taught about becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, and Paul’s elevation of celibacy as a state in which one could be more devoted to the work of the ministry. In the third and fourth centuries, the monastic movement drew those who desired to consecrate themselves for the work of God into the desert. It was tapping these persons living in isolated conditions back into service in the urban areas that began the shift. It was clear that those who had prepared themselves with a life of penance, prayer, fasting and study were better able to serve the Body than those who did not.

You are correict, though, these persons also did not involve the Church scandals related to sexual impropriety and problems with inheritances, since they had taken vows of poverty. They were not as prone to the temptations of simony and other lusts of the flesh as a result of many years of spiritual formation.

Women clergy? If women can become nuns why not priests? The only practical reason I can think of - and it might be important - is that the church already is regarded as somewhat feminine with all of its vestments and such.

I cannot understand this statement at all. There is nothing “feminine” in the vestments of the Church.

The feminine character of the Church is part of the revelation of God to us.

Eph 5:25-27
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

 This is one reason, especially in Latin countries, that women outnumber practicing male Christians by such a large margin.

There are more Catholic females in Latin America because the vestments used in Liturgy are “feminine”?

Forgive this if it offends anyone, but some from 'lower churches (speaking liturgically) regard the Catholic Church in that way.

If ignorance offended me, I could never stay on CAF.

 

[Roy5]

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.

 (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.

 (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.

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

 (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.

 (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. 

 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.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Roy:

(1) You apparently don’t understand how the Church teaching on Slavery changed… It went from allowing it within the guidelines I described to CONDEMNING IT. Some of the Papal Encyclicals on Slavery read like Abolitionist Tracts… People obeyed Church Authority about as well then as they do now…

(2) You really don’t want to play this game. The record of the REAL INQUISITION (not the MYTH in PROTESTANT & MODERN anti-Catholic Propaganda) is far better than that of Protestant efforts to root out heretics & Catholics and hunt witches in England and Northern Europe.

THE INQUISITION
Fr. William G. Most
ewtn.com/library/answers/inquis.htm

A New Look at the Spanish Inquisition
by Edward O’Brien
ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt

…

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.

 (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.

 (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.

(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.

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.

…
(3) Our Lord Jesus said that what God had joined, let man not put asunder. Until the 1960’s and the “Sexual Revolution”, that seemed to work far more often than not in Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Churches as well as in the Catholic Churches in union with the See of Peter. Mary Pickford was actually excommunicated and prohibited from the Communion Rail in the Episcopal Church when she Divorced & Remarried in the 1930’s, as was my father when he did the same in the Episcopal Church in 1960. Protestant churches didn’t always have the loose view of marriage they have today.

Pope Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae that the prolonged and widespread use of Artificial Contraceptives would bring about a “Contraceptive mentality”, and that one of the fruits of that would be a spiraling divorce rate… Remember, before the Lambeth Quadrilateral (Anglican) of 1931, NO Major Christian body allowed the use of Artificial Contraception. I’ll let you think this one through…

(5) You’re referring to the “Schism of Lateran”. There are Plenty of Catholics in CAF here who could list at least a dozen citations from the Apostolic, Post-Apostolic & Early Church Fathers where CONFLICTS, DOCTRINAL DISPUTES, etc. are referred to the BISHOP OF ROME for AUTHORITATIVE RESOLUTION - In one case bypassing St. John the Apostle himself to go to a successor of St. Peter’s.

(6) This has been off-topic LONG ENOUGH. Deacons do not “hatch, match or dispatch”, and neither would deaconesses.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[slyboots]

Christ was male. Mary Magdalene is not considered an apostle but is a disciple.
Christ’s vicar on earth was Peter. Christ did not appoint Mary Magdalene His vicar. If Mary was His best friend, wife, etc (whatever the latest heresy thinks) why didn’t he leave the Church in her hands?
Vicar: Roman Catholic Church. an ecclesiastic representing the pope or a bishop.
a person who acts in place of another; substitute. a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God’s vicar on earth.
BTW we have NO idea if Mary Magdalene was at the Last Supper. Just because Da Vinci and others may have painted it that way (or not painted it that way. Dan Brown is extremely likely to be mistaken) does not make it so.
Women are not to be priests. Or His MOM would have been the first pope.

 

[bobzills]

#2 is ludicrous - The Church has never allowed the kidnapping of children, and has been far too often the victim of kidnappings (St. Patrick).

#8 - #10: I’ve not seen a Conciliar Document that says all have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Please stop arguing and pray and talk to the Lord about this. It really is past time for me to go to bed. Good Night

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Hello Michael:
Thanks for your detailed reply. You did a good job here. However, I would like to amplify on a few things. It does look like the teaching on women priests will not be changing in the near future. However, in view of the changes that I have mentioned, I don’t think that you can rule it out absolutely sometime in the distant future. With your kind permission, I would amplify on a few points:

1. You can check to see that the Pope authorized the forcible kidnapping of a Jewish boy Edgar Mortara, on the grounds that he was actually a Catholic and should not be under the care of his Jewish parents. This Pope, Pius IX, was beatified by Pope John Paul II:
   jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusix.html
   christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1170793914
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortara_Affair

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=809&letter=M
1911encyclopedia.org/Edgar_Mortara
So it actually happened. But the teaching has now changed, and the Church no longer will authorize the kidnapping of Jewish boys from their parents.
2. Here is the document which says that you have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved:
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."

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.