"Women priests are possible, says new Vatican finance council member"

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
Let’s look on the bright side. Pope Francis appointed 6 lay women to leadership positions, and so far only one of them has decided to make a speech about women priests to the press. The other 5 are refraining from that sort of thing and doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
That’s the most optimistic way to look at this walking travesty I can imagine. Hats off for seeing the bright side.

6588f7a354490fb35c3d60c59a15110bb6d7388c.gif
 
KMC said:
Just us a reminder to new people at CAF who may not know better. Pope John Paul II put this issue to rest…FOREVER:
Click to expand...
But this is the problem: any future pope can say it wasn’t definitively settled and can resurrect the conversation. I’m not saying the Church can ordain women – but one pope cannot bind all future popes.
 
Actually, they can. A teaching to be “definitively held” binds every Catholic, including future ones.
 
KMC said:
Actually, they can. A teaching to be “definitively held” binds every Catholic, including future ones.
Click to expand...
Only if it’s legitimately aligned with Christ. And again, I’m not saying the Church can ordain women but rather I’m noting that despite one pope saying something is “definitively settled,” that does not mean future popes cannot engage the topic again.
 
So with that reasoning a future pope can say Mary was not assumed into heaven, or abortion is not a sin, etc. There are 3 levels of teachings: 1) Revealed truths, 2) Definitive teachings logically or historically connected to revealed truths, or 3) non- definitive teaching. Only #3 can be change. #1 and #2 are infallible, thus not subject to change.
 
KMC said:
So with that reasoning a future pope can say Mary was not assumed into heaven, or abortion is not a sin, etc. There are 3 levels of teachings: 1) Revealed truths, 2) Definitive teachings logically or historically connected to revealed truths, or 3) non- definitive teaching. Only #3 can be change. #1 and #2 are infallible, thus not subject to change.
Click to expand...
3rd time: I’m not saying a future pope can change the teaching. I’m saying any pope can entertain any topic at any time, no matter what his predecessors have said. So in that sense, it sounds nice for JPII to say something is “definitively” settled but it doesn’t fully describe reality.
 
My point: truth is truth. It does not change. Popes cannot change truth. So if JP2 declared that women cannot be ordained, and that is to be definitely held, then it is to be definitely held. No equivocation.

Might I suggest reading Ad Tuendam Fidem.

Blessings!
 
I think you might be slightly confused.

“Definitively settled’ means just that. It doesn’t mean, “As far as I Pope X am concerned” or “Unless Pope Future chooses otherwise.”
 
Definitively settled literally means that. And because such definitive judgments (aka definitions) are irreformable and admit no further appeal, they are necessarily without error

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium
And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.
Click to expand...
People might get confused or doubts may arise again in the future, so there’s nothing preventing the same judgment being made again in the future as has happened with other issues over the centuries. It’s why we have a living Magisterium to continually reaffirm the truth in every age.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
I think you might be slightly confused.

“Definitively settled’ means just that. It doesn’t mean, “As far as I Pope X am concerned” or “Unless Pope Future chooses otherwise.”
Click to expand...
Please see posts 25, 27, and 29. No confusion on my end.
 
As does every Latina woman… and going waaaay back… (well not hyphenated but both their father and husband’s last names are retained).
 
Interesting. I didn’t know it was that common among Latinas .Not all of us Latina women use that formula.
For instance in Argentina our documents , passports and anything official goes by our maiden name and last name . It sounds sensible to me. That is who we are, our identity after birth certificate.
Then one can always say our name and husband’s last name , especially when kids start going to school and we are known as a family with one last name: dad’s. So one may perfectly start ( and we normally do )using husband’s last name but let us say informally. Not in documents.
But there isn’t this maiden last name heifen( or not) married last name here.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
Interesting. I didn’t know it was that common among Latinas .Not all of us Latina women use that formula.
For instance
Click to expand...
I may not have explained it well, but at least in my wife’s culture (Dominican) you always have two “active” last names at any given time, and I thought this was pretty universal in Spanish speaking cultures.

Single woman - First Name / Father’s Name / Mother’s Name
Married woman - First Name / Father’s Name de Husband’s name

N. Devers Perez became N. Devers de Fehr upon marrying Mr Fehr.
 
Yes, I understood and you may be right in that it is common. Just that I didn’t know.
In Argentina I am always my name and my last name which is my dad’s last name. That is it…I am Gracie Devers( taking your example)
Informally one might say Name Last Name “de “ married name. But that was many years ago. Nowadays we say name+ husbands last name ( informally) In your example I would be Gracie Fehr.
We don’t use “de” Fehr anymore.
Interesting. I’ll pay more attention and ask because I have quite a lot of Latina friends .
I love these surprises and discoveries! Thank you 😊!
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
My point: truth is truth. It does not change. Popes cannot change truth.
Click to expand...
It is just my opinion, but IMHO:
The truth does change and popes have changed the truth.
In the past a Pope taught that torture was allowed to extract confessions from heretics in the inquisition.
Presently, it is taught that torture is intrinsically evil and it is not allowed.
In the past it was taught that the Blood was shed for all.
Presently it is taught that the Blood was shed for many.
In the past it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Presently it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In the past it was taught by the Church and by St. Paul that a woman must cover her head in church.
Today the truth is that women do not have to cover their heads in church.
In the past it was taught that marriage had two purposes: a primary and a secondary.
Today it is taught that the two purposes are equal.
In the past the truth was that it was a sin to charge interest on a loan. that is why this job was given over to the Jews.
Today it is taught that it is not a sin to charge reasonable interest on a loan.
In the past it was taught that capital punishment was admissable.
Today it is taught that capital punishment is inadmissable.
In the past it was taught that you make the sign of the cross from right to left.
Today it is taught that in the Roman rite you make the sign of the cross from left to right. (see the online Catholic encyclopedia on this point).
in the past it was taught that man can have more than one wife (e.g., Moses)
Presently, it is taught that man can have only one wife.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top