Women "Priests" in the news . . . How do we feel about this?

[marvin]

I know its been said in one way or another in this and other forums, but I just can’t help myself. Anyone who doesn’t like what the Church is doing is free to leave at any time and become a protestant.

These debates are nonsensical, and boring to boot.

 

[Ambrose]

Aurelia:

The Church is the Bride of Christ. The priest represents Christ.
Many years ago it was the custom when a newly ordained priest said his first Mass, there would be an outdoor procession, and walking in front of the priest they would have a little girl dressed as a bride, representing the Church. (I don’t know how widespread this custom was, but I remember hearing about it and seeing photos.) A priest has to be male, not female.

Thats what gets it for me. The symbolism of marriage between God and his people goes back to the Old Testament. God seems to want union and that how we get new life. In the New Testament also there alot of symbolism between Christ as bridegroom and his Church as bride, Paul states it in Ephesians Chapter 5:

31(BM)FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

This is just one example. The Priest (male) performs his function Persona Christi, In the person of Christ, offering up sacrifice as Christ did for his Church (female). This is how we get new life - The Eucharist which of course is the real body and blood of Christ. You have to have a union as in a marriage, of male and female to have new life. A female to female union (woman Priest offering up sacrifice to the female Church) **CANNOT **produce new life. It’s impossible. At the point a woman Priest consecrates the Eucharist, it has to then be a symbol. Thats why the Church states it has no power to ordain woman priests, it has as much to do with nature as anything. It’s very apparent that the Protestant Churches that have a female clergy are on the decline.

This offends the sensibilities of many 21st century liberal Catholics who’s criteron for anything is sharing power or what is considered ‘fair’ by secular standards.

It wasn’t fair that only the Levites could be clergy in the Old Testament of the twelve tribes so it’s not the first time God’s ways haven’t been our ways in this regard.

 

[Symeon_Peter]

wow, with all the complaining Ive heard on this topic, I am amazed to see how well my brothers and sisters answer this question. You were right in saying that the issue is over when Rome has spoken, and you were also right in saying that reflecting on this topic is like scratching at a healed wound, or a child whining, wishing for the outcome that the child wants. Quit being disobedient children!!! when you reject the vaticans words, you also reject the apastolic authority that has been passed down to our holy father Benedict XVI.

---

“May the peace of Christ be with you always…
let us go to love and serve the Lord”

 

[Zooey]

I have tried not to comment on this subject, because–being a Protestant-- I have felt uncomfortable getting into a “strictly Catholic” subject…But I have to say that, if the people who think that women priests would be a good idea, were to walk in my (Methodist) shoes for a while, thus being exposed to women pastors, I think they would change their minds.
I have a male pastor, but a number of churches in the area have women. They also have all kinds of problems…This is not a coincidence. This is not a job for a woman!
My reasons for saying this are different from the reasoning of the Catholic church on the subject–at least, as far as I understand it–but the facts are the facts: it just does not work out. Be thankful that you don;t have to deal with the kind of chaos that I have seen in churches who have put women into a position that scripture (& tradition) have said is not appropriate.
God bless.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

“You are a royal nation, a priesthood set apart” (St. Paul and I’m sure better than I will know the reference)

"It is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in unions with Christ Jesus. You were baptised into union with Christ and now you are clothed, so to speak, with the life of Christ Himself…so that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, betwseen slaves and free men, between men and women. You are all one in union with Christ Jesus…: (Galatians3 Verse 26-28)

I am reminded of the Chapter on Authority in Anthony de Mello’s Heart of The Enlightened, which runs something like this…

Tall man sitting in picture theatre with small boy sitting behind him. He says to the little boy, turning round to the child…

“Can you see, sonny?”
“No sir, I cannot”
“Oh you will be ok if you just laugh when I laugh!”

I just dont like to laugh because I am told to do so! My heart tells me not to do so…

But I do apologize if I have raised a thread that many feel is tired and worn out re subject matter…or perhaps the many could avoid it and leave it to those of us who do not feel it is a tired and worn out subject and may just not have had the opportunity to discuss it previously.

May The Lord preclude the day open discussion on any topic whatsoever is banned within The Church and greeted with catcalls and derisions(lack of Charity)…no matter how controversial the subject may be - or even tired and worn out.

I do not intend any nastiness in these comments.

Personally I always bow to the Teaching Authority of The Church on any matter… which teaching may not necessarily be of my own personal feelings and opinions…making obedience all the more difficult. The spiritual quality operative in such a matter is that of obedience. The spirit of obedience despite personal feelings and opinion.
I realize fully that The Church has declared her stand on a female priesthood and I aquiesce to this willingly…but such has not altered my personal feelings and opinion on the matter. Perhaps this could be because for the first time I have a nun who is my director and I find her far easier to talk to than the priests in my past or present.
I did state at the start of this thread that the subject matter was our personal feelings about a female priesthood. I certainly will not loose Faith or sleep because The Church stands against such…which does not necessarily mean that I hold The Church to be right on the matter. Nor does that statement necessarily mean I feel The Church is wrong re female priests. It does mean that I hold obedience to be a far superior spiritual quality than my personal feelings and opinions.

There have been several Posts in this thread that interested me personally.

Regards Barb
Bethany South Australia
Sunday 26.6.05 2. 40am

 

[Ambrose]

“You are a royal nation, a priesthood set apart” (St. Paul and I’m sure better than I will know the reference)

"It is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in unions with Christ Jesus. You were baptised into union with Christ and now you are clothed, so to speak, with the life of Christ Himself…so that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, betwseen slaves and free men, between men and women. You are all one in union with Christ Jesus…: (Galatians3 Verse 26-28)

That was a thoughtful response Barb but one in which I would guess the Church that Christ founded would interpert differently and not as a crack in the door so to speak to give women hope to ever becoming Priests.

As far as the Royal Priesthood, it is true that we’re all called to be Priests Prophets and Kings ? We all have been called to a different type of Priesthood, not necessarily the ordained Priesthood. No one has the right to be ordained and judgements will always have to be made as to suitability even among celibate young men today.

We are one body and there’s no, absolutely **NO **difference between the dignity of a man and a woman. My ear has a different function than my hand but I don’t give one an exalted position over the other even though they are part of my ‘one body’ so to speak.

And I agree there are some woman who when I compare their speaking and maybe even listening ability to some Priests today would seem to do a better job in the role of an ordained Priest. But really is that how the Spirit works ? The last thing we need even with a celibate male Priesthood is to make selection based on abilities or criterion that we judge to be important. I look at the Cure of Ars as an example of one who struggled to get out of seminary and never seemed to have the ‘right stuff’ until he was ordained and sent to a country parish in France where he couldn’t mess things up too badly. The rest is, as they say, Church history.

And lastly I wouldn’t feel bad about questioning. We have a daughter who’s autistic and my wife (blourdes who posts here on occasion) and I question all the time. WHY ? We did nothing to deserve this and neither did she. We don’t know if she’ll ever be able to live independently or not, but we do know the Blessed Mother can, has and will take care of her. We have found peace in letting it go and seeing the beauty she has and seeing her as the gift that she is. Just the same see the beauty in the Church as it is and know you can be a saint !

-God Bless
Ambrose

 

[Ambrose]

Ambrose:

. But really is that how the Spirit works ? The last thing we need even with a celibate male Priesthood is to make selection based on abilities or criterion that we judge to be important. Ambrose

Just to clarify after rereading, what I meant to say there is that the criterion should not be measured by a more or less “wordly standard” that looks at such things as charisma and charm as being of utmost importance in choosing the men who have the “right stuff.”

 

[Augustine]

ThornGenX:

In a world where a woman can be “president” or a similar role (ok, the US has not had a female president but other countries have had female leaders), or CEO of a company, I just don’t see why they are banned from church leadership.

The Church is not of this world, she’s just a pilgrim in this world. Therefore, the way the world measures itself does not apply to her.

All seven Sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ and the Church has no power to modify any of them. Their mistery is beyond her and the formulas and matters that Our Lord chose can only be changed by Him. Just like unleavened bread and wine are required for the Eucharist, not a bun and grape juice, a man is required for Holy Orders. The Church does not have the authority to change Sacraments.

Among all men and women who followed Him, he chose 12 men. If He meant for women to be ordained, of all women, He’d have ordained His mother, St. Mary.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Ambrose:

Just to clarify after rereading, what I meant to say there is that the criterion should not be measured by a more or less “wordly standard” that looks at such things as charisma and charm as being of utmost importance in choosing the men who have the “right stuff.”

Hi Ambrose smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_17_9.gif and thank you for you equally interesting comments on my Post dated 26.6.05 - yesterday - at 4.01am into this thread.

What I find difficult to grasp, if I put my disposition into a nutshell, is that The Church will interpret one passage of Scripture literally and with another passage we hear similar to “well that is not what is actually meant”. St Paul is very clear that all distinguishing marks humanly after baptism no longer exist. We each and all become one in Christ and baptized into him as sons (Jesus was male) of The Father. We are baptised into Christ and Jesus was male. As the world proclaims of course we remain male and femal…nor can the world grasp (folly!) what happens at Baptism !!!..it is indeed a stumbling block to a worldly mind.

As it were when The Father gazes on us in the state of Grace He sees the image of His Son…Love in The Holy Spirit…(God is Three and God is One)…all as it were! … we are other Christs!..and St. Paul asks us, calls us, indeed demands of us that we remember that fact at ALL TIMES!..as I put out the garbage… or as The Pope proclaims as Pope Faith and Morality to the whole Church!

What exists in The Church today is that men can receive all seven sacraments and the full fruits of The Cross while women can receive only six. Second class citizens in my book!

Also I find it completely illogical and ludicruous that reception of one of the Sacraments is decided on by gender and hence genitalia!!!..reeks of…???..

The issue is I completely agree: “What did Jesus want, what did He intend for His Church?” I read one comment that stated that if The Holy Spirit wanted a female priesthood we would have one - but then The Holy Spirit never intended I am sure The Spanish Inquisition and its atrocities - yet we did have one!..until in His Own Time…The Holy Spirit ended it!

I would like to quote St. Albert in his closing comments of the first and most Ancient Rule of Carmel. This Rule was ratified by Pope Innocent 1V who also amended and corrected it: “Rule 6. …necessity overrides every law”.

As this thread and others have unfolded, in pockets I have been heartened to see that we Catholics can witness to the fact that we can differ markedly in opinion and do so without tearing each other apart. . . we do so lovingly as bretheren - of the one Loving Family, The Catholic Church. We exchange our thoughts, not tear at each other personally. And this is the type of witness we can and indeed we owe to the world (needing such witness and example!) at times of different opinions on any subject at all. By all means let us disagree and argue our points of view…a sign of healthy thoughtfulness in The Church…but let us do so remembering our call is to Love and fellowship with all ALL! I must state that before I stumbled over this fact(s) I witnessed it taking place in Catholic Answers Forums and decided I needed to amend some of my ways . . . fruits of good example of others.
If we truly want to bring an end to the terrible human tragedy of war…first then let us look at our own backyards!!!..and cease warring!!!

Thanks again Ambrose…I cant agree with all of what you say, mate smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_11_7.gif , but I sure will defend absolutely with my life on the line your right to say it!!!

Regards from Bethany
Barb smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_107v.gif in South Aussie
27.6.05 9.04am

 

[Augustine]

BarbaraTherese:

What exists in The Church today is that men can receive all seven sacraments and the full fruits of The Cross while women can receive only six. Second class citizens in my book!

You’re confusing spheres of life. Citizens have rights, but noone has a right to any Sacrament. One’s right is another’s duty and God is not bound at all to give us graces because we say so. Are Protestants or Budhists also third-class “citizens” as they cannot receive some of the Sacraments?

And if someone thinks that what differentiates men and women are just their genitalia, one has a very materialistic and superficial understanding of the sexes. “Male and female He created them,” is about something much deeper than phisiology. Otherwise, He might have said “short and tall He created them.” IOW, it’s not about accidents but essential nuances of man.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Augustine:

You’re confusing spheres of life. Citizens have rights, but noone has a right to any Sacrament. One’s right is another’s duty and God is not bound at all to give us graces because we say so. Are Protestants or Budhists also third-class “citizens” as they cannot receive some of the Sacraments?

And if someone thinks that what differentiates men and women are just their genitalia, one has a very materialistic and superficial understanding of the sexes. “Male and female He created them,” is about something much deeper than phisiology. Otherwise, He might have said “short and tall He created them.” IOW, it’s not about accidents but essential nuances of man.

… smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif… Hi smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_72.gif again Augustine!..thanks for your opinions…I quote from your Post…

"You’re confusing spheres of life. Citizens have rights, but noone has a right to any Sacrament. One’s right is another’s duty and God is not bound at all to give us graces because we say so. Are Protestants or Budhists also third-class “citizens” as they cannot receive some of the Sacraments?"

What I meant and probably knowing me need to clarify what I meant, is that the seven Sacraments are the fruits of Jesus sacrifice of himself to death on The Cross… women are only entitled to part of these fruits in six sacraments, men to the fullness of them in potential anyway. Women are denied even the potential.
Obviously, very obviously, God is not bound at all to treat all equally in so far as our human concepts go and often does not as our human concepts go, though of course spiritually He does…as with The Church…I simply ask why? what is The Church’s reasoning…we as humans are bound by logic which Theology in essence is…God is bound by naught and yes we owe obsolute obedience to God.

It is intresting that the first person who sees Jesus and is given a brief from him after the resurrection is a woman: Mary Magdalen. She is instructed to go and tell the others that Jesus has risen, she has seen him, and will go before them into Galillee. I find it interesting that the first person to see and be given abrief by Jesus is not Peter, nor John The Faithful…but a woman. Is this purely coincidental or is Jesus stating something. I think he is and it is up to The Church to proclaim her interpretation for the faithful of indeed what He may be stating. Silence.

I dont think we can ever fully grasp the extent of what broke into creation with the death and resurrection of Jesus!!!

"And if someone thinks that what differentiates men and women are just their genitalia, one has a very materialistic and superficial understanding of the sexes. “Male and female He created them,” is about something much deeper than phisiology. Otherwise, He might have said “short and tall He created them.” IOW, it’s not about accidents but essential nuances of man."

I very much agree with you that what makes males and females goes far beyond genitalia (physiolgogy)…the physical …(psychology for example)…but currently that is how we identify a male from a female. Obviously if a candidate for the priesthood shows up and also a woman, the woman is dismissed:
implication because her genitalia is not correct?: No?.. I understand that in the Jesuit Order anyway male homosexuals are being accepted if they promise not to practise their sexuality … basis of acceptance is hence genitalia. I understand to date Rome has not passed judgement on the Jesuits for this practise, tho I could be wrong, nor I think should they to put more irons in the fire probably…

and a big smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_67.gif to you too!

Regards Augustine and all from
Barb smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/25/25_1_70.gif in Bethany
South Australia
Monday 27.6.05 11.16am

 

[jman507]

I do not feel that the church feels that females are second class citizens, maybe the world see it that way, but the world’s vision is not God’s vision. Males can bring the sacraments to the people that is an extra responsiblity. At the same time females as a complament have given birth to all people, and that is an extra respnsibiltity. If you have some guy abusing his power, then he is going to have to answer to the Lord.

If look at Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in His own image;
He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.” Then Genesis 2:24 “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” Now God made them in his image, male and female, not male or female. It is male and female togther. How can that be? Because they have to be made one flesh, by being cleaved together. So no male or no female can be in the full image of God, unless they reach out and cleave to one of the other sex.

Jesus as the bride-groom is wedded to his bride the church. When a preist acts in the person of christ, he needs his maleness to wed to the femaleness of the church.

Being a priest doesn’t make anyone any more worthy. It is just the same that any EME is not in any more special position cause the EME can minister communion.

A person should not go into the priesthood inorder to be a leader. One can look at Moses and say he is a leader, but he really wan’t a person who was a leader. God made him be one. Deborah was a leader cause God called her be. If God wants a leader, a preist could be, but so could a sister. So could any mother, or any father.

I would say the most highly regarded person is Mary the Blessed Mother. You also refer to Mary Magdalen. I don’t think I see this as something saying that females should be preist, but it shows that females are also able to be just as highly regared as males.

Thanks for your charity. One problem is that others who disagree with the church come in here without even showing that they want to try to understand. I think you have every right to question the teaching of the church and ask for understanding, but you just shouldn’t teach against it.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

These are my opinions. It took me a long time to get to them. Please don’t debate me, just let me express them and I’ll move on.

Personally, I think Jesus knew what He was doing when he picked guys…fellas…men for the priesthood gig.

Aside from confecting Jesus every day, it seems to me a thankless job that parishioners will only be too happy to tell a priest how to do- repeatedly and often.

I don’t know if it is because I am just naturally well, tempermental, or if it is because I am female, or both, but I would have smiled and smiled until I reached the breaking point and then WHAM! Some poor penitent would have had the thrust of my anger at others as their penance. And certain folks in my parish would be banished for their behavior toward others! In short, the bishop and I would know each other too well, as would the dean- and it would not be a happy relationship.

Women just make lousy fathers. I am aware that single moms generally give it their best shot, but there is no replacing a dad. And priests act as dads. To be fair, guys make lousy mothers, single fathers giving it THEIR best shot.

And while I feel blessed when I see the practice of celibacy, knowing what a hardship it must be not to have somebody as in another human there when one turns over at night with a concern or fear…I am not particularly in favor of a married priesthood (Yes, I am aware it is a discipline and not doctrine). I give women a lot of credit, and I think they could easily extract information- not necessarily confession material, which priests honestly seem to forget or at least categorize until needed, but information to which they shouldn’t be privy- right out of a guy, priest or no priest. In fact, I have known a couple of Protestant clergy who have inadvertently blabbed to the wife with disasterous results.

Besides, priests have to devote a lot of time to everything else, and barely seem to have time for themselves and parishioners, let alone the quantity of time a proper marriage requires. So, what is going to give, the marriage or the priestly vocation?

I think guys can handle the aloneness, not so much lonliness, of the whole thing better. I’ve seen in women executives too often a brittleness, a direct cut-off of the nurturing parts of their perosnality. I think this might happen with women priests, too.

I do think dioceses could do a little better investing and start to pay priests what they are worth, and include incentive pay for attrition, skill and education.

 

[marinebiogurl04]

JimG:

Women can and do take on many roles in society.
But a woman can never be a father.
And a man can never be a mother.

well said! :clapping:

 

[InnocentIII]

BarbaraTherese:

As this thread and others have unfolded, in pockets I have been heartened to see that we Catholics can witness to the fact that we can differ markedly in opinion and do so without tearing each other apart. . . we do so lovingly as bretheren - of the one Loving Family, The Catholic Church. We exchange our thoughts, not tear at each other personally. And this is the type of witness we can and indeed we owe to the world (needing such witness and example!) at times of different opinions on any subject at all. By all means let us disagree and argue our points of view…a sign of healthy thoughtfulness in The Church…but let us do so remembering our call is to Love and fellowship with all ALL! I must state that before I stumbled over this fact(s) I witnessed it taking place in Catholic Answers Forums and decided I needed to amend some of my ways . . . fruits of good example of others.
If we truly want to bring an end to the terrible human tragedy of war…first then let us look at our own backyards!!!..and cease warring!!!

I think that it is not just that we can discusss but how and why we discuss that is important here. If we discuss an issue in order to fully understand the mind of the Holy Spirit as it works through the Church then yes I agree but the purpose of such a discussion is to come to an acceptance of Heavenly Father’s will. If however we discuss an issue in order to debate its rightness or wrongness then we are implicitly saying that this is something we would like to see changed, something where we do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium. In the case of women priests this has been definitively declared part of the Deposit of Faith to be held by all Catholics. To debate it then in terms of whether it is right or wrong is meaningless unless those initiating the debate do so in the hope that, all appearances to the contrary, it can somehow be changed.

It is wonderful that you accept the authority of the Church but the Faith is not an “agree to disagree” proposition. I felt like that when I was a cafeteria Catholic. It wasn’t until the Holy Spirit worked his will and showed me that I must accept the Faith in toto or not at all that I found true peace in the Faith. True I have the right to exercise my mind on understanding the dogmas of the Faith but not my judgement on what is true and false therein.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

InnocentIII:

I think that it is not just that we can discusss but how and why we discuss that is important here. If we discuss an issue in order to fully understand the mind of the Holy Spirit as it works through the Church then yes I agree but the purpose of such a discussion is to come to an acceptance of Heavenly Father’s will. If however we discuss an issue in order to debate its rightness or wrongness then we are implicitly saying that this is something we would like to see changed, something where we do not accept the teaching of the Magisterium. In the case of women priests this has been definitively declared part of the Deposit of Faith to be held by all Catholics. To debate it then in terms of whether it is right or wrong is meaningless unless those initiating the debate do so in the hope that, all appearances to the contrary, it can somehow be changed.

It is wonderful that you accept the authority of the Church but the Faith is not an “agree to disagree” proposition. I felt like that when I was a cafeteria Catholic. It wasn’t until the Holy Spirit worked his will and showed me that I must accept the Faith in toto or not at all that I found true peace in the Faith. True I have the right to exercise my mind on understanding the dogmas of the Faith but not my judgement on what is true and false therein.

Hello smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_14.gif there Innocent lll…
Thank you for the thoughts. As I said, I readily accept the judgement of The Church. If I stated I agreed with it I would be telling fibs… my poverty!

We once for example had a Spanish Inquisition, I like to think that were I living in those times and on the proviso I escaped the dungeons where human torture took place in the presence of male religious, rack and an agonizing death by burning to death at the stake myself (or being strangled!)that I would not have agreed with The Church’s judgement at that time re rack and stake. An extreme, I grant you, and as such perhaps not a good example of poor judgement by our heirarchy; nevertheless the truth. I am not saying I am right and The Church is wrong…simply that I cannot understand Her reasoning. I reiterate that to state otherwise is not truthful. It is also interesting that I am in the minority in this Thread but not in my Parish it would seem anyway. This reflects the article I quoted at the beginning of this thread.

The Church burnt St. Joan of Arc at the stake and then some centuries later suddenly realized their terrible mistake - poor Joan - and declared her a saint. I wonder if that made the flames feel better for Joan.

I also feel that Faith is a spiritual quality that transcends religion. I also think Obedience is a virtue…and not necessarily an easy come by virtue either in every instance of!!! …and as St. Albert tells us in the closing words of his intial Rule to Carmel: “…and common sense is the guide of ALL THE VIRTUES”.

I quote your Post: "In the case of women priests this has been definitively declared part of the Deposit of Faith to be held by all Catholics. To debate it then in terms of whether it is right or wrong is meaningless unless those initiating the debate do so in the hope that, all appearances to the contrary, it can somehow be changed."…not necessarily so. You have jumped to a rigid conclusion: My mind is not closed on the issue … I do not cling with rigidity to my own human concepts…present an argument or point of view that clicks home with me and then I would ponder and if it seemed right, change my mind on the issue. To date that has not happened.

It is quite obvious you have access to the Knowledge of The Holy Spirit that I do not. This is no big deal, it happens!!!

Regards Barb
Bethany in South Australia
Monday 27.6.05 8.15pm

 

[InnocentIII]

BarbaraTherese:

Thank you for the thoughts. As I said, I readily accept the judgement of The Church. If I stated I agreed with it I would be telling fibs… my poverty!

Definitively held means that the faithful must accept it. The Church is very careful to not use this phrase unless absolutely necessary.

Canon 750 of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church updated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, July 1998

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This means that it is not sufficient to externally adhere to the Church’s teaching (obedience) but one must internally assent (belief) to it.

Lumen Gentium 25:“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

Barbara Therese:

We once for example had a Spanish Inquisition, I like to think that were I living in those times and on the proviso I escaped the dungeons where human torture took place in the presence of male religious, rack and an agonizing death by burning to death at the stake myself (or being strangled!)that I would not have agreed with The Church’s judgement at that time re rack and stake. An extreme, I grant you, and as such perhaps not a good example of poor judgement by our heirarchy; nevertheless the truth.

This is both a straw man and historically inaccurate. The Spanish Inquisition was not set up by the Church, although some priests worked for it. It was established by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain and remained a department of the Spanish Government until abolished. Likewise the Church did not burn people, the state did. That does not absolve those members of the Church who aided and abetted it just as some priests and bishops aided and abetted the Terror of the French Revolution. Further the Inquisition was not part of the Deposit of Faith nor a doctrine of the Church to be held definitively by the Faithful.
Barbara Therese:

I am not saying I am right and The Church is wrong…simply that I cannot understand Her reasoning. I reiterate that to state otherwise is not truthful. It is also interesting that I am in the minority in this Thread but not in my Parish it would seem anyway. This reflects the article I quoted at the beginning of this thread.

I suggest this reflects more on the faithfulness of your parish than on the authority of the Church. This could possibly be why your new Archbishop who is a holy and orthodox man was appointed to Adelaide. There was much in that Diocese that was not in accord with the teachings of the Magisterium
Barbara Therese:

The Church burnt St. Joan of Arc at the stake and then some centuries later suddenly realized their terrible mistake - poor Joan - and declared her a saint. I wonder if that made the flames feel better for Joan.

Again this is a strawman. While certain bishops were involved (and will have to answer at the judgement for their actions) the trial was carried out on the orders of the Burgundian and English rulers who were at war with France at the time. No one denies that mistakes were made by the Church at times and even more were made in the Church’s name by those with agendas of their own, but neither Joan of Arc nor the Inquisition were matters of doctrine.

(cont)

 

[InnocentIII]

(cont)
Barbara Therese:

I also feel that Faith is a spiritual quality that transcends religion. I also think Obedience is a virtue…and not necessarily an easy come by virtue either in every instance of!!! …

“Transcends religion”??? So are you saying that Catholicism is merely “religion” and thus less than Faith? Our Lord established His Church while He was still on earth. Catholicism is the Faith … to separate Faith and Church is to reject Our Lord’s will.
Barbara Therese:

You have jumped to a rigid conclusion: My mind is not closed on the issue … I do not cling with rigidity to my own human concepts…present an argument or point of view that clicks home with me and then I would ponder and if it seemed right, change my mind on the issue. To date that has not happened.

I was not in fact being rigid. I was merely stating the doctrine of the Church which is clear and definitive. And in that regard I would think that clinging to the belief that there is nothing wrong with the idea of women priests, which is a human concept out of line with Our Lord’s will as expressed through His Church is in fact rigid thinking. No matter how open the mind may be to this question, there is in fact nothing to be open to unless you believe that the Church’s Magisterium itself is a matter for debate.
Barbara Therese:

It is quite obvious you have access to the Knowledge of The Holy Spirit that I do not. This is no big deal, it happens!!!

My access to the Knowledge of the Holy Spirit comes from the Magisterium of the Church. I would never have the arrogance to claim personal access. I was just stating that I believe the Holy Spirit worked in me to bring me to a realisation that the Truth of the Church was greater than my own weak judgements.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

InnocentIII:

Definitively held means that the faithful must accept it. The Church is very careful to not use this phrase unless absolutely necessary.

This means that it is not sufficient to externally adhere to the Church’s teaching (obedience) but one must internally assent (belief) to it.

This is both a straw man and historically inaccurate. The Spanish Inquisition was not set up by the Church, although some priests worked for it. It was established by Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain and remained a department of the Spanish Government until abolished. Likewise the Church did not burn people, the state did. That does not absolve those members of the Church who aided and abetted it just as some priests and bishops aided and abetted the Terror of the French Revolution. Further the Inquisition was not part of the Deposit of Faith nor a doctrine of the Church to be held definitively by the Faithful.

I suggest this reflects more on the faithfulness of your parish than on the authority of the Church. This could possibly be why your new Archbishop who is a holy and orthodox man was appointed to Adelaide. There was much in that Diocese that was not in accord with the teachings of the Magisterium

Again this is a strawman. While certain bishops were involved (and will have to answer at the judgement for their actions) the trial was carried out on the orders of the Burgundian and English rulers who were at war with France at the time. No one denies that mistakes were made by the Church at times and even more were made in the Church’s name by those with agendas of their own, but neither Joan of Arc nor the Inquisition were matters of doctrine.

(cont)

Dear me Innocent lll…and hi by the way…you are tying me all up in legal issues asking a canon lawyer surely to plead my cause. I do not understand such matters, nor really care to - far too complex for such as I. Now that is a reason and no excuse I know!
It is like telling me to obey because I simply must obey…tho I cannot see the screen sir! (My previous post on Anthony de Mello’s thoughts on Authority!)…still a reason and no excuse…for I have none under your terms, Sir!

Disobedient child that I am…but I am sure The Lord Loves me and that is all that concerns me …and I retreat under the mantle of his Loving Compassionate and Understanding Mercy…tho I still cannot understand why women are precluded from the priesthood…I pray The Lord will be Mericiful to my non comprehension and my refusal to lie. Amen

Regards Barb

Bethany South Australia
Monday 2.6.05 10.21pm

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I find this thread very humorous.

Why must we continue to discuss something that can never change?

I think I will start a new thread.

2+2=4… How do we feel about this?