E
estesbob
Guest
Not to say, however, that I do often jump to conclusions based on fallacies
- Status
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
It should close the debate as to the conclusion, as that is the infallible part. The reasons behind the conclusion are not infallible, and can still be legitimately debated.
No. Heresy has a precise meaning in Catholic canon law, and refers to the denial of a “de fide credenda” dogma. The teaching that woman cannot be ordained priests is still “de fide tenenda”, although someday in the future it may be taught at the higher “de fide credenda” level.
E
estesbob
Guest
To what end? To prove the Pope made a infallible pronouncement that was wrong???
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
To come up with more convincing reasons than “we’ve always done it that way.”To what end? To prove the Pope made a infallible pronouncement that was wrong???
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Perhaps to help those for whom this doctrine is a stumbling black?To what end? To prove the Pope made a infallible pronouncement that was wrong???
Or because the lover always wants to know as much as possible about the Beloved?
Or so that we can better apply the reasoning and see how it fits in with other theological topics?
E
estesbob
Guest
Unless Truth is changeable it is a good answer
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
So I take it you are against the Catholic Church finally lifting the restriction against slaves becoming priests after nearly 2000 years of prohibiting them?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yep, and have you stopped beating your spouse yet? Please answer only yes or no. . .
What’s that? It’s not a ‘fair’ question because the assumption is that I’m beating my spouse and that even if I had never beaten my spouse, the way this question is phrased I can’t give that as an answer?
Hmmm, now let’s look at your question. . .it assumes that the Catholic Church systematically restricted slaves from being priests for nearly 2000 years. . .and you offer no documentation to support it either. What’s the ‘rest of the story’ here?
B
benedictgal
Guest
This is totally uncalled for and most uncharitable.
E
estesbob
Guest
You mean like Fr. Augustine Tolton?
Are we soon to be going down the Gallelio, Crusades, Inquisition, etc rabbit hole?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Funny. If the Church did not permit slaves to become priests (somebody obviously forgot to give the memo to the POPES who, though former slaves, became Popes in the 2nd and 3rd centuries), then how do we explain this (Catholic Encyclopedia?)
Oh gee, where is the ‘2000 year’ history of the Church ‘forbidding slaves to be priests?’
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
I posted this earlier in the thread, perhaps it was missed–or ignored
#84
In a nutshell–Matter matters.
The Priesthood is a sacrament, just like the Eucharist or Matrimony, and so forth.
Sacraments call for specific Matter: The Eucharist must be unleavened bread and wine for it to become the body and blood of Jesus during the consecration. Lemonade and nilla wafers cannont be consecrated. In Baptism, water must be used. A baptism of juice would be invalid. In Matrimony, only a man and woman may be joined together–no other joining would be valid. So it is with the Priesthood. The proper Matter is maleness. This is shown just like the other Sacraments were shown–by Jesus and his actions.
I’m sure, though, that this reasoning would be rejected by those who don’t believe in Sacraments or Matter. That doesn’t change the Truth.
Here’s an article that explains it better than I can
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4750
and it’s not an arguement that says “we’ve always done it that way”
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
The Catholic Church did systematically restrict slaves from being priests until the 1983 code of canon law was enacted. In the 1917 code, the restriction was contained in canon 987, part 4. (See here for an old commentary on this.)
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
I’m not really sure what this has to do with the arguement about women being priests. Not every man who wants to be a priest is actually CALLED to be a priest. Many men are not qualified for a variety of reasons. All women are restricted because they are not the proper “matter”–ie they aren’t Male.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
This statement is completely wrong, and displays a fundamental ignorance of Catholic sacramental theology.
The matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands by the bishop, nothing more, nothing less. This was settled in 1947 by Pope Pius XII (see here).
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
“Western discipline does not permit a slave to be raised to the priesthood”
Which is what I am saying.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Please cite your source rather than just pull statements out of the air.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Tantum ergo quoted that from the Catholic Encyclopedia in post #110 in an attempt to refute me, but I don’t see how, as it actually confirms what I was saying.
See also my post #112 for the 1917 canon law citation.
Edited to add: Here is the explanation from Augustine’s canon law commentary for those who don’t want to click on the link:
Regarding slaves in the proper sense, i.e., men who belong bodily to a master, the Church ordained that they should not enter the clerical state, partly because their admission would lower its dignity, and partly because they were not their own masters.
E
estesbob
Guest
Fr Tolton was ordained in 1886
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Ludmila Javorová was ordained in 1970 (see here). I’m talking about the rules here, not the exceptions.
- Status