However, we are bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
No, that’s the FORM, not the Matter. You have to have bread AND say the words of consecration. It’s both and they are different things. Form and Matter.
Which changed the former 2000 year old rule. Which proves that “we’ve always done it that way” isn’t always an airtight argument. Which answers the objection from post #105. Which justifies the continued theological investigation into why women can’t be priests.
Here is the statement from Sacramentum Ordinis that I was talking about:
She claims to be. Claiming is a whole different matter altogether. Furthermore, wikipedia is not always an accurate source. Anyone can post just about anything on Wiki.
I’m talking about Holy Orders, not the Eucharist. And I’m not making things up - I’m quoting from an Apostolic Constitution (the highest form of papal document in modern times) from Pius XII.
I am trying to follow you here. you have shown one document that purports to show that for a period in the 19th century the Church did not allow slaves to be ordained. Now one would have to ask how it would be possible to ordain a “chattel” slave anyway(would their masters allow them to attend the seminary?) but lets take it at face value. You have been shown that there has NOT been a 2,000 prohibition against ordaining slaves, as you originally claimed ,BUT again even if this were true how would that possibly seque into the church should allow women Priests?
I must have missed this. The Catholic Church has had rules against ordaining slaves until 1983. Whether those rules have always been followed is another question.
It doesn’t. It shows that “we’ve always done it that way” isn’t an airtight argument, and that continued theological investigation into why women can’t be priests is still justified.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure I see your point here. Are you saying the Catholic Church was actually wrong in 1983 to drop the prohibition against slaves becoming priests because there are good reasons for that rule, such as the difficulty in attending seminary?
Exactly. If something is really true, there is always a much better reason than “we’ve always done it this way.” So if “we’ve always done it this way” is the best reason you’ve got, that isn’t much of an argument.
Karl Rahner thought there was benefit in doing so.
Your statements on this thread display “a fundamental ignorance of Catholic” teachings.
The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ.
re at it! Heretic views on the Blessed Sacrament, or anything else, dont count.I afraid I don’t have anything useful to say to someone who puts Karl Rahner on the same level as Hans Kung.
Ephesians 5:25-32: "***Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave ***Himself up for Her, that He might sanctify Her, having cleansed Her by the washing of water with the Word, that He might present the Church to Himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that She might be holy and without blemish. Even so [ie: in like manner] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of His Body. ***For this reason, a man shall leave his *****father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church." **RSV.
Convincing? Convincing to whom? Is obedience totally out of fashion now? It is one thing to try to understand. That is only prudent. It is another to refuse to believe what one doesn’t understand. It is a big difference, the difference between Zechariah and Our Lady.
And my five dachshunds will follow you along as the flag corps!
Actually, it is. The idea that the role of the laity is to just “pay, pray, and obey” went out with Vatican II. Hence the newfound importance of explaining Catholic doctrines and not just promulgating them.