Women Priests?

[SteveVH]

It just ain’t so !!!

“One of the days I going to have to have a long talk with that boy.”

• Jed Clampett

 

[bilop]

Father Kung is a very sick man and has been for the past year. Have a little mercy on the poor man. In his prime he was a noted theologian respected by the entire Catholic world. You should pray for his soul. You may be in his shoes some day. :heaven:

As adrift cites, he was not respected, he was suspended from teaching. I will pray for him, but I won’t listen to him as to Church teachings or the teachings of God.

I’ve known lots of very sick people; none of them openly muse on suicide.

God Bless

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let me drop some names on you who are in agreement with me:
Karl Rahner, S.J.
Han Kung’
Richard McBrien
Robert Karris
Garry Willis
Jason Berry
John O’Malley, S.J.
Cullen Murphy
James Carroll
Mark Massa, S.J.
Colleen McDonnell
Donald Cozzens
Thomas Groom
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Bokenkotter
Peter Steinfels
Charles Curran

More than half of these people are priests in good standing with the Church. The laymen on the list are noted Catholic scholars. Google their names. check them out.

Not very prudent to appeal to priests not in good standing with the Church as your authority on this matter. But is one or more of these the priests that personally told you there is no theological basis for a male priesthood? Or are you never going to provide us with the identity of those priests?

Please share with us the identity of the priests you claimed said such a thing. I don’t want to have to ask a 4th time.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not very prudent to appeal to priests not in good standing with the Church as your authority on this matter. But is one or more of these the priests that personally told you there is no theological basis for a male priesthood? Or are you never going to provide us with the identity of those priests?

Please share with us the identity of the priests you claimed said such a thing. I don’t want to have to ask a 4th time.

Yeah, come on, Moonbug. Nice place you got here. Nice family. MarcoPolo doesn’t want to have to ask a 4th time.

 

[adrift]

Not very prudent to appeal to priests not in good standing with the Church as your authority on this matter. But is one or more of these the priests that personally told you there is no theological basis for a male priesthood? Or are you never going to provide us with the identity of those priests?

Please share with us the identity of the priests you claimed said such a thing. I don’t want to have to ask a 4th time.

Is it enough to drop a bunch of names without context.

 

[Moonbug]

Yeah, come on, Moonbug. Nice place you got here. Nice family. MarcoPolo doesn’t want to have to ask a 4th time.

Gee whizz! we can’t have that. The theologian who wrote on this subject was Fr. Edward Schillebeebkx, The Dutch theologian, back before Vatican II. He wrote a two volume theological work. The first volume was titled, “Jesus” and the second one was titled “Christ.” His contention was that the priesthood doesn’t come down through the Apostles, but the rite is bestowed by the community the priest serves. He was called to Rome four times to justify his work. The last time was to Benedict before he became Pope. His work was never condemned. He was in his 90s when he passed.

In support of Schillebeebkx’s work there was a book published early this year by Gary Wills who spent six years studying in a Jesuit seminary. Today he is a professor of Religion at Northwestern University. The New York Times as called him the most distinguished Catholic lay scholar publishing today. The name of his book is, “Why Priests?”. He takes to task the “Letter to the Hebrews” that was supposedly written to the Christian Jews in Rome who were expressing a nostalgia for the old Jewish priesthood by an unknown person, whose literary style and vocabulary can’t be matched to any other Christian writer in the early church. However, his prose was superior to any of the early Christian writers. It is the only known document he wrote. The book is an interesting read.

 

[bilop]

Gee whizz! we can’t have that. The theologian who wrote on this subject was Fr. Edward Schillebeebkx, The Dutch theologian, back before Vatican II. He wrote a two volume theological work. The first volume was titled, “Jesus” and the second one was titled “Christ.” His contention was that the priesthood doesn’t come down through the Apostles, but the rite is bestowed by the community the priest serves. He was called to Rome four times to justify his work. The last time was to Benedict before he became Pope. His work was never condemned. He was in his 90s when he passed.

In support of Schillebeebkx’s work there was a book published early this year by Gary Wills who spent six years studying in a Jesuit seminary. Today he is a professor of Religion at Northwestern University. The New York Times as called him the most distinguished Catholic lay scholar publishing today. The name of his book is, “Why Priests?”. He takes to task the “Letter to the Hebrews” that was supposedly written to the Christian Jews in Rome who were expressing a nostalgia for the old Jewish priesthood by an unknown person, whose literary style and vocabulary can’t be matched to any other Christian writer in the early church. However, his prose was superior to any of the early Christian writers. It is the only known document he wrote. The book is an interesting read.

So, you see nothing wrong with relying on a theologian who was questioned 3 times by the CDF on the orthodoxy of his work?

God Bless

 

[Moonbug]

Is it enough to drop a bunch of names without context.

I didn’t voluntarily place these names on the web by my own volition. The names were requested. And there they are. The person who asked for them, and all other interested parties, should proceed to goggle them. The names are there by your request. Go find the context you asked for.

 

[GKC]

Blimey! I think you have it. Let’s mull this over. The Jesuit manual “SACRE THEOLOGIAE SUMMA” perhaps can shed light on this: “When the Pope defines EX CATHEDRA a doctrine concerning ‘Faith and Morals,’ he enjoys that infallibility with which our Lord willed the Church to be endowed.” Please note the words, “CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS.” It means he can speak without error ONLY on faith and morals and nothing more. Whether women can be priests or not in no way can be classified as a subject concerning “Faith or Morals.” It is concerned with house keeping, the way we do business. What we have here with ORDINATIO ACERDOTALIS is an acute case of misogyny

The Pope also teaches with authentic magisterium (teaching authority) that is NOT INFALLIBLE. Examples of such teachings are the encyclical letters of the Pope, and decrees issued by the Holy See in FORMA SPECIFICA. I think “Ordinatio Acerdotalis” wiould fit snugly in this pigeon hole.

Decrees of the Holy See that are issued “IN FORMA SPECIFICA” are those that are expressly published as the Supreme Pontiff’s on decrees. They are inferior to “Cathedra” statements, but as part of the authentic magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff they do not require the assent of faith but they do demand our religious submission of mind and will. LUMEN GENTIUM n.25 affirms this. :tiphat:

If you can read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium and conclude that all the faithful need not affirm what is said, I will leave you to it. Perhaps, in your mind, something being defined as belonging to the deposit of the faith is not, as you say, addressing a question of faith.

RCs, this is one of yours. I wish you luck with him. The problem of catechesis, it would appear, is older than the 60s.

GKC

 

[Moonbug]

So, you see nothing wrong with relying on a theologian who was questioned 3 times by the CDF on the orthodoxy of his work?

God Bless

Not at all. There is only one famous theologian in the past 100 years that has not run afoul of Rome for their theological work. That would be Cardinal Dulles His work “Four Models of the Church” was accepted all round. All the rest have had their troubles. Schillebeebkx, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Yves lCongar, Hans Kung, John Murray, and Leonard Boff were all called to play important parts in the Vatican II council because they were the finest living theologians in their fields. You don’t get your “skull and bones” as a theologian until you are called on the carpet by Rome. .

 

[Moonbug]

The mistake you are making is that the only infallible dogma is taught Ex cathedra. That would mean that all that is taught about Jesus is not infallible which of course is untrue. It is debated if priestesses not being allowed is infallible. Considering the way it was stated it does meet the criteria of an infallible statement even so the fact that it has been taught from the beginning is also gives credibility of it being infallible.

It must be remembered that the sacraments began in the old testament and fulfilled in the new. The priesthood started with Aaron. His sister was a prime candidate according to our worldly view, and yet God did not make her a priestess. He established a male priesthood. As it has been pointed out already, priestesses would not have been abnormal to the culture. To say that it is cultural is to say that God is powerless. If God had wanted priestesses Marion would have been made one. Jesus would have had a female apostle. Jesus went against established culture other times it is unreasonable to say this time He didn’t.

The dogma that was held to be infallible by Sacred Tradition was laid out in Toto, at that time, in the first 500 years of the Church. This was all packaged and confirmed at the Council of Nicaea. These are "Articles of Faith all Catholics must believe to be Catholic. When I was in grade school a priest told my catechism class that there are actually only 29 or 30 articles of faith we are bound as Catholics to believe. All the rest, you can believe as you will. If there is one article of faith you don’t believe in, then you are automatically out of the Church. The two beliefs confirmed in recent times are "“The Assumption of the Virgin Mary” and the “Immaculate Conception.”

 

[Moonbug]

If you can read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium and conclude that all the faithful need not affirm what is said, I will leave you to it. Perhaps, in your mind, something being defined as belonging to the deposit of the faith is not, as you say, addressing a question of faith.

RCs, this is one of yours. I wish you luck with him. The problem of catechesis, it would appear, is older than the 60s.

GKC

If it is not declared from the Chair of Peter or handed down through sacred tradition, as proclaimed by a general council of the church, then it is not a part of the deposit of faith.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Gee whizz! we can’t have that. The theologian who wrote on this subject was Fr. Edward Schillebeebkx, The Dutch theologian, back before Vatican II. He wrote a two volume theological work. The first volume was titled, “Jesus” and the second one was titled “Christ.” His contention was that the priesthood doesn’t come down through the Apostles, but the rite is bestowed by the community the priest serves. He was called to Rome four times to justify his work. The last time was to Benedict before he became Pope. His work was never condemned. He was in his 90s when he passed.

So what was his argument regarding female priests? You said you had a theologian personally tell you the male priesthood had no theological basis. The above pertains to chain of succession. Do you have a citation regarding his argument for female priests?

 

[GKC]

If it is not declared from the Chair of Peter or handed down through sacred tradition, as proclaimed by a general council of the church, then it is not a part of the deposit of faith.

And yet it is so presented. Incorrectly, say you?

GKC

 

[Moonbug]

So what was his argument regarding female priests? You said you had a theologian personally tell you the male priesthood had no theological basis. The above pertains to chain of succession. Do you have a citation regarding his argument for female priests?

I’m afraid you have read my thread incorrectly, Marco Polo. Let me restate what I said. I said this dear friend of mine told me 30 years ago that "There was no theological reason why women cannot be ordained priests. " I won’t give his name, because I have no right to do that, but I will tell you that he was the ombudsman for the priest senate for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. He was chosen to represent the clergy and present their problems and concerns to Cardinal Weakland. It was a position he filled for man years in addition to being pastor of one of the largest parishes in Milwaukee. He was a humble priest and a fine scholar.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If it is not declared from the Chair of Peter or handed down through sacred tradition, as proclaimed by a general council of the church, then it is not a part of the deposit of faith.

I know your browser will probably block this, but I believe in miracles!

RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He was a humble priest and a fine scholar.

And definitely not seated in the Chair of Peter npatrol:

 

[Moonbug]

I know your browser will probably block this, but I believe in miracles!

RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Agreed! It is and never will be part of the “deposit of faith.” Nope to Pope !!!. He could have said it to the entire Curia. but it still remains his personal opinion.

 

[adrift]

I didn’t voluntarily place these names on the web by my own volition. The names were requested. And there they are. The person who asked for them, and all other interested parties, should proceed to goggle them. The names are there by your request. Go find the context you asked for.

I am afraid I wasn’t clear. You have a bunch of names that you claim that they agree with you. But that is all they are a bunch of names without stating how they are suppose to agree with you. One was a just a writer. There were priest who have dubious records. You are making the claim that they agree with you. It is your claim your job to provide the evidence that they do agree with you. Otherwise it looks like you are pulling every name you can to bolster your wobbly claim.

 

[adrift]

Agreed! It is and never will be part of the “deposit of faith.” Nope to Pope !!!. He could have said it to the entire Curia. but it still remains his personal opinion.

Since you are saying the opposite what are you agreeing to. By what authority do you declare that it is not part of the deposit of faith when the cited document signed by Joseph Card. Ratzinger says it is. Where do you get your authority?