Women Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Honorius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moonbug said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So, too, was Fr. Arius.

Until he decided to divorce himself from the Faith given, once for all, to the saints.
 
NovusAugustus said:
Gotta love the arrogance of these modern theologians…presuming to summarize the history of Christ’s Church in 207 pages, probably with the intent of tacking on some hair-brained notions about how euthanasia is okay and John Paul II was an anti-ecumenical monarch. Pretty bold.
Click to expand...
Warren H Carroll’s history series is superb.
 
bzkoss236 said:
Hans Kung is a heretic.

And in recent news, he’s hoping to get assisted suicide because he’s ill.
Click to expand...
Hans Kung is NOT a heretic. That is a term that is loosely thrown about these days. Father Kung is still a Catholic priest fully recognized by the Holy See. He has been forbidden to teach theology in any Catholic institution, but such a ban no way implies he is a heretic. If you look at the 20 top theologians the Church has produced over the last 100 years, everyone of them with only one exception, has been banned from teaching and/or publishing at one time or another.

None of the books he has published over the past 50 years have ever resulted in his excommunication. He went out of his way at the Catholic university where he was head of the theology department to give his friend, Benedict XVI, his first teaching job.Some of his work is controversial, but by no mean heretical. He was chosen to be one of the official theologians at Vatican II by Pope John XXIII at the suggestion of Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Suenens.

After a long career of service to the Church, He has fallen into dementia within the last couple of years, and it has really become pronounced within the last 12 months. There are those at his university who have him “in hand,” and will see to it that none of these bazar statements will come to reality. The man is no longer rational. It is a condition that happens to countless old people every day. He is a wonderful priest. May God bless him. :sad_yes:❤️
 
PRmerger said:
So, too, was Fr. Arius.

Until he decided to divorce himself from the Faith given, once for all, to the saints.
Click to expand...
My dear friend was not Fr. Arius. Cardinal Timothy Dolan personally presided at his funeral Mass. :rolleyes:
 
Tantum_ergo said:
While I don’t agree with a lot of what you say, I have to support you here. (although it isn’t in my library, so I’ll have to special order). . .

It’s been quite a while since I read Kung but to me, he’s like William Faulkner. There have been times in my life that I have DETESTED reading anything by Faulkner, and times when I’ve actually enjoyed reading him. And it’s not as though I hated him in youth and loved him in later years (meaning, not simply experience or ‘wisdom’) that was the reason.

Philosophers, theologians. . .one can’t just read them as one would a novel, or even a ‘historical tome’ or a scientific journal article. One doesn’t just have to have some kind of background in the subject itself, one has to have an openness to considering the entire work from a kind of view that itself is nuanced and layered.

I do prefer Chesterton, and Warren Carroll, and H.W. Crocker, and Hillaire Belloc, not just because they’re all more traditionally-oriented, but because even though they also are nuanced, layered, and require an openness to consideration of their works, they also have a more genuine feel, a greater appeal to the ‘common man’ (or woman) in my opinion. They remind me more of the gospel writers, who may not have gotten everything all scientifically correct, who may have been seeing things ‘their way’ and not been terribly clear expressing themselves, but who deeply and truly believed, and were joyful in conveying that belief.

Kung sometimes reminds me more of the gnostic writers, or of later works of Origen. Much of his work is interesting, quite a bit rings authentically. . .but then there is always that little ‘whiff’ of the "but the real story is this’ when the ‘real story’ is really his personal opinion. even the smallest bit of the "the really knowing Christians reject X and as more become aware, X will become accepted as the truth’’ is enough (for me, anyway) to spoil the rest. Just my personal take, there, and of course, I could be wrong about Kung. . .I’ll certainly keep on reading (in my ‘haha’ spare time, nearly non existent) and try to keep an open mind.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, may I add further that Father Kung’s little history can be found at a reasonable price in a Modern Library" edition with a copyright and publication of 2001. 😃
 
Moonbug said:
Incidentally, may I add further that Father Kung’s little history can be found at a reasonable price in a Modern Library" edition with a copyright and publication of 2001. 😃
Click to expand...
12.98, trade paperback. Modern Library is not what it was in my youth.

GKC
 
GKC said:
12.98, trade paperback. Modern Library is not what it was in my youth.

GKC
Click to expand...
Or what Everyman was in the youth of C. S. Lewis. If Everyman had not been so cheap, there might have been no C. S. Lewis as we know him.

(Just playing a snobbish game with you, because I’m sure you know what I’m referring to.)
 
Contarini said:
Or what Everyman was in the youth of C. S. Lewis. If Everyman had not been so cheap, there might have been no C. S. Lewis as we know him.

(Just playing a snobbish game with you, because I’m sure you know what I’m referring to.)
Click to expand...
Well, Everyman’s was pretty important to my youth, too. It’s still rather wonderful, even though its special contribution is not quite so special because of the advent of paperbacks (thank you, Sir Allen Lane).
 
GKC said:
12.98, trade paperback. Modern Library is not what it was in my youth.

GKC/QUOT

The edition I am referring to is a hard copy edition. True, they printed a ton of wonderful books at great prices. Books that were very expensive, you could buy for a “song.” 👍
Click to expand...
 
Picky_Picky said:
Well, Everyman’s was pretty important to my youth, too. It’s still rather wonderful, even though its special contribution is not quite so special because of the advent of paperbacks (thank you, Sir Allen Lane).
Click to expand...
Is Everyman still being published? The only copies I have are quite old ones (a lot of Victorian novels in early-20th-century editions–Dickens with prefaces by G. K. Chesterton, for instance).

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Or what Everyman was in the youth of C. S. Lewis. If Everyman had not been so cheap, there might have been no C. S. Lewis as we know him.

(Just playing a snobbish game with you, because I’m sure you know what I’m referring to.)
Click to expand...
I will go with thee…

Yes, I know.

GKC
 
Moonbug said:
GKC;11303028 said:
12.98, trade paperback. Modern Library is not what it was in my youth.

GKC[/QUOT

The edition I am referring to is a hard copy edition. True, they printed a ton of wonderful books at great prices. Books that were very expensive, you could buy for a “song.” 👍
Click to expand...
And I did so, starting in 1963. The standard size was $1.98’-$2.98, the ML Giants were $4.98-$5.98.

GKC
Click to expand...

[/quote]
 
Moonbug said:
My dear friend was not Fr. Arius. Cardinal Timothy Dolan personally presided at his funeral Mass. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That is more of a testament of the graciousness of Cardinal Dolan and ought not be interpreted as any statement regarding the teachings of this unnamed priest.

This priest, God rest his soul, may indeed have espoused heterodox opinions.

That Cardinal Dolan celebrated his funeral Mass ought not be interpreted as “therefore the Church supports the opinions of this priest where he diverged from the Faith.”

Again, it is important that the readers of this thread note the difference between, “The Catholic Church says…”

and, “Moonbug says, because a priest once told him…”
 
PRmerger said:
That is more of a testament of the graciousness of Cardinal Dolan and ought not be interpreted as any statement regarding the teachings of this unnamed priest.

This priest, God rest his soul, may indeed have espoused heterodox opinions.

That Cardinal Dolan celebrated his funeral Mass ought not be interpreted as “therefore the Church supports the opinions of this priest where he diverged from the Faith.”

Again, it is important that the readers of this thread note the difference between, “The Catholic Church says…”

and, “Moonbug says, because a priest once told him…”
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true. But at the same time one should not believe blindly what anyone post on this web page or any web page. If one is interested in an issue, they should research it. My dear friend and I discussed this, and many other Church issues, over the years. I had also done some research on my own. My friend was a wonderful priest and a down to earth deep thinker. I will admit that played a part, but not entirely. There are some very good research pages and there are many reputable books both pro and con. If someone has no real interest in a subject, it would be prudent to hold one’s judgment and not accept the first point of view one hears. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top