Women's Ordination Heresy?

[Genesis315]

Such hostility!

BTW, because somebody does not like a particular teaching is no reason to throw them out of the Church. If we did that, The Catholic Church would be small indeed.

Whether they are thrown out formally or not, heresy is a sin which separates one from the Body of Christ. The wheat grow with chaff and there are many who have not entered through the door. Many who claim to be Catholics have in truth separated themselves from the Church through their obstinate denial of some truth that must be held by the whole Church. Likewise, sometimes it is necessary to formally throw someone out (in orther words excommunicate them). As St. Paul said when he excommunicates the man in Corinth, sometimes we must purge the leaven from our midst so that it doesn’t corrupt the whole lump.

The road to salvation is narrow indeed.

 

[mikew262]

Whether they are thrown out formally or not, heresy is a sin which separates one from the Body of Christ. The wheat grow with chaff and there are many who have not entered through the door. Many who claim to be Catholics have in truth separated themselves from the Church through their obstinate denial of some truth that must be held by the whole Church. Likewise, sometimes it is necessary to formally throw someone out (in orther words excommunicate them). As St. Paul said when he excommunicates the man in Corinth, sometimes we must purge the leaven from our midst so that it doesn’t corrupt the whole lump.

The road to salvation is narrow indeed.

IMO, whether somebody believes there should be female priests or not would be a rather minor factor, if a factor at all in the salvation decision by God.

 

[fix]

IMO, whether somebody believes there should be female priests or not would be a rather minor factor, if a factor at all in the salvation decision by God.

What about believing God is the authority behind His Church in these matters? I mean rejecting that teaching is really claiming the Church is wrong which is claiming God is not the authority behind the Church. These problems always go to a deeper matter.

 

[Sir_Knight]

IMO, whether somebody believes there should be female priests or not would be a rather minor factor, if a factor at all in the salvation decision by God.

A female priest would not have the authority to forgive sins.

 

[mikew262]

What about believing God is the authority behind His Church in these matters? I mean rejecting that teaching is really claiming the Church is wrong which is claiming God is not the authority behind the Church. These problems always go to a deeper matter.

I just personally think this is a minor issue. I really don’t care that much if we have female priests or not. Its not a big factor that affects my faith 1 way or another. Granted it would a take a little while to get used too. I know some folks are very passionate about it (some almost obsessively), but not me. Spreading the Word of God is genderless IMO.

I believe God in general is the authority behind the Church, but Man is also involved, both in the development of doctrine and traditions. Man by his nature is sinful and errant. God has made the Holy Spirit available to Man to guide him and the Church. However, Man has to accept that guidance and put personal agendas aside. IMO, God will not let the Church fail in the big scheme of things, however, that doesn’t mean it can’t stumble every once in awhile.

Do I have proof the Church has failed in any respect? No. However remote, does the capability exist (IMO)? Maybe.

Will the Church ever ordain female priests? I suspect not. If for no other reason because of the infallable concept. Earlier Popes have said no to this, so even if we ever did get a Pope, who privately thought it was alright to do so, publically he would not do it. To do so, would violate the the infallability of earlier Popes.

All this is my opinion only.

 

[mikew262]

A female priest would not have the authority to forgive sins.

Why? Not that this will ever happen, but if she were duly ordained, why couldn’t she?

 

[clmowry]

Thankyou for that…i never realised that this is irreversible !!! Wow…there sure are going to be a great number of disgruntled woman out there…as they form the backbone of many , many parishes perhaps we should pray real hard that they remain forever in the church.

I don’t think this is true at all.

Maybe I travel in very conservative circles but I doubt that even 5% of the Catholic women I know would consider female ordination as a mater critical to their Catholic faith.

Chuck

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t think this is true at all.

Maybe I travel in very conservative circles but I doubt that even 5% of the Catholic women I know would consider female ordination as a mater critical to their Catholic faith.

Chuck

It isn’t a truth, it’s a threat. We get it all the time – “If the Church doesn’t accept almost everyone will leave the Church.”

 

[starrs0]

Personal Opinion has no place when it comes Matters of Faith and Morals Dogma is Dogma and should be accepted without question.

 

[Genesis315]

Personal Opinion has no place when it comes Matters of Faith and Morals Dogma is Dogma and should be accepted without question.

And that is the essence of saving faith–we trust what God has revealed as best for us without question simply because He is God. We have faith He knows what’s best . When God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham could have opined that it was a bad idea, but instead He had faith in God’s word. :getholy:

 

[starrs0]

AMEN

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Why? Not that this will ever happen, but if she were duly ordained, why couldn’t she?

Because there is no such thing as an ordained priestess, and can’t ever be. Now had Christ implemented a way for women to become priestesses then binding and losing would be passed down through Apostolic Sucession to these women priests. But, Christ mandated no such thing so it’s not possible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suspect we have a fewpeople here who spend a lot of time walking in the woods, looking up in the trees for cow’s nests. After all, if cows could fly, they might build nests in trees.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

For anyone who might be interested in seeing a detailed debate on this issue, check out a conversation that I had with another man about women’s ordination on:
swallowedscroll.blogspot.com/search/label/women%20priests%3F

We get into the issues of: was Pope John Paul II’s Ordination Sacerdotalis an exercise in papal infallibility? What does Scripture and Tradition say about women priests? What is a faithful Catholic obligated to give his assent to?, etc.

For my part, I think that proponents of women’s ordination are missing the Church’s beautiful teaching on the dignity and gifts of women. …They are seeing the issue through the eyes of the world and the mainstream culture (authority = power).

 

[DallasCatholic]

Personal Opinion has no place when it comes Matters of Faith and Morals Dogma is Dogma and should be accepted without question.

As Vincent pointed out in post #116, John Paul IIs teaching was not dogmatic. He answers the original question that someone who disagrees with this teaching would not be in full communion with the Catholic Church but they would not be a heretic. Personally I agree that Women’s ordination is a dead issue and I definitively hold the position that was expressed by JPII in Sacer Ordinitalis.

Dogma need not be accepted without question. A good deal of our Theology and apologetics have come about because great thinkers questioned ideas and beliefs held by the Early Church and wrote extensively about their attempts to understand those beliefs and concepts. If everyone just accepted dogma (and doctrine for that matter) then there would be no need for the Catechism. As a Catholic you are free to dissent from some teachings, you are NOT free to teach or promulgate anything in dissent of Church teachings. This can be a fine line but it is a line nevertheless. This is one of the strengths, IMO, of the Catholic Church…there is room for those who might not accept initially but are trying to honestly understand Church Teaching so they can accept fully and without reservation. The primary role of the Church is to teach, not to enforce those teachings. Of course there is Canon Law to aid in enforcement but enforcement is not the primary purpose of the Church.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

As Vincent pointed out in post #116, John Paul IIs teaching was not dogmatic. He answers the original question that someone who disagrees with this teaching would not be in full communion with the Catholic Church but they would not be a heretic. Personally I agree that Women’s ordination is a dead issue and I definitively hold the position that was expressed by JPII in Sacer Ordinitalis.

Dogma need not be accepted without question. A good deal of our Theology and apologetics have come about because great thinkers questioned ideas and beliefs held by the Early Church and wrote extensively about their attempts to understand those beliefs and concepts. If everyone just accepted dogma (and doctrine for that matter) then there would be no need for the Catechism. As a Catholic you are free to dissent from some teachings, you are NOT free to teach or promulgate anything in dissent of Church teachings. This can be a fine line but it is a line nevertheless. This is one of the strengths, IMO, of the Catholic Church…there is room for those who might not accept initially but are trying to honestly understand Church Teaching so they can accept fully and without reservation. The primary role of the Church is to teach, not to enforce those teachings. Of course there is Canon Law to aid in enforcement but enforcement is not the primary purpose of the Church.

Honestly questioning and wrestling with a doctrine (as you describe above) is one thing. But I also see some people on the issue of women’s ordination stubbornly and pridefully close their ears to the arguments and teaching of the Magisterium. I think that if anyone takes an antagonistic approach to the magisterium, then they are failing in their moral obligations.

 

[Vincent]

As Vincent pointed out in post #116, John Paul IIs teaching was not dogmatic.

Just to clarify, while the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone is not “dogma” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 5, Mysterium Ecclesia 3) and is not a “dogmatic definition” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 6, 11), I would be cautious in describing it as “not dogmatic”.

The reason is that definitive tenenda doctrines, like the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, include “all those teachings belonging to the **dogmatic **or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith…” (emphasis added, Doctrinal Commentary 6). Examples in this category are the canonizations of saints, which aren’t “dogma” yet are called “**dogmatic **facts” (Doctrinal Commentary 11).

 

[DallasCatholic]

Honestly questioning and wrestling with a doctrine (as you describe above) is one thing. But I also see some people on the issue of women’s ordination stubbornly and pridefully close their ears to the arguments and teaching of the Magisterium. I think that if anyone takes an antagonistic approach to the magisterium, then they are failing in their moral obligations.

I would agree with you. Likewise there are some who condemn those who are honestly seeking.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Just to clarify, while the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone is not “dogma” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 5, Mysterium Ecclesia 3) and is not a “dogmatic definition” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 6, 11), I would be cautious in describing it as “not dogmatic”.

The reason is that definitive tenenda doctrines, like the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, include “all those teachings belonging to the **dogmatic **or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith…” (emphasis added, Doctrinal Commentary 6). Examples in this category are the canonizations of saints, which aren’t “dogma” yet are called “**dogmatic **facts” (Doctrinal Commentary 11).

Thanks for the clarification Vincent. BTW, I am reading Sheed’s “To Know Christ Jesus” and have his “Beginning Theology” on tap next.

 

[mikew262]

Just to clarify, while the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone is not “dogma” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 5, Mysterium Ecclesia 3) and is not a “dogmatic definition” (Cf. Doctrinal Commentary 6, 11), I would be cautious in describing it as “not dogmatic”.

The reason is that definitive tenenda doctrines, like the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, include “all those teachings belonging to the **dogmatic **or moral area, which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith…” (emphasis added, Doctrinal Commentary 6). Examples in this category are the canonizations of saints, which aren’t “dogma” yet are called “**dogmatic **facts” (Doctrinal Commentary 11).

A little off track here, but why does the Church have these different classifications of statements/teachings/proclamations like those described above and others?

Wouldn’t it just be easier for the Church when they come out with something to say it’s either binding or non-binding? To narrow it down further, don’t issue anything unless you intend it to be a binding doctrine.

IMO, it’s way to complex and confusing the way they do things now.