French Catholic woman illicitly ordained

Thanks gbcdoj, this is a big help. I'll need some time to think through and digest your comments. It seems that those arguing for women's ordination have buried their arguments in very official sounding jargon, which most of us don't understand. Your post helps sort through the verbiage.

If I may clarify with you, the Papal Infallibility is pretty much just what it sounds like: the Pope is preserved from error and speaking infallibly when he says he is speaking infallibly. The gist of the argument on womenpriests.org is that the Pope does not have the ability to speak infallibly, even if he speaks on a doctrine and says that he is speaking infallibly. They seem to be claiming that his teachings have to be supported by the bishops acting as one body, that is, that there has to be unanimity on the issue, and that the teaching has to be supported by the beliefs of lay Catholics. As TC pointed out, this latter point is a distortion of the concept of sensus fidei, misread as opinion poll theology.

You know, if I was part of the women's ordination movement, I think it would make more sense to just attack the doctrine of infallibility as a whole, rather than trying to simply confuse definitions relating to it. I guess I get confused when I read about those who want to change Church teachings about marriage, divorce, homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and male priesthood. In doing so, they attack both the authority of the Church, and the Bible. What do they expect will be left of the Church when they are done? I think Richard John Neuhaus asked somewhat what would be the difference between the Church that had accepted a few of those changes and the Anglican Church up the street, and received a vague response, "well, you would still have the Pope."

What good is a Pope who isn't guided by the Holy Spirit to teach the Catholic faithful, and what good is a Pope with no real authority? We're hearing calls for a democratic Church, but the proponents of that view don't seem to be really clear about what such a Church would look like. It's incomprehensible to me. Perhaps it would be one with Hans Keung as Supreme leader, or one in which a contingent of dissenting M.divs could filibuster the faithful into a coma with arguments like the ones found on womanpriest.org.

I'd like to resort to the line in scripture that says, "I do not busy myself with things to sublime for me," but sometimes the mass itself becomes a battle ground for propagating some of these heterodox views. Well, I guess being a faithful Catholic may mean taking the time to become better informed. I'm grateful to be living in a time where it is easy to access information, and where so many lay Catholics are working to help the rest of us with catachesis. Thanks for your help, gbcdoj.

If I may clarify with you, the Papal Infallibility is pretty much just what it sounds like: the Pope is preserved from error and speaking infallibly when he says he is speaking infallibly

Exactly. As the 19th century American Catholic theologian Orestes Brownson put it: "A proposition formally censured in a papal encyclical, allocution, or brief, we take it, is censured by papal authority; and if it pertains to faith, or impugns the truth or any point of the law of God, natural and revealed, is censured by infallible authority, and no Catholic can maintain it in the sense censured".

Perhaps it would be one with Hans Keung as Supreme leader, or one in which a contingent of dissenting M.divs could filibuster the faithful into a coma with arguments like the ones found on womanpriest.org.

LOL! Pretty much sums it up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.