Posted on 04/15/2008 8:17:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
On Monday 14 April, I was having dinner at an Irish pub in Washington, DC with two Catholic priests, a Catholic high school teacher, a community leader in DC, and a Catholic blogger/author known as the "bane of feminist feminist bloggers," when one of them noticed a message written on the side of a truck. I rushed over to the window with my camera, and took a picture of the truck and its message.
This is how it turned out:
Groups such as the so-called "Women's Ordination Conference" have sympathizers in the mainstream media. The Voice of America recently featured an "ordained" woman "priest" in a report that was filed only days before the Pope's arrival today in the United States.
Of course, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to give Holy Orders to women. Pope John Paul II tried to end the matter almost 15 years ago, but the persistence of feminist influence within the Church (and the active assistance of the media as shown in the example above) has meant that the issue continues to this day. But I have hope, given the age of the people attending "Mass" with the woman "priest" in the VOA report, and the orthodox "new faithful" of under-40 Catholics (to use a term coined by Colleen Carroll Campbell) who are the future of the Church, that the cause of "women's ordination" will ultimately be flung on the ash heap of history.
Catholic ping!
The Devil and her minions at work again.
Well, why not accept the women? Ordain them. The Bible (e.g. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) are not the Authority. The Bible must compete with tradition and pronouncements by councils and edicts from popes, and of course, maybe intercessions by a woman named Mary. Seems the latter four could trump the Bible on any issue under the sun, so, why not ordain the women?
In a completely unrelated note, the "1789" in your name is appropriate, since that's the year of the Second Revolution against the Catholic Church, the French Revolution. You must think the leaders of that are heroes.
“How long must women wait for equality?”
Not being being Catholic but I have a guess at what one might answer.
ans: When God changes his mind.
Malachi 3:6 I the LORD do not change.
“the Second Revolution against the Catholic Church”
Do you mean men wanted to be rid of suppression by the Roman Catholic Church? I would want that.
I keep thinking about that awful joke about the Pope and the blind girl.
The solution for revolutionaries is always much worse than the perceived "problem."
“LOL! This demonstrates yet again your fundamental ignorance of the Catholic Church.”
Of course, you know that I am not really for women in the ministry. I’m just making a side point. It’s a valid one.
Pyro, that photo is just begging for a photoshop job.
"Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing."
Now I realize the nuances of Papal statements may be difficult for some to parse. And I appreciate that subtext and connotations can be lost in translating a document from Latin to English. And clarity of language is all to absent in missives from any institution, be it governmental, secular or religious. So in the interest of those who have thresher brains and those who make Clem The Slack Jawed Yokel look like a Oxford don and otheres of the not so bright and beautiful persuasion.(Aisha, did I say you, did I?, Ok I pretty much did) I have provided this handy Q & A translation guide.
Q. Will women ever be ordained into the priesthood of the Catholic Church either under the Latin Rite or any of the Eastern Rites?
A. HELL NO,NADA,NYET,NEIN, NON, NOPE,NO WAY,NO HOW, NO CHANCE, NEGATORY, NEGATIVE, ZERO CHANCE, AND NIX.
What I find most insulting about those clamoring for womyn priests is the assumption that women's contribution to the Church are not valid unless they can make the same contribution as men. So these womyn must believe that men are superior to women. Logic says they should just leave the Church. But nope they would only be happy with changing the Church. I swear they will not shut up unless the Church promises to allow them to marry their lesbian partners, sacrifice preborn offspring on the altar during the Winter Solstice celebration presided over by a Druid/Wiccan priestess and her 5 cospouses.
Ordination of women is a bigger issue than just a catholic one. Reading over the biblical requirements for elders, deacons and overseers, they are to be ‘husbands’ of one wife. Women will never be husbands no more than they can be fathers, nor men, wives or mothers.
Men and women have equality as both are people, both made in the image of God.
Do not confuse equality with roles and responsibilities.
Further, a lot of men are not eligible for being pastors. Does that make it unfair that a sizeable portion of men would be rejected as well?
In the OT times, only men from the Levite tribe could be priests. All men from the other 11 tribes were not allowed, even if they may have been better spiritual candidates than some ofthe Levites. Is that fair?
In all cases the answer is yes. God has the right to determine the roles for people based on whatever criteria He gives.
“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
“It’s a valid one.”
No, sorry, it’s not. All the other authorities you name are subordinate to the Bible.
There are no issues on which the Bible broadsides the Roman Catholic Church, except where certain dioceses or churches have been corruupted by the Modernist or Americanist heresies.
If you think you have found one, that only means that you have misunderstood the meaning of the scripture, what the Church teaches, or both.
I’m glad you posted that quotation, as it shows this matter is settled once and for all. The Pope was speaking (writing) ‘ex cathedra’. This is a dead issue. No one takes it seriously except a few extremists and heretics who unfortunately get plenty of media attention. But they won’t get any attention from Pope Benedict, even with such an appealing big purple sign on the side of a truck. It’s like Code Pink, they will never effect change, they do this for their own self-righteous edification and 15 minutes of fame.
Thank-you for that excellent article. If Jesus wanted women priests, he would have had them, the women at the Last Supper and the Gospel does not say anything at all. Also Jesus would have ordained his own mother Mary and he did not do that at all.
If Jesus wanted priests he would have ordained his own mother which he did not.
True and as the generation that was pushing for this nonsense ages and starts to take a good, hard look at their own lives realizing that they are not going to live forever, and the younger generation reject this nonsense all this pro women’s ordination stuff will fall by the wayside.
Time for the headache guy picture. Between the muslim group that said they won’t attend a get together with the Pope and these whiney rad-”feminists”, the bawl babies are out in force. I hope the Pope focuses on the millions of faithful people off all denominations who welcome him and ignores the small contingent of bawl babies who can accomplish nothing other than make obnoxious nuisances of themselves.
You had dinner with Dawn Eden?! I liked the video on her blog about the banner on the Dominican House of Studies.
Like all radical feminists, these think “equality” means “being exactly alike.” So maybe the answer to “How long must women wait for equality?” is “Until men give birth.” (And that poor lunatic with the mastectomy and the beard doesn’t count.)
Pope Benedict will not give in to these poor souls. He knows what is right, and what is correct.
You said it! The former ECUSA, now the TEC, was not my childhood church, though I attended a couple of the few remaining conservative parishes in Northern Virginia 1994-2003. When the V.G. Robinson fiasco happened in 2003 and the ECUSA diocese “bishop” Peter “Judas” Lee voted OK and then tried to shuck and jive Virginia Episcopalians about it, that was the final straw for me and I crossed the Tiber.
“Women will never be husbands no more than they can be fathers, nor men, wives or mothers.”
True. And on a side note, priests can’t be husbands either.
Interesting.
"[T]radition and pronouncements by councils and edicts from popes, and of course, maybe intercessions by a woman named Mary" do not "compete" with the Bible. That's something like saying a cook competes with a cookbook.
“There are no issues on which the Bible broadsides the Roman Catholic Church, except where certain dioceses or churches have been corruupted by the Modernist or Americanist heresies.”
I would say that, objectively, there are issues where the Catholic Church seems to diverge from the Scriptures.
The Bible knows nothing of Purgatory - as Roman Catholics describe it. Nor does the Bible have any examples of prayer directed to anyone but God or Christ. Additionally, Canon Law, (the keeping of which is supposedly necessary for the salvation of Catholics), is essentially replacing the Jewish law with a new, larger, Roman one. This is something Paul specifically counseled against.
Oh, really?
You sure about that? Final answer?
Well, actually, priests can be husbands. As practiced by Churches which have a vaid sacramental priesthood, the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics and the special-accommodation converts: a married man can receive Holy Orders(deacon-priest-bishop), but a man who has received Holy Orders (deacon-priest-bishop) cannot thereafter get married.
“Oh, really? You sure about that? Final answer?”
So your priest can go out, get married and become a husband?
Actually to give you the Catholic Theological explaination
The Priest when he conforms himself to Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass becomes the Bridegroom to the Church (his wife), as Christ did when he Sacrificed himself for the salvation of souls.
Ergo, in Catholic Theology, a woman could no longer act “In Persona Christi” aka as a Priest, thus conforming herself to the Bridegroom status than you could have same sex marriage.
You don’t have to agree with it, but that’s the Theology.
And to head off the question of the married Presbyterate in the Eastern Catholic Churches, there are requirements to abstain from the Marital act prior to confecting the Eucharist.
As a sidebar those restrictions (drawn from the old Convenant and completed in the New) combined with daily Liturgy are one more reason for celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
Again, you don’t have to agree, but that is the Theology.
The statement in question is:
And on a side note, priests can’t be husbands either.
That was your statement. Do you stand by it, or do you wish to revise and extend your remarks?
This is what happens when a woman wants to become a father...
“That was your statement. Do you stand by it, or do you wish to revise and extend your remarks?”
I think Mrs. Don-o covered the exceptions well enough.
What I have in view here is normal Roman Catholic tradition - not Orthodox or special accommodations for Anglicans, etc.
Thank you for explaining that.
I have to say, however, I find that to be deeply disturbing. The whole “alter christos” idea, of which I assume this is part, would seem to undermine the unique role of Jesus Christ in salvation.
As far as I know, only one Pope has issued a dogma as Ex-Cathedra, that of the Annunciation of Mary, by Pius XII, in November 1950.
While the Pope has refused to change the doctrine of the Catholic Church, Papal Encyclicals are not usually covered under the “Ex-Cathedra” clause.
Ours don't.
Again, your words:
And on a side note, priests can’t be husbands either.
I hope you now realize that your statement, as stated, is false.
Obviously, married men can be priests. The existence of even one proves it.
So ... your attempt to equate "married priests" with "women priests" is false.
Married men can be priests. That they normally are not is a matter of prudential judgement, not doctrine, and admits exceptions.
Women can'tbe priests. That is a matter of doctrine (see Ordination Sacerdotalis for one explanation of why). Doctrine doesn't admit exceptions. At least, not in the Catholic Church.
I can't address the plasticity of doctrine in other communities.
“I would say that, objectively, there are issues where the Catholic Church seems to diverge from the Scriptures.”
It only seems to because of misunderstandings.
“The Bible knows nothing of Purgatory”
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/purgatory.html
“Nor does the Bible have any examples of prayer directed to anyone but God or Christ.”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea2.asp
“Additionally, Canon Law, (the keeping of which is supposedly necessary for the salvation of Catholics), is essentially replacing the Jewish law with a new, larger, Roman one.”
Now, that’s a really huge misunderstanding, and one I haven’t heard before. I am reminded of a physicist who was asked to review a colleague’s work. He commented, “That’s so bad, it’s not even wrong.”
Sometimes I wonder for a moment in amazement, “Where do they get this stuff?” Then I remember.
“By stepping forward despite this warning, when invited to do so, and by co-operating in the rest of the ordination service, the candidate is understood to bind himself equivalently by a vow of chastity. He is henceforth unable to contract a valid marriage, and any serious transgression in the matter of this vow is not only a grievous sin in itself but incurs the additional guilt of sacrilege.”
Until Kingdom Come!
Sound to you?
Very good. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to understand that statement.
Two words in particular you need to understand.(Recall that I objected to your use of the word "can't" rather than the phrase "may not"? Words mean things.) Fortunately, at newadvent they're hyperlinks. That should help.
1) Contract. To contract is to enter into a binding agreement with another.
2) Valid. Conditions for a valid marriage include that the parties contract it freely, knowingly, without reservation, and without prior hindrance. At ordination, if the priest does (vow|promise) celibacy, then he is accepting a condition under which validly contracting a marriage is impossible due to the prior hindrance.
He may at some time be released from that (vow|promise) ... at which point he may then validly contract marriage. This is how you get "married ex-priests". That term is popular, but incorrect. The individual is indeed married, but he's still a priest. He is forbidden, though, to act as one ... and he accepts that forbidding as a condition of release from his vow.
I strongly discourage argument by sound-bite ... whether from Scripture or from any merely human source. It can lead to error by way of half-truth or misunderstanding the meaning of words.
I actually find the “In Persona Christi” to be deeply comforting as (at least under Catholic Theology) it makes Christ Truly present at the Mass rather than having only a symbolic presence of a Minster.
But, (again under Catholic Theology) with the whole Transubstantiation thing, the Altar Christ is necessary.
And in the realm of the purely ascetic (as per the instructions on the Sacraments at Chalcedon in 451) it is comforting to know that no matter how bad, egotistical or just a plain horrible preacher, in the case of the Catholic Mass - the Priest, so long as he is properly Ordained (the whole indelible mark upon the soul thing) and follows the proper formula and uses the proper Matter for the Mass...Christ is truly present.
In affect you could argue that it goes back to the Catholic Theology on the Eucharist. Which is considered the source and summit of the Catholic Faith.
A Theology that many wiser than me with a proper understanding of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin have been studying for 2000 years. I have neither the schooling nor the ego to try to tackle that subject.
““The Bible knows nothing of Purgatory””
In the Bible, Hell is clearly defined multiple times, Heaven is clearly defined multiple times, but what of Purgatory? Never defined, never spoken of. Catholics have only inferred it’s existence. If it were there, Christ would have told us - like he told us of the reality of heaven and hell.
*************
““Nor does the Bible have any examples of prayer directed to anyone but God or Christ.” http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea2.asp";
Can you site for me one positive example of anyone addressing prayer to a being other than God or Christ in the Bible?
************
Re: Canon Law: “Now, that’s a really huge misunderstanding, and one I haven’t heard before.”
Before you so lightly dismiss it, perhaps you can tell me why you believe this to be a misunderstanding?
"Marriage" is, in several pages. There's specifically a page on validity of marriage. A thorough reading of it, along with a thorough reading of the page on clerical celibacy, would be a good start.
AAAAAaaaaacckkkkk!
Google stinks out loud.
I got a “google ad” for “singlemuslim dot com”
Funny!!!
Actually, that was about the Assumption of Mary. Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
"Then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire." Rev. 20: 13 - 14.
If Hades is Hell how can it be thrown into itself? Hades is the Latin term for Purgatory, an interim holding place that will no longer be needed after the final judgment. Therefore it is disposed of, leaving only Heaven and Hell(the pool of Fire).There are other examples in the Old Testamemt where the Jews believed in an interim holding place called Shoah, I think. When Jesus "Descended into Hell" he would not go to the damned, he would go to those who could still be saved in Purgatory.
Nor does the Bible have any examples of prayer directed to anyone but God or Christ.”
"Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones." Rev 5:8
Catholics do not pray to saints to ask them to act divinely on their behalf. Only God is divine. But the saints can join their prayers to ours and we ask them to do so. Paul said : "join me by your prayers to God on my behalf." Rom. 15:30. We do not believe that the saints are dead. We know from the Ascension that, Moses and Elijah were still alive in Heaven. Jesus talked to them. It is clear from the quote above that those in heaven are aware of the prayers of the holy ones. Paul also repeatedly asked others to pray for him. Eph 4:3 and 2 Thess 3:1. We simply do not limit these requests to those still here on Earth.
Sheol, not Shoah. “Shoah” is a term Jews often use for what we call the Holocaust. Iirc, it means something like “an immense catastrophe.”
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.