Posted on 07/10/2009 1:58:33 PM PDT by NYer
What’s with the leather bracelet?
That’s to protect her wrists in case a knife fight breaks out during the Mass.
When will American bishops start doing this with some who clearly should be excommunicated?
This is an interesting story. Who ordained her? Why does she think that she is a bishop? I assume that she did not ordain herself??? Does anyone know the story behind the story?
Indulgences were in, then out, and are now back in style. Why doesn’t headquarters add women priests to the other flexible wierdnesses?
not clear?
which religion?
You can eat all the wafers and drink all the water you like. If you seek communion outside of the proper way, you have not communed, wafer or no wafer.
I’m not Catholic, but if were going to call myself one, I’d follow the rules.
Stone her.
Modernist version of Maniple. Left arm for priests, right arm for imposters.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET STRUCK BY LIGHTENING THESE DAYS?
can’t be Catholic....no female clergy.
Must be Anglican...errr..Austrian-anglican.
>>Indulgences were in, then out, and are now back in style. Why doesn’t headquarters add women priests to the other flexible wierdnesses?<<
Indulgences have never been “out”.
Not in the Roman Catholic Church, I’m not sure about others.
Women Priests were never “in”.
I looked up the Bishop.
This is Roman Catholic.
You will find the history behind her ordination here.
Kudos on comprehending what this woman fails to accept. That is why she was excommunicated. Her attitude and approach is one of pride and arrogance. She, and others like her, who choose not to accept the Church doctrines, should simply leave. Instead, they pursue the goal of changing what can never be changed. Jesus chose only men as His apostles. He had the opportunity to choose women, but did not. The Catholic Church holds true to what our Lord did and cannot undo His actions.
but she is NOT a bishop and its not clear but I think she was excommunicated for becoming a priest...which is not possible in the RC church.
the whole article is a bit murky.
Thank you for the reference. I’m not Roman Catholic, but I believe that whatever your faith group is, you should be faithful to it. I don’t understand how you can be considered a Roman Catholic and ignore its teachings or laws. Nothing about this woman’s actions make any sense to me. The comparison of an abused spouse to being excommunicated and denied the Host is absurd. If she wants to be ordained and become a priest, join the Anglican or Episcopal denomination. They’ll ordain anyone.
Its a left over from that Saturday when she was dressed up as a cowboy and demanding to be allowed into the Bull Riding competition.
On Wednesdays she dresses up as an astronaut and rushes NASA.
“What did she feel? “In the first moment, nothing. But now I feel hurt and angry, like a woman who has been beaten for the first time by a man, “says Mayr-Lumetzberger.”
It’s about me, folks. I’m a victim.
LOL
Okay, pretend Roman Catholic.
The male Bishop is the real one.
Well as I read the Gospel it says that he gave power to forgive and not to forgive to the apostles so perhaps she should quit yelling about the gospel, read a bit of the gospel, and go seek forgiveness.
Correct me if I am wrong, but sometime back before Pope Leo returned them (circ 1510), they had been officially pronounced unacceptable. True/False?
***What’s with the leather bracelet?
Its a left over from that Saturday when she was dressed up as a cowboy and demanding to be allowed into the Bull Riding competition.
On Wednesdays she dresses up as an astronaut and rushes NASA.***
I don’t even want to know how she spends Friday nights...
Not in the Roman Catholic Church....
“On 16 July 1562, the Council of Trent suppressed the office of quaestores and reserved the collection of alms to two canon members of the chapter, who were to receive no remuneration for their work; it also reserved the publication of indulgences to the bishop of the diocese.[40] Then on 4 December 1563, in its final session, it addressed the question of indulgences directly, declaring them “most salutary for the Christian people”, decreeing that “ that all evil gains for the obtaining of them be wholly abolished”, and instructing bishops to be on the watch for any abuses concerning them.[41]
A few years later, in 1567, Pope Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.[42][43] After the Council of Trent, Clement VIII established a commission of Cardinals to deal with indulgences according to the mind of the Council. It continued its work during the pontificate of Paul V and published various bulls and decrees on the matter. But only Clement IX established a true Congregation of Indulgences (and Relics) with a Brief of 6 July 1669. In a Motu Proprio of 28 January 1904, Pius X joined the Congregation of Indulgences with that of Rites, but with the restructuring of the Roman Curia in 1908 all matters regarding indulgences was assigned to the Holy Office. In a Motu Proprio of 25 March 1915, Benedict XV transferred the Holy Office’s Section for Indulgences to the Apostolic Penitentiary, but maintained the Holy Office’s responsibility for matters regarding the doctrine of indulgences.”
Abuses were defined and corrected but indulgences are dogma.
I'm thinking of a line from Austin Powers - "It's a man, baby".
Mayr-Lumetzberger took the host herself from the ciborium. "I was there for all men and women in a similar situation in life," she says in discussion with OÖN. Is it normal to receive the Host like this? "There are different models of the Communion," she says.
I don't know where to start. Seized the Host from the ciborium? Can you imagine any other situation, religious or secular, where you could declare yourself part of their organization after being denied. Force yourself in where you didn't belong. Take or take part in something you aren't qualified to do. It defies logic.
What did she feel? "In the first moment, nothing. But now I feel hurt and angry, like a woman who has been beaten for the first time by a man, "says Mayr-Lumetzberger.
And she's hurt and angry, claiming it is like being physically abused, even though she accomplished her goal by force, she seized a Host. No one seized her.
She was the aggressor here.
And she diminishes the actual abuse suffered by women who are abused.
You wrote:
“Indulgences were in, then out, and are now back in style.”
Indulgences were never out.
Exactly! I just don’t understand as a women how these women can’t understand that Chuch doctrine never changes no matter what. There are plenty of other churches to join that would let them do as they want but not in the RC church.
**Bishop Ludwig Schwarz **
God bless this Bishop. The Body of Christ (bread/Host) is always GIVEN! Never Taken!
This gal is wrong.
For your info — anyone along the way can earn an indulgence. There is no money exchanged.
Obligations are to say the prayer required, go to Confession and receive Communion.
Thought you would like to know the facts.
I guess I should have said any Catholic!
Definitely “guilty”.
Seven years? Seven years and this is the first time she presented herself at Communion and was refused?
The article makes it sound like she had never been refused the Eucharist before. Also, by saying, "For me, she has never come for Communion," the parish priest Fr. Zeiger implies that perhaps other priests have not refused her the Eucharist as Bishop Schwarz did at this occasion.
Since her excommunication, has Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger presented herself for Communion before now?
God will deal with her.
Then resign as pastor and allow a man with a spine to take the job.
I have no use for wimpy clergy.
You are wrong.
Indulgences were never ‘out’, abused, yes, misused, yes again, mis-applied, yes, but not out.
Of course, I should have said, indulgences were granted without cost, then sold under Pope Leo (circa 1537, see Wiki), then selling them was officially banned. Thanks for the correction.
Still, might as well add women priests to this kooky practice.
You wrote:
“Of course, I should have said, indulgences were granted without cost, then sold under Pope Leo (circa 1537, see Wiki), then selling them was officially banned. Thanks for the correction.”
Pope Leo X was long dead before 1537 and he never authorized the sale of a single indulgence EVER. Read Henry Bettenson’s Documents of the Christian Church (Bettensone was a Protestant by the way).
You are still wrong.
“The false doctrine and scandalous conduct of the “pardoners” were an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation.[3] In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, protesting against what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”.[37] The Ninety-Five Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the Pope’s right to grant pardons on God’s behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God’s power alone.[38]” Wikipedia
You guys still can’t get the big picture.
But, thanks for keeping this in play...Next?
One of my daughter's professors gives an immediate "F" to anybody stupid enough to cite Wiki in a term paper.
The Catholic Church NVER sold indulgences. Some men did so, but against the law of the Catholic Church.
Agreed. In this case it was just a quick reference to the truth. Any argument?
Well, I’m glad the Church (let’s see is that the block building in Vatican City?) never sold any indulgences. Apparently your head honcho with the tall hat couldn’t control himself and needed a little change in the pocket and a bigger office. The whole outfit needs to repent of the ridiculous theology. Indulgences are just one of dozens of heretical positions it holds. Women priests...coming soon to a block building near you!
Besides, the issue here is this obviously deranged female who thinks she's a bishop, not wrongful acts by individuals without authority long ago. You want to complain about the illegal sale of indulgences, go start your own thread.
I think we can all agree, though, that this poor woman has bad taste in dress -- Early Hippie seems to be her sartorial guide.
Sorry...I didn’t catch the part where they handed you the, “I’m in charge” hat. The ridiculousness of selling indulgences, then changing the practice is a precedent for the RCC to point to and thus change the practice and allow this ridiculous women priest. Some time you may wish to follow the argument.
For that matter, most the RCC positions are ridiculous.
She was never properly ordained... you have these women who claim that they were ordained secretly by sitting priests or bishops, and now they are running around “ordaining” other women. Its a complete crock.
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.