Free Republic

The “bad Popes” weren’t nearly as bad as some would have us believe, especially if you compare them to the temporal rulers of the times. I wouldn’t mind a biopic of Alexander VI so long as it was fair. I object to the outrageous lie that there was ever a Pope Joan.

Do you even know what an indulgence is?

Y'all are ILLITERATES!!

Hey! That's BS! My parents were married when I was born!

Does this mean that Norman Lear is no longer going to support John McCain?

To mourn the passing of the Iron Curtain?

They would probably be disappointed in the way federalism and the separation of powers have been abandoned. On the other hand, they would probably be pleased that we are not as bad as the rest of the world.

What is your definition of ex cathedra? Jesus did give an unusual amount of respect to women at that time. That's my point. He was not constrained by the old laws and customs. Once the Apostles knew he was the Messiah, and having accepted the notion of loving their enemies, they would have accepted anything he taught, and they did. If he had made women priests, they would have been accepted by the Apostles.

How does primacy on the Bible support your position? The most relevant verses on the subject, coming from St. Paul, support my position. Jesus dumbed it down? Says who? Certainly the faith would develop over time, so he set up the Church to guide us. "Scripture alone" is another Protestant heresy. A Catholic recognizes Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Since most African-Americans live in major cities, I would say the one who will keep our major cities from being attacked by terrorists. That looks like McCain to me.

So, was Jesus showing a disgust with women when he chose only men to be Apostles, or did he just not have the courage to defy Jewish custom?

Henry VIII believed in the Real Presence. He was still a Protestant. You're a cafeteria Catholic (Protestant) because you pick and choose which doctrines you want to accept.

Here are some excerpts from a good article on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

With respect to point 1: The pope clearly intends to teach something; in fact, he intends to do so in such a way that "all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance".

Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority; he specifically alludes to that authority, "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren"--a reference to the precise passage which forms the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers." This passage has no meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter applies.

Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority; he specifically alludes to that authority, "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren"--a reference to the precise passage which forms the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers." This passage has no meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter applies.

Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather "a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself." The divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the continuation of Christ's work on earth as well as the means through and by which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has "defined" as part of the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.

Point 4: The pope intends the teaching to bind the whole Church; this is manifest when he says that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church this weekend, particularly the section regarding Holy Orders. It was promulgated by a Pope (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

"...the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

It belongs to the deposit of faith and is to be held always, everywhere and by all. "Always" includes your lifetime. "Everywhere" includes your location. "All" includes you. You just don't want to accept it. That makes you a Protestant, which is okay. Many of my friends and family are Protestants. Just don't agitate for women priests in the Catholic Church.

Here you go:

CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

You may not be satisfied with their reasoning, but the proper authority has spoken. If you want women priests, join the Anglicans or the Lutherans.

Women priests are transvestites.

So, since you think the Church is so ignoble, why do you care that women can't become priests? I think you just want the Church infiltrated with even more liberal clergy. The molesters and their enablers were, by and large, liberals.

Since Christ set up the Church to teach, it needed to be immune from heresy. Therefore, we have Papal infallibility. Papal infallibility means that when a Pope promulgates a teaching relating to faith and/or morals to the entire Church, he is unable to issue a false teaching. John Paul II issued (actually re-issued) the teaching on the impossibility of ordaining women on May 22, 1994 in the encyclical entitled Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

Women are missing the ability to validly receive holy orders. The Church is not authorized to ordain women.

God didn't tell me directly, He set up the Church to do that.

This whole matter of women wanting to be priests, men wanting to be mothers, etc. boils down to people, for whatever reason, wanting to do something for which they were not created.

The weirdo men who want to have babies have a problem with the biology that God gave them. They just don't want to accept their proper roles.

I'm not telling God not to work with women. He decided to work with Mary by making her the only human being to be conceived without original sin. Gee, he didn't have Joseph conceived without original sin! I'm jealous! Again, giving different people different roles does not mean liking some people better than others. I haven't told God not to have women priests, I'm supporting the decision he made not to have women priests. If Jesus wanted women priests, he would have made some.

He's not my God. He's the God. It's not a matter of liking men more than women. Men and women have different roles.

There are some screwed up men out there who wish they could have babies. So, according to your reasoning, that would mean that God likes women more than men.

YOU SCREAM! I SCREAM! WE ALL SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM!!!

The Archlayman of Canterbury complaining about a schism. Now that’s funny!

Still, I’d rather look at fake Coptic art than a Marian statue made of elephant crap.

First of all, nobody has a right to be a priest. Second of all, God does call women to serve him, just not as priests. If a woman wants to dedicate her life to God, she can become a nun and teach in the schools, work in the hospitals, or do countless other works of mercy. That is how God is willing to work with women.