Vatican Says that Ordaining Women Priests is a Crime Like Sex Abuse of Children - Page 5

[cappuccinosmom]

Hmmm, maybe he was at one point allowed to teach theology, but lost that ability when the church got upset that he didn't believe in Papal Infallibility. So now, he still knows theology, even if he's not allowed to teach it...

If he does not accept Church theology as true and valid, why would they allow him to teach his own views while maintaining the authority and backing of the Church? If he thinks it's wrong, he certainly has the right to protest, but it is totally unreasonable to expect any organization to support and give official approval of teaching that is antagonistic to their own.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

It's of no consequence that the Vatican has removed his right to teach theology, while you are quoting him as a source for such? um ok, that certainly colors the conversation. I'm not surprised in the least that the priest you quoted in the OP recommended him

oh wait, sorry apparently it was a deacon you quoted. still.

I quoted a priest, in the diocesan newspaper article I referenced. The deacon's quote was from our parish bulletin.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

If he does not accept Church theology as true and valid, why would they allow him to teach his own views while maintaining the authority and backing of the Church? If he thinks it's wrong, he certainly has the right to protest, but it is totally unreasonable to expect any organization to support and give official approval of teaching that is antagonistic to their own.

He considered one (1) thing not true, that was papal infallibility. I guess he just figured that the pope was human like the rest of them.

Interestingly enough, it is yet another thing that has changed in the Catholic church since it's founding. Papal infallibility wasn't considered until the 9th century.

[BMG580]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

He considered one (1) thing not true, that was papal infallibility. I guess he just figured that the pope was human like the rest of them.

Interestingly enough, it is yet another thing that has changed in the Catholic church since it's founding. Papal infallibility wasn't considered until the 9th century.

Do you actually understand what papal infallibility entails? It isn't that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. It is only in effect in very specific circumstances in which he makes an ex cathedra statement regarding faith and morals.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove

You are correct. Mea culpa.

For what it's worth, most Anglicans are well aware that their current lack of unity is a serious problem from many perspectives, including giving us pretty much no high-horse to stand on in inter-denominational issues.

As an Anglican, I wasn't offended as all, and even had a little giggle.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

If everyone sticks to that mind set, then there is no advancement. And yes, the Catholic church can advance but they have no reason to if no one pushes them to.

As for the bolded, that is a very arrogant statement. The same as "if you don't like the president, get out." And really, think about it, if everyone who disagreed with even one part of Catholic teachings left, there would be no Catholicism. There would be no one left to practice the religion. No one is ever going to agree 100% with another person, not even if that other person is the Pope. And really, the Catholic doctrine has already changed over the years on a number of things. There was a time when priests weren't required to be celibate. It used to be that all Catholic Mass' had to be done in Latin, heck there are people alive today who remember that from their childhood. They even changed how scripture is interpreted.

Things change... Even in the Catholic church and according to them, when conflict arises, dialog should occur.

Catholicism though is a Creedal Church - being Catholic depends on certain fundamental beliefs, not where you grew up, or where your family is. In particular, this includes beliefs about the nature of the Church.

While there is a certain element of development of doctrine, Catholicism and other mainline churches teach that the Church has, and always had, the fullness of truth. Practices or traditions may change, or the way of explaining an idea - Tradition does not. Development in doctrine is not a change in doctrine, it is a further explication or application of ideas that already existed.

If a person does not believe this (even if they might argue with particular examples of how it works) then really they do not believe the most fundamental things about what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about itself.

Saying "I don't agree with these fundamental teachings or practice according to them" but wanting to be considered a member who's opinion should be taken into account is a bit like wanting to be a member of the Communist part while not believing in human equality.

[JMJ]

Certain practices can change, but beliefs do not. The Mass has undergone several changes throughout history and is due for some more changes to go in effect next year to better reflect the teachings of the Church and to meet the needs of people in this time. However, the teachings about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ has never changed, and the Mass still includes the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist as was practiced by the early Christians.

The Church has always maintained that ordained men may not go through the Sacrament of Matrimony, but married men may go through the Sacrament of Ordination. The disallowing of married priests was not because of docrtine but for a number of reasons that it was thought to be best. There have always been exceptions. Married priests are common in the Eastern Catholic churches and may one day be common again in the Roman Catholic church.

Other practices have changed as well. People who committed suicide used to be denied Catholic burials. This was because suicide is a mortal sin if committed with full knowledge and consent. This belief did not change, but our understanding of what to do about it developed so that we give people the benefit of the doubt, not knowing what factors lead to the suicide or what reconciliation might have occurred between the act that caused the death and the actual death itself.

Some doctrines have also been defined more clearly, such as defining the Marian dogmas and papal infallibility. These are not new ideas inserted into the Catholic faith, nor are they contrary to anything that has been taught before. They are clarifications of previous teachings and acknowledgements of beliefs commonly held by Catholics.

Even the document being discussed is a slight change of policy. The beliefs that women can't be priests, that sexual abuse is wrong, and that priests may not violate the seal of cofession were all part of our faith before. This document just gave clear procedures on how to deal with these situations because there is a clear need to have a policy in place, especially in the case of sexual exploitation of minors. This is learning from experience. If such a policy had been in place before the offences, many of the repeat offences caused by moving priests around rather than removing them from ministry may have been prevented.

Other changes that occur involve applying Catholic teaching to new experiences and technologies. When the Catholic Church started, cloning wasn't a possibility, there were no Protestants, and the birth control pill had not been invented. New documents came out, and positions were formed on these topics, but these positions were just an explanation of how these new ideas fit with the whole of Catholic theology and how to respond to them. (There's now an easier way for Anglicans to become Catholic, Bluegoat!)

In some cases, theories float around for a while before they are accepted or rejected, at which time Catholics may agree or disagree with the idea before an official teaching is pronounced. Limbo was not officially rejected until quite recently, and the Church has not yet come down on the issue of embryo adoption. (We are pro-adoption and anti-IVF.) In many cases, there are a range of beliefs possible while still being Catholic such as evolution and private revelation.

In recent years, our understanding of homosexuality and the role of women in the Church has developed as well. We have specifically stated that we do not know what causes homosexuality and have declared that mistreatment of homosexual persons is immoral just as the mistreatment of all persons is immoral. This is again not a change in doctrine but a response to people mistreating other people just because they were homosexual, so we needed to define that just because a person is homosexual does not mean that the command to treat others as you would want to be treated disappears.

The role of women has been further defined as well. The Theology of the Body refers to women as "the crown of creation," and many other documents have stressed the importance of women in the Church, and as PatienceAndLove quoted, the question of whether or not women can be priests has been answered once and for all: no.

Once stated definitively, teachings in the Catholic Church DO NOT CHANGE. We are never going to backpeddal and reverse out doctrines. We may find better ways of expressing these doctrines, better ways of ministering to Catholics and relating to non-Catholics, better ways of reconciling sinners, and ways to address the new ideas that come up, but we will not state one thing as definitely true and then turn around and say the opposite. Some other religions may, but not the Catholic Church. When conflict arises, we should dialog about how to deal with it, and progress will be made by deciding better ways to relate to people, with ever more compassion and understanding, not by changing something we already said.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by JMJ

(There's now an easier way for Anglicans to become Catholic, Bluegoat!)

I think it's pretty unlikely though. I have been seriously considering Orthodoxy, but there are some issues I have with Catholicism that would be hard to overcome.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Charbeau

Do you actually understand what papal infallibility entails? It isn't that the Pope is perfect and never makes mistakes. It is only in effect in very specific circumstances in which he makes an ex cathedra statement regarding faith and morals.

And this man believes that even then the Pope is human.

And before the 9th century, there was no Papal Infallibility.

[MusicianDad]

First, the basic beliefs of the Catholic church come from the bible, which it self changed every time it has been translated. You can't translate from one language to another word for word. You can only get as close to the intended idea as possible.

Second, yes the beliefs have changed, not the belief in God, or The virgin birth, or other things relating to the life of Jesus, but beliefs have changed. There is some indication that prior to the 4th century the belief wasn't that woman couldn't be priests like it is now. Prior to the 9th century, the belief wasn't that of Papal Infallibility. These are not basic beliefs, they are beliefs based on scripture that have been discussed in the past and those discussions led to a different understanding of what the scripture teaches.

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" isn't going to change because there is no disagreement and there for dialog about what the bible says on that. The bible says "you shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" (or some other variation, it's how I remember it from Sunday School. Yeah, believe it or not I was raised Christian).

On the other hand, the decree that woman can't be priests... Show me where is says "Women shall not be priests" in the bible. It doesn't it alludes to the idea, but even among Catholics, it's debated whether these verses specifically prohibit women from be priest, whether they prohibit certain woman from be priests, or if they along with different verses are saying "look as long as she's not causing discourse or neglecting her family, let her be a priest."

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

First, the basic beliefs of the Catholic church come from the bible, which it self changed every time it has been translated. You can't translate from one language to another word for word. You can only get as close to the intended idea as possible.

Second, yes the beliefs have changed, not the belief in God, or The virgin birth, or other things relating to the life of Jesus, but beliefs have changed. There is some indication that prior to the 4th century the belief wasn't that woman couldn't be priests like it is now. Prior to the 9th century, the belief wasn't that of Papal Infallibility. These are not basic beliefs, they are beliefs based on scripture that have been discussed in the past and those discussions led to a different understanding of what the scripture teaches.

"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" isn't going to change because there is no disagreement and there for dialog about what the bible says on that. The bible says "you shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God" (or some other variation, it's how I remember it from Sunday School. Yeah, believe it or not I was raised Christian).

On the other hand, the decree that woman can't be priests... Show me where is says "Women shall not be priests" in the bible. It doesn't it alludes to the idea, but even among Catholics, it's debated whether these verses specifically prohibit women from be priest, whether they prohibit certain woman from be priests, or if they along with different verses are saying "look as long as she's not causing discourse or neglecting her family, let her be a priest."

The beliefs of the Church (Catholic or otherwise) do not come from the Bible. The Bible comes from the Church. This is really important in understanding the theology of the Church historically, and in modern times of the various mainline churches.

I am not sure what you are thinking with regard to women as priests before the 4th century. As far as infallibility, it is true that papal infallibility was only quite recently defined as a doctrine (and I would argue mistakenly so), in the Catholic Church. However, infallibility of the Church is not new - and in fact the idea of papal infallibility is an outgrowth of that doctrine, which is shared by the Orthodox, and in the past Anglicans and Lutherans as well.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

And this man believes that even then the Pope is human.

And before the 9th century, there was no Papal Infallibility.

I don't believe in papal "infallibility" anyway (the history of that particular decision is a rather sketchy and heavy-handed event), but it is worth noting that no pope can speak ex cathedra unless he speaks in union/agreement with ALL bishops (the papal office being, in the simplest terms, "first among bishops"). Since this unification was clearly not the case when the whole concept of infallibility was voted upon to begin with, I find that it has no theological basis whatsoever.

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Show me where is says "Women shall not be priests" in the bible. It doesn't it alludes to the idea, but even among Catholics, it's debated whether these verses specifically prohibit women from be priest, whether they prohibit certain woman from be priests, or if they along with different verses are saying "look as long as she's not causing discourse or neglecting her family, let her be a priest."

The only priests mentioned in Scripture are Hebrew priests. There were no Christian priests in the earliest days of the Church, and certainly none mentioned in Scripture. There were local bishops, and deacons to assist them.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

The beliefs of the Church (Catholic or otherwise) do not come from the Bible. The Bible comes from the Church. This is really important in understanding the theology of the Church historically, and in modern times of the various mainline churches.

Not really, but that's a whole other discussion.

[Arduinna]

Of course the Bible comes from the Church. The Church existed before the Christian Bible was canonized and the Bible came from Church Tradition.

[MusicianDad]

Unless there are people in the church that were there at it's founding, then yes today the churches beliefs come from the bible. It's not a book that a bunch of early catholics decided to write random junk in. They were very specific about what went into the bible to ensure that the lay person and the future clerics of the catholic church knew where to find what it is the church believes. And at this point, there is some questions as to what was intended by choosing certain verses because, of course, there is no one alive today who was alive when the bible was put together. Which means that anything that is not inarguably clear has the potential of at some point being interpreted in another way.

I don't know where I said the church comes from the bible, I did say the beliefs come from the bible though. Maybe I should have said that today the beliefs come from the bible.

With regards to women as priests until the 4th century, there is some indication that the catholic church may have had female priests prior to the 4th century. Women were not officially banned from Priesthood until the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, something I posted above.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

Unless there are people in the church that were there at it's founding, then yes today the churches beliefs come from the bible. It's not a book that a bunch of early catholics decided to write random junk in. They were very specific about what went into the bible to ensure that the lay person and the future clerics of the catholic church knew where to find what it is the church believes. And at this point, there is some questions as to what was intended by choosing certain verses because, of course, there is no one alive today who was alive when the bible was put together. Which means that anything that is not inarguably clear has the potential of at some point being interpreted in another way.

The Bible was never intended by the Catholic Church to be a complete catechism. It was intended to be a history, to tell the story of Christ. The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and expresses the Catholic faith, but it was not an attempt by early Christians to write down the fullness of faith. Of course any written word is open to being interpreted in many ways. That is why Jesus established his Church, the Catholic Church, as the legitimate authority to pass on beliefs, to compile and interpret Scripture, and to guide the faithful, containing the fullness of Truth. We believe that Jesus' promise to Peter when he established him as the first pope that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means that the Church will never present anything that is untrue as Truth. That means that if the Church says that ordination of women is a theological impossibility, then that is Truth. To recant would destroy the Church's standing on every teaching if doctrines could just be reversed.

[BMG580]

MusicianDad, how in the world can you suggest that the Bible wasn't based on the Tradition of the Church? Who do you think selected the books that were to be included? Who do you think established the Nicene Creed, our profession of faith? The Church.

Tradition and authoritative teaching and interpretation of holy writings was very expected and ordinary for the Jewish people of the new Church. The Jewish religion is very well known for having authoritative Rabbinic Tradition. Why people (<cough> Protestants) believe that would have just stopped entirely with Jesus - who was a rabbi who taught via oral interpretive tradition - would disallow that in the church He planted and formed, I have no idea. Of course Tradition was always supposed to be a part of the Church, it was from the very beginning.

As for papal infallibility, many times the Church has not definitively made a dogmatic stance on an issue until it became necessary to do so. Think back to the very early Church and the Arian heresy which was eventually squashed by TRADITION, a council and a revamping of the Nicene Creed, the profession of faith that we still use today and most Christians world-wide, even those not in communion with the Roman Catholic church still accept as the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Here is an article on papal infallibility, because frankly, I think there is a lot of confusion on specifically what it is:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Charbeau

MusicianDad, how in the world can you suggest that the Bible wasn't based on the Tradition of the Church? Who do you think selected the books that were to be included? Who do you think established the Nicene Creed, our profession of faith? The Church.

Do I remember saying that? I don't think so.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by PatienceAndLove

Apparently she is, as well as a youth minister and a "eccliastical (? I think I got that spelling and what she said right) lay minister" (Trigger, what is that, anyway?)

Lay Ecclesial Ministry

And yes, practicing Catholic here. In fact, just returned from a 2-hour Faith Formation Commission meeting! (Where, interestingly enough, Father mentioned Kung as "one of the great theologians".)

[hotmamacita]

This is from a Catholic translation. I, myself, do not use this translation but since this thread is specific to the Catholic religion....

The Second Chapter of First Timothy:

"1 I urge then, first of all that petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving should be offered for everyone,
2 for kings and others in authority, so that we may be able to live peaceful and quiet lives with all devotion and propriety.
3 To do this is right, and acceptable to God our Saviour:
4 he wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and humanity, himself a human being, Christ Jesus,
6 who offered himself as a ransom for all. This was the witness given at the appointed time,
7 of which I was appointed herald and apostle and -- I am telling the truth and no lie -- a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth.
8 In every place, then, I want the men to lift their hands up reverently in prayer, with no anger or argument.
9 Similarly, women are to wear suitable clothes and to be dressed quietly and modestly, without braided hair or gold and jewellery or expensive clothes;
10 their adornment is to do the good works that are proper for women who claim to be religious.
11 During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful.
12 I give no permission for a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet,
13 because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards,
14 and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin.
15 Nevertheless, she will be saved by child-bearing, provided she lives a sensible life and is constant in faith and love and holiness. "