Woman Cardinals.

[ChristinaTherese]

I don't post in the debate table, on the principle that I don't want to get sucked into debates. This, I just can't walk past without replying. That doesn't mean I'm going to reply again, unless it's necessary. Anyway, now what I wanted to say here:

 

The pope is the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the pope must be a bishop. Therefore, the pope must be ordained. Therefore, the pope must be male. We don't need to worry about possibly having a female pope if we have female cardinals.

 

Cappie said more about the requirements to be pope here:

 

Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile:

(a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, © ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders.

From here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131488-canonical-requirements-for-being-pope/#.UnqZtvmTgrU

[CrossCuT]

You are using very lazy logic. I'm not a sexist. I believe women have the right to vote. But I'm glad you've brought up voting. Recognizing women have the right to vote, naturally lead to governments recognizing that women have a right to become presidents or pm's of their respected nations.

Cardinals vote for who will be Pope. Those that can vote can become Pope. Female cardinals would lead to a female Pope.
 

Slavery was not a tradition of the Church, the Church spoke against it, unless one wants to side with those that hate and attack the Church. Please stop with the lazy logic.
 

Do not be so closed minded. For many it will be because they believed that only those ordained could be cardinals. For others it will be a huge break with tradition. For others it will be for various other reasons, for the very few it will be because of actual sexism. Are you prepared to see the Orthodox break all ties with the Church? Are you prepared see the Eastern Orthodox break away and join Orthodox? Are you prepared to loose many traditionally and conservative minded Catholics? Are you prepared for swelling the ranks of the SSPX? And are you prepared to paint them all with a wide brush as women hating sexists, just to fulfill a somewhat self-centered hope for female cardinals? If you do I am most profoundly sorry. The divisions this will cause will not be simply explained away by such simple logic. It will be much more than loving Christians and unloving ones.

 

Abortion does not have anything to do with female cardinals. But many believe that for the Church to be truly for equality, there should be a female pope. Again nothing I know that is dogmatic says the person who holds the office of the Pope must be ordained or male, that seems to be just another tradition. You've not directly answered my repeated question about female popes. Will you do so now?

 

I am for female cardinals and whatever that entails for you or others then so be it. If you or others will break off from their faith due to something that isnt even against their faith in the first place then I dunno. :idontknow:

And by the way, it is sexism. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex.[1] Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles. To deny women the same role of a man that ISNT (in this case) against theology is sexism. No matter what reason you have for being against it, its still sexism. :idontknow:

Edited November 6, 2013 by CrossCuT

[An Historian]

I for one am completely willing to engage man or woman in legitimate, charitable and fruitful discussion.  I will not introduce gender conflict into social relations when it is completely unnecessary to do so.  I will not be so sexist as to completely and utterly silence any words from the opposite sex because I cannot produce an adequate response to their objections.  I have no interest in living in an intellectual and social bubble.

 

So unlike previous posters in this thread, if any woman that objects to my posts so far wishes to challenge me on them, please by all means do so.

[KnightofChrist]

I am for female cardinals and whatever that entails for you or others then so be it. If you or others will break off from their faith due to something that isnt even against their faith in the first place then I dunno. :idontknow:
And by the way, it is sexism. Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex.%5B1%5D Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles. To deny women the same role of a man that ISNT (in this case) against theology is sexism. No matter what reason you have for being against it, its still sexism. :idontknow:

The Church should not risk schism for the sake of pleasing people with the creation of female cardinals. I would never leave the faith, but I do not have to agree, nor do I, that it is not against the faith to have non-ordained Cardinals.

I'm against non-ordained male or females becoming Cardinals. The tradition has been that all cardinals have been ordained. Throwing that away for some kind of human respect would cause schism, scandal, and confusion. The Church has had quite enough of that recently.

I don't believe you really understand what Church tradition is, you seem to confuse it with human tradition like protestants often do. The Church is not sexist because it has not and will not have anytime soon a female cardinal.

Also I'd still like a answer to my repeated question.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't post in the debate table, on the principle that I don't want to get sucked into debates. This, I just can't walk past without replying. That doesn't mean I'm going to reply again, unless it's necessary. Anyway, now what I wanted to say here:
 
The pope is the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the pope must be a bishop. Therefore, the pope must be ordained. Therefore, the pope must be male. We don't need to worry about possibly having a female pope if we have female cardinals.
 
Cappie said more about the requirements to be pope here:
From here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131488-canonical-requirements-for-being-pope/#.UnqZtvmTgrU

I was aware of this Canon. But it is said that Canon law and little "t" traditions, like the one for the celibate priesthood, can be changed. Edited November 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

Also I'd still like a answer to my repeated question.

I figured there was some rule/law or whathaveyou that claimed the Pope needed to be ordained. A lay person could be elected however they would have to become a priest and then a bishop in order to accept. 

[KnightofChrist]

I figured there was some rule/law or whathaveyou that claimed the Pope needed to be ordained. A lay person could be elected however they would have to become a priest and then a bishop in order to accept.

That is because it was and has been the tradition to do so, the same kind of tradition has been true for Cardinals. The argument that something is only a little t tradition, only just a discipline, or little law of the Church, not dogmatic is used so often today. Why cannot it be applied to the office of the Papacy, if it is going to be applied to the Cardinal?

[An Historian]

That is because it was and has been the tradition to do so, the same kind of tradition has been true for Cardinals. The argument that something is only a little t tradition, only just a discipline, or little law of the Church, not dogmatic is used so often today. Why cannot it be applied to the office of the Papacy, if it is going to be applied to the Cardinal?

 

Apostolic Succession can only be transferred through the reception of Holy Orders.  Petrine authority is attached to the apostolic nature of the papal office.  It's attached to the bishopric and the authority can only be wielded by a bishop.  There cannot be a lay Pope because the Pope [i]must[/i] be a bishop to exercise the authority and jurisdiction that only a bishop can.  How could a layman claim the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father over all other bishops?  He cannot.  Only a bishop with Petrine supremacy can do so.

[KnightofChrist]

Apostolic Succession can only be transferred through the reception of Holy Orders.  Petrine authority is attached to the apostolic nature of the papal office.  It's attached to the bishopric and the authority can only be wielded by a bishop.  There cannot be a lay Pope because the Pope must be a bishop to exercise the authority and jurisdiction that only a bishop can.  How could a layman claim the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father over all other bishops?  He cannot.  Only a bishop with Petrine supremacy can do so.

I agree, of course. But I've never seen this dogmatically defined. I also would argue that the case for having only ordained Cardinals is very similar to the one you've just offered for the Papacy.

[Spem in alium]

Because it will cause confusion, disunity, and schism in the Church.

Can you verify this?

 

Cardinals vote for who will be Pope. Those that can vote can become Pope. Female cardinals would lead to a female Pope.

Putting aside the fact that female cardinals would not be ordained and so therefore could not become Pope - are you suggesting that women would only vote for women? Please excuse me if I'm misinterpreting you.

 

I don't post in the debate table, on the principle that I don't want to get sucked into debates. This, I just can't walk past without replying. That doesn't mean I'm going to reply again, unless it's necessary. Anyway, now what I wanted to say here:

 

The pope is the bishop of Rome. Therefore, the pope must be a bishop. Therefore, the pope must be ordained. Therefore, the pope must be male. We don't need to worry about possibly having a female pope if we have female cardinals.

 

Cappie said more about the requirements to be pope here:

From here: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/131488-canonical-requirements-for-being-pope/#.UnqZtvmTgrU

Thank you for posting :) It's much appreciated.

[KnightofChrist]

Can you verify this?

 
Creating female cardinals would be a novelty, a huge break with two big so-called little t traditions. The tradition that Cardinals have always been ordained, and that they have therefore been men. For those that do not wish to so easily do away with these traditions it would cause confusion, disunity, and schism. I gave prior examples such as the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, as well as others. Does that make it clearer?
 

Putting aside the fact that female cardinals would not be ordained and so therefore could not become Pope - are you suggesting that women would only vote for women? Please excuse me if I'm misinterpreting you.

 
No, I don't think they would only vote for female cardinals. No more that lay women only vote for lay female presidents or prime ministers, etc. But if there are female cardinals and they can vote for who will be pope, that will naturally lead to a movement to allow female popes. Just as lay women voting for secular offices lead to women holding those offices.

Out of fairness and equality I don't know how one can be for female cardinals. It wouldn't be fair, she would be very unequal to her male counterpart. She would not have any real authority, because she would not be ordained, for example she would not have any territory or Church she could lead because she is not ordained. She could not become Pope even unlike her male counterparts, because she is neither ordained or male. Her role in the Church would be very limited, and liberals in the Church would quickly argue that it is clearly unfair to allow her to be cardinal but not actually be a true cardinal like her male counterparts. Edited November 6, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

Ugh so much bad being spewed in this thread am I really the only one lolling so hard at all the irony?

[KnightofChrist]

Ugh so much bad being spewed in this thread am I really the only one lolling so hard at all the irony?

mar·gin·al·ize

verb

1. treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral.
"attempting to marginalize those who disagree"

[An Historian]

I agree, of course. But I've never seen this dogmatically defined. I also would argue that the case for having only ordained Cardinals is very similar to the one you've just offered for the Papacy.

 

Remember that a papal definition is not always necessary for something to be an infallible and dogmatic truth of the Holy Catholic Faith.  You wont find it in a papal encylical.  You'll find it in the entire body of Church history.

[Maggyie]

 
Creating female cardinals would be a novelty, a huge break with two big so-called little t traditions. The tradition that Cardinals have always been ordained,

 

this just isn't true. I haven't read the whole thread but surely someone has mentioned the tradition of lay cardinals. True, the "lay" cardinals had all received tonsure,  which in those days made you a cleric (but NOT equivalent to ordination, and it was no barrier to later getting married and so forth). Nowadays Catholics hold that one doesn't enter the clerical state until you are ordained a deacon. Solution: don't ordain the female Cardinals as deacons (deaconesses?)

 

By the way in the Greek Orthodox Church, women are ordained as deaconesses (they refer to it as ordination). SO I highly doubt they would throw a fit about female, non-ordained Cardinals.