*urge to kill, rising*

[Aloysius]

lol. that's a good idea, I'd probably do it too! you could make a lot of money.. but to be a [b]super [/b]villain you probably need a super hero nemesis.

[Brother Adam]

No pope will ever ordain a woman. The Church settled on the issue long ago.

[DemonSlayer]

Insanity.

[Aloysius]

We're not going to become supervillains either, that's the point

[Zoecool13]

Ok, I understand all that you are saying. As for Women becoming Priests, I never said they will, nor do i want it to occur. All i said is that something will be changing, and female ordination is a possibility. Not a strong one, but still one. Celibacy rules will be questioned and probably changed before a female is ever ordained. (at least in my opinion) Initially, I did not want to get into a debate about this, especially with fellow Catholics. I still do not want too, especially this day.

First the rule on Glass Chalices, I agree with it, I accept it, I think it's unnecessary. That is my opinion. I'm allowed to have it and do not try and say that it should be changed, just that there are other things that should be more of a concern. In my opinion, the church as extravagent as it is, should spend more money on other things then plates and chalices. For example, I would rather my parish have money set aside for people in financial difficulties to attend WYD or Steubie Conferences...something that should bring many more people into our church then spend that money because of in my opinion an unnecesary rule... My little sister use to argue at dinner for the pink cup, the milk was no different in the pink cup then the blue one. Jesus is still the same in a Gold Chalice or a Glass one, and that is what is important.

All I wanted to say, was that we need to understand that things will be changing in our lifetime...if not with the next Pope, the one after that, or the one after that. I believe in Papal infallibility, and do not need to be lectured on that.

Now, if the Crusades were justified, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for them? Finally, use the current news as an example...In '96 JP2 changed several rules on Papal death and Papel Elections. If he can do that, he can change other things. The church is not ran like America, checks and balances do occur like they do in the Vatican. (there's some, but not like it is here)

I hope this all i need to say. I agree with all current rules/ laws of the Vatican. I just understand the necessity to be ready to accept changes at some point. God bless ya'll!

[FiZzGiG]

Sorry to interupt debate... but I saw this on that website and almost laughed:

"The fact that women were not among the twelve does not rule out a day in the (near) future when women will be ordained as priests. Using tradition as a rationale for why a practice does not exist is no proof that it won’t become a reality in the future."


Half of Revelation comes from [b]Tradition[/b]...


Geez.

[jmjtina]

teachings on faith and morals is not the same as changing how we elect a pope after death, or the change in papal elections. Do a search on Crusades and visit the apologetics board.

I'm curious as well, Zoecool13,

what school are you studing at?

[Aloysius]

I didn't mean to sound condescending talking about infallibility. If I sounded that way I apologize. However, that statement by JPII is infallible (as well as the universal ordinary magisterium backing it up), and infallible things don't change, so at the very least that cannot change without destroying the doctrine of infallibility.

John Paul II apologized because there were many heinous things done by the crusaders. That's what was apologized for. It's like if someone believed the Iraq war was just but apologized for Abu Graib. I forget his exact wording and everything, but I'm sure he also apologized simply for the Church resorting to violence. John Paul II always is sorry for violence, even if it is the most justified violence ever. I'm sure he supported WWII from the allies' side, but given the chance would really have been trying to keep violence from occuring at all costs. It's just a sign of a man of peace, a blessed peacemaker. However, there was a significant threat to Christendom. Look at Spain, the Muslims did desire to conquer Europe. They conquered so much of Africa and the middle east. The actions of the crusaders were the worst part of the whole thing.

And to me, if the poor people in india are going to demand gold chalices, what is so bad with extravagance? My favorite types of churches are the kinds with huge stain gass windows and statues and candles and beautiful stone walls and on almost every peice of artwork there is a little plack below "donated by the ___ family" or "in memoriam _____". We as laypeople should be donating art to our churches.

Having gold chalices simply would not take away any money from any other thing. You're putting the two things in conflict when they actually aren't. It's not a decion of whether to have gold chalices or send youth to WYD, but a question of why not do both?

Like I said, it is a discipline meaning it is up to the Roman Patriarch (Pope) to decide, and it could be changed. The woman priest thing can't be changed.


Did I deal with indulgences? The selling was an abusive practice (though I understand how they could justify it in their minds, saying a donation to the Church is a good work, it's still wrong) that was stopped. It was never taught doctrinally. Practices can change, although the current climate of the Magisterium is not really looking for drastic change other than being a bit more traditional, but doctrine cannot.

[IamCatholic]

This is about the original topic, but how can someone say that there will be or even that there could be women as priests? Even if the writings of Pope John Paul II were not infallible in that one document (OS?), then there is still the constant teaching of Tradition throughout Church history. Even more than that, the Bible is specific in saying that women do not have authority in the Church and that they are to be silent. How can a woman be silent if she is saying Mass? Also, I think Paul VI wrote an Encyclical or some kind of document about women being admitted to the priesthood. He said that they could not be priests, and the titles of the first four sections are these: 1. The Church's Constant Tradition; 2. The Attitude of Christ; 3. The Practice of the Apostles; and 4. Permanent Value of the Attitude of Jesus and the Apostles. This does not sound like a mere discipline to me. He cites the Church's [i]constant[/i] Tradition, which would be infallible, in his first paragraph. To introduce an idea such as this to the teaching and practice of the Church is false. This could never happen, and if any Pope tried to ordain a woman, he would not be able to confect the Sacrament because a woman is not proper matter (which someone else said, I think), so even if the Pope said that women can be ordained, he would be wrong, and it would not mean that he is not infallible; he would merely have made an error in his own private judgment, and none of the so-called ordinations would be valid. Even if he did say this, that would not be a reason to leave the Church because it would just mean he made an error in his private judgment. He could also just be an Antipope or something like that. By the way, the encyclical is actually called [i]Inter Insigniores[/i].

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Zoecool13' date='Apr 3 2005, 04:18 AM'] Ok, I understand all that you are saying. As for Women becoming Priests, I never said they will, nor do i want it to occur. All i said is that something will be changing, and female ordination is a possibility. Not a strong one, but still one. Celibacy rules will be questioned and probably changed before a female is ever ordained. (at least in my opinion) Initially, I did not want to get into a debate about this, especially with fellow Catholics. I still do not want too, especially this day.

First the rule on Glass Chalices, I agree with it, I accept it, I think it's unnecessary. That is my opinion. I'm allowed to have it and do not try and say that it should be changed, just that there are other things that should be more of a concern. In my opinion, the church as extravagent as it is, should spend more money on other things then plates and chalices. For example, I would rather my parish have money set aside for people in financial difficulties to attend WYD or Steubie Conferences...something that should bring many more people into our church then spend that money because of in my opinion an unnecesary rule... My little sister use to argue at dinner for the pink cup, the milk was no different in the pink cup then the blue one. Jesus is still the same in a Gold Chalice or a Glass one, and that is what is important.

All I wanted to say, was that we need to understand that things will be changing in our lifetime...if not with the next Pope, the one after that, or the one after that. I believe in Papal infallibility, and do not need to be lectured on that.

Now, if the Crusades were justified, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for them? Finally, use the current news as an example...In '96 JP2 changed several rules on Papal death and Papel Elections. If he can do that, he can change other things. The church is not ran like America, checks and balances do occur like they do in the Vatican. (there's some, but not like it is here)

I hope this all i need to say. I agree with all current rules/ laws of the Vatican. I just understand the necessity to be ready to accept changes at some point. God bless ya'll! [/quote]
Womens ordination is not possible no matter who the Pope is.
Celibacy is a discipline and can be changed.

Churches are rarely "extravagent" in the wrong way, most of them count their pennies just like everyone else. All the beauty built into Catholic Chuches are for the glory of God. So of course we use precious metals for chalices, they are holding the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. How can anything be too extravagent for the Lord of Heaven and Earth?
Chalices are also a one time expense and usually a priest recieves his chalice at ordination from family or friends.
Have you not ready in the OT all the requirements for the Tent of the Presence or the Temple?
There is also no reason for the Church not to help with expenses for Church related activites. Go to your parish council and ask

Dogma never changes, doctrine can always be explained better, and disciplines are merely the way we carry out our beliefs of dogma and doctrine. If the first two are substantially changed we are no longer Catholic and the gates of hell will have prevailed and the bible will be a false document. So how a papal election is carried out is discipline, and can be changed. Womens ordination is related to dogma and doctrine and cannot be changed. The priest is persona Christi married to the Church, therefore cannot be a woman.

THe Pope apologized for actions of individuals christians, not the crusades themselves. He also apologized to the Jews for actions of individual christians.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Zoecool13' date='Apr 3 2005, 02:18 AM']Ok, I understand all that you are saying.  As for Women becoming Priests, I never said they will, nor do i want it to occur.  All i said is that something will be changing, and female ordination is a possibility.  Not a strong one, but still one.  Celibacy rules will be questioned and probably changed before a female is ever ordained.  (at least in my opinion)  Initially, I did not want to get into a debate about this, especially with fellow Catholics.  I still do not want too, especially this day. 

First the rule on Glass Chalices, I agree with it, I accept it, I think it's unnecessary.  That is my opinion.  I'm allowed to have it and do not try and say that it should be changed, just that there are other things that should be more of a concern.  In my opinion, the church as extravagent as it is, should spend more money on other things then plates and chalices.  For example, I would rather my parish have money set aside for people in financial difficulties to attend WYD or Steubie Conferences...something that should bring many more people into our church then spend that money because of in my opinion an unnecesary rule... My little sister use to argue at dinner for the pink cup, the milk was no different in the pink cup then the blue one.  Jesus is still the same in a Gold Chalice or a Glass one, and that is what is important. 

All I wanted to say, was that we need to understand that things will be changing in our lifetime...if not with the next Pope, the one after that, or the one after that.  I believe in Papal infallibility, and do not need to be lectured on that. 

Now, if the Crusades were justified, why did Pope John Paul II apologize for them?  Finally, use the current news as an example...In '96 JP2 changed several rules on Papal death and Papel Elections.  If he can do that, he can change other things.  The church is not ran like America, checks and balances do occur like they do in the Vatican.  (there's some, but not like it is here)

I hope this all i need to say.  I agree with all current rules/ laws of the Vatican.  I just understand the necessity to be ready to accept changes at some point.  God bless ya'll![/quote]
Fortunately, women's ordination is not a possiblity. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html"]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/url] makes this very clear. I believe that I showed you just where in the document that it is stated.

Celibacy, while a discipline, is nevertheless a very serious matter for the clergy. You can read about it in [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031992_pastores-dabo-vobis_en.html"]Pastores Dabo Vobis[/url]. I doubt if you will ever see this discipline relaxed. There is too much to be gained by celibacy of the clergy and it is a tradition of the West that the charism of celibacy be upheld.

Yes, you are allowed to have opinions, but I would caution you; as a budding theologian, guard your opinion. Form your opinion to that of the Church. John Henry Cardial Newman states that one must assent his will to the Church first. This can be read in his work [url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/index.html"]An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent[/url]. I would hope that you do the same thing. I can tell you from experience that you will get further by being a faithful theologian and not a controversial one. If illumined by faith, as the Catechism states that we should, your conscience will align with the Church. I pray for that, we need more theologians.

Also, I would disagree that having beautiful things is "unnecesssary." Part of the patrimony of the Church is having beautiful things. At the very least, the Sacred vessels should be worthy of those things that are being held in them. Also, part of the life of the Liturgy is art and beauty. In these days, this is often overlooked, however, I would assert that if the parishes worried more about what goes on in their parishes, it would bolster faith more than sending children to WYD. I would assert that if we start with the renewal of the Liturgy, then the renewal of the Church would skyrocket. Perhaps we should start a thread on that, no?

Your argument about pink and blue is very childish. The analogy is fatally flawed because the Precious Blood is not a common liquid like milk. It does matter as [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html"]Redemptionis Sacramentum[/url] points out. Also, it is naive to assert that the Mass is like the supper table. It is incorrect sacramental theology and one that I would seriously suggest that you prayerfully ammend.

While I do understand that change is inevitable, there are certain things within the life of the Church that don't. I think that you are challenging things that will not be changing. The reasoning is solid and I believe that the proofs have been shown.

As far as the Crusades go, they were justified. You are misreading what he said. He wasn't apologizing for the Crusades per se, but rather for some of the actions within the Crusades that were less than Christian in charity. Please be careful in your study of situations.

The changes that the Holy Father made to the electoral process is nothing new. Many popes have ammended the election process. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html"]Universi Dominici Gregis[/url] is simply the latest. And thanks be to God that the Church is not run like America. Democracy is not necessarily the best way to govern every grouping of people in the world. As a matter of fact, I would think that the Brits, the Norwegians and citizens of the Vatican City State would disagree with you.

I would continue to pray for you and hope that you continue to learn. God Bless and please pray for a quick end to the sede vacante.

Cam

Edited April 3, 2005 by Cam42

[jasJis]

One of the things that frustrates me the most is arguments about infallibility in specific instances. People miss the point. It's as if they want the line drawn so they can know how far they go before they cross to the other side.

Catholic teaching is very clear. We must assent to all the Church teaches unless our [b]Properly Formed Conscience [/b]directs us otherwise. The debate should really be whether WE have properly formed our conscience, not ifthe Church has infalliblly defined. We are to first to assume the Church is right by default, and go through the effort to properly form our conscience second if we think we may disagree. The tail does not wag the dog. It is from within the Church that the Teaching Authority lays, particularly from the Apostolic Succession that protects and preserves the Deposit of Faith.

Glass chalices are not anti-Dogma. The Church has provided sufficient reason to discourage and disallow them. Get over it. People in the Church have enough $$ to have every chalice solid platnimum and send every child to WYD. It's not the clerical Church's money management, it's the lay congregation's money management.

The Church spoke on woman priests. Based on Tradition and Scripture, there is no example of female ordination that allows it, that shows it happened, or that specifically prevents it. However, current human societal reasons to ask whether or not have been determined not substantial enough to pursue it further.
Married priests are something else. That's a discipline. Scripture tells us that marriage is an option, as well as dedicated celibacy. The Roman Catholic Church chooses celibacy. Other rites in communion allow married priests and some later transfer to the Roman rite, giving the Roman Rite married priests. Again, it is the Magisteriums realm of authority to decide and choose, not the lays.

If we are not for Jesus, we are against Him. Follow the example of Our Mother at Canna. Ask Jesus and tell him what we want, but be sure to be obedient to Him and tell others to be obdient to Him. Be as willing to gracefully accept a No as we are willing to accept a Yes.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I realize this is way off topic, but I don't have time right now to go looking for the original glass chalice debate..... but I know of one time when a "glass" chalice was used and deemed acceptable. The crystal glass a priest used at one of the Nazi concentration camps. He used the glass and tin can lid as the paten (did I name that correctly?). It was all they had. I've seen it personally (as has dUSt) during the Vatican exhibit that toured here a couple years ago.

That's it. That's all I had to say.

Back to the regularly scheduled debate...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Zoecool13' date='Apr 3 2005, 03:18 AM'] Jesus is still the same in a Gold Chalice or a Glass one, and that is what is important. [/quote]
yes, Jesus is the same. However, our respect and reverence for Jesus is important as well. In our minds, gold and silver mean respect and reverence. Glass is common, ordinary, and cheap. Crystal is another story, as it is not cheap. However, gold and silver are the most recognizable precious materials, so they should of course be used. They are cheaper than crystal, as an interesting point.
Wow, Kilroy...I had no idea they were able to say Mass in the camps.

[Cam42]

[quote]Crystal is another story, as it is not cheap.[/quote]

But it is breakable.

And what happens clandestinely doesn't necessarily make it licit. It may be heroic, it may be honorable, but if given the choice, I don't think that they would have adapted the vessels, do you?

In other words, if they could have had a chalice and paten rather than a tin can top and glass, which would they have used? (It is rhetorical, don't answer, but I think that you get the picture now.)

Cam