What would you say if your priest

[Cam42]

You're on to something....keep going....I will weigh in later.

[Deeds]

We had a priest a few years ago who used to preach sermons about how he hoped there would be female priests one day. I said to him, "You heretic! You accursed horrible priest! You deserve to be solemnly excommunicated and never be allowed to say Mass, hear Confessions, Administer the Sacraments, give spiritual advice, or preach again!"

Nah, I was about 12 at the time and I agreed with him. I don't any more, but it's not an issue I get very worked up over, since basically the Church has the final say and if it's never meant to happen then it will never happen.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Tarcisius' post='961655' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:05 PM']
For all of you saying that my Priest is far to orthodox etc, remember that there are plenty that see no problem with women priestesses. I wonder if this discussions would have been the same pre vatII if we were instead talking about altar girls.

Last semester FUS invited an anglican priestess to speak about Mary.... she said she had the support of many Catholic Priests and said a number of her Priests told her that they would genuflect upon entering her church. She received very little objection from students or staff and was allowed to preach about how she was validly ordained and could confer sacrements etc etc.
[/quote]

Rev. Dr. Judith Gentle was indeed here, I went and listened to her talk with Dr. Miraville and Dr. Schreck responding. She spoke on Mary, all of which was fairly Catholic, but spent most of the time talking about how she had told her congregation that they needed to be converted to the Catholic faith, and about how the Anglican Church was imploding. She told us that the only obstacle was that she saw her ordination as valid so she could not yet become Catholic. Dr. Miraville spend the rest of the time evangelizing her. No one condoned her position in the Anglican Church, but rather spent time praying for her and speaking with her.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='961643' date='Apr 26 2006, 08:54 AM']
Ok, what's the difference between the Extraordinary Magisterium (which, when excercised by popes, has only two examples that I'm aware of: defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of the Assumption) and that of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium? This is a bit unclear to me. Take for example the bull by Pius IX that declared the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus) and it's defining paragraph:
[quote]We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.[/quote]

And compare this to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
[quote]Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/quote]

Other than the obvious stylistic differences between Ineffabilis Deus and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, what is it that makes one an example of the Extraordinary Magisterium being excercised and the other and example of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium? I can easily see how one is a dogma and the other isn't, but could not a second-level doctrine, such as the impossibility of women being priests, though not a dogma be nevertheless defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium?

Or is the only reason that one is extraordinary and the other ordinary is that the CDF clarified them as such?
[/quote]
Even without recourse to the clarification issued by the CDF in 1995 it is possible, based upon the structure of the Papal teachings mentioned above, to know the difference between a Papal solemn definition (i.e., an exercise of the Pope's Extraordinary Magisterium) and a Papal declaration of confirmation (i.e., an exercise of the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium). In the case of [u]Ineffabilis Deus[/u] the Pope was [i]defining[/i], in a solemn manner, the dogma that Mary was conceived immaculately, because as Blessed Pius IX said, "We declare, pronounce, and [i]define[/i] that the doctrine . . ."; thus, he is [i]defining[/i], through a solemn act, that a particular truth of the faith is a dogma. While in the case of Pope John Paul II's teaching in [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u], he is not [i]defining[/i] -- through an act of his Extraordinary Magisterium a dogma -- but is [i]confirming[/i] an existing infallible teaching, through an official [i]declaration[/i] of his Ordinary Magisterium, that a truth is [i]de fide tenenda[/i], that is, that the doctrine that only men can be ordained to the presbyterate is a truth of Catholic doctrine, because as he said, "I [i]declare[/i] that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Clearly, Pope John Paul II has not [i]defined[/i] anything in this declaration; instead, he has simply [i]confirmed[/i] the existing infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (See the CDF [u]Responsum ad Dubium[/u], and the CDF's [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u]). This same type of Papal [i]declaration of confirmation[/i] was used by Pope Paul VI, when -- in [u]Humanae Vitae[/u] -- he [i]confirmed[/i] through an official [i]declaration[/i] that contraception is immoral, and this same type of teaching method was used even earlier by Pope Pius XII when he [i]declared[/i] -- in [u]Sacramentum Ordinis[/u] -- that the matter of the sacrament of orders is the laying on of hands, and not the [i]traditio instrumentorum[/i].

Those interested can read a paper that I wrote on this topic while I was working on my Masters degree at Franciscan University by clicking the link below:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper13b"][u]The Debate Occasioned by Lumen Gentium 25 regarding the Authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium[/u][/url]

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
For all of you saying that my Priest is far to orthodox etc, remember that there are plenty that see no problem with women priestesses. I wonder if this discussions would have been the same pre vatII if we were instead talking about altar girls.

Last semester FUS invited an anglican priestess to speak about Mary.... she said she had the support of many Catholic Priests and said a number of her Priests told her that they would genuflect upon entering her church. She received very little objection from students or staff and was allowed to preach about how she was validly ordained and could confer sacrements etc etc.
[/quote]

I had a big long post about this and ranting about it..come to find out I took the posts I read wrong.

So I will just say that doesnt matter how many Priests agree with and want women 'priestess' it will never happen. Priests are Priests but the [b]Pope[/b] is the Pope, and he already stated it and closed the matter.

I have no clue why a Catholic Church would invite someone like her to speak. There are plenty of poeple out there that can talk about Mary. Who are they trying to influence with a 'priestess' coming to town? So people could say 'the Anglicans do it and look, it works out great!'..nah, we should be the one people mimick, not the other way around.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' post='961888' date='Apr 26 2006, 04:00 PM']
I had a big long post about this and ranting about it..come to find out I took the posts I read wrong.

So I will just say that doesnt matter how many Priests agree with and want women 'priestess' it will never happen. Priests are Priests but the [b]Pope[/b] is the Pope, and he already stated it and closed the matter.

I have no clue why a Catholic Church would invite someone like her to speak. There are plenty of poeple out there that can talk about Mary. Who are they trying to influence with a 'priestess' coming to town? So people could say 'the Anglicans do it and look, it works out great!'..nah, we should be the one people mimick, not the other way around.
[/quote]

Did you read my post on the topic? She was allowed to come for the same reason Catholic scholars attend symposiums with non-Catholics that attend. We can learn from them, but more often and more importantly we can evangelize them with the truth. If we refuse to listen to others, they have no reason to listen to us.

There are many valid complaints to be had about FUS. He however is blowing smoke up your behind on this one.

[homeschoolmom]

Ouch!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='961897' date='Apr 26 2006, 11:04 AM']
Did you read my post on the topic? She was allowed to come for the same reason Catholic scholars attend symposiums with non-Catholics that attend. We can learn from them, but more often and more importantly we can evangelize them with the truth. If we refuse to listen to others, they have no reason to listen to us.

There are many valid complaints to be had about FUS. He however is blowing smoke up your behind on this one.
[/quote]
This talk was given while I was still at FUS, but I was unable to attend. Nevertheless, Brother Adam is correct, she was invited in order to talk about Mariology, and not about women's ordination. Now certainly as Catholics we must disagree with her views on the issue of women's ordination, but we can agree with her on the Marian dogmas (as long as her views are in conformity with Catholic teaching).

[ruso]

To a liberal friends and my tried to convince us in it in a conference on the future of the church, with arguments of the most impossible thing, as that it would increase the priestly vocations or that Jesus also had women disciples.
Advanced the conference, it was seen that those who were defending the women's ordination, they were those who less were practising the catholic faith.

No present priest defended the women's ordination.

Edited April 26, 2006 by ruso

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='961911' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:13 PM']
This talk was given while I was still at FUS, but I was unable to attend. Nevertheless, Brother Adam is correct, she was invited in order to talk about Mariology, and not about women's ordination. Now certainly as Catholics we must disagree with her views on the issue of women's ordination, but we can agree with her on the Marian dogmas (as long as her views are in conformity with Catholic teaching).
[/quote]


Point taken and I might have missed some posts here, being at work I cant read everyone but rather skim it. However, I do understand where you are coming from Bro. Adam. It is good to bring others in to evangelize and listen to them. Just found the choice they made in the speaker rather odd. She should of participated in discussion but left 'Mariology' to someone else, preferrable Catholic.

just my opinion.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' post='961932' date='Apr 26 2006, 04:30 PM']
Point taken and I might have missed some posts here, being at work I cant read everyone but rather skim it. However, I do understand where you are coming from Bro. Adam. It is good to bring others in to evangelize and listen to them. Just found the choice they made in the speaker rather odd. She should of participated in discussion but left 'Mariology' to someone else, preferrable Catholic.

just my opinion.
[/quote]

She wanted to come and speak, and the theology department agreed, under the agreement that Dr. Miraville would respond. It really isn't any different than if we asked a non-Catholic to come here and tell us their views on Salvation, and then evangelized them. We would listen to what they had to say, praise them for what was right, and correct them on what was wrong.

[Tarcisius]

Thats interesting, we were in the same room adam, I was sitting right by Dr. Miravalle. You are right in that Schreck did try to correct her, but only after she was allowed to espouse her ludicrous ideas for quite some time and truly, come on, even you wished he had said more. I wonder if FUS would ever invite an SSPX Priest to share his ideas and then try to evangelize him. I will give it up for Miravalle though, I think he almost busted up laughing when she said she thought her ordination should be valid in the Catholic Church.

[Niccolò]

[quote]Even without recourse to the clarification issued by the CDF in 1995 it is possible, based upon the structure of the Papal teachings mentioned above, to know the difference between a Papal solemn definition (i.e., an exercise of the Pope's Extraordinary Magisterium) and a Papal declaration of confirmation (i.e., an exercise of the Pope's Ordinary Magisterium)...[/quote]

All right, thank you, it seems a bit clearer to me now. What then was the status of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception before Ineffabilis Deus? Was it simply an undefined idea that wasn't yet doctrine or was it on the level of infallibility due to the Ordinary Magisterium (I would suppose this would rely on the statements of previous popes and councils, though I know Trent made a point not to address the Immaculate Conception)?

[Desert Walker]

Simple response:

"It is metaphysically impossible for a woman to be ordained to the Line of Malchizedek."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='963849' date='Apr 28 2006, 04:33 AM']
[. . .] though I know Trent made a point not to address the Immaculate Conception)?
[/quote]
This statement is incorrect, because even though the Council of Trent did not proceed to issue a dogmatic definition on the Immaculate Conception, it did declare -- in its decree [u]On Original Sin[/u] -- that it was ". . . not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God." [Council of Trent, Decree [u]On Original Sin[/u], no. 6]