Catholic Problems

[robrecht]

Train of thought is on women's ordination - Why not? The idea of posting the part MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH - was that Mary had "agreed" as well as all the other Matriarch (past) to serve God. In her response to the Angel Gabriel the phrase, ""I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her."

In your obligations (priestly) it is the same commitment, " obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls."

What makes women any different than to fulfill their obligations in the same way? Someone did say, "Do you also understand why the discernment of a vocation should also involve the larger community that one might feel called to serve?"

Being called to serve was the whole point of Mary - it wasn't designated on how she was to serve? Women have always been "part" of the redemption process since Abraham - to help bring in the promise or to help fulfill the promise along the way. Do you feel that in the church they are restricted?

I have long been in favor of the ordination of women and have participated in the ordination of one of my students.

[Marta]

I have long been in favor of the ordination of women and have participated in the ordination of one of my students.

In 2007, the Holy See issued a decree stating that attempted ordination of a woman would result in automatic excommunication for the women and bishops attempting to ordain them,[138] and in 2010, that attempted ordination of women is a "grave delict".[139]

An official Papal Commission ordered by Pope Francis in 2016 is charged with determining whether the ancient practice of having female deacons (deaconesses) is possible, provided they are non-ordained and that certain reserved functions of ordained male permanent or transitional deacons- proclaiming the Gospel at Mass, giving a homily, and performing non-emergency baptisms- would not be permitted for the discussed female diaconate.


**Delict: a crime in canon law, an external violation of a law or precept gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.**

New York Times:

reporting that they hold nearly half of diocesan administrative and professional positions, about 25 percent of the top diocesan positions, and make up about 80 percent of lay parish ministers.

[Marta]

Several, claiming that celibacy is voluntary, and it is not 'voluntary' when one receives the calling to be an ordained priest within the Roman Church. The doors are closed to those who wish to be married and serve as a priest in the Roman Church. You keep bring up the voluntary notion of whether or not one voluntarily becomes an ordained priest. To one receiving the calling to serve, the desire is not a 'voluntary' choice.

The other issue has been whether the Roman Church believes in Salvation out side the One True Church. The reality is the Roman Church defines the specific instance when Salvation is possible outside the Roman Church, and other then that it only acknowledges that the unknown {miraculous?) possible circumstances willful decisions in human hearts to choose the church like at the moment of death, and other possible exceptions known only to God.

Another issue is whether the Roman Church is subject to change concerning the foundation doctrine and dogma of the Church. The answer is an emphatic no. Changes proposed in Vatican II do not represent foundation changes in the Roman Church. The changes for the most part are superficial changes in the diplomatic and ecmenical relationships to those outside the church.



Actually again, my main problem remains as to whether the Roman Church reflects the claim of it being the Catholic. My conclusion is that it does not fulfill this claim.

The bottom line is my problem with the Roman church is not with individual issues. I do not believe in picking and choosing to believe based on what shoes fit best for me personally, nor relying on what I have been taught when I was growing up in the church. The question is 'Does it represent the Universal within the possibly human constraints of understanding, as it claims to be 'Catholic.' My answer is an overwhelming no. Looking at the history of the Roman Church I find very human institutions struggling with a changing world outside the Church and not a Divinely guided Institution leading the world to a more Universal Spirituality closer to God reflecting the evolving diversity of human experience.

Whether or not the church or the laws of the church change it is within the infrastructure, that being - the people (members) priest, bishops and deacons. , all those who follow the church teachings/laws or even for those who don't follow the dogmas or doctrine of the church. As another example - attending marriages outside of the church? Perhaps a son or daughter who marry outside the church?

** To Attend, or Not to Attend:
Pope orders canon law changes to bring Latin and Eastern practices closer

The point being is the fact that there will be or are "now" some issues that will arise out of society that the church will need to address to their own members - it is up to the members to be obedient to the law (doctrine), to understand the position of the church in those decisions, and to see them as guidance. There hasn't been one exception to the rule of those who choose not to follow or for those who follow them because it is a individual's decision to do so. Free choice - This is a changing world - however, how will "any" church change - will society change it? Don't think so - since the church and it's members are there to be a light to those who walk in darkness.

Just as it was said earlier in your message, assign "mandatory priestly celibacy", for some - when entering into the priesthood, don't realize the magnitude of the calling - it's been a problem. Perhaps when one receives a calling, was it to serve other areas of the church - so how does one define when being called upon to serve God in a healthy way? and in an area that will benefit both the person who wants to serve God and the church itself? Even for women? If ordination - is a problem that women find that they can never achieve within the church - why not serve God through the church in other ways in order to make it stronger and not to weaken it? The fact that Mary submitted to God design for her role to be as Mother to our Lord - was to accept her commission, obedience.

However, can the Mother of our Lord be Co-Redemptrix which is a title used by some Roman Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as a Catholic theological concept referring to Mary's role in the redemption of man. It has always been controversial and has never formed part of the dogma of the Church. What I asked, in the same breath, is that Mary served God by her obedience in that plan to "bring about" salvation to mankind. Is it the same thing as when King David or Saul (when Samuel approached them both) to accept Kingship - "selected a king for the Hebrews and Samuel formally anointed this new king with oil to symbolize his election as monarch."

When there is a strong "sense" to serve God - how can we "question it or answer to it" ourselves in that choice, what makes the final decision to stay or to leave?

1 Corinthians 9:1-2


The scenario fits the passage from Paul: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?"

or,

Even if I am not an apostle to others, surely I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.


*********1 Corinthians 12

[robrecht]

In 2007, the Holy See issued a decree stating that attempted ordination of a woman would result in automatic excommunication for the women and bishops attempting to ordain them,[138] and in 2010, that attempted ordination of women is a "grave delict".[139]

An official Papal Commission ordered by Pope Francis in 2016 is charged with determining whether the ancient practice of having female deacons (deaconesses) is possible, provided they are non-ordained and that certain reserved functions of ordained male permanent or transitional deacons- proclaiming the Gospel at Mass, giving a homily, and performing non-emergency baptisms- would not be permitted for the discussed female diaconate.


**Delict: a crime in canon law, an external violation of a law or precept gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.**

New York Times:

reporting that they hold nearly half of diocesan administrative and professional positions, about 25 percent of the top diocesan positions, and make up about 80 percent of lay parish ministers.

The woman being ordained was an Episcopalian student and I am not a bishop (or priest or deacon). My role in the Anglican/Episcopalian ordination ceremony was comparable to that of the rector of a theology seminary in the Catholic ordination ceremony, namely I officially attested to her theological preparation. Though a lesser offense, surely this too is 'frowned upon' by canon law, but I did not bother to look up the canons at the time. Some things are more important, in my opinion, in this case grass-roots efforts toward Christian unity, encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but my primary motivation was that I was deeply honored to be asked to play this role for a friend.

[Marta]

The woman being ordained was an Episcopalian student and I am not a bishop (or priest or deacon). My role in the Anglican/Episcopalian ordination ceremony was comparable to that of the rector of a theology seminary in the Catholic ordination ceremony, namely I officially attested to her theological preparation. Though a lesser offense, surely this too is 'frowned upon' by canon law, but I did not bother to look up the canons at the time. Some things are more important, in my opinion, in this case grass-roots efforts toward Christian unity, encouragement of women's ordination among Catholics, but my primary motivation was that I was deeply honored to be asked to play this role for a friend.

[Marta]

Last thought - what is the atmosphere of the congregation (church leadership) toward her ordination? Good?

"Women are actually losing ground in the House of Bishops. We few are the 'irregulars' of our day." that was a quote in 2014, "Episcopal church celebrates 40 years of women in the priesthood"

Like I said - it's not just within the Roman Catholic church that "change" has to happen. True that this is a changing world - however, how will "any" church change - will society dictate changing it or will the church (dogmas and doctrines) remain intact to overcome the changes? Since the church and it's members are there to be a light to those who walk in darkness. Who will win the battle? Society? Because it wasn't the church leadership who chose this option - considering the gravity toward their feelings on this subject.

[robrecht]

...

Were priests seen as those who sat in judgment (to hear disputes) or to mediate for the people in order to seek God's will? - Can this be a woman's role? and when has this ever been the case in history?

Women can serve as judges in society, why not also within the church? Amd why shouldn't a woman seek God's will for herself and the community to which she belongs. Do not women and mothers of families do this all the time?

Last thought - what is the atmosphere of the congregation (church leadership) toward her ordination? Good?

Yes, very positive, not just toward her individually but also toward her husband and family. One of the things that impressed me most about her ministry is the way in which her home and family life was a well-spring in which many in the church congregation found a greater sense of community and shared life.

"Women are actually losing ground in the House of Bishops. We few are the 'irregulars' of our day." that was a quote in 2014, "Episcopal church celebrates 40 years of women in the priesthood"

Like I said - it's not just within the Roman Catholic church that "change" has to happen. True that this is a changing world - however, how will "any" church change - will society dictate changing it or will the church (dogmas and doctrines) remain intact to overcome the changes? Since the church and it's members are there to be a light to those who walk in darkness. Who will win the battle? Society? Because it wasn't the church leadership who chose this option - considering the gravity toward their feelings on this subject.

The incarnation of the church into various societies as leaven should not be reduced to a battle between the church and society in which one side must win and the other lose. The church is more fundamentally a servant of all and it is by being a servant that we lead. And in admitting that we ourselves are always in need of being reformed, both from within and in meeting the needs of those outside our walls.

[Marta]

Women can serve as judges in society, why not also within the church? Amd why shouldn't a woman seek God's will for herself and the community to which she belongs. Do not women and mothers of families do this all the time?

Yes, very positive, not just toward her individually but also toward her husband and family. One of the things that impressed me most about her ministry is the way in which her home and family life was a well-spring in which many in the church congregation found a greater sense of community and shared life.

The incarnation of the church into various societies as leaven should not be reduced to a battle between the church and society in which one side must win and the other lose. The church is more fundamentally a servant of all and it is by being a servant that we lead. And in admitting that we ourselves are always in need of being reformed, both from within and in meeting the needs of those outside our walls.

The church and society will always have a battle - it's not a matter of winning and losing, agreed, but the purpose is for salvation. The passage from the Torah/Old Testament should validate the differences between what society might want verses what the church has to stand on. (e.g. Garden of Eden - Adam and Eve (the Genesis 3:5), a recount (and in the same breath) - I Samuel and II Samuel)

Women - in law (civil) correct and they have made great contributions to the law. However, and a matter of thought - do you think that the bible or church leaders who have interpreted the law (in either societies) were limiting women from access? If so, then you know they were limiting them (also) in the legal (civil) system (past generations) as well. Generations - of limitations of access were done also by great minds within the legal and church societies. Doesn't matter if your a women or man when it comes down to limitations - matter of the law and the law had to be reversed in order to allow. Can we do the same thing in a religious society - that is, reverse decisions and if so, who decides and what is the process? Would it be considered as being disobedient? That is where the fight is generated - those gray areas. (Genesis 3:5 - it maybe pleasing to the eye? but...)

Not all congregations - accept women as the role of minister or priest but I am happy to hear that your friend has a nice backing.

[hansgeorg]

I have a problem with the pope unilaterally proclaiming dogma, "infallible" or not (Pope Honorius was clearly not).

Has it occurred to you that on that occasion when he clearly wasn't, he was also not proclaiming dogma?

[hansgeorg]

Per the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Pope Agatho himself condemned Honorius as a heretic. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full acts of the council, but it seems that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius with the phrase "we confess" one will - which can hardly be passed off as private opinion. Pope Leo II accepted the acts of the council and condemned Honorius as a heretic, and so did popes for the next three hundred years.

Here is Catholic Encyclopedia on that letter:

The reply of Honorius

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression "one operation", but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid "two operations" also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that "two operations" might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: "Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin." Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#III

[hansgeorg]

Prayer (which is worship) is attributing omniscience to her so they do make her a god.

I already pointed out that many times prayers can be silent. For her to know ALL these prayers - even the silent ones - of the heart would make her the heart-knower of all (omniscient = God).

And that is something ONLY God knows.

As I mentioned somewhere on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Mother-of-God/

God tells Her - as God tells the other saints whose intercessions he wants to be instrumental.

Also on that thread, how She has time to hear all ... Narnian Time, if the concept is known.

[One Bad Pig]

Here is Catholic Encyclopedia on that letter:



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#III

I've seen that valiant attempt to avoid the issue, thanks. If a pope can profess heretical dogmas privately, why could he not profess them publicly? Try to avoid using special pleading in your response.

I repeat, I have a problem with the pope unilaterally proclaiming dogma, "infallible" or not (Pope Honorius was clearly not). That's what councils are for.

[ke7ejx]

I have long been in favor of the ordination of women and have participated in the ordination of one of my students.

As a woman who plans on being an Episcopal Priest, this made me smile. Thank you!

[Marta]

As a woman who plans on being an Episcopal Priest, this made me smile. Thank you!

It may make you smile from a Episcopalian member point of view (and rightly so...). However, it doesn't make me smile when the person who is apart of the Catholic church encourages it and is a part of the priesthood. Following someone's else's doctrine goes against what he had been ordained to uphold.

To bring this comment up from Robrecht:

Of course. Bishops would not want to ordain someone whom they knew in advance would not tow the party line.

But that has nothing to do with the necessarily voluntary nature of ordination. See, eg, the very first canon in the section of canon law on the requirements of ordination:

Can. 1026 A person must possess due freedom in order to be ordained. It is absolutely forbidden to force anyone in any way or for any reason to receive orders or to deter one who is canonically suitable from receiving them.

So in other words, when one is ordained as a priest and does so voluntarily (of his own free will) then he is ordained to uphold the following:

The question of whether only males can receive ordination to the diaconate has not been definitively ruled out by a document of the Magisterium (i.e., the pope, the Roman Curia, and the bishops), although it is considered that there is a fundamental unity between deacons, priests, and bishops in the single sacrament of Holy Orders, which is currently interpreted to mean that women cannot validly be ordained as deacons.[3][4][5] Pope Francis, speaking of priestly ordination of women in February 2014, has stated that "with regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no ... That door is closed."[6] There is, however, a minor order called the subdiaconate, and another, the instituted acolyte which is not part of Holy Orders, to which women might theoretically be admitted, though Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI issued a document, though one that can be changed, saying that those ministries, if they are going to be formally conferred and exercised on a long-term basis (as opposed to an altar server, who only fills in for them), should be reserved solely for men preparing for diaconal and priestly ordination.[7] wikipedia

There are differences between the two churches and given those examples: (Some examples - not all)

[robrecht]

It may make you smile from a Episcopalian member point of view (and rightly so...). However, it doesn't make me smile when the person who is apart of the Catholic church encourages it and is a part of the priesthood. Following someone's else's doctrine goes against what he had been ordained to uphold.

To bring this comment up from Robrecht ...

Marta, I think I mentioned this to you before. I am not ordained.