Author Topic: Catholic Bishop Calls for Womens Ordination (Read 5499 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #35 on:** May 04, 2011, 08:45:30 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

A good way to cut through the sophistic nonsense is to ask how you could explain the "recognize but disobey" position to Protestants.

You start telling them about the ecclesiastical authorities and how they preserve the unity of the Church but then the Protestants will want to know why there is no genuine submission to those authorities.

The non-Catholic isn't going to buy into the idea that Stevus and the SSPX follow the Popes and the Bishops.

ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.

Under Ordinary conditions you must obey your Bishop, under extraordinary conditions you must disobey them.

When Athanatius finally succedded against the Arians, those who followed the MANY Arian Bishops, who were the diocesans and had authority over them by the Holy See and the Pope Liberius, were excommunicated. Just as the Bishops were.

A Bishop is doubly at fault but you who follows that Bishop are also at fault of obeying an illicit command.

Athanatius was excommunicated, exciled numerous times and was vindicated and he was proclaimed a Saint. His followers were declared the true followers of the catholic church.

But according to you since they no longer were inside the heirarchy they were wrong? A Saint and Doctor of the church? I think not!

The Unity of the Church is preserved Universally. If it is not Universal it is not the Church. Universally includes TIME. What was taught in the past must be taught in the future nothing can be infallible if it did not come from God to his Apostles either through scripture or tradition. It must have always been believed. When someone teaches something that contridicts this they are NOT to be obeyed on pain of sin.

While we cannot condemn them as we do not possess the authority to do so, we are obliged to not obey them and await their condmenation later.

Now I'd like to ask you something. Is what Stevus says true? Are you diocesan? How do you reconcile your views being inside the concillar church? Are you obeying the concillar commands? Are you praying with heretics and heathens?

If the Pope hadn't of declared that Tridentine masses could be said by any Priest(Which was declared as part of a demand by the SSPX before any talks could be held) would you still be going?

TKGS · « **Reply #36 on:** May 04, 2011, 08:48:11 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Really? When has BXVI publicly called for women's ordination or even admitted it is a posibility?

To the contrary he just denied the possibility of womenpriests again in his latest book.

The legal maxim is that silence gives consent. Americans tend to forget this because of our constitution, but the fifth amendment is a novelty in law.

I don't say that Benedict 16 has ever directly called for or even suggested women's ordination. In fact, he has repeatedly (through the years, at least when a cardinal) spoken and acted against women's ordination.

But he is supposed to be the supreme teacher now. Being silent in the face for such a call by a bishop is no longer an option. Even if he has never said anything positive about the subject in the past, his silence fosters an attitude among the other bishops, the theologians, and the laity (who have heard this bishop and others who have essentially said the same thing) that, well, the time might not be right but it will happen.

The longer he is silent, the louder his silence will be.

Unfortunately, TKGS, many traditionalists do not believe "silence gives consent" in a case such as this. They will argue against it, requiring an explicit admission by the authority, saying, "I approve of Bp. X doing this."

I know. And when certain people explicitly do or say something contrary to the faith, those same individuals will tell us what they "really" mean.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #37 on:** May 04, 2011, 09:07:00 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

ignorence is not bliss. There is the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Obey they Father and Mother. But if thy father and mother tell you to kill yourself and you do you goto hell for ѕυιcιdє. You are required to not obey on pain of sin. It is not a sin to disobey them. There is no damned if you do and damned if you don't in catholicism.

Here's the problem - the Church can't lead souls to destruction.

Like I said, try to explain this resist and recognize position to non-Catholics. We follow the Pope and bishops, but we don't follow the Pope and bishops. The Church is indefectible, but the Pope and bishops are leading people to hell. If your hierarchy is leading people to hell then it has defected.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #38 on:** May 04, 2011, 09:38:01 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.

Only problem is that the Church will not judge these people as heretics. I don't know if you remember, but recently some bishops in Germany said that Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer. To say such a thing is a blasphemy. What did Benedict do about them? Nothing.

My point is that if the Church won't act then we do have a right to label people as heretics. Not necessarily Popes (unless, as I pointed out, they commit an undeniable heresy or are not Catholic), but outside of that we may judge people by their actions.

LordPhan · « **Reply #39 on:** May 04, 2011, 09:40:16 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: stevusmagnus
He may apparently hold to a heresy, but whether or not this means he is no longer a Catholic is a different matter. That would be up for the competent ecclesiastical authority to decide. Very few of these NO Catholics even know enough about the true faith to knowingly hold to heresy. Many of them don't even know what the true Faith is and think that the Church is fine with you believing almost whatever you'd like. It is mass confusion spawned by a complete abdication of authority's obligation to condemn error and discipline those who spread it. That is their role and duty. If they don't do it, all we can do is point it out to them and try to correct the errant and error ourselves the best we can. But we can't go judging on our own authority whether certain clerics have lost their office.

Only problem is that the Church will not judge these people as heretics. I don't know if you remember, but recently some bishops in Germany said that Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer. To say such a thing is a blasphemy. What did Benedict do about them? Nothing.

My point is that if the Church won't act then we do have a right to label people as heretics. Not necessarily Popes (unless, as I pointed out, they commit an undeniable heresy or are not Catholic), but outside of that we may judge people by their actions.

I agree