Author Topic: Catholic Bishop Calls for Womens Ordination (Read 3767 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** May 03, 2011, 08:57:36 AM »

Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-about-this-bishop.html

How about this bishop?

From the blog PrayTell, citing an article published by Der Sonntag on Black Saturday of this year:

These Easter Sunday words of a Swiss Catholic bishop suggest that the topic of women’s ordination won’t be going away anytime soon.

Markus Büchel calls for far-reaching reforms in the Catholic Church. The bishop of the diocese of St. Gallen [St. Gall] spoke out openly for women’s ordination. “We must search for steps that lead there,” he said. “I could imagine that women’s diaconate could be such a step.”

One has not been permitted to discuss women’s ordination for a good while. “We can’t afford this anymore.” Regarding priesthood for women, Büchel said, “We can pray that the Holy Spirit enables us to read the signs of the times.”

He made this explosive statement in the St. Galler Pfarreiblatt [St. Gall Parish Paper]. Sabine Rüthemann, media spokesperson for the diocese, confirmed: “The interview is authorized. What Bishop Büchel said is what he means.”

These are very far-reaching statements for a bishop. They signal a Catholic breaking of taboos. In canon law every ordained ministry is limited to men.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:06:40 AM »

Benedict should excommunicate him. But I gaurantee you he won't.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:28:21 AM »

Quote

Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...

I had to give you a "Dislike" on this post only for the gratuitous comment you made above. The comments by this bishop of the Conciliar church does not directly or indirectly indicate whether the See of Peter is filled. In fact, it does not excommunicate the bishop either.

If he declares that, as a matter of principle, woman can be ordained then he is a heretic and loses his office automatically. If he ordains a woman, he loses his office automatically. As long as he simply calls for "searching" for a way to do the impossible, he is a very, very bad bishop who is corrupting the faith of his flock (i.e., a wolf in sheep's clothing") but he could still be a bishop.

Of course, I say this only because I don't know anything about his ordination, his consecration, under what rite he was ordained or consecrated, if the bishops who ordained or consecrated him were true bishops, or if he has actually taught heresy prior to this interview.

(But, if he were my bishop, I would not accept him as a true bishop until he demonstrate his fidelity to the Church, which he does not do in this interview. The Crisis in the Church is such that the burden of proof now lies with the individual cleric demonstrating himself to be Catholic rather than critics demonstrating that he is not.)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #3 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:57:34 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

If he declares that, as a matter of principle, woman can be ordained then he is a heretic and loses his office automatically.

Quote from: Bishop Buchel

The bishop of the diocese of St. Gallen [St. Gall] spoke out openly for women’s ordination. “We must search for steps that lead there,” he said. “I could imagine that women’s diaconate could be such a step.”

How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility? Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.

Therefore, under your own logic, you must conclude this bishop is a heretic and has lost his office automatically. Of course, this is absurd. At the rate and ease with which certain Sedes privately judge clerics to have lost their offices, Lord knows who is and is not a true priest, bishop, or pope.

Thankfully, to guard us from this insanity, God left these decisions to the Church and not joe-sede. This bishop is still a true bishop. He is simply a bishop in serious error or delusion who, in a sane time, would be disciplined immediately by the pope in some fashion. Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock. Thus this goes (once again) to the crisis of almost all ecclesiastical discipline in the post-conciliar period.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #4 on:** May 03, 2011, 11:00:46 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote
Commentary other than "See, we have no Pope!" is welcome...

I had to give you a "Dislike" on this post only for the gratuitous comment you made above.

I appreciate the explanation, but if you haven't yet noticed from my "reputation" score, I couldn't care less!

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 03, 2011, 11:37:38 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility?

As a true bishop of the Catholic Church, Bishop Williamson, often says, it could just because he's sick in the head.

Quote

Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.

No. It isn't obvious at all. He is calling for more theological study on the matter. He hasn't made any heretical declaration here, though I'm willing to bet that he probably has in the past.

Saint Thomas More was the prime example of what I am talking about. In the play, A Man for All Seasons, Master Cromwell tells Saint Thomas that everyone knows his position on the marriage. The saint replies, "The world must construe according to its wits. This Court must construe according to the law." And what was the law? Silence gives consent.

In this particular narrow issue--this interview as reported and no other evidence--the bishop is proposing that the theological issues surrounding women's ordination be investigated. Clearly, he hopes that such an investigation by the Catholic Church find that women's ordination is possible. He declares that! But his hope is not a manifest heresy, though, I daresay, this hope would be a valid reason for the Catholic Church to investigate him for heresy and, given the state of the bishoprics today, the investigation would likely find whole storehouses full of heresy.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** May 03, 2011, 12:49:22 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock.

Well, that is fitting since the 'Chief Shepherd' poisons the flock, too.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:46:53 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: stevusmagnus
How could one possibly call for steps that lead to what one believes is an impossibility?

Obviously, Bishop Buchel believes that it is theologically possible for women to be ordained or else it would be madness for him to propose canonical steps leading there.

No. It isn't obvious at all. He is calling for more theological study on the matter. He hasn't made any heretical declaration here, though I'm willing to bet that he probably has in the past.

Where does he call for "more theological study" on the matter? This statement is purely of your own making and not supported by the text. The bishop is calling for concrete steps leading to making womenpriests a reality such as allowing a female deaconite. If one wants to call for "more theological study" on something one usually says something like, "I hereby call for more theological study on the issue", not "I hereby suggest a concrete step we can take towards make women's ordination a reality". This implies one thinks it is already a possibility, otherwise why bother.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:52:14 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Until he is, he remains a bishop being currently allowed by the Chief Shepherd, to poison his flock.

Well, that is fitting since the 'Chief Shepherd' poisons the flock, too.

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:03:41 PM »

Not only that, but not too long ago he excommunicated a group of naive women who "ordained" themselves. Benedict doesn't think women should be priests. But I'm worried that if someone such as Cardinal Bertone or Mahony were to get elected as Pope, they may call for women priests.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:09:47 PM »

It becomes clear Stevus would tolerate any and all liberal heresies before becoming a sede.

It seems the SSPX is on the same road now.

The irony is that Stevus insults someone who claims a Bishop loses his office for manifest heresy, but Stevus does not submit to the conciliar bishops.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:16:55 PM »

Quote

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:59:02 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

It becomes clear Stevus would tolerate any and all liberal heresies before becoming a sede.

It seems the SSPX is on the same road now.

The irony is that Stevus insults someone who claims a Bishop loses his office for manifest heresy, but Stevus does not submit to the conciliar bishops.

So if you don't privately depose bishops at will you are "tolerating" their heresies?

What order of a conciliar bishop with jurisdiction over me am I disobeying?

Do you not submit to your bishop? You assist at Mass at a Conciliar church with a conciliar priest, no?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** May 03, 2011, 05:28:24 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

So if you don't privately depose bishops at will you are "tolerating" their heresies?

Stevus, if you tell people not to follow such a bishop, you are effectively deposing them. Whether or not they remain valid bishops with jurisdiction becomes a matter of theological speculation, as a matter of practical fact you have deposed them. If you believe they are the Church then you are to stand with them. If you do not collaborate with them then you are in effectively denying they are the Church.

Quote

What order of a conciliar bishop with jurisdiction over me am I disobeying?

Who is your bishop? Does he approve of SSPX mass attendance? If he didn't would you obey him or not?

Quote

Do you not submit to your bishop? You assist at Mass at a Conciliar church with a conciliar priest, no?

Going to mass somewhere doesn't mean I submit to the bishop.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #14 on:** May 03, 2011, 05:46:33 PM »

You are creating a false dichotomy. Recognizing a bishop and theoretically disobeying only sinful commands does not mean you have to deny he is a bishop. It's the old analogy of not obeying an unlawful order in the military. Doesn't mean the officer who gave the unlawful order loses his office when he does so. That is absurd and would lead to anarchy and private judgment as can be seen in the Sede community.

You are submitting to your bishop de facto because you've not done anything in rebellion against anything he's told you to do. You don't agree with your bishop on everything but you don't need to in order to be obedient.

My bishop can say one can't go to Society Masses all day long but he's overruled by the PCED.