Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caraffa on March 29, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
-
The Neo-Catholic mind continues its modernistic drift leftward and against Tradition.
Cdl. Dolan and Fr. Benedict Groeschel Affirm Me in My Okayness!
March 21, 2012
by Mark Shea
For 15ish years, ever since the publication of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I have maintained that one implication of the docuмent is that women can be created cardinals of the Church (since the office of cardinal does not require holy orders and it is *only* the sacerdotal office to which the Church lacks the authority to ordain women). When I say this, I invariably get chewed out as a subversive modernist.
However, the other day, Fr. Groeschel and Cdl Dolan noted exactly the same thing (go to the 3:50 mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DkHpaOPasU&feature=player_embedded
I suspect we will see something like this in my lifetime. If not, in my children’s or grand-daughter’s lifetime. Should it happen, do not freak out that the Church is “abandoning the Tradition”. Cardinals are a bit of bureaucratic machinery for taking care of housekeeping in the matter of getting a new pope. They are not The Tradition. The Church could abolish the entire college of cardinals tomorrow (just as she invented it a thousand years ago) and it would not alter the Tradition a jot. You may as well say your parish finance council is apostolic tradition. Do not bind God to contracts he never signed.
Link (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/03/cdl-dolan-and-fr-benedict-groeschel-affirm-me-in-my-okayness.html)
-
Frieghtening, but not surprising.
-
Nauseating.
-
So my question is, what do people like Stevus say to this?
-
I think you will see women cardinals after Benedict 16 dies.
I've already seen arguments for the ordination of deaconesses in Novus Ordo circles as well and I think you'll see "permanent deaconesses" in the Novus Ordo too. In fact, the two will probably come at the same time to great applause in Conciliar circles.
The only question will be, how long will they be able to maintain deaconesses without ordination of priestesses?
-
The only question will be, how long will they be able to maintain deaconesses without ordination of priestesses?
They're already far gone as far as I'm concerned. My problem is that they will go step by step and there will still be "Trads" slamming sedevacantists.
-
The pseudo-episcopus of Antwerp has already been 'ordaining' female 'pastores'. That is the title they give to so-called pastoral workers. They are vested in priestly robes and some kind of triangular stoles. One of them is apparently on the way to the 'diaconate', according to a modernist website.
-
Watched part of the TV show, seriously what a temptation..this is like Oprah for prelates?
The bonhomie! :laugh1:
Well, nobody's getting into their seminaries who opposes female cardinals if these old dears have anything to say about it, and it looks as if they do.
-
So my question is, what do people like Stevus say to this?
Mark Shea is nuts.
-
Add CAF to the list of those ok with the idea...
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=661402
Just one example, there are others:
Does not bother me a bit...if the Pope and Magisterium...that is The Church...does this...it won't be for sentimental or modernity reasons...so I trust them. "...There is genius in Catholicism..." [Matthew Kelley] because our founder is Truth himself...and He promised to that His Holy Spirit would lead and guide His apostolic Church into all Truth...Himself...
Lastly, I like the idea of having a real woman of truth, character and accomplishment...like Janet Smith or maybe Mary Eberstadt or Phyllis Schlafly or Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon...or one of the Holy Women of the Church who has started/runs a Lay Apostolate...in the College of Cardinals.
In sum...let the Pope do his "pope-stuff"... and I hope and pray for the grace to do my "laity-stuff"!
-
Add CAF to the list of those ok with the idea...
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=661402
Just one example, there are others:
Does not bother me a bit...if the Pope and Magisterium...that is The Church...does this...it won't be for sentimental or modernity reasons...so I trust them. "...There is genius in Catholicism..." [Matthew Kelley] because our founder is Truth himself...and He promised to that His Holy Spirit would lead and guide His apostolic Church into all Truth...Himself...
Lastly, I like the idea of having a real woman of truth, character and accomplishment...like Janet Smith or maybe Mary Eberstadt or Phyllis Schlafly or Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon...or one of the Holy Women of the Church who has started/runs a Lay Apostolate...in the College of Cardinals.
In sum...let the Pope do his "pope-stuff"... and I hope and pray for the grace to do my "laity-stuff"!
In others words, X is true or ok because the "current magisterium" says that it is. Magisterial Positivism run amok.
-
Another:
We discussed this issue several months ago in this thread. I remain of the view that there is no theological reason why this could not be done (in the way that there is a theological reason why women can't be admitted to holy orders). There have certainly been cardinals, even in the last century, who did not hold major orders at all, and although I think it's disputed whether there have been any who did not hold minor orders, it's hard to imagine anybody seriously maintaining that minor orders are a dogmatic prerequisite to anything. It must be remembered that the cardinalate is a humanly instituted office created to help fulfill certain administrative tasks within the church; it is not an office with theological significance at all, and it did not really exist for the first thousand years or so of the Church's history. Doctrinally speaking, there is no barrier whatsoever to disbanding the cardinalate tomorrow and devolving the function of electing the Pope upon the clergy of Rome, or the college of bishops. Any such change would be untraditional, but it would not violate Sacred Tradition.
Certainly, appointing woman cardinals would present numerous practical questions and problems, such as what to do about the precedence of cardinals in liturgical functions. And, at least in the current climate, it would have the very bad effect of signaling to people that all things are open for debate and change and that, if women can be admitted to the office of cardinal then it is only intransigence that would not admit them to the "lower" office of priest.
-
Another:
We discussed this issue several months ago in this thread. I remain of the view that there is no theological reason why this could not be done (in the way that there is a theological reason why women can't be admitted to holy orders). There have certainly been cardinals, even in the last century, who did not hold major orders at all, and although I think it's disputed whether there have been any who did not hold minor orders, it's hard to imagine anybody seriously maintaining that minor orders are a dogmatic prerequisite to anything. It must be remembered that the cardinalate is a humanly instituted office created to help fulfill certain administrative tasks within the church; it is not an office with theological significance at all, and it did not really exist for the first thousand years or so of the Church's history. Doctrinally speaking, there is no barrier whatsoever to disbanding the cardinalate tomorrow and devolving the function of electing the Pope upon the clergy of Rome, or the college of bishops. Any such change would be untraditional, but it would not violate Sacred Tradition.
Certainly, appointing woman cardinals would present numerous practical questions and problems, such as what to do about the precedence of cardinals in liturgical functions. And, at least in the current climate, it would have the very bad effect of signaling to people that all things are open for debate and change and that, if women can be admitted to the office of cardinal then it is only intransigence that would not admit them to the "lower" office of priest.
That actually sounds pretty reasonable: possible, but a bad idea. I would go further and say it's a terrible idea, but if it's true that non-priests have historically been made cardinals (which it seems to be, from what I can tell), then it is hard to think of a doctrinal reason why it would be impossible to extend it to womenfolk. Or am I missing something obvious? Have any of the saints or doctors answered this for us already? I think that post is right that Sacred Tradition can't really be implicated here at all, since the current state of affairs only dates to like 1000 or 1100 AD, and before that the evidence seems to by that the clergy and people of Rome would elect the pope, or occasionally he would be essentially appointed by a local warlord. Anyway, prudential reasons not to do such a thing, yes, there are a million of those!
-
St. Paul, pray for us!
-
In the Church of Christ, women do not receive ecclesiastical jurisdiction over men. So, to say that the concept of a cardinalate for women does not contradict ecclesiastical and even apostolic tradition is simply wrong.
In the history of the Church, there have been Abbesses, but they only had authority over the nuns/religious women who were placed under their obedience, and not over men.
-
In the Church of Christ, women do not receive ecclesiastical jurisdiction over men. So, to say that the concept of a cardinalate for women does not contradict ecclesiastical and even apostolic tradition is simply wrong.
In the history of the Church, there have been Abbesses, but they only had authority over the nuns/religious women who were placed under their obedience, and not over men.
Exile,
They are insanely arguing that these "women cardinals" would not have authority over any clerics. They would only vote for the Pope since they don't have orders. They, in their legalist insanity, are saying there is no reason the Pope couldn't make a woman cardinal if he wanted to.
-
http://big-modernism.blogspot.com/2012/04/mark-shea-cardinal-dolan-fr-benedict.html
-
In the Church of Christ, women do not receive ecclesiastical jurisdiction over men. So, to say that the concept of a cardinalate for women does not contradict ecclesiastical and even apostolic tradition is simply wrong.
In the history of the Church, there have been Abbesses, but they only had authority over the nuns/religious women who were placed under their obedience, and not over men.
Exile,
They are insanely arguing that these "women cardinals" would not have authority over any clerics. They would only vote for the Pope since they don't have orders. They, in their legalist insanity, are saying there is no reason the Pope couldn't make a woman cardinal if he wanted to.
The whole idea is just absurd on it's face. And to attempt to mentally divorce the cardinalate from authority seems quite strange to me. The Cardinals are the hinges of the Holy Roman Church, and are given particular functions in her. So, I suppose they are proposing some kind of female cardinalate 'ad honorem'? It sounds like obvious feminism to me, desiring to give women the impression of ecclesiastical authority over men in the Church.
We all have our places in the natural and supernatural order, and should not be too eager to seek high positions. In the first ages of the Church, even many men fled to avoid being ordained to the priesthood, because it is such a high dignity. St. Augustine was consecrated to the episcopate with tears in his eyes! The Saints trembled before the responsibility that came with authority. Why do we, in these modern times, lack humility and obedience so much?
Conceded, this case is not about the priesthood and the episcopate (and any attempt to confer these upon women would definitely be invalid), but it is clear to me what spirit lies underneath all this talk about 'women cardinals', whether it is consciously intended by those who are proposing this concept or not.
-
Exile,
I completely agree. I would make the case that the Pope could not appoint a female cardinal because it is outside his authority to do so. Similar argument as the one against girl altar boys, really. Except in this case the position of cardinal is girl altar boy x 1,000. 2,000 year Tradition of NOT ONLY male cardinals, but clerics as cardinals. The libs spout off about "lay cardinals", but these occassional lay cardinals were not laymen. They had received minor orders and were thus clerics. Most were bishops and priests. That this office was tied to orders is undeniable! The entire Tradition of the Church testifies to it. Canon Law of 1917 limited the office to priests and bishops. The '83 code that these Neo-Caths worship, limited it further to bishops only! Both of these decisions were in line with Tradition. They tied the office more perfectly to Holy Orders.
These complete and utter legalists say that if a practice was not specifically prohibited by name in the past, it is therefore allowable. This is complete BS and they know it. As you said, the idea of female cardinals was completely absurd to anyone who lived in the 1965 years previous to the "New Springtime." Why ban something by law, that nobody is seriously even challenging or proposing.
With girl altar boys, the practice was not only prohibited, but condemned as evil by three Popes! It was prohibited even by Paul VI and JPII! And they STILL said the Pope could do it if he wanted to. So they jettisoned 1990+ years of Tradition and allowed it. In my opinion, that decision is completely illicit and non-binding. The Pope does not have authority to jettison 2,000 years of Church Tradition, practices, rites, offices, etc. based on his personal whim. He is not an almighty dictator. If the Pope decreed that every Catholic must wear clown shoes to Mass, these imbeciles would go shopping for them. It really is past creepy and bordering on idolatry/ cult territory. Obedience is truly their god.
-
Witness the diseased mind of the Neo-Catholic in action.
The best specimens for the study of modernistic brain rot, typically come from CAF. This guy is no different.
He's responding to the claim that all cardinals in the history of the Church were clerics. Same point I made above.
I think that's debated. It was certainly true of, say, Cardinal Antonelli in the nineteenth century. But Ferdinando de'Medici was elevated to cardinal at the tender age of 13, for purely political reasons (he would go on to become Grand Duke of Tuscany). Maybe they were handing out minor orders along with lollipops in those days, but the burden would seem to be on the person asserting it to show this. In any event, the traditional view of the minor orders is that they are non-sacramental, non-apostolic, and humanly instituted offices -- making it, as I said before, hard to imagine how someone could argue that they are an ontological prerequisite to serving the pope in the office of cardinal. The cardinalate qua cardinalate is, after all, a purely administrative function within the Church.
Really, a lot of these questions (e.g., but can a woman be a cardinal-deacon?) are basically moot, since the greater power includes the lesser, and thus if the pope possesses the authority to abolish the college of cardinals -- which he does -- then he has the authority to modify or reorder it, say by adding an order of "cardinal-administrators" who vote in the conclave and serve on discasteries but do not have any liturgical function at all.
Let's cede his factual point. Let's say DeMedici was made a cardinal without minor orders. So what? You have one shamelessly political appointment by a Pope to a 14 year old deMedici, whose family, if my memory serves correctly, ran things, without minor orders. ONE counter-example in 2,000 years of only assigning clerics as cardinals by the Church. The exception only proves the rule.
The point of minor orders being a prerequisite, is that the office of cardinal was clearly meant to be attached to Holy Orders in some fashion, even in the uncommon event that it was bestowed on a man with minor orders. The Neo-Cath separates the office itself from the 2,000 year history of the Church assigning that office! Incredible.
Let's grant for the sake of argument that the Pope can get rid of the college of cardinals on a whim. Again, so what? He can get rid of all sorts of diocesan sees as well. This doesn't mean he has the right to appoint women bishops. The Neo-Cath completely confuses Tradition and the reasons behind the rules with raw power. The office of cardinal has been tied to orders by 2,000 years of Tradition. If the Pope could morally abolish it entirely, which I think is debatable, this still does not mean he can appoint women cardinals. Two entirely separate issues. The women cardinal issue is one that goes to the heart of authority and orders and starts to eviscerate the Traditional notions of these ideas.
Completely rash unheard of demolition and innovation is now second nature to these folks. After VCII, they truly believe the most radical changes which serve to disfigure and dismantle the Church are completely legitimate. It is mind boggling.
-
Steve,
As you know, we disagree when it comes to ecclesial infallibility and indefectibility. But the problem with these people is that they seem to be infected with a form of fideism. They seem to deny that their God-given reason can work out that there is any contradiction between Catholicism and a new system of doctrine, theology and religious practice which is inimical to Catholicism.
It looks, in a way, like the following example: "Well, this one looks like a duck, and this one looks like a sheep to me, but if you tell me that both of these are horses, then I will certainly believe you!"
To me, the concept of female cardinals comes across in the same way as that of male nuns. I should be careful with what I say, though, lest my words give an idea to anyone. What strange times.
-
With girl altar boys, the practice was not only prohibited, but condemned as evil by three Popes! It was prohibited even by Paul VI and JPII!
I agree with what you have said, stevus. Though, I'm pretty sure JPII gave female altar servers the green light. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
-
SS,
JPII allowed altar girls in the 90's after previously forbidding them in the 80's.
Exile,
What are the limits on Papal authority? Do you believe a true Pope could appoint a woman cardinal?
-
Edited. Let's stick to my previous post...
-
JPII allowed altar girls in the 90's after previously forbidding them in the 80's.
Thanks.
Do you believe a true Pope could appoint a woman cardinal?
I'm not Exile, but I will answer anyway: no.
-
Exile,
What are the limits on Papal authority? Do you believe a true Pope could appoint a woman cardinal?
I believe that the Holy Ghost would prevent a legitimate Pope from approving the practice officially through the magisterium, if only due to it's blatant absurdity. I wish to avoid pushing this thread toward that subject, however, since that discussion has already been going on in numerous other threads and for a long time.
Women have existed much longer than the cardinalate of the Roman Church, and a woman has never been made a cardinal. It is only being proposed now to suit the very agenda which has been subverting the natural order in all aspects of society.
-
Exile,
I agree. That these authority worshipping technocrats don't see the absurdity in their own position is frightening. We should thank God for the grace to see things as they are and realize the NO is absurd, no matter what other conclusions we come to. These poor souls are trapped in the legalistic matrix where bad can be good if the master says so.
-
Witness the diseased mind of the Neo-Catholic in action.
The best specimens for the study of modernistic brain rot, typically come from CAF. This guy is no different.
He's responding to the claim that all cardinals in the history of the Church were clerics. Same point I made above.
I think that's debated. It was certainly true of, say, Cardinal Antonelli in the nineteenth century. But Ferdinando de'Medici was elevated to cardinal at the tender age of 13, for purely political reasons (he would go on to become Grand Duke of Tuscany). Maybe they were handing out minor orders along with lollipops in those days, but the burden would seem to be on the person asserting it to show this. In any event, the traditional view of the minor orders is that they are non-sacramental, non-apostolic, and humanly instituted offices -- making it, as I said before, hard to imagine how someone could argue that they are an ontological prerequisite to serving the pope in the office of cardinal. The cardinalate qua cardinalate is, after all, a purely administrative function within the Church.
Really, a lot of these questions (e.g., but can a woman be a cardinal-deacon?) are basically moot, since the greater power includes the lesser, and thus if the pope possesses the authority to abolish the college of cardinals -- which he does -- then he has the authority to modify or reorder it, say by adding an order of "cardinal-administrators" who vote in the conclave and serve on discasteries but do not have any liturgical function at all.
Let's cede his factual point. Let's say DeMedici was made a cardinal without minor orders. So what? You have one shamelessly political appointment by a Pope to a 14 year old deMedici, whose family, if my memory serves correctly, ran things, without minor orders. ONE counter-example in 2,000 years of only assigning clerics as cardinals by the Church. The exception only proves the rule.
Stevus, the Neo-Catholics who argue like this fall into same errors that someone like a Dr. Ignaz von Döllinger (the 19th century Liberal Catholic) fell into; that is, specifically a semi-historical positivism. There was member of a Trad forum that you use to be a part-of who fell into this mistake often. Those who follow this erroneous line of thought start with this false notion that a probable historical fact is somehow sufficient in and of itself to constitute a practical orthodoxy or some sort of Catholic "norm."
-
Now you have me intrigued! Please PM me and tell me who this fellow was.
Actually, I think I know. The "king" of the historical counter-example. He used these rare examples to gut the rule, when, in fact, they proved the rule.
Neo-Cats love to do this. They find one obscure questionable reference supposedly assigned to a Saint talking about Communion in the Hand in the year 400, so we all need to receive in the Hand to "get back to the early Church."
Men wore tunics in 30 AD therefore all dress is relative, etc etc.