Author Topic: Mark Shea, Cardinal Dolan, Fr. Benedict Groeschel Ok with Women Cardinals (Read 4168 times)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2012, 07:22:48 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2012, 07:33:23 AM »

http://big-modernism.blogspot.com/2012/04/mark-shea-cardinal-dolan-fr-benedict.html

Exilenomore · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2012, 08:21:05 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: Exilenomore
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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:56:08 PM »

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:22:30 PM »

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.

Quote

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.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:23:44 PM »

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:50:11 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

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.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:41:43 PM »

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?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:44:52 PM »

Edited. Let's stick to my previous post...

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2012, 04:05:48 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

JPII allowed altar girls in the 90's after previously forbidding them in the 80's.

Thanks.

Quote

Do you believe a true Pope could appoint a woman cardinal?

I'm not Exile, but I will answer anyway: no.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2012, 04:13:38 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:41:21 PM »

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.

Caraffa · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2012, 11:20:26 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

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.

Quote
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."

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:42:02 PM »

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.