Author Topic: Women priest??? Coming to a town near you? (Read 6187 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:49:00 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Here's my most scientific answer: Duh.

Then what is the meaning of saying that Rome has lost the Catholic Faith? Of saying Ratzinger has no Faith? If the man reputed to be Pope were really Catholic there would be no problem.

Quote

Or there's a third or fourth choice

The Benedict XVI, whose writings contain "many heresies" is Catholic? Or he isn't Catholic?

Quote

And then there the choice as to whether one has the audacity to make a definitive judgment regarding the membership of another man.

Tell that to Si Si Non Non. "Prefect without Faith"

Quote

Ambiguous, tentative, minimizing language. The fact is that there would be no authority at all.

Nonsense. You can't say there is no authority. It's not for you to judge. It's for the bishops and theologians of the Church to judge.

Quote

And this does in fact destroy the Church. Your last is a truism that a three year old could utter and merely begs the question.

It's very very simple, not complicated at all. There is absolutely nothing complicated with the fact that people who do not have the Catholic Faith are destroying the Church, not sedevacantism. Claiming that sedevacantism destroys the Church is outrageous.

Quote

Your opinion is far worse than the disease which afflicts the Church for it summarily destroys the Church to a far greater degree than Modernism has thus managed.

That is patently absurd. Sedevacantism does not "destroy" the Church in any sense. What has caused the Church to be destroyed for 50 years has only been the result of people following non-Catholics who claim to be the leaders of the Church.

Quote

I see no substantial difference between saying that and what Pius X said affirming that there are enemies within the Church.

There is an enormous difference. You can't be a spotless bride and have cancer.

Quote

What else would enemies do but harm and destroy the Church, causing great affliction and confusion, sowing seeds of doubt? You are confounding the divine and human element of the Church just as the Donatists of old did in Augustine's time.

There's one Church. Not too. You can't say the Church "has cancer" and is the "spotless bride of Christ." It's an absurdity, and there is a huge difference between saying there are enemies within (not being true members) and saying that the Church is "rotten" or "has cancer"

Quote

Regarding your citing Si Si No No as an authority, one could easily assert that such and such a man is faithless without commenting on his status in the Church.

Someone who manifestly does not have the Catholic Faith because of the heretical views he espouses, it is impossible to say such a person is a member of the Church. The SSPX publishes si si non non.

Quote

The term has a wide application as any reading of history would reveal. And being "faithless" doesn't amount to being a "manifest heretic." Such elementary blunders.

Without Faith because of his "many heresies" There is no blunder at all, you purveryor of phony distinctions.

Quote

Supposing I understand what you're driving at, this is an invention of your own mind; a false dichotomy that settles well with superficial and rash minds.

You can't understand that there is either a Catholic Pope or there is no Pope? Because if Benedict XVI were really a Catholic there would not be a problem following his teachings.

"Superficial and rash minds" is hot air ad hominem. If the man manifestly doesn't have the Faith because of his heretical views he's not Catholic ergo he's not Pope. There is no escape.

Quote

Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist". If you wonder why, see my Chicken or Egg thread.

More nonsense.

Quote

Beyond this, until you answer my challenge, I will speak no more on this topic.

Whatever "challenge" you offer has nothing to do with the fact that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope.

The See of Rome cannot leave the Faith and remain the authority over Catholics. It's an absurdity.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:01:44 AM »

The Apostolic See was pure and will always remain pure of all doctrinal error which can condemn a soul to hell, because this See is the immutable rock on which the Church is built. The defection of this See (which is impossible) would mean the defection of the Church (which is also impossible). Never has a legitimately elected Pope uttered heresy, but there have been many counterpopes who have reigned in Rome.

Pope Agatho proved this when he wrote that none of his predecessors, even the most minim among them, have allowed the catholic faith to be perverted in the Roman See, and that this can never happen in the future. The Apostolic See remains unsullied.

Tolle papam, tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam.

When one takes away the Pope, he takes away the Mass, and ultimately the Church.

But the Church does not cease to exist, and neither can her divine constitution (which necessarily means all her elements of apostolicity and her four marks) be impaired. The mark of visibility, however, means that the Church is a perfect society of tangible human beings who thus have the capacity to be seen with the carnal eye. It does not mean that they have to be seen on television to keep this mark intact.

So, simply because you and I do not know where the successors of the apostles are residing, does not mean that they do not exist. To keep the mark of visibility intact, it is merely required that the Church remains made up of visible human beings, and does not become a pneumatic 'bond' between all who claim to be christians, which is the protestant error to which this mark is directly opposed.

We are thus required to believe that legitimate papal electors have been provided and exist today, because the First Vatican Council has defined that Christ has willed there to be pastors until the consummation of time. There have been many counterpopes before the 20th century, so this situation knows precedent.

Quote from: Suarez De Antich lib. VII

"This dismal fate of Rome is not contrary to the promises made to the Church and the Apostolic See to persevere in faith.... Church always remains visible, even if She would be forced to flee to the mountains and hiding mostly in caves and deserts. “

Quote from: Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)

“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”

Certainly, Cardinal Manning did not mean to say that the Church would lose one of her marks (visibility). He makes a distinction between actual visibility and the mark of visibility. The first means that we do not see the Church on television or the newspapers. The latter means that the Church keeps her mark, which means the capacity to be seen.

Let us try not to make this a flame war. Discussions such as these have been heated in the past, and I admit that I have shared in the guilt. But let us avoid such things now. Charity is still the domain of Christendom, even though the masons have usurped the word and perverted it.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:17:19 AM »

Regarding the actual subject of this thread, which is the pseudo-ordination of women. This obviously goes directly against apostolic tradition. Even the Blessed Virgin Mary was not elevated to the priesthood. That is because manhood is essentially a part of the catholic priesthood. It is not merely accidental, like the man in the article is alleging, but essential. Even if it would be attempted to 'ordain' a woman, it would not only be illicit, but also invalid. There would be no 'ordination' at all. She would remain a lay person, because no sacrament would have been confected.

In the Old Testament, also, there were no 'womenpriests' in the cultus of the Israëlites. It simply cannot be done.

It is satanic pride to deny these truths. The Immaculate Mother of God abhors such pride.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2011, 06:23:26 AM »

The 'deaconess' argument which they often use is based on a false understanding of what the word meant in apostolic times. A deaconess took care of the widows and female business in the early Church. It was not at all a liturgical function.

TKGS · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2011, 09:01:47 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

It only makes "sense" if you restrict it to the question of the Pope alone. But in reality, the same standard that you apply to the Pope (though you have cited no specific heresy by which he casts himself out of the Church) would also apply a fortiori to all Cardinals, Bishops and priests of the conciliar Church. I have never seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question during all my years involved in this controversy.

If you have not ever seen any sedevacantist deal seriously with this question, then you have not really studied the question.

I did not cite any specific heresy because this is a topic about women priests. I do not allege that the entire hierarchy has fallen into heresy, only that the vast majority have done so. There are still faithful Catholic priests and bishops within the Church. Many of them are associated with the SSPX. Others are associated with the CMRI. There are, doubtless, other faithful Catholic clergy throughout the world in various associations as well as acting independently. There may even be some within the conciliar church. Unlike you, I believe, ultimately, that the question must be answered on a case-by-case basis. Since I am not an adequate judge for the whole world, I will limit my judgments to the few locations where I attend Mass and to those notorious public statements as was made by the cardinal in question.

Quote

Regarding my boldness in asserting that such an opinion regarding women priests is heretical, I respond by saying that it is one thing to identify an objectively heretical proposition, i.e. a false opinion contrary to faith, and quite another to judge a man's status within the Church.

It is not my opinion that makes no sense, it is yours. For it appears that it is your opinion that the man who holds, declares, and defends heresy is not, by that reason alone, a heretic. I suppose this fits right in to the Vatican II declaration that the Church of Christ merey "subsits" in the Catholic Church and that even people outside the Church can really be inside the Church. The momeny one judges heresy in a man, one immediately judges his membership in the Catholic Church. The two simply cannot co-exist; but, because we are temporal creatures, we can only judge the latter when the former is made manifest and notorious. When, however, the former is judge, the latter judgment is already made.

In any event, when the first deaconesses (probably "permanent deaconesses" in the new religion) are ordained, I suspect the same sort of defenses I've seen here on this topic. To be sure, not your defenses of this matter, but others have defended the concept.