Author Topic: Women priest??? Coming to a town near you? (Read 3620 times)

MyrnaM · « **on:** July 04, 2011, 01:15:49 PM »

Will this be enough to wake anyone up!

http://tinyurl.com/3d89txj

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2011, 02:24:50 PM »

Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."

There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.

I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.

No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.

And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2011, 02:33:20 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."

There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.

I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.

No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.

And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?

I believe that Benedict XVI once said something about his "conservatism" strictly being a "provisional" position, but I can't find the source for it. Does anyone remember reading something like that?

Caminus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2011, 02:40:51 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Sadly, the answer to your question is, "No."

There are numerous people on this very forum who would tell us that, while its not a good idea, we haven't the authority to question the conciliar church on the matter. There will even be people who call themselves traditional Catholics who will, because it's the only one available, assist at a traditional "Mass" in the designated diocesan parish by a priestess (and there will be priestesses saying the traditional Mass). They will declare that the service was just as wonderful as it would have been if it had been a priest saying Mass...if not better.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that most people who have already blinded themselves to the reality of the Crisis in the Church will not be blinded by yet another travesty.

I used to think there were various things that would bring people to their senses, only to see lines drawn and crossed and have the very same people tell me that I'm the one who is being unreasonable and schismatic and refusing to accept Benedict as the true pope.

No, I'm afraid it won't matter. What's more, while I highly doubt that the SSPX will start accepting women into their ranks, I really don't know what they will say about the acceptance of priestesses in the conciliar church. One thing is for certain: When the conciliar church begins ordaining women, there will be women bishops very soon after and the Vatican will simply not be able to resist appointing women as cardinals (the first will probably be in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy) and I am absolutely confident that the first conclave that includes women cardinals will elect one of them as pope; probably on the first ballot. They will simply not be able to resist that act to "prove" they are not sexist just as so many Americans elected self-evident a communist to the presidency so as to "prove" they were not racists.

And, in case you're asking, the very same people who defend the women priests will demand that we accept a woman pope, or would that be a "popess"?

This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2011, 04:41:35 PM »

Women priests won't be allowed any time soon, if ever. A woman "pope" would definitely be an anti-pope (or would that be an anti-popess?).

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2011, 06:40:36 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I have, in no way, justified my current opinion on anything on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future. Further, I have answered, or have had answered, the "serious difficulties" my opinions imply to the point that I believe they are the only answers that make sense given the situation as it is rather than as many wish it to be. As for my "concerns" about the SSPX, I only say that I don't know what their response would be if such an event occurred.

I also find it interesting that you are so bold as to declare the cardinal's theological position heretical even though he remains--and will remain--a cardinal in good standing with the conciliar church. He will never be made to recant this opinion in the same public manner in which he made the opinion known. The cardinal's opinion on this matter is not isolated. It is a very wide-spread opinion in conciliar environs. It may not happen in the near term, but I do believe you will likely see it in your lifetime.

Caminus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2011, 07:46:44 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Caminus
This is interesting. You are using alleged future events surely coming to pass to help justify your current opinion on the Pope? TKGS, this opinion may be satisfactory for you right now, but you haven't answered the serious difficulties it implies and I see from the above that you have shifted into a frame of mind that seeks anything that may even remotely support it in your mind -- extending even to remote hypothetical events. The above heretical opinion of a Cardinal (one among many probably) is contradictory to even what JPII stated. Rome will not be allowing women priests in the future so you can stop worrying about it and especially about what the SSPX will say on this imaginary event.

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I have, in no way, justified my current opinion on anything on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future. Further, I have answered, or have had answered, the "serious difficulties" my opinions imply to the point that I believe they are the only answers that make sense given the situation as it is rather than as many wish it to be. As for my "concerns" about the SSPX, I only say that I don't know what their response would be if such an event occurred.

I also find it interesting that you are so bold as to declare the cardinal's theological position heretical even though he remains--and will remain--a cardinal in good standing with the conciliar church. He will never be made to recant this opinion in the same public manner in which he made the opinion known. The cardinal's opinion on this matter is not isolated. It is a very wide-spread opinion in conciliar environs. It may not happen in the near term, but I do believe you will likely see it in your lifetime.

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.

What you have failed to grasp is that if the entire hierarchy has vanished into heresy, you would present to us an essential change within the Church itself; its divine constitution would be substantially altered. Indeed, the Pope and the Bishops form the principle part of the Church. If the entire body has defected, ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. the Church's divine authority would cease to exist. You implicitly admit that this has not happened in reality since no serious body of Catholics has dared to elect a new Pope. If the Church existed only amongst traditional Catholics, one would expect that this same Church would be able to elect Popes and appoint Bishops. The Church cannot by definition become impotent in preserving itself.

What you have stumbled accross is an easy but false solution to a real problem. You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation. 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.

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.

I have repeatedly requested for any Sedevacntist to demonstrate their thesis, but none has been forthcoming. I find this strange considering the certitude with which certain men make these declarations. If you do take the time to actually attempt to prove your thesis and also demonstrate how it does not involve heretical implications regarding the divine constitution of the Church while simultaneously forcing Catholics to presume upon obtaining miraculous knowledge in the future, I will not entertain any further discussion on the matter.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2011, 07:57:34 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

What you have stumbled accross is an easy but false solution to a real problem.

The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.

Quote

You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.

There are only two choices. Either the Pope is a Catholic or he is not the Pope.

That there is no clear authority established to elect a new Pope does not destroy the Church. What destroys the Faith is following non-Catholics.

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.

It does not destroy the Church. It is an egregious, flagrant error to say things such as "the Church has cancer." Which is what the people who defend modernist clerics are saying. Si Si No No said Cardinal Ratzinger had "no faith." If that's not being a manifest heretic, what is? To claim that someone manifestly has no Faith is to deny that they are members of the Church.

So was Cardinal Ratzinger Catholic or was Si Si Non Non making a terrible calumny about today's Holy Father?

There are only two choices. There is no "middle way"

Caminus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 04, 2011, 08:41:51 PM »

Quote

The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.

Here's my most scientific answer: Duh.

Quote

You have not appreciated the extremely complex and multi-layered situation.

Quote

There are only two choices. Either the Pope is a Catholic or he is not the Pope.

Or there's a third or fourth choice. And then there the choice as to whether one has the audacity to make a definitive judgment regarding the membership of another man.

Quote

That there is no clear authority established to elect a new Pope does not destroy the Church. What destroys the Faith is following non-Catholics.

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

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.

Quote

It does not destroy the Church. It is an egregious, flagrant error to say things such as "the Church has cancer." Which is what the people who defend modernist clerics are saying. Si Si No No said Cardinal Ratzinger had "no faith." If that's not being a manifest heretic, what is? To claim that someone manifestly has no Faith is to deny that they are members of the Church.

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

Quote

There are only two choices. There is no "middle way"

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. 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.

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

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:47:42 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Indeed, being a most faithful Novus Ordo Catholic would make much more sense than being a "sedevacantist".

I completely disagree. Not to promote the sede thesis, but being a Traditional Catholic who accepts the TLM over a Novus Ordite who loves the NO and obeys the Pope no matter what is obviously better.

Quote from: Telesphorus

The Pope must be Catholic. Anyone who is content with a non-Catholic Pope whom he does not obey has certainly found a false solution.

Non-sedes don't think the Pope is non-Catholic.

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.