To those who think that denying ordination to women is not doctrinal,
whether it be deacon or priest, I offer the following for your
consideration....
A) The Apostles restricted the diaconate to men
only: The office of deacon is created in Acts 6:1-6. And the Apostles
give clear instructions in Acts 6:3 — “brethren, select from among you
seven men
of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put
in charge of this task.” The seven chosen are all men: Stephen, Philip,
Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas (Acts 6:5). That’s not a coincidence.
B)
Scripture is clear that the diaconate is male-only: In addition to the
above, St. Paul lays out the requirements for deacons in 1 Timothy
3:8-13, and says things like “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity…”
(1 Timothy 3:8). If God wanted (or permitted) women to serve as
deacons, then 1 Timothy 3 is wrong: it’s not required
for deacons to be men of dignity: they can be women of dignity, also.
Obviously, we can’t conclude that Scripture was wrong, so it must be
the push for a female diaconate that’s wrong.
C)
As I've mentioned before, the Greek word for deacon isn’t always a
clerical title: The Greek word here literally means servant or server.
That’s because the first job of the deacons involved the daily
distribution of food to widows (Acts 6:1). So when St. Paul refers to
Phoebe as a diakonos, he might be calling her a deaconess of God, but he
might also be calling her a servant of God. There is no conclusive
proof that diakonos is specifically a term for the ordained from
antiquity.
D) There were deaconesses in the early Church: Whatever St. Paul may have meant in Romans 16:1,
there’s no question that there were women referred to as deaconesses in
the early Church. They were tasked with things like women’s adult
Baptisms (since Baptisms at that time were done in the nude). But
what’s
also clear is that they had different requirements than the
requirements for deacons, and were considered part of the laity. Once
these sex-specific roles were no longer needed, the job of deaconess
disappeared.
and finally,
E) The Council of Nicaea ended any controversy: Canon 19 of
the First Council of Nicaea (the same Council giving us the Nicene
Creed), said in relevant part: “Likewise in the case of their
deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled
among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean
by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have
no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.”
That’s incredibly clear. But just in case it wasn’t, the Church
addressed this issue in later Ecumenical and regional Councils, as well.
As
you all can see, there is no basis from Sacred Scripture or from
Tradition which support the idea of women as being ordained. Yes, they
held positions of service during a time of need. But this wasn't
incumbent upon imposition of hands, as Nicaea rightly points out.
While some will argue
that there is nothing "doctrinal" about this, there doesn't need to be,
although that has now been put definitively to bed with Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis. The Church through speaking through her Ordinary
magisterium and through Sacred Scripture, then reaffirming through both
teaching and practice through the centuries in a very clear and
consistent manner have shown that the Church has no right to impose
Sacred Orders on women.
This is not a belittling of women nor is
it a form of discrimination. This is a clear teaching of the faithful
understanding their roles within the Church. Clearly, from the two
foundations of the Church; Scripture and Tradition, we have a clear
teaching about the lack of necessary impotice for the ordination of
women. I'm sure that there will be a rebuttal, but I stand on Sacred
Scripture and I stand on Tradition. Women, while vital to the Church,
not just in a temporally powerful way, but also in an example of
meekness and humility of heart, were never meant for Sacred Orders.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Charity....hmmmmm.....Right.
So, I received this email from US Catholic...In Conversation with American Catholics.
While the associate editor (I feel very special) thinks it isn't pleasant to hear, which it isn't, here is the exchange which prompted this...btw, the exchange wasn't with just any poster in the comboxes, it was with a blogger for US Catholic who was commenting....His (that's right, his) repsonse:
My response:
I don't follow your logic. How is a woman not proclaiming the Gospel at Mass or preaching a homily "impeding" the message that a priest (or in some cases a deacon) would do anyway?
Don't women "preach" the Gospel by how they live? Isn't that the bigger message. I hear all the time that it isn't about what one hears in the homily, but how one lives his life after the homily is what REALLY matters. Is that not the case?
I think that there is a double standard. I think that some women want to have their cake and eat it too. Not all, but some.
Regardless of that, I just don't see how your logic pans out on this.
His response:
This isn't about what you think though. If it were merely that, then the answer would be easy. So, you have an opinion, as a Catholic, it must conform to Catholic teaching on Catholic matters. That is how we assent our wills.
The Gospel in the context that you are speaking of is a written record of Christ's deeds. If you want a more ethereal view of what the Gospel is, I would say that it is the reward of good tidings.
Now, all that being said, every member of the Church has the right to that being brought to them in an orthodox way. But we're talking about the canonical gospels. There is a second "form" of Gospel, the oral gospel, which we are all implored to pass along.
The proclamation of the canonical Gospels is the privy of the ministerial priesthood. It is proclaimed and it is preached by the ministerial priesthood, because they are the arbiters of the Truth. We can share in that Truth, but we must hear and learn that Truth first.
The second type, the oral gospel is one that all mankind regardless of gender should be promoting. They hear the canonical Gospel, they learn from it and they go out and spread that message. That spreading is the oral gospel.
To confuse the two is to say that women have the right to "proclaim the gospel." Not so. Men don't have the right to "proclaim the gospel" unless they are ordained. So, I don't see where the problem is. Both men and women are supposed to take the oral gospel out and bring it to the world in how they live and in what they do.
Ultimately, your premise lies in a false one...there is an obstacle in ordaining women. It lies the fact that the Church can't make the ordination of women valid. Men can, but there is nothing sacramental in men's actions if there is nothing to support the action sacramentally. The Church has been clear from the beginning that the ordination of women is not applicable.
His response:
My response (and the zinger is contained herein):
I've read most of it. The problem is that there is NOTHING conclusive to support ordination of women to the diaconate. Nothing. One can say that women were employed to help baptize women, but there is NOTHING to say that there was an ordination to take place.
Insofar as that is the case, logic dictates that if a woman is not able to be ordained a priest, then she cannot be ordained a deacon. The Church cannot make something happen which cannot happen.
This is confirmed by Vatican Council II which through thorough study Paul VI allowed for celibate and married men to be ordained. At that time, there was no indication that women would be allowed to approach orders, for the very same reasons I list above.
Canon 835 says that the sanctifying office is principally completed by the bishop. If Sacred Orders are completed in the bishop and a woman cannot become a bishop, how is that supportable, from a logical or theological position?
So, to speak to your points:
1. There is no conclusive evidence to support "ordination." The term διάκονος in Greek does not assume ordination. It assumes ministry.
2. There is a theological obstacle insofar as the admitting to Sacred Orders is completed in consecration/ordination to the Episcopate. This is not possible for a woman and is a huge theological obstacle.
3. Because there is no conclusive evidence to support ordination and there is a theological obstacle, then by pure logic, there is a dubium to admit women to Orders.
4. I mean this with all respect....so what? Your two main points are indefensible theologically and philosophically; as well as your opinion being simply an opinion.If you can theologically clear the obstacle presented and if you can show conclusively that women were ordained, I'll revisit my position. But showing the few heretical sects as being a proof will not suffice.
This is pretty laughable to be honest...but the jist of all of this is contained herewithin, my response to the associate editor:
I respect your position. Please know that I will abide by that rule going forward. However, I do hope that you're taking the very same measures with those who are treating me in kind. I have been treated with great consternation by more than a few and have voiced my concerns to you and other "leaders" of the comboxes to no return correspondence that it has been addressed.
I would hope that if you value consistency and honesty that you will follow through on my previous requests, if you have not already and limit those who have been antagonistic toward me in the very same way.
As I said, I will restrict my postings to 5 per day, but be assured that I hope that you hold all of your readers to the same level of scrutiny.
Thank you,
Now, all of this is in light of a couple of things...this was posted in direct response to me in the same combox;
Dear Andy,It has come to my attention that your commenting on our website has gotten a little out of control. While we respect a variety of opinions on church matters and certainly want all voices to be heard, you are disguising your comments as respectful by simply writing, “I mean this respectfully,” when you immediately follow this remark with a statement such as “So what?” or “You’re wrong.” While we’re glad to have passionate and even somewhat heated conversations on our website, your commenting has dominated the conversation as you continuously attempt to silence others by always having the last word and telling them when they’re simply wrong about matters that actually are contested. Part of our duty as Christians is to listen, and I’m afraid that your responses are not reflecting this call at all.I’m sure this isn’t a pleasant to hear and you likely disagree with me. However, as the one who has to control the level of conversation on our site, I have to ask you to limit your comments to 5 per day. Please note that I’m not banning you from our site. Your voice is still valued. However, I hope that that this limit will help you to be more considerate and wise about how and where you choose to comment. If you are unable to stick to this limit, I will have to take more restrictive measures.Thanks,
While the associate editor (I feel very special) thinks it isn't pleasant to hear, which it isn't, here is the exchange which prompted this...btw, the exchange wasn't with just any poster in the comboxes, it was with a blogger for US Catholic who was commenting....His (that's right, his) repsonse:
In Dr Zagano's defense, I think that the church's proclamation of the gospel is indeed impeded by the fact that women do not proclaim it "officially"--indeed have been barred from preaching homilies at Mass, even. That's not the same as saying a woman is better than a man, just that the gospel isn't getting its fullest possible proclamation--an analysis I think is dead on.
I think it's a major stretch to say that Jesus instituted the three-fold pattern of orders--especially since for centuries there were seven holy orders! And if you don't think women were really "ordained" to the diaconate, you'd have to say the same of the men, since the ordinations appear together in the ancient liturgical books.
My response:
I don't follow your logic. How is a woman not proclaiming the Gospel at Mass or preaching a homily "impeding" the message that a priest (or in some cases a deacon) would do anyway?
Don't women "preach" the Gospel by how they live? Isn't that the bigger message. I hear all the time that it isn't about what one hears in the homily, but how one lives his life after the homily is what REALLY matters. Is that not the case?
I think that there is a double standard. I think that some women want to have their cake and eat it too. Not all, but some.
Regardless of that, I just don't see how your logic pans out on this.
His response:
Because I think a woman would proclaim the gospel differently than a man, and so would open new meanings to the gospel message. If you think the gospel is a set or principles or something, I imagine you would not agree. But if you think that the gospel is an encounter with God, then it seems obvious to me that we would want as many perspectives on the gospel as humanly possible.My repsonse:
The other "impediment" is evangelical: In a world that is coming more and more to the realization that women should share equally in all roles in society, a church that insists its message can only be announced liturgically by men is making it hard for contemporary people to hear the message. I think the fact that the church has no ordained women at all gets in the way of people hearing the gospel (because they think the church is sexist.) If there is no obstacle in tradition to the ordination of women deacons--and I think it obvious there is not--then we should ordain them for that reason alone.
This isn't about what you think though. If it were merely that, then the answer would be easy. So, you have an opinion, as a Catholic, it must conform to Catholic teaching on Catholic matters. That is how we assent our wills.
The Gospel in the context that you are speaking of is a written record of Christ's deeds. If you want a more ethereal view of what the Gospel is, I would say that it is the reward of good tidings.
Now, all that being said, every member of the Church has the right to that being brought to them in an orthodox way. But we're talking about the canonical gospels. There is a second "form" of Gospel, the oral gospel, which we are all implored to pass along.
The proclamation of the canonical Gospels is the privy of the ministerial priesthood. It is proclaimed and it is preached by the ministerial priesthood, because they are the arbiters of the Truth. We can share in that Truth, but we must hear and learn that Truth first.
The second type, the oral gospel is one that all mankind regardless of gender should be promoting. They hear the canonical Gospel, they learn from it and they go out and spread that message. That spreading is the oral gospel.
To confuse the two is to say that women have the right to "proclaim the gospel." Not so. Men don't have the right to "proclaim the gospel" unless they are ordained. So, I don't see where the problem is. Both men and women are supposed to take the oral gospel out and bring it to the world in how they live and in what they do.
Ultimately, your premise lies in a false one...there is an obstacle in ordaining women. It lies the fact that the Church can't make the ordination of women valid. Men can, but there is nothing sacramental in men's actions if there is nothing to support the action sacramentally. The Church has been clear from the beginning that the ordination of women is not applicable.
His response:
Andy, there is no doctrinal teaching against the ordination of women to the diaconate; there is a dispute about how to read the substantial evidence regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate. As it stands, the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate is simply a matter of law, and Catholics are free to think what they want about the matter. My considered opinion is that women (1) were ordained to the diaconate in certain places in the church, both East and West; (2) there is no theological obstacle in the church's current teaching regarding the diaconate to admitting woman; (3) therefore women can be ordained as deacons; and (4) I think it would be fitting and helpful to do so.
My response (and the zinger is contained herein):
I've read most of it. The problem is that there is NOTHING conclusive to support ordination of women to the diaconate. Nothing. One can say that women were employed to help baptize women, but there is NOTHING to say that there was an ordination to take place.
Insofar as that is the case, logic dictates that if a woman is not able to be ordained a priest, then she cannot be ordained a deacon. The Church cannot make something happen which cannot happen.
This is confirmed by Vatican Council II which through thorough study Paul VI allowed for celibate and married men to be ordained. At that time, there was no indication that women would be allowed to approach orders, for the very same reasons I list above.
Canon 835 says that the sanctifying office is principally completed by the bishop. If Sacred Orders are completed in the bishop and a woman cannot become a bishop, how is that supportable, from a logical or theological position?
So, to speak to your points:
1. There is no conclusive evidence to support "ordination." The term διάκονος in Greek does not assume ordination. It assumes ministry.
2. There is a theological obstacle insofar as the admitting to Sacred Orders is completed in consecration/ordination to the Episcopate. This is not possible for a woman and is a huge theological obstacle.
3. Because there is no conclusive evidence to support ordination and there is a theological obstacle, then by pure logic, there is a dubium to admit women to Orders.
4. I mean this with all respect....so what? Your two main points are indefensible theologically and philosophically; as well as your opinion being simply an opinion.If you can theologically clear the obstacle presented and if you can show conclusively that women were ordained, I'll revisit my position. But showing the few heretical sects as being a proof will not suffice.
This is pretty laughable to be honest...but the jist of all of this is contained herewithin, my response to the associate editor:
I respect your position. Please know that I will abide by that rule going forward. However, I do hope that you're taking the very same measures with those who are treating me in kind. I have been treated with great consternation by more than a few and have voiced my concerns to you and other "leaders" of the comboxes to no return correspondence that it has been addressed.
I would hope that if you value consistency and honesty that you will follow through on my previous requests, if you have not already and limit those who have been antagonistic toward me in the very same way.
As I said, I will restrict my postings to 5 per day, but be assured that I hope that you hold all of your readers to the same level of scrutiny.
Thank you,
Now, all of this is in light of a couple of things...this was posted in direct response to me in the same combox;
Women's Ordination....Really, This Is Still Going On....
I've been in a conversation recently about women's ordination. But not to the priesthood. No, they're taking another angle at it now. Now they're talking about the diaconate. I think that they think if they can enter into Orders through the diaconate, that they will then start with the priestly ordination argument again, saying something to the effect of this, "Well see, we're able to be deacons. If we can be deacons, why can't we be priests? It only follows logically that if we can be deacons, we can be priests..." yadda, yadda, yadda.
What they refuse to understand is that ordination is closed to women at all levels. The diaconate and priestly ordinations are closely related and it is fulfilled in the consecration of a bishop. I also think that the so-called elimination of ordinations to the minor orders has hurt the concept of Holy Orders. I say so-called, because since 1972-1976, the SSPX (while legitimate) was ordaining according to the 1962 (and previous) books with full recognitio of the Holy See. From 1988 to the present, the FSSP and traditional orders such as the ICRSS have been ordaining minor orders, and since 2007 any bishop may ordain minor orders according to the 1962
books.
This begs the question then, if ordination is open to women in the Novus Ordo, wouldn't it have to be open to them in the 1962 books? And it is strictly forbidden in the 1962 books, so...well, that is one argument.
Going forward this post may seem a little disjointed because I'm going to present it in more of a "stream of consciousness" posting as opposed to linear. So, please read along and think of it as me talking to you directly as opposed to trying to map it out in text. I don't do this very often, but I think that for this I'll give it a try.
The problem is that there is NOTHING conclusive to support ordination of women to the diaconate. Nothing. One can say that women were employed to help baptize women, but there is NOTHING to say that there was an ordination to take place.
Insofar as that is the case, logic dictates that if a woman is not able to be ordained a priest, then she cannot be ordained a deacon. The Church cannot make something happen which cannot happen.
This is confirmed by Vatican Council II which through thorough study Paul VI allowed for celibate and married men to be ordained. At that time, there was no indication that women would be allowed to approach orders, for the very same reasons I list above.
Canon 835 says that the sanctifying office is principally completed by the bishop. If Sacred Orders are completed in the bishop and a woman cannot become a bishop, how is that supportable, from a logical or theological position?
So, to speak to the major dissenting points:
1. There is no conclusive evidence to support "ordination." The term διάκονος in Greek does not assume ordination. It assumes ministry.
2. There is a theological obstacle insofar as the admitting to Sacred Orders is completed in consecration/ordination to the Episcopate. This is not possible for a woman and is a huge theological obstacle.
3. Because there is no conclusive evidence to support ordination and there is a theological obstacle, then by pure logic, there is a dubium to admit women to Orders.
4. The two main points are indefensible theologically and philosophically; as well as the opinion being simply an opinion. If you can theologically clear the obstacle presented and if you can show conclusively that women were ordained, I'll revisit my position. But showing the few heretical sects as being a proof will not suffice.
-------------------
The fact that we are all one in God's eyes doesn't mean that all vocations are to be the same. Can anyone point me to where the Church has ever taught that?
Being counted among the faithful gains you exactly one thing, being counted among the faithful. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't allow for us to be able to demand/request/implore admittance to anything.
The Church is clear on how vocations are to be viewed, for both men and women. This isn't a matter of dignity, this isn't a matter of power. Those ideals are modern and have been only made manifest since the admittance of women to "ministry" in Protestant ecclesial communions. This is yet another reason why those things which are deigned by man hold very little weight in the economy of Truth which authentically belongs to the Church.
The Church has definitively taught that ordination is not open to women. We are to assent our wills to that. We come to understand it by embracing the teaching of the Church on a rational level.
----------------------
How exactly can the Church be wrong? I'm at a total loss. The Church is not a person. The Church is an entity.
One can say that certain leaders of the Church have been wrong in the past, etc...but one cannot say the Church has been wrong.
Plus, if one believes that Christ is the head of the Church and if one believes that Christ is God, how can God be wrong?
The teaching of the Church doesn't fall on one person, but from the very Tradition of the Church itself. So, it doesn't follow that women are blaming the Church for something it is not capable of doing...Nemo dat non quod habent.
-------------------------
All of the "reasons" some list as valid are human failings not institutional. Man misunderstands interpretation, man is sinful (as it can be pointed out), but that speaks to us, not to the Church.
The Magisterium is also an entity and not an individual either. So, the same position I put forth previously stands with that argument as well.
I constantly talk about the faithful being "empowered." I just don't talk about the faithful usurping power. Being empowered, in an authentic sense, is understanding and participating in their vocation in a way which is consistent with Catholic teaching. I also believe that the hierarchy is empowered with leadership, both spiritual and temporal with regard to the Church, but that is a very limited role and very specific.
So, men and women are not so different. We just have a different understanding of empowerment. I don't mean it to be a societal (in this case, society = Church) liberation, but rather finding freedom within the spirit of the law as applied to the letter of the law. The justification doesn't have to come from me, I know from Tradition that this is the case, the justification must come from you, as your view of "empowerment" is not an authentic understanding what it means to be empowered.
-----------------------------
A point of clarification. The Church ORDAINED porters, lectors, acolytes, exorcists and sub-deacons after their entrance into the clerical state with tonsure, until 1972. At which point the minor orders were suppressed for Novus Ordo installations and the lector and acolyte were then installed, with no entrance into the clerical state until deaconate ordination.
This suppression while still being the norm is now merely one way of looking at ordination. If a man is formed according to the practices of the books of 1962 (which is utterly and completely legitimate), he does in fact still enter the clerical state, he is ORDAINED to the minor orders and this culminates in ordination to the deaconate and ultimately the priesthood.
It is utterly illogical to think that if the books of 1962 still hold force (which they do) that a gender change is somehow available to the books of 1972.
The only way this can be legitimized is a completely fallacious view of the priesthood and the roles one plays in the ministerial priesthood v. the royal priesthood. Admission to the royal priesthood via baptism does not assume that any one person, male or female will be admitted to the ministerial priesthood.
-----------------------------
The idea of having a transitional deaconate is clearly one of understanding that there is a fullness of the episcopacy. If one does not go through the process of ordination without the possibility to become a bishop then what value is there. The Apostles had to go through a similar process whereby they were servants, then they were ministers pro tem, then they were bishops. This is clear in looking at their relationship with Christ, both before, during, and after the PDR.
The idea of being a transitional deacon is very important for one who is studying to become a priest. It teaches the seminarian how to minister, how to serve and how to be charitable. While a layman can certainly do this, having it formalized is certainly a very worthy application. Also, the ordination also solidifies two things, a formal commitment to celibacy and a promise of obedience to his Ordinary.
I think that the biggest travesty is related to this though. I think that the 19 year hiatus from ordaining the minor orders seriously undermined the whole of the ordained ministry, not just the transitional diaconate. The admission of candidates to the clerical state and then ordaining them through the processes seems to be a much more logical step.
I do understand the permanent diaconate. I just don't like it. I think that the idea behind it is illogical. By and large the idea behind the permanent diaconate has failed. The idea that the Church would become inundated with deacons as a "salvation" of vocations simply hasn't come to pass. I would say that by and large it has failed, so much so that one bishop has forbidden his deacons from preaching during the Mass on a regular basis and another has suspended the program in his diocese altogether. The intention of the permanent diaconate wasn't to be a replacement for the priesthood and essentially that is what has been envisioned by those who advocate it. It is seen as an alternative to the priesthood and that neither follows the charism as traditionally understood in the early Church nor is it what Pope Paul VI understood it to be with his promulgation of the motu proprio.
--------------------------------------
So, how do we, as faithful Catholics respond to this:
"After thorough consultation, it was determined that it is not
in the church’s power to ordain women — not just that it won’t, but
that it can’t. There is nothing the church can do to “make” the
ordination of women valid.
This is because the Catholic Church does not manufacture what is true, but looks at the way things are, the way God has given them to us.
Over time, the question “So, do you want to be a priest?” has become, to me, offensive.
It implies that the ordained ministry is the only way to be “in” the
church, and that my current roles as a lay Catholic woman are somehow
inadequate."
--Katherine Thomas
It sure seems that Ms. Thomas is on to something. It sure seems to me that by "pushing" for the ordination of women to any ministry is pigeon holing women? Why would a woman of Ms. Zagano's obvious liberal acumen want to pigeon hole women into only being truly relevant if they be ordained? It sure seems to be a smack in the face of authentic diversity.
-------------------------------------
Lincoln is the only diocese I know of that has not allowed females to serve at the altar.
And how can anyone possibly be serious in any contention that women are not referenced in the liturgy. Women are lectors and women are servers and women are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Women serve as ushers, women bring up the gifts, women are organists (and god forbid, piano players) and women are cantors. Women make up large parts of choirs. Often to the purposeful exclusion of men.
Perhaps it is because they want to have their cake and eat it too?
I really think that they need to check their view over. Women are not excluded, and I even daresay that if they would buck up and DEMAND that their pastor pray the first Eucharistic prayer, they'll see several invocations of women. Actually, I think that realistically if they DEMAND that their pastor pray the Eucharistic Prayer I, they'll see 8 specific mentions of women proper and we can assume that the priest and the faithful will pray for females during the two mementos (of the living and of the dead).
So, if they REALLY want to be inclusive of women, then be inclusive and stop complaining about things which are an illusion. The Church includes women in her formal prayers, but it is so rarely used that most women don't realize the importance that the Church put on women in her formal prayers.
As an aside...how about they start championing the rosary, if they don't already....it is a great laudatory prayer for women, invoking the Blessed Virgin 154 times. But it is so much more...But hey, we have to start somewhere, right?
What they refuse to understand is that ordination is closed to women at all levels. The diaconate and priestly ordinations are closely related and it is fulfilled in the consecration of a bishop. I also think that the so-called elimination of ordinations to the minor orders has hurt the concept of Holy Orders. I say so-called, because since 1972-1976, the SSPX (while legitimate) was ordaining according to the 1962 (and previous) books with full recognitio of the Holy See. From 1988 to the present, the FSSP and traditional orders such as the ICRSS have been ordaining minor orders, and since 2007 any bishop may ordain minor orders according to the 1962
books.
This begs the question then, if ordination is open to women in the Novus Ordo, wouldn't it have to be open to them in the 1962 books? And it is strictly forbidden in the 1962 books, so...well, that is one argument.
Going forward this post may seem a little disjointed because I'm going to present it in more of a "stream of consciousness" posting as opposed to linear. So, please read along and think of it as me talking to you directly as opposed to trying to map it out in text. I don't do this very often, but I think that for this I'll give it a try.
The problem is that there is NOTHING conclusive to support ordination of women to the diaconate. Nothing. One can say that women were employed to help baptize women, but there is NOTHING to say that there was an ordination to take place.
Insofar as that is the case, logic dictates that if a woman is not able to be ordained a priest, then she cannot be ordained a deacon. The Church cannot make something happen which cannot happen.
This is confirmed by Vatican Council II which through thorough study Paul VI allowed for celibate and married men to be ordained. At that time, there was no indication that women would be allowed to approach orders, for the very same reasons I list above.
Canon 835 says that the sanctifying office is principally completed by the bishop. If Sacred Orders are completed in the bishop and a woman cannot become a bishop, how is that supportable, from a logical or theological position?
So, to speak to the major dissenting points:
1. There is no conclusive evidence to support "ordination." The term διάκονος in Greek does not assume ordination. It assumes ministry.
2. There is a theological obstacle insofar as the admitting to Sacred Orders is completed in consecration/ordination to the Episcopate. This is not possible for a woman and is a huge theological obstacle.
3. Because there is no conclusive evidence to support ordination and there is a theological obstacle, then by pure logic, there is a dubium to admit women to Orders.
4. The two main points are indefensible theologically and philosophically; as well as the opinion being simply an opinion. If you can theologically clear the obstacle presented and if you can show conclusively that women were ordained, I'll revisit my position. But showing the few heretical sects as being a proof will not suffice.
-------------------
The fact that we are all one in God's eyes doesn't mean that all vocations are to be the same. Can anyone point me to where the Church has ever taught that?
Being counted among the faithful gains you exactly one thing, being counted among the faithful. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't allow for us to be able to demand/request/implore admittance to anything.
The Church is clear on how vocations are to be viewed, for both men and women. This isn't a matter of dignity, this isn't a matter of power. Those ideals are modern and have been only made manifest since the admittance of women to "ministry" in Protestant ecclesial communions. This is yet another reason why those things which are deigned by man hold very little weight in the economy of Truth which authentically belongs to the Church.
The Church has definitively taught that ordination is not open to women. We are to assent our wills to that. We come to understand it by embracing the teaching of the Church on a rational level.
----------------------
How exactly can the Church be wrong? I'm at a total loss. The Church is not a person. The Church is an entity.
One can say that certain leaders of the Church have been wrong in the past, etc...but one cannot say the Church has been wrong.
Plus, if one believes that Christ is the head of the Church and if one believes that Christ is God, how can God be wrong?
The teaching of the Church doesn't fall on one person, but from the very Tradition of the Church itself. So, it doesn't follow that women are blaming the Church for something it is not capable of doing...Nemo dat non quod habent.
-------------------------
All of the "reasons" some list as valid are human failings not institutional. Man misunderstands interpretation, man is sinful (as it can be pointed out), but that speaks to us, not to the Church.
The Magisterium is also an entity and not an individual either. So, the same position I put forth previously stands with that argument as well.
I constantly talk about the faithful being "empowered." I just don't talk about the faithful usurping power. Being empowered, in an authentic sense, is understanding and participating in their vocation in a way which is consistent with Catholic teaching. I also believe that the hierarchy is empowered with leadership, both spiritual and temporal with regard to the Church, but that is a very limited role and very specific.
So, men and women are not so different. We just have a different understanding of empowerment. I don't mean it to be a societal (in this case, society = Church) liberation, but rather finding freedom within the spirit of the law as applied to the letter of the law. The justification doesn't have to come from me, I know from Tradition that this is the case, the justification must come from you, as your view of "empowerment" is not an authentic understanding what it means to be empowered.
-----------------------------
A point of clarification. The Church ORDAINED porters, lectors, acolytes, exorcists and sub-deacons after their entrance into the clerical state with tonsure, until 1972. At which point the minor orders were suppressed for Novus Ordo installations and the lector and acolyte were then installed, with no entrance into the clerical state until deaconate ordination.
This suppression while still being the norm is now merely one way of looking at ordination. If a man is formed according to the practices of the books of 1962 (which is utterly and completely legitimate), he does in fact still enter the clerical state, he is ORDAINED to the minor orders and this culminates in ordination to the deaconate and ultimately the priesthood.
It is utterly illogical to think that if the books of 1962 still hold force (which they do) that a gender change is somehow available to the books of 1972.
The only way this can be legitimized is a completely fallacious view of the priesthood and the roles one plays in the ministerial priesthood v. the royal priesthood. Admission to the royal priesthood via baptism does not assume that any one person, male or female will be admitted to the ministerial priesthood.
-----------------------------
The idea of having a transitional deaconate is clearly one of understanding that there is a fullness of the episcopacy. If one does not go through the process of ordination without the possibility to become a bishop then what value is there. The Apostles had to go through a similar process whereby they were servants, then they were ministers pro tem, then they were bishops. This is clear in looking at their relationship with Christ, both before, during, and after the PDR.
The idea of being a transitional deacon is very important for one who is studying to become a priest. It teaches the seminarian how to minister, how to serve and how to be charitable. While a layman can certainly do this, having it formalized is certainly a very worthy application. Also, the ordination also solidifies two things, a formal commitment to celibacy and a promise of obedience to his Ordinary.
I think that the biggest travesty is related to this though. I think that the 19 year hiatus from ordaining the minor orders seriously undermined the whole of the ordained ministry, not just the transitional diaconate. The admission of candidates to the clerical state and then ordaining them through the processes seems to be a much more logical step.
I do understand the permanent diaconate. I just don't like it. I think that the idea behind it is illogical. By and large the idea behind the permanent diaconate has failed. The idea that the Church would become inundated with deacons as a "salvation" of vocations simply hasn't come to pass. I would say that by and large it has failed, so much so that one bishop has forbidden his deacons from preaching during the Mass on a regular basis and another has suspended the program in his diocese altogether. The intention of the permanent diaconate wasn't to be a replacement for the priesthood and essentially that is what has been envisioned by those who advocate it. It is seen as an alternative to the priesthood and that neither follows the charism as traditionally understood in the early Church nor is it what Pope Paul VI understood it to be with his promulgation of the motu proprio.
--------------------------------------
So, how do we, as faithful Catholics respond to this:
"After thorough consultation, it was determined that it is not
in the church’s power to ordain women — not just that it won’t, but
that it can’t. There is nothing the church can do to “make” the
ordination of women valid.
This is because the Catholic Church does not manufacture what is true, but looks at the way things are, the way God has given them to us.
Over time, the question “So, do you want to be a priest?” has become, to me, offensive.
It implies that the ordained ministry is the only way to be “in” the
church, and that my current roles as a lay Catholic woman are somehow
inadequate."
--Katherine Thomas
It sure seems that Ms. Thomas is on to something. It sure seems to me that by "pushing" for the ordination of women to any ministry is pigeon holing women? Why would a woman of Ms. Zagano's obvious liberal acumen want to pigeon hole women into only being truly relevant if they be ordained? It sure seems to be a smack in the face of authentic diversity.
-------------------------------------
Lincoln is the only diocese I know of that has not allowed females to serve at the altar.
And how can anyone possibly be serious in any contention that women are not referenced in the liturgy. Women are lectors and women are servers and women are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Women serve as ushers, women bring up the gifts, women are organists (and god forbid, piano players) and women are cantors. Women make up large parts of choirs. Often to the purposeful exclusion of men.
Perhaps it is because they want to have their cake and eat it too?
I really think that they need to check their view over. Women are not excluded, and I even daresay that if they would buck up and DEMAND that their pastor pray the first Eucharistic prayer, they'll see several invocations of women. Actually, I think that realistically if they DEMAND that their pastor pray the Eucharistic Prayer I, they'll see 8 specific mentions of women proper and we can assume that the priest and the faithful will pray for females during the two mementos (of the living and of the dead).
So, if they REALLY want to be inclusive of women, then be inclusive and stop complaining about things which are an illusion. The Church includes women in her formal prayers, but it is so rarely used that most women don't realize the importance that the Church put on women in her formal prayers.
As an aside...how about they start championing the rosary, if they don't already....it is a great laudatory prayer for women, invoking the Blessed Virgin 154 times. But it is so much more...But hey, we have to start somewhere, right?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Subjectivity...
I've commented on this before. I've talked about this before. I think that it cannot be discussed enough, because it is wrong headed thinking when it comes to a proper understanding of how to apply oneself to Holy Mother Church.
My friend, Fr. Johnathin Choiri Seraiah, over at The Maccabean has this to say:
Fr. Seraiah is rector of St. Aidan's Anglican Church in Des Moines, IA. Soon, he and the entire parish will be accepted into the Church. Please pray for them.
My friend, Fr. Johnathin Choiri Seraiah, over at The Maccabean has this to say:
Subjectively Attached
Pope John Paul II:An increasing number of Christians seem to have a reduced sensitivity to the universality and objectivity of the doctrine of the faith because they are subjectively attached to what pleases them; to what corresponds to their own experience; and to what does not impinge on their own habits.I could write volumes on this quote, and talk for literally hours on end about it. It focuses into one concise statement the root of the majority of problems that exist in the Church today. Especially in what is, at present, plaguing the Church throughout the world. This "individualism" (for want of a more comprehensive term) is the cause of priestly sexual abuse, poor (or nonexistent) episcopal oversight, apathy among the laity, carelessness in liturgical celebrations, and the list could go on. Meditation on each of the phrases would do all of us a world of spiritual good. I am not about to try to improve upon the words of Blessed John Paul II, but I would like to comment on them. In doing so, I hope to enable you to apply what he said to your own personal spiritual state. Let me break it down into three basic points.
First, the subjective attachment to that which pleases self. In itself, it is not wrong to seek to please self. After all, this is at the very core of what we are doing when we seek salvation in Christ. We want to be saved from damnation and granted a place in the presence of God (because Hell is not a pleasing place to go). Yet, when our attachments become subjective they get clouded. It is not easy to find an objective attachment to things that please self, but it is worth it. Think of the simple act of eating. Objective attachment to the pleasure of eating would lead one to recognize that food is good for health, and necessary for survival. This allows one to appreciate the enjoyment of certain flavors; nothing wrong there. Subjective attachment to food, however, leads one to see the enjoyment of the taste of the food as a good in itself. Thus, the individual can quickly degenerate into gluttony (as well as a host of other culinary sins). Subjectively, the person thinks of his enjoyment of the food as "I like it", and that alone. That leads to other subjectivist problems.
Consider the following subjective errors: "I attend a traditional liturgy because I enjoy the way it feels"; "I watch that movie because I like the characters"; "I listen to that music because it has a nice beat". I could add many more to the list, but it should be obvious how the subjective nature of these attachments is centered on the person's pleasure, and thus excludes the more important questions. To use the examples above, we need to ask things such as, "is the traditional liturgy inherently better, even if it makes you feel bad?" (I think it is, but that is the subject of another post); "does the movie teach a philosophy that is contrary to the Christian faith?" (many do); and "what is the message within the lyrics of the music and what does the morality (or lack thereof) of the musicians say about the music they write?" (they are related subjects).
Second, the subjective attachment to that which corresponds to personal experience. In Protestant circles, if one studies deeply enough, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority of splits and divisions (often called denominations) resulted from one person saying that his experience is the only right way, and that this is what everyone else needs to experience. "The way that it happened to me is correct [determined by personal choice] therefore it must be correct for everyone else also." Yet, this is not only present in Protestant circles. I have met more than a handful of Catholics and Anglicans who have the same perspective on their personal experiences. "If it is not the way I am used to it, then it must be wrong." Something other than what your experience is may very well be wrong, but it is not wrong merely because it is different from your experience. The subjective attachment to one's personal experience makes this hard (if not impossible) to see.
This attachment is seen in many of the different particulars of life that we are used to. I am very eclectic with the music that I listen to; from rock, to classical, to soft jazz, to Celtic folk music. Yet, there are some styles of music that make me wish that I was deaf. So the question would be, is the attachment to "personal experience" here one of objective quality or a subjective comfort zone? Another example can be seen in ecclesiastical matters. Married priests are not the common "personal experience" of most Latin Rite Catholics (though common to all Anglicans). Yet, Eastern rite Catholics are very used to the concept of a married priesthood. This (by itself) does not make it either right or wrong; it merely shows that not everyone's personal experience is the same. Thus, for a Catholic to reject the married priesthood based on the fact that it is not his own personal experience is a grave error; and in the same way, for an Anglican to demand the married priesthood because it fits with his personal experience is equally errant. Meaning, therefore, that the person's attachment to the personal experience is subjective rather than objective. An objective attachment would sound like this, "This is what I am used to and I appreciate it, but I acknowledge that my experience does not represent the totality of what is good and right in the world."
Third, the subjective attachment to that which does not impinge on personal habits. We get used to certain things, and those things influence greatly how we look at the world. I am used to a certain routine in the evening; children's bedtimes, time alone with my wife, time for work after everyone else is asleep. Those experiences influence my emotions and thoughts. When those things are disrupted, it changes my attitude. Are they disrupted for normally expected things (like a call from a parishioner in need), or are they disrupted for extraordinary occurrences that are unexpected (like children getting sick)? How we respond to the disruptions shows the type of attachment we have. If I were subjectively attached to what my personal experience is, then I will get very defensive of those things, and even angry when something changes.
What are your habits in regard to personal or family prayer? Are there things that can impinge on those habits? Which habits are "untouchable"? The time of prayer? The words of the prayer? The quantity of the prayers? Similarly, if there is a habit of watching or attending a football game, how do you deal with disruptions? What happens if a solemnity falls on that day and the service is at the same time as the game? Many today would choose in favor of the game and skip Mass. What happens if God throws a wrench into your life and your personal habits are completely disrupted? If you come unglued as a result, then you likely have a subjective attachment to your personal habits. In this state of mind, it is easy to attach oneself to those things that do not touch that which you are used to doing, but when something comes to that "no-man's-zone", there are problems for all involved.
Subjectivism occurs. We cannot avoid it perfectly (and in some areas it does not matter--like flavors of ice cream), yet we are called to be careful of it. Surrendering to it is exactly what the Apostle Paul warned us about in many ways (e.g. 1 Cor 6:12). Seeking to understand the world more objectively helps us to avoid the horrible temptation of individualism. We are individuals, but individualism makes us see our individual nature as an ultimate good that is incorruptible (as the Enlightenment heresy that "man is the measure of all things"). Where do we go for objective truth then? Protestants are forced to go to a subjective determination of what is objective (often called "private interpretation"), and pagans will often go so far as to say that there is no objective truth (which is a self-contradiction). Only in the infallible magisterium of the Church can we find absolute and reliable objective truth, and only by Christ is that truth protected perfectly, for He Himself is that very same Truth.
Fr. Seraiah is rector of St. Aidan's Anglican Church in Des Moines, IA. Soon, he and the entire parish will be accepted into the Church. Please pray for them.
A Rose By Any Other Name....
One of the biggest peeves I have is when anyone refers to rose vestments as pink. The liturgical color of Rose is not, I repeat NOT pink. While some may think it's funny, or some may think that it's cute, the reality is twofold.
1) Liturgically it is incorrect. I will go into that shortly.
2) It is yet another ploy to emasculate the priesthood. Men wearing pink is not generally thought of as being masculine, yet so many priests and faithful are quick and wont to try to diffuse this by making light of it.
Bottom line, it's not funny. Those of us who are part of, or want to be part of the new liturgical movement, which is attempting to bring the Church back into a hermeneutic of continuity, must realize that while certain things are funny and can be made light of, anything which disparages a priest, unjustly is simply bad form.
So, as we look at the various blog posts around in the last couple of days, we see an abundance of "pink" references. THE LITURGICAL COLOR IS ROSE, NOT PINK!!!!!
It is offensive and it is incorrect to assume so. I don't know if I can say it enough, so I won't try to edit my outbursts about it in this post.
The Rose vestment serves a very specific purpose, so specific in fact that it is worn only twice a year. It is worn at the halfway point of Lent on Laetare Sunday and it is worn at the halfway point of Advent on Gaudete Sunday. The names of the Sunday's are based upon the Introit of the day. What is an Introit, you ask? Well, if your pastors were celebrating Holy Mass properly you'd know. As it is, the Introit is the opening verse of Holy Mass. That simple. By and large most Novus Ordo parishes have abandoned the Introit in favor of the more Protestant notion of using a hymn to begin Holy Mass, which does not have an Asperges.
I digress....
Rose vestments are called Rose, due to the Latin name rosacea. As for the timing, it is the halfway point of the season. It marks the time when we begin to see the light of the Joy which impending. The liturgical color Rose is a sign of hope. During Advent, we know that Rose means the Lord is near. It is a herald in the night, calling us to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.
If violet represents the darkness of night and preparation for that which we do not yet have, Rose is the dawn right before the light. It is that time when the night is passing and the day is upon us. We know that it is not quite here, but that the joyful coming is imminent. This is why Rose is worn.
The Church embraces all of our senses in the liturgical action, in this case, it invokes our sense of sight. We see the clear break from the darkness of violet and we see the beginnings of light, which is only a short time off.
When we look at Rose vestments, we should not see pink, but rather we should see hope. We should not see something which is negative in it's application (ie. the emasculation of the priesthood), but rather we should see daybreak. To assume that there is something as sinister as a homosexual undertone or something as diabolical as the emasculation of the priesthood is wrong. That just is not the case. The liturgical color is not pink. It is Rose.
1) Liturgically it is incorrect. I will go into that shortly.
2) It is yet another ploy to emasculate the priesthood. Men wearing pink is not generally thought of as being masculine, yet so many priests and faithful are quick and wont to try to diffuse this by making light of it.
Bottom line, it's not funny. Those of us who are part of, or want to be part of the new liturgical movement, which is attempting to bring the Church back into a hermeneutic of continuity, must realize that while certain things are funny and can be made light of, anything which disparages a priest, unjustly is simply bad form.
So, as we look at the various blog posts around in the last couple of days, we see an abundance of "pink" references. THE LITURGICAL COLOR IS ROSE, NOT PINK!!!!!
It is offensive and it is incorrect to assume so. I don't know if I can say it enough, so I won't try to edit my outbursts about it in this post.
The Rose vestment serves a very specific purpose, so specific in fact that it is worn only twice a year. It is worn at the halfway point of Lent on Laetare Sunday and it is worn at the halfway point of Advent on Gaudete Sunday. The names of the Sunday's are based upon the Introit of the day. What is an Introit, you ask? Well, if your pastors were celebrating Holy Mass properly you'd know. As it is, the Introit is the opening verse of Holy Mass. That simple. By and large most Novus Ordo parishes have abandoned the Introit in favor of the more Protestant notion of using a hymn to begin Holy Mass, which does not have an Asperges.
I digress....
Rose vestments are called Rose, due to the Latin name rosacea. As for the timing, it is the halfway point of the season. It marks the time when we begin to see the light of the Joy which impending. The liturgical color Rose is a sign of hope. During Advent, we know that Rose means the Lord is near. It is a herald in the night, calling us to be prepared for the coming of the Lord.
If violet represents the darkness of night and preparation for that which we do not yet have, Rose is the dawn right before the light. It is that time when the night is passing and the day is upon us. We know that it is not quite here, but that the joyful coming is imminent. This is why Rose is worn.
The Church embraces all of our senses in the liturgical action, in this case, it invokes our sense of sight. We see the clear break from the darkness of violet and we see the beginnings of light, which is only a short time off.
When we look at Rose vestments, we should not see pink, but rather we should see hope. We should not see something which is negative in it's application (ie. the emasculation of the priesthood), but rather we should see daybreak. To assume that there is something as sinister as a homosexual undertone or something as diabolical as the emasculation of the priesthood is wrong. That just is not the case. The liturgical color is not pink. It is Rose.
Friday, December 9, 2011
What Traddys Can and Should Know About the Movement....
The movement afoot isn't about any one person. It isn't about me. It isn't about you. It isn't about Father who is celebrating Holy Mass. It is about knowing the truth of Catholicism. How we apply the consistent teachings of Holy Mother Church to today. One of the great faults of the ecclesiology which followed Vatican Council II is that it created cults of personality. This is a Protestant idea. The Church is about knowing the truth and assenting one's will to it. Far too often since the 1970s we've seen priests take on cults of personality. A clear example is Fr. Pfleger in Chicago. It isn't a particular brand of Catholicism and it isn't a particular brand of spirituality which exists. The diversity of the Church is made manifest in that regardless of the celebrant, homilist or theologian the truth of Catholicism is most important.
As I was driving back, I was listening to the podcast of Patrick Madrid. He was interviewing, Francis Card. Arinze. His Eminence made a very clear statement, it is the Church we should be concerned with. Bishops will come and go. Popes will come and go. Priests will come and go. The Church remains. When we approach the altar rail we should remember that.
I think there is great wisdom in that. Far too often we put our eggs into the so-called clerical basket. I have a friend from my days in the Cities who has made it a habit to befriend and support (prayerfully and sometimes with a meal or a small gift) seminarians. He has done this with many over the years. He doesn't expect much in return, but he does expect the friendship to remain. Now, he is quirky. He has spent his entire life taking care of his mother (who recently passed away, at age 90) and brother who (at age 53) has Down's Syndrome. He never married and he lived at home his entire life. As it is, the majority of the time these seminarians are ordained and they completely forget about my friend. Some stick around for a few years, but by and large they pass him by. This is the great sadness of his life. He feels betrayed and he feels abandoned by these men. He has a point, to a point.
The reality is this....priests come and go. That is part of their vocation. We need to be prepared to let priests come and let priests go. Their life is hard enough, we don't need to be complicating it with our own worries and our own "dramas."
As traditionalists, we have a very hard job ahead of us. It is going to fall on us to correct the erroneous mentalities which have dominated the landscape since the close of the Council. We have to rely on our priests for the Sacraments and for sound theology. But we need to let them do that and we don't need to be attaching ourselves to them, to the point where we are following them everywhere they go. Look at what it has done to my friend in the Cities. He has a life full of regrets over priests who could not reciprocate.
When we adhere to tradition, we adhere to the Church. We have the right to 4 things:
1. The Mass properly celebrated and authentic worship
2. Proper Ecclesiolgy
3. The Authentic Ordinary Magisterium as has existed from the beginning until today
4. A proper understanding of the Catholic role of Religious Tolerance and what we can do to further that.
Outside of that, any priest, who is orthodox can give us the answers we need. So rather than hanging our hats on a particular priest or priests, we should hang our hat on the Church. In the long run it will allow our priests to do what they were ordained to do and it will allow us to fulfill our mission within Holy Mother Church, which is to promote the four things I just listed. Everything we have is bound there within the Church. If we promote those things, we cannot go wrong....
As I was driving back, I was listening to the podcast of Patrick Madrid. He was interviewing, Francis Card. Arinze. His Eminence made a very clear statement, it is the Church we should be concerned with. Bishops will come and go. Popes will come and go. Priests will come and go. The Church remains. When we approach the altar rail we should remember that.
I think there is great wisdom in that. Far too often we put our eggs into the so-called clerical basket. I have a friend from my days in the Cities who has made it a habit to befriend and support (prayerfully and sometimes with a meal or a small gift) seminarians. He has done this with many over the years. He doesn't expect much in return, but he does expect the friendship to remain. Now, he is quirky. He has spent his entire life taking care of his mother (who recently passed away, at age 90) and brother who (at age 53) has Down's Syndrome. He never married and he lived at home his entire life. As it is, the majority of the time these seminarians are ordained and they completely forget about my friend. Some stick around for a few years, but by and large they pass him by. This is the great sadness of his life. He feels betrayed and he feels abandoned by these men. He has a point, to a point.
The reality is this....priests come and go. That is part of their vocation. We need to be prepared to let priests come and let priests go. Their life is hard enough, we don't need to be complicating it with our own worries and our own "dramas."
As traditionalists, we have a very hard job ahead of us. It is going to fall on us to correct the erroneous mentalities which have dominated the landscape since the close of the Council. We have to rely on our priests for the Sacraments and for sound theology. But we need to let them do that and we don't need to be attaching ourselves to them, to the point where we are following them everywhere they go. Look at what it has done to my friend in the Cities. He has a life full of regrets over priests who could not reciprocate.
When we adhere to tradition, we adhere to the Church. We have the right to 4 things:
1. The Mass properly celebrated and authentic worship
2. Proper Ecclesiolgy
3. The Authentic Ordinary Magisterium as has existed from the beginning until today
4. A proper understanding of the Catholic role of Religious Tolerance and what we can do to further that.
Outside of that, any priest, who is orthodox can give us the answers we need. So rather than hanging our hats on a particular priest or priests, we should hang our hat on the Church. In the long run it will allow our priests to do what they were ordained to do and it will allow us to fulfill our mission within Holy Mother Church, which is to promote the four things I just listed. Everything we have is bound there within the Church. If we promote those things, we cannot go wrong....
Thursday, December 8, 2011
My "Personal" Faith????
I did make a choice to become Catholic. I was 14 days old. That was
the day I was baptized. I became a Catholic that day and as I grew
older I came to understand the importance of the choice made when I was
baptized. I ceased to be a heathen and I was clothed in the eternal
light of Christ in His Church. Surely, you can understand and
appreciate that. As a matter of clarity, there has never been a time in
my life when I thought or recognized otherwise. I am a Catholic.
I am committed to my role as a catechist to Protestants, and other Catholics. I am committed to my role as an ecumenist when I speak to the Orthodox. I am committed in my role as an evangelist when I speak to non-Christians. My "discipleship" as you put it is grounded in a couple of things...1) It is grounded in a proper understanding of Religious Tolerance, to which I just described to you in a nutshell. 2) It is grounded in a proper sense of Ecclesiology which is made manifest through the 2000 year history of the Church. 3) It is grounded in the Mass, authentically celebrated as witnessed by the saints and faithful of the Church from the beginning until today. 4) It is grounded in the Authentic Magisterium of the Church which, by it's union with the Holy Father brings about the salvation of mankind through orthodox theology and right thinking when applied through philosophy.
What I believe is contained in the Faith of the Church. I accept that faith. It isn't a personal choice so much as it is an assent of the will, illuminated by the sacramental graces which have been afforded to me. The Faith of the Church will remain unchanged regardless of my belief, so it is, in my estimation, not my belief, but rather my assent of the will which bolsters my "personal" faith.
I am committed to my role as a catechist to Protestants, and other Catholics. I am committed to my role as an ecumenist when I speak to the Orthodox. I am committed in my role as an evangelist when I speak to non-Christians. My "discipleship" as you put it is grounded in a couple of things...1) It is grounded in a proper understanding of Religious Tolerance, to which I just described to you in a nutshell. 2) It is grounded in a proper sense of Ecclesiology which is made manifest through the 2000 year history of the Church. 3) It is grounded in the Mass, authentically celebrated as witnessed by the saints and faithful of the Church from the beginning until today. 4) It is grounded in the Authentic Magisterium of the Church which, by it's union with the Holy Father brings about the salvation of mankind through orthodox theology and right thinking when applied through philosophy.
What I believe is contained in the Faith of the Church. I accept that faith. It isn't a personal choice so much as it is an assent of the will, illuminated by the sacramental graces which have been afforded to me. The Faith of the Church will remain unchanged regardless of my belief, so it is, in my estimation, not my belief, but rather my assent of the will which bolsters my "personal" faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
So, it certainly seems that there is a bias, considering I have not yet received a response from the associate editor. I would certainly hope that the two posters would receive at the very least same limitations. For what they've said is far more hurtful and slanderous than "...so what?"