Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
She Reached Over and Squeezed Roger's Hand...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
CLASSIFIED ADS
My Friends Jewelry - “Home of the Original Pillow Rosary”: Our Pillow Rosaries are shorter i...(read more)
San Diego - Father Joe's St. Vincent de Paul Village: Help us keep all of our neighbors...(read more)
San Marcos: St. Joseph Academy is a lay run, traditional K-12 school that teaches the C...(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
Montclair 40 Days For Life: Montclair joins 100's of cities across America for 40DaysforLife...(read more)
Fresno: "Latin Mass 101: A Workshop for Curious Catholics": The Fresno Traditional Mass Soci...(read more)
Santa Barbara/Oceanside/Danville: Silent Ignatian retreats, based on the Spiritual...(read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
Cardinal Levada to Nebraska Rick and JLS You have proven nothing with your responses to ... [Doug - 2/8/2010 2:10:25 PM]
Group Assails Mother Teresa Postage Stamp In reply to Woody Guidry (2): On April 4, 2008, this websit... [John F. Maguire - 2/8/2010 2:08:01 PM]
Pointing the media in the wrong direction? Anne T., I see similar things in some of the pompous, arroga... [Ski Ven - 2/8/2010 1:46:07 PM]
Lay woman named to key Vatican job No, I do not believe the sword used by Peter is in any colle... [Tom - 2/8/2010 1:22:38 PM]
eHarmony caves I agree with Pilsun. I would have fought to the end and los... [Isabella - 2/8/2010 12:52:53 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

Neither despotic nor patriarchal – just faithful

The teaching that women cannot be priests is infallible


Notes from a Cultural Madhouse

By Christopher Zehnder


It has been 14 years since Pope John Paul II issued his controversial apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, declaring that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. Though the pope issued the letter “in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance,” doubt about women’s ordination continues unabated. It still seems a matter open to debate.

The decree issued last week by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will do little to still the debate. The decree – that “both he who has attempted to confer holy orders on a woman, and the woman who has attempted to receive the said sacrament, incurs in latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the Apostolic See” – is an important and welcome sign that the Holy See is exercising its role as pastor as well as teacher. However, it will be perceived in many circles as just another exercise of a raw, despotic, “patriarchal” power by the Church, to keep women down.

Many indeed will claim this. But others more moderate will speak in respectful tones of the Church’s “authentic” teaching -- of the need to listen thoughtfully to magisterial teaching -- while they gut the teaching of its authority by appealing to “conscience” and to queerly conceived notions of the “development of doctrine.” Such moderate folk might disapprove, even publicly, of attempts to ordain women, but only because such attempts are “not yet approved” by the Church. The unspoken assumption is, of course, that the Church eventually will approve women’s ordination; that the Church’s teaching that women’s ordination is not possible is a teaching subject to change.

Catholics who so opine like to point to the fact that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an ex cathedra statement. If it is not ex cathedra, so the reasoning goes, it is not infallible. If it is not infallible, it is not irreformable. And if it is not irreformable, it can change. The assumption, of course, in all this is that the only infallible papal teachings are ex cathedra ones.

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, however, has disagreed with this assumption. In a Responsum ad dubium asking whether the teaching on woman’s ordination found in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis “is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith,” the then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith answered, yes. In explanation, he wrote: “This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

In this Responsum, Ratzinger pointed to a little understood truth – that the Church teaches infallibly not only when she speaks through ecumenical councils or through solemn (ex cathedra) papal decrees, but when she exercises the “ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

What is the “ordinary and universal Magisterium”? It is a mode of teaching that involves both the pope and the bishops. It is distinct from an ecumenical council; for, as the Second Vatican Council’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (Lumen Gentium) says, the college of bishops teach infallibly when, “even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

How that agreement manifests itself may vary; the council defines no necessary formula for it. Traditionally, however, reception of a teaching by the bishops of the world, without formal protest, has been seen to constitute agreement. It has never been a matter of tallying votes, as if the bishops formed a parliament. Rather, episcopal approval can be the simple acquiescence of the college or order of bishops to a papal teaching. Whether the bishops personally agree with the pope is of no account. What is important is whether, in their official capacity as the successors of the apostles, the bishops receive papal teaching as the teaching of the Church.

Whatever the personal opinions of each and every bishop on women’s ordination might be, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis has been received by the college of bishops throughout the world. This alone doesn’t mean the document contains infallible teaching; other things must be present – i.e., the teaching must clearly be reiterated teaching with roots in tradition and it must bind the faithful to a definitive assent of faith.

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul clearly indicates that he is teaching in accord with tradition and not introducing an innovation when he says, “The teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents.” Yet, was he binding the faithful to a definitive assent of faith?

This is an important question, for how a pope states a teaching indicates how he expects the teaching to be received. Again, as Lumen Gentium says, “Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” The Council then adds that the pope’s “mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

In saying, "the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will," the Council declares that one is to give his religious submission of mind and will to the degree demanded by the character of a magisterial statement. If the pope is clearly speaking as the successor of St. Peter, declaring a matter having to do with faith and morals, and binding the faithful to a definitive assent to his decision, his “manifest mind and will” is to teach infallibly. For how can one expect another to give a definitive assent of faith to anything but the truth?

If we look at Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, we can see that this is precisely what the pope is doing. The defining paragraph reads thus:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

It is clear from this passage that the pope was addressing a matter of faith (“a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself”) and that he was speaking as the successor to St. Peter (“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”). But the clinching passage is that “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II was exercising his supreme teaching authority in a non-solemn (non-ex cathedra) fashion to define a teaching of the Church; namely, that “the Church has no authority whatsoever” to ordain women to the priesthood.

In declaring this teaching, the pope was only, as we Americans say, “doing his job.” The pope is not the supreme autocrat of the Church; though his authority is absolute, it is only so within limits set by the One whom the pope serves as vicar. One of these limits – and, perhaps, the most important one -- is that of truth, divinely revealed truth. The pope may only declare what he has received as the truth. In the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the truth is that only men may serve as priests. In declaring this, Pope John Paul II was not acting the despot, patriarchal or otherwise, but as a faithful and careful steward and caretaker of his Master’s goods, His gift to His faithful in the Church.


READER COMMENTS

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:19 AM By Patrick
"Neither despotic nor patriarchal." The magisterium is indeed patriarchal, as is the family. Contrary to PC values, "patriarchal" is not a pejorative.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:49 AM By jan wnek
Good article, Christopher...but of course, there's a "fly in the ointment" in the form of Matthew 23:8-12.....note these words of Jesus:"You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ." seems self-explanatory to me....the rest is just verbal sleight-of-hand. burning people at the stake for almost 600 years (1248-Troyes, France to 1828- Valencia, Spain) was also a part of the "magisterium" and, under the terms you state - because it was considered a matter of "faith and morals" - we can continue burning heretics and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit will bless us for doing what Jesus would do......Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 7:30 AM By BobM
Not only is this reinforcement of a good-old-boys precept both despotic and patriarchal, but also contemptible. The flock needs shepherds ... and those of the male persuasion are clearly not signing up in numbers sufficient to meet the need, let alone the needs of the future. Fewer shepherds will ultimately result in fewer sheep, I predict, and sadly ... in my lifetime. Yes, that's a tear running down my cheek as I watch the great ostrich put its head in the sand. My faith is being involuntarily shattered by this ridiculous continuance of an obviously BAD stance. In my mind, the decision makes all others suspect as well by this chauvinistic hierarchy in Rome, and its red-robed promoters and advocates. Maybe the next Pope will see the light. Sure hope we get THAT one soon, while we still have a flock to shepherd.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 8:34 AM By Fr. M.P.
The despotic feminists and their supporters will continue to reject the teachings of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and push their goddess belief system and implement their own church. Feminists, as distinct from those ladies who practice true femininity, want to eliminate all vestiges of fatherhood, which is why they whine about patriarchy and want a "redefinition" of God. This is also why in the media, fathers are usually presented as absent, or idiots, or evil. Feminists desired result is the mother goddess system, which has much in common with witchcraft and wicca. If you see nuns praying in circles and promoting yoga or Gaia, beware! Imagine the matriarchal tyranny in places where they get to power.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 8:38 AM By F. Pimentel-Pinto
This Decree appears to make one thing extremely clear: The Bishops are not successors of the Apostles since they were not consulted and are treated as merely appointed Vatican officials who must follow the official line.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:25 AM By Vincent
Funny thing ... when St Peter (the Rock on which the Church was built, the first Pope) taught that in order for a Gentile to become a Christian he first had to be circumcised, this (infallible?) proclamation was shot down in flames by a certain St Paul ... a Jew who had never even met Christ (save for in his conversion vision)! And so we have the rub ... if a Pontiff is mistaken, his teaching can indeed be overturned!

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:29 AM By Vincent
As His Grace, Bishop Robinson points out in his book "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church", Pope Pelagius II made a statement that had been drafted by a deacon of his household who, on his death, became Pope Gregory the Great. The document said: “Dear brethren, do you think that when Peter was reversing his position, one should have replied: We refuse to hear what you are saying since you previously taught the opposite? In the matter [now under discussion] one position was held while the truth was being sought, and a different position was adopted after truth had been found. Why should a change of position be thought a crime … ? For what is reprehensible is not changing one’s mind, but being fickle in one’s views. If the mind remains unwavering in seeking to know what is right, why should you object when it abandons its ignorance and reformulates its views?” Stirring stuff, methinks!

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:49 AM By betty
Aw shucks,

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:15 PM By BobM
Fr M.P.'s sexist response sounds like he might be frrom Southern California, wherein I, as a San Diegan, watched our local Patriarchs and those in our ugly sister city to the north demonstrate their moral bankruptcy as they clumsily went into and out of fiscal bankruptcy that is crushing many of our Catholic initiatives to assist brethren that need our help ... choosing instead to share halvsies with the legal advisors they surrounded themselves with. "Imagine the matriarchal tyranny in places where they get to power." Not me, I witness the patriarchal tyranny being perpetuated instead.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:26 PM By Sheila
Fr. MP, I support what you have said completely. One only has to work within the diocesan framework and come in contact with many priests and sisters to confirm what you have said. Unfortunately, many do not see the truth therein and will continue their merry skip into hell and taking many with them. God bless you for your stance.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:56 PM By DM08
Why wouldn't the Church want to ordain women, I mean look at all the good priestesses have done for the Anglican Communion!!! (yes, I'm being sarcastic). Opposing women's ordination is not sexist, it is reaffirming civilization.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:04 PM By DM08
It's funny how the liberals condemned Archbishop Lefebvre for illictly consecrating bishops, but when womenpriests movement bishops invalidly ordain women the liberals defend them. The selectivity of the Catholic left continues unabated.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:06 PM By Jon
It is true that the reservation of the priesthood to men alone is a teaching infallible under the ordinary magisterium of the Church. However I disagree that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not infallible ex cathedra. As explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a teaching is infallible ex cathedra when the Pope (1) "as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful" (2) "confirms his brethren in the faith" (3) "by a definitive act" (4) "pertaining to faith or morals" (CCC 892). In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II did just that, explicitly meeting all of the ex cathedra elements, writing: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself [element 4], in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) [elements 1 & 2] I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively [element 3] held by all the Church's faithful [element 1]".

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:06 PM By DM08
Vincent, once you change one thing you can change anything.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:26 PM By Patrick
What a joke. I thought the article a waste of ink in its restatement of the obvious until I read the many responses here of people that I guess are under the delusion they are Catholic. Catholicism is intrinsically patriarchal, so all you feminists go join the Unitarians or something.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:58 PM By John F. Maguire
Contrary to Jan Wnek, there is nothing--nothing at all--in sacred scripture that proscribes the use of the word "father" figuratively either in reference to (1) one's own father in the flesh, (2) one's legal father if one is an adoptee, (3) one's pastor, (4) sacerdotal priests as such, or (5) the pastor of all pastors, who is the bishop of Rome. In the second volume of his _Commentary on the Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew_, Cornelius a Lapide, apropos of Matt. 23:9 (*And call none your father on earth, for one is your father, who is in heaven*) explains: "...[I]n the preceding verse [8], [Christ] said that we are all brethren, that is, children of the same Father, God. He says therefore: 'Do not call anyone on earth your *father*', in the sense of the prime Author of life, who provides for and preserves His heritage, as though ye depended entirely upon anyone else, or even on someone else as well as God. This is what the gentiles and atheists did, and others who trusted in men rather than in God. That this is the meaning, is plain from the reason which He [Christ] subjoins, *for one is your father, of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named* (Eph. 3:15, see commentary [a Lapide's]." God, then, is our only Father, to wit, the one and only prime Author of life. In comparison with Him, earthly fathers--that is, fathers in the sense of (1) to (5)--are "fathers only in the figurative sense...." (p. 390). This figurative sense, however, is to be respected rather than dropped as if it were taboo.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:05 PM By gabe
Well, all this shows is that the patriarchal church is still afraid of women. Of course the pope wants us to believe that if he speaks on anything that impacts the universal church, he is speaking infallibly. What better way to keep one's complete control over his people? And if there is one think Ratzinger wants, it's to gain the control over the people once again. Too bad he has just lost it. Of course, since he came to the United States and said such pretty words about reaching out in pastoral concern to those sexually abused by priests, he has done nothing to actually take any action in that direction. So, as far as I am concerned, all the pope's words are empty since they are not based on love, but on power

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:53 PM By Holly
The priest stands in "persona Christi" Jesus Christ is male and has a male body in heaven. There can't be a female priest! Get over it wimyn! (feminist spelling of women)

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 5:26 PM By Anne
Patriarchy is just fine when it is at its best.The Lord Jesus was using hyperbole when he said, "Call no man your father." All he was saying is that God is the perfect example of fatherhood, that all fatherhood comes from God, and that all fathers should try with God's help to become holy--fair, just, chaste, etc. and good protectors of the Church, familiy and society. Some men wimp out of these roles--and that is what it is. Then women come in to fill the gap, and usually not very well because most of us resent, deep inside, being both mother and father. Gabe, there are many, many women in the Church who do not want priestesses. Christ did not even ordain his mother, who was immaculate, so what other woman could possibly be worthy of a posibion that the Lord did not give his own mother. Being a priest does not make men better, just different. As having a child does not make women better than men, just different. We all have our roles to a certain point, and here lately they have been turned topsy, turvy. Many younger women are going back to traditional roles. They have had it with radical feminism--and the men and women who push it.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 5:30 PM By Anne
Sorry! I misspelled "position" in my last e-mail, a typo.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:10 PM By gravey
BobM says: Fewer shepherds will ultimately result in fewer sheep, I predict, and sadly ... in my lifetime. Fine. Dissenters of the Catholic Church such as yourself should have to witness the damage you have done. Your public rejection of Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium is not without consequence as you lead consciences into error: a grave sin.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 6:13 PM By Just another woman..
Hey---here's a thought. What if all the women who work in the Church (everyone from the lowly CCD teacher to the nun who does the Pope's laundry) went on strike for 6 months? Better yet, a year? Y'all would have to seriously re-think what you think about women and what they contribute to the Church. Everything would stop. It would take a while, but eventually, everything would stop----why? Because women are the ones who do most of the work in the church. Women do what most of the men won't. Been there, done that. Do the math. No one does more for the Church than women. Think about it. And if only men stand 'in persona Christi' then I guess no one can see or experience Christ in women, then, eh? It kinda contradicts everything I've been taught about being Christ for others. If I'm a woman, then that's not an option, I guess. Hmm. That's a scary thought.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:38 PM By John L. Sillasen
Just another woman, don't be scared. Be faithful.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 9:56 PM By Anne
Just another woman, everything would be just fine. The Knights Templars did all their own work, including fighting; and the monks of Mt. Athos, also do just fine. Beside you are not going to get all us women to follow your strike. Many women who work in Church positions are very orthodox, the none orthodox need not apply. Haven't you heard about the nurses of St. Agnes turning down the offer of CNA to be their union because they are so proabortion, pro euthanasia, etc. As far as Eucharistic Ministers, the Church did withou them before and can do so again. As far as CCD teachers, the bishop could give the order to teach them at home, if you don't, they don't get the Sacraments.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:01 PM By Johnn F. Maguire
Why has "Just another woman" forgotten that the Woman who stood at the foot of the Cross in union with her Son's Sacrifice is the Collaborator and Co-redemptrix in the work of Calvary and therefore in the work of the Mass, which is the very same Sacrifice as Calvary, now offered by her Son-- and co-offered by his priest at Mass--unbloodily? Why hasn't she seen what Holly has seen: namely, that the logic of sacramental respresentation requires that Christ in his male body be represented, and only represented, by male priests ordained according to the order of Melkizedek? ~Why is "Just another woman" (passive-aggressive name, that) so opposed to this priesthood, which is the very priesthood of Christ himself, that she calls for a general-strike against it? Does she not realize that this priesthood is preeminently hers as it is all the daughters of Mary?

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:49 PM By Anne
Just Another Woman, seems very bitter and wants to spread her venom. It is so sad. Some women say these things out of anger because they were hurt and others because they just want what they see as pure power and take it out on all men. They don't realize, as Jesus Christ said, that all of us, including priests, must come as servants. We are all called to serve in some way. Many of these women are guitly of breaking the Commandment against coveting--they covet the priests position--not realizing that he has his own crosses to bear. Others do not want to be the handmaiden, as the Blessed Virgin was. They want to be The GODDESS. Then they cross over from Christiantiy to pure paganism.

Posted Sunday, June 01, 2008 11:07 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Vincent, Bishop Robinson might remind himself that there is a distinction between apostolic authority and magisterial authority as exercised by the pope and the bishops. Divine revelation was delivered to the apostles and ended with the death of St. John the Divine. The magisterium simply explicates the revelation given to the apostles. Thus, in the case of the Mosaic law, revelation was given to Peter that the law no longer applied. In the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, no revelation was given Pope John Paul II; he was merely protected by the Holy Spirit from declaring a teaching contrary to revelation and guaranteed by the same Spirit to transmit what is contained in the deposit of divine revelation. So, whereas Peter could receive a "new" revelation about what the Gospel of Christ entailed, Pope John Paul II could have no new revelation. To him belongs only the charism of transmitting infallibly what Peter and the other apostles taught by divine revelation.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 8:57 AM By DMO8
Just another woman: did you read that old cliche from a 1970s feminist theology leaflet? That's the problem with the Catholic left, they can't say anything new. Too attack the male-priesthood is to devalue natural law.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 9:09 AM By Anne
Christopher Zehnder, thank you for your excellent comment. To all you men out there, expeciallly those with daughers which spiritually includes priests, I recommend the book "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters" by Dr. Meg Meeker.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 9:13 AM By John L. Sillasen
So, Vincent, to put what Mr. Zehnder says into a metaphor, Christ has only one head of His Church, His vicar the pope ... for any pope to contradict St Peter would mean more than one head on the Body of Christ. One important difference between Moses and Peter, is that Moses was never the head of the Chosen People, but merely the leader. Moses was not united with God in the mystical way that came about through Jesus, in His two natures. So, being united with God, the Church has been divinized, which was impossible in the days of Moses, but is the norm today, having begun with St Peter. This is the why of the "guarantee" that the Church cannot fail. Moses had no such guarantee, and the Chosen People failed. Hence, Christ.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 9:24 AM By Anne
Christopher Zehnder, when I just complimented you on your comment, I meant your last e-mail post. I do believe the Christian religion, and therefore papal teaching, is patriarchal and should be. Therefore, I do not totally agree with the title of your article.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 9:45 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, James in his epistle (2:21) speaks of "our father Abraham." Paul, in I Corinthians 4:15, calls himself a father: "For though you have countles guides in Christ you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel." In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul calls himself teacher -- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle ... a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." In I Corinthians 12:28, he says that God has appointed teachers in the Church. And Jesus himself commands his disciples to go and "teach all nations." One who teaches is a teacher, no? So, either James, Paul, and Jesus Himself misunderstood the words of Jesus, or they refer to something else. Namely, that we are to call no man father or teacher as if they were the source of truth. But we may call men father and teacher if they participate in the office of Christ the teacher and exercise care and guidance in the name of God the Father. As for the Church permitting and even commanding burnings at the stake -- Church laws or commands of popes are not the same thing as Church teaching. The first is a command; the second is a definition. The Church commanded that heretics be burnt; but in so doing she did not teach, either ex cathedra or by the universal and ordinary magisterium, that burning of heretics is moral. A command is not a teaching. They are clean different acts.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 10:01 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Anne, I have no problem with patriarchy, either. The subtitle was meant to be slightly ironic.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 10:17 AM By Grisha
Good point about heretics being burnt at the steak. You might want to try to explain it to the folks over at New Oxford Review. :-)

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 10:41 AM By Fr. J
We can see what happened to the Anglicans when they "ordained" women. Total disaster. Those who deny papal infallibility seem very sure of their own. If you want women priestesses then go down to your local Anglican church. You will find lots of space in the pews. If you are waiting for the "next Pope" to change this teaching then you will have to wait forever. It ain't gonna change, it can't.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 11:07 AM By Anne
You are right, Fr. J. As least one Episcopalian church I know has been turned into a Mosque. If these women think they have it bad in the Catholic Church, just wait til the imams get ahold of them. They will be rushing back to the Church, begging for forgiveness.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM By Cato
Gabe, In your post: "Well, all this shows is that the patriarchal church is still afraid of women." you left out one important modifier, "gay."

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 11:27 AM By Grisha
In the picture, does anyone know who the person in the vestments doing the "ordaining" is?

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 12:14 PM By John F. Maguire
In keeping with Christ's teaching at Matt. 23:9 (*And call none your father upon earth, for one is your father, who is in heaven*), Catholic Christianity is commisioned to transcend the gentile (including the atheist) dialectic between "patriarchy" and "matriarchy". Consequently, it is misleading, if not tendentious, to call the Church of Christ "patriarchal" even as, by the same token, it is misleading, if not also tendentious, to call the Church "matriarchal," though the historian Christopher Dawson is probable right in taking notice of a certain affinity between Catholicity and the matriarchal ethos. ~How then is the patriarchy/matriarchy dialectic transcended? God is uncreated Being. Which is to say, God is that very Being "of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named." This truth redresses all exaggerated claims advanced on behalf of paternal rule and maternal rule alike. As earthly fathers are fathers "only in the figurative sense," so earthly mothers are mothers only in the figurative sense. No mother in the name of matriarchy nor father in the name of patriarchy "ought...insolently to command their children, but ought to submit themselves together with their children to God, the chief Father of all. S. Chrysostom says, 'For we do not have the beginning of life from our parents, but rather receive life through them.'" (Cornelius a Lapide, op. cit., p. 390) In this way the Catholic Church, and just this Church, overcomes the patriarchy/ matriarchy dialectic.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 4:55 PM By Anne
Vincent, Christopher Zehnder is right. Our Lord spoke directly to St. Peter, which changed his opinion, when Peter had the vision of the net with the unclean (non-Kosher)food in it coming down from the sky. He told Peter, "Take and eat." You can read about it in the book of Acts.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 6:03 PM By John F. Maguire
Christopher Zehnder claims that "the Church permitt[ed] and even command[ed] burnings at the stake." This is a misformulation, not in reference to the historical facts, which are indisputable, but in reference to the culpability of the Inquisitors, who were, in all actuality, acting against the Church and not as the Church. Maritain writes: "[I]n spite of their legal subterfuge [whereby they abandoned the heretic to the secular arm--JFM], the judges of the Inquisition made fall the responsibility of the blood shed, since the Inquisition was a Church tribunal, and inasmuch as one took an act of this tribunal for an act 'of the Church' (which is false, moreover, so that the stain launched against her did not at all attain the face of the person of the Church, or the Bride of Christ; they [the Inquisitors] had however launched it). In delivering over a heretic to the secular arm, in order to send him to death, what they did was in itself a betrayal of the spirit of the Church, who does not shed blood, committed by the personnel who wished to serve her." The Inquisition, in fine, was a veritable attack upon "the person of the Church" launched, however, on the Church's behalf by her own personnel, popes included. See J. Maritain, _On the Church of Christ_ (1973).

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 7:06 PM By Fr. M.P.
We see the usual type of objections here. They fall into two general categories, one is the utility model, and the other is the modernist model. The utilitarians claim that women as well as men can read a Missal, hold up a chalice, give a homily, process up the aisle, etc. Utilitarians claim a good intention - we need more priests. And since women can functionally operate as well as a man, then we might as well "ordain" them. Therefore the priesthood is down-graded to merely a "skill." Take a class, no big deal. The modernist types want the Church to "get with it", after all we are sooooooo sophisticated these days - none of this restrictive "medieval" stuff. Raze the old worn-out Church and redefine a new one. The angry feminists fall into this camp. What both camps fail to realize and/or refuse to accept is a simple fact - a priest is ordained sacramentally and that places an immortal indelible mark on his soul. The priesthood is not a "job", nor a "career", but *is* a life! The priest *is* a father. Hence the title (those objections answered nicely by others). A woman cannot be a father, right? (trans-sexual objections?) Likewise men cannot be mothers. A child, including a spiritual child, needs a Father and a Mother. All Paternity comes from God the FATHER! And Mary is our MOTHER. That's why Mary, holier than all priests put together for all time, is not ordained, is not a priest. She has a higher role - the Mother of God. The father is the head of the family, and the mother is the heart.

Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 8:41 PM By Wm. Hamilton
Grisha, the layer on of hands is named Ida Raming.

Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 11:28 PM By not JUST a woman
Fr MP - In you first post, I think you've completely missed the mark. My apologies, In you latest, however, you make an interesting point, especially in your last sentence. Masculinity, which is the keystone of the Church, is logical. Femininity is typically an emotional standpoint. (That is, in general, please don't get me wrong, I know some very logical women and some very emotional men. They key is, as in all things, balance). I choose to interperate what you said as this: The Church realized men are insecure, and thus decided to give them lots of fancy 'ordinations' and whatnot. Women, however, were seen to be more emotionally stable than that, and didn't need such ridiculosity. And to the beloved "Just Another Woman", I hear and support you. *love* And I admit amusement and people who speak of Wicca and Witchcraft as though they are 1), the same and 2) evil incarnate. Good for you, coming from a standpoint of ignorance! That's exactly what the Church wants from you; cry "heathen" at something you don't understand.

Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:38 AM By WB
Thanks for your post, Fr. M.P. -- that was very good. The priest is the father of the family. "I bend my knee to the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named" (Ephesians 3:14). "Paternity" is a reflection of the Father -- it's not accidental, arbitrary or a "cultural norm" which can be dimissed.

Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 10:04 AM By John L. Sillasen
not Just a woman: You are polarizing, tearing asunder two human traits, logic and emotion. Then you err by claiming that they need to be balanced, which implies that there can be no unity. Your reasoning in this way typifies a large part of the public, which has little or no sense of what unity with God is all about. The error stems from your separation from God. The answer is not to create your own "god", but to seek communion with the one true God, best done through Jesus Christ, and you may find it helpful to seek His Mother, as she can help redeem you.

Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:21 AM By Fr. J
I understand therefore when I cry "heathen" I mean exactly that...heathen.

Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 7:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
Vincent, you abject ignorance of Scripture is astounding. St Paul did not have a "vision"; rather, he was taken up into the Third Heaven. Which of your expert Bible scholars has misinformed you on this important point. St Paul goes on to say that he is no less an apostle than the others ... because he got to know Jesus Christ while in Heaven, instead of in the earthly domain familiar with the other apostles. You need to find some better schooling on this stuff, Vincent.

Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:12 PM By Fr. M.P.
not JUST a woman, witchcraft is an evil, the evil with a motto of "do what thou wilt." Just like Eve committing the first sin by refusing to listen to God the Eternal Father, and wanting to "be as gods", effectively she decided to worship her opinion and do things her way, in opposition to God's Perfect Wisdom (read Genesis chapters 2 & 3). That's what witchcraft and wicca are about. Spells are projecting one's will in an attempt to force your opinion on another. Praying in circles? That's the form for self-worship, where everyone faces each other in "prayer." After all, you are "praying" to "gods" in such a belief system. Potions and talismans and the like? Means to obtain occult power not inherent in human nature, but calling on demon power. But the New Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary, has the answer - obedience to God - which reversed the sin of the first woman. The essence of femininity is not emotion but receptivity. That receptivity is reflected in a woman's psyche and body and spirit (receptivity to Grace). So ask the perfect woman to guide you and you will not go astray. Say "Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 5:52 AM By Jan Wnek
Christopher Zehnder, I am responding to your comment on my post: does the Church possess the authority to command what is not consistent with Church teaching? From whence does it garner such authority? Does the Church have the authority to command evil? By what standard do we discern whether what the Church is commanding is consistent with Jesus' teaching about the will of God and or is inconsistent? Can the Church give plenary indulgence for doing what is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, as it did for attending an auto-da- fe? Did not the Church, that is, through the unanimous approval of its official teachers, bishops and popes, for 600 years teach that burning heretics and Jews was not a sin, and was an act morally permissible to Christians, which means an act that was in conformity with the will of God as revealed by Jesus and therefore one did not have to go to confession before going to communion after participating in an auto-da-fe? Isn't this removal of the need for confession before communion after participating in an auto-da-fe as clear as a teaching can be taught that this act is good and not evil? Did not Thomas Aquinas himself explicitly morally condone the burning of heretics and Jews, as did a near unanimous gaggle of the best theologians during this 600 year period? That such a teaching by the leadership of the Church never achieved the status of "ex cathedra," I would agree. But, so also then, just war theory and innumerable other "teachings" have not attained such a status. So how does a Catholic discern whether a teaching in the Church at one time is a teaching of the Church for all time? If one says that the moral correctness of burning Jews at the stake was not a teaching of the Church, then applying the same interpretive standards by which this decision is arrived at, what are those teachings of the Church for all time? Up until the 1700s Catholic and others could be burnt at the stake for saying slavery was not in conformity with natural law. As late as 1954, formal Catholic moral theology manuals, with Imprimaturs, taught that slavery was consistent with natural law. In the 1990s Pope John Paul II explicitl

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:22 AM By Jan Wnek
(cont'd) In the 1990s Pope John Paul II explicitly taught slavery was in all cases an intrinsically grave evil.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 10:46 AM By John L. Sillasen
Jan, Jesus did not condemn Peter who had just cut off the ear of a soldier, not did He tell him to throw away his sword. One explanation as to why the Just War Theory (if in fact you are not mistaken in claiming so) is not "ex cathedra, is for the same reason that the Church has the facility to make ex cathedra proclamations while also believing that all revelation was concluded with the apostles: sometimes it is not so easy to produce formulation of a doctrine that is "bulletproof". This does not mean that the doctrine or dogma (I admit that I'm not sure of the difference in these two concepts, having not quite memorized Mr. Zehnder's recent clarification) is not true, but only that it has not been put into some inerrant formulation. Individual bishops or large groups of them can err ... to wit, the Arian heresy, when almost all bishops were "out to lunch" and had allowed themselves to become slaves of the state. But they remove themselves from the Church when they do that, if their error is serious enough. Heresy and bad administration are two different matters. Burning people at the stake is bad, maybe no one had a better idea for administrative action. Preaching false doctrine on the other hand is a different matter, one not like Peter cutting of somebody's ear, but like a false prophet. Moses publically demonstrated impatience with God, and was punished for it; however, he was later seen in the Transfiguration. The tree of faith is pruned but never replaced.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:26 AM By Jan Wnek
John Sillasen: it's amazing to me how you manage to treat the subjects you address in your comment to me so lightheartedly......obviously, you understood nothing of what I sent to Chris Zehnder or, perhaps, trivializing it in order to play to your Christian "dittoheads" is what you intended.....quite simply, you are incapable of addressing what I wrote because it would expose the weakness or, perhaps, the nonexistence of your argument... in the final analysis, there is only One who can claim "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"...and that's Jesus Christ...and NOT Pius IX....who actually had the gall to call himself "the Way , the Truth and the Life."

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 11:38 AM By Jan Wnek
John sillasen, your quotes and my responses:"Jan, Jesus did not condemn Peter who had just cut off the ear of a soldier, not did He tell him to throw away his sword." He simply healed the ear and told Peter to put away his sword, because those who live by the sword die by the sword. What is it that you don't understand here? One explanation as to why the Just War Theory (if in fact you are not mistaken in claiming so) is not "ex cathedra, is for the same reason that the Church has the facility to make ex cathedra proclamations while also believing that all revelation was concluded with the apostles: sometimes it is not so easy to produce formulation of a doctrine that is "bulletproof"." Gee whiz! and you and others are so 'absolutist' in what you believe...how come?"{This does not mean that the doctrine or dogma (I admit that I'm not sure of the difference in these two concepts, having not quite memorized Mr. Zehnder's recent clarification) is not true, but only that it has not been put into some inerrant formulation."?????? "Individual bishops or large groups of them can err ..." Really???? to wit, the Arian heresy, when almost all bishops were "out to lunch" and had allowed themselves to become slaves of the state. But they remove themselves from the Church when they do that, if their error is serious enough. "Heresy and bad administration are two different matters. Burning people at the stake is bad, maybe no one had a better idea for administrative action." You cannot possibly believe this! "Preaching false doctrine on the other hand is a different matter, one not like Peter cutting of somebody's ear, but like a false prophet." takes me back to my question: does the Church possess the authority to command what is not consistent with Church teaching? From whence does it garner such authority? Does the Church have the authority to command evil? By what standard do we discern whether what the Church is commanding is consistent with Jesus' teaching about the will of God and or is inconsistent?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 12:57 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, Your questions brings up a gaggle of questions, which I would be willing to address, but not all at once. Which one do you want to discuss first?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 1:03 PM By Jan Wnek
Christopher: you can choose whatever you want for starters in my response to you (5:52AM)...let John S. answer for himself as regards my post to him, which he answers.......Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 1:13 PM By Jan Wnek
Christopher: actually all my questions are really the same question in different guises..... Jan

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 3:41 PM By John L. Sillasen
Jan, I did not address your question to Mr. Zehnder, because it was your question to him. I addressed a different issue inherent in your post, and which you put under a host of guises.

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:31 PM By Jan Wnek
John, whatever.....no need to be defensive...I believe you have my answer to your comments....

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:32 PM By John L. Sillasen
Jan, which story are you lost in?

Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 9:44 PM By Jan Wnek
John: I'm not lost...are you?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:52 AM By gravey
Jan, You seem like interesting and intelligent individual; so why don't you do some homework and answer your own questions? Write your own article or create your own blog. Comment boxes are conversational tools, not meant to develop dissertations. Gives us a thought and move on and, please, keep it pithy.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 8:10 AM By Fr. M.P.
Jan W, your claims are the usual errors that I have seen from many Protestant sources, and your own argument claiming the Bible says that cannot call a priest "Father." Which source of authority do you get to judge the Magisterium and claim that the Magisterium doesn't teach what Jesus teaches? Based on your interpretation of a Bible? Of course that is the Protestant process - everyone is their own Pope and Magisterium using personal interpretation. Even the Bible says not to do that. So you don't agree that the Church does not teach error, not only ex-cathedra but in the normal Magisterial teachings? Let's get that fundamental point cleared up.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 10:03 AM By John L. Sillasen
Jan, I would be if I followed your advice.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:26 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, I'll answer your first question. The Church -- or rather, Churchmen -- does not have the authority to command what is contrary to the teachings of Christ. The Church does have the authority to teach in the name of Christ, such that when she teaches according to her full authority, she teaches infallibly. The actions of churchmen can be judged by scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church. But Church teachings, when delivered in the ways in which infallibility is guaranteed, can be judged by no one, because they are guaranteed free of error.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 5:58 PM By Jan Wnek
MP and Chris Zehnder: Neither one of you can obviously answer my basic question, which is - By what standard do we discern whether what the Church is commanding is consistent with Jesus' teaching about the will of God or is inconsistent? Answer, please! Can the Church give plenary indulgence for doing what is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, as it did for attending an auto-da- fe? Answer, please! Did not the Church, that is, through the unanimous approval of its official teachers, bishops and popes, for 600 years teach that burning heretics and Jews was not a sin, and was an act morally permissible to Christians, which means an act that was in conformity with the will of God as revealed by Jesus and therefore one did not have to go to confession before going to communion after participating in an auto-da-fe? Isn't this removal of the need for confession before communion after participating in an auto-da-fe as clear as a teaching can be taught that this act is good and not evil? Answer, please! Did not Thomas Aquinas himself, who so many here consider as being the teacher of unarguable "magisterium", explicitly morally condone the burning of heretics and Jews, as did a near unanimous gaggle of the best theologians during this 600 year period? Answer, please! I'm still waiting for coherent answers to very coherent questions....and MP, "ex cathedra" is not my concern ....my concern is that many here treat just about EVERYTHING, by means of that magic word "magisterium", as "ex cathedra"....which is why I call it verbal "sleight-of-hand". So how does a Catholic discern whether a teaching in the Church at one time is a teaching of the Church for all time? If one says that the moral correctness of burning Jews at the stake was not a teaching of the Church, then applying the same interpretive standards by which this decision is arrived at, what ARE those teachings of the Church for all time?

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 9:48 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, I told you I would adddress one question at a time -- I 'm not going to speak to all your questions at once. I did answer the first question you posed. I said, the actions of churchmen -- include what they command -- can be judged by scripture, tradition, and the teachings of the Church. A command is not a teaching, for "do this" does not equate with "believe this." Some teachings of the Church are infallible, others are not, and there are ways in which this can be detected -- as explicated in the quote I gave in my piece above from Lumen Gentium. Here is what I wrote: “'Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.' The Council then adds that the pope’s 'mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.'"

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 10:14 PM By gravey
The problem is with your question. The question you should be asking is "how" do we discern whether a teaching is true. I will give you the short answer: First, you sit on that three legged stool of scripture, tradition and the magisterium; second, you use your own faculties of faith and reason; and third, you always remember that the Church is wiser then you.

Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 11:17 PM By Jan Wnek
In short, none of you are capable of answering any of the questions I posed....that's absolutely clear....thanks for your "clarification".Chris, you said:"A command is not a teaching, for "do this" does not equate with "believe this." Really? I seem to recall "DO this in remembrance of Me." This is not a 'teaching' on the part of Jesus to those who would call themselves His followers? Another Chris quote:“'Religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will." So, in other words, the fact that the official teachers, bishops and popes, for 600 years taught that burning heretics and Jews was not a sin, and was an act morally permissible to Christians, which means an act that was in conformity with the will of God as revealed by Jesus and therefore one did not have to go to confession before going to communion after participating in an auto-da-fe, is OK and is a part of the "magisterium" of the Church....or??? Do you agree? As for the "Church" being "wiser" than me, that's debatable...because the "Church" doesn't generate "paper", the bureaucratic church "hierarchy", men of flesh and blood like you and me, who have nothing better to do, are the "pencil pushers" dealing in theological "esoterica" and generating paper....and creating confusion for their own benefit.....hang on to your "Fuehrerprincip", guys....it becomes you.....

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 9:48 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Wnek, You judge as incompetent those whose explanations you do not understand, or will not understand. The fact of the matter is -- and a little bit of thought on the matter will show -- that a teaching and a command are two different things. The last quote from me you reference is drawn mostly from Vatican II, and explains the degrees of teaching authority. If you dispute it, you deny the teaching authority of the Church. As far as I know, the only time a pope taught on burning heretics was when Pope Leo X condemned a proposition of Luther's, which said something to the effect of, "burning heretics is opposed to the will of God." But even if you think this a teaching approving of the burning of heretics, it is not an exercise of infallible, irreformable teaching. I have never heard that one was absolved from confession if he attended an auto-de-fe; wherever did you glean this bit of information?

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 8:14 PM By Fr. M.P.
Jan W, the answer is simple. You do not judge the Magisterium. Period. You obey the Magisterium - if you are a good Catholic. But in previous posts throughout this site we have already seen that you reject the Magisterium for your own self-righteous personal opinion. Show us the doctrinal sources of your claims, and not some personal opinion from a pacifist or Protestant site. We are waiting.

Posted Monday, June 09, 2008 8:47 PM By jan wnek
Christopher Zehnder: your comment - "The last quote from me you reference is drawn mostly from Vatican II, and explains the degrees of teaching authority. If you dispute it, you deny the teaching authority of the Church." I agree....I deny the "teaching authority" of the Church as regards the burning of heretics, I deny the "teaching authority " of the Church as regards the "Crusades", I deny the "teaching authority" of the Church as regards the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth, etc.......now, to your comment on an 'auto-da-fe'..."I have never heard that one was absolved from confession if he attended an auto-de-fe; wherever did you glean this bit of information?" You mean the Church-sanctioned "auto da fe" was a SIN? If you participated in burning a heretic you were committing a sin and had to go to confession? Can you document that? I'd love to have that piece of information! Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 4:57 AM By Grisha
Christopher ~ I'm less concered with the positions of popes in centuries past on burning heritics than the fact that New Oxford Review appears to approve of it in this one.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:49 AM By Christopher Zehnder
This will be my last response to you. As I have pointed out several times to you, calling crusades, ordering the burning of heretics, and such things are not teachings. And even if they were teachings, they would not be authoritative either ex cathedra or according to the universal and ordinary magisterium. In regards to autos de fe, they were perceived as forms of capital punishment (when heretics were actually killed) or as means of public reconciliation of penitents (which they were most of the time.) No, the Church did not require those who participated in what was perceived as a valid and moral form of punishment to go to confession. But neither did the Church teach ex cathedra or according to her universal and ordinary magisterium that burning heretics was not a sin. Furthermore, the Church NEVER taught the earth is flat -- where do you get this tripe? The Holy Office condemned Galileo for teaching heliocentrism -- which at the time was merely a theory (as it still is, by the way) and seemed to contradict scripture. But every act of the Holy Office -- even if approved by the pope -- is not an act of irreformable teaching. But such distinctions make no difference to you. If you don't want to discuss the distinctions, there is really no reason for me to waste my time discussing the matter with you further.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:52 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha, New Oxford Review really sticks in your craw, doesn't it? I agree their roasting heretics t-shirt is in bad taste, but I think it's meant to be a joke, not a statement of policy.

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:25 AM By Grisha
Christopher ~ Yes it does! The "joke" is about as funny as a Jr. high school German Club having a T-shirt saying "I'd rather be gassing Jews." The difference is of course that 1) Jr. high students are usually more sensitve thsan the NOR editors and 2) Jr. high school German Clubs have adult supervision. You should know that most of my knowledge about NOR's history from your article about DeVries in LA Mission a number of years ago. From my limited background in foreign counter intelligence, I suspect that the Stasi (tasked by the KGB) manipulated his arrogance and ego to gain information to use against East German Christians. This is off-topic, but if you like, I'll be more than happy to chat about it offline. Oh - I loved the quote from him "There was no homosexuality in East Germany."

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 1:04 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha, By the way, his name is Dale Vree. I basically agree with you about the the barbecue t-shirt. As for Vree's quote, it represented a manner of speaking, basically meaning, "there was no public homosexuality." I think, too, it is not fair to judge something by such limited experience. You might be interested to know that the NOR of today is of a very different flavor than the NOR of, say, ten years ago. But, this is off topic. If you want to discuss further off site, just e-mail at info@calcatholic.com

Posted Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:01 PM By Jan Wnek
Christopher:So the Pope is not speaking infallibly in the case of women's ordination, right? Or in the case of married Roman priests, right? By the way, granting plenary indulgences for killing a Muslim in the Crusades was not a form of "teaching"? Sorry that I make you so uncomfortable in defending what cannot be defended.....what I see here is that when the situation becomes "inconvenient", the "magisterium" falls by the wayside and there is a symbolic "washing of the hands".....sad.....anything except following the teachings and actions of the Lamb of God....did Jesus sanction capital punishment? Show me the passage where he does....Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:46 AM By Fr. M.P.
Jan W, you reject various actions taken by the Pope, such as the Crusades, because you reject some of the teachings of the Magisterium, such as self-defense and the capital punishment. That is your root problem as a pacifist. You reject selected teachings of Jesus as defended and promulgated by the Magisterium, and in monstrous pride, claim that you know better than the whom Jesus set up as those to continue the faith from the Apostles onward. That is simply modernist (also known as cafeteria catholic) or Protestant religion. Vatican II says in Lumen Gentium: "20. That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world, since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors. ... just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ." Stop rejecting Christ, Jan W!

Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:49 AM By Jan Wnek
MP: Jesus is completely nonviolent...show me the proof where He condones capital punishment or self-defense resulting in the death of another.....prove it! The "Protestant" is you....I'm waiting for the proof that Jesus condones justified violence.......I'm waiting.....show me your proof...not from Christianity Inc., but from Jesus Himself..... Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:15 AM By Polneon
Jan Wnek: He laid down His own life, freely, and subjected Himself to it. QED

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:10 AM By Puttss
Jan: Where does he speak out against it?

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:53 PM By Jan Wnek
Yes, Polneon, as we are called to do as His followers.... Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008 2:56 PM By Jan Wnek
Puttss:read the gospels....Jesus is completely nonviolent.....He is our model....perhaps for you He isn't...that's your problem.... Pace e bene, Jan

Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 1:02 PM By Puttss
What is my problem, that I know that he never spoke out against violence? Or is it that you can't find one of His teachings against violence? Pace? Quid est pax?

Posted Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:17 PM By Jan Wnek
Puttss...yes, that "handle" describes you perfectly......How about "Love your enemies", "Do good to those who would hurt you", "Turn the other cheek" , "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.", "Put up your sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword"....how many more examples do you need, PUTTSS???? Jesus didn't speak out against violence????Give me a break!!!!!!

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:56 AM By Puttss
How about, "I did not come to bring peace, but the sword"; "i will set father against son, etc". I'm just not a pacifist. I'll leave that up to you.

Posted Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:39 AM By Grisha
Having spent part of my life learning how to kill people (Never had to do it for real, thank God, though I came close once) I've often wondered how to reconcile the various quotes from Jesus which Jan Wenek and Puttss have put forth above. What I've come up with is that Christ did not reject the legitimacy of the profession of arms. His admonishments to the soldiers and relationship to the Centurion pretty much make that clear. However, it is only when one of His followers engages in vigilantism and lops off the ear of his detractor's innocent servant that He cautions against use of the sword. I see this as also warning against the fanaticism rhetorical violence we see in social and political debate, especially in the blogosphere.

Posted Monday, June 16, 2008 3:29 AM By Fr. M.P.
Jan W, you illustrate my point exactly by setting up a false dichotomy: "I'm waiting for the proof that Jesus condones justified violence.......I'm waiting.....show me your proof...not from Christianity Inc., but from Jesus Himself." You reject that Jesus set up a Magisterium (a more modern word for His Church's teaching authority). He who hears you hears Me. He who rejects you reject Me and Him Who sent Me. Jesus said that, remember? We have already traded verses in various previous articles how St. John the Baptist and Jesus did not condemn Roman soldiers who came to them. But you refuse those to hold to your own opinions. Sorry, but you don't practice Catholicism by rejecting Jesus teaching authority called the Magisterium.

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device













 
Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com