- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you suppose that seminarians learn more than just how to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist and penance, or do you think that that actually is the extent of their seminary education?
I see.
Conrau claims that "The way Catholics understand the role of the priest excludes female participation in the priestly vocation. [b]All this means is that a woman cannot perform the sacrament of the Eucharist or penance."
Do you suppose that seminarians learn more than just how to perform the sacrament of the Eucharist and pe ...[text shortened]... eglecting to account for all of them, or even failing to acknowledge or realize some of them?[/b]
Of course they do. But I am surprised by reader1107's information that seminarians are instructed in their own seminaries.
In other words, is Conrau wrong in his delimitation of the effects of the Church's position with respect to restrictions on women? Might he be minimizing them, or neglecting to account for all of them, or even failing to acknowledge or realize some of them?
No not in other words. These "Catholic seminaries" seem to be for people training to be priests in parishes - that is all-male. Saying that there exclusion of women minimises them would be the same as saying that women are being minimised because they can't attend all-boy schools.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesConsidering that I disagreed with two aspects of Catholic teaching, and in a different thread suggested that the position of bishop might be admissable to women, I can hardly be described as "crippled by dogma".
Of course there is. I just wanted to get it on record and verify for my own sanity that at least not all Catholics are as blinded, brainwashed and crippled by dogma as Conrau.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by NemesioAn encyclical is not a proclamation of an infallible teaching. It does not bind the conscience of the Catholic faith. It is more an authoritative declaration. Catholics are expected to consider it and have their conscience's informed by the encylical.
I do not believe that being Roman Catholic means that you can elect to reject an encyclical. That
is, you cannot simultaneously be a Roman Catholic and, knowing the content of said encyclical,
utilize contraception. To be Roman Catholic is to accept the encyclical (and others, of course).
Otherwise, you are explicitly denying the authority of ...[text shortened]... riage, abortions, or any other matter upon which Rome has expressed a
moral opinion?
Nemesio
I agree that it would undermine the authority of the Pope to reject ex cathedra teachings of morals. The problem with this, however, is that it is difficult to discern what is a infallible declaration on a moral precept. It is accepted that the murder of another human being is morally culpable but on contraception, while some believe Humanae Vitae to have been an infallible teaching, the infallibility of it seems equivocal.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957When Catholics talk about the church they use the word "she" since the Church is understood as a bride of Christ. The priest, as a representative of Christ, is hence married to the Church - and they wear a ring to indicate that bond. This is basically the "nuptial mystery".
Say some more. What do you mean it is a nuptial mystery?
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957A teacher got fired from a Catholic school for conceiving that way. They said it was against Catholic teaching.
Say a child is artificially conceived, do they make a conscious decision to change their view of that after the child is born or conceived. I'm sure they don't like the "method", but is there some understanding that this is still a child of God no matter how the method brought this about?
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KI have never heard of this. I have heard of the Eucharist being a literal sacrifice, but never a nuptial mystery.
That is not the only reason. There is the fact that the Church fathers Augustine, Epiphanius, Hippolytus Irenaeus andTertullian, also repudiated female ordination. Catholics also understand the Eucharist as a nuptial mystery that would conflict with a female priest.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by reader1107From the Catechism:
I have never heard of this. I have heard of the Eucharist being a literal sacrifice, but never a nuptial mystery.
772 It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God's plan: "to unite all things in him." St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church "a great mystery." Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn. Contemplating this mystery in her, Paul exclaims: "Christ in you, the hope of glory."
John Paul II, in expounding why women are precuded from the priesthood:
"It is the Eucharist that above all expresses the redemptive act of Christ the brdegroom toward the Church, the bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts, 'in the person of Christ,' is performed by a man." (Mulieris Dignitatem n. 26)
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KOK, this is where this falls apart for me. You say that the church is understood as the bride of Christ. But the priest, as representative of Christ is also married to the church. A groomsman or bestman at a wedding to a representative of the dgroom, but that doesn't mean he is also married to the bride.
When Catholics talk about the church they use the word "she" since the Church is understood as a bride of Christ. The priest, as a representative of Christ, is hence married to the Church - and they wear a ring to indicate that bond. This is basically the "nuptial mystery".
But let's throw that aside for a minute. What real difference does it make in terms of our modern world today? Isn't that the real question?
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KJohn Paul 2 should have said, "It is the Eucharist that above all expresses the redemptive act of Christ."
From the Catechism:
772 It is in the Church that Christ fulfills and reveals his own mystery as the purpose of God's plan: "to unite all things in him." St. Paul calls the nuptial union of Christ and the Church "a great mystery." Because she is united to Christ as to her bridegroom, she becomes a mystery in her turn. Contemplating this mystery in her, Pa ...[text shortened]... acts, 'in the person of Christ,' is performed by a man." (Mulieris Dignitatem n. 26)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957To Catholics this should be a matter of truth. The concern here is whether an ordained woman could validly transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Whether or not this promotes the advance of women equality. Obviously, non-Catholics will disagree because they reject any truth to the Catholic Church.
But let's throw that aside for a minute. What real difference does it make in terms of our modern world today? Isn't that the real question?
I suppose it was a misnomer to describe the priest as bridesgroom to the church. This might give the impression of polygomy. Essentially, the relationship of the priest to the Church is symbolic of that of Christ to the Church.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KI'm not rejecting your Catholic teaching as I see the issue as running across all denominations. My understanding is that in Christ there is no (and you can name whatever division you want). My church is about to start a process of looking for a new pastor. There is absolutely no way they would choose a female pastor. To me this is a shame. This happens to be a Baptist church.
To Catholics this should be a matter of truth. The concern here is whether an ordained woman could validly transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Whether or not this promotes the advance of women equality. Obviously, non-Catholics will disagree because they reject any truth to the Catholic Church.
I suppose it was a misnome ...[text shortened]... ially, the relationship of the priest to the Church is symbolic of that of Christ to the Church.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by Conrau KMen certainly can't make that transformation, though they like to say they can.
To Catholics this should be a matter of truth. The concern here is whether an ordained woman could validly transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Whether or not this promotes the advance of women equality. Obviously, non-Catholics will disagree because they reject any truth to the Catholic Church.
I suppose it was a misnome ...[text shortened]... ially, the relationship of the priest to the Church is symbolic of that of Christ to the Church.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957To me, I don't see the exclusion of women as a problem. I see the priesthhood not as a higher role in the church but a different one. Since Vatican II the role of lay people has risen enormously. I think that people would cease to have issue with the Church if more women were represented in the leadership of the church. So while the priest performs the mass, a religious sister could be responsible for the community. That to me, would be an ideal compromise, and I suspect one that the Catholic Church is working toward. I don't agree with female ordination. The Church is very strict in its delineation between genders and I think that to have a unisex priesthood would degrade what the priesthood means.
I'm not rejecting your Catholic teaching as I see the issue as running across all denominations. My understanding is that in Christ there is no (and you can name whatever division you want). My church is about to start a process of looking for a new pastor. There is absolutely no way they would choose a female pastor. To me this is a shame. This happens to be a Baptist church.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat at least is your perception. But it is important for you and other atheists, and others who reject Catholic dogma, to appreciate that this issue is one of truth for Catholics, and it is wrong to try to impose a feminist ideology on the Church out of a lack of respect for these Catholics' concerns.
Men certainly can't make that transformation, though they like to say they can.