FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Hypothetically, would ordination of women mean the gates of hell had prevailed?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(10-13-2019, 10:18 AM)Lonion Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-13-2019, 09:23 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]You watch, even if the Pope decides to ordain women there will always be some jesuitical hair splitting answer to justify it or to pretend that it's not what it looks like so that people will protect their psyche from further damage.  Hate to be that harsh but that's how I see it. This has been the name of the game for centuries, whether it was with usury,  the liturgy or whatever.  Same old, same old. 

Yeah, this exact same sort of thing played out with the death penalty change.

I have no doubt that if women's "ordination" did start happening, people would wave away JPII's infallible statements on the topic as "just being meant for that period in history," along with any and all other evidence against it. Basically retconning infallible statements as much as needed to in order to avoid contradicting the Church's current "teachings." Even if doing so would render "infallibility" as practically meaningless since it would be impossible to pin down any interpretation of said statements.

Bingo.  Exactly this.  Part of this stuff is why I did finally become Orthodox. 

Not trying to get anyone here to do the same but I'm always curious as to why people stay where they do and how they rationalize and try to make sense of all this chaos. 

While this sort of thing was not my sole reason for leaving Rome by a longshot it certainly put me on a journey to seek out the answers to almost everything that troubled me and at the end of it I left the RCC and have not regretted it for a single moment, not even for a second.  

I feel for trads because RC ecclesiology leaves no real room for disobeying and not going along with or at least being under whoever happens to be pope and bishop of whatever diocese. 

 Personally I never was convinced of the SSPX position. If anything the sedes have a more logically coherent system but the papacy is the sine qua non of Catholicism and they don't have a pope so the whole thing falls apart.  To their credit they do not compromise. FSSP had to sell their souls for the mess of pottage that is the arguably different religion of Vatican II and live a precarious existence as a neutralized ghetto WITHIN the VAT II system.  

There's simply no legitimate recourse lay Catholics have other than to basically go in schism from their church. It's a very difficult and precarious situation for sure, and one I sympathize with because I've been there.

I guess I still STRONGLY believe the papacy as it came to be by the time of Vatican I is THE Achilles heel of Catholicism. I cannot be convinced otherwise at this point.
(10-13-2019, 11:00 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Bingo.  Exactly this.  Part of this stuff is why I did finally become Orthodox. 

Not trying to get anyone here to do the same but I'm always curious as to why people stay where they do and how they rationalize and try to make sense of all this chaos. 

While this sort of thing was not my sole reason for leaving Rome by a longshot it certainly put me on a journey to seek out the answers to almost everything that troubled me and at the end of it I left the RCC and have not regretted it for a single moment, not even for a second.  

I feel for trads because RC ecclesiology leaves no real room for disobeying and not going along with or at least being under whoever happens to be pope and bishop of whatever diocese. 

 Personally I never was convinced of the SSPX position. If anything the sedes have a more logically coherent system but the papacy is the sine qua non of Catholicism and they don't have a pope so the whole thing falls apart.  To their credit they do not compromise. FSSP had to sell their souls for the mess of pottage that is the arguably different religion of Vatican II and live a precarious existence as a neutralized ghetto WITHIN the VAT II system.  

There's simply no legitimate recourse lay Catholics have other than to basically go in schism from their church. It's a very difficult and precarious situation for sure, and one I sympathize with because I've been there.

I guess I still STRONGLY believe the papacy as it came to be by the time of Vatican I is THE Achilles heel of Catholicism. I cannot be convinced otherwise at this point.

You're not wrong on any of your points in my opinion.  For others, the best version of the argument FB is making from the Orthodox position can be found here: http://orthochristian.com/105123.html

"The fruits of Vatican II can be found in Vatican I."

Quote:In 1870, Rome added yet another new dogma—Papal Infallibility. What most traditional Roman Catholics do not know about is the political maneuvering and tremendous pressure used by Pope Pius IX to get this new dogma declared. Ecumenical Councils are to meet free of outside pressure and their decisions must be unanimous or nearly so. Vatican I was anything but a free Council, and when Pius IX saw that he could not get a near unanimous vote he changed the rules and required only a majority. The night before the vote many bishops left Rome knowing that under the new rules a tragic new innovation would be pushed through. When the vote was taken many bishops were already gone, and lightening struck St. Peter’s where the bishops were meeting during the vote.

Many Roman Catholics refused to accept the new dogma of Papal Infallibility saying that a New Catholic Faith had been invented at the Vatican Council. Sound familiar? It should as many say the same thing about Vatican II. Professing the “Old Catholic” faith, many Roman Catholics separated from Rome and entered the Orthodox Church or formed Old Catholic Churches in Europe and the United States. Once again, rather than a center of unity, Rome was a cause of division.
Less than a century after the First Vatican Council ended the Second Vatican Council met in Rome. All of the changes in doctrine and practice adopted over some nine centuries made it easy to again “change the Church” at and after the Second Vatican Council.

The problem I have is that when I went Orthodox, I didn't find anything different from what I was seeing in the Catholic Church.  Orthodox metropolitans are liberal retards with the best of them, and that's a fact.  It takes exactly one second of googling to find evidence of this (e.g., https://www.oca.org/news/headline-news/m...f-families).  Now you may say that that is different from Orthodox metropolitans corrupting dogma.  True!  But if you're talking about being scandalized by modernists hierarchs in day to day life by every possible application of your faith to the contemporary world, you're SOL.  If you're talking about your church acting seditiously by, for instance, importing refugees into your country and not just into urban centers but into rural areas just to alter the demographics in deference to their globalist masters, the Orthodox Church is right there with the Catholics.  Your money WILL go to the bug eaters and the Facebook Soy Milk Industrial Complex as an Orthdox.

To be perfectly frank, I felt about as betrayed either way.  Do I want the church run by liberals that hasn't changed their liturgy or the church run by liberals that has?  Orthodoxy also, let's be real, has altered their teachings when it pleased them to do so.  Divorce, for example.  For the rest, they generally just refuse to comment on things and leave a wide berth for priests to say whatever the hell they want or nothing at all.  

I left Orthodoxy for the SSPX.  I simply don't want to deal with liberal retards in any capacity.  Period.  SSPX accommodates me on that point.  That's good enough for me, but I also am not one of the people on this forum fretting existentially.  If I don't go to heaven it will be because I never stopped watching porn and masturbating, not because I poorly discerned the true Church.  Experiencing Orthodoxy made me realize I don't actually care that much about the crisis in the Church in terms of "oh no my dogma".  I actually just 1) truly hate communists and crypto-communists to the very core of my being, 2) believe they deserve the death penalty, and 3) will never submit in any way or give money to any church or organization from which I get even the slightest whiff of any of that.  There's also the issues of your church dying, but that's circumstantial.

I don't think this is the rebuttal that many here would hope for.  However, I am completely at peace.  I know who I am and what I believe: a person who hates liberals.

Edit: Also, unlike most here, I 100% would leave the Catholic Church if they ordained female deacons/priests. I would leave in a heartbeat and never look back. It wouldn't even faze me. Seeing a woman cosplay in vestments like in the Episcopal Church is pure cringe. I look at it and know there is no truth there. And my reaction would be thankfulness that I would be privileged to be alive at a time when such a revelation might be made known to me. I would feel less anxiety for my soul to be blessed with such a clear cut opportunity for discernment.
(10-13-2019, 11:43 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-13-2019, 11:00 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Bingo.  Exactly this.  Part of this stuff is why I did finally become Orthodox. 

Not trying to get anyone here to do the same but I'm always curious as to why people stay where they do and how they rationalize and try to make sense of all this chaos. 

While this sort of thing was not my sole reason for leaving Rome by a longshot it certainly put me on a journey to seek out the answers to almost everything that troubled me and at the end of it I left the RCC and have not regretted it for a single moment, not even for a second.  

I feel for trads because RC ecclesiology leaves no real room for disobeying and not going along with or at least being under whoever happens to be pope and bishop of whatever diocese. 

 Personally I never was convinced of the SSPX position. If anything the sedes have a more logically coherent system but the papacy is the sine qua non of Catholicism and they don't have a pope so the whole thing falls apart.  To their credit they do not compromise. FSSP had to sell their souls for the mess of pottage that is the arguably different religion of Vatican II and live a precarious existence as a neutralized ghetto WITHIN the VAT II system.  

There's simply no legitimate recourse lay Catholics have other than to basically go in schism from their church. It's a very difficult and precarious situation for sure, and one I sympathize with because I've been there.

I guess I still STRONGLY believe the papacy as it came to be by the time of Vatican I is THE Achilles heel of Catholicism. I cannot be convinced otherwise at this point.

You're not wrong on any of your points in my opinion.  For others, the best version of the argument FB is making from the Orthodox position can be found here: http://orthochristian.com/105123.html

"The fruits of Vatican II can be found in Vatican I."

Quote:In 1870, Rome added yet another new dogma—Papal Infallibility. What most traditional Roman Catholics do not know about is the political maneuvering and tremendous pressure used by Pope Pius IX to get this new dogma declared. Ecumenical Councils are to meet free of outside pressure and their decisions must be unanimous or nearly so. Vatican I was anything but a free Council, and when Pius IX saw that he could not get a near unanimous vote he changed the rules and required only a majority. The night before the vote many bishops left Rome knowing that under the new rules a tragic new innovation would be pushed through. When the vote was taken many bishops were already gone, and lightening struck St. Peter’s where the bishops were meeting during the vote.

Many Roman Catholics refused to accept the new dogma of Papal Infallibility saying that a New Catholic Faith had been invented at the Vatican Council. Sound familiar? It should as many say the same thing about Vatican II. Professing the “Old Catholic” faith, many Roman Catholics separated from Rome and entered the Orthodox Church or formed Old Catholic Churches in Europe and the United States. Once again, rather than a center of unity, Rome was a cause of division.
Less than a century after the First Vatican Council ended the Second Vatican Council met in Rome. All of the changes in doctrine and practice adopted over some nine centuries made it easy to again “change the Church” at and after the Second Vatican Council.

The problem I have is that when I went Orthodox, I didn't find anything different from what I was seeing in the Catholic Church.  Orthodox metropolitans are liberal retards with the best of them, and that's a fact.  It takes exactly one second of googling to find evidence of this (e.g., https://www.oca.org/news/headline-news/m...f-families).  Now you may say that that is different from Orthodox metropolitans corrupting dogma.  True!  But if you're talking about being scandalized by modernists hierarchs in day to day life by every possible application of your faith to the contemporary world, you're SOL.  If you're talking about your church acting seditiously by, for instance, importing refugees into your country and not just into urban centers but into rural areas just to alter the demographics in deference to their globalist masters, the Orthodox Church is right there with the Catholics.  Your money WILL go to the bug eaters and the Facebook Soy Milk Industrial Complex as an Orthdox.

To be perfectly frank, I felt about as betrayed either way.  Do I want the church run by liberals that hasn't changed their liturgy or the church run by liberals that has?  Orthodoxy also, let's be real, has altered their teachings when it pleased them to do so.  Divorce, for example.  For the rest, they generally just refuse to comment on things and leave a wide berth for priests to say whatever the hell they want or nothing at all.  

I left Orthodoxy for the SSPX.  I simply don't want to deal with liberal retards in any capacity.  Period.  SSPX accommodates me on that point.  That's good enough for me, but I also am not one of the people on this forum fretting existentially.  If I don't go to heaven it will be because I never stopped watching porn and masturbating, not because I poorly discerned the true Church.  Experiencing Orthodoxy made me realize I don't actually care that much about the crisis in the Church in terms of "oh no my dogma".  I actually just 1) truly hate communists and crypto-communists to the very core of my being, 2) believe they deserve the death penalty, and 3) will never submit in any way or give money to any church or organization from which I get even the slightest whiff of any of that.  There's also the issues of your church dying, but that's circumstantial.

I don't think this is the rebuttal that many here would hope for.  However, I am completely at peace.  I know who I am and what I believe: a person who hates liberals.

Edit: Also, unlike most here, I 100% would leave the Catholic Church if they ordained female deacons/priests.  I would leave in a heartbeat and never look back.  It wouldn't even faze me.  Seeing a woman cosplay in vestments like in the Episcopal Church is pure cringe.  I look at it and know there is no truth there.  And my reaction would be thankfulness that I would be privileged to be alive at a time when such a revelation might be made known to me.  I would feel less anxiety for my soul to be blessed with such a clear cut opportunity for discernment.
Fair enough.  Your conscience is clear as is mine, and from reading your post I can tell this was not easy for you either, it took a long time of praying, reading and struggling through these very deep and difficult issues. 

I guess I'm not scandalized by Orthodoxy because I chose to become an Old Ritualist. If I lived in Erie I'd attend that Church exclusively and not even go to other Orthodox churches that weren't old rite, doing the home alone thing that I did for the last year or so of my Catholic days when not around an Old Rite Church.  I guess I have the eccentric and hardcore spirit of the Old Believers and probably always have, even when in Rome. 

I'd never attend an OCA, or GOA church for any reason.  That being said I do not deny there are a lot of problems within the Orthodox world just like there are in Rome. The same modernism is creeping into mainstream Orthodoxy here in America. I have no illusions about that.  I have an easier time justifying my position within the scope of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology than with as Roman one. Like I mentioned before, I just cannot personally square the circle of what I believe the papacy became and what that has done to the RCC.

  Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson in his paper  Notes on Orthodox Ecclesiology: Created Grace and the Mystification of Episcopal Power on his Rusjournal.org site gives a pretty good run down on my own views as does his book Sobornosti: Essays on the Old Faith. I like how the bishop is not the sine qua non of the Faith itself.  Maybe he is in modernist world Orthodoxy, but he isn't amongst more traditional and I suppose these days eccentric characters like me. 

I'm glad we could discuss this without rancor to be honest.

Oh, and I do like how there is a line in the sand for you regarding a female priesthood or diaconate. As I said in the other post for 99% of Catholics I would argue that no such line exists.  They would rationalize it, justify it, bury their heads in the sand or "go along to get along. "
The Church as no authority to convey the sacrament of Holy Orders on women. An attempt to do so would be invalid and constitute simulating a sacrament. Any Pope who approved women's ordination would commit formal heresy and sacrilege and would cut himself off from the Church and cease to be Pope. That Pope, and all prelates who followed him, would constitute nothing more than a schismatic and heretical sect, "Catholic" in name only. To follow that "Church" would be to follow it straight to Hell. A new Pope would need to be elected by the minority of orthodox prelates, and that would constitute the true Catholic Church. It could well happen, honestly. I wouldn't put much of anything past Francis.

If any of this happens, please, do not leave the Church. Do not jump ship to the Orthodox or to Protestantism. There is no salvation outside the Church, period, and to willfully leave it renders one's salvation impossible. Even if the whole of the mainstream hierarchy defects from the faith, there are still at least four Orthodox bishops (SSPX) left, and you can add to their number, I'm sure, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke and others. This means there will continue to be Orthodox priests, valid masses, and valid sacraments. Just because the Church goes back to the catacombs does not mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against her.

Also, one note on Vatican 1. Vatican 1 really did not exalt Papal Authority to the level of the absurdity, it did the opposite in fact. Whereas many Catholics just assumed a kind of universality of infallibility as regards the Pope, the council defined the strict limits of papal infallibility. It is of note that neither Vatican 2, nor ANY statements of the Conciliar Popes, fall within the category of extraordinary magisterium. There is no guarantee of infallibility as regards a Pope's teaching outside of those defined conditions. As the council (V1) said, the Holy Ghost was not given to the Pope so that he could invent new doctrines, but so that he could saintly safeguard and explain the deposit of faith once for all delivered to the saints. If in the exercise of his magisterium he departs from this (as ALL conciliar Popes have), and teaches new doctrines or contradicts established truth, we are under no obligation to follow him into error. Archbishop Lefebvre had it right all along; recognize and resist.
IF the Church is concerned about souls, then this will not happen.
.
If they are concerned about butts in the seats, it just may happen.  Yes, many will leave, but many will join, join because of women priests - they will enjoy sticking a finger in the eye of the Church, enjoy the downfall of 2000 years.
.
What would I do if we gain woman priests or deaconesses, yes, I will leave the RCC.  I will go SSPX, no matter the lousy neighborhood the local Church is in.  Orthodox is not for me.
.
My not-important question is, who gets the Vatican?
(10-13-2019, 02:31 PM)MaryTN Wrote: [ -> ]IF the Church is concerned about souls, then this will not happen.
.
If they are concerned about butts in the seats, it just may happen.  Yes, many will leave, but many will join, join because of women priests - they will enjoy sticking a finger in the eye of the Church, enjoy the downfall of 2000 years.
.
What would I do if we gain woman priests or deaconesses, yes, I will leave the RCC.  I will go SSPX, no matter the lousy neighborhood the local Church is in.  Orthodox is not for me.
.
My not-important question is, who gets the Vatican?

One correction: women priests will not put butts in seats.  There has never been a single instance of this happening in any church ever.  Every Pr*testant denomination that has done this has hemorrhaged members.  Women may say that they like the idea, but when it comes to experiencing it in practice, they apparently don't.  In fact, there is no liberal practice that has ever attracted members to a church; it always results in a net loss, and this is one of the most well-established sociological facts of the past 50-60 years.  If you want to know why the Catholic Church would consider going down this path when it is well-worn by the Pr*ds and has such negative results, consider my other thread about how Vatican finances really work.  They do not think of themselves as a religion but an NGO.  Liberal churches may have few members, but they get a lot of ink spilled about them in mainstream newspapers.  Think of how much the NYT writes about denominations like the UCC, despite it having fewer than 900K members.
(10-13-2019, 12:07 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: [ -> ]Fair enough.  Your conscience is clear as is mine, and from reading your post I can tell this was not easy for you either, it took a long time of praying, reading and struggling through these very deep and difficult issues. 

I guess I'm not scandalized by Orthodoxy because I chose to become an Old Ritualist. If I lived in Erie I'd attend that Church exclusively and not even go to other Orthodox churches that weren't old rite, doing the home alone thing that I did for the last year or so of my Catholic days when not around an Old Rite Church.  I guess I have the eccentric and hardcore spirit of the Old Believers and probably always have, even when in Rome. 

I'd never attend an OCA, or GOA church for any reason.  That being said I do not deny there are a lot of problems within the Orthodox world just like there are in Rome. The same modernism is creeping into mainstream Orthodoxy here in America. I have no illusions about that.  I have an easier time justifying my position within the scope of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology than with as Roman one. Like I mentioned before, I just cannot personally square the circle of what I believe the papacy became and what that has done to the RCC.

  Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson in his paper  Notes on Orthodox Ecclesiology: Created Grace and the Mystification of Episcopal Power on his Rusjournal.org site gives a pretty good run down on my own views as does his book Sobornosti: Essays on the Old Faith. I like how the bishop is not the sine qua non of the Faith itself.  Maybe he is in modernist world Orthodoxy, but he isn't amongst more traditional and I suppose these days eccentric characters like me. 

I'm glad we could discuss this without rancor to be honest.

Oh, and I do like how there is a line in the sand for you regarding a female priesthood or diaconate. As I said in the other post for 99% of Catholics I would argue that no such line exists.  They would rationalize it, justify it, bury their heads in the sand or "go along to get along. "

My opinion on Orthodoxy first changed when I traveled to Greece and got to experience a true "culturally Orthodox" country.  At my home altar, the centerpiece is an icon of St. John's vision of Christ as described in Revelations that I got from Patmos.  Visiting the cave where he wrote Revelations was amazing, and I would really recommend you make the trip if you can or haven't already.
(10-13-2019, 02:28 PM)1Faith Wrote: [ -> ]The Church as no authority to convey the sacrament of Holy Orders on women. An attempt to do so would be invalid and constitute simulating a sacrament. Any Pope who approved women's ordination would commit formal heresy and sacrilege and would cut himself off from the Church and cease to be Pope. That Pope, and all prelates who followed him, would constitute nothing more than a schismatic and heretical sect, "Catholic" in name only. To follow that "Church" would be to follow it straight to Hell. A new Pope would need to be elected by the minority of orthodox prelates, and that would constitute the true Catholic Church. It could well happen, honestly. I wouldn't put much of anything past Francis.

If any of this happens, please, do not leave the Church. Do not jump ship to the Orthodox or to Protestantism. There is no salvation outside the Church, period, and to willfully leave it renders one's salvation impossible. Even if the whole of the mainstream hierarchy defects from the faith, there are still at least four Orthodox bishops (SSPX) left, and you can add to their number, I'm sure, Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke and others. This means there will continue to be Orthodox priests, valid masses, and valid sacraments. Just because the Church goes back to the catacombs does not mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against her.

Also, one note on Vatican 1. Vatican 1 really did not exalt Papal Authority to the level of the absurdity, it did the opposite in fact. Whereas many Catholics just assumed a kind of universality of infallibility as regards the Pope, the council defined the strict limits of papal infallibility. It is of note that neither Vatican 2, nor ANY statements of the Conciliar Popes, fall within the category of extraordinary magisterium. There is no guarantee of infallibility as regards a Pope's teaching outside of those defined conditions. As the council (V1) said, the Holy Ghost was not given to the Pope so that he could invent new doctrines, but so that he could saintly safeguard and explain the deposit of faith once for all delivered to the saints. If in the exercise of his magisterium he departs from this (as ALL conciliar Popes have), and teaches new doctrines or contradicts established truth, we are under no obligation to follow him into error. Archbishop Lefebvre had it right all along; recognize and resist.

The idea of a "Church back to the catacombs" is an interesting one.  It all sounds good to me, but I feel like people on here have argued previously that such a situation would still constitute the gates of hell prevailing because of something about the role of the "visible Church," meaning what is generally perceived as the Catholic Church.  Do you haven any thoughts on this vague, unclear thing that I am poorly articulating??
Quote:Do you haven any thoughts on this vague, unclear thing that I am poorly articulating??
Yeah, so, first let's ask ourselves a couple questions. Was the Church not "visible" when it was literally in the catacombs, literally existing underground and clandestinely in peoples homes? Of course it was visible, it was just under persecution. There's no reason that can't happen again.

Now the next question. During the Arian crisis, when the majority of the hierarchy was in heresy, was the Church not visible? Of course it was visible! As St. Athanasius says, they have the buildings we have the faith. We are in a similar situation today, in that the majority of the hierarchy is in heresy. What's worse though, is that the majority of the hierarchy is actually in apostasy, and most horribly, Rome is as well. Even that does not explicitly contradict what was stated infallibly by Vatican 1, as no Conciliar Pope has invoked the extraordinary magisterium to define heresy. I do believe the Holy Ghost will prevent that from ever happening.

So once again, we are in a position where they have the buildings but we have the faith. The Church is still visible, and will remain visible, so long as we have orthodox bishops, orthodox priests, valid masses, and valid sacraments. The hierarchy still exists, materially, even though much of it is in apostasy. As far as I'm aware there is no dogma of the Church that says that church men cannot fall into heresy and apostasy. Here we are. Yes the church can go back to the catacombs and that is in fact where we are going. We are living the third secret of fatima, I keep saying this again and again, and its true! Padre Pio is reported to have said that the third secret reveals that Satan will rule over a false Church in the end times. Here we are. Hold fast the orthodox Catholic faith, the Church will persevere, even if only as a small and persecuted remnant.
(10-13-2019, 03:27 PM)1Faith Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Do you haven any thoughts on this vague, unclear thing that I am poorly articulating??
Yeah, so, first let's ask ourselves a couple questions. Was the Church not "visible" when it was literally in the catacombs, literally existing underground and clandestinely in peoples homes? Of course it was visible, it was just under persecution. There's no reason that can't happen again.

Now the next question. During the Arian crisis, when the majority of the hierarchy was in heresy, was the Church not visible? Of course it was visible! As St. Athanasius says, they have the buildings we have the faith. We are in a similar situation today, in that the majority of the hierarchy is in heresy. What's worse though, is that the majority of the hierarchy is actually in apostasy, and most horribly, Rome is as well. Even that does not explicitly contradict what was stated infallibly by Vatican 1, as no Conciliar Pope has invoked the extraordinary magisterium to define heresy. I do believe the Holy Ghost will prevent that from ever happening.

Being in heresy "in thought" as many clergy are and have been in the past is still different than if the Church went through with allowing ordination of women.  Yes, many priests and bishops seem to be in favor of female ordination, but it isn't a reality yet.

So to me it is a different case when members of the "visible Church" subscribed to the Arian heresy as it would be if female priests were ordained.  Female priests (or even deacons) would be visible to all Catholics, and there would be a direct association:  The visible, Catholic Church, based out of the Vatican and headed by the Pope, would be ordaining women.  From there, it is hard then to discern who the "true" Catholics would be, from an outside perspective at least.
Pages: 1 2 3 4