The Pope Plans to Allow Women to the Office of Lector
#61
(11-17-2010, 08:03 AM)mike6240 Wrote: Vulgar languages replacing Latin?  Not gonna happen. 
The Holy Mass replaced?  Not gonna happen. 
Women in the sanctuary?  Not gonna happen. 
Communion in the hand?  Not gonna happen.
Lay people distributing Communion?  Not gonna happen.
Female Lectors?  Not gonna happen.
Female Altar boys?  Not gonna happen.

The Church has the authority to declare in what language the Mass is to be celebrated. I am fairly certain that in the extremely early Church, Mass was offered in Greek, although I am not entirely sure. However, it is not specifically decided by God that only the Latin language can be used to consecrate the Eucharist validly, which Christ did not use when he instituted it.

The Mass is a matter of the liturgy, over which the Church has control and which the Church regulates. All that is necessary for validity is to speak the words of consecration; the rest is obviously very important, but even without it, the Eucharist is still valid but illicit. The Mass has the same words of consecration. The Church has always had authority to decide what is done with the Mass.

I am unaware of any declaration in which the Church has stated that she has no authority to allow women into the sanctuary of a church. While it is certainly undesirable to have women in the sanctuary, and I do not approve of it because of our traditional practices, entrance into the sanctuary is not accompanied by an ontological change in the soul which cannot be accomplished in a woman.

Communion distribution, like the Mass, has always been based on the rules of the Church and what she has decided to be the proper method of reception. If I am not mistaken, Communion in the hand was the method of distribution in the very early Church which was changed when the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was questioned to reinforce the belief - just as the Host was only given when the heresy arose of the necessity to receive both species for a complete sacrament.

Lay people distributing Communion is, while clearly not preferable, something the Church can decide if she so chooses, because it is not accompanied by a change that cannot happen, or an inherent contradiction in itself. It is most definitely a privilege of the ordained to touch the sacred species with their own hands, but there is no logical contradiction in a layman distributing Communion like there is in the impossible ordination of a female "priest" which is tantamount to drawing square circles.

Female lectors would not have been possible when the role of lector was an ordained role, because they cannot receive ordination, but it is not an ordained role now.

Female altar "boys" are also something that is not impossible. It is not preferable, but it is possible.

The point is that there is an inherent logical contradiction in "female priest". It cannot happen. It is not like laymen distributing Communion or female altar boys because it is something that literally cannot happen, while those are not preferable but possible actions. A woman cannot be ordained, and if anyone tried, nothing would happen - no Eucharist is consecrated validly, nor are any other sacraments that require ordination valid from this person. It is definitely possible for a woman to enter the sanctuary; just look at your average parish for evidence of this. For them to be equivalent, there would need to be a force that prevented women from entering the sanctuary, making it actually impossible for them to enter, accompanied by acceptance of the phenomenon by the Church. There is a wall preventing women from becoming priests, which is the invalidity of the sacrament if attempted on a non-male.
Reply
#62
(11-17-2010, 03:47 PM)Gladium Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 08:03 AM)mike6240 Wrote: Vulgar languages replacing Latin?  Not gonna happen. 
The Holy Mass replaced?  Not gonna happen. 
Women in the sanctuary?  Not gonna happen. 
Communion in the hand?  Not gonna happen.
Lay people distributing Communion?  Not gonna happen.
Female Lectors?  Not gonna happen.
Female Altar boys?  Not gonna happen.

The Church has the authority to declare in what language the Mass is to be celebrated. I am fairly certain that in the extremely early Church, Mass was offered in Greek, although I am not entirely sure. However, it is not specifically decided by God that only the Latin language can be used to consecrate the Eucharist validly, which Christ did not use when he instituted it.

The Mass is a matter of the liturgy, over which the Church has control and which the Church regulates. All that is necessary for validity is to speak the words of consecration; the rest is obviously very important, but even without it, the Eucharist is still valid but illicit. The Mass has the same words of consecration. The Church has always had authority to decide what is done with the Mass.

I am unaware of any declaration in which the Church has stated that she has no authority to allow women into the sanctuary of a church. While it is certainly undesirable to have women in the sanctuary, and I do not approve of it because of our traditional practices, entrance into the sanctuary is not accompanied by an ontological change in the soul which cannot be accomplished in a woman.

Communion distribution, like the Mass, has always been based on the rules of the Church and what she has decided to be the proper method of reception. If I am not mistaken, Communion in the hand was the method of distribution in the very early Church which was changed when the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was questioned to reinforce the belief - just as the Host was only given when the heresy arose of the necessity to receive both species for a complete sacrament.

Lay people distributing Communion is, while clearly not preferable, something the Church can decide if she so chooses, because it is not accompanied by a change that cannot happen, or an inherent contradiction in itself. It is most definitely a privilege of the ordained to touch the sacred species with their own hands, but there is no logical contradiction in a layman distributing Communion like there is in the impossible ordination of a female "priest" which is tantamount to drawing square circles.

Female lectors would not have been possible when the role of lector was an ordained role, because they cannot receive ordination, but it is not an ordained role now.

Female altar "boys" are also something that is not impossible. It is not preferable, but it is possible.

The point is that there is an inherent logical contradiction in "female priest". It cannot happen. It is not like laymen distributing Communion or female altar boys because it is something that literally cannot happen, while those are not preferable but possible actions. A woman cannot be ordained, and if anyone tried, nothing would happen - no Eucharist is consecrated validly, nor are any other sacraments that require ordination valid from this person. It is definitely possible for a woman to enter the sanctuary; just look at your average parish for evidence of this. For them to be equivalent, there would need to be a force that prevented women from entering the sanctuary, making it actually impossible for them to enter, accompanied by acceptance of the phenomenon by the Church. There is a wall preventing women from becoming priests, which is the invalidity of the sacrament if attempted on a non-male.

Your entire post brings the Church down to the lowest common denominator.  All I keep hearing from those who obstinately (desperately?) defend the NO is:

All that is necessary for validity is to speak the words of consecration; the rest is obviously very important, but even without it, the Eucharist is still valid but illicit.

The Catholic Church is not the Church of the lowest common denominator.  Defending practices and so called  "Canon Law" in the Novus Ordo Church on the grounds that it is "valid but illicit" is not Catholic.  The Catholic Church is supposed to be the pinnacle and Bride of Christ.  Not something we cringe at and endure on the grounds that it is "valid but illicit".  I believe the ordination of women is in the works and will be a fact, at least in the Novus Ordo Diaconate, in the near future.  Something will come out of Rome - full of ambiguities and vagueness.  This will then trigger a rush to interpret such a pronouncement as "valid but illicit" for the start of females in the diaconate.  Then the ball will be rolling for Novus Ordo priestesses.  I'm not making this up.  This type of governence in the Novus Ordo Church has been going on since Vat. II - vagueness and abiguity - and let the bishops interpret what they may and then do their own thing - along with the sound of chirping of crickets coming from out of the Vatican.
Reply
#63
(11-17-2010, 04:16 PM)mike6240 Wrote: Your entire post brings the Church down to the lowest common denominator.  All I keep hearing from those who obstinately (desperately?) defend the NO is:

All that is necessary for validity is to speak the words of consecration; the rest is obviously very important, but even without it, the Eucharist is still valid but illicit.

The Catholic Church is not the Church of the lowest common denominator.  Defending practices and so called  "Canon Law" in the Novus Ordo Church on the grounds that it is "valid but illicit" is not Catholic.  The Catholic Church is supposed to be the pinnacle and Bride of Christ.  Not something we cringe at and endure on the grounds that it is "valid but illicit".  I believe the ordination of women is in the works and will be a fact, at least in the Novus Ordo Diaconate, in the near future.  Something will come out of Rome - full of ambiguities and vagueness.  This will then trigger a rush to interpret such a pronouncement as "valid but illicit" for the start of females in the diaconate.  Then the ball will be rolling for Novus Ordo priestesses.  I'm not making this up.  This type of governence in the Novus Ordo Church has been going on since Vat. II - vagueness and abiguity - and let the bishops interpret what they may and then do their own thing.

I am not saying what is the most preferable option, or what should be happening. I am taking a completely emotionless, without-opinion, analytical perspective: women walking into the sanctuary is physically possible, but a woman becoming a priest is impossible. I don't see how I could be "obstinately defending the NO" when I go to the TLM exclusively as long as it is an option, which is always (not to say I would not fulfill my obligation by any means necessary if I had to), and I most firmly believe that the Church would be in a better position if, unequivocally, all of the things you mentioned were reversed. I understand the importance of making everything as ideal as it can be, and I believe that the Church should have every sacrament, every ceremony, and every discipline done with the utmost perfection for the glory of God.

That is not to say that I cannot take a dispassionate perspective. Vulgar languages replacing Latin, for example, is something that does not affect the validity of the Mass, which is an assured fact. That is irrelevant to whether it should be done (my position on which is in the negative); I am only speaking in black and white terms of possibility and impossibility. Actions fall into two categories, possible and impossible, and from there are divided into good and bad. An impossible action - the ordination of women - is on an entirely different plane and cannot be compared to a bad possible action, like changing the Mass or any others of the things you listed.
Reply
#64
Even if things don't get to the point where women are (invalidly) ordained, there's a lot of bad ideas that can happen outside of that.  For example, they can open up homilies to the laity, etc. so that women (and laymen) become de facto priests.  I mean, think of a Communion service without a priest but a female (or lay male) "presider" doing everything besides the Consecration and Sacrifice.  That for sure could happen with the track things are on.

B16 has slowed the runaway V2 train, and I'm still hopeful he will put it back on the tracks.  But, time will tell.
Reply
#65
(11-17-2010, 09:24 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Even if things don't get to the point where women are (invalidly) ordained, there's a lot of bad ideas that can happen outside of that.  For example, they can open up homilies to the laity, etc. so that women (and laymen) become de facto priests.  I mean, think of a Communion service without a priest but a female (or lay male) "presider" doing everything besides the Consecration and Sacrifice.  That for sure could happen with the track things are on.

B16 has slowed the runaway V2 train, and I'm still hopeful he will put it back on the tracks.  But, time will tell.

Yeah, this seems like another trial baloon, like the whole issue with "limbo" and his appeal to modernity by beatifying Cardinal Newman, for example. 
Reply
#66
There is way too much speculation here. Let's remember it was Ratzinger who shot down those seeking women deacons when he headed the CDF:

"Notification on women as ordained deacons
1. Our offices have received from several countries signs of courses that are being planned or underway, directly or indirectly aimed at the diaconal ordination of women. Thus are born hopes which are lacking a solid doctrinal foundation and which can generate pastoral disorientation.

2. Since [the Church] does not foresee such ordination, it is not licit to enact initiatives which, in some way, aim to prepare women candidates for diaconal ordination.

3. The authentic promotion of women in the Church, in conformity with the constant ecclesial Magisterium, with special reference to [the teaching] of His Holiness John Paul II, opens other ample prospectives of service and collaboration.

4. The undersigned Congregations within the sphere of their proper authority thus turn to the individual ordinaries, asking them to explain [this] to their own faithful and to apply diligently the above-mentioned directives."
CDF, Sept. 17, 2001. Approved by John Paul II on Sept. 14
http://www.adoremus.org/1001womendeacons.html

It was also Ratzinger who pointed out that the teaching of John Paul II excluding women from the priesthood in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" is infallible.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

I think it's hardly credible to suggest he or the Church is going to reverse these teachings.

C.

Reply
#67
(11-17-2010, 09:24 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Even if things don't get to the point where women are (invalidly) ordained, there's a lot of bad ideas that can happen outside of that.  For example, they can open up homilies to the laity, etc. so that women (and laymen) become de facto priests.  I mean, think of a Communion service without a priest but a female (or lay male) "presider" doing everything besides the Consecration and Sacrifice.  That for sure could happen with the track things are on.

B16 has slowed the runaway V2 train, and I'm still hopeful he will put it back on the tracks.  But, time will tell.

This is exactly what I meant from my previous post.  Of course the current Vatican hierarchy won't publicly endorse women's ordination - and I'm sure Benedict and many other NO bishops, etc.  adhere to a male only priesthood.  Women's ordination will slowly come into the NO church by stealth, as you described above, and by those outside of the "conservative" hierarchy.  This is the way that Progressives, before Vat. II, implemented their heresies.  Little by little, step by step along with deafening silence and hand wringing / detatchment from the top.  I'm sure It (women's ordination) will come to the NO church - whether it be "valid" but illicit or called by some other obscure euphemism.  It's just a matter of time.  We have historical precedence for this type of progressive infiltration and implementation of heresies. 

Just a matter of time......

[Image: 112-Hour-Glass-q75-314x500.jpg]
Reply
#68
I am amazed at the number of posters who seem to accept the defectibility of the Church and the possibility that, contrary to our Lord's promise, the gates of hell will prevail against Her!
Reply
#69
(11-20-2010, 12:11 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I am amazed at the number of posters who seem to accept the defectibility of the Church and the possibility that, contrary to our Lord's promise, the gates of hell will prevail against Her!

Best post in this thread.

C.
Reply
#70
(11-20-2010, 12:11 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: I am amazed at the number of posters who seem to accept the defectibility of the Church and the possibility that, contrary to our Lord's promise, the gates of hell will prevail against Her!

No, the gates of hell have not prevailed against The Holy Roman Catholic Church, as small a remnant that She is today.

...now, if you're asking about the Novus Ordo church which sprung from Vat. II ?  :shrug:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)