Women to Control Vatican !
#31
Melchior Wrote:You're missing the point.  Your post essentially said "women can't teach, and need to keep quiet".  Yet "Doctor of the Church (Latin doctor, teacher, from Latin docere, to teach)" indicates otherwise.

Either the Scriptures are in error or we are seeing a new interpretation and rewriting ("adding") to this impasse.   What positions are these women going to be given?  Not in the Curia, the ruling body of the Church, it hasn't been said.  The London Time-UK is merely speculating or insinuating that women should be given roles of importance in the Church.  Doctors of the Church ONLY teach and elucidate what has already been interpreted and taught by the Magisterium.  Our holy women Doctors of the Church, Sts. Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila, were extraordinary:  both had direct conversations with God.    St. Therese of Lisieux's autobiography inspired holiness and the virtue of charity.  The newly appointed Doctor only last year, Hildegard of Bingen I don't know much except that she was a great critic of secular and religious leaders (somebody who might make a good ministress of some position today).

But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.
Reply
#32
(04-22-2013, 09:54 AM)Vincentius Wrote: But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.

Perhaps your personal interpretation of that passage is in error? 
Reply
#33
Everybody has been complaining about the Vatican administration. incompetance, corruption suspected "gay mafia." Now they are talking about bringing in new faces and some of you are still complaining.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????? 
Reply
#34
(04-22-2013, 11:06 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 09:54 AM)Vincentius Wrote: But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.

Perhaps your personal interpretation of that passage is in error? 

I don't know where this is leading to.  Personal interpretation?  Catholics do not INTERPRET what the Scriptures have stated, nor do they TRANSLATE into their own words what the Scriptures say, as we see in the various "versions" of the Bible (NAB, NIV, Jerusalem, et al., all "Catholic" in name)..  If this is done, we end up into denominational divisions such has happened to Protestants. Perhaps you do interpret what the Scriptures say, or do you look into what the Magisterium has already taught and interpreted what the Scripture have said?  That's when you end up in error.
Reply
#35
(04-22-2013, 11:24 AM)Vincentius Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 11:06 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 09:54 AM)Vincentius Wrote: But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.

Perhaps your personal interpretation of that passage is in error? 

I don't know where this is leading to.  Personal interpretation?  Catholics do not INTERPRET what the Scriptures have stated, nor do they TRANSLATE into their own words what the Scriptures say, as we see in the various "versions" of the Bible (NAB, NIV, Jerusalem, et al., all "Catholic" in name)..  If this is done, we end up into denominational divisions such has happened to Protestants. Perhaps you do interpret what the Scriptures say, or do you look into what the Magisterium has already taught and interpreted what the Scripture have said?  That's when you end up in error.

The Church is obviously fine with female teachers, otherwise we would not have female Doctors of the Church.  We wouldn't have had Sisters teaching in schools back in the day either.  We certainly would not have had any women found any religious orders or congregations.  And IIRC, the Benedictines have had female abbots (abbess') in the past, although my knowledge is more geared towards mendicant than monastic.

The above elements I speak of all predate Vatican II, so I'm confused why you think women should be silent and not teach.
Reply
#36
(04-22-2013, 11:32 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 11:24 AM)Vincentius Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 11:06 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 09:54 AM)Vincentius Wrote: But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.

Perhaps your personal interpretation of that passage is in error? 

I don't know where this is leading to.  Personal interpretation?  Catholics do not INTERPRET what the Scriptures have stated, nor do they TRANSLATE into their own words what the Scriptures say, as we see in the various "versions" of the Bible (NAB, NIV, Jerusalem, et al., all "Catholic" in name)..  If this is done, we end up into denominational divisions such has happened to Protestants. Perhaps you do interpret what the Scriptures say, or do you look into what the Magisterium has already taught and interpreted what the Scripture have said?  That's when you end up in error.

The Church is obviously fine with female teachers, otherwise we would not have female Doctors of the Church.  We wouldn't have had Sisters teaching in schools back in the day either.  We certainly would not have had any women found any religious orders or congregations.  And IIRC, the Benedictines have had female abbots (abbess') in the past, although my knowledge is more geared towards mendicant than monastic.

The above elements I speak of all predate Vatican II, so I'm confused why you think women should be silent and not teach.

I had wondered where all this was leading to and now I see it.  This has nothing to do with Women Doctors of the Church, though they were teachers by their example of their pious lives.  The OP was all about "Pope Francis' plans to appoint lay women to top jobs in the Vatican and to dilute the power of Italian cardinals in a radical shake-up of the Catholic Church’s government following a series of scandals."  It has nothing to do with Doctors of the Church or that women should be silent and not teach.  They are talking about power struggles in  the top levels of the Church -- the Curia, etc. -- as the thought that women were going to be the capable instruments to do the "fixing," and this definitely has nothing to do with lay women teachers, or nuns (I was raised by Augustinians nuns in my grade school).

One significant thing about "top Jobs" assigned to women.  Would you for one even consider for one second that our holy women Doctors who would be offered these jobs jump into it opportunistically?  No way!  They will run to the hills!  However, in these times we have woman would NOT say "No."  And I don't think this has even entered into the mind of the pope to have women run the Vatican.  And while we are at it, lets not get into women readers of the Scripturees at Mass and distributing holy Communion and blessing the congregation (hasn't happened in my Church yet but it seems so in others where liberal priests allow them.
Reply
#37
(04-22-2013, 01:04 PM)Vincentius Wrote: I had wondered where all this was leading to and now I see it.  This has nothing to do with Women Doctors of the Church, though they were teachers by their example of their pious lives.  The OP was all about "Pope Francis' plans to appoint lay women to top jobs in the Vatican and to dilute the power of Italian cardinals in a radical shake-up of the Catholic Church’s government following a series of scandals."  It has nothing to do with Doctors of the Church or that women should be silent and not teach.   They are talking about power struggles in  the top levels of the Church -- the Curia, etc. -- as the thought that women were going to be the capable instruments to do the "fixing," and this definitely has nothing to do with lay women teachers, or nuns (I was raised by Augustinians nuns in my grade school).

One significant thing about "top Jobs" assigned to women.  Would you for one even consider for one second that our holy women Doctors who would be offered these jobs jump into it opportunistically?  No way!  They will run to the hills!  However, in these times we have woman would NOT say "No."  And I don't think this has even entered into the mind of the pope to have women run the Vatican.  And while we are at it, lets not get into women readers of the Scripturees at Mass and distributing holy Communion and blessing the congregation (hasn't happened in my Church yet but it seems so in others where liberal priests allow them.

Again, there are Superiors who are women, and women who have founded groups.  St. Clare, for one.  If they had been offered those roles, and they may have accepted them based on accepting leadership positions.

You brought up teaching by using that verse from Timothy, which is how we got into this discussion.
Reply
#38
For me, the mentality that I'm seeing amongst so many reflects the depth of rupture with tradition.  Hint: it goes way, way beyond liturgical modes.

A traditional minded Catholic would immediately detect this as novelty, never before seen.  Anyone claiming that appointing lay women as curial administrators is remotely in line with Church practice, or is defensible because there are some exceptional cases of woman Doctors, is not operating within the realm of the Catholic mind.

Anyone who squawks about pre-Trent ways, well be prepared: the Fathers and virtually every single Catholic thinker pre-Industrial Era understood there are ontological differences between men and women and that is why the natural law is for men to lead, decide, etc.

St. Bonaventure gives a rather direct and crisp perspective regarding the 'two wills' and the gross anti-natural quality to a woman attempting to foist the wrong will (and for that matter, a man to do likewise.)  Hint: A lot of this is bound up in the Fall.  For more information, read the Breviloquiem.

How much does this Pope have to do to convince you that this is perhaps the most radical course we have seen since Paul VI- or even worse?  Muslim/Atheist food washing and kissing, obnoxiously apparent 'humility,' rejection of Papal symbols of office, not so veiled swipes at traditionalists who, as a personal thinker the Popes says are 'rejecting the Holy Spirit.'  

If the Pope wanted to break up the gay club, he cloud announce today at his will that he is appointed Traditional Catholic men as Cardinals- if no clerics were available, he could appoint laymen.  He could demand all Bishops publicly take the anti-modernist oath.  He could simple stand up on the loggia and say 'EENS- You all need to convert to the one true Faith and die in unity of the Church in order to be saved.'

The mental gymnastics involved to claim appointing lay women as administrators, who presumably will therefore direct the actions of some of the clergy, could be good... you would have to be high or not thinking.
Reply
#39
Well said, kingtheoden. I think it would indeed be a good idea to appoint Traditional Catholics as Cardinals as a solution to the gay club (in the curia?). But I don't think that the Pope realizes that Traditional Catholic men would be the best choice, since he doesn't appear to have a good understanding of how Traditionalists view the importance of chastity, integrity, and honesty. These are very important to trads. If only the Pope could understand this.

But even if he does understand this, he might not be able to get past the idea that Traditionalists love the old liturgy, and beautiful churches, etc. Not his cup of tea, most likely.
Reply
#40
(04-22-2013, 11:06 AM)Melchior Wrote:
(04-22-2013, 09:54 AM)Vincentius Wrote: But I still hold on to what St. Paul admonished.

Perhaps your personal interpretation of that passage is in error? 


Perhaps your problem is this

[Image: 23372611.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)