Hypothetically, would ordination of women mean the gates of hell had prevailed?
#21
(10-13-2019, 08:46 AM)LionHippo Wrote: consolation prize to women and a tangible step to priesthood which is still very far off.

If women are 'ordained' deaconettes, I wouldn't bet on this. I was an Anglican whilst they were going through their paganisation. When women were ordained 'deacons' we were assured in no uncertain terms that that was it. Sort of like Hitler taking the Sudetenland and assuring Europe that that was it.

A very few years later, when women were ordained priestesses we were again told that female 'bishops' were an impossibility, that it would never happen. Today, less than 50 years later, the Anglican Churches of the northern hemisphere teem with bishopettes.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 5 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, josh987654321, LionHippo, whitewashed_tomb
Reply
#22
(10-13-2019, 04:37 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: If women are 'ordained' deaconettes, I wouldn't bet on this. I was an Anglican whilst they were going through their paganisation. When women were ordained 'deacons' we were assured in no uncertain terms that that was it. Sort of like Hitler taking the Sudetenland and assuring Europe that that was it.

A very few years later, when women were ordained priestesses we were again told that female 'bishops' were an impossibility, that it would never happen. Today, less than 50 years later, the Anglican Churches of the northern hemisphere teem with bishopettes.

Remember how "same sex unions" were supposed to be the compromise so that there wouldn't be "gay marriage"?  Those same people who said it was a slippery slope fallacy to say one would lead to the other are now cheering state-enforced genital mutilation and puberty blockers for children.
[-] The following 6 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • antiquarian, Augustinian, jack89, jovan66102, LionHippo, whitewashed_tomb
Reply
#23
It's possible the pope could passively allow these abuses to be done by heretical bishops. It wouldn't mean the gates of hell prevailed, just that people are sinful.
Reply
#24
(10-13-2019, 04:51 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Remember how "same sex unions" were supposed to be the compromise so that there wouldn't be "gay marriage"?  Those same people who said it was a slippery slope fallacy to say one would lead to the other are now cheering state-enforced genital mutilation and puberty blockers for children.

And how we were assured that churches would never be forced to perform pervert 'marriages'? Now, Beto O'Rourke is campaigning on stripping churches of their tax exemption if they refuse to bend the knee to perversion.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 4 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • antiquarian, josh987654321, MiserereMeiDeus, whitewashed_tomb
Reply
#25
(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.

Correct.

(10-13-2019, 02:28 PM)1Faith Wrote: 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.

He would profess the matter of heresy if he positively taught and ordered this in contravention of the magisterium which has definitively settled the matter. The toleration of it would not constitute this. Nor would a mistake. To be a formal heretic, there needs to be not only error, but also knowledge that this is against what the Faith and pertinacity in this error established. The stubbornness is the form of the heresy.

A lot of the SV crowd get this wrong, and they think that "manifest formal heresy" means that some heresy has been manifested, or expressed. The crime of heresy for which even a Pope might lose his membership in the Church, thus his office, requires pertinacity. This is what is meant by "manifest" heresy.

Theologians are not settled on how a Pope could cease to be Pope by heresy, but clearly it cannot just be teaching or promoting something heretical, and even if we recognize it as clearly heretical, we don't get to declare a Pope deposed for this. Some authority has to intervene, even if it is only an imperfect authority.

Francis, however, does not work like this. He does not like definitions or clarity. He likes confusion and ambiguity and so when he wants to make changes stirs the pot and while everyone is going crazy over something he does not intend to implement, he pushes the line elsewhere, slowly advancing the changes he wants.

I stand to be corrected, but I think the whole women's ordination question is just a smokescreen to make non-celibate Latin clergy seem a tolerable outcome of the Synod. Either this or the purpose is to push some other non-Sacramental women's ministry to create a confusion between the Deacon and these women, and in doing this to eventually push for women deacons later.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#26
(10-13-2019, 09:41 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: He would profess the matter of heresy if he positively taught and ordered this in contravention of the magisterium which has definitively settled the matter. The toleration of it would not constitute this. Nor would a mistake. To be a formal heretic, there needs to be not only error, but also knowledge that this is against what the Faith and pertinacity in this error established. The stubbornness is the form of the heresy.

A lot of the SV crowd get this wrong, and they think that "manifest formal heresy" means that some heresy has been manifested, or expressed. The crime of heresy for which even a Pope might lose his membership in the Church, thus his office, requires pertinacity. This is what is meant by "manifest" heresy.

Theologians are not settled on how a Pope could cease to be Pope by heresy, but clearly it cannot just be teaching or promoting something heretical, and even if we recognize it as clearly heretical, we don't get to declare a Pope deposed for this. Some authority has to intervene, even if it is only an imperfect authority.

Francis, however, does not work like this. He does not like definitions or clarity. He likes confusion and ambiguity and so when he wants to make changes stirs the pot and while everyone is going crazy over something he does not intend to implement, he pushes the line elsewhere, slowly advancing the changes he wants.

I stand to be corrected, but I think the whole women's ordination question is just a smokescreen to make non-celibate Latin clergy seem a tolerable outcome of the Synod. Either this or the purpose is to push some other non-Sacramental women's ministry to create a confusion between the Deacon and these women, and in doing this to eventually push for women deacons later.

But regardless of whether it is heretical or not for the Pope to do it, how can the Catholic Church continue to exist if the average person cannot be certain that they are truly receiving the sacraments or not?  Are we to expect every Catholic to inquire about the line of apostolic succession that led to the priest consecrating the gifts, every time, for every Mass and every confession?  I'm not that concerned about the Pope's intentions or whether he is a heretic or not.  I'm concerned about how the Church can continue to be what it claims to be if participation in the sacraments is not guaranteed.  The question of heresy and intention isn't even in my mind.
Reply
#27
(10-14-2019, 11:58 AM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: But regardless of whether it is heretical or not for the Pope to do it, how can the Catholic Church continue to exist if the average person cannot be certain that they are truly receiving the sacraments or not?  Are we to expect every Catholic to inquire about the line of apostolic succession that led to the priest consecrating the gifts, every time, for every Mass and every confession?  I'm not that concerned about the Pope's intentions or whether he is a heretic or not.  I'm concerned about how the Church can continue to be what it claims to be if participation in the sacraments is not guaranteed.  The question of heresy and intention isn't even in my mind.

I mean, honestly, this already might be prevalent in the Church as it is. Especially in the more "progressive" NO parishes.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#28
From Pope Leo XIII prayer of exorcism May 18, 1890

"His most crafty enemies have engulfed the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate lamb, with sorrows; they have drenched her with wormwood; on all her desirable things they have laid their wicked hands. Where the See of the Blessed Peter and the Chair of Truth have been set up for the light of the Gentiles, there they have placed the throne of the abomination of their wickedness, so that, the Pastor having been struck, they may also be able to scatter the flock."

Truly terrifying and even, dare I say, apocalyptic times we are living in. Behold the mystery of iniquity and the final battle, the masterstroke of Satan. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us....

Sent from my SM-J260T1 using Tapatalk
[-] The following 2 users Like 1Faith's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump, josh987654321
Reply
#29
There are many such quotes from Popes raising red flags about the state of the Church.  It is certainly faith affirming.  The progressive Catholic mantra is "LOL what crisis are you even talking about omg :rolls eyes:" but I wonder how they would explain what these Popes were referring to?  Do they think they meant the crisis of toxic trads who don't like same sex marriage?
[-] The following 2 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • josh987654321, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#30
Quote:progressive Catholic
Correction; apostate Catholic. Catholic by virtue of their baptism/confirmation, but without the Catholic faith. Theres no such thing as a progressive Catholic, or a conservative, or a traditionalist. There are only Orthodox Catholics and heretics.

Sent from my SM-J260T1 using Tapatalk
[-] The following 2 users Like 1Faith's post:
  • josh987654321, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)