Catholics only: should women be ordained as priests?

[Mopsus]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore.

We Catholics are far beyond Your imagination, our nomen est omen: We are not a "denomination" (=sect) condemning other "denominations" (=sects) roughly equal to us - we know, that everything of worth is (anonymously) catholic: Naturally HOMER or HUME, DANTE or DESCARTES, SOCRATES and SHAKESPEARE aso.; but also the music of BACH (apart from a - typically protestantic - pitifullness caused by the lack of confession) or the epistemology of KANT (apart from a - typically protestantic - ignorance of the pulchrum) aso. - "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"!
"All greatness is brotherly, because all worthness is based on rejecting the offer of the snake." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

Wait, doesn't this nullify everything you just said?

[Georg Ebner]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore.

We Catholics are far beyond Your imagination, our nomen est omen: We are not a "denomination" (=sect) condemning other "denominations" (=sects) roughly equal to us - we know, that everything of worth is (anonymously) catholic: Naturally HOMER or HUME, DANTE or DESCARTES, SOCRATES and SHAKESPEARE aso.; but also the music of BACH (apart from a - typically protestantic - pitifullness caused by the lack of confession) or the epistemology of KANT (apart from a - typically protestantic - ignorance of the pulchrum) aso. - "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"!
"All greatness is brotherly, because all worthness is based on rejecting the offer of the snake." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

Wait, doesn't this nullify everything you just said?

No, not at all! As prof. D.v.HILDEBRAND explained with MOZART's MagicFlute: It was free-masonic by content - but who takes care on that -, yet the wonderful music is catholic. "Anima naturaliter christiana." "Every verity is catholic." (St.AUGUSTINE) "The Catholic Church brought, what all - Jews and pagans - were hoping for, usually unconsciously." (J.RATZINGER)
And more: "World history can only be understood by a catholic, because all human thoughts - even errors and sins refused and refuted by the Holy Church - are encapsulated in HIS Mystical Body." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

[Orwell]

I'm not a Catholic, but my roommates are and I read this and asked them. They said no, and their reasoning was tradition.

[Georg Ebner]

I'm not a Catholic, but my roommates are and I read this and asked them. They said no, and their reasoning was tradition.

Those quotations are/were well known, Ratzinger's is from His "Jesus"-TriLogy.
Prof. Dietrich von Hildebrand, who is a little bit forgotten these days, was a supporter of the Latin Mass like i myself!
Ad traditio: Your RoomMates should not forget, that the Holy Church has condemned (explicitely especially in Vaticanum I, implicitely always) any crypto-agnostic and crypto-protestantic fideism - our TraDitio includes both: fides et ratio; the unique revelations to AT-Jews&Apostles and the empirical&logical verities found by the pagans. Like JESUS is also CHRIST, historical and eternal.

[Mopsus]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore.

We Catholics are far beyond Your imagination, our nomen est omen: We are not a "denomination" (=sect) condemning other "denominations" (=sects) roughly equal to us - we know, that everything of worth is (anonymously) catholic: Naturally HOMER or HUME, DANTE or DESCARTES, SOCRATES and SHAKESPEARE aso.; but also the music of BACH (apart from a - typically protestantic - pitifullness caused by the lack of confession) or the epistemology of KANT (apart from a - typically protestantic - ignorance of the pulchrum) aso. - "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"!
"All greatness is brotherly, because all worthness is based on rejecting the offer of the snake." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

Wait, doesn't this nullify everything you just said?

No, not at all! As prof. D.v.HILDEBRAND explained with MOZART's MagicFlute: It was free-masonic by content - but who takes care on that -, yet the wonderful music is catholic. "Anima naturaliter christiana." "Every verity is catholic." (St.AUGUSTINE) "The Catholic Church brought, what all - Jews and pagans - were hoping for, usually unconsciously." (J.RATZINGER)
And more: "World history can only be understood by a catholic, because all human thoughts - even errors and sins refused and refuted by the Holy Church - are encapsulated in HIS Mystical Body." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

So if everything is contained within the Body of Christ, how does one come to be far enough outside the Body to be damned?

[Georg Ebner]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore.

We Catholics are far beyond Your imagination, our nomen est omen: We are not a "denomination" (=sect) condemning other "denominations" (=sects) roughly equal to us - we know, that everything of worth is (anonymously) catholic: Naturally HOMER or HUME, DANTE or DESCARTES, SOCRATES and SHAKESPEARE aso.; but also the music of BACH (apart from a - typically protestantic - pitifullness caused by the lack of confession) or the epistemology of KANT (apart from a - typically protestantic - ignorance of the pulchrum) aso. - "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus"!
"All greatness is brotherly, because all worthness is based on rejecting the offer of the snake." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

Wait, doesn't this nullify everything you just said?

No, not at all! As prof. D.v.HILDEBRAND explained with MOZART's MagicFlute: It was free-masonic by content - but who takes care on that -, yet the wonderful music is catholic. "Anima naturaliter christiana." "Every verity is catholic." (St.AUGUSTINE) "The Catholic Church brought, what all - Jews and pagans - were hoping for, usually unconsciously." (J.RATZINGER)
And more: "World history can only be understood by a catholic, because all human thoughts - even errors and sins refused and refuted by the Holy Church - are encapsulated in HIS Mystical Body." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

So if everything is contained within the Body of Christ, how does one come to be far enough outside the Body to be damned?

Even as a seceptics i know, that every human is thrown towards the telos, without being ever able to reach it immanently and thus everyone is per se not in heaven, not in GOD. Saved can be only those, who do not live anymore - whose amor sui is defeated and replaced by the dona DEI: The overwhelmimg strength or beauty of nature or culture (pagan tradition of Christianity) and the holy sacraments (Jewish tradition of Christianity).
Really very simple.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think Dietrich von Hildebrand is "forgotten" (and rightly not, the man was undeniably brilliant whatever one thinks of his conclusions); his flavor of trad phenomenology is just out of fashion at the moment. He's still brought up in the First Things/EWTNsphere from time to time.

[Kingpoleon]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore. I don’t know what your point is, unless you agree that non-Catholics are damned, in which case, you should argue that instead of... me not liking that he attacked non-Catholic Christians(?).

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say non-Catholic Christians are necessarily damned (for one thing their internal disposition clearly matters. I have little doubt that there are some Protestants in heaven and that Protestants are in principle capable of perfect contrition). However, the ordinary means that Christ provides for is to receive the salvation Christ won for us is the reception of the sacraments. That isn't the same as saying all non-Catholics are going to hell. Georg didn't even say that to begin with; in fact he said what Christ said nearly verbatim.*

Your denunciation of Catholicism as "high heresy and blasphemy" seems to rest upon two rather strange objections (i) that In Christi, e pluribus unum means there isn't a priesthood, and (ii) that a belief that other Christians may be going to hell is heretical because it's judgmentalism. The first point is one that is rather odd although intelligible, but the second one is the reason I am continuing to pursue the argument. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion it would seem to mean it is heretical to think there is anyone in hell. And once we get to that conclusion there really is no point in following Christ.

*John 6:53-54:  Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Neither a denial of the priesthood nor sacraments. Instead, I do think the Catholic offense, to imply non-Catholics are some sort of half-Christians because they are not Catholic, is a grave and serious charge. It is one thing to say that there are even now billions of souls in hell; it is quite another to say those who do not believe and practice Catholic dogma are in danger of hellfire. The former lacks judgment of specific damnation, which I argue is good: I do not consider it the job of myself or any mortal to put souls into groups of the saved and unsaved based on their outward denomination or theology, like counting and sorting beans by their coloring.

I have a great respect for Catholic beliefs, Catholic theology, Catholic clergy, and Catholic laity. I have a deep disregard for Catholic intolerance of Protestant and Orthodox beliefs, theology, clergy, and laity. That summarizes my position well, I believe.

I am, in this argument, reminded of this:

You have heard ten thousand stories of us who are commonly called Protestants, of which, if you believe only one in a thousand, you must think very hardly of us. But this is quite contrary to our Lords rule, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’; and has many ill consequences, particularly this — it inclines us to think as hardly of you. Hence we are on both sides less willing to help one another, and more ready to hurt each other. Hence brotherly love is utterly destroyed; and each side, looking on the other as monsters, gives way to anger, hatred, malice, to every unkind affection, which have frequently broke out in such inhuman barbarities as are scarce named among the heathens.

https://johnwesley.wordpress.com/john-wesleys-letter-to-a-roman-catholic/
(It should be noted that this, like most Methodist and Wesleyan writings, has far less emphasis on theology and dogma and a greater focus on practical Christianity, especially compared to other Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. writings.)

[Georg Ebner]

I don't think Dietrich von Hildebrand is "forgotten" (and rightly not, the man was undeniably brilliant whatever one thinks of his conclusions); his flavor of trad phenomenology is just out of fashion at the moment. He's still brought up in the First Things/EWTNsphere from time to time.

Yes, also in the german version of EWTN aso. But outside that small cons.cath.-ghetto He is basically forgotten.
Good was in His PhiloSophy, that it was not worthless as most others by being axiologically ignorant. Insufficient was, however, to be epistemologically ignorant of DESCARTES, HUME, KANT.
Not only an axiological realism, but also an ontological idealism!

[Georg Ebner]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore. I don’t know what your point is, unless you agree that non-Catholics are damned, in which case, you should argue that instead of... me not liking that he attacked non-Catholic Christians(?).

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say non-Catholic Christians are necessarily damned (for one thing their internal disposition clearly matters. I have little doubt that there are some Protestants in heaven and that Protestants are in principle capable of perfect contrition). However, the ordinary means that Christ provides for is to receive the salvation Christ won for us is the reception of the sacraments. That isn't the same as saying all non-Catholics are going to hell. Georg didn't even say that to begin with; in fact he said what Christ said nearly verbatim.*

Your denunciation of Catholicism as "high heresy and blasphemy" seems to rest upon two rather strange objections (i) that In Christi, e pluribus unum means there isn't a priesthood, and (ii) that a belief that other Christians may be going to hell is heretical because it's judgmentalism. The first point is one that is rather odd although intelligible, but the second one is the reason I am continuing to pursue the argument. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion it would seem to mean it is heretical to think there is anyone in hell. And once we get to that conclusion there really is no point in following Christ.

*John 6:53-54:  Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Neither a denial of the priesthood nor sacraments. Instead, I do think the Catholic offense, to imply non-Catholics are some sort of half-Christians because they are not Catholic, is a grave and serious charge. It is one thing to say that there are even now billions of souls in hell; it is quite another to say those who do not believe and practice Catholic dogma are in danger of hellfire. The former lacks judgment of specific damnation, which I argue is good: I do not consider it the job of myself or any mortal to put souls into groups of the saved and unsaved based on their outward denomination or theology, like counting and sorting beans by their coloring.

I have a great respect for Catholic beliefs, Catholic theology, Catholic clergy, and Catholic laity. I have a deep disregard for Catholic intolerance of Protestant and Orthodox beliefs, theology, clergy, and laity. That summarizes my position well, I believe.

I am, in this argument, reminded of this:

You have heard ten thousand stories of us who are commonly called Protestants, of which, if you believe only one in a thousand, you must think very hardly of us. But this is quite contrary to our Lords rule, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’; and has many ill consequences, particularly this — it inclines us to think as hardly of you. Hence we are on both sides less willing to help one another, and more ready to hurt each other. Hence brotherly love is utterly destroyed; and each side, looking on the other as monsters, gives way to anger, hatred, malice, to every unkind affection, which have frequently broke out in such inhuman barbarities as are scarce named among the heathens.

https://johnwesley.wordpress.com/john-wesleys-letter-to-a-roman-catholic/
(It should be noted that this, like most Methodist and Wesleyan writings, has far less emphasis on theology and dogma and a greater focus on practical Christianity, especially compared to other Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. writings.)

"There exists the liberalism a la St.Paul, because he believed so much in divine grace; and the liberalism a la Locke, because he was not safe in his faith anymore." "'Tolerance' is nowadays a synonym for indifference." "In a liberal climate every idea is born deadly." "Verity's arch-enemy is not the one, who prosecutes it - it's the one, who has 'respect' for it." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

[Kingpoleon]

I did not argue either for tolerance or for liberalism, but rather for you not to judge and condemn others on the basis of their thoughts or for committing the heinous crime of being a Protestant. You deny the salvation of others who claim to be save, and, in doing so, argue for a form of extreme Calvinism: that you know which churches are saved and unsaved, which are the elect. Intolerance of dissent in theology, dogma, and beliefs - indeed, outright opposition of critical thinking that disagrees - is a sign of a cult, not a church.

[Georg Ebner]

I did not argue either for tolerance or for liberalism, but rather for you not to judge and condemn others on the basis of their thoughts or for committing the heinous crime of being a Protestant. You deny the salvation of others who claim to be save, and, in doing so, argue for a form of extreme Calvinism: that you know which churches are saved and unsaved, which are the elect. Intolerance of dissent in theology, dogma, and beliefs - indeed, outright opposition of critical thinking that disagrees - is a sign of a cult, not a church.

Indeed: You "did not argue either for tolerance or for liberalism" - but for InDifferentism!
Those, who "have great respect" for other confessions/religions (or any ideas in general), do not respect any of them!
As already written: Neither the Church nor i can&want to know the forum internum of a human, but we can&want to do this of ideas, as everyone. E.g.: It may be or may be not, that MARX had a metanoia before His death - certain and important is, that His IdeoLogy was wrong and ugly and that "the dictatorship of the proletariate" will be fulfilled only in hell.

[Kingpoleon]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

People like Georg are increasingly developing the belief that they are literally more Catholic than the Pope, so I wouldn't be surprised if he bites the bullet on this, honestly.

[Frenchrepublican]

I don’t have any objection to that.

[Georg Ebner]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

[Georg Ebner]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

People like Georg are increasingly developing the belief that they are literally more Catholic than the Pope, so I wouldn't be surprised if he bites the bullet on this, honestly.

No, we "are literally not more Catholic than the Pope" - we are catholic and this anthropotheistic AntiChrist, who puts openly "<human> life over <DIVINE> doctrine", is not.

[Kingpoleon]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

People like Georg are increasingly developing the belief that they are literally more Catholic than the Pope, so I wouldn't be surprised if he bites the bullet on this, honestly.

No, we "are literally not more Catholic than the Pope" - we are catholic and this anthropotheistic AntiChrist, who puts openly "<human> life over <DIVINE> doctrine", is not.

You might be interested in this theological and political movement, based on that perspective.

[DC Al Fine]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

People like Georg are increasingly developing the belief that they are literally more Catholic than the Pope, so I wouldn't be surprised if he bites the bullet on this, honestly.

No, we "are literally not more Catholic than the Pope" - we are catholic and this anthropotheistic AntiChrist, who puts openly "<human> life over <DIVINE> doctrine", is not.

You might be interested in this theological and political movement, based on that perspective.

Georg is a crypto-Prot confirmed! Welcome Brother

[Georg Ebner]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.

Infallibility is only given in special situations.
St. THOMAS Aquinas, St. R.BELLARMIN aso. have declared, that a pope can be heretical - well proven by history - and we catholics are not allowed to be obedient in that case.

[Georg Ebner]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

People like Georg are increasingly developing the belief that they are literally more Catholic than the Pope, so I wouldn't be surprised if he bites the bullet on this, honestly.

No, we "are literally not more Catholic than the Pope" - we are catholic and this anthropotheistic AntiChrist, who puts openly "<human> life over <DIVINE> doctrine", is not.

You might be interested in this theological and political movement, based on that perspective.

Georg is a crypto-Prot confirmed! Welcome Brother

As i have already written (perhaps in another thread): We catholics must detect a Pelagianism in practical protestantism: By abolishing the sacraments, the priests, the monasteries. So, catholicism incorporates the partly good intentions of the early LUTHER without any pelagianical contradictions. Catholics like St.AUGUSTINUS, St.BERNARDUS, PASCAL, DESCARTES have been the perfect "protestants"!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.

Infallibility is only given in special situations.
St. THOMAS Aquinas, St. R.BELLARMIN aso. have declared, that a pope can be heretical - well proven by history - and we catholics are not allowed to be obedient in that case.

Aquinas also denied the Immaculate Conception and Bellarmine literally thought the Sun went round the Earth. Read Pastor Aeternus again and get back to us.

[TJ in Oregon]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.

Infallibility is only given in special situations.
St. THOMAS Aquinas, St. R.BELLARMIN aso. have declared, that a pope can be heretical - well proven by history - and we catholics are not allowed to be obedient in that case.

Aquinas also denied the Immaculate Conception and Bellarmine literally thought the Sun went round the Earth. Read Pastor Aeternus again and get back to us.

What's your take on historical cases of heretical popes, such as Liberius and John XXII? Do you think it is impossible for a pope to have heretical views expressed in a matter besides the official teaching of the Church? As for the Sun going around the Earth, no doubt countless popes believed that too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.

Infallibility is only given in special situations.
St. THOMAS Aquinas, St. R.BELLARMIN aso. have declared, that a pope can be heretical - well proven by history - and we catholics are not allowed to be obedient in that case.

Aquinas also denied the Immaculate Conception and Bellarmine literally thought the Sun went round the Earth. Read Pastor Aeternus again and get back to us.

What's your take on historical cases of heretical popes, such as Liberius and John XXII? Do you think it is impossible for a pope to have heretical views expressed in a matter besides the official teaching of the Church?

I interpret Pastor Aeternus as having concluded that it's impossible for a pope to formally teach heresy or serious error, even non-infallibly. I don't interpret Liberius or John XXII to have done so, even though they themselves held erroneous views.

As for whether Pope Francis's more controversial positions have been "formally taught" by him or not, that's above my theological pay grade, but either way, I genuinely don't think any of them have contradicted previous teachings nearly as straightforwardly as his critics argue that they have.

As for the Sun going around the Earth, no doubt countless popes believed that too.

Well, yeah. The point is that Bellarmine was later proven wrong about something, not that he was obviously wrong even at the time, which he wasn't.