Roman or Latin Rite

Roman Church

(The Church commonly known worldwide as the Roman Catholic Church)

Other Churches in communion with Rome with non-Latin rites:

Alexandrian Rite

Coptic Church
Ethiopic Church

Antiochian Rite

Maronite Church
Syro-Malankar Church (Kerala, India)
Syrian Church

Armenian Rite

Armenian Church

Chaldean or Syro-Oriental Rite

Chaldean Church
Syro-Malabar Church (Kerala, India)

Constantinian or Byzantine Rite

Albanese Church
Byzantine Church of the Križevci Eparchy
Belarussian Church
Bulgarian Church
Greek Church
Greek-Melkite Church
Hungarian Church
Italo-Albanese Church
Macedonian Church
Romanian Church
Russian Church
Ruthenian Church
Slovak Church
Ukrainian Church

Eastern Rite (General) Eastern Rite without
Proper Ordinary

http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/rites.htm

Yes, Tom. A man has a penis and a woman has a womb. Yes, Tom
A man plants seed and a woman grows a baby. Yes, Tom a woman takes care of the children and a man goes out and earns the money. What does that have to do with being a priest? A male priest or a woman priest in the Catholic Church is celibate.
Priests are not in the business of raising children and families.
So your logic here is faulty. A woman is every bit as capable of celebrating a Mass and performing the duties of a priest as a man.
Child-bearing or insemination has nothing to do with being a priest. A woman can remain as celibate as a man and probably would be less inclined to abuse little altar boys.

Anon, Anon, Anon Wherever You Are,

Professor John Dominic Crossan, NT Exegete and On Faith Panelist

His books:

"Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (Harper San Francisco 2001)

The Birth of Christianity (Harper San Francisco 1999)

The Jesus Controversy : Perspectives in Conflict (Trinity Pr Intl 1999)

Who Is Jesus? (Westminster John Knox 1999)

The Essential Jesus (Book Sales 1998)

Who Killed Jesus? (Harper San Francisco 1996)

Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (Harper San Francisco 1995)

In Parables : The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (Polebridge Press 1994)

The Historical Jesus (Harper San Francisco 1993)
An Inventory of the Jesus Tradition by Chronological Stratification (online)

An Inventory of the Jesus Tradition by Independent Attestation (online)

Common Sayings Tradition in Gospel of Thomas and Q Gospel (online)

Seminar: HJ Materials & Methodology (online)

A Closer Look at the Mustard Seed (online)
Was Jesus Buried? (online)

Alchemy and Accuracy (online)

A Review of John Dominic Crossan's The Birth of Christianity (Harvard Theological Review 2001, reproduced online)

Danny Yee's Book Reviews: The Historical Jesus (online)

Simple Choices? A Response to John Dominic Crossan

In the work of John Dominic Crossan, there is a refreshing emphasis on methodology. To this end, Crossan has compiled a database of the attestation for the Jesus traditions by independent attestation and stratification, provided by Faith Futures Foundation in the links above. Crossan in The Historical Jesus explains that his methodology is to take what is known about the historical Jesus from the earliest, most widely attested data and set it in a socio-historical context. The bulk of the common sayings tradition shows itself to be specific to the situation that existed in the 20s of the first century in Galilee in which the agrarian peasantry were being exploited as the Romans were commercializing the area. The historical Jesus proves to be a displaced Galilean peasant artisan who had got fed up with the situation and went about preaching a radical message: an egalatarian vision of the Kingdom of God present on earth and available to all as manifested in the acts of Jesus in healing the sick and practicing an open commensality in which all were invited to share. The historical Jesus was an itinerant whose mode of teaching can be understood on analogy with the Cynic sage but who was nonetheless a Jew who believed that the kingdom was being made available by the God of Israel to his people. The revolutionary message of Jesus was seen to be subversive to the Roman vision of order and led to the fateful execution of Jesus by Pilate on a hill outside of Jerusalem.

In The Birth of Christianity, Crossan re-iterates an emphasis on methodology in laying out his presuppositions about the gospel texts as forming the basis for all of his other judgments about the historical Jesus and early Christianity. Among these are the existence of an early Cross Gospel reconstructed from the Gospel of Peter as elaborated in his tome The Cross that Spoke as well as his belief that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. Crossan also explores the development of two different traditions from the historical Jesus, the Jerusalem tradition in which Jesus is believed to be the resurrected Christ, and the Q Gospel tradition in which Jesus is remembered as the founder of a way of life. For the former, Crossan reconstructs a group in the city of Jerusalem who shared everything in common and awaited the coming of Christ in power. For the latter, Crossan identifies Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Didache in which itinerants preach the teachings of Jesus and are supported by sometimes-critical communities. Both traditions are connected in their practice of share-meals and their origins in the historical Jesus. "

http://earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

CCNL,

"Of course, there are the other religions that have the same god but different "authentic" words. Very strange that this god could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics, power, greed and money."

Not likely. Of course, human beings have an almost unlimited capacity to mess up almost everything, haven't we?

Don't forget pride, CCNL. More people do stupider things, especially in relationships and in public, for pride than for anything else.

Crossan is a hack, not a objective scholar.

Thomas, god-talking, Moses of the NT Baum,

I noted only what Professor JD Crossan, a NT exegete and On Faith panelist, has concluded about many passages in the NT. I trust god told you this in your recent meeting. If not, what did you talk about??

To reiterate some observations:

Everyone has their own interpretation of the word of the orthodox god. Four different books, at least five auxiliary books/epistles, competing rabbis, and competing stories just in the original set followed by translations and embellishments followed by countless interpretations, hidden codes and raptures. IMHO, the orthodox god needs to have another visit to a mountain top to get the mess cleaned up.

Of course, there are the other religions that have the same god but different "authentic" words. Very strange that this god could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics, power, greed and money.

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

Concerning my post of 6-21-2008 at 2:17 PM, you didn't answer my questions, one of which was; Are you Professor JD Crossan?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TCement,

I am not sure what definition of faith you take. Most people in the US, to be sure, have come to mean something like, "God exists."

I think the definition deficient in some important ways - but not superstitious. Dictionary.com gives a few from the Webster's and American Heritage dictionaries.

"a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like,"

"irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion,"

"any blindly accepted belief or notion,"

"an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome,"

"a belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance."

Now, you might think that some particular Christian's beliefs, or stated reasons for belief, are trivial, naive, or stupid. A great many Christians have certainly mistaken purely emotional or other natural experiences for a divine intervention in their life. Many (most) Christians cannot well articulate their reasons for belief, which are usually a combination of handed-down tradition and personal experience. But none of those is quite the same thing as superstition. Some of them are very far from superstition indeed.

And some Christians, when asked with a genuine willingness to hear, actually have very compelling reasons to believe. That is why I am a believing Christian.

As for myself, the best simple definition I can come up with for 'faith' in the Christian context is "trusting that God loves me." A more specifically, though not contradictory, Catholic understanding of 'faith' might be articulated, "the beginning of the life of God in the soul."

I am not sure why you're "here", either, TCement, but I for one don't mind at all. Your comments are usually provocative without being impolite. That's a refreshing combination. God bless.

It would have been more accurate to state that Eastern Rite churches maintain their own liturgical rites, customs, and traditions. And it would appear that most Eastern Rite churches currently recognize the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as the titular head of the various churches under that umbrella - the Pope of Alexandria and an assemblage of bishops have oversight of the Coptic Church. Prelates generically refer to high ranking Church officials throughout the Catholic Church.

Doxology often refers directly or indirectly to the Trinity, and therefore is based on prevailing doctrine and theology. The three persons of the Trinity have not always been seen as co-equal, theologically speaking. The Arian doxology (one Person in One Supreme God) was supplanted by today's Trinitarian view (the co-equal Father/Son/Holy Spirit) in the 4th century C.E.

Nevertheless, other Trinitarian doxologies have seen the Supreme Father as superordinate to either the Son or the Holy Spirit.

There really is nothing in Catholicism that can't be found in other variations elsewhere in the wide world of religious tradition. Belief is what makes Catholicism (or any other religion) special.

Hello Autonomous,

I am not going to argue with you about women's place in the Church because my sense is that there is too little common understanding to proceed productively in this forum. I think it enough to say here that every articulation I have ever encountered of a 'right' of women to receive ordination to a holy order has been littered with talk about power, government, and so on. That is not what the Church, nor even its hierarchical, governing leadership are for or about. Of course plenty of the men who govern the Church are very glad to have 'power' (what power they have) - but those are precisely the ecclesiastics who are most despised. The solution to having power-hungry men running the Church can hardly be admitting to their ranks women who speak of nothing but 'empowerment'.

"I've been to church within the last year or two - I actually liked Latin much better."

I don't know if that means you've started coming, or started coming back to the Catholic Church. In either case, welcome, and I hope you benefit spiritually.

"You are clearly no student of religion or religious tradition."

Ah, but see, both as an undergrad and then as a seminarian I took comparative religion classes and enjoyed them. I have also taken several Church history classes. Either topic has dominated my reading agenda at one point or another. While not an expert, I am a student of these topics, and they have been integral to my exploration.

I agree with you that religion is full of myth. That is one thing that attracts me to the Catholic Faith and Church - its leadership's resistance to miracle stories, etc. While insisting on their possibility in principle, Church hierarchs routinely infuriate the faithful by dismissing (almost every) particular instance of a putative 'miracle.' Additionally, the Church has always insisted that she stands or falls on history, right from the get-go. This insistence is even found in the Scriptures and in the very earliest extra-scriptural testimonies. We DO believe that all the ancient pagan myths were just myths (interestingly enough, so did the ancient pagans!) but insist that our accounts aren't myths - but historical facts: events that occured at real times in real places among real people, with real witnesses and testimony to account for them. Not everything in the Bible is historically factual, or meant to be, and the Church isn't terribly interested in the historicity of a great deal of it. But the key events of both the history of Israel and of the Church are very much history, or else the whole thing is a waste. We're not here for symbolic stories to teach us nice lessons so we'll feel better. We are here to connect in a real way with the real God who really became a human being to connect with us.

"Who are the spiritual leaders of the Coptic Church and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches? Pray do tell...."

Ah, see, I couldn't tell you. Not terribly interested. Oh, wait, I think the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox Church) is Bartholomew I. Not sure. But see, in your earlier post you wrote:

"Of course in the matter of priestly marriage, both the Coptic and Eastern Rite Churches allow/encourage priests to marry - while they honor the Pope, there is a long-standing history of schism with the Church of Rome. The Bishop of Alexandria and the Greek Prelate are the final authorities for these alternate Catholic doxologies."

"Eastern Rite Churches" is a term generally refering to Catholic churches that use the Eastern liturgies (rites) and are in union with, and submission to, the Biship of Rome - the Pope. This contrasts them to the Orthodox Churches, which use the same liturgies but do not recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Christian people. The Orthodox Churches refer to themselves as catholic, with a small 'c', meaning 'universal.' They NEVER refer to themselves as Catholic, because they believe us to be schismatic and/or heretical. They refer to themselves as Orthodox. For most of the Eastern liturgies, there is an Orthodox church that uses it, and a Catholic church that uses it - often with different names (Greek and Byzantine, for instance) to mark them. So the Greek Orthodox church uses the Byzantine liturgy, and so does the Byzantine Catholic church. The former is not in union with Rome, and the latter is.

The patriarchs of the different Eastern Catholic churches, each of whom is in union with, and loyal and obedient to the Pope, can be found here: http://www.gcatholic.com/hierarchy/patriarchs.htm. As an expression of their loyalty to the Pope, and of his favor to them, they are each usually also cardinals within the Roman church.

For your convenience, the head (Patriarch) of the Coptic Catholic church was Stéphanos II Ghattas, until 2006 when he retired and was succeded by Antonios Naguib (see http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dlsco.html).

It was your lack of clear language that led me to believe you weren't familiar with the topic. My apologies if I am incorrect.

"And BTW, what is God's divine plan for human genitalia? That claim really got my attention."

Lol. That's easy. See Genesis 1:26-28. If you still want more clarification, email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com. Just in case this board shuts down soon.

Ryan Haber:

Granted, this discussion has digressed from the topic of papal infallibility in general and regard to ordination of women in particular. Doubtless, we all deserve a "D" for not sticking to the topic.

That said, I find it impossible to distinguish between your, or anyone else's, definition of faith and my definition of superstition; of course, we all have faith and know those who believe differently, the unenlightened, suffer from superstition. Still, I do not see a difference. A personal failing, perhaps. One, I admit, of many. Though "hope" is overused this political season and, frankly, I find the word only slightly less off-putting than "faith", I suggest it as a hopeful alternative to "faith". If nothing else it breaks the link we faithless are always tempted to make between faith and superstition.

Further granted, reason and rationality can be just as delusional, unreasonable and irrational as faith. Who was it said: I believe because I believe? A rational, reasonable statement, though an unconvincing argument. No gotcha, there. Hardly a basis for proselitizing.

While I can--(i.e. I think I think I can)--understand the need (requirement?) for those in faith communites to argue and defend their positions, I am at a loss to explain why I need to dispute with you at length. Another human failing. One polite word of dismissal should suffice, since we all know no one's mind is ever changed by argument. Surely Thomas and Scalia could easily file one-word dissents in those increasingly few cases where they are in the minority. They, of course, have to consider their dignity. Not really having any myself, I do not. So why do I persist? The natives are happy with their animism and herbal remedies. They do not require metal implements, used baseball caps and modern diseases. Maybe I should just take the next boat down river. You think?

Ryan Haber - when men rule, it's a Man's World. In the Catholic Church, men have always governed through an exclusive men's club. Have women ever participated in any august body of Church prelates (college of Cardinals) or have they ever ruled on Church dogma, doctrines, etc. etc.?? No, of course not. The Church is a male-dominated hierarchy, from start to finish - you have no argument here whatsoever, just because lots of women participate in Church functions....I've been to church within the last year or two - I actually liked Latin much better.

You're no expert Mr. Haber, but you are a true believer - of that there is no doubt!

Too me, a real Church outsider by choice, believing all this superstition and mythology as factually real is quite strange - not to say that mythology doesn't play an important role in the evolution of the human psyche...I agree completely with Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell in this regard. But to take mythology as concrete fact misses the point altogether - but that's your loss. You are clearly no student of religion or religious tradition.

Who are the spiritual leaders of the Coptic Church and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches? Pray do tell....

And BTW, what is God's divine plan for human genitalia? That claim really got my attention.

Autonomous,

You wrote, "While the Catholic Church remains decidedly a Man's World," which absolutely convinces me that you have never once stepped foot into any Catholic parish in the last 50 years. Lolol. I'm half serious, mind you. So much ink has been spilled over the "Feminization" of the Christian churches, the Catholic Church included, that your statement seems completely anachronistic. Also to point, the Catholic Church in the USA has begun investigating "Men's Ministry" and apostolates to men, and spiritual programs for me, in the last 15 years or so: all of which would seem entirely unnecessary in a milieu that was, by default, theirs.

"That said, Church hierarchy could be breached, and the Papal Infallibility doctrinal nonsense could be ignored - were there the interest."

No. Our Lord promised us, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it," (Mt 16:18). We have absolute confidence that the one thing that cannot happen is that the hierarchy should be "breached" and the People of God left without shepherds to show them the path to eternal beatitude. Heaven knows that the enemies of God have tried to infiltrate the Church's hierarchical leadership, and even had some success in that respect I suspect. That's fine. Peter's successors still have the keys (Mt 16:19) and the 'powers of death' still can't kick in the door. The Ship of Peter will not sink.

"The Bishop of Alexandria and the Greek Prelate are the final authorities for these alternate Catholic doxologies."

Your lack of even remotely accurate terminology betrays your ignorance of the matters you are discussing.

"Nevertheless, tradition continues to rule across the broad spectrum of Catholicism."

And it always will because our tradition is not manmade but Spirit-breathed. It is given to us by Jesus Christ and the Apostles to be carefully preserved, handed down (that's what "traditio" means in Latin), and expounded anew in every generation. We will not trade it in for the cheap ideologies of Karl Marx or Gloria Steinem. We will not sell our inheritance for a bowl of pottage.

autonomous,
Do you really believe that women could become ordained into the Roman Catholic priesthood if they just pushed back a little harder? or becaue they just didn't want to bad enough? Saying so is to simply ignore the rest of this thread. As you can see from the previous writings, there are plenty of women that felt strongly enough about the issue to have left the church over it. If you had read a little more in this thread, you would have learned that the Church (as described by JPII) believes that Jesus set it up to have male priests and that the church really has no jurisdiction to change that position. Therefore, it is doing women an injustice to say that the reason that they can't be priests is that they haven't tried hard enough.

Appreciate Your Post,

Well, thank you. I appreciate your post as well. I try to avoid negativity, which can be especially difficult when trying to counter others' arguments.

While the Catholic Church remains decidedly a Man's World - it's only because women have probably been too placid and too acquiescent when it comes to Church matters.....fact is, most women couldn't care less about being priests, so the tradition has never been seriously challenged. That said, Church hierarchy could be breached, and the Papal Infallibility doctrinal nonsense could be ignored - were there the interest.

Of course in the matter of priestly marriage, both the Coptic and Eastern Rite Churches allow/encourage priests to marry - while they honor the Pope, there is a long-standing history of schism with the Church of Rome. The Bishop of Alexandria and the Greek Prelate are the final authorities for these alternate Catholic doxologies.

Nevertheless, tradition continues to rule across the broad spectrum of Catholicism. Until women challenge the traditional structure and function of Holy Orders and the priesthood, nothing will change and sitting Popes are ALWAYS elected with that assumption in mind....

Ryan Harber, Although I am not a Catholic and never will be I like your devotion to Christ.

Too many people live their lives "devoted" to denouncing Christ. But frankly I do not care what others believe it is their life and it is my choice to believe in what I want.

Nice to hear a believer dedicated to their Savior for a change instead of all the negativity on many of these threads denouncing Christ. One thing I have notice though with those that do not have God in there’re life they are more apt to commit "wrong" against others.

I mean it is not just simple wrongs but wrong that include hatred, revenge, and the plotting against others with the intent to destroy their life in some fashion. Over time if one pays attention there're schemes are "evident" enough to see through.

Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.....screenplay in motion, obviously detected.

Thanks for your post Ryan

Er... expert. I am not an expert on Augustine or Aquinas... nor am I am schedule on them either. I am, apparently, distracted by trying to do too many things at once.

Another reason not to mind the quasi-Catholic (better term than anti-Catholic) blogs on WaPo: they provide an easy and convenient field for apostolate.

I watched "A Man for All Seasons" last night in honor of St. Thomas More, whose feastday was yesterday (suppressed by the XII Sunday of Ordinary Time, alas, for us devotees of this great patron for laity in the secular world). What a man, that Thomas! He refused to betray his conscience by calling black, white, or by calling up, down. And relevant enough, that saint at the beginning of modernity was pilloried and persecuted by all the powers of the realm for his clear stance on a sexual issue and the Pope's authority to treat with it. Now, at the beginning of a brave new world, we find ourselves risking at least ridicule and perhaps more as time passes, for refusing to abandon a clear stance on certain sexual issues and the Pope's authority to treat with them, and for refusing to say that a woman is a man, or a man a woman, or like enough for every purpose, anyway.

St. Thomas More, pray for us.

Wow. My last post was really longer that I guess. I was waiting for a conference call to start - turns out it was cancelled. Lol. I should have looked into my crystal ball; I might have discovered as much without waiting. Lol.

Coincidentally, I am not an Aquinas or Augustine schedule. I have taken a few undergraduate and graduate courses on them, read the ST, Augustine's Confessions, and most of the CoG, too. That's a start, at least, and when I see them misrepresented by other amateurs I will not let my lack of expertise prevent a point of clarification.

I don't mind the WaPo's lingering on anti-Catholic themes, etc. It is a sort of backhanded compliment. They are not so worried about the worldview or strength of the Episcopal Church after all.

Pam,

It is a shame that you were told lies about women's ordination.

The Church's chief problem is that it is made up of people. We are such a crazy group, we human beings. Example: you noted that women would be given the privilege of priesthood just as black men had been; but that begs the question. Black men were never refused the priesthood, at least, not at first. The Church spread very early into Africa. Before it spread among Romanized north Africans (Berbers and the such), it had already been brought by St. Mark and others to Egypt and Ethiopia. Of course, the Sahara and nautical/navigational deficiencies prevented further southward evangelization for a very long time. Still, there are even saints in ancient times that were black. In ancient times, they didn't really think in racial terms (delineated by skin color) as we do now - at least, there's no evidence of it in the corpus of classical literature.
When the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and English and Dutch Protestants arrived in the New World with the chief intention of making lots of money, slavery as an institution reared its ugly head again. Ideas of racial superiority and of subhuman persons were conjured up to rationalize slavery in the face of Christian doctrine which had consistently sought to minimize the harshness and extent of slavery. It was then, in Spanish Mexico Peru, that the ability of non-Europeans (in this case, Native Americans and Blacks) to receive baptism, communion, and holy orders was first called into question. From Rome, the Church consistently argued, "Yes, they can." As early as the mid-1450s the Church insisted to the Spanish monarchy that the Canary Islanders not be denied sacraments on the basis of race. In any event, even with the slavetrade's massive economic power determined to demolish any threat to its credibility, non-Europeans were indeed admitted to the sacraments and religious communities in fairly short order.

"It is sad when RCIA classes sugar-coat or fluff over heavy controversial issues to keep their potential converts."

It is sad. My hope is that the catechists themselves have not been very well catechised and told you only what they also sincerely believed. Unfortunately, we have a large number of very poorly catechised and trained lay religion teachers in the US. I don't know to what extent that problem is found elsewhere.

"The graces of priesthood are limited to men only."

Well, not exactly. Every blessing and all grace that we receive is meant to be shared. Men ordained to the priesthood deterioriate, who do not give themselves away freely to any and all. It happens either slowly like a creeping mold, or suddenly in some horrible crisis and public scandal. I have seen both sorts of spiritual decay, and they are not beautiful things to see.

We look at the priesthood, and grace more generally, all wrong if we see it as something that we aspire to for our own benefit or enjoyment. In the Letter to the Hebrews it says that "one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God." The priesthood isn't about power, comfortable living, or preachiness. The priests who are most disliked on a day-to-day basis, excluding the few and obvious criminals, are those who forget that. Most of my brothers in the seminary were chagrined to find themselves there, hadn't really intended it, and weren't sure they were up to it or wanted it. It was the ones who confidently assumed they were already ready to get into parishes and start changing things and telling people what to do that made the rest of us nervous. I think people who covet the priesthood, or even the opportunity to it, don't usually have a good understanding of what it actually entails on a daily basis. And really, it's not like women CAN'T ever become priests and MEN always have that option. The Archdiocese of Washington DC turns away about half of its (male) applicants, if I understand correctly. Only about half the men who enter seminary are ever ordained. Of those who leave, about half, as far as I understand, aren't given the option of staying and being ordained. Finally it is the Church who decides.

I feel like I'm not making very much sense right now, and have to get to work, Pam, but I just wanted to encourage you in your spiritual life primarily. Seek to grow in prayer - that's the crux of everything, and the only thing that will really sustain a solid spiritual life. You probably didn't come into Holy Church so that you could be a priest, so try not to be bothered by the fact that you won't be a priest. If you find yourself bothered, try to offer it in union with the Holy Sacrifice at Mass. That's cheap advice unless the advisor does so himself. Plenty of things in my life get under my skin, and I do my best each morning to lay them on the altar of my heart and to offer them to our beautiful Savior. I am trying to resolve to carry patiently whatever Crosses He sees fit to share with me. Not understanding "Why?" is probably the hardest one for someone like me.

God bless.

Wow, this article and comment thread is still up?

REPLY TO SAM

Who wrote:
"How many strippers can boogie on the head of a pin? The doctrinal babble speak here is enough to make one repeat the litany; Thank god for the First Amendment. June 22, 2008 10:14 AM"

To which I can only say,

AMEN! And God bless you, brother.

Google could provide basic information about the origin anti-Catholic sentiment. Here one link

http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/yankee/cycathhp.html

SteveCo:
You are in error on the Catholic Church's historical view on Abortion. It has always identified abortion as evil and it has been condemned since the days of the Apostles. The debate within the church has been on HOW big an evil it was with the key question being when the soul was created. As you identified, there was a period within the church when it was viewed that the soul entered the body at first movement ,defined as the 116th day after conception. Prior to that 116th day, abortion was still evil (taking away a potential human life) but came short of murder. Since 1869, the church teaching has been that the soul enters the body at conception.

In any case, this has nothing to do with your original point that the church should stay out of politics. The fact remains that the church sees abortion as a moral evil and expects anyone who wants to stay in communion with the church to support that position. That is completely appropriate and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

As for your other point. Name me a Catholic politician that has openly advocated torture or the killing of innocent civilians. No politician could be so stupid and get elected and if they did come out with something like that, they would certainly be censored by the church.

I'm sorry that you think the church is "an irrelevant and medieval religion with zero application to modern life." However, I would tell you that moral truths don't change and are as applicable now as they were 2000 years ago. The Catholic Church has tremendous relevance in my life and as you can see from these forums, I am not alone.

It'd be nice to see the WP criticize other religions as much as they criticize Catholicism.

"Abortion on demand is clearly part of the Democrat's platform. That part of the platform is being attacked by the church, not because it comes from the Democrats but because it it morally wrong."

Really. How come it took the CC until 1869 to outlaw abortion? ...which until then was allowed by the CC until "quickening," or first movement of the fetus.

" By the way, the Church also positioned itself as against the war in Iraq, asking for a diplomatic solution."

That's a far cry from refusing Communion to those that advocate torture, or the "shock and awe" bombing murders of innocent Iraqi civilians - hundreds of thousands in this case.

Looks like the Church picks and chooses its moral relativity. As I said, an irrelevant and medieval religion with zero application to modern life.

it wood sem 2 bee tru... that when any human ...anywhere ... 4 any reaseon.. declares themselves or any other human... ifallible.. in any singele question or group of questions no matter hwo well intentioned.. they are speeking an untruth....further if they proclaim to be cristians or jews they are violating one of the ten commandmants. thou shalt not worship andy... God but me or ahead of me i am a jealous God... when a person proclaims infallibility they have claimed the status of a God not a humann....no matter how good thier intentions or reasoning seems to be... or even if they may be correct on other things they say when they say them...they are proclaiming themselves to all that they are indeed beyound question.... it is time to do just that to them on earth.. please che 4 truth i'm just the dyslexic artist son of a son of a blueridge mountain hillbilly i mat naught bee too brighte

three comments:
Steveco: . The Church has an obligaton to diassociate itself from its members who openly advocate the creation of laws that compromise Catholic moral positions (Like Abortion). Otherwise, what good is it to have a moral position. The church doesn't take a position on individual political parties but on the elements of their platforms. Abortion on demand is clearly part of the Democrat's platform. That part of the platform is being attacked by the church, not because it comes from the Democrats but because it it morally wrong. By the way, the Church also positioned itself as against the war in Iraq, asking for a diplomatic solution.

Anon1: The Catholic Church clearly advocates bible reading among its membership. Why do you think otherwise? It does three readings+ a psalm in mass every Sunday as well. It remains an individual responsibility of Catholics to educate themselves, though. The Church can advocate but clearly can't force all its members to read the bible. Nor can any other religion. Nor does Catholicism expect blind faith. Instead, it advocates faith through reason.

Anon2: You are absolutely right. The church is the Body of Christ. My intent was to point out that the church is strong at its core. You said it more clearly and succinctly than I did.

How many strippers can boogie on the head of a pin?

The doctrinal babble speak here is enough to make one repeat the litany; Thank god for the First Amendment.

How many strippers can boogie on the head of a pin?

The doctrinal babble speak here is enough to make one repeat the litany; Thank god for the First Amendment.

RE: Nonsense
RE: Ryan Haber
RE: Infallibility

I pointed out that asserting then having the option of rejecting, amending or revoking a Papal decree of infallibility, is a nonsensical affair. The choice of words was unfortunate. It would have been better to say that the article illuminates a foundational aporia.

I shall certainly give you no sway with your remarks that offer no constructive insights or solutions; and your ad hominem jab only illuminates the strength of my insight and the fragility of yours.

Only when the question of what "infallibility" (or "Papal infallibility" [RE.M.C]) actually means, is resolved, can the discussion genuinely move forward to analyzing the nature of the content of the decree itself.

Biblical Plenum-Theory Theologists abound; but surely there has to be unity in understanding what a Papal decree involves. It is an interesting subject as it involves the discussion on the nature of Divine Commandment.

"Why shouldn't the church do likewise to politicians who actively seek to spread the moral evil of abortion."

Because we live in the U.S., where a religion's tax-exempt status depends on it NOT meddling in politics. That's U.S. law.

It's been temporarily suspended by still-President Bush, he of the "direct line" to a god that apparently supports murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

It's time the loudmouthed CC pay taxes. It's nothing but a huge moneymaking scam, and now they have the nerve to PUBLICLY keep communion from pro-choice politicians while ignoring the war criminality of President Worst Ever and his corporate fascist Vice President Cheney.

Paul C, it is in the best interests of the Catholic Church to ensure all lay Catholics are familiar with the Bible and read it regularly. Neither blind obedience nor ignorance is not a virtue and they should not be propagated as virtues. Obedience to the Holy Spirit is one thing and obedience to man is another. If fallible men could fully represent God, they would be Jesus Christ Himself. There is only one Jesus Christ who is infallible. His followers have made plenty of errors.

Arminius aka The Jihadist ???,

Hmmm, what bothers you now? Not agreeing with what many NT exegetes have concluded about the historic Jesus? What is being taught in some large Catholic university theology classes? The flaws and errors of Islam and/or Christianity? Limbo? Original sin? Profits instead of prophecies? Pretty wingie, talking, flying, fictional thingies? The demons of the demented? Being Born, Bred, and Brainwashed in Henry VIII's religion? Oops, just remembered you are a newly declared atheist.

paul c:

Like any organization, the Roman Catholic Church has a group of core members who are devout and devoted, and other who could be described as "Catholics in name only" because they do not actively practice their faith (and in some cases, actively take stands against church positions). I can assure you that the core group of Catholics does indeed read scripture regularly. This group is very strong in the faith and is very diverse in its makeup. It certainly isn't only immigrants. Several of them write consistently in these blogs and you can tell that they are intelligent people who give a lot of thought to their faith. The future of the Catholic Church relies on the core group and the strength of this group should not be underestimated.

June 21, 2008 10:19 AM

********************************

The Catholic Church merely an organization with only a few core members who read and understand the Bible

The Church is the body of Christ and *all* Christians are members of that body.

paul c:

Like any organization, the Roman Catholic Church has a group of core members who are devout and devoted, and other who could be described as "Catholics in name only" because they do not actively practice their faith (and in some cases, actively take stands against church positions). I can assure you that the core group of Catholics does indeed read scripture regularly. This group is very strong in the faith and is very diverse in its makeup. It certainly isn't only immigrants. Several of them write consistently in these blogs and you can tell that they are intelligent people who give a lot of thought to their faith. The future of the Catholic Church relies on the core group and the strength of this group should not be underestimated.

June 21, 2008 10:19 AM

********************************

The Catholic Church merely an organization with only a few core members who read and understand the Bible

The Church is the body of Christ and all Christia

So mustum is not wine and not grape juice, but something in between. The bible says wine and mustum is not wine, my point is proven. The church can alter, modify and redefine the form and matter of sacraments. Maybe ordination of gays to the priesthood is more akin to using mustum, but whatever the conclusion, I ask if the church can change the matter for a sacrament like the Eucharist, it can do it for Holy Orders as well. Christ gave power over the keys to the kingdom, so if you think that women can't be ordained, you are going against Jesus. So, Ryan Haber, if you prefer papal overreach to Jesus Christ, you can go to another denomination, because you ain't Catholic!

Hi, Thomas Baum,

CCNL is, unfortunately, unreachable. He is locked into his bizarre world view. We all have tried.

I don't really understand you, except for your understanding of the message of Jesus. But you have my respect, and the respect of others here.

God bless,

Arminius

The Other Side

You crossed the line don’t you see
The end has come between you and me
No more vengeance will I take from your hand
I will defend myself against you until the very end
You knowingly lie beneath the plan to ruin my life
But you failed to anticipate that I won’t give up without a fight
Long is the road now and greater is the gap
Your plan for a bitter lesson may end with setting your own trap
Don’t be so sure of yourself if I lose this time round
I will be back again to use more legal grounds
My goal will be to make sure that justice is found
Who are you to decide the one who gets a bitter lesson
Playing God only proves your level of self exaltation
I would have never taken the road to do such revile
But it is all according to plan to show your other side
No need to worry though as you have claimed countless times
The burden hidden deep inside from your past will be your end demise
Revenge never served anyone well and it will be to your own shame
For not even a Savior will save you from your forthcoming inner pain

CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED

Concerning your posting, "As per Professor JD Crossan’s “take” on the biblical references you cite to make the case for the “Rock”:"

Are you Professor JD Crossan?

If not, do you have any thoughts on this or does he do your thinking for you?

I have met God and that has changed the way that I look at things from when I only believed in Him.

For what God chose me to do, He knew that I needed to know some things and not just believe them.

I am not a know-it-all and never have been but what I need to know to do what God chose me to do somehow God will let me know.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

God, the omnipotent, omniscient, Unmoved Mover of all things has an undisclosed plan for human genitalia? That Divine Fellow thinks of everything....

How quaint....well, if it's not for fun then it must be for something far more laborious - and I'm too old and tired for labor.

If it's not fun, then I'm not going to do it. At the age of 17 I saw through the sham of Catholic doctrine...the step-wise rationalizations of cobbled together Church metaphysics stretching back to the early era Councils that persisted for centuries, and that threw out the Gnostics and reincarnation, brought in the Divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity (trumped Arianism), the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, and on to the numerous miracles attributed to Jesus, the death and Resurrection on the third day, the Consecration and transformation of bread and wine into the body and the blood, and onward to the recent and modern bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven (Pious XI) and the grand finale of Papal Infallibility (Pious XII).

All in all, nearly 20 pieces of carefully crafted and dovetailed Church dogma (over nearly 19 centuries) that make up the doctrinal coda of the Catholic faith - with the capstone being Papal Infallibility. And this being about 400 years after the apostate priest Martin Luther had had enough of Papal authority, and started his own program ... now famously known as the Protestant Reformation. Oh brother, just what we needed - a whole other set of religiously inspired problems.

All I can say is, thank you God (if You are God) for the Secular Democracy we have in the USA....keeping your pious devotees at least somewhat at arm's length. Your vision is much more humanistic, just, and fair-minded than that of Your followers. And thank You most of all for inspiring the Founders to have the foresight to guard against the insidious rule of religious superstition.

What else does our resident fundamentalist Catholic Ryan Hyber see in that crystal ball of his?

He is, after all, an authority on the ethics of both Augustine and Aquinas! And they being the far more practical thinkers, as it turns out.

Thomas "god talker", Moses of the NT Baum,

Everyone has their own interpretation of the word of the orthodox god. Four different books, at least five auxiliary books/epistles, competing rabbis, and competing stories just in the original set followed by translations and embellishments followed by countless interpretations, hidden codes and raptures. IMHO, the orthodox god needs to have another visit to a mountain top to get the mess cleaned up.

To wit:

As per Professor JD Crossan’s “take” on the biblical references you cite to make the case for the “Rock”:

73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69 –i.e. Mt 16. 16f is not from the historic Jesus.

229+. Two Women Cured: (1) Mark 5:21-43 = Matt 9:18-26 = Luke 8:40-56; i.e. Mark 5:37 is from the Historic Jesus but John and James get “equal billing” with Peter.

184±. Transfiguration of Jesus: (1a) Gos. Pet. 9:35-10:40, (1b) Mark 9:2-10 i.e. Mark 9:2 is important "theologically but not from the Historic Jesus.

203-. Prayer against Temptation: (1a) Mark 14:32-42 = Matt 26:36-46 = Luke 22:39-46, (1b) John 12:27, (1c) Pol. Phil. 7:2b, (2) Ap. Jas. 4:1b; i.e. Mark 14:33,37 is not from the Historic Jesus.

275-. The Empty Tomb: (1a) Mark 16:1-8 = Matt 28:1-10 = Luke 24:1-11, (1b) John 20:1,11-18, (1c) Gos. Pet. 11:44; 12:50-13:57 i.e. Mark 16:7 is not from the Historic Jesus.

25-. Peter’s Betrayal Foretold. (1) P. Vienna G. 2325; (2a) Mark 14:26-31 = Matt 26:30-35; (2b) John 13:36-38; (3) Luke 22:31-34; (4) Barn. 5:12 i.e Luke 22:31,32 is not from the Historic Jesus

6±. Revealed to Peter: (1) 1 Cor 15:5a; (2a) Luke 24:12; (2b) John 20:2-10; (3) Luke 24:34; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2a; (5) John 21:15-23 i.e. John 21: 15 is important theologically but not from the Historic Jesus.

18±. Revealed to Disciples: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b,7b; (2) Matt 28:16-20; (3a) Luke 24:36-39; (3b) John 20:19-21; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2b-3 i.e Matt 28: 18f is important theologically but not from the Historic Jesus.

190±. Fishing for Humans: (1a) Mark 1:16-20 = Matt 4:18-22, (1b) Gos. Eb. 1b, (2) Luke 5:4-11, (3) John 21:1-8; i.e Mark 1:17 is important theologically but not from the Historic Jesus.

479-. The Promised Spirit: (1a) Luke 24:44-49, (1b) Acts 1:1-8, (1c) John 20:19-22; i.e Luke 24:47f and John 20:21 are not from the Historic Jesus.

Added analyses by Professor Crossan can be found in his books.

Of course, there are the other religions that have the same god but different "authentic" words. Very strange that this god could create such confusion don't you think? The whole cacophony smells of politics, power, greed and money.

I have taken RCIA classes 3 times and finally swam the Tiber and became a Roman Catholic about three years ago. Each time I took the classes and the subject of women's ordination was brought up, the issue was kind of skimmed over with various excuses for its lack in the Roman Catholic Church. The recent crackdown rather shocked me as I was under the impression that in time, women would become priests just as black men were eventually given this priviledge. While I am not leaving, the edict did shock me and left me with a kind of sadness. It is sad when RCIA classes sugar-coat or fluff over heavy controversial issues to keep their potential converts. The issues need to be very clearly stated so that converts don't leave the church when edicts like the most recent one on women's ordination come down heavily on the convert's soul. The Catechism needs to be rewritten stating there are seven sacraments for men and six sacraments for women. The graces of priesthood are limited to men only.

To those, who call themself Catholic, who think of Catholicism as a religion, I feel sorry. Catholicism is just one branch of Jesus's Church. Jesus said, "I am the Vine, you are the branches". For those who think of Christianity as a religion, whether or not you consider yourself a "Christian", you are wrong.

Also no matter what anyone may think, Judaism is not a religion either, it is a covenential relationship between God and a people. A people that God not only chose but formed.

Christianity is a covenential relationship between God and a person, these persons are what make up Jesus's Church.

Jesus said, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It".

First, Jesus called Peter to be a rock but He also called us to be rocks, living stones.

Second, Jesus said that it was His Church, He did not say that it was Peter's Church.

Third, Jesus also said that the gates of the netherworld, hell and spiritual death, shall not prevail against It and they WON'T, this is the whole mission of the Church.

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, I have met God the Father and I have met God the Holy Spirit Who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, there is the Trinity.

God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, God is not a He, a She or an It. Love is not an attribute of God, Love is His Very Being.

Jesus taught us to refer to God the Father as Abba, Dad or Daddy is the english equivalent of Abba, and even tho God the Father is not a He, when I use a pronoun in speaking of God, I use He.

Jesus also taught us to pray, not just say, "Our Father", as in the Father of the entire human race, remember on page one God said, "Let Us make man in Our Image".

Two things:

First, Us and Our, interesting, don't you think?

Second, man as in mankind as in everyone.

Someone calling themself a "Christian", of any persuation, does not necessarily mean that they are one. God does not look at the label that one applies to oneself, God looks at the person.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. And it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Like any organization, the Roman Catholic Church has a group of core members who are devout and devoted, and other who could be described as "Catholics in name only" because they do not actively practice their faith (and in some cases, actively take stands against church positions). I can assure you that the core group of Catholics does indeed read scripture regularly. This group is very strong in the faith and is very diverse in its makeup. It certainly isn't only immigrants. Several of them write consistently in these blogs and you can tell that they are intelligent people who give a lot of thought to their faith. The future of the Catholic Church relies on the core group and the strength of this group should not be underestimated.

There is an urgent need for lay Catholics to be encouraged to read the Bible regularly. Many who are seeking out Protestant churches are looking for a more Bible based personal spirituality. Emphasizing the veneration of saints to an extent that Jesus Himself gets sidelined is dangerous. Many prominent Muslim converts from Christianity seem to be Catholics who have no real understanding of the Bible. It should be the duty of the clergy to teach every lay Catholic how a Muslim interprets the New Testament so that they do not feel confused when a Muslim with intention to convert proceeds to quote Christian Scripture from an Islamic perspective.

It is vital to find out why Catholics are leaving. Maybe the Holy Spirit is saying something vitally important that Church authorities need to hear.

Here is another prime example of the type of thinking that leaves some of us totally baffled, not about the substance of an article, but about the puzzling mental framework at work. To try to sum it up as concisely as possible: it's painful to read the comments of an obviously intelligent human being trying to come to grips with some of the more arcane issues of some organized religion.

Or even more succinctly, as other comments have noted: Is there truly no awareness on the part of Stephens-Arroyo and those who so eagerly engage him on the substance of his article, that this is another exercise in how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Or, who but a bunch of religious fanatics give a two-bit tinker’s damn about papal infallibility? Those who accept it without question are off the deep end of the human experience. Those who accept it but want to debate the details of it are even more frightening. They at least show that they are capable of exercising human reason and logical thought, but it’s all warped and distorted.

The part that makes it difficult to know whether to laugh or cry is where the earnest debaters once more turn to this or that Bible verse to prove their point. Much less cite Jesus himself. Less see now. Jesus walked this earth for 30 years without saying diddly squat about some old geezer sitting on a throne in Rome thousands of years later speaking on his behalf and being infallible when he did so. Hundreds of years after Jesus ascended into heaven, some ordinary human being who happened to temporarily occupy that throne decided it would be a-wonderful, a-wonderful if something he said had to be accepted as infallible. Presto, bango, we have the doctrine of papal infallibility, and hundreds of years later, some people earnestly debate the finer points of that doctrine on an Internet blog. It’s too precious for words.

Some day, papal infallibility will be put on the same dust bin of history wherein lies the earth-centric universe, the Inquisition, and the idea that evil spirits cause disease. Maybe alongside the wonderful concept that every human being who has ever lived or will ever live, and who is not a Catholic, will spend eternity in hell? Now, that's the one I would like you good Catholics to explain more about.

Here is cafeteria Christianity in full bloom. Some academic looks at the whole warp and woof of Catholicism, and discovers that there is one issue that causes him heartburn—the issue of female priests. Onto his tray it quickly goes, as the chosen dish-de-jour.

I think I’m about to laugh rather than cry. No wonder Catholicism in America would be a burnt-out case, if it weren’t for the influx of less-educated Hispanics to keep it alive.

A child has not only the right to be born but also to have all of its needs met until it is old enough to take care of itself. To fight for its right to be born without providing for all its basic needs is wrong. If a mother does not want the child there are dozens of ways she can ill treat the child and escape the law. Does an innocent child deserve it?

Carrie, there has been no occasion in my life to abort a baby, so my concern for the health/life of a mother has nothing to do with what I want for myself.

The law of a land should serve all religious beliefs. So when a Catholic chooses to impose a belief that other Christians and other religions don't share, it becomes meddling in the affairs not only of Caesar but also in the integrity of other religions.

Abortion remains a gray area for it does a child born against its mother's will no good for it suffers in the womb and suffers in life for it is sure to be neglected and abused and condemned to a life of rejection by its mother.

Offering safe legal abortion while discouraging abortion and providing alternatives is the lesser of the two evils.

Carrie, I'm a liberal Catholic who is able to remain in the Catholic church and would like to see the church reform due to pressure from inside. Leaving is an easy option, but remaining faithful to the church and seeking reform is a sign of unconditional love.

If I wanted to abort babies I conceived I would leave the Catholic church and join one which considered it okay. I tham for legal abortion to save the health and life of a mother who would abort her child anyway and put her health/life at risk by seeking out a quack. I would not however perform an abortion.

If I was a male priest who felt the calling to be a priest and wanted to be married I would join a denomination that permits priests to marry for I could not wait for the church to reform, my life is too short.

If I was a woman who felt called to serve as a priest I would leave, for my life is too short to wait for reform.

But I am not a male who wants to be a married priest, and I am not a woman who feels called to serve as a priest.

So I stay. There is nothing that forces me to believe everything. I am not going to be judged on what I believed or didn't but on how I lived. There are basic beliefs I share and it makes me feel at home in the Catholic church. There are aspects of the church I hold dear and I cannot find in any other church, so I stay.

Blah Blah.....and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Does THE CHURCH (the Pope?) decide who gets called by the Holy Spirit? I've always thought that was God's perogative. But what can one expect from a religious heirarchy with a "God complex" leading a flock of sheep? Bah bah bah.....

Carrie,
I agree wholeheartedly that if you can't follow church teachings, the right decision for you is to leave. But what makes you so sure that you know the thoughts of Jesus Christ better than the apostles and their successors?

Yeah. This is why I joined the Anglican Communion in the United States, a.k.a. Episcopals.

I can't abide such nonsense as disallowing married people and women as priests. If we take the tenor and spirit of Jesus' whole life, death, words and actions, we know he wouldn't see this as even remotely appropriate in the 21st century.

Yes. The culture and context matters a lot. It mattered for Jesus, who taught as a male and as a Jew.

It matters now. That's why I worship and believe with the Episcopal body, which is responsive to the Spirit TODAY, in the ministry that the world needs.

God is speaking today as loudly as God has ever spoken. Revelation did not end with the last Apostle. For us to pretend God is not speaking, for us to not respond to that voice TODAY, and accept the guidance and challenges God gives us seems foolish.

This attitude is at odds with orthodox Roman Catholicism. Those orthodox faithful would reply, "Then, leave." So, I did.

JJudyphill:
Why do you think the church is incorrect to weed out people from their midst who want to propagate abortion or any other social evil. I'm sure you are in favor of weeding out pedophile priests who harm the church and others by their immoral behavior. Why shouldn't the church do likewise to politicians who actively seek to spread the moral evil of abortion. Isn't killing a child at least as bad as molesting one? How can someone stay within the midst of the church and simultaneously seek to spread such an intrinsic evil.

Maybe the difference for you is that you put the convenience of the mother over the life of the child. Maybe you don't believe a child exists until birth. Well, you know you are in opposition to church moral teaching with either stand.

The church, like any organization, needs to expect and police fidelity among it membership to keep itself strong and true to its mission. While it is true that Jesus (and the Church) preach forgiveness and will accept the repentent back, it is not true that Jesus had an anything goes attitude. He fully expected the faithful to do God's will to get to heaven (See Matthew 7:21-27) and he was very, very harsh and direct in his criticism of the scribes and pharisees who distorted the word of God (see the list of woes in Luke chapter 11).

Ernesto:

"In any case, I am not as "evolved" or "modern" as you but I am fine, thank you very much, no major issues that torment me."

Darfur? Global warminmg? Mortgage crisis? Zimbabwe? The plight of the Roma in the EU? (Not being sufficiently depressed by online sources, I was just reading The Economist.) Floods in Iowa? (One could go on, but one has to meet a friend for dinner.)

So I may have been wrong about your Jesuit training, but you must be a Republican.

JJUDYPHIL:

Thanks for your comments. I think you may have misunderstood something when you state:

"When the pope declared that Catholics - who were pro-choice - would be denied Communion, I considered all who had that mindset to be less than Catholic."

I don't know of the Pope saying that pro-choice Catholics would be denied communion. What the Pope has insisted is that those politicians, lawmakers, those able to change the laws, actively supported pro-abortion policies, they should not present themselves for communion.

There are many issues that straddle the line of politics/religion. Many Catholics are pro-gay marriage. But I don't think the Church or the Pope would deny them communion. Many Catholics are pro-death penalty. Same deal. We all struggle with personal beliefs that doesn't raise up to God's standards. God does not drop down to our level but rather we must reach up to His level.

So if you have personal beliefs that conflict with what the Church asks: congrats! you are normal! We all do. But if someone is in a position to promote justice, life, love and you do not, the Church needs to reminds that person that God comes first. Before politics, before parties, before elections. And if God does not come first, then you have excluded yourself from God. Denying communion would only confirm that, not instigate it.

Tell you what- you pray for me in your Church and I'll pray for you in mine and maybe one day we can make the world a little better. Deal?

Ryan Haber:

A touch, a touch, a veritable touch. Though, to be fair, the sexual apparatus gibe was in my remark to Ernesto, not my response to you. And I confess to not understanding his (god's, not Ernesto's--unless, you don't suppose?--plan for my genital happiness, which, btw, I was not referencing; I was questioning whether a creator--for I did not use the term god, you did--would need concern itself with the physical endowments of its official celebrants. This question in no way presupposes the existence of [un]said creator. Sorry if I did not make that clear. (You seem to want to discuss personal genitalia in specific terms. That was not my intent, as a quick reread of my comment will demonstrate. I can only respond that it has long been my practice to leave well enough alone. In my case that would have been January. 1974, I recall.)

tcement:
Ernesto:
Just me? Pity? One would have hoped that someone, somewhere, in some religious tradition would give some passing consideration to the here and now. We are, as others have observed, all in this together and no one gets out of here alive. Do you really believe your creator (not mine, I evolved), is that concerned about the, presumably dormant, sexual apparati of his celebrants and multiple Roman numeraled arguments of pointless pre-Power Point displays of empty erudition? Let me guess, you studied with Jesuits.

Correction: I studied with the order of Our Lady Of Mercy and I do believe in God and I trust my life on Him, just as simple as that. As a result, my duty in this world is more bearable and well defined, I cannot try to make you understand what faith is all about because you put too much emphasis in limited human rationalism rather than accepting the existence of a omnipotent presence who is still waiting for you to acknowledging Him.

In any case, I am not as "evolved" or "modern" as you but I am fine, thank you very much, no major issues that torment me.

Good luck with whatever you choose to believe in.

Right POV: Your statement that one must be Catholic - OR NOT Catholic is too narrow for me.

There is not the possibility that I will believe EVERYTHING that the pope or anyone else says.

I was born with certain potential to think...read...learn. AND believe or not believe as I choose.

When the pope declared that Catholics - who were pro-choice - would be denied Communion, I considered all who had that mindset to be less than Catholic.

That is, my readings indicate Jesus would most certainly give Communion to EVERYONE whether Catholic or other; both sinners and atheists.

Until the hierarchy - including the pope - have the ability and choose to stay out of politics, I will remain a Confirmed Catholic who is inactive; and a member of the Episcopal tradition that is enlightened enough to say "...y'all come..." when Communion is offered as I think Jesus approved of.

I don't mind anyone speaking their truth. I do hope all will remember to avoid attempting to speak for ALL of us.

What I enjoy about reading so many of these posts is this underlying anger (often expressed in ridicule) at the Catholic Church. The "good thing" of the Catholic Church, the beauty of human liberty, is that you don't have to belong.

So if you find infallability to be an error or a fallacy or a dark age doctrine... well, don't follow it. Many don't. There is no law forcing you to believe in Catholicism.

But the "bad thing" of the Catholic Church- is if you leave it, you leave it. You cannot be "mostly Catholic" like Prince Wesley was "mostly dead". You are. Or you are not.

Now: decide. You cannot pick and chose. The Christ of the Resurrection is also the Christ of the Cross. And the Christ of the Beatitude is the Christ who drove out the evil doers from His Father's house.

Furthermore the author basis his argument on an erroneous definition. He states "First, the issue must be about faith (contained in revelation) and morals (what is sinful);" Those defintions are simplistic and almost juvenile and show no understanding of Catholic Theology or in the word morals, Latin and Greek.

Anonymous,

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo and his article hardly speak definitively on the matter of definitive papal pronouncements. If you wish to read over the responses, you'll see a good deal of thought about the matter.

Or you can just mock what you hate without understanding. Which is nonsense itself.

See TCement, without even meaning to, you illustrate the true meaning of faith. You asked if God really cares about a human's sexual apparatus.

You see, TCement, faith isn't believing that God exists. That's not faith, that's common sense.

Faith is believing that the omnipotent, omniscient Unmoved Mover who undergirds all other reality actually cares about the "lifted from the no of all nothing--human merely being" (to use e. e. cummings' line). Galileo couldn't buy it; when he saw how small the earth and how far away the sun, he couldn't imagine that God cared about individual human beings. But we believe that God in his great mercy and love, with no possible return for himself, took on human nature and was born as a little child in a remote backwoods of an oppressed nation. That God-man continued loving us even to the point of dying rather than betray his mission to us, which was to announce God's great love for us.

Yes, TCement, I believe that God cares about me, and that he wants me to be inexpressibly happy forever, and to have a real modicum of happiness in the meantime and has organized the whole of reality to make that as easy as possible. I believe that he feels the same way about you. And he cares about my sexual apparatus, as you put it, precisely because it is part of me and of his plan for my happiness.

You may think it sounds silly, but I suspect that is because you don't understand the importance of genitals in God's plan for human happiness. In your frivolity, you might imagine they are primarily for fun, something like an amusement park built into our bodies. In fact, genitals are an immensely important part of God's plans for happiness.

God cares about human sexual apparatus very much, TCement.

At root, again, is the question of nonsense.

Now let me understand this aright.

"Infallibility" means just that. I don't have a dictionary handy but I assume that the term under discussion connotes the idea that whatever is considered "infallible" is unmistakably true.

But on closer reading of the article it seems that anything uttered by the Pope or deemed by the Pope to be "infallible" can be questioned, revoked or amended. The author notes this in the second paragraph.

So, what the argument boils down to is this, anything that is considered infallible by the Pope, may also be amended.

Tell me, O truth-lovers, isn't this just nonsense? And isn't it right that we should laugh at any such decree?

But I already hear the reply by the jet-setting Vatican leaders and their fleeced sheep:"Shut up and just pass the donation bowl."

All I can do is sadly frown at this article.

Some people have made comments about married priests in the Catholic Church. I would guess that you should know but there are married priests in the Catholic Church and have been for awhile. I am presently living in Delaware and about a year or two again a married man with children became a priest. I think that he was a Lutheran minister before that and he became a priest. Also Anglican priests that are married have become Catholic priests so there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is difficult to take seriously an argument based on a false premise.

Stevens-Arroyo's assertion:
"The late Pope John Paul II’s attempt to invoke papal infallibility..."

JP2's declaration:
"I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women..."

The word "infallible" appears nowhere in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Obviously, the pope would have invoked that word if it had been his intention to make an infallible declaration. The reason he didn't is stated plainly: "THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY" in this matter. As guardian of the Deposit of the Faith, the Church can neither add to nor delete from Divine Revelation.

The burden of proof is on those claiming that the Church somehow does have authority in this matter. No such proof exists.
The pope did not "attempt" anything. He "declared" a truth. Unlike many theologians today, JP2 understood and respected the bounds of his authority.

Ed

Oconnellme:
"Would it kill the Washington Post to have an actual Catholic write about Catholic issues?"

An outrageous demand, sir or madam! Would you have the Curia consult women on birth control?

Ryan Halber:
Wrong turn at the intersection of Enlightenment and Literacy? How about wrong turn at Constantine and Establishment? Or way, way back. Coming down from the trees? Fact is: we are here, we have limited time, limited resources (physical, intellectual, emotional). Wasting time on religious disputations rather than dealing with real-time needs is rather like discussing the myriad ways of skinning the cat without asking the cat's opinion on the necessity of this exercise.

Ernesto:
Just me? Pity? One would have hoped that someone, somewhere, in some religious tradition would give some passing consideration to the here and now. We are, as others have observed, all in this together and no one gets out of here alive. Do you really believe your creator (not mine, I evolved), is that concerned about the, presumably dormant, sexual apparati of his celebrants and multiple Roman numeraled arguments of pointless pre-Power Point displays of empty erudition? Let me guess, you studied with Jesuits.

I find the writings of Garry Wills on Catholicism very refreshing and thought provoking. I suggest we may all learn from his writings on "Why I am a Catholic"; Papal Sin..."; "What Jesus meant"; What the Gospels meant". And no, I am not his advertiser, nor am I his publisher.

Ryan Haber: Is it just me?

Ryan, It's not just you.

Ryan Haber: Is it just me?

Ryan, It's not just you.

"attempt to invoke papal infallibility simply did not stand up"

In what kind of a world WOULD it stand up? This is not the kind of claim that experienced, educated people take seriously. However, we are not talking about the population of such people but the population of Catholic officials. What makes you think that these top Catholics care about what the rest of us think. Catholicism is certainly not a democracy. The question is, can a small number of ignorant but commited despots pull the wool over the eyes of their intellectual betters in the world we live in today? I am sorry to say the answer to that is, "YES!"

There are 31 Branches of the Catholic Church.
The Roman Church is only one of those branches,
byfar the largest, but yet only one.

There is a whole wide world out there to
research and explore, if only you have the
motivation and the ability to do so.

For those of us who have given up on Rome,
we have joined the Independent American Old
Catholic Church which still respects the
Roman Pontiff as One of Equals with the
other leaders of the different branches.
We have married clergy, we have women
clergy, we are a truly Vatican II Church
which acknowledges that the People are the
Church of Christ. Check out this website
when you get a chance, and broaden your
vision for a truly valid Catholic Church
which welcomes ALL people !
www.reformedcatholicchurch.org

Peace to all !

The solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I in 1870 was significantly prompted by the loss of the Pope's temporal power in the Papal States.

So here's a deal the world shouldn't refuse:

Italy will return the former Papal States to the Papacy, in exchange for which Benedict XVI will convene Vatican III for the purpose of repudiating, rescinding and revoking all of the several doctrines of Papal infallibility.

One immediate benefit will be the end of threads like this one, which endlessly debate how many whoozits can stand on the head of a whatzit, all to no purpose and no benefit for anyone.

Everyone will be well-satisfied and newly happy, except the residents of the newly restored Papal States, who will no longer be able to buy contraceptives and who must again fear the tortures of the Papal Executioner.

Is it just me, or are others noticing that Western society isn't as self-confident in the "Enlightenment" as it had seemed for a while? Could it be that a group of people are beginning to think that on some level, at some time, we as a group took a wrong turn, somewhere between 1650 and 1800, and are beginning to contemplate retracing our steps to see where we went wrong? Maybe it could be that some people are starting to see that faith in God's love and scientific knowledge about planets and quarks don't really exclude each other? Maybe society is starting to wonder if the sexual revolution was an entirely good thing?

I don't know if dinosaurs will get resurrected, but I for one cannot wait to see a few philosophical and moral errors get buried.

The matters of infallibility and female priests are not adjacent to each other.The former is down to how much authority is vested in the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.Infallibility embraces the belief of the handing-down of the "key" to Peter and onwards,through the Popes,and that their dogma/faith decisions are therefore divine.God,Christ,Peter etc through the key,can do no wrong.
Ordination of females is a question of whether or not they are needed.At present they are not needed.There are countless married men in line for ordination,if required in the Roman Catholic Church,before females.This is not a matter of faith/morals/dogma.If war and natural disasters brought us down to only a few females left,there could be a need for female priests.However the minds of the survivors could well be concentrated on survival and procreation,rather than priesthood.This is a logistics matter.
The protestant factions,Anglican,Methodist,Baptist etc. started with the urges of an english king some centuries ago.Sub-elements have drizzled down since then,like a leaking sieve/colander,LDS,holy-rollers etc.Organisations for convenience or ease,social-climbing and the like,but still no key.There's the main difference.

Blah blah blah, I know better than the Church, I am smarter than the Pope, the Pope is wrong for X,Y,X... haven't we Catholic been hearing this for...oh, say just shy of 2000 years?

Go read more Dan Brown or Christopher Hitchens or the Koran. There are SO MANY religions out there- if you don't like ours, join another. Or start another- that's what most disgruntled Catholics have done over the centuries.

As for me, and the rest of us, we'd rather be wrong with Peter than right all alone.

Would it kill the Washington Post to have an actual Catholic write about Catholic issues?

TCEMENT, it is just you.

Regards.

Is it just me? Does anyone else (any other lapsed Catholics--THEIR term, not mine) think this is one of the subtler bits from "The Colbert Report"? In the wake (no pun intended) of the mass (another pun not intended) media religious coming out inspired by the death of Tim Russert, are we charging back to pre-Enlightenment ways of thinking? What is going on: collective infantile regression? Has the appeal of Israeli statehood, Hindu nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism overwhelmed rationality? We were in the post-god era, weren't we? Can we expect to see the return of dinosaurs as well? How many infallible pronouncements can dance at a camp in Darfur? Do religious leaders (and civil leaders, for all that) know that there is real stuff really happening in real time? Yeesh!

Ryan, thanks for an excellent dissertation, perhaps Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, et al should read an interesting book called "Liberalism is a sin" by Conde B. Pallen (translated from Spanish, original works by Dr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany)

..."Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

XXXIII. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God's authority.

XXXIV. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

XXXV. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

XXXVI.Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press. Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term in the order of ideas, they are RATIONALISM or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountain head of liberal principles: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all, SECULARIZATION, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life whether it orate or assassinate; whether it call itself Liberty or Government or the State or Humanity or Reason, or what not, its fundamental characteristic is an uncompromising opposition to the Church.

Liberalism is a world complete in itself; it has its maxims, its fashions, its art, its literature, its diplomacy, its laws, its conspiracies, its ambuscades. It is the world of Lucifer, disguised in our times under the name of Liberalism, in radical opposition and in perpetual warfare against that society composed of the Children of God, the Church of Jesus Christ."

......"It follows, therefore, that Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society, and, by consequence, repudiates the jurisdiction which God has delegated to the visible head of the Church over each and all of the faithful, whatever their condition or rank in life. It moreover denies the necessity of divine revelation and obligation of every one to accept that revelation under pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive for faith, viz., the authority of God revealing, and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends within its own narrow capacity. It denies the infallible magistracy of the Church and of the Pope, and consequently all the doctrines defined and taught by this divine authority. In short it sets itself up as the measure and rule of faith, and so really shuts out revelation altogether. It denies everything which it itself does not proclaim. It negates everything which it itself does not affirm. But not being able to affirm any truth beyond its own reach, it denies the possibility of any truth which it does not comprehend. The revelation of truth above human reason it, therefore, debars at the outset. The divinity of Jesus Christ is beyond its horoscope. The Church is outside its comprehension. The submission of human reason to the Word of Christ or its divinely constituted exponent is to it intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. With Lucifer its maxim is: "I will not serve."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

#88, "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them."

#87, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: 'He who hears you, hears me,' (Lk 10:16; Lumen Gentium #20) The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

#889, "In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.'"

890, "The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:"

891, "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine 'for belief as being divinely revealed,'419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions 'must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.'420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421"

Here it is important to note, contrary to Professor Stevens-Arroyo's assertion, that the Church doesn't teach that papal teachings need to reflect the sensus fidelium to have a character of infallibility; still less do they need to represent some sort of consensus (which is a very different thing).

Now, let's look at how the Holy Father, John Paul II of venerable memory, ended his letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, regarding the ordination of women:

"4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Reading that last paragraph in particular, is it possible to construe the Holy Father's meaning in any way but that women cannot, nor ever will be, able to receive priestly ordination?

To use St. Augustine's words: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est." Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Professor Stevens-Arroyo, etc., if y'all don't like it, you are always welcome to find a denomination that suits you better. Please, let's let this one settle though, so that we can get busy about the work of the Gospel.

Elohist,

You are incorrect about the Vatican permitting grape juice in place of wine. In 2003 a directive was issued permitting the use of mustum, wine with very low alcohol content, in place of ordinary wine with permission of the local bishop. In the same directive, it was noted that bishops should be careful in granting the permission because a priest with such a severe alcohol addiction was probably unsuited in other ways as well for ministry. Moreover, the directive required that in cases where mustum is used, only the priest should communicate under both species so that the faithful would not be shocked or scandalized believing that grape juice had been used.

The Incarnation and resurrection don't pass the common sense test. So maybe common sense isn't the yardstick here.

The ban against women priests and married priests doesn't pass the common sense test.

The Catholic Church and its later "protestors" were fallible in 33 CE and beyond and are still fallible today.

To wit:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists, amazon.com) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider". (See Professor JD Crossan's book Who is Jesus)

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions). (wikipedia.com, and graduate theology studies at many large Catholic universities)

Infallibility and papal infallibility is a difficult subject. And to approach it as Prof S-A did, from a failed 'infallible' document, whatever that means, makes for double confusion: to wit, exactly what the Professor was saying in his piece.

Contrast that to Rob't Koons' few paragraphs, which also make a good case for infallibility based on the probability of error in an institution the age of the Church. IMO clear writing.

This will be all from me.

I've tried to pin down Arroya on women's ordination and altho he writes about it, I don't see him saying he is in favor of it. Ditto maried priestss. I think the idea was to say a pope claimed to be exercising infallibility but was not. If Mary Cunningham has a better example that is more recent of a try that went too far, what is it?

Hasn't the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself asserted that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an example of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church, and not an instance of papal infallibility?

Mary:

"Protestant" meant "In Protest against the Abuses of the Papacy"

It did NOT mean non-Catholic, nor outside the Historic Episcopate. The fact that it NOW has been translated to refer to Christian churches that are not Catholic does not mean that was the meaning 200 years ago when the document you are citing was written, or 400 years ago when the term was coined originally.

In fact, Anglicanism has, since it's earliest days (during the time of Elizabeth I) has stated as doctrine that it is "Catholic and Reformed".

I'm unsure why so many Roman Catholics (especially American Roman Catholics) don't even realize that after Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church itself agrees that you can be Catholic without being in communion with the Bishop of Rome; it's a basic doctrine of the faith that you state you share with the RCC. Blessed John XXIII himself stated that there was Truth and True Sacrament shared with other faith traditions. That included Catholicism. The RCC recognizes the Old Catholic Church as part of the Catholic Faith, and the OCC is in Communion with the Anglican Church; in fact the only reason that the Anglican Church and the RCC aren't in communion today is that a Pope went AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF HIS OWN EXPERTS who were divided on whether or not changing "form" slightly for a period of about a century invalidated later ordinations; he made one of those "Papal Infallibility" pronouncements to say that it did, even though it was NOT a finding of those who followed the faith (kinda blows away this whole arguement, actually, that Tom S. had...)

At any rate, I, like many many other non RCC Catholics have no problem with papal Primacy of Honor; I believe it is due; I have only two problems with the RCC, and both go back to the same point... The Pope is NOT the final arbiter of the faith, and he is not able to make infallible pronouncements. Other than that, there's not that much difference between the rest in any matter that comes truly from Faith, Scripture, and Prayer.

And with that, I leave this conversation.

IMO clear, concise and no misleading examples:

"Let's suppose that the Church is at least reliable and indefectible (to use an Anglican term) with respect to essential Christian doctrine. That is the Church cannot err in any essential points and is very unlikely to err on any matter. We can further suppose that the Church has these characteristics in perpetuity, since Christ's promises to the Church have no expiration date.

Since theology develops over time, building on the settled conclusions reached in the past, if the church were reliable but fallible errors would not only accumulate over time but would actually tend to increase at a geometric or exponential rate, each error increasing the probability of further errors. Hence a reliable but fallible Church could not remain reliable for very long. Therefore, the Church must be (at least) virtually infallible.

One final argument. If the Church were fallible but taught that it was infallible, then its erroneous belief in its own infallibility would magnify its proneness to error. A Church that wrongly believed itself to be infallible would be virtually impossible to correct. However, the Church does teach that it is infallible. Hence, it is either actually infallible or wholly unreliable. It cannot be wholly unreliable, and so much be infallibe in fact."

Robert Koons: "A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism," 13 July 2006, p.51.

Note: Robert Koons became a Catholic in 2007.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is both un-Christian and un-intelligent. It puts faith in men rather than God. Proclaiming that anything is infallibly held is a sign of both cowardice and flawed reasoning.

Best wishes to all. I'm sure you'll carry on well without me.

Elohist,

Perhaps your points might be better received if you condescended a little less. But suit yourself, each man/woman has his/her own style.

Well, Elohist, I disagree, and without an accompanying nursery rhyme as well,

Should Prof S-A wanted to have discussed papal infallibility somehow I don't think he would have spent so much time examing a 14 year-old document of JP2! Surely there are clearer examples?

And if we take the "Wisdom of Crowds" (note not sensum fideii) on this blog, certainly it was understood that ordination of women priests (something the Professor favours) was the object of discussion.

Anyway,
1)the Church is growing more conservative not less,
2) it has as an example the travails of the Anglican Church when it ordained women as priests,
3) the lesson the Church will draw from #2 is a sombre one (ordained women led to ordained married homosexuals led to schism),
4)the matter thus will not even be discussed for a half century.

(Note I exclude discussing the Church's eventual acceptance of married priests, which is coming IMHO sooner rather than later. )

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary:

I take the Professor at his word, that the issue is what is the substance for infallibility. It was the pope who used it for women's ordination, not the professor. he couldn't respond without being specific. Give him some credit for raising the issue and letting us explore it.

Mary Cunningham,

What are you afraid of that you aren't even willing to have the discussion? Why is it "so silly"? I would put much more faith and weight in your stance if I saw a willingness for dialogue, but instead it seems to be a "my way or the highway" stance without any willingness to consider the other side's position.

And shouldn't it concern you that "liberals" (or anyone for that matter) are leaving the Church en masse? Isn't this something that should deeply sadden and disturb the church? Shouldn't the Church be asking, "Why is this happening and how can we stop and reverse the pattern?" Haven't we learned from the follies of a defensive or reactionary response to such situations in the past (such as the eastern schisms and the protestant reformation)? By being okay (or even pleased!) with any group of people leaving the Church in large numbers, you seem more committed to the Church being a conservative club than being a truly catholic (universal) Body of Christ. I argue that the Church needs both conservative and liberals -conservatives to remind us of our great tradition and history and include it, and liberals to help us progress, thus transcending and including our tradition.

Furthermore, this conversation seems to be necessary for the Church ESPECIALLY at this point in time when the priesthood seems to be broken (extremely low number of new priests combined with the unresolved clergy scandal). And healing is most definitly needed for the Church for precisely the point you make - people (who compose the Church) are leaving in large numbers, and undoubtedly, God (the Good Shepherd) is seeking them out with all His might. If the Church continues to excommunicate over petty differences and contiunes to refuse to even communicate with people who should be considered "friends," how is the Church possibly going to love their enemies as Jesus COMMANDS us to do?

39 Articles of Religion:

"As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the_PROTESTANT_ Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801.2"

OK--it calls itself Protestant but it's really Catholic? What is that old saying about a statement that contains a contradiction is false?.

"The 39 Articles repudiate teachings and practices that Protestants in general condemned in the Catholic church. For example, they deny the teachings concerning Transubstantiation (XXVIII), the sacrifice of the Mass (XXXI), and the sinlessness of Our Lady (XV)."

(add www)victorianweb.org/religion/39articles.html

Doesn't sound at *all* Catholic to me. No Real Presence of Christ, No Mass, No Mary. How is it Catholic?

For those RCC folks who don't know the definition of Catholic:

Catholic (Latin) UNIVERSAL.

All churches maintaining the historical Episcopate are part of the UNIVERSAL church. Those churches include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, The Old Catholic Church (they split off from the Roman Catholic Church when the Pope, at Vatican I in the 1880s, said that he could make infallible judgements... how apropos, but they are still acknowledged by the RCC as being part of the historic episcopate), many parts of the Lutheran Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and a number of other Orthodox churches; there is NO break in the historic Episcopate, or there is a renewal through other sources EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED AS VALID by the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps before you lecture folks on what you perceive as "YOUR" religion and term, you should learn the definition and your own church's position.

The Anglican Church >IS

Guess why the Orthodox churches split off? And guess who STILL says the Filioque (and I will acknowledge that as a Western Church, the Anglican church uses it too)? Oh, yeah, since you don't know your own churches history and theology enough to know, the Filioque is three simple words, inserted into the Nicene Creed "and the Son"... as in "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father (AND THE SON), and is worshipped with the Father and the Son."

In the RCC's latest theological talks (literally, in the last five years), they are starting to move toward trying to excise the Filioque so that they can EVENTUALLY, be considered non-Heretical by Eastern Orthodox and return to the original Creed of the ancient Catholic Church.

So before you start trying to assume that you are the final arbiter of all knowledge due to some specialized knowledge handed down on high, you ought to learn the meaning of the term.

Catholic is not equal to Roman Catholic, despite how many Roman Catholics wish it were.

Well, Elohist, I think you're being a wee bit disengenuous here. The Prof is using the letter to reintroduce the question of women priests.

And I don't think substituting grape juice for wine--something that happened only in specific instances--is in the same category as completely redefining a male priesthood: from a father to a father_and_a mother.

In any case, it's a moot question. Because there has been a huge exodus of liberals from the Church, (why?) it is becoming more, not less, conservative. As proofs: the move to the Latin liturgy, the increasing stress on Scripture, the overflow of parishioners at the most conservative churches..Hence, Don't hold your breathe on women priests. It just won't happen. It's silly to even discuss it!

Mary Cunningham,

Right. Theological errors almost always start as philosophical errors, because theology is merely philosophical reflection on the Deposit of Faith, on Revelation, right? And for that matter, philosophical errors are usually errors in logic, because philosophy is basically rigorous thinking (logic) applied to observation.

With a bit of twisted logic, we end up in a huff and saying stupid things.

I don't get all this huffing and puffing over the male body being the form of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The Vatican has given permission to use grape juice for consecration by alcoholic priests, thus changing what is in the bible to something reflecting current needs. Nowhere in the bible -- including Paul's Epistles -- does it state that a man's body is the form for the sacrament of orders.

At issue here is not whether or not women should be ordained, only if a short letter of a recent pope has pronounced infallibly on the issue. If he had, wouldn't the Congregation of the Defense of the Faith said so last month?

Something that is fundamentally missing from this conversation is the acknowledgment of what a metaphor is and the inherent limitations that are involved when using metaphor (or language in general) to describe God. Any words that we use to describe God are NOT actually what God is in a holistic sense. Whenever you use a word to describe God, it has to be "God is this but God is also not this" at the same time. That's simply the paradoxical nature of metaphors - they are not capable of giving a perfect description without contradictions. I suppose if we had such a perfect means of describing God we would use it instead of metaphors, but since we don't, we have to be prepared to defend the truth in the metaphor while also admitting its deficiencies.

Therefore, when we say that God is father, or that the priesthood is fatherhood, it has its helpful pointers to the deeper reality it is describing, but it also has points of error. One obvious example that we could all readily agree on is that the preisthood is not a physical fatherhood - priests do not reproduce. The same can be said with God the Father - He is not physically a father, but many of his characteristics (creator, paternal love, etc.) are that of a Father. (As a side note, the Capadocian fathers who formalized the doctrine of the trinity were very clear that the trinity is only the best way we have to understanding God but that it by no means describes the immense reality in it's totality. So this notion isn't just modern relativism, but merely a deeper, mystical and spiritual understanding.)

Does God not possess any characteristics of mother? Do Priests not fulfill any motherly functions? These are the questions that need to be asked, acknowledging that God and the priethood do not carry every connotation associated with fatherhood (what about the negative aspects or the deficiencies of fathers that are made up for by mothers?). God doesn't fit easily into any box, and we should avoid trying to shove him into whatever box we find convenient.

Change isn't something that comes about easily, and often times, that's with good reason. Nevertheless, we have to constantly seek to improve our relationship with God as well as our understanding of Him and our ability to serve to his creation. And this may mean inclusion of women in the priesthood and it may not, but to cut off the conversation prematurely is an injustice to ourselves and God.

One final comment: for those of you who say that the Bible is very definitive about this matter (or most any contemporary issue for that matter), I would like to see where it is written, "Women are not to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders and become a priest, say Mass, and fulfill priestly duties." You simply won't find it because the Church and the priesthood as it exists today did NOT exist when the New Testament was written, and didn't even exist in the form it takes today when the Bible was put together (women were allowed to be deacons at that point in history - a fact that many choose to ignore). Therefore, any scripture verse about the function of women MUST be interpretted when it comes to contemporary issues, and the best way to do so is within the historical and cultural setting in which the text was written.

In the end, you may interpret text (or metaphor) differently, but no one can say that there isn't room for a different interpretation. We have to respect this if we truly expect the Holy Spirit to lead us to a comprehensive, integral understanding of text and revelation in relation to contemporary issues. I remind you that the greatest movements and reforms of the Church have happened in councils, starting with Paul and Peter in Jerusalem on the issue of circumcision all the way to the Second Vatican Council.

Pax Christi.

RHaber: in any case our logical Catholic made a logical error. Just because men are parents and women are parents doesn't mean men and women are the same (as parents or anything else). They might be, and LC believes so, but he offers no proof. The statement as it stands is fallacious, as well as going from the particular (women as mothers and men as fathers) to the general (parents).

Remind me never to post as a logical anything! I make more than my share of errors, although hopefully I can recognize them early on.

Hope this blog stays sweet.

Best to all

Bill,

In what sense is the Anglican Church "Catholic" or even merely "catholic?"

Does it share the faith of the rest of the Catholic Church - of the Latins, the Byzantines, the Copts, the Melkites and Syro-Malabars, of the Chaldeans and Maronites? Not in the Church's constitution and role in the plan of salvation - that's for sure, and just for starters.

Does it share the moral standards of living of the rest of the Catholic Church? Shoot, the Anglicans don't even share moral standards with each other these days.

Does it share the liturgy and sacraments of the rest of the Catholic Church? You yourself have said that your church has a radically different understanding of at least the sacrament of Holy Orders. This different understanding can only be interrelated with a host of other disagreements.

Lastly, and most importantly, does it share submission in fact, and not only as an honorific, to the Successors of Peter - the same obedience shared by Latins, Malankarese, Syriacs, Assyrians, Armenians, Mozarabics, and all the other churches that rightly call themselves Catholic? Hardly - you've already answered that one, in fact.

Bill, just wishing or insisting that your particular group is Catholic doesn't make it so. If you think your church would find a kindred spirit in any of the other (non-Latin/Roman) Catholic churches, or any of the Orthodox churches, for that matter, you are sadly mistaken. Those churches tend to be far more 'conservative' than we Romans, believe it or not.

Re: who is the real Catholic

Well, Bill, why don't we address a letter: "The Catholic Church, Dublin, Ireland" or, say, "The Catholic Church, Liverpool, UK " or "The Catholic Church, NYC, NY, USA"? (Or anywhere else there are Anglicans and Catholics.)

Let's see where it's delivered. We'll let the postman decide.

Has this jack ass ever received a favorable response for anyting he's written? Then why does his photo depict him laughing. such a provoking hater, but then that's the pagan Washington Post. It was good though to see that Dear Sally was noticed by one of her own at a catholic funeral mass. It's Dear Sally who will burn in whatever Hell she can imagine for such a hateful transgression of her personal so called beliefs.

StevenMD2:

Please don't continue to make statements that are as incorrect as the ones you made.

I am a Catholic. I am NOT a Roman Catholic. The Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts-Schori is the Presiding Bishop of my church, the Episcopal Church of the United States, the mainstream Anglican Church in the US. Anglicans ARE Catholic. We are not, however, under the obedience of Rome; most Anglican acknowledge Roman Primacy of Honor, but not of jurisdiction.

We ordain Women. We ordain married Priests. Our rites are VERY close to being the same as a Roman Catholic service (and in my particular case, it IS a acceptable Roman Catholic service, but that's a unique shared parish, with both an Anglican and Roman Catholic priest, in one common Mass that blends both traditions). That doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic church is WRONG on two issues in regards to the priesthood (Female Priests, and Married Priests). The RCC uses (mostly) the same argument to exclude people of those two groups CALLED BY GOD to serve from serving: That it's against Faith. Yet the Priesthoods first duty is to serve as a witness of God and His teachings to the faithful. Yet simply look in the New Testament: in all but ONE case, all of the first witnesses to Christ were WOMEN. Elizabeth, Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene were all witnesses FIRST; only in ONE case was the first witness of Christ a male, when Simon proclaimed Jesus as Christ, and Jesus named Simon Peter.

No, the RCC says that because the Disciples were men, that all priests must be men. But the Disciples were MARRIED MEN; shouldn't that require then that all priests be married by that same logic? How then can the church justify keeping married men from being ordained (all married priests in the RCC in the last 1000 years were originally ordained in other Apostolic traditions that allowed married men to be ordained, such as the Anglican and Lutheran traditions).

Oh, and it sure looks based on a scriptural reading as if many of the women followers were counted as disciples, as well, by Jesus.

An anonymous poster wrote,

"It is men, fallible men, who comprise the governing hierarchy of the Church. The governing hierarchy does NOT represent the spririt of the Church, and it is wrong to assert such authority. Just witness all the blunders of the official Church throughout history to see this."

Lol. That's kinda self-righteous if you ask me. "Those church leaders are fallible - they don't represent me; I'm perfect. Ha-rumph!" Lol. Gimme a break! So few get it because of insolent and self-righteous pride.

Half the Church's leaders probably are nitwitted asses. So am I! That's why I'm glad to have a home on this earth! The poor, perfect church that had to suffer a member like me would be demolished - its perfection blown to smithereens. I stink! Why do folks get all self-righteous when they see others aren't perfect? Does the anonymous poster really think that he ISN'T fallible? Lolol.

As for representing the "spirit of the Church," whatever THAT is, such representation is decidedly NOT the role of the Church's hierarchical leaders. They aren't elected to represent us as a senator is, or even in any way analogous to it, really. They are chosen (that's what "election" means in Latin) to govern us,
teach us, and give us the means of holiness. For those tasks, they needn't be perfect - they only need to have the Holy Spirit direct them.

Well, as bad a job as they do listening, admittedly, it is pretty hard to explain much about the Church without admitting the action of the Holy Spirit. I cannot think of an organization with such a track record of blunder and betrayal from within, of so many and such vicious enemies without, and so much general nonsense and malarky. Nor can I think of another organization on the face of the earth that is for 2000 years continuously intact and in more or less the same form (for at least about 1950 of those years).

But the idea of the two ideas (such a fault-riddled group, and such a long-lasting, persevering group) merging together in one reality is simply astounding. How so many boobs can keep on keepin' on - well, it's hard to imagine without figuring in God's special care and protection.

And not only that - but we keep growing?! In our darkest, most scandalous years far more people have come into the Church than have left it - even now the rate of conversions in Africa and in S.E. Asia far outstrips the rate of apostasy in the West. It's amazing. We're like freakin' gremlins - we don't die by drowning, but multiply!

So as long as we can have the providential care of God, I will take my band of friends, of brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, together with our half-wit spiritual fathers, where I fit in just fine with all the other decrepit, sinful asses, over the self-righteous harumphery of the anonymous poster and whatever get-up he's in with. Any day.

Logical Catholic,

You have written that mothering and fathering, with the act of childbearing removed, is essentially the same thing, but to say so is a mistake. Mothering and fathering are not at all the same thing. Because of a general crisis of very deficient or absent fathers in Western culture right now, the mistake is an easy one to make. The core of the mistake is the assumption that the biology distinguishing a man and a woman from each other is irrelevant to the way they carry out their functions because their souls/minds are not gendered as their bodies are, and they carry out their functions under the direction of their souls/minds. That is, a man does mathematics like a woman does mathematics, or cooks as a woman cooks, or what have you, because it is his mind that directs those activities, and his mind is the same as a woman's - only his body differs. While even those trivial examples are doubtfully true, a deeper investigation will show the whole thing mistaken.

First of all, very few people even claim that their experience of the conduct of men and women is that they are identical. Of course there are variations within either sex, but our experience is generally that men do things in some ways, and women in another. Men don't ask for directions, for instance. It's a trivial generalization, but it makes the point that when we move outside of ideological discussions and just talk with friends of the same sex about about how the other sex behaves, none of us honestly thinks that the other sex (1) always, or even usually lives up to its stereotypes; but more to the point, we all believe, or at least speak as if (2) the stereotypes do have some real foundation in experience and fact.

Enough biological and physiological data is known now to understand many of the reasons for differences in the behavior of men and women. If testosterone makes people behave more aggressively, and men have considerably more than women, why shouldn't that influence their WAY of parenting along with all the rest of it. If women are conditioned by nine months' experience of pregnancy, why shouldn't that affect their WAY of parenting? Am I here saying that women are never tough or assertive, or cannot be, or shouldn't be? Nope. Am I saying that men aren't or cannot be nurturing? No way. I am simply saying that not only are our bodies the means by which we carry out our activities, but they also influence the WAY we carry them out - whether it is rock-climbing (men rely more on upperbody strength then women, even to the point of counterproductivity, because they generally have more and are more used to using it) or grocery shopping (no woman reading this, or man for that matter, needs me to explain what we men do 'all wrong' when we go to a grocery store, lol).

Men and women do the same things, differently.

If our bodies and our souls interact at all, and they clearly do, then we can expect them to influence each other.

So I guess I am writing this to put the question back to you at this point: why is it that you think fathering (parenting, the way men do it) and mothering (parenting, the way women do it) are more or less the same?

C.A.K.,

So were you responding to the same Thomas Szyszkiewicz? You refered to whomever as "Mr. Tom" so I assumed you meant the same person, as Szyszkiewicz was the only "Tom" whose post was listed. It seems unlikely that he'd be writing something offensive, based on his post.

The censors may have removed the post to which you were refering if it was over-the-top offensive - they sometimes do.

In that case, please accept my apologies for my misunderstanding.

A fundamental Christian doctrine is that all human beings are sinners and need therefore to be saved . The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( 1712 - 1778 ) was bold enough to disagree when he wrote ' L'homme est bon par nature ; il est corrompu par la societe ' which , when translated word by word , means ' Man is good by nature ; he is corrupted by society ' . Well, these are two totally opposed views , and it is up to every individual to make his own choice !!!

Logical Catholic:

I'm having some problems with your proposition.

Firstly, how can you remove the biological aspect from the metaphor? Metaphors are not real, only description. If you remove the core of the priesthood as fatherhood aspect the metaphor collapses.

And assuming that this is valid, is your proposition thus that men as fathers are no different than women as mothers?

Could you kindly offer proof? IMHO "Parents are parents [and thus do the same thing]" is insufficient. The literal definition of parent is "a mother and/or a father"; hence we are back where we started.

The Washington Post is a liberal, church-hating, war-promoting tabloid rag.

The left hates the church....who cares?

It has been here for 2000 years and is not about to fall for the tricks of liberal relativism.

Pretty soon Steve here will be calling for gay marriage because:

"something has not yet been done in the past is not a conclusive argument that it never will be done in the future."

What a joke!

"A fundamental Christian doctrine is that human beings are sinners, all of them. Which is the reason why they need to be "saved." "

Thank you, the writer of the above, for explaining to me what I see as the terrorism of the church. They say they are the only way, they say in effect that you will burn in hell if you don't do as they tell you to, while they promise this strange insurance policy that you will live forever if you do as they say. Based on the life of one man during a time of near total ignorance, no universal education, etc. Maybe He was just a good man, a social reformer who cared about the poor and despised in primitive societies. And we have a couple new back from the dead every year here in America. Morticians know darn well to check carefully, lest they bury one of the 2-5 people every year who arrive at funeral homes with a toe tag and a beating heart, no kidding.

The above is actually similar to what I've read about the corrupted version of Islam. Those who 'martyr themselves' by doing as they are told will go to heaven, with a bonus of 72 virgins for their pleasure), while Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, screamed at his captors when he was being questioned - "you are all going to hell". JusT ABSOLUTISM

An awful lot of similarity here. The history of the church bears it out, eg the crusades, the witch burnings, the inquisitions, the churches modern day absolutism on various issues. Even their creation of perverts withing the church by denying sexuality - the molestation scandal - go read any good book on psychology and you will find out that denial of ones basic nature and curiosity results in it ultimately coming out in really bad form years later. And the cover up of that scandal by the church for decades should be reason enough to let their preachings be only to the dust in the pews.

I call it the pincers of terrorism of hell, or the (in my opinion) scam insurance policy of living forever.

Am I so glad I broke free. And so can you. Be brave. Think, use the brain that God gave you.

It is so interesting to focus on Women as Priests in the church. Most all western religions have gone through trial and tribulation on the issue, be it Jews (liberal versions ordain women, orthodox do not, and even make women sit separately from men in some cases). And many protestant churches have struggled with this issue, most moving to ordaining women, e.g. the head Bishop of the US Episcopal Church is Ms. Schori. Of course in catholicism, ordaining women as priests - huh - long ways to go. Same for Mormons. I think the same for So. Baptists, though I might be wrong here. And note that these are all very conservative religions.

I'm not going to dwell on a silly infallibility argument. The real issue is pointed to by the women as priests issue. It is the demand by males for dominance over women, period, that causes all the battles over ordaining women. In past history women were the childbearers, the weaker sex, while men learned to fight wars etc and do the heavy lifting, so they learned how to control women. And the churches are simply a reflection of the past. I've read about how giving women the vote would destroy the "traditional family", just as outlawing restrictions on inter-racial marriage would do the same, and ditto for women working in positions other then as secretaries to men. Also, it somehow relates to when I was in elementary school in the 40's, all the women teachers were unmarried, and if they married they got fired. Just a reflection of the biz about women stepping out of line, a reflection of women's second class citizenship.

So, forget the infallibility argument. The problem with women being treated equally by conservative churches is based on maintaining power, pure and simple, for the men, while relegating women to lower level tasks. These churches need to change, or their members need to find new churches attuned to the modern world, not the dictatorial world of the past.

So what I'm getting from this article is that papal infalibility is only truly infalible when the author and others say it is. Sounds like cafeteria Catholicism to me! :)

For all those who cast doubt on the Catholic Church's ability to discern God's will - how can you be sure that the Bible is true since it was the Catholic Church that decided which books would be included and which writings would not?

Stevens doesn't understand infallibility AT ALL.

Consensus doesn't mean the church agrees with the Pope on an infallibility teaching, it means it APPLIES to the whole church. For example, the Pope can't make 2 doctrinal rules for 2 groups of Catholics. The Vatican 2 language totally confirms what has always been on this.

SHEEZE!!!

Stevens, you are misleading the readers here.

Yonkers, New York
18 June 2008

The bare notion that a human being, any human being, can be infallible, is pure hogwash.

Even on purely theological issues--whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or what have you--a human being, whether Pope, Ayatollah, Immam, Cardinal or priest--who claims to be infallible, should have his head examined.

A fundamental Christian doctrine is that human beings are sinners, all of them. Which is the reason why they need to be "saved." To sin is to err; and to err is human. Since all human beings are "sinners"--and that statement necessarily includes Popes, they make mistakes, including theological mistakes if you must.

It follows, necessarily and logically, that no human being is infallible.

Marano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

To - Ryan Haber:
When I look now - I do not see the posting that I was referring to in my first post - that you commented on. (This morning, I'd seen more than one by him.) So either it was edited or deleted or I have no idea what happened.

My comments were to address comments I'd read that made proclamations of ideas/opininions AS FACT when they were no more than theory. (But belittling to Catholicism/Christianity. )

After swearing I'd never enter a church again, a female pastor helped me find God. I'm glad my wife had not dragged me into a Catholic church lest I still be lost.

No woman should be denied, by any power of man, including any Christian organization, any calling from God she feels.

Galatians 3:28: "Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female."

When using it as a basis for excluding a group from power or anything else, be reminded that Scripture has been used to justify slavery, child abuse, and the oppression of women.

I am annoyed and offended by the "proclamations" that God/Jesus would not want woman as priest and the Father (aka Male role.)

Actually everyone in this debate should be well aware of the fact that some of Jesus' most devoted and beloved followers/SUPPORTED were women.

And the disciples left behind, still were learning and were subject to many of the practices of their time

And the nod to those who'd acknowledged a point I've made for years...in the Catholic teachings - as I've leaned them for over 45 years - the most whole (entirely) human (who was not born fully god and fully man) to be born was MARY. To those of you who wrote that since she wasn't "ordained" - excuse me but you cannot be that ignorant. She was "ordained" by GOD "him"-self when choosen to be the mother of Jesus.

And when you quote St. Paul - I hope to blame the bias against women on the times - woman didn't exactly have an ERA amendment at the time - oh, wait we still don't have that ;o) - and his writing about women being subservient to thy husband, just makes my skin crawl - and even the priest try to wiggle out of it every time it comes up in mass.

Mary C-- Once you take out the biological/childbearing aspect (which is irrelevant to the metaphorical fatherhood in question), there's really no difference between motherhood and fatherhood. Parents are parents and love and guide their children, regardless of gender. And more than a father, a priest is a conduit for the Holy Spirit: what does that have to do with gender?

Thomas S-- Your presentation of the sensum fidelium is circular: infallibility only requires those who agree with you to agree? Why have it at all, then?

If the Blessed Virgin Mary wasn't an apostle and yet she is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, higher than any other human being save her own Divine Son then why would any woman thing she was being slighted by not being ordained? And anyone who knows how difficult the live of a priest is would know that its not something any sane person would jump into for the fun of it. Yet somehow the church is held up as being sexist for not allowing something that God has not seen fit to institute. If any woman should have been a priest it would have been Jesus own mother, and since Jesus didn't want that why push it. Its nonsense.

"So the sense of those who are faithful to the Church's Magisterium is that women are not to be ordained priests since that has been the teaching and practice of the Church since her beginning."

Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz's argument might fly if the Church hierarchy hadn't been so agressive about making sure to sanction, excommunicate and label as unfaithful to the Magesterium anyone who didn't agree with the hierarchy's line.

It is men, fallible men, who comprise the governing hierarchy of the Church. The governing hierarchy does NOT represent the spririt of the Church, and it is wrong to assert such authority. Just witness all the blunders of the official Church throughout history to see this.

Quote: "I am not urging Catholic dissent to the ordinary magisterium of the Church; any pope has the responsibility of choosing the appropriate policy for a particular moment."

Comment: The statement has no intellectual worth, because it presents two false choices: (1) adhere to "live for the moment" dogma as chosen by a temporally constrained pope; and (2) create one's own dogma, if in doubt.

Quote: "But even a pope cannot claim the extraordinary powers of infallibility when it goes against the Holy Spirit."

Comment: Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, please, please expand your horizons and read the chapter in the book "God and the World" where Joseph Ratzinger explains--and demythologizes--the concept of papal infallibility. As you will discover, it is not the pope who "claims" anything, but the pope making a pronouncement on doctrine based on an organic process that includes (a) the sense of the faithful, as explained elsewhere in this section; and (b) the full assent of consultative bodies (congregagtions and dicasteries) that are designed to protect the Church from doctrinal and theological freelancing--something, I might add, that you manage to do rather well in your posts.

I am humbled and awed at the wisdom & eloquence of thought on this comment board today. As a Christ-follower, this article was of special interest to me. Though I stand on the Protestant side of the fence, my opinions regarding female priests are more inline with Mary Cunningham's. The Apostle Paul makes the role of women in the Church abundantly clear. The reason why the Church doesn't open the floor to discussing this topic is the same as why it doesn't open the floor to discussing homosexual ordination: In both Testaments, the Bible speaks loudly and in no uncertain terms regarding this issue. It is not for us to re-interpret the Word to accommodate our culture, but rather, to instruct our culture of what God requires. (Regardless of whether it is politically-correct or not.) God's standards haven't changed. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

In response to Mary Cunningham's arguments that a priest is first and foremost a "father":

By asserting that the "priesthood is fatherhood," you are sending a conflicting message. Is it not orthodox Catholic teaching that the priest is representative of Christ? Regardless of the obvious conflict that Christ himself was not a father, are you then inferring that Priests are representative of God the Father as opposed to Jesus the son?

"All fatherhood on earth takes as its prototype the Fatherhood of God and you could hardly call this a physical fatherhood."

If it is not a physical fatherhood in which the priesthood takes as it's prototype, then I assume we're saying it is psychological or metaphysical, and this brings a very dangerous inference - namely that God is only (or at least primarily) masculine. So, in essence, this DOES assert that women are inferior. I would argue that we must trasncend such dualistic thinking and begin to contemplate and understand God as both Father and Mother - a perfect union of masculine and feminine.

Furthermore, it is simply not a good argument to say that because a patriarchy has been in place in the past that it should be in place for all time (as Prof. Stevens-Arroyo points out). Such an argument stunts progress, and to simply rule out any conversation about change is to stifle the very much alive work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. It is also ineffective to simply say that "God established a patriarchal order." God works mysteriously and within the confounds of time and space which are constantly evolving. Just because the culture of mesopatamia 3000 years ago made anything other than a patriarchy impossible does not mean that we are obligated to follow the norms of 3000 BC in the 21st century AD.

We've addressed most of the typical arguments for and against the ordination of women, but I have yet to hear what harm it would bring (other than it "not being God's will", which is nothing but a response based in fear). If we take Christ's 2 greatest commandments (love God and love neighbor), a women priesthood would not go against it, and in fact, it may even be a way to better fulfill those commands! A unisex priesthood would expand the Church's ministerial means of loving God and loving our neighbors by at least double. If that isn't a good thing, I'm not sure what is.

The ultimate question is this: Why is the hierarchy so afraid to even have the conversation? Would God reject the Church and cast it away from Him forever if we simply talk about it, do research, PRAY, and at least leave the door open? And if we were to ordain women as priest, would God leave the Church and condemn it? He did not do so during the violent and blatantly un-Christlike times of the Crusades and the inquisition, and will not do so again, even if we fail to live up to Christ's standards.

The history of the Church shows that the Holy Spirit moves in remarkable and transformative ways when the body of the Church gathers to research and discuss issues in councils and other forums. To let this issue die with the proclamation of a single man, even if he is the Pope, shows more of a commitment towards rigid ideology than faith that God will lead His Church in the right direction.

For those interested, I recommend a book titled, "Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests?" by John Wijngaards. The book gives a very scholarly, well thought out and detailed account as for why a women priesthood should at least be discussed and why the traditional arguments against it are flawed. It can be accessed and read online at: http://www.iol.ie/~duacon/wompr.htm#contents

RE: Mr. Szyszkiewicz's comment "In addition, Ordination is not a matter of mere Church discipline, as Mr. Stevens-Arroyo claims. In all sacraments, there are issues of matter and form, which cannot be changed or else the sacrament becomes invalid. The form contains the words and actions used to confect the sacrament, e.g. in the case of Baptism, pouring water over the head and saying, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." To use other words, like "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier" makes the attempted sacrament invalid, as many people found out this year."

Wow! I didn't realize that Jesus (or actually, John the Baptist) Baptized people using ENGLISH, and talked about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I bet neither of them used Latin, either.

Fact is, FORM is mutable; Form has no intrinsic significance beyond that we accept it as representing the spirit in which we seek God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for guidance, support, and understanding when we perform the rituals. Jesus himself said so, in a passage so famous that it is used (in one of any number of translations) in nearly every Christian religious services. I'll paraphrase (my own translation)

Disciple: Teacher, when we pray to God, how should we pray? What form should we use, and what should we say?

Jesus: When you pray to the Father, pray not by a form, or by a ritual, but by your heart. Speak to the Lord your feelings, and remember to give thanks. Speak like this. Our Father in Heaven, Holy is Your name. Your Kingdom come, Your will be done....

Do I need to finish the Lord's prayer to prove the point that you are WRONG in saying that form is more important that intent?

Should read: "The Anglicans and others can create priestesses BUT these are invalid priests in the first place."

Phil Cooke writes: "Isn't making the love and presence of God more accessible to all way more important than the letter of the law?"

I would say your arguments against Catholicism are pretty standard and found in much Protestant literature, especially the criticism of the Spirit rather than the letter. But it is a false dichotomy. By whose authority is it that spirit is ascertained? Who judges what is the Spirit of the Revelation if not the Church? Catholics follow her teaching because it is the Church that possesses the authority to expound and explain the Revelation.

The question Prof asks is "why can't The Church, which creats priests, perfectly well open the office to women, as the Anglicans and others have done?"

Unfortunately, I am not sure Prof S-A understands the concept of priesthood. Because, if he did, he could not ask such a question. The Anglicans and others can create priestesses because these are invalid priests in the first place. In essence - biblically, patristically, typologiocally and theologically - a priest is a father. That's why the very idea of 'wimminpriests' is an oxymoron. A woman can no more be a father than Prof S-A can be a mother.

The following is a briefing from my church:

"That the essence of the priesthood is fatherhood is just as valid in the spiritual sense as it is in the physical sense. All fatherhood on earth takes as its prototype the Fatherhood of God and you could hardly call this a physical fatherhood.

That priesthood and fatherhood in the Judaeo-Christian tradition are intrinsically connected goes back to the pre-Mosaic priesthood in the OT. All the patriarchs and their first-born sons constituted the original priesthood which passed down the generations.From Adam and Seth to Noah and Shem (Melchizedek), Abraham and Isaac etc.

It was only when the first-born failed at Sinai that God told Moses to appoint the Levites in their place resulting in the priesthood of the first-born sons being suspended until it was restored by Christ. The whole thrust of Hebrews is about this restoration - to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek is to be a priest of the restored patriarchy as opposed to a priest of the order of Levi.

God has established a patriarchal order in His Kingdom from first to last and any attempt to overturn God's established order by simulating the creation of priestesses is as bad as the rebellion of Sodom. This is why the Catholic Church says that she has no authority to create priestesses and the other ancient churches agree with her - it is an act of rebellion against God's order."

I know that anti-Catholics will use the Professors' mistaken article as proof of the Church's anti-feminist stance. But this is not true! The great female religious orders, the inspiring female saints, the Virgin Mother herself were and remain beautiful inspirations. The Church's prohibition of divorce prevented a powerful man from putting his first wife 'aside', the Church's stress on faithfulness within marriage and her prohibition on concubines protected women from sexual slavery and the evil of harems.

But what the Church does not have the authority to do is to create priestesses in direct defiance of both tradition and scripture. This (to quote the Professor) is "going too far."

Thank you, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, for voicing rational, faithful, and loving criticisms of the Church and it's stance on the ordination of women. Without people who remain faithful to the church while providing a loving and patient, yet prophetic voice, the Holy Spirit would have fewer vehicles in which to advance the church.

In response to Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz, your description of Christianity sounds very little like anything Jesus intended on producing and, to be frankly honest, it sounds dead. Your view of Catholicism leaves little room for the Holy Spirit to provide new revelation. Do you believe that Jesus established the Church 2000 years ago as it is today?

Your views are also ignorant of cultural and epistemological factors that are constantly evolving and changing. It assumes that Jesus intended on establishing a new religion (something that most scholars would outright reject) and at the Last Supper was thinking, "I am now establishing the priesthood of my new Church." The last supper has only been interpretted as the basis for the establishment of the priesthood in hindsight, and therefore, isn't a teaching of Christ (if we go soley by what Jesus said at the last supper, anytime we break bread in rememberance of Him, He is in our midst, REGARDLESS of who is breaking the bread). The idea that the Last Supper is the establishment of the priesthood is an interpretation of an event by the Church (which doesn't make it wrong, but it also doesn't mean that we know exactly what Jesus intentions were).

Jesus consistantly questioned and objected to the religious authority of his time when they missed the SPIRIT of the law and instead chose to only follow the letter of the law (take, for example, Jesus healing on the Sabbath). Interestingly, many in the Catholic church have taken to the same practice - following the letter of the law in disregard to it's spirit.

One such example of this is in your account of the "validity" of the sacraments. The Holy Spirit and our presence to the Divine make a sacrament a sacrament - the material forms are, more or less, insignificant. Anything can be sacramental so long as it is an external sign of an inward grace (which is good, orthodox teaching). When the external sign gets in the way of making the inward grace available (such as when wheat is not available for the Eucharist as it is not available in many parts of the world, or when one is alergic to wheat but still wants to receive the Eucharist), isn't it more important that one receive the inward grace? Isn't making the love and presence of God more accessible to all way more important than the letter of the law? I think Jesus would say, "Yes" and unfortunately, the Magisterium would currently be on the side of the Pharisees, condemning anyone who slightly alters external forms in an attempt to receive an inward grace.

The male body and psyche is merely an external form that is no more or no less capable of being a vehicle for the Holy Spirit than the female body and psyche are capable. Of course, if the Church thinks that there is something inherently deficient with the female body and psyche when it comes to the Holy Spirit, than the Church's stance is understandable - but I highly doubt such an argument would be made.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo went too far in his quest to discredit the fallibility of the Pope.The Pope's position on women ordination conforms with the scriptures which means the revelation with which he based his decision is true,no matter how unconvincing it sounds to man.

I am most suprised that an intellectual like Prof. Stevens-Arroyo could commit such a foundamentally dumb blunder in his assessment of the Pope's position.This shows clearly that he has been biten by the liberal women right activist bug.

Who says the church violates women right by following the Bible's directives that women should not be ordained priest?Where in the Bile,wether old or new testament did he read about the ordination of a woman priest or about God's directive to have women ordain?

The American constituion is not the regulator of the Catholic norms,but the Bible.Any women that is not satisfied should leave for such a church that accommodates her believes,afterall the holy church has never bend the scripture to accomodate anybody or group of persons.

Dear C.A.K.

"OK – I find this Mr. Tom offensive – but since I am Catholic I guess it is okay to offend the millions of US."

What exactly do you find offensive in Mr. Szyszkiewicz's post? I cannot imagine - he wrote nothing rude, nor anything ad hominem, nor in acrid terms.

What Mr. Szyszkiewicz has provided are explanations of a doctrine - it didn't seem to me that he was intending to prove a thing. What sort of "proof" are you expecting? I noted just a moment ago in a post that revelation isn't the sort of thing that is proven, like the theories of gravitation.

Your IQ hardly sets you up as an expert on the subject who deserves prima facia deference, as Prof. Arroyo-Stevens deserves. You hardly seem to have comprehended Mr. Szyszkiewicz's post (by mentioning the priest scandals he wasn't intending to insult the Church as you seem to have concluded), and fail to string together a coherent train of thought. You also seem to lack important background knowledge, like the nature of the order of priesthood, and the nature of religious life ("monks," "nuns," etc).

You stated that Mr. Szyszkiewicz's argument is weak, as is he. In fact, you seem only to have misunderstood or left unread the bulk of his post.

My info is that Reverend Chilton is pastor of St John Episcopal Church in Barrytown NY. I find no listing for the Free Church of St John in Barrytown.

Let it be known to all that the Bible is clear in 1st conrintian 14 about women not being priest in the church.This does not authomatically denigrate women but gives them other responsibilities in the church.

The west and its liberal culture will never take over the holy churches doctrine as influenced by the bible.There is no place for women priest in the holy church and never would be.Women that see this as sexism do not act with the influence of the holy spirit because the spirit never directed anyone in the scripture to ordain women priest.never.

Any woman that cannot abide by the churches rule should defect to the anglican church or these penticostal liberal churches that circumvert the scriptures for membership reasons or for commercial reason.they must forget about the holy church.

Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz's comments are all very on point. I also would like to applaud him on the civilty of his tone, and the rigor of his thinking.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo has also misunderstood the scope of revelation. Public revelation does not end with Jesus' last teaching or example, but with the death of the last Apostle. As such, teachings of St. Peter, for instance, are included in the category of public revelation even if they were not explicitly presented by our Lord. In fact, all such teachings of Ss. Peter and Paul, James, John, Jude, etc., are found in our Lord's own teaching at least in germinal form. St. Peter teaches that the Good News is to be extended to the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48), a teaching that accords with our Lord's commission of the Seventy (Lk 10:1; seventy is the symbolic number for the whole world, and our Lord's instructions here specifically do not exclude Gentiles, as they do in Matthew, when He sends twelve only to Jewish towns, in Mt 10:5), and indeed with the tenor of the entire Old Testament corpus of prophecy in which Israel's key role is as a light to the nations of the world (Isa 42:6; 49:6). So extending the Church and her offices to the nations is hardly opposed to the revelation of our Lord, or omitted from it. And our Lord's choice of only Jewish apostles manifests the relationship of Jews to Gentiles the more clearly, without requiring that Gentiles never have priests among them.

We in the West have gotten used to a weird group mentality, in which different groups are identified, rather than distinctions drawn. So Latinos are a group, and women are likewise a group, as are homosexually active men and women. This tendency has been exasperated by recent attempts to liken the homosexualist movement to various civil rights movements before its time. But those groups aren't analogous. The difference between Latinos and Arabs isn't very much like the difference between Men and Women. With any close inspection, that becomes clear.

"An infallible pronouncement requires connection to revelation, and is not proven by a negative."

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo here misses the point that neither revelation nor infallible pronouncements need proving. Revelation is an historical-theological fact transmitted, and infallible pronouncements are declared clarifications of that fact. That's all.

"In other words, the absence of biblical sources advocating women’s ordination is not equivalent to an explicit ban against it."

That is true, but it is also a conspicuous absence, given our Lord's proclivity for violating any number of social-cultural taboos regarding women.

What begins to make the case is how the New Covenant builds on the Old, without every abrogating or repealing it. The Old Covenant priesthood is male-only by God's decree (Ex 32:28-29), and the New builds upon that, without cancelling it.

"...pope’s distinction... had not achieved the consensus required for an infallible declaration..."

Mr. Szyszkiewicz has already pointed out Prof. Arroyo-Stevens' complete misunderstanding of the term "sensus fidelium" - it has nothing to do with consensus.

"The exercise of her priesthood is subject to regulation, but not the validity of her ordination in 1970."

That is false. Her ordination, by the clear and consistent teaching of the Church is that women cannot receive ordination; not "may not" but "cannot". The woman in question was never ordained, regardless of who laid hands on her head. A woman could no sooner be ordained than a man impregnated; it is not part of the nature with which they have been created. It is not an insult unless difference is insulting. It is a simple fact.

"The same distinction also applies to the recent declaration... that would excommunicate women priests being ordained... However, the sin committed would be disobedience to Church policy..."

That is also false. The document specifically noted that the crime in question is the mockery of a sacrament, or its deliberate performance using invalid form or matter.

"I am not urging Catholic dissent to the ordinary magisterium of the Church;"

What then, Professor, are you advocating?

"But even a pope cannot claim the extraordinary powers of infallibility when it goes against the Holy Spirit."

Again, the Professor has missed the point. A declaration that a teaching is infallible is not a "power" making it so, but a seal guaranteeing that it is so - it is an observation of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, rather than a pre-empting of it. Prof. Stevens-Arroyo has begged the question, in a fashion, by assuming that the Holy Spirit is teaching something to the contrary of the papal pronouncement.

One is rather tempted to conclude that Prof. Stevens-Arroyo has been consorting with the Spirit of the Times, rather than with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12; Rom 12:2).

To whom it may concern:
Me thinks that Mr. Arroyo is a product of the 70's culture and has had a seemingly dibilitous Catholic upbringing on the understanding of Catholic Theology and more specifically the infallibility doctrine of the Pope. When you state that infallibility must reflect the concensus of the church it is not talking about a poll being taken as you infer. It has to do with the tradition of the church. Mr. Szyszkiewicz has explained infallibility adequately. As to the other comments one has to put in perspective that some Catholics somehow some way have been taught to believe that there are ties between ancient cultures(Babylonia) and Catholicism. That is what happens when we tend to promote ourselves as little gods. The French Revolution is a perfect example of what happens if you eliminate GOD. Then you have to answer to the state. The state slowly erodes to the point that you owe your allegiance to only yourself. We are here to "Know, Love and Serve the LORD."

OK – I find this Mr. Tom offensive – but since I am Catholic I guess it is okay to offend the millions of US.

Offend a Muslim or let an atheist overhear a prayer and “all hell breaks loose”.

Because Mr. Tom - you can provide THEORY - but no PROOF. So what makes your THEORIES any more legitimate than mine? (BTW 140+ IQ - and I cannot PROVE there is a God, but you CANNOT prove there isn't.)

Actually I think Women priests are far preferable to married men priests. Because when you become a priest/nun you are supposed to be marrying God and the Church.

TO pull out the insult of a few bad priests at every opportunity (which I and many others question the numbers - many just coming out of the woodwork looking for a big check, note that False Memories had been planted in the Psych community), make you look weak and your arguments look weak also.

CAK

Concerned Christian wrote: "women have been denied their right to be Catholic priests."

Sir, I respectfully submit to you that your use of the word "right" is misplaced. Their is no "right" to the priesthood. Besides right is a secular term, not a theological one. Their is no "right" for any man or woman to be a priest. The Holy Priesthood is not a job.

Christ himself through His Holy Spirit reaches into men's hearts and asks them to serve Him as fishers of men as the apostles were called. It is not through our own volition that we become priests in response to God's call after much discernment and prayer. If called, we are asked to give up ourselves in service to Christ our Savior, and part of that call is being careful to not focus on our individual needs or desires, because that is selfish and self-centered, two qualities that are inconsistent with truly serving our Lord and Savior as member of His priestly ministry. There is no "right" to any of this. It is a privilege to serve for those who are called.

To Mr Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz -

The Holy Spirit's leading must pass through the very infallible conditioned filters of the Church hierarchy. We know from experience that the filter has made mistakes. Nothing wrong in keeping that in mind. Many Catholic saints were first persecuted before being venerated.

To Mr Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz -

Try explaining to a lay Catholic why the Church made some terrible blunders in its history which has earned the Catholic Church a terrible reputation especially among non-Catholics. Anti-Catholics thrive on such blunders and will rub it in the faces of Catholics forever.

Try explaining why Jesus chose married disciples when He could have chosen young men who were not married.

Try explaining to a lay Catholic why marriage was alright for the first thousand years and became wrong in the next thousand.

Try explaining to a lay Catholic why there are many Church doctrines that can't be traced back to the Bible and is yet considered the working of the Holy Spirit.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo criticizes Pope John Paul for an invalid exercise of papal infallibility. I will criticize Mr. Steven-Arroyo for the obfuscation of facts. He claims the Pope stated that because ordination of women has not been done in the past it will not be done in the future. That's not what the Holy Father said. He said that because Christ did not do it, the Church cannot do it. It is not a matter of the Church's will, but of her ability, or rather her lack of ability. To say otherwise is to misquote the pope.

But even more than this, Mr. Stevens-Arroyo states that there are two conditions for claiming papal infallibility. It is the second which I wish to address. It does not require the consensus of the Church, but rather the sensus fidelium -- the sense of the faithful. Thus the only two infallible papal proclamations have been about Mary -- the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption -- because the sense of the faithful from the earliest time of the Church as witnessed to in various documents, was that Mary was, in fact, preserved from original sin at her conception and was, in fact, assumed body and soul into heaven.

The sensus fidelium is not the same as the consensus of the Church. If the pope wanted consensus, he would have to take poll after poll to find out what people thought and try to get everyone to think along the same lines. That would be impossible. The sense of the faithful is what those who keep themselves within the dogma and practice of the Faith sense about a particular teaching. This comes from reading what various theologians and other spiritual writers who are known for their fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church have said over the centuries, and from comments made by people living at the time of the proclamation who are also known for their fidelity to the Magisterium. Those who stray from that Magisterium are not consulted because they are no longer part of the faithful since they have become faithless in one way or another.

So the sense of those who are faithful to the Church's Magisterium is that women are not to be ordained priests since that has been the teaching and practice of the Church since her beginning. They know the Church is as incapable of ordaining women to the priesthood as she is incapable of saying there are four persons in the Trinity or that two men can get "married." Those who sense otherwise, such as Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, have set themselves apart from being faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and are, therefore, no longer part of the sensus fidelium.

In addition, Ordination is not a matter of mere Church discipline, as Mr. Stevens-Arroyo claims. In all sacraments, there are issues of matter and form, which cannot be changed or else the sacrament becomes invalid. The form contains the words and actions used to confect the sacrament, e.g. in the case of Baptism, pouring water over the head and saying, "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." To use other words, like "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier" makes the attempted sacrament invalid, as many people found out this year.

The matter concerns those things that make the sacrament, such as in the Eucharist, unleavened bread and wine from grapes, or in the case of Baptism, clean water. The Eucharist cannot be confected with pretzels and beer. Baptism can't be conferred with muddy water or Pepsi. In Ordination, men are the matter. In Marriage, a man and a woman are the matter. This isn't a case of discipline, but of divine revelation to which the Church would be unfaithful if she did other than she does now. To claim the contrary is to be unfaithful to the truth.

One does not have to revert to a questionable theological "holy ghost" to find why women have been denied their right to be Catholic priests.

The problem goes back to the "prude" St.Paul i.e. as per Professor Chilton as he pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. An excerpt for Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.