Some women in Catonsville, Maryland, were supposedly ordained by a women bishop of dubious lineage, who emphasizes that
Roman Catholic Womenpriests traces its origins to the so-called Danube Seven, a group of women who were ordained aboard a ship in the river in 2002 by three male bishops. Two of those bishops were never publicly identified, while the third, an Argentine named Romulo Braschi, was called a “founder of a schismatic community” by the Vatican. The seven women were excommunicated, but RCWP believes their ordinations were legitimate, providing the “apostolic succession” that made all subsequent ordinations legitimate.
I wonder why the one doctrine that such irregular ordinands focus upon is the necessity of apostolic succession of bishops for a valid ordination. If the Catholic Church is wrong about not being able to ordain women (and about a large variety of other matters on which such people usually disagree with the Church) why do they think it is right about the issue of apostolic succession?
You might as well ask, “If people think the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, why do they think it is right about the Incarnation?” After all, at one time geocentrism was thought to be at least as closely related to the Church’s teaching on the Incarnation as women’s ordination is to the Church’s teaching on apostolic succession. But that turned out not to be the case–and in fact it has often happened that things which once seemed to be obvious and unchanging truths eventually turned out to be neither.
By its own admission (as well as the verdict of history) the Church has been wrong about a great many things over the centuries; but the Church itself tells us that its being wrong about some things does not mean it is wrong about everything, especially those things upon which it has lavished the most attention and which it has solemnly taught by dogmatic definition. The incarnation and apostolic succession clearly fall into the latter category. But geocentrism does not–and it is not at all clear that the Church’s current stance on women’s ordination does either, despite the Magisterium’s pretense that it does.
You might as well ask, “If people think the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, why do they think it is right about the Incarnation?” After all, at one time geocentrism was thought to be at least as closely related to the Church’s teaching on the Incarnation as women’s ordination is to the Church’s teaching on apostolic succession. But that turned out not to be the case–and in fact it has often happened that things which once seemed to be obvious and unchanging truths eventually turned out to be neither.
By its own admission (as well as the verdict of history) the Church has been wrong about a great many things over the centuries; but the Church itself tells us that its being wrong about some things does not mean it is wrong about everything, especially those things upon which it has lavished the most attention and which it has solemnly taught by dogmatic definition. The incarnation and apostolic succession clearly fall into the latter category. But geocentrism does not–and it is not at all clear that the Church’s current stance on women’s ordination does either, despite the Magisterium’s pretense that it does.
Assuming this isn’t a rhetorical question…I suppose one answer might be that if they are going to be anathema sat upon, then it won’t be based upon a breach of the doctrine of succession.
In the highly unlikely event that their successors were ever to be eventually welcomed into the fold of the faith along with other schismatics, then history might note prophetic episcopal will as a primary reason for the success of the movement?
(I have a pet named Emma that I renamed Anathema and now she sits on command. My sister wants to get a dog named Theology so when he does something wrong she will then have an excuse to say “Bad theology,” which she says all the time anyway).
What does it matter if they are harboring multiple heresies? They believe theirs is a prophetic witness for future generations and the Magisterium holds it to be a grave crime according to canon law.
Bottom line, we have been formally prohibited from speaking or writing about women’s participation in ordained ministry, which, tell me if I am wrong, includes deaconesses.
I am guessing this will be a major obstruction to ever closer reunion with the Orthodox even though we RCs have a few Carthusian abbesses left (not that there were ever more than a few anyway), last I checked, which was some years ago. Has anybody heard if they have been declared schismatics or prohibited from continuing this practice? I would appreciate any reference.
It wasn’t a rhetorical question.
I think that to settle the question a pope sooner or later (and probably sooner) is going to have to make an ex-cathedra, infallible statment that it is not possible to ordain women as priests or bishops. Deaconesses are another question – what is a daecon,anyway? How does he differ from a layman performing ministries in the church?It has not been the subject of much theological reflection, and the pope may feel the question is not mature, and that may be the reason he has not yet made an infallible pronouncment about orders.
I also think that the “traditional” theology of gender (as exemplified by Hans Urs von Balthasar) is wrong and that is why the Church has difficulty explaining the limitation of ordination to men.
These women may be otherwise orthodox, ( I doubt it) but the tiny fringe groups that emphasize that they have apostolic succession almost always reject vast areas of the Catholic Church’s dogmatic and moral teachings.
An infallible definition would certainly clarify things, but I find it interesting that the magisterium has been unable or unwilling to make one. JP2 tried to finesse the issue by making a non-infallible declaration that the Church has already declared itself infallibly on the subject–an approach which only added fuel to the fire and satisfied almost no one. Ratzinger then muddied the waters further with contradictory statements that someone of his theological acumen should have known better than to make. The whole thing reeks of creeping infallibilism and ad hoc excuse-making that in the end boils down to nothing more than “because I say so” without any of the clarity or certainty that an infallible definition would provide.
On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder if the magisterium’s failure to take that final step is itself evidence that at some level they suspect they are wrong on this issue. After all, according to the Church’s own teaching the Holy Spirit will not allow the pope to err when exercising the charism of infallibility. Perhaps JP2 took the backhanded approach he did precisely because he was teaching error, and the Holy Spirit would not allow him to do so in a way that would bind the Church to that error forever.
Perhaps. But the contuned attempted ordination of women is going to put strong pressure on the pope to make an infallible statement.
Fortunately the idea of geocentrism was never proposed as infallible doctrine by a general council or a pope teaching ex cathedra (no matter whether individual popes believed it to be infallible). The Incarnation was clearly taught in scripture, by all the fathers, and held by the entire Church, east and west. It’s a reminder that teaching that is not infallible can, in fact, be in error.
“Perhaps. But the contuned attempted ordination of women is going to put strong pressure on the pope to make an infallible statement.”
Lee, would that be like the infallible statement concerning the Ordination of homosexual men albeit chaste? We already have a tad too many women clerics.IMHO.
Attempting a dogmatic definition on women’s ordination strikes me as a potentially disastrous step to take, especially at a time when so many Catholics are already heading for the door over other issues.
If such a definition were less than perfectly executed and left any excuse for the theologians to question its validity, it would create a great deal of division and rancor without actually settling anything (except for those who are already convinced anyway).
On the other hand if the definition were air-tight and really did settle the issue, it could be the final straw for large numbers of Catholics who are barely holding on as it is, leading either to formal schism or (more likely) to a significant increase in the number of disaffected Catholics leaving the Church entirely.
Of course that doesn’t mean the Vatican won’t try it; given how badly they’ve botched their handling of the abuse crisis, nothing would surprise me anymore.
Dear Anonymous, The Church,with true Apostolic Succession consists of both the East and the West. The Great Schism, as it is called, was the culmination of the political and financial competitions between what comprised and compromised the visible Church with the world. Christ’s Word is clear that His Church was never meant to be a political entity until the completion of the End Time when He appears to rule with a rod of iron. What you cite,”the Church was wrong about the earth being the center of the universe,” occurred well after the political entities took over and subverted Truth.
It has been since that time that legalisms had to be contrived to maintain a political entity that viewed science and rationalism as it’s competitors. Sadly, today the same political entity has made compromises with both rationalistic and scientific views in order to continue it’s existance and attempt to maintain this authotrity . One example is the alteration or genetic manipulation of crops. The Vatican just cannot seem to take a stand , see below
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/vatican-study-endorses-gmos-food-security
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_16_45/ai_n31952787/
Oops. The sudden change of mind!
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm
Perhaps, if the same ispiration of the Holy Ghost that Christ acknowledged was present in Peter as evidenced by his response to the question, “Who am I”, and on which He established His Church will one day be invoked again in the Unity of the One , True Church.
“Attempting a dogmatic definition on women’s ordination strikes me as a potentially disastrous step to take, especially at a time when so many Catholics are already heading for the door over other issues.”
jajaja si como no! We LATINOS support ONLY MEN as a priest, is a tiny minority of white anging liberals that craving 4 power.
Yes it will come down as a infallible proclamation that only men can be ordain priest.
And we latinos very felices.
Such a lovely, joyful photo. Thank you for sharing it, Dr. Podles.
AW
Tony de New York says: “We LATINOS support ONLY MEN as a priest, is a tiny minority of white anging liberals that craving 4 power.”
Tony — I know that not all Latinos feel the way you do. I have spoken to some who feel differently.
I also know people who are very very very far from liberal who favor ordaining women.