Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 09:35:47 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: women priests (yet again)

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Oct-92 Re: women priests (yet again) David
Jansing@ORION.SPD. (3857)

> Huh.  Funny.  At one time (April 12, 1633) the church began a series of
> hearings against a man who stood against something that the Church put
> its foot down on.  Precisely, the issue of Heliocentricity and its
> famous professor Galileo, were silenced by the Church.  The Church had
> official teachings that were considered sacred regarding Terra being the
> center of the Universe.  It's
> impossible, the Church shouted!  We are the most important in the whole
> of Creation, therefore the Universe must be centered around us!  Today,
> we all know that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong.

You are quite incorrect.  Dogmatic teachings only apply to articles of
faith and morals, not science.  Terrocentrism was *NEVER* a dogmatic
revealed doctrine!  To suggest this is preposterous.

It should be noted that the reason the Church got upset about this --
and you NEVER hear about this in history books, especially ones written
by Protestants -- is because they perceived Galileo as attacking the
authority of Scripture.  Why? Because they thought Scripture taught that
the sun revolved around the earth, and Galileo's challenge to that posed
a threat to the belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
NOT because they Church said so and Galileo dared to contradict.

Hence, your comparison between terrocentrism and the male priesthood
just does wash.  First of all, the latter is a matter of faith and
morals, and the former is not.  The church also tends to believe in
evolution (excess caution after Galileo), but you will never find a
dogmatic pronouncement on it, because the church has no ability to speak
dogmatically on articles of science.

> The arguments concerning most of women priesthood in Canon Law is based
> on ritual impurities for sacrafice (carryovers from our Jewish heritage)
> and
> women not owning property.

This is rather strange.  Funny neither of these were mentioned in the
encyclical I quoted from (and I scanned the whole thing).

> Are we just a bit bitter about leaving Trent for Vatican II?  Once again, the
> Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways.

I happen to like Vatican II more than most.  Don't blame heresy on the
Holy Spirit.  Remember, Satan is out there, too, seeking to deceive us
and turn us away from the truth.  Even Satan appears as an angel of
light.

> If we are called to change, this is what we should do, not what we bind
> ourselves to by some Earthly law.

Anything that we are "called to" that conflicts with Divine Revelation
is from Satan and must be rejected.

> What good would it be for us to lose the priesthood entirely rather than
> re-examine our position to allow women to become priests.

God will provide enough men for the priesthood.  I hardly think that
admitting women would "save" the priesthood anyway if it were in that
bad shape, but despite a real shortage of priests, I don't think were in
such desparate straits.  If he absolutely must, the Holy Father could
permit married men to be ordained.  No need to admit women.

> I am not saying the Women's Ordination is the answer, but I do think that we
> as the People of God ought to be more open to change within our Church and
> within our Parishes.

Again, change is good except when it conflicts with Divine Revelation.
We must remain open to the Holy Spirit without being deceived by Satan.
And I can guarantee that Satan will be more aggressive than the Holy
Spirit.

Excerpts from catholic: 5-Oct-92 Re: women priests (yet again) Norman
Kraft@BKHOUSE.CTS (6353)

> > As mentioned in the post I made from the Magisterium, there is absolutely no
> > historical precedent for women priests, and in fact plenty of condemnation
 of
> > the idea.  Any time the issue came up, it was roundly condemned as
> impossible,
> > heretical.  We cannot reverse ourselves and allow it.

> Many, many things have been considered by the Church to be heretical which
> have now be taken on as common practice. What is your point here? "Plenty
> of condemnation of the idea" [of women priests]?? Like what, Eric, beyond
> your obvious dislike of women.

OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, name something solemnly declared as heretical --
and give me references -- which is not taken on as common practice.  But
please don't accuse me of "obvious dislike of women."  I am merely
proclaiming what the Church holds as truth and what we received from the
Apostles.

> Misogyny, be it from you, St. Paul, or the Church is not a "T"radition,
> and has no place in a compassionate church.

This is all your opinion, of course.  If indeed you call this misogyny,
you would have a hard time reconciling your view with Sacred Scripture.

> Just what makes you put "condemnation" of women priests in the category
> of "T"radition, and not the switch from Latin to vernacular? Who makes
> this distinction? Humans? Ah, well! Another argument for dumping yet
> another abhorent human "t"radition.

The distinction is made by humans -- bishops -- led by the Holy Spirit
in ecumenical council.  Christ promised to reveal all truth to us and
preserve us from error.  If you are Roman Catholic and don't believe
this, there's not much point in being Roman Catholic.  If you are not,
then let me alone, for this is our faith, to which we hold fast and will
not be swayed.

> He references the second creation story, but seems not aware at all of
> the first, in which "God created man in his image; in the divine image
> he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). The text
> does not read "male *then* female he created them". Paul's reasoning in
this matter, and yours, suffer from the same faulty analysis.

Neither does it read, "Male and female he created them simultaneously."
This is merely a gloss, a summary, and I don't see it as overruling
argument from the second creation story, which is the detailed one.

> > Indeed what someone pointed out is very true: We _cannot_ under any
> > circumstances change our stance on female priests, because we have declared
> > it quite unquestionably impossible

> When, where, and why? How is this declaration any different from so many
> others that have gone by the wayside. Have you ever considered that in
> the day of each discarded tradition, that many such as you felt that
> every one of them was a "T"radition? How is this position any different
> than those reactionary elements of the Church?

Have you ever verified this yourself?  Sounds to me like you are
speaking from hearsay.  I will issue the same challenge to you:  Give me
a reference (documents, please) to a Tradition -- a belief held as
divinely revealed and immutable -- that was later discarded and
overruled.  You are attempting to persuade me from nonexistent evidence.
 I do not believe you correctly discern the difference between Tradition
and tradition, the immutable and the mutable.

> > and even (supposing) we were wrong (which  we cannot be, but for the
> sake of argument)

We cannot?

When we speak authoritatively, no, we cannot be in error.  If you don't
believe, this, there's not much point in being Roman Catholic.  You're
better off Anglican.

> Yet we have been so many times. Those who opposed slavery, a practice
> that appears often in scripture with positive reinforcement, were
declared heretical when they took a stand in Latin America.

Reference, please.  And it'd better be from an ecumenical council or a
solemn declaration from the Pope.

> The Church, for a time, based on scriptural analysis, declared democracy
heretical in it's infancy.

Reference, please -- same qualifications.

> Both the tradition of slavery in the Spanish Church, and the tradition
> of hierarchial divine-right ruling systems were considered "T"raditions
in their day.

Somehow I missed the ecumenical council that declared this.  Could you
refresh my memory?

> Right. I know that if the Church allowed female priests that I would
> certainly question everything I've ever been taught about the Father,
> the Son and the Holy Spirit. Come on, Eric, this is patently ridiculous,
> and has been proven, in the Episcopal Church, to be false.

Funny, I think the Episcopal Church quite illustrates the problem rather
than refuting it.  We already have Anglican bishops declaring that the
Resurrection never really occurred, and Bishop Spong attacking
Scripture.  These to me are very basic truths to our faith.  So, too,
have all the liberal Protestant denominations totally gone to pot, all
due to rejection of Tradition.

Eric