Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 11:33am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Latest News

Dissent will not renew the Church, Pope says at Chrism Mass

By on Thursday, 5 April 2012

Benedict XVI celebrates the chrism Mass this morning (CNS)

Benedict XVI said that dissent from Catholic teaching will not renew the Church during a Chrism Mass in St Peter’s Basilica this morning.

Surrounded by more than 1,600 priests, bishops and cardinals, the Pope cautioned against calls for women’s ordination, saying that such campaigns seemed more “a desperate push” to fulfill one’s own preferences rather than a sincere attempt to conform one’s life more closely to Christ.

During the April 5 chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, which focused on Holy Thursday as the day Jesus shared his priesthood with the apostles, the pope said he wanted to use the occasion to ask all priests, including himself, to meditate upon what their consecration really means.

“Are you resolved to be more united with the Lord Jesus and more closely conformed to him,” which entails a renunciation of oneself and “of the much-vaunted self-fulfillment,” the pope asked.

Being Christ-like means not to be served but to serve, not taking but giving, he said.

If that is the nature of the priesthood, then what should be the response of priests when faced with “the often dramatic situation of the church today,” the pope asked.

Without specifying the country, Pope Benedict said a group of priests from a European nation have issued a call for disobedience of church teaching, specifically regarding the question of women’s ordination.

Last year the president of the Austrian bishops’ conference, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, condemned a “Call to Disobedience,” signed by 250 of Austria’s 4,200 Catholic priests. The document urged Catholics to begin a campaign in support of women priests and “priestless Eucharistic liturgies”, as well as for Communion to be given to non-Catholics and remarried divorcees.

Also, 311 theologians from Austria, Germany and Switzerland signed a memorandum last year demanding the ordination of women and married men, as well as an “open dialogue” on the Church’s “structures of power and communication.”

Pope Benedict asked, “Is disobedience a path of renewal for the church?” adding that Blessed John Paul II taught “irrevocably that the church has received no authority from the Lord” to ordain women.

Pope Benedict said perhaps such campaigns are motivated by concern for the Church and believe that “the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and bring the church up-to-date.”

“But is disobedience really a way to do this?” the pope asked.

True renewal must be based on lives that are radically conformed to Christ and God’s will, he said.

Christ did seek to correct errors in human traditions, the pope said, but only those customs that stifled God’s word and will, seeking to eliminate “human caprice” so as to reveal God’s authentic desire for his people.

Being humble, subservient, and obedient to God and following church teaching are not excuses “to defend inertia, the fossilisation of traditions,” the pope said.

The era following the Second Vatican Council showed what a process of “true renewal” looks like, and it can be seen in many of the new movements and ways of life that are “filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love,” he said.

Presiding over the first of two Holy Thursday liturgies, Pope Benedict blessed the oils that will be used in the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, ordination and the anointing of the sick.

Deacons carried the oils in large silver urns to the main altar while catechumens, youths preparing for confirmation, the sick and deacons about to be ordained in the Diocese of Rome wheeled small tables carrying large urns, which also contained sacramental oils.

In his homily, the Pope called on all priests to continue to look to Christ and the saints for guidance in how best to serve and renew the Church and minister to humanity.

“God is not concerned so much with great numbers and with outward successes, but achieves his victories under the humble sign of the mustard seed,” the pope said.

He urged bishops and priests to remember their role as teachers and to use the upcoming Year of Faith to combat “the growing religious illiteracy found in the midst of our sophisticated society.”

“We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the church,” he said. Accurate, authentic guides of what the church teaches can be found not only in sacred Scripture, but also the texts of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II’s writings, which “are still far from being explored,” he said.

But such teaching will only be credible when those preaching live lives that are visibly touched and shaped by Christ and his word, the Pope said.

Later in the day at the Basilica of St John Lateran, the Pope celebrated the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, which commemorates Jesus’s institution of the Eucharist and the priesthood.

During the evening Mass Pope Benedict washed the feet of 12 priests from the Diocese of Rome. The ritual reflected the call to imitate Christ by serving one another and forgiving each other.

The Pope poured water from a golden pitcher onto the foot of each priest, then gently rubbed each foot dry with a white towel.

In his homily, the Pope said that pride and wanting to be free to do as one wants is “the real essence of sin”.

When Jesus spent the night on the Mount of Olives deep in prayer and wracked with anguish, he asked God to spare him of the evil that awaited him: betrayal, denial, torture and death, the Pope said.

He struggled, looking deep into the night of evil and saw “the filthy flood of all the lies and all the disgrace which he will encounter in that chalice from which he must drink”, the Pope said. “He also sees me, and he prays for me.”

Here, Jesus performs the office of a priest, the Pope said, by taking “upon himself the sins of humanity, of all of us, and he brings us before the father”.

Though he begged to be spared, Jesus puts his life in God’s hands and asks that God’s will be done. Jesus transformed the attitude of Adam and healed humanity.

Adam’s pride can be seen in people who believe they need to be free of God in order to be really free, he said.

“This is the fundamental rebellion present throughout history and the fundamental lie which perverts life.”

Without God, people are alienated from themselves and “we are free only if we stand in the truth of our being, if we are united to God”, he said.

The collection taken up at the Mass was earmarked by the pope to offer humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees.

  • MJCarroll

    I presume his homily was specifically written for the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales.

    These Bishop’s (and priests) should be ashamed for keeping those on the inside of the church without church teaching, and those on the outside of the church with no access to evangelisation and a path to salvation.

  • Benedict Carter

    I’ve given up on this Pope. 

    There he is, still lauding the “joy” (insert your own adjective here) of the post-Vatican II period, when all around lies the destruction of the Lord’s vineyard, to which the Hierarchy seems oblivious. 

    75% fewer vocations; 75% collapse in Mass attendance; most religious Orders on the point of extinction; a complete collapse in belief in, and reverence for, the Real Presence; a laity, knowledgeable of the Faith, effectively turned, in only fifty years, into Protestants. 

    This indeed is the fruit of Vatican II – the Great Apostasy foretold by so many Saints down the ages.

    As far as these Austrian priests are concerned, the answer is clear. Laicize the lot of them. Every one of them. Accept no dissent. Take action. Use the power of the Keys to defend Christ’s flock Your Holiness, for God’s sake. 

  • JabbaPapa

    Pope Benedict asked, “Is disobedience a path of renewal for the church?”
    adding that Blessed John Paul II taught “irrevocably that the church
    has received no authority from the Lord” to ordain women.

    Am I mistaken, or does this use of “irrevocably” used as he was speaking ex cathedra provide this doctrine with the charism of infallibility ?

    John Paul II himself simply described the teaching as being “permanent”, which is not so powerful…

  • Claire_chiz

    How lucky we are to have such a wonderful Pope who is in touch and up-to-date with all the things going on in the Church around the world, he is showing such great leadership and praise God for that.  

  • Parasum

    I wish the Pope – and not he alone – could at least try to imagine these two possibilities:

    1. That people who dissent from doctrines, or call for other changes, may in fact be in good faith, and have serious and worthwhile reasons  for the positions they hold;

    2. That the flawed motives he thinks motivate others, may at some level motivate him. Does he really know himself so perfectly, that he can say with absolute certainty that his motives for holding his positions are not flawed ? IMHO, no-one on earth can possibly say that – not him, not those who disagree with him, not this poster, not anyone. So this point is not mere Pope-bashing.

    How is it “disobedient” to ask (“demand” is a very unattractive word – Christians cannot “demand” anything whatever, regardless of their position in the Church) for “an “open dialogue” on the Church’s “structures of power and communication”” ? Is it really being suggested that the Church does not need reform of “structures of power and communication” ? But the unreformed, current structures have helped the Church to disgrace itself before the world, and to hide thousands of paedophiles and their protectors. Is that really what Christ wants for His Church ? If the Church could change its structutes in the past, after Vatican II & after Trent, as well as before – why is it “disobedient” to ask for change again ?

    Disobedience the Pope is not necessarily disobedience to Christ – what the Apostles said is still true, even for the Church: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5.29). The Church is more important than its shepherds, who are its servants, not its lords & masters. Popes & all other clergy are for the Church, not the Church for them.

    Does the Pope not realise how demoralising it is to live in a Church in which ther is steady drip-drip of scandals ? It is not pleasant to live in a supposedly holy & supposed morally good society which has turned out to have some very nasty secrets. The culture of secrecy and privilege and authoritarianism we presently helps to perpetuate these ev ils, and to feed the defensiveness which led to the cover-ups.

    If he really means this: “…teaching will only be credible when those preaching live lives that are visibly touched and shaped by Christ and his word” -  it is at least possible that his unwillingness to tolerate any reform, even in matters not dogmatic, is part of the problem. If refusal to countenance change even of that kind were always right, how are the reform decrees of Trent to be explained ? There is is nothing sacrosanct or untouchable about the *status quo* inthe Church – if there had been, Jesus would have been just another deluded trouble-maker, & His critics among the Pharisees would have been totally justified in their rejection of Him.

    @JabbaPapa:disqus :

    “Am I mistaken, or does this use of “irrevocably” used as he was
    speaking ex cathedra provide this doctrine with the charism of
    infallibility ?

    John Paul II himself simply described the teaching as being “permanent”, which is not so powerful…”

    ## As for JP2 and his teaching on the ordination only of men, he said it was “definitive”. That means that though not actually infallibilised, the issue has been withdrawn from discussion, and can no longer be discussed by theologians. Alexander VII did something similar in 1661, when he forbade theologians to discuss whether the Mother of God had been conceived immaculate, or in what sense – his action was not a definition, but a guillotine: as happens to debate in Parliament.

    Hope that helps

  • Benedict Carter

    In 1976, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its declaration Inter insigniores, stating that the Church does not consider Herself authorized to ordain women, not on account of socio-cultural reasons, but rather because of the “ … unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West”, which must be “ … considered to conform to God’s plan for his Church.”

    This position was reiterated in 1992 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and again in 1994 with the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

    In October of 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a response to a dubium, or question received, which affirmed that the doctrine stating that the Church has no power to confer sacred orders on women is definitive tenenda-it must be held definitively and is to be considered part of the infallible, ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.

    For Catholics, the issue of the reservation of priestly ordination to men is not merely a matter of praxis, or discipline, but is, rather, doctrinal in nature and touches the heart of the doctrine of the Eucharist itself and the sacramental nature, or constitution, of the Church.

  • Benedict Carter

    “Does the Pope not realise how demoralising it is to live in a Church in which there is a steady drip-drip of scandals?”

    This has got nothing to do with the “structures” of the Church, but with the wholesale crumbling – deliberately and from within – of the ramparts against the world and its “values” thrown down after Vatican II. That, and a total doctrinal chaos.

  • Parasum

    ## As for JP2 and his teaching on the ordination only of men, he said it was “definitive”. That means that though not actually infallibilised, the issue has been withdrawn from discussion, and can no longer be discussed by theologians. Alexander VII did something similar in 1661, when he forbade theologians to discuss whether the Mother of God had been conceived immaculate, or in what sense – his action was not a definition, but a guillotine: as happens to debate in Parliament.

    A “definitive” proposition is capable, all things being equal, of being formally recognised as infallibly true – so the judgement that a teaching is definitive, is a sort of half-way house between “open to debate” & “infallibly true”

    Hope that helps

  • JabbaPapa

    Yes dear Benedict, and thank you for the historical analysis — it does indeed seem then that this quality of “irrevocability” as such has never been stated before as belonging to the doctrine.

    Blessed John Paul II did indeed elevate the teaching from the status of a disciplinary teaching to being a doctrinal one, and providing it with the status of permanence (nevertheless qualified by the fact that reference was made to a question of divine Authority) — but by declaring this doctrine as being “irrevocable”, Benedict XVI has now elevated the doctrine to the status of those that it is no longer permissible to debate at the theological level, except for any necessary purposes of explanation and clarification and education that may arise.

    For all intents and purposes then, the doctrine has therefore been formally defined as being infallible at the theological level — but then I suppose that it is still one degree away from actual infallibility per se, because no teaching has been provided that lay Catholics may not disagree with it, but this new teaching provides more conservatively that any and all debates towards the abolition of the doctrine are no longer permissible.

    OK thank you, your input has helped !!! :-)

  • JabbaPapa

     Your 1661 example was helpful yes — thank you !!

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    Neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict has “elevated” this teaching, but merely explained (for the benefit of our rebellious age) that it is part of the infallible teaching of the Church that women cannot be ordained.

    I thought Benedict Carter’s post was crystal clear – yet you still appear to be confused.  Take it as read:  male only ordination is, has always been and always will be an “infallible” teaching. That’s all any of us needs to know to stop rebelling against it.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    Well said, Benedict Carter – well said!

  • Benedict Carter

    You are incorrect. The doctrine is infallible. 

  • Benedict Carter

    “This help we find first of all in the words of the teaching Church: the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are essential tools which serve as an authentic guide to what the Church believes on the basis of God’s word. And of course this also includes the whole wealth of documents given to us by Pope John Paul II, still far from being fully explored”.

    Yet more Year Zero stuff from the Holy Father. Did the Church not exist before that damned Council?

    “The era following the Second Vatican Council showed what a process of “true renewal” looks like …”.

    One can only read these words with incredulity. What planet are you living on, Holy Father? Wake up, please, and smell the smell of empty seminaries, monasteries and convents, all full fifty years ago – when the Catholic Church took its religion seriously.

  • JabbaPapa

    I have spent some time perusing this prophetic material, and I would have to say that it is wise to do so in the light of the following document :

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    Which is of great assistance in its provision of the proper methods to interpret prophecy and personal revelation.

    The prophecies in question seem for the most part to have a more important local importance concerning local or national churches, and to treat with universal issues in a more secondary manner – or to concern events now belonging to History, such as the secrets of Fatima.

    But I must admit to finding some of the visions of Anna Katharina Emmerick to be more troubling than most.

    Having said that, I think that one should be careful before saying that these or those Catholics are in the wrong ; which is an error that she herself is warning about as being a part of the very danger of apostasy in question !!!

    Her visions are also troubling for me personally, because they make me think again with amazement at the fact that a particular sort of innate understanding and a charism of doctrinal interpretation were provided to me in the revelation that caused my conversion, leading inevitably and almost inexorably via the processes of my own untutored logic to an independantly formulated Christianity that is doctrinally indistinguishable in any important detail to the Catholic dogmata. (with the occasional error of logic providing the occasional glitch, I’m not an angel)

    Necessarily, I ask myself, given the state of our Church, and the sometimes bewildering positions taken by some of the extremists, why I have been chosen to receive this ?

    First, clearly, for the purpose of my conversion and baptism, so far so clear. But then ?

    The Catholic dogmata have been revealed to me, just as they have been revealed to all of us ; they are truthful, and they are of God and they are of the Christ.

    To deny them, or to deny our Holy Father the Pope, is to fall straightforward into Error.

    That she is warning about the atheists and the secularists and the various sorts of modernists seems clear, but we should clearly refrain from starting to look askew at each other !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    You are mistaken.

    Prior to Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, it was disciplinary in nature (albeit a discipline of ancient origin and longstanding tradition).

    Pope John Paul II provided the teaching with a specifically **doctrinal** status, or dogmatic if you would prefer that adjective instead.

    Pope Benedict XVI has now just clarified the teaching even further, to the extent that no proposals against the doctrine are permissible.

  • JabbaPapa

    No, I don’t think so — not in the sense that an ordinary lay Catholic expressing a personal opinion in public that the ordination of women priests should be instituted would be automatically considered as excommunicatio latae sententiae for doing so.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fforrett Fred Forrett

    irrevocably that the church 
    has received no authority from the Lord” to ordain women.
    Has received is past tense; This does not mean that the Lord may not grant such authority in the future. If God wills it; the Pope will know it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fforrett Fred Forrett

    irrevocably that the church 
    has received no authority from the Lord” to ordain women.
    Has received is past tense; This does not mean that the Lord may not grant such authority in the future. If God wills it; the Pope will know it.

  • JabbaPapa

    1. That people who dissent from doctrines, or call for other changes, may in fact be in good faith, and have serious and worthwhile reasons for the positions they hold;

    This is a straightforward error, as well as a deliberate call towards heresy and apostasy !!!

    There are a great many teachings of the Church that are quite simply permanent. The expression of those teachings in contemporary language may vary over the course of the centuries, but their contents do not. The nature of these teachings is that they have been provided to us by the Christ through His Church — they are non-negotiable.

    2. That the flawed motives he thinks motivate others, may at some level motivate him. Does he really know himself so perfectly, that he can say with absolute certainty that his motives for holding his positions are not flawed ?

    The Catholic Church is not an autocracy, and when the Holy Father speaks with the Authority of Magisterium, he speaks as the voice of the Church as a whole. When he speaks on the basis of his own personal opinion, Pope Benedict XVI is systematically careful to spell this fact out in so many words.

    The Pope does not prepare his doctrinal declarations in solitary isolation — he does so with the assistance of the entire hierarchy of the Church, all the way from the lay Catholics of his own diocese right up to the College of cardinals and the Offices of the Holy See.

    How is it “disobedient” to … “demand” … “an “open dialogue” on the Church’s “structures of power and communication”” ?

    Because obedience towards the Church, which is a strict requirement of all clergy and religious, requires obedience to those structures.

    Dialogue within those structures constitutes obedience ; open attempts to disrupt those structures do not.

    Is it really being suggested that the Church does not need reform of “structures of power and communication” ? But the unreformed, current structures have helped the Church to disgrace itself before the world, & to hide thousands of paedophiles and their protectors. Is that really what Christ wants for His Church ?

    The particular structures that failed in the face of the sexual abuse scandal have been significantly reformed already.

    Does the Pope not realise how demoralising it is to live in a Church in which ther is steady drip-drip of scandals ?

    Why do you imagine that he does not understand this ?

    it is at least possible that his unwillingness to tolerate any reform, even in matters not dogmatic, is part of the problem.

    This is very far from being true — especially in a thread discussing a homily where the Pope stated : Surely Christ himself corrected human traditions which threatened to stifle the word and the will of God? Indeed he did, so as to rekindle obedience to the true will of God, to his ever enduring word. His concern was for true obedience, as opposed to human caprice. … and … Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No.

    Are the establishment of the Anglo-Catholic Ordinariates, and the publication of Summorum Pontificum not enough evidence for you that the Pope has NO “unwillingness to tolerate any reform” whatsoever ???

    There is is nothing sacrosanct or untouchable about the *status quo* in the Church

    This is straightforward Protestantism — there is in fact a great deal of sacrosanct and untouchable in the Church.

  • JabbaPapa

    1. That people who dissent from doctrines, or call for other changes, may in fact be in good faith, and have serious and worthwhile reasons for the positions they hold;

    This is a straightforward error, as well as a deliberate call towards heresy and apostasy !!!

    There are a great many teachings of the Church that are quite simply permanent. The expression of those teachings in contemporary language may vary over the course of the centuries, but their contents do not. The nature of these teachings is that they have been provided to us by the Christ through His Church — they are non-negotiable.

    2. That the flawed motives he thinks motivate others, may at some level motivate him. Does he really know himself so perfectly, that he can say with absolute certainty that his motives for holding his positions are not flawed ?

    The Catholic Church is not an autocracy, and when the Holy Father speaks with the Authority of Magisterium, he speaks as the voice of the Church as a whole. When he speaks on the basis of his own personal opinion, Pope Benedict XVI is systematically careful to spell this fact out in so many words.

    The Pope does not prepare his doctrinal declarations in solitary isolation — he does so with the assistance of the entire hierarchy of the Church, all the way from the lay Catholics of his own diocese right up to the College of cardinals and the Offices of the Holy See.

    How is it “disobedient” to … “demand” … “an “open dialogue” on the Church’s “structures of power and communication”” ?

    Because obedience towards the Church, which is a strict requirement of all clergy and religious, requires obedience to those structures.

    Dialogue within those structures constitutes obedience ; open attempts to disrupt those structures do not.

    Is it really being suggested that the Church does not need reform of “structures of power and communication” ? But the unreformed, current structures have helped the Church to disgrace itself before the world, & to hide thousands of paedophiles and their protectors. Is that really what Christ wants for His Church ?

    The particular structures that failed in the face of the sexual abuse scandal have been significantly reformed already.

    Does the Pope not realise how demoralising it is to live in a Church in which ther is steady drip-drip of scandals ?

    Why do you imagine that he does not understand this ?

    it is at least possible that his unwillingness to tolerate any reform, even in matters not dogmatic, is part of the problem.

    This is very far from being true — especially in a thread discussing a homily where the Pope stated : Surely Christ himself corrected human traditions which threatened to stifle the word and the will of God? Indeed he did, so as to rekindle obedience to the true will of God, to his ever enduring word. His concern was for true obedience, as opposed to human caprice. … and … Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No.

    Are the establishment of the Anglo-Catholic Ordinariates, and the publication of Summorum Pontificum not enough evidence for you that the Pope has NO “unwillingness to tolerate any reform” whatsoever ???

    There is is nothing sacrosanct or untouchable about the *status quo* in the Church

    This is straightforward Protestantism — there is in fact a great deal of sacrosanct and untouchable in the Church.

  • Benedict Carter

    No, CTEditor is NOT mistaken – but you are.

    Every sentence in your post above is factually incorrect.

    This matter was NEVER merely “disciplinary”. It was doctrinal from the beginning. The maleness of the priesthood has to do not only with the Eucharist but with the very nature of the Church itself.

  • JabbaPapa

    That is the whole point of my discussion of the adverb “irrevocably” earlier on — whatever the verbal tenses, this word is perfectly unambiguous.

  • Benedict Carter

    Sorry, which prophecies are you talking about? Give some examples please. 

    And if you believe Fatima to “belong to history”, then you know very little Jabba about Marian apparitions and what they mean.

  • JabbaPapa

    Ones mentioned here for example :

    http://marienfried.com/catholic%20teachings/prophecy%20of%20apostasy.html

    Although CAVEAT — having checked sources, some of the ones quoted in here are distorted, and some even fabricated !!! (the Notre dame de Salette ones particularly so)

    But it’s a convenient list, if you take the precaution of just looking at names, then googling for better sources elsewhere on the web.

  • Benedict Carter

    The matter is closed, definitively and irrevocably. Which one of those English words don’t you understand?

  • JabbaPapa

    Well I’m clearly not going to disagree with you about the nature of the priesthood — especially not given yesterday’s clarification by the Pope !!!!

    But I said nothing at all about the nature of the priesthood in the first place !!!!

  • Benedict Carter

    Another point: it’s no good the Holy Father talking about dissent when (a) the Church is in a state of doctrinal anarchy; (b) the Hierarchy doesn’t deal forcibly with dissenters but panders to them at every turn. 

    Too little, too late, Holy Father. In my humble opinion, strongly held, you aren’t focusing on the right problem. The real problem is doctrinal. Show us where the “hermeneutic of continuity” actually is between the before and the after of Vatican II  - get that sorted out, and then dissent will wither away or the dissenters will be forced to leave the Church. The fact is that in nu-Church their dissent is ultimately built on the innovations of the last fifty years.

  • Benedict Carter

    Jabba, you should stop. Your evident confusion will only confuse others.

  • JabbaPapa

    There is no confusion — the doctrine that no woman may be ordained as a priest is irrevocably defined as being a permanent teaching of the Church.

    Therefore, the nature of the priesthood as being male is of the very nature of the Church itself, exactly as you have said.

  • JabbaPapa

    The phrase “hermeneutic of continuity” is a difficult one, dear Benedict, as I have tried to explain to you once already.

    Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpretation for the purpose of discovering truth. It includes exegetics, as well as doctrinal interpretation, interpretation by lay Catholics of homilies delivered to them in their parishes, interpretation of history, and so on and so forth.

    Continuity on the other hand requires in this case that pre-conciliar teachings are continuous with conciliar and post-conciliar ones, wherein lies the difficulty for both conservative traditionalists and reformist liberals.

    The hermeneutic of continuity is not however best understood as in the presentations of it by either camp. It is rather an interpretative *method* whereby the conciliar and post-conciliar teachings are to be interpreted with a view to the necessity of a continuity with the pre-conciliar ones, as well as vice-versa, and especially in such cases where the continuity may be the least self-evident.

    The hermeneutic of continuity is not, therefore, any sort of dogmatic instruction whereby any disagreements and misunderstandings and confusions that have arisen in the wake of the Council should simply be viewed as non-existent — it is instead the expression of an intellectual and theological requirement that the Church must seek to resolve those disagreements and misunderstandings and confusions in such a way that the underlying continuity of Catholic doctrine will be revealed by such work.

    The hermeneutic of continuity is not a doctrine, nor does it claim that any interpretative difficulties that have arisen in the wake of the Council are non-existent — it is a programme for work to be done for the purpose of resolving those difficulties, in the light of the permanent teachings of the Church.

  • Benedict Carter

    “The hermeneutic of continuity ….  any interpretative difficulties that have arisen in the wake of the Council  … a programme for work to be done for the purpose of resolving those difficulties …”.

    Then let them be resolved. But resolving them can’t be done. 

  • Nrplrqd

    If the women are ordained will the Church really grow? What is the guaranty?

  • JabbaPapa

     And if you believe Fatima to “belong to history”, then you know very little Jabba about Marian apparitions and what they mean.

    Sorry, I had not noticed this addition to the original post previously.

    Please save such an admonition for someone who has not seen the Virgin.

  • JabbaPapa

    If the women are ordained will the Church really grow?

    No.

  • JabbaPapa

    Then let them be resolved. But resolving them can’t be done.

    This is your job too, carissime Benedicte — and the job of all of those with a certain degree of understanding and who call themselves Catholic.

  • Benedict Carter

    My job to do what? We have a Magisterium: let it explain how the teaching of Vatican II on Religious Liberty and ecumenism, to name two, can possibly be reconciled with the constant teaching of the Church up to Vatican II. 

    They can’t be; that’s why we see no explanation. 

  • http://twitter.com/dnt1951 David Thomson

    Well, at least take their rubber Ken dolls off them

  • JabbaPapa

    And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin :

    For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

  • srdc

    Parasum,

    These priests and YOU do not not understand sacramental theology.  They should go back to Sunday school.  Rejecting the physical world does not make you progressive or questioning. It makes you afraid of reality and eventually mad.

  • srdc

    Pope Pius XII recalled: “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign.”13

  • srdc

    Pope Pius XII recalled: “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign.”13
    Perhaps a good book on sacramental theology might help you understand the church’s teachings on this issue and how it relates to the incarnation and reality itself.

  • Stephen Taylor

    The Church does have the authority to ordain women.  Jesus said.  “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven.  What you loose on earth, is loosed in heaven.”  Squirm your way out of that one.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    No, Sugar Plum, allow me to clarify that verse for you.  Just as the Church doesn’t have the authority to permit stealing or murder, so she doesn’t have the authority to permit women’s ordination. And it is precisely BECAUSE Our Lord said “what you loose/bind on earth is loosed/bound in Heaven” that we can be sure that no stealing, no murder, no women priests,  is God’s will.

    Squirming?

  • One in Christ

     There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    I do not understand how you could equate ordination of women with murder.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    It;s murder listening to the nonsensical arguments for women priests – that’s one way I can associate it with murder! Read the comments already published and work it out – I just don’t have the time to explain the obvious.

    St Paul was saying that anyone, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female, ALL can receive God’s grace, everyone who co-operates with God’s plan of salvation can be saved.

    He wasn’t passing judgment on who does the blankety blank washing up!

  • Benedict Carter

    It wasn’t an addition.

  • JabbaPapa

    The ordination of women priests and those performing such ordinations were formally condemned by Pope Gelasius I on 11th March 494 as being gravely disordered (paraphrased).

    This doctrine was made permanent by Pope John Paul II, who clarified that the Church had no authority to carry out such ordinations.

    Pope Benedict XVI has clarified the doctrine as being irrevocable.

    The Church therefore has no authority to ordain women as priests (although she retains the authority to ordain women as deacons, should she ever decide to reinstate that particular ministry at some time in the future).

  • Alan

    Calling for the ordination of women, or for it to be considered, is not disobedience.  Disobedience would be actually trying to do it.

  • JabbaPapa

    Pope Benedict XVI has defined, ex cathedra, any calls for women to be ordained as priests as being disobedient to Catholic doctrine defining the priesthood as being exclusively male.