During those times that you do not feel absolved, do you still believe that you are?
I converted from atheism to Catholicism because I realized that since the universe has not existed forever, that someone who is eternal must have created it, and Catholicism was the most logical religion.
I think that nuns should wear habits unless doing so is illegal, and that if it is illegal, that they should wear modest skirts or dresses.
It is not an issue of whether or not female priests are allowed; rather, it is an issue of whether or not there is such a thing a female priest. Since Jesus did not ordain any females as priests, and he had no shortage of female followers, the Church has infallibly proclaimed that the ordination of a woman is impossible. If you want to pretend to ordain females, you can start your own ecclesiastical community or join the Episcopal ecclesiastical community.
Are you suggesting that the group was composed of sexual egalitarians, and the church later decided to characterize only the men as participating?
The account above suggests that at the time, there was a group, and it did not include any women. When the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles at Pentacost, it was a group of men only; this was what gave them the gift to proclaim the gospel.
Now, of course the books that compose the Bible are the result of selection over the years; no question about that.
But we believe that when Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon which the church would be built, he meant something very specific. He meant to install Peter as head of his church on Earth. And he meant to install in Peter, and his successors, the ultimate authority for the operation of the church.
So if there’s any circular reasoning, it’s in that assumption: that Peter was intended to be the head of the church, because that what the books say that Peter and his successors have decided are the authority about what Jesus said.
And sure – it’s an assumption that cannot be proved. It’s a matter of faith. If someone comes along and says, “This is not sufficient evidence for me to accept this proposition,” I completely understand.
Yes to the first, no to the second.
Excuse me, but I would disagree with that statement. So far as I’m aware, the prohibition against women receiving Holy Orders is a matter of discipline, not an infalliable proclamation. I’d be very interested in seeing a citation to the contrary.
No, I do not have sex at all, as I am single.
Did he ordain anyone as priests?
“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.”
- His Holiness Pope John Paul II
You can read ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS at the following link to verify this quote: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html
Yes, he ordained each apostle as a bishop, which is a kind of priest.
If by acid you mean the illegal drug, then I have never done acid.
Technically, the caretakers of the Church are guided by the Spirit and are thus kept from making “incorrect” decisions with regard to fundamental facets of Church teaching.
It’s certainly better worded than that, and my summary may have altered the true scope, so don’t take what I say as dogma 
but that’s the gist of it.
Thus, while Jesus hasn’t stopped you from saying He ate babies, He certainly made sure that you weren’t in any position of authority when you said it. 
Yep- 2 ex cathedra statements ever: Immaculate Conception (Mary was conceived without original sin) and the Assumption (Mary assumed body and soul into Heaven). The prohibition against female clergy is “strongly held,” or words to that effect.
The Pope has declared in his role as leader of the Church that the Church has no authority to ordain women, because Jesus never did, so how can it? But the Pope has not said, as Christ’s infallible representative, that women cannot BE priests.
Which is a good thing, because women were priests of a sort in the early Church, so it’d make for some interesting hoop-jumping.
Scrappy, who just took a semester of Catholic Social Thought and the Law, but isn’t providing you with a stinkin’ cite because it’s not a bar topic and thus is getting NO attention for the next two months.
According to His Holiness Pope Pius IX, those who do not formally belong to the Church because they are ignorant of Her, and follow the natural law are material members of the Church, and will go to Heaven when they die.
Those who know about the Catholic Church but do not join Her are not members of the Church. This includes most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox who have reached the use of reason.
I am not going to believe you until you give me a citation from a reputable source about women being priests in the early Church.
Why is Catholicism the most logical religion?
That’s true, and because the Pontiff has immediate, supreme legislative authority over the universal church, that declaration is absolutely binding on the church.
But merely because the Pope writes, it’s not infallible. Binding, yes. Infallible, no. The Pope has the capacity to issue infallible judgements, as made clear by First Vatican Council in 1870, but in order to do so, he must, inter alia, specifically define that he is speaking ex cathedra. An apostolic letter, by itself, does not qualify. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has specifically clarified that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not an exercise of papal infallibility. See Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent. See also Concerning the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Teaching Contained in the Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”.
There you go with your damn cites again, Bricker.
Back to vicarious liability flashcards for me. :mad:
I never said this- I said, “of a sort;” and, rather than look for a cite myself, I have sent an e-mail to my professor who will have means and motivation exceeding mine to answer this question fully.
I will report back when I have something solid.
In the meantime, by all means, continue.
However, I would like to ask you some questions as well, as I am curious:
-How deep is your research into Church teaching?
-Are you familiar with and/or do you accept and/or do you yourself engage in exegesis, and how deeply?
My Catholic workmate’s husband had a vasectomy. Then they went to the priest and did a one-off confession. Then they went home and fucked like absolved repentent bunnies. Catholicism has a lot to recommend it.
How about nominal Catholics (cafeteria Catholics, twice-a-year Catholics, etc.)?