← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie
Thread ID: 6480 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-05-04
2003-05-04 22:15 | User Profile
[url=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-female-priests,0,7955666.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnation%2Dheadlines]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...ion%2Dheadlines[/url]
Defiant Female Priests Celebrate Mass
By BILL BERGSTROM Associated Press Writer
May 3, 2003, 6:40 PM EDT
PHILADELPHIA -- The Rev. Judith Heffernan doesn't let herself worry about whether celebrating Mass will mean getting excommunicated.
Papal rulings to the contrary, Heffernan has performed baptisms, heard confessions, celebrated Mass and participated in last rites as a Catholic priest for 23 years, since a Jesuit priest ordained her before her church, the Community of the Christian Spirit in Philadelphia.
"I don't want to be excommunicated, but I decided that you can't be excommunicated from something you are," Heffernan said. "And the doctrine of the church is that we are the church."
Heffernan was one of several women priests who gathered Saturday to talk about their unauthorized ordinations at a gathering sponsored by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Women's Ordination Conference. About 200 people attended.
Catherine Rossi, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, declined to comment on whether the archdiocese would take any action concerning the meeting.
Some participants, including the keynote speaker, the Rev. Ida Raming, already have been excommunicated.
Raming, a German theologian and author, was among seven women ordained June 29 on a boat on the Danube River between Germany and Austria. The Vatican excommunicated them and prohibited them from celebrating Mass or receiving the sacraments.
Despite that, Raming said their ordination was a step toward changing church law that says that because Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, only males can be priests.
"The presence of these ordained women is very much a step toward liberation of women and ordination of women in the church," Raming said. "If we want them to be accepted, we must make them present."
Pope John Paul II has repeatedly ruled out any discussion of changing the ban on female priests.
The Rev. Daniel Mackle, director of the Philadelphia Archdiocese's office for worship, issued a statement saying the archdiocese adheres to the pope's 1994 declaration 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."
The issue is considered a matter of faith, which cannot be changed, rather than a matter of church discipline, which can be changed, Mackle said. Copyright é 2003, The Associated Press
:thd: :dung:
2003-05-04 23:38 | User Profile
What the heck is wrong with a priestess? Isn't the whole reason there are so many gay priests is that it's a sissy job for a man? Gay men being attracted to sissy jobs. :hyp:
2003-05-05 03:37 | User Profile
Catholics made the Virgin Mary a goddess in 1950 which brought this whole issue on them. Mary's "co-redeemer" status was openly discussed in a local parrish when I was still in, which goes back quite a way.
There is no way in hell Rome can get away with a contradiction like this. If Mary ascended to heaven without bodily death and gave birth without copulation, she is a goddess and not a human, or a goddess and a human. Either or both, this makes her equivalent with Jesus thus making female priests an obvious eventuality.
They thought they could throw a sop to the ladies and leave it at that. What can you expect from a bunch of celibate guys? The whole issue is a case against the idea of priests without priestesses.
2003-05-05 05:14 | User Profile
** "I don't want to be excommunicated, but I decided that you can't be excommunicated from something you are," Heffernan said. "And the doctrine of the church is that we are the church."**
That seems very logical and well thought-out. I'm a practicing Satanist who drinks the blood of nuns and baby calves--that's just who I am. It's not fair that I should be excommunicated from the Church just because my views are at odds with theirs. God bless this woman for standing up for the rights of the heterodoxy to lead the Church!
2003-05-05 09:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 5 2003, 03:37 ** Catholics made the Virgin Mary a goddess in 1950 which brought this whole issue on them. Mary's "co-redeemer" status was openly discussed in a local parrish when I was still in, which goes back quite a way.
There is no way in hell Rome can get away with a contradiction like this. If Mary ascended to heaven without bodily death and gave birth without copulation, she is a goddess and not a human, or a goddess and a human. Either or both, this makes her equivalent with Jesus thus making female priests an obvious eventuality.
They thought they could throw a sop to the ladies and leave it at that. What can you expect from a bunch of celibate guys? The whole issue is a case against the idea of priests without priestesses. **
The Church did not officially declare Mary "Co-Redemptrix" in 1950. There was some talk about it, and I believe certain Popes made statements using those words, but none of these statements were Ex Cathedra, as far as I know. There was quite a push for this by apparently JPII himself several years ago (about 1997 if memory serves) but that has since died down.
JPII is quite a devotee of Mary, but it would seem that he got nixed on that one. There's a lot of opposition to the idea.
As far as I know, this has not been promulagated. I haven't seen it on the Vatican site.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which I well could be.
I personally don't think it's a good idea to make such a proclamation - we have enough issues to settle with our Protestant and Orthodox brothers and sisters without adding to the mess.
Walter
2003-05-05 09:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@May 5 2003, 05:14 ** > ** "I don't want to be excommunicated, but I decided that you can't be excommunicated from something you are," Heffernan said. "And the doctrine of the church is that we are the church."**
That seems very logical and well thought-out. I'm a practicing Satanist who drinks the blood of nuns and baby calves--that's just who I am. It's not fair that I should be excommunicated from the Church just because my views are at odds with theirs. God bless this woman for standing up for the rights of the heterodoxy to lead the Church! **
Great point.
The key is "but I decided . . . ".
Right, she decided.
End of discussion.
Hubris, anyone?
Walter
2003-05-05 11:32 | User Profile
Here's a [url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/mary_cor.htm]Webpage[/url] that sums up pretty well my understanding of the question.
Walter
2003-05-06 20:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 5 2003, 09:36 ** As far as I know, this has not been promulagated. I haven't seen it on the Vatican site.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which I well could be.
**
The point I think is that the Goddess Christian movement is mostly unofficial. There are lots of forums and egroups that take Mary's co-redeemer status as real and that seems to be the impetus.
In other words sloppy thinking produced the Assumption in '50 and the feminists ran with it later.
What makes it fascinating is that it's a trend that was already apparent. We can ignore the Theosophist rediscovery of the Goddess 100 years ago as pagan moonshine, but what about the Russian Sophiologists? Sergei Bulgokov did his best work in the 30s under Stalin. His point -- never declared heresy by the Orthodoxy -- is that the Third Point of the Trinity could be called the female divine principle, Sophia. Others built on it, and deduced that the Christian divine female can only be Mary.
Bulgakov's most influential work came out in 1938 and a dozen years after we have the elevation of Mary. The religious rational argument is that all faiths have part of the truth, but the whole can only be seen by stepping back to what all of them might be revealing together.
The religious rationalist argument also notes that the monotheistic religions always tend to be sexually off-balance. Nature wants balance no matter what doctrine says, which explains the trend.
2003-05-07 05:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@May 4 2003, 22:15 ** Despite that, Raming said their ordination was a step toward changing church law that says that because Jesus chose only men to be his apostles, only males can be priests. **
Actually, there are a number of reasons in the Bible for only men to be priests. But, I would think a Catholic would have another reason: 'Cause the Pope says so. I don't get Catholics who think Catholic doctrine is up for a vote or personal choice.
But, anyone who says something as stupid as "I decided that you can't be excommunicated from something you are..." Well...
2003-05-07 13:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@May 6 2003, 20:22 ** > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@May 5 2003, 09:36 ** As far as I know, this has not been promulagated. I haven't seen it on the Vatican site.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which I well could be.
**
The point I think is that the Goddess Christian movement is mostly unofficial. There are lots of forums and egroups that take Mary's co-redeemer status as real and that seems to be the impetus.
In other words sloppy thinking produced the Assumption in '50 and the feminists ran with it later.
What makes it fascinating is that it's a trend that was already apparent. We can ignore the Theosophist rediscovery of the Goddess 100 years ago as pagan moonshine, but what about the Russian Sophiologists? Sergei Bulgokov did his best work in the 30s under Stalin. His point -- never declared heresy by the Orthodoxy -- is that the Third Point of the Trinity could be called the female divine principle, Sophia. Others built on it, and deduced that the Christian divine female can only be Mary.
Bulgakov's most influential work came out in 1938 and a dozen years after we have the elevation of Mary. The religious rational argument is that all faiths have part of the truth, but the whole can only be seen by stepping back to what all of them might be revealing together.
The religious rationalist argument also notes that the monotheistic religions always tend to be sexually off-balance. Nature wants balance no matter what doctrine says, which explains the trend. **
I'm not enough of a theologian to say much on this point that hasn't already been said.
The webpage that I list above quotes the Vatican II documents that state in no uncertain terms that Mary cannot properly be understood in that context. Only Jesus is the Redeemer, and while Mary "helped" in His mission only Christ saves. That's always been Catholic doctrine as I understood it, and elevating Mary to divine status would sure seem to be utterly heretical.
What you say about Gnosticism is interesting. I think that Chesterton made a central point in his "Everlasting Man" that all pagans really do believe that there is One God Whom the Catholics describe as the First Cause and the Unmoved Mover. The Chinese called in Heaven or the Tao. The problem is that real monotheism is terribly austere; it requires us mere humans to deal directly with The Ultimate, which is a terrible thing to ask of mortals. It's like asking people to gaze into the sun. We want naturally to avert our eyes from the ghastliness of the Infinite, and so we prefer to deal with lesser beings directly.
Jewish mysticism is classical Gnosticism with its own peculiar twists. It posits a First Cause but doesn't identify Yahweh with that - rather (as I understand it) Yahweh is identified with the Holy Blessed One, who is two steps of being removed from the First Cause. In what sense can a good man like Fr. Neuhaus talk about the Judeo-Christian Tradition, in view of that fact? He might as well talk about the Pagan-Christian tradition.
I always suspected JPII of having some pagan leanings, although I hope I'm wrong. He said some terribly nice things about VooDoo, and visited a Synagogue (which is kabbalistic paganism). His proposed additions to the Rosary have also been accused of having pagan overtones. Again, I hope that I'm wrong about this.
Are your saying that Bulgakov (author of "Master and Margarita", or a different Bulgakov?) influenced Catholic thinkers? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's news to me.
It's interesting that Mother Theresa of Calcutta was apparently one of the main proponents of this change. It shows how much institutional "oomph" was behind the proposal.
You're right about the popular gnosticism on this issue taking on a life of its own. But the point is that the Church has NOT, as far as I know, officially promulgated it, and thus it doesn't count. There have been lots of harebrained ideas in the past 2,000 years, some of which came awfully close to acceptance. But we Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Deposit of the Faith from heresy.
Walter