BE THERE OR BE SQUARE, BUT IN THE MEAN TIME, READ THIS EXCELLENT COMMENTARY:
While Fr. Reese does raise his concerns about the way too much talking this pope does and off-the-cuff, not well thought-out and often incoherent and confusing, he bitterly complains that this pope, like every pope before him explains, although Pope Francis does so feebly, why women can’t be ordained to Holy Orders and why bishop conferences are a monster and Catholics should just listen to their own bishop who has authority from God, conferences don’t as God didn’t create bishops’ conferences.
Heterodox Fr. Reese couldn’t stomach the pope saying this.
You can read the full NCR commentary by Fr. Reese, SJ here:
MONEY BYTE:
The pope's interview last month with America, the Jesuit journal, was a textbook example of why the Vatican does not want the pope doing interviews. The pope poked the Russian bear in the nose, gave a convoluted response to why women cannot be priests and even had a muddled response to a question on racism in the United States.
If I had been his press secretary, I would have been pulling my hair out during much of the interview. I would have wanted to edit the text before it was published.
I agree with every thing that Bishop John Stowe said in a speech he gave for Pax Christi in Rome. However, as a critique or using critical thinking, I wish he would also show a bit more critical thinking when gushing about what we can do, be it a pope, bishop or laity. Critical thinking helps to avoid “clericalism” which even laity can be, but also to avoid abuse of every kind that gods can and do carry out.
No one is above critique, except God of course. But gods, they need our critical thinking. Critical thinking can neutralize the potential for spiritual, physical, sexual and moral abuse. It can condition clericalism, which basically places gods on the same level as God.
Here is Bishop Stowe’s full article that is good, but needs critique:
Here is the money byte of Bishop Stow with my critique of up below it:
Setting aside the liturgical battles, the "letter vs. the spirit" and the resourcement and aggiornamento interpretations, Catholics across the globe have become more familiar with the word of God in sacred Scripture, have cherished "full, conscious and active participation" in the liturgy, have slowly recognized a need to be evangelizers, have appreciated the importance of a well-formed conscience, have engaged in deep dialogue with fellow Christians and other religious traditions, have rediscovered baptism as the foundational sacrament and enjoyed many other gifts that resulted from the council.
Each of these developments, from the restoration of the ancient kiss of peace in the Mass to elevated role of the laity, can be a doorway to renewing the priority of working for peace in the mission of the church.
My comments: What the good bishop writes is good and I accept it. But he does not acknowledge what has happened since Vatican II and the chaos of its aftermath which itself created grave polarization in the Church, a huge segment who wanted to moderate change in the Church to keep the Church in continuity with what preceded; a smaller group that wanted no changes whatsoever and a much larger group that wanted everything to change so that we would have a different Church without defined doctrines and dogmas.
Pope Francis has reignited this polarization in a way not seen since about 1968. That deserves critique!
And the other thing that deserves critique is gushing about a theology of liturgical renewal and what has happened in the last 60 years liturgically. Today in many places, especially the northeast and in Europe, less that 10% of Catholics attend Mass and are active in the Church. That has implications for evangelization. You can gush all you want over liturgical reform and in theory how great that is. But when even the 10% who attend Mass you have more than half of them not believing in the real presence or the Mass as Sacrifice, that needs critique!
Bishop Stowe??????
Are some of the combinations of who and what can get married immoral? You bet ya!
Are these illegal in civil law? No.
Thus, with civil authorities abandoning all reference to marriage as defined by God, religions and the Church, the Catholic Church must protect all her sacraments, Holy Matrimony being the one that is mocked the most by civil authorities and those who see civil authority as the highest authority.
Thus there are two terms that Catholics should use for marriage that is valid in the eyes of God: Holy Matrimony, which covers those marriages sanctioned by the Church as a Sacrament or as a holy bond, such as a non-sacramental marriage between a baptized person and an unbaptized person blessed by the Church in a nuptial liturgy.
The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony refers only to those two baptized persons married in the Catholic Church.
I personally don’t believe we should recognize as a sacrament the marriages of Protestant sects which do not recognize marriage as a Sacrament and also follow all civil laws concerning who can be married in a civil union. That would be a great evangelization tool for those who are seeking to become Catholic and will allow for a much simpler annulment procedure if they have any previous marriages outside of the Catholic Church.
As it regards those unions recognized by the state, Catholics should simply call them legal unions or partnerships or civil marriage.
As is also normal for me, I pray the Holy Rosary for the last 15 minutes of my 45 minute elliptical workout. Normally, I am a by-the-book person with the various mysteries of the Rosary prayed on the proper day.
But on occasion, I will make up mysteries to fit the feast day the Church is celebrating. Thus, I did so this Immaculate Conception Morning. Here are the mysteries I prayed:
1. The Immaculate Conception
2. The Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
3. The Purification (Presentation) of the Blessed Virgin Mary
4. The Seven Sorrows of our Sorrowful Mother
5. The Assumption
I do worry, though, that as the mental acuity issues continue and magnify, that others, all the wrong people, will step into the vacuum and continue the course of disorders present in the Church and a hostile takeover of the Church by ideologues of the left wing, both political and religious.
But in terms of a lack of clear thinking from Pope Francis, we know that the orthodox cardinals, bishops, clergy and laity have decried from the beginning of this papacy that much of what the pope says and writes is incoherent and confusing to both the academically oriented and bread and butter Catholics.
Perhaps if there is a mental acuity issue of some kind, the next pope can declare that to have been the case and wipe the slate clean in terms of previous papacy’s initiatives. Who knows?
But here is another issue concerning Pope Francis and this one is reported by the National Catholic Reporter, which has raised the alarms before and today on Russia and China and Pope Francis’ stubborn choice to continue on a path of dialogue, dialogue with the devil, if you will, that is creating suffering for so many in China and Russia and the Ukraine:
As everyone knows, I despise beyond despise what those priests and bishops, who just can’t help themselves, do at the Introductory Rite of the Mass and so does Cardinal Tagle, thanks be to God!
Good morning, good morning I said! How are you and I hope you are having a great day. It is a great day when we enter into Mass with the Scriptures that the Mass has. I won’t preach a long homily at this point, but let me point out who is in the congregation, especially those who are visiting. Can you stand and tell us you name and where you are from?
And the Scriptures, especially the Gospel, what a blessing it is to hear the words of Jesus spoken to us, and reminding us that He is God and we are not. He forgives sins and heals a man on a stretcher. Isn’t that precious. But let me stop here and let you call to mind your sins, especially against the environment and in favor of bombs and war and all that kind of violence, but especially for not recycling and for using plastics and throwing them into the sea. Pause and beg God for forgiveness.
Lord Jesus, forgive us for treating others as aliens in a foreign land. Lord have mercy.
Lord Jesus, forgive us for making the climate change. Christ have mercy.
Lord Jesus, forgive us for being too Catholic and backwards. Lord have mercy.
Well, it appears Cardinal Tagle doesn’t like these kinds of introductory rite ad libbing:
Priests should not wish their parishioners “Good morning” at the beginning of Mass, according to Archbishop Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle of Manila.
The words “The Lord be with you” are sufficient, he said.
“With all due respect, my brother-priests, I do not see the need for saying ‘Good morning’ and similar greetings when God’s Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist alone suffices,” he said.
“Is not the expression ‘The Lord be with you’ more than enough?” he asked.
Archbishop Tagle, who was speaking during his Corpus Christi Mass at the Santa Cruz Church in Manila, said that priests seem to give more emphasis on “Good morning” than on the all-important “The Lord be with you”.
Anyone can wish someone good morning, but the words “The Lord be with you” are only heard during Mass, which is why they must be emphasised, he said.
Some priests will repeat “Good morning” if they don’t hear the reply “Good morning, Father,” he said, but don’t seem at all concerned if no one responds to “The Lord be with you”.
Archbishop Tagle’s comments were posted in an article on the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines website.
The archbishop, who is often considered to be progressive rather than conservative, was appointed in 2011, and was made a cardinal in November 2012.
1. The Mass was awe inspiring, filled with sacred silence before, during and after Mass, a true sense of wonder and awe before the throne of God and a realization that God is God and we aren’t! The mystical presence of God was palpable!
2. People were filled with reverence and constantly praying, not fearful of private devotions going on as the Mass progressed—it was so edifying and a wonderful example.
3. Masses were packed but not everyone went to Holy Communion—they understand the graces of the Holy Sacrifice even if they would not receive Holy Communion at that Mass.
4. There appeared to be discipline among the clergy and the nuns and they tried to set the example in teaching us about Christ, virtue, sin, modesty and immodesty, etc
5. No one complained about their clergy, the bishop or the pope, there was unity and pride in being Catholic with our unique liturgy, devotions, customs and practices, especially fasting, abstinence and ember days, not to mention the strict discipline of the Lenten season.
6. Catholic homes were filled with prayer, devotions and sacramentals.
7. The Catholic Church is the true Church, no if’s, and’s or or’s about it!
8. Catholics knew the basics of the Catholic Church and her 6 precepts. They knew what the Baltimore Catechism taught.
9. Catholics knew what sin was, developed a scrupulous conscience and went to confession regular, many weekly
10. There was a clear Catholic identity, what was and what wasn’t Catholic and the same held true of the distinct identity of the priests, nuns/sisters and brothers/monks.
1. Paternalism, not so much clericalism, was rampant and adults were treated as children
2. Clericalism, meaning not a clear priestly identity or the authority that came with that identity, was an abuse of authority and a haughtiness as it concerned the priestly identity. It was also authoritarianism, meanness and strictness that went beyond correction to abuse. A deference offered to clergy concerning their foibles because they supposedly sacrificed so much, especially sex…
3. There was an unfortunate ignorance about the Scriptures and conversational prayer.
Can’t think of any other minuses…
Shifty eyes, funny hat, facing God, Second Sunday of Advent at Savannah’s Sacred Heart’s TLM…
So much of what progressive liturgists used as their apologetic for the new Mass denigrated so much of the older Mass, including the role of the ordained priest, mysticism, reverence, etc. All of these things, seen by so many progressive liturgists as backwardism and contrary to the Holy Spirit today, are maintained in the Eastern Rites of the Church to this very day.
There has always been a certain kind of clericalist arrogance in the Latin Rite when compared to the Eastern Rites, although the ethos of the pre-Vatican II Mass and most Eastern Rites today is almost identical.
But progressive arrogance about the Modern Roman Missal is breathtaking especially their denigration by proxy of the Eastern Rites of the Church as well as Eastern Orthodoxy’s similar, in fact, identical liturgy.
This is a great video:
But most, not me of course, who promote the reforms of Vatican II simply don’t get why some don’t like those reforms. Why is that? Because progressives who gush over Vatican II and its misinterpretation always promote their ideology from an academic point of view, not a spiritual or mystical point of view.
From a not academic and non-cognitive point of view, the biggest problem with the reforms of Vatican II has to do with the elimination of the mystical aspect of the Mass which then led to the loss of reverence, the two happening almost simultaneously shortly after changes in the Mass began to be introduced in 1965.
In the desire for so many in the Church for the laity to completely understand everything about the Mass from an academic and historical perspective with different theological nuances, it was necessary to denigrate the mystical and reverence qualities of the pre-Vatican II Mass as well as the privileged priestly prayers of the priest prayed quietly.
I would say that mysticism and reverence could be restored even to the Modern Missal without any other changes to the Missal.
1. Vernacular isn’t the problem, but the complete elimination of Latin and Greek is a problem—some parts should be mandated in Latin universally, but definitely not the changing parts.
2. The revised order of the Mass and some of the elimination of so-call useless repetition is not the problem, but a conglomeration of too many options are. The biggest problem is making the chanted or spoken propers of the Mass, meaning the official Introit and Offertory and Communion Antiphons optional. This has led to horrible vernacular music and styles of music, some styles that eat away at mysticism and reverence.
3. Liturgical dance is not necessarily a problem. The old Mass itself is a dance but highly choreographed. The Mass is a dance, not dance added to the Mass. The problem with dance added to the Mass is that it is alien to our liturgy and turns the dancers into entertainers which often leads to applause when they finish their number. That destroys reverence and mysticism.
4. Prayers spoken out loud is not the problem but all prayers out loud and facing the nave confuse to whom the prayer is directed and turns the priest and others who say prayers into commentators who speak to the people before them. This eats away at mysticism and reverence. As well, sacred silence which occurs in prayer quietly prayed enhances mysticism and reverence, such as the low voice Eucharistic Prayer.
5. Holy Communion while standing and on the move simply rushes Holy Communion for the Communicant and destroys leisure mysticism and reverence which occurs when Holy Communion is offered to kneeling communicants at the altar railing. In this case, the priest is on the move, coming t us as we await Him. The priest distributing Holy Communion represents the movement of Christ in the Holy Spirit coming to us in procession. We await Him receive Him in reverence, pause for a mystical experience and return prayerfully devout to our pew renewed by the Gift received, Jesus Christ.
The Mass needs to be cognitively understandable but not to the point of destroying mysticism and reverence. Most celebrations of the modern Missal have little to no mysticism or reverence.
Mr. Mickens reacts to Pope Francis’ recent off-the-cuff interview with America Magazine that then caused an international incident with Russia. The pope called out two nationalities in Russia for special denigration and name-calling. Normally this is reserved for Catholic traditionalists, but here the Russians and somewhat justified, called out the stereotyping for what it is and questioned if the pope was even Christian! Keep in mind that the pope questioned if Trump was Christian when Trump said something the pope didn’t like.
And on top of that this may have caused the Russians to then hack the Vatican website last week.
Then the pope rambled on about why women can’t be priests and talked about the Petrine Ministry which forbids it but that women can find their place in the Marian ministry. The former Irish Prime Minister, Aliesse called His Holiness out on this and named him a “woman hater”.
Then Micken dares to say what no progressive has said thus far—the pope is cognitively compromised, talks to much and should not give as many if any more interviews which always have something in them that is problematic.
To be fair to the pope, he said some really good and encouraging things in this recent interview. But he also repeated much of the stuff that he's already said on numerous other occasions, like comparing abortion to hiring a hitman. Repetition is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be an effective pedagogical tool. And it's also true that not everyone tracks the pope like the journalists who are assigned to cover him. So it's probably wise for him to repeat some of things he feels are important to every single audience or group of people he encounters.But recently Francis seems a bit "off his game", as it were. He's begun making impromptu comments that are not always that clear or articulate. For instance, he gave a rambling, off-the-cuff talk on November 12 to members of the Dicastery for Communication that was hard to make sense of.And in an aside while addressing the International Theological Commission (ITC) on November 24, he offered what he called an historical example of "indietrismo" in the Church — a Bergoglism that means always looking to the past and believing nothing should change because "we have always done it this way". The pope actually gave what seemed to be a counter-example. He pointed out an unnamed group that separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council (presumably the Old Catholics) because they were "trying to be faithful to tradition" but then ended up ordaining women. That's hardly a group that says, "We've always done it this way."
Read more at: https://international.la-croix.com/news/letter-from-rome/pope-raises-more-than-just-eyebrows-with-interviews-and-off-the-cuff-comments/16991?utm_source=NewsLetter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Mailjet_04Dec22
A friend sent me this photo. He wrote that Bishop Kevin Boland, our 88 year old retired bishop, couldn’t stop commenting on the number of servers and people present for a daily Mass for First Friday at my former parish of Saint Anne’s in Richmond Hill. He remarked it was the most servers he celebrated with, since his episcopal ordination! He thanked the parish and commented on how this reflects highly and demonstrates the vibrancy and love we have for the Eucharist.
Well, here is one of those “altar boys” at his 1995 episcopal ordination at our Cathedral…
You can read the entire interview at Rorate Caeli by pressing its title:
EXCERPT MONEY BYTE:
How is the liturgy in your abbey managed in relation to the two liturgical forms and how did you receive the motu proprio Traditionis custodes?
Your question touches a sensitive point. Our abbey happily lives by the practice that comes from Fontgombault: the Roman liturgy as it is recorded in the ancient Missal. Some modifications have been made over the decades in response to the needs of the Church as expressed by Rome, especially in the beautiful Conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.
When I entered Triors, I found again the atmosphere I loved in my family: unconditional love for the Church and the Pope, absolute respect for his Magisterium, and a careful liturgy. It was only after the year 2000 that I began to become aware of the liturgical debates, at a time when St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him had been able to restore a climate of peace. My friends live in both forms. A priest friend of mine from Emmanuel told me that he learned a lot in the abbeys about how to celebrate well. That is why I have never been peremptory on this subject, sure to be in the river of the Church's life. The motu proprio of 2021 seems to me above all a response of the Holy Father to a conflict between the caricatured bangs of the two sides.
"Nothing is more damaging to the liturgy than constant activism," said Cardinal Ratzinger (2). So I receive Traditionis custodes without revolutionizing everything, and I appreciate very much the rich reflections of the letter Desiderio desideravi.
Our bishop has expressed his esteem for me on several occasions, perceiving that we seek in the liturgy the encounter with Christ, without stiffness and deeply.
LN: Many "Trads" did not understand the reasons for this very firm text and did not recognize themselves in what Pope Francis said about those who refused the Second Vatican Council and the Mass: what would you say to these worried Christians and how do you see the future?
The liturgy is made for the glory of God and our holiness. It is therefore given to us by the Church.
It is important for the Church today, when some people still see the Council as a rupture - the form is new, yes, but not the substance - to have some strong signs of its continuity. Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2001: "To emphasize that there is no essential rupture, that the continuity and identity of the Church exist, it seems to me indispensable to maintain the possibility of celebrating according to the Old Missal as a sign of the Church's permanent identity" (3). This living practice of the Old Missal in its rich simplicity is also consistent with our monastic rhythm.
As for the future, I see one important thing: the caricaturists of all time have always eventually run out of steam. The future belongs to those who have esteem for their brothers of the other sensibility. I am thinking in particular of the communion that today unites the Abbots of the Solesmes Congregation. With a lot of patience, in a climate of welcome, the charism of Dom Guéranger, who in his time knew how to bring about unity in France around the Roman Missal, could manifest itself now in his sons who, all together, would bring a decisive stone to the progress towards unity.
Somehow, I intuitively believe that Pope Emeritus I, aka, Benedict XVI, and His Holiness desire that both the Modern and Ancient Roman Missals enrich each other will, in the long run, be victorious. Why do I intuit this? Because it is based upon common sense.
This EWTN video hits the nail on the head. It also shows us that the 1962 Missal and the communities that desire it, aren’t the problem for the Church. They are the solution to the real problems. And the basis for the real problems of the Church is a lack of common sense:
For simplification purposes, I will describe them as the Latin Rite of the "past, present and future."
For lack of a better description, we have the Rite of the past, exemplified as the backwardists, represented by the SSPX. They simply do not accept Vatican II and prefer the Church of Pope Pius XII but up to a certain year, like 1955 before the liturgical books experienced some tinkering.
Then we have the Rite of the Church of the present interpreting Vatican II in continuity with what preceded. Thus there is a bit of backwardism and forwardism in this Rite. We can say that Pope Emeritus I also known as Benedict XVI is the head of this Church of the present as His Holiness is still living and at the Vatican to boot.
Then we have the Church of Forwardism headed by Pope Francis I. We know where this Rite of the Church is going, the way of liberal Protestantism exemplified by the various branches of Anglicanism. It is the Church of the culture and anything goes as long as cultural dictates it and what people believe confirms it.
Each of these three branches need a pope. Thus we will have one Latin Rite with three popes.
Technically we already have two popes, Pope Emeritus I for the Church of Continuity and Pope Francis I for the Church of Forwardism.
I would recommend that the SSPX join with the FSSP and other groups that prefer the Church prior to the liturgical changes of 1955 elect a pope from their number. That pope could well be named Pope Pius XIII.
Thus, one could pick and choose which pope and rite they will follow, but still be a member in good standing with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with three popes.
This commentary must be spirit inspired!
I appreciate Pope Francis being so clear about his disgust and discomfort with the mentally ill backwardist laity who must be eliminated for the sake of unity in the Church.
I thank God I am not like those backwardist laity and have a good standing with this pope!
But Holy Father, what do you mean by backwardism? I know it refers in particular for a style of Mass that the Church had for about 1,600 years if not longer. Certainly there was progress and development over the course of those centuries, but at its core the modern 1962 Roman Missal is a product of backwardism and not forwardism.
But, let me ask you Holy Father, to answer 10 questions I have about what else you mean by backwardism? Can you be as clear in Your Holiness’ answers as you are about your dislike of backwardist traditionalists?
1. Is teaching Transubstantiation backwardism?
2. Is teaching that marriage is exclusively between one biological male and one biological female for a lifetime and for begetting children and a Christian family, backwardism?
3. Is resourcement, the ideology used to reform the 1962 Missal, backwardism of the worst kind, going all the way back to about the second century to recover the simplicity of the Mass at that time?
4. Is the infallibility of the pope as described by Vatican I backwardism?
5. Is reciting the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed, especially at Mass, backwardism at its worst?
6. Is relying on Scripture, Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church backwardism?
7. Is the Faith and Morals of the Church as described in the 1990’s Catechism of the Church backwardism as well as Humanae Vitae?
8. Is reading only Scriptures at the Liturgy of the Word or the Divine Office without including readings from other divinely revealed sources, like the Koran, backwardism?
9. Are only Christian prayers at Mass a form of backwardism when we could include Hindu and Buddhist prayers too?
10. Is it backwardism to believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders for the Anglican Communion are totally null and void?
Now that the Supreme Court and Congress have codified a new understanding of civil marriage to include a variety of styles and genders binary or not, will a future Democrat president, or the current “Catholic” democrat president force Catholic parishes to provide same sex or non-binary weddings to those who request them?
I would not put it past these dictators of relevatism to do so.
Unless Pope Francis approves what His Holiness is hearing about some Catholics wanting a redefinition of the Church and her/its sacraments and allows for what the Culture is now dictating about marriage in deference to the “spirit” of the culture, what can the Church do to protect its “backward” thinking about marriage being exclusively between one biological man and one biological woman and until death do they part?
We need to get out of being an agent for the State when it comes to the legal or civil aspect of marriage.
No longer would priests be allowed to be both the religious and civil celebrant or presider of Marriage.
But since the Church requires legal recognition of the Sacrament of Marriage, what would be required is that a Catholic desiring a wedding in the Church would need to go to a civil official not only for the civil marriage license, but also for that official to ratify the state’s requirement for a legal marriage, such as a Justice of the Peace kind of “wedding.”
In other words, no representative of the Church signs the civil marriage license, only the state’s representative does sp.
Then, with the civil marriage certificate signed only by the court’s representative, the Catholic can have that civil marriage “sacramentalized” in a Church wedding.
What the priest or deacon does is only religious with no civil or “State” legalities.
It was at St. Patrick’s Church, Chatham, New Jersey.
As I was orienting myself to the sanctuary and the sacristy behind the altar, I discovered the rectory was also beyond the sacristy.
When the pastor opened the door from the rectory kitchen to the sacristy, I looked in, surprised that the kitchen was right there. But I had a very unusual, foreboding feeling looking at the kitchen from the sacristy, very uncomfortable and I did not want to venture in!
The next day my cousin told me the story. I remember the national news story at that point and that a gruesome, brutal murder took place in October of 2009 and in that kitchen. Press the title:
The General Rapporteur of the XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops then spoke about a “temptation” that we sometimes see in the media: the temptation of “politicisation” in and of the Church.
Continuing in his address, the Cardinal said “some have an agenda for the reform of the Church; they know very well what needs to be done and want to use the Synod for that purpose: this is instrumentalizing the Synod. This is politicising.”
Conversely, those who are on the “opposite side, or the "indietristi” (only looking to the past) do not understand that a “true Catholic tradition evolves even though it remains a tradition in its time. They too would like to put the brakes on the Synod process.”
Those participating in the meeting of the Presidents and Coordinators of the Continental Assemblies, rather desire to “be able to enter into a true discernment, an apostolic discernment, so that the synodal Church can carry out its mission in the world,” the Cardinal said.
Walking together, with the Pope, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus, is thus necessary “in order to mend our Church,” Cardinal Hollerich stated at the end of his address.
In an interview published in America magazine today, Pope Francis unequivocally stated that women cannot be ordained as priests but emphasized the important role they have to play in the life of the Church.
Question: “Many women feel pain because they cannot be ordained priests. What would you say to a woman who is already serving in the life of the Church but who still feels called to be a priest?” asked Kerry Webber, executive editor of the monthly magazine published by the Jesuits of the United States.
The Holy Father was unequivocal on the question of the ordination of women priests:
“And why can a woman not enter ordained ministry? It is because the Petrine principle has no place for that,” the Pope said.
“The ministerial dimension, we can say, is that of the Petrine Church. I am using a category of theologians. The Petrine principle is that of ministry,” the Holy Father said.
READ THE FULL NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER ARTICLE HERE
My comment: Of course, the Holy Father goes on to describe what women can do and wants to develop that theology based upon the Marian principle. And in my most humble opinion, that is a great idea!
With the Marian Principle the Holy Father seems to imply also the anthropological way as well. It is based upon the Church as feminine, referred to as "Mother" and as "her."This of course, upset feminist of my generation seminary in the 1970's. They wanted to make God and the Church gender neutral in preparation for the LGBTQ++++ ideology and non-binary sex and sexuality to include the Sacraments of marriage and Holy Orders, thus opening these to Sacraments to new ideologies, male, female, non-binary, non-human, etc.
The Pope, though emphasizes that the Marian way is built upon the anthropological nature of God creating us male and female, two genders, complimentary toward each other, not the same and that marriage between one man and one woman and for life is a sacramental sign of the Church, referred to as the bride of Christ married to Christ the Bridegroom of the Church.
In terms of administration, there are many places, certainly in the USA, where women are in positions of authority, be it as principals of schools, colleges, universities as well as teachers, financial administration and CCD coordinators, etc. Women in the USA outnumber men in these "ministerial" functions and most parishes, women outnumber men in terms of various ministries, paid or volunteer. Women have traditionally run Catholic hospitals, clinics and outreach centers.
Thus as the pope points out, woman can't become ordained to the Sacrament of Holy Orders but they have roles of importance in the Church to compliment the Petrine Principle! Kudos to the pope for being so clear this time.
If the Vatican doesn’t wake up and realize that about 99% of Catholics, practicing or not, could care less about this, then there isn’t much hope for any kind of recovery of the true mission of the Church, to save souls and to go out to the whole world, baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven, whose sins you hold bound, will be bounded.
It would be better for the synod on synods to listen to to clergy, religious and laity on how Jesus Christ has changed them by His Grace and saved them and that this has motivated them in specific and concrete ways to know, love and serve Jesus Christ and to know, love and serve God’s people.(Love of God and love of neighbor).
As I listen, I don’t hear any of that and I certainly don’t read it in these two Vatican News articles or anything that anyone is saying or writing about the synod!
First it is the Vatican’s recognition of the schismatic debacle that is Germany’s synodal way, and now this concerning China:
