If you were looking for an intelligent analysis of Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, you won't find it here. That's because I didn't watch it. I caught a glimpse of the score when there was 2:30 left in the 4th quarter. And I knew it was over. The Celtics seem to have a dream team this year, and I'm quite surprised that their playoff struggle has been such a...well, struggle. I mean, wasn't the KG trade supposed to bring an end to any discussion of who the best team in the NBA was? Well, then why couldn't the Celtics win on the road? I hope that they destroy the Pistons though, because I'm still upset about 2005.
Alright, now I know that I'm not very nice when I speak about Sen. Kennedy. I understand I have repeatedly expressed how he doesn't deserve his last name. But I wouldn't wish this upon ANYONE. After a seizure Saturday morning at his Hyannis Port home, Sen. Kennedy was hospitalized as doctors ran several tests to try and determine the cause. The results are grim. Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Steve's Support Treatment can only prolong the inevitable. The Senator will no longer be with us anywhere from a year from now to five years from now. And although I disagree with the man on several issues, and although I strongly detest his actions in July of '69, I am praying for Ted Kennedy and his family. This is heartbreaking to anyone, regardless of party. And it's sadly ironic that this man stood as recently as May 8th on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to renew the "war on cancer" by increasing funding to support research and treatment. I hope that cancer research funding does increase, but I hope that the money comes from somewhere...like private donors and charities.
Okay, just because I'm a Marlins fan, I'll mention it: MARLINS BEAT D-BACKS!!! Steve's Support I know, the best team in baseball...we beat them! It's great. Alright, relax, breathe.
Moving on...or....wait, not really. Apparently we have beaten the Barkley story to death enough. I haven't seen a story milked this much since the last time O.J. had a book deal. Apparently Barkley has now, in fact, paid off his $400,000 debt to Wynn...but still has NOT paid the $40,000 in court costs and attorney fees. Steve's Support Now, I believe he'll pay that immediately. But what I told you I did not believe was that he'd stop gambling. And sure enough, his new words are that he won't gamble "as much" for the next "1 or 2 years". Way to learn your lesson, Chuck. I say in six months, I'll be bumping into him at Seminole Hard Rock.
And finally I'll give you something interesting to think about. The Catholic Church requires for priest to meet many requirements, two of which are that they A) be celibate and B) be male. Tell that to the Roman Catholic Womenpriests (Website) who claim that they were all ordained through proper Apostolic Succession by Roman Catholic women bishops. Now, here's my thing. I've looked into it and have determined that these women, married and single, hetero- and homo-, are not approved by the Vatican, several have been excommunicated, and the Bishop who started this nonsense by ordaining the first seven womenpriests had been estranged from the Vatican for about 30 years. Steve's Support Also, none of these women went through the rigorous discernment process and proper preparation that a seminary would provide.
Now, although I see the invalidity of the ordinations, it has me thinking: do they have a point? And the answer, my friends, is yes. They do have a certain point. There is evidence that there were women in the priesthood in the early church. And a priest is supposed to be one in Christ's presence, not necessarily his bodily image. And furthermore, they've brought up an issue I've had problems with...mandatory celibacy. I do agree that celibacy can benefit a priest. But making it mandatory contradicts some of the bible passages that have been brought to my attention by the RCWP website.
So I ask you...do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church should begin ordaining women? Should they allow priests to marry? Both? or Neither? On the right column of this page, directly under the "About Me" and right above the Blog Archive is a poll that asks this very question. I'll announce the results in an upcoming blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Steve!
I'm glad you picked this up. There is something I'd like to say, though.
You say you see the invalidity of the ordinations. The reason why they are invalid is the very fact that they are women. The Catholic Church has never ever had women priests. We believe sacraments to be instituted by Christ. That means that when Our Lord instituted Holy Orders on that Last Supper, he set it in stone. The matter and form which are essential is the laying on of hands by a bishop on a baptized male and the words of ordination, respectively.
Pope John Paul II spoke infallibly in Ordinatio sacerdotalis when he said that the Church has no power whatsoever to ordain women. It's not that we just don't want to have women as priests- we simply can't have women priests.
If it were just a matter of the Vatican not approving, they would be validly yet illicitly ordained. That is the case with the SSPX and other right-fringe rad trad groups. They are validly ordained priests, but they are disobedient and have no licit standing in the Church. They still can perform the sacraments. These women have not the permission nor the power.
Also thanks for the update on Senator Kennedy. Not my favorite senator, but my prayers are with him and his family.
Thank you, Jon.
I appreciate you referencing Ordinatio sacerdotalis, as I did not reference it myself. But yes, you're correct, as it stands women cannot be priests.
However, the article sparked my interest in what people think about the subject. A lot of people feel that just as the Catholic Church was wrong in believing the universe was geocentric, they're wrong here. Now I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that you have people claiming Christ never specified that it should be a "Males Only" vocation.
I think we'll see married priests before female priests, but we will eventually see both.
The church has been the cause of many deaths throughout the century, should we fall suit with that? And to think that women cannot become priests is, sorry to say, on track minded. The (catholic)church has always been a male dominated church hence why there are no women priests. God forbid there were ever any women with power in the church. You pray to a woman ( mary) all the time don't you? But because shes the mother of Jesus/Isa/Yeshua shes the exception to the rule I'm guessing. To think women cannot have power in the church in in my views sexist, and closed minded. If you really wanna follow what Isa (jesus) taught then you would be accepting of all kinda of people and be accepting of them wanting to take on any seat of power. Why can't women be on the same playing field as men? Just because Yeshua was a man and "set it in stone" doesn't automatically mean that only men can be priests. Oh and the Pope is a man, he makes mistakes and sins. The pope has a person whom he confesses his sin's too, so to say that his word is without fault or any of that is again closed minded. Yes he gets his power from god, but so do all of gods children and yet we seem to make mistakes. Funny how that works huh?
Takelifeheadon, the point you are missing is that there are times when the Pope is infallible. That is a revealed truth of the Catholic Faith. Several criteria must be met, including that he must be speaking on a matter of faith and morals. The Galileo affair didn't have to do with faith and morals. With women's ordination, though, all the criteria have been met and only dissidents claim that it is not infallible teaching.
There have been several prominent women in the Church, including a couple Doctors of the Church. St. Catherine of Siena persuaded the Pope to return to Rome from Avignon!
no one is infallible but god. end of story
And that, good sir, is why you are not Catholic.
Post a Comment