Rorate Caeli

Aparecida Notes: Latin American bishop says
"Women's ordination is not a closed matter"

Barely had the Holy Father left South America and Bishop Celso Queiros, one of the members of the Fifth General Assembly of the Latin American bishops said this (in Portuguese, from the official website of the Brazilian Episcopal Conference):

The Pope recognized that the Church has a certain debt to women. We know that, at this time, the dialogue on the possible ordination of women is closed in the Church. Which does not mean that it cannot be opened.
Wow... "Progressive" bishops are just so used to distorting the message of the Gospel that they cannot even understand what is spoken by the Successor of Peter. The Pope actually said that "chauvinism" ("machismo") is a problem in some Latin American families, not in the Church; and then he added that what those families need are women who are good mothers and housewives: women must be able to "dedicate themselves fully to bringing up their children and to the service of their family".

In some families in Latin America there still unfortunately persists a chauvinist mentality that ignores the “newness” of Christianity, in which the equal dignity and responsibility of women relative to men is acknowledged and affirmed.

The family is irreplaceable for the personal serenity it provides and for the upbringing of children. Mothers who wish to dedicate themselves fully to bringing up their children and to the service of their family must enjoy conditions that make this possible, and for this they have the right to count on the support of the State. In effect, the role of the mother is fundamental for the future of society.

_________________________
We will be covering the most interesting and troubling aspects of the General Conference of the Latin American Bishops throughout the month.

Recess for a few days; urgent news may be posted at any time.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow indeed! One hopes that this incident would be duly reported to the Holy Father and that he would then act as a monarch, not as a co-equal, and de-frock this bishop. I'm not losing sleep waiting for that to happen however. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Ole Doc Farmer said...

Bad Catholics don't make more bad Catholics...they make ex-Catholics. This mitred buffoon and his simplistic, solipsistic misapprehension of dogma are a perfect example...when the shepherds are not vigilant (or, worse, are willfully blind), the wolves (aka "the sects") will feed on the little ones of Christ.

It's not as though there aren't many, many faithful priests qualified to serve as bishops. How do lightweights like this jackball ever get appointed? And...wait...is Jean Jadot somehow involved?

Ole Doc Farmer said...

According to Wikipedia, Junior here will be 74 in November.

HOOK!

prof. basto said...

WHAT WORRIES ME THE MOST IS THAT THIS ABSURDITY GOT PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF A NATIONAL EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE - OF MY NATIONAL EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE!

IS THE BRAZILIAN CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS TRYING TO SEND A MESSAGE BY RELAYING THAT KIND OF MESSAGE IN ITS WEBSITE???

WHAT IS THE HOLY FATHER GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS BISHOP --- A BISHOP WHO DENIES THE DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (YES, DENIES IT, AND IS THEREFORE A HERETIC: ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS CONTAINED AN INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT -- A PRONOUNCEMENT ISSUED FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER, ADRESSED TO THE WHOLE CHURCH BY THE POPE, IN HIS MISSION TO CONFIRM THE BROTHERS IN THE FAITH, AND DEALING WITH A MATTER OF FAITH -- BECAUSE ORDINATION IS A MATTER PERTAINING TO A SACRAMENT OF CHRIST´S LAW). THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH HAS EVEN CONFIRMED, BY A "RESPONSE TO A DOUBT" THAT WAS GIVEN PAPAL APPROVAL, THAT ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF INFALLIBILITY. ITS TEACHING, THUS, IS IRREFORMABLE (CF. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PASTOR AETERNUS).

IF THIS BISHOP NOW ATTEMPTS TO SEE CHANGE WITH REGARD TO A TEACHING THAT IS INFALLIBLE AND IRREFORMABLE - AND THAT HAS BEEN SO DECLARED AND QUALIFIED - THEN IT IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE DOGMA OF INFALLIBILITY.

AND ONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN A DOGMA IS A HERETIC, HAS SUFFERED THE "SHIPWRECK OF THE FAITH", AND THEREFORE IS NO LONGER IN COMMUNION WITH THE SEE OF ROME AND WITH THE POPE - SOMETHING THAT IS CONFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT AUTOMATIC, LATAE SENTENTIAE, EXCOMMUNICATION IS, UNDER THE CHURCH´S CANON LAW, THE SANCTION FOR HERESY. THUS, IF THIS BISHOP HAS PLACED HIMSELF OUT OF THE CHURCH´S COMMUNION, HE THEREBY HAS LOST ALL JURISDICTION (CF. SATIS COGNITUM), AND THEREFORE HIS DEPOSITION FROM OFFICE AND FROM THE CLERICAL STATE SHOULD BE DECLARED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY.

WHEN WILL WE SEE ECCLESIASTICAL JUSTICE WORK??? WHEN WILL HERETICS BE EXPOSED AS SUCH??? UNTIL WHEN WILL WE HAVE TO SUFFER HERETICS AMONGST OUR PASTORS?

El Sacristán said...

In the case of the old wacko progressist bishops I think we must hope that biology does his work quickly.

I think they will be happy to be united with Mother Earth

Tito said...

So Brazil has their Mahoney, how funny and sad at the same time.

Eric G. said...

Well . . .

In this bishop's defense it should be noted that the ordination of women to the diaconate is still an open question.

While the current consensus is that the office of deaconess in the early Church was not an exercise of the sacrament of Holy Orders, there is still debate about this among Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian theologians.

Perhaps this was what His Excellency is referring to?

Now, my second question:

At what point do we start petitioning the Holy See, demanding that Pope Ratzinger either act up, or step down and make way for a man whose not afraid to use his God-given authority?

I'm serious, folks; we need to start holding our Pontiffs accountable for orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Anonymous said...

You know what, the Bishop here is just a quack and concerning that I am not really worried or angry. However, what makes me angry is this incessant talk of feminine dignity to the exclusion of the male. For example consider the following excerpt:


"and for this they have the right to count on the support of the State"

What precedes this seems to come from a double mind in my estimation since he lauds the family then centers upon the female/mother to the exclusion of the father and the child. If women will have the support of the state does the Holy Father support the states enforcement of domestic violence restraining orders wherein it only takes the mere allegation of domestic violence without the mere instance of verification and the father/man is removed from his home and his children, thrown in jail and put on a registry of abusers. Is this the support that the Vatican would have the state provide? Or how about the support of a state bureaucracy that hunts men down like criminals for child support when their children were taken away from them due to jurisprudential precedence, false allegations and the like while the state defines their entire existence and relation to their children as a monetary relationship which funds the very bureaucracy which enslaves them and perpetuates materialism? Is this the support that the state should render according to the Vatican? I hate to say it but the powers that reign should have a little more circumspection regarding the state of the family in the modern world. It would be refreshing to hear about marital obedience or marital authority but since it seems that the Church, along with the state, are moribund in their stupor for equality, the family will continue to wither on the vine of indifference. Truly, I am disgusted.

San Isidoro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
San Isidoro said...

I will comment this notice in my blog (Spain).

Best Regards

http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/servusveritatis.php/

Pascendi said...

Another example of heresy that needs to be suppressed. It is intolerable and absolutely necessary to suspend and then try this bishop for heresy. Anything less signifies that the Authorities in Rome (namely our Holy Father and his collaborators) are shackled to some degree by powerful forces within the Church (though these sinners do not belong to the Heart of the Church).

These recent happenings remind me of the legitimate issue raised by Bp. Fellay: that action (besides words) must be taken against those who are spreading heresy and dissent. Action would indeed show a change of course by Rome. It would be a sign that the Supreme Pontiff not only wishes to, but is able to defend the sheep against the wolves.

Tito2 said...

To those holding out for the option of a female diaconate, if you look at the ancient rituals of ordination you will note that there was a clear distinction between the rite of ordination to the diaconate for a man versus that for a woman. It clearly showed that the female ordination was not 'clerical'.

Fr. Anthony Forte said...

No, the ordination of women to the deaconate is not an open question. It must be kept in mind that our Lord did not give us the three orders of deacon, priest and bishop. Rather he instituted the single sacrament of holy orders. The division of this sacrament into three orders was a later development of the apostles. It is the sacrament of holy orders that our Lord limited to men.

Anonymous said...

What state of emergency?!??!?!?

Hebdomadary said...

Face it. We need a smaller church, and one that is Catholic and Roman, which the one we are supposedly a part of isn't anymore. And clearly the bishops who wish to leave the church need to be shown the door, immediately. These are not sheep, they are ravening wolves. Bye-bye bad bishops, you are truly the smoke of Satin. Better that you should tie a mill-stone around your necks, than continue to confuse and mislead the "little-ones" of the faith. There is no doctrine that they won't distort or sell down the river, for the sake of populism, no feminst or leftist secularist they won't seek to placate, instead of telling the hard truths of the religion. Christ did not come with peace, but with a sword. His words, not mine. He came to divide, and believe me, I am already divided against such lukewarm ambivilence in Catholicism.

Simon-Peter Vickers-Buckley said...

Still trying to foment dissent Eric?I assume you yourself, being sound in belief and practice, have been to confession for your recent suggestion (deleted by New Catholic, but seen by many) we all pray for the (happy) death of Pope "Ratzinger"?

You're a protestant you fraud.

Anonymous said...

re: Prof. Basto

The pronouncement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (although it set forth a doctrine which had been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium; cf. CDF Dubium) was not in itself an infallible act, as Joseph Ratzinger clarified:

"In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."

Hebdomadary said...

I'm actually still reeling at the remarks of the "peritus" at the CELAM conference, "we condemn the Pope's words." You WHAT? you little slime? This filth needs to be cleansed and quickly.

prof. basto said...

Anonymous,

Even if Joseph Cardinal Ratinger held in private the view expressed in your quote - and I´m not saying he did - what counts is the teaching of the Church, the public exercise of magisterium, signed by him and approved by the then Pope, CONFIRMING THE INFALLIBILITY OF ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS:


"CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli"

***
ROMA LOCUTA, CAUSA FINITA!