Questions About Ordination

[kavalamyself]

Hi everybody. I am definitely not up for a debate but I do need some answers. I heard that a Bishop (an actual, full in communion with Rome Bishop) ordained women as priests and then ordained some of them as Bishops, so they can then ordain other women to the priesthood (and before anybody freaks out I don't want to be a priest). So here are my questions:

1) The Bishop is in good standing and nobody knows he was the one. What happens if anybody figures out it is him?

2) Are the Ordinations valid? Licit? (What is the difference)

3) What happens if someone were to receive Holy Communion from one of the "women" priests? (Let's say it was brought to a hospital as a Consecrated Host by a Eucharististic Minister and you didn't know it was from a "woman priest" ?)

4) The "women" priests claim there is really and true information supporting that women WERE once ordained as priests. Is this true?

Again, I don't want to be a priest at all. I would like to be able to defend our position if I get in a conversation like I did over the weekend. Totally unprepared! Whew!

Thanks,

Colette

[Hilde]

No such ordination is valid.

ETA: [url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/cdfpriestess.htm"]look here[/url]

[quote]DECLARATION ON PRIESTLY
ORDINATION OF CATHOLIC WOMEN

DECLARATION ISSUED BY
THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
JULY 10, 2002

VATICAN CITY, JUL 10, 2002 (VIS) - Following is a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which warns seven Catholic women who have received priestly ordination from the hands of the founder of a schismatic community. They are required to comply with certain conditions before July 22 if they do not wish to incur excommunication. The declaration (monitum) is dated today and is signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., prefect and secretary of the dicastery.

"On June 29, 2002, Romulo Antonio Braschi, the founder of a schismatic community, attempted to confer priestly ordination on the following Catholic women: Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris M¸ller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White. [Ed. note: Angela White was a falsified name for Dagmar Braun Celeste]

"In order to give direction to the consciences of the Catholic faithful and dispel any doubts which may have arisen, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wishes to recall the teaching of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II, which states 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' (n. 4). For this reason, the above-mentioned 'priestly ordination' constitutes the simulation of a sacrament and is thus invalid and null, as well as constituting a grave offense to the divine constitution of the Church. Furthermore, because the 'ordaining' Bishop belongs to a schismatic community, it is also a serious attack on the unity of the Church. Such an action is an affront to the dignity of women, whose specific role in the Church and society is distinctive and irreplaceable.

"The present Declaration, recalling the preceding statements of the Bishop of Linz and the Episcopal Conference of Austria and in accordance with canon 1347 ß 1 of the CIC, gives formal warning to the above-mentioned women that they will incur excommunication reserved to the Holy See if, by July 22, 2002, they do not (1) acknowledge the nullity of the 'orders' they have received from a schismatic Bishop in contradiction to the definitive doctrine of the Church and (2) state their repentance and ask forgiveness for the scandal caused to the faithful."

CDF/REPRIMAND/RATZINGER:BERTONE VIS 020710 (370)

Source: The Vatican Information Service www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e1_en.htm[/quote]

[quote]DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION

DECLARATION ISSUED BY
THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
AUGUST 5, 2002

On 5 August the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the Decree of Excommunication of the seven women who took part in an invalid ordination ceremony in Austria on Saturday, 29 June.

The ceremony which took place on a boat on the Danube River in Austria, was performed by Romulo Antonio Braschi, an Argentinian priest, who broke with the Catholic Church in 1998, and was ordained a Bishop in the Schismatic Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. That group broke away from the Holy See in 1945. The seven women, from Germany, Austria and the United States are: Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris M¸ller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White. The women were given time to repent and renounce their ordination, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that they have given no sign of repentance.

Premise to the Decree of Excommunication

In order to dispel any doubts about the canonical status of Bishop Romulo Antonio Braschi, who attempted to confer priestly ordination on several Catholic women, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirms that, as a schismatic, he has already incurred an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Decree of Excommunication

Following upon the warning issued by this Congregation on 10 July 2002, and published the following day, because the women Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris M¸ller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White did not within the period that ended on 22 July 2002, give any indication of amendment or repentance for the most serious offense they had committed, this Dicastery, in keeping with this warning, declares that they have incurred an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See with all the effects established by canon 1331 of the Code of Canon Law.

In having to take this action, the Congregation trusts that, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, these persons may discover the path of conversion in order to return to the unity of the faith and to communion with the Church, which they have wounded by their actions.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 August 2002.

JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
Prefect

TARCISIO BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
[/quote]

And to #4 Ordained my whom? Christ himself?

Edited June 28, 2010 by Hilde

[CatherineM]

Jesus broke every social taboo of his time. If he had wanted to ordain women, he would have. He didn't. I have no problem respecting his decision. I could go through the motions of getting married to a woman, or 5 men or a goat for that matter, but pretending doesn't make it a true sacrament. A woman going through an ordination and telling everyone that they are priests is the equivalent of me playing air guitar in front of a mirror and then telling the world I'm a famous rock star.

[Bennn]

[quote name='kavalamyself' date='28 June 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1277760364' post='2135477']
1) The Bishop is in good standing and nobody knows he was the one. What happens if anybody figures out it is him?

2) Are the Ordinations valid? Licit? (What is the difference)

3) What happens if someone were to receive Holy Communion from one of the "women" priests? (Let's say it was brought to a hospital as a Consecrated Host by a Eucharististic Minister and you didn't know it was from a "woman priest" ?)

4) The "women" priests claim there is really and true information supporting that women WERE once ordained as priests. Is this true?

[/quote]

1) I think he would not be allowed to exercise his Priestly ministry until his excommunication would be lifted.

2) The 'ordinations' would most certainly not be valid. The Priesthood is inherently bound to masculinity. The difference between validity and legitimacy are that an illicit ordination might still be valid. An example of this are the unlawful ordinations that Mgr. Lefèbvre did in the SSPX; they were illicit, but still valid, which means that they do offer real Masses, but they do this in an unlawful manner, outside of the bosom of the Church. When a 'womanpriest' offers 'mass', it is a fake one because their is no valid ordination, and thus no Consecration of the bread and wine.

3) If it was 'consecrated' by the 'womanpriest', it would not be Holy Communion, but just a piece of bread. Knowingly participating in such a farce would be a grave matter indeed.

4) This, also, is not true. Their arguments are based on vague assumptions and immediately lose ground when more in-depth research takes place. One only needs to look at both the OT and the NT, and see that never in Sacred Tradition was it seen or heard that a woman was ordained Priest in the cultus of the true God. This happened only in the worship of demons/idols by pagan tribes.

I hope this helps.

+Pax Domini,
Ben

Edited June 28, 2010 by Bennn

[lookingforfaith]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='28 June 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1277762306' post='2135486']
Jesus broke every social taboo of his time. If he had wanted to ordain women, he would have. He didn't. I have no problem respecting his decision. I could go through the motions of getting married to a woman, or 5 men or a goat for that matter, but pretending doesn't make it a true sacrament. A woman going through an ordination and telling everyone that they are priests is the equivalent of me playing air guitar in front of a mirror and then telling the world I'm a famous rock star.
[/quote]

This. I mean Christ didn't ordain His own mother! Now who do you think would have made a better apostle? The man who denied Him three times, or the woman who stayed with Him until the very end and beyond, and is now queen of Heaven? (Now, I'm not knocking St. Peter here...he was our first pope and an amazing saint)

It's no accident that the priesthood is exclusively male. The Church is the bride, and the priest acting as an Alter Christus is the bridegroom.

We are created equal in the eyes of God, but we are different and we have different capabilities. A man cannot give birth, and a woman cannot be a priest. End of story.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm relatively sure that the bishop who attempted this excommunicated himself by doing so.

[Macies]

Interesting thread. Thank you, Bennn, for your clear comments. This discussion brings me to something that has crossed my mind regarding this topic. It seems timely to bring it up here. (And I don't want to hijack this thread, so apologies if this is inappropriate.)

Just for clarification: I am a Roman Catholic woman in the process of transitioning from an active religious life to a contemplative (cloistered) life as a Religious Sister. I do not now and never have been slightly interested (or ever!) experienced the call/want/need to become a priest! There.

Our Church is currently accepting married priests (I believe they are Episcopalian) who experience conversion. We hold their Ordination as a valid Sacrament, recognized in our Church and Faith. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong!) that "we" share in the belief that the Sacrament leaves an indelible mark upon one's soul.

How are we explaining not accepting women who were validly ordained as Episcopalian priests who then experienced conversion? Has this happened? Is this even an issue?

Thank you, and God bless. Very, very valuable information found on this website. What a service to the Church!

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Macies' date='29 June 2010 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1277835270' post='2135811']
Interesting thread. Thank you, Bennn, for your clear comments. This discussion brings me to something that has crossed my mind regarding this topic. It seems timely to bring it up here. (And I don't want to hijack this thread, so apologies if this is inappropriate.)

Just for clarification: I am a Roman Catholic woman in the process of transitioning from an active religious life to a contemplative (cloistered) life as a Religious Sister. I do not now and never have been slightly interested (or ever!) experienced the call/want/need to become a priest! There.

Our Church is currently accepting married priests (I believe they are Episcopalian) who experience conversion. We hold their Ordination as a valid Sacrament, recognized in our Church and Faith. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong!) that "we" share in the belief that the Sacrament leaves an indelible mark upon one's soul.

How are we explaining not accepting women who were validly ordained as Episcopalian priests who then experienced conversion? Has this happened? Is this even an issue?

Thank you, and God bless. Very, very valuable information found on this website. What a service to the Church!
[/quote]
The factions of the Anglican community who we have welcomed to Rome have been on the most conservative end of the spectrum, and none of them allow(ed) women to be ordained, unless I am mistaken. Keep in mind that the ordinations of their male clergy were not valid either, meaning that they all had to be re-ordained (even though it was the first time that it was 'forreal'.
Those who do allow women to be 'ordained' are very unlikely (or at least a great deal less likely) to come to Rome any time soon, as they have many facets of their organisation that would not be compatible with Church teaching. I would not waste too much time worrying about that predicament.

[Bennn]

[quote name='Macies' date='29 June 2010 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1277835270' post='2135811']
Interesting thread. Thank you, Bennn, for your clear comments. This discussion brings me to something that has crossed my mind regarding this topic. It seems timely to bring it up here. (And I don't want to hijack this thread, so apologies if this is inappropriate.)

Just for clarification: I am a Roman Catholic woman in the process of transitioning from an active religious life to a contemplative (cloistered) life as a Religious Sister. I do not now and never have been slightly interested (or ever!) experienced the call/want/need to become a priest! There.

Our Church is currently accepting married priests (I believe they are Episcopalian) who experience conversion. We hold their Ordination as a valid Sacrament, recognized in our Church and Faith. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong!) that "we" share in the belief that the Sacrament leaves an indelible mark upon one's soul.

How are we explaining not accepting women who were validly ordained as Episcopalian priests who then experienced conversion? Has this happened? Is this even an issue?

Thank you, and God bless. Very, very valuable information found on this website. What a service to the Church!
[/quote]

Like USAirwaysIHS said; their ordinations were invalid to begin with because there is no Apostolic Succession within their communities. They have to be truly ordained in the Catholic Church when they choose to return into full communion with the Holy See of Peter. And this is simply not possible with women, not because women are worth less than men, but because it is simply not compatible with their nature. God has given different gifts to different people. We should not recognise women who claim to be ordained, as Priests. They have not received the Sacrament at all so there is in fact no eternal mark of the Priesthood upon their souls. In truth, they are simply lay women, in the same way that Episcopal 'priests' are in fact lay men.

+Pax Domini,
Ben

Edited June 29, 2010 by Bennn

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kavalamyself' date='28 June 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1277760364' post='2135477']
1) The Bishop is in good standing and nobody knows he was the one. What happens if anybody figures out it is him?

2) Are the Ordinations valid? Licit? (What is the difference)

3) What happens if someone were to receive Holy Communion from one of the "women" priests? (Let's say it was brought to a hospital as a Consecrated Host by a Eucharististic Minister and you didn't know it was from a "woman priest" ?)

4) The "women" priests claim there is really and true information supporting that women WERE once ordained as priests. Is this true?
[/quote]

1) Even in the case of a valid ordination that is celebrated without the Pope's permission (therefore illicit), a bishop is automatically excommunicated. An invalid ordination would have to be the same case.

2) Not valid. A licit sacrament is valid, but celebrated disobediently.

3) Nothing.

4) Yes, they do make that claim.

[quote name='Macies' date='29 June 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1277835270' post='2135811']
Our Church is currently accepting married priests (I believe they are Episcopalian) who experience conversion. We hold their Ordination as a valid Sacrament, recognized in our Church and Faith. It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong!) that "we" share in the belief that the Sacrament leaves an indelible mark upon one's soul.

How are we explaining not accepting women who were validly ordained as Episcopalian priests who then experienced conversion? Has this happened? Is this even an issue?
[/quote]

It's much like an Episcopal or Lutheran believer who becomes Catholic and must receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Even though Confirmation is practiced in those bodies, it is not valid, so the sacrament must be given validly in order to become Catholic. Likewise, the sacrament of ordination is not valid either, so an Episcopal priest would need to be ordained as a Catholic priest.

I did read one time about some women who were Anglican priests and converted to Catholcism. Not common, of course, but not unheard of either.

FWIW, the valid sacraments celebrated by Protestants are Baptism and Marriage.

Edited June 30, 2010 by LouisvilleFan

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='29 June 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1277857876' post='2135960']
It's much like an Episcopal or Lutheran believer who becomes Catholic and must receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Even though Confirmation is practiced in those bodies, it is not valid, so the sacrament must be given validly in order to become Catholic.
[/quote]

While it is most certainly true that Confirmation in the Lutheran and Anglican communities is absolutely null and void, it is not true that converts from those communities must receive a valid Confirmation in order to become Catholic. In the traditional Roman rite, the practice is for a convert from Protestantism to be received into the Catholic Church by a renunciation of heresy, a profession of faith, and a general confession. The convert only receives Confirmation when the bishop comes to the parish to administer it, which could be months after the conversion.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='29 June 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1277859916' post='2135985']The convert only receives Confirmation when the bishop comes to the parish to administer it, which could be months after the conversion.
[/quote]
I was confirmed by my parish priest. Was I not validly confirmed?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='29 June 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1277864117' post='2136013']
I was confirmed by my parish priest. Was I not validly confirmed?
[/quote]

You were most certainly validly confirmed (assuming the priest used valid matter and form and had the proper intent). That said, it is not in accordance with the tradition of the Western church for simple priests to administer Confirmation outside of extreme necessity (e.g., confirming a Catholic who would otherwise die unconfirmed).

[Vincent Vega]

I see. That's unfortunate. It was at the Easter Vigil, but I gladly would have waited such an occasion on which the Bishop would have been free, as to have done it properly.
Was it still licit?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='29 June 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1277871357' post='2136060']
I see. That's unfortunate. It was at the Easter Vigil, but I gladly would have waited such an occasion on which the Bishop would have been free, as to have done it properly.
Was it still licit?
[/quote]

It was very likely licit, but it was not in conformity the Western tradition that the bishop always administer Confirmation except in truly extraordinary cases.