Of Women Priests and Ecumenism and how we should respond. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Can we forget the puppets? Ever?

I was sent something from the California Catholic Daily about a member of parish liturgy committee who participated in a fake and sacrilegious “ordination” by Roman Catholic Womenpriests.  My emphases:

A member of the liturgy committee at a San Francisco parish was “ordained a deacon” on Saturday, June 23, according to the website of Roman Catholic Womenpriests. Participants in such sham ceremonies are automatically excommunicated, but the group has repeatedly rejected the ruling of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the subject.

The event took place at Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco, where Olivia Doko, “bishop” of the Western Region of Roman Catholic Womenpriests, “ordained” Maria Eitz.

[...]

When these things come up, we tend to focus on the internal Catholic reaction and on the deluded women who are into this stuff.

We must consider questions both ad intra and also ad extra.

We have to also pay attention to the Protestants who host them.

Look. We either take ecumenism seriously or we don’t. If we do – and I believe we must –  we have to react strongly when ecumenical ideals are so grossly violated by Protesants who invite or permit these “women priest” ceremonies in their churches.

The most sacred rites of the Catholic Church are Holy Mass and ordination to Holy Orders. These are sine quibus non for our Catholic identity and the continuance of Holy Church Herself.  They are of divine origin.  They are for us most sacred.  To treat sacred things with lack of due respect or reverence is the sin of sacrilege.

From our point of view as Catholics, these women-priest supporters are committing sacrilege in simulating Mass and Orders.

The Protestants who host them are also, objectively speaking, committing a sacrilege.  They are permitting or inviting a mockery of our Holy Mass and a mockery of the priesthood.

When Protestants allow dissident Catholics to commit sacrileges in their churches, they effectively wave their middle-digit directly in the face of the Catholic Church.

For a long time progressivist Catholics were staging Jewish sedar meals in their churches.  Some Jews were angered by this.  The Catholics weren’t intending to give disrespect but that it how it was perceived. Except in some rare cases I suppose, Catholic don’t simulate their sacred Jewish rite anymore.  We got the message from the Jews and stopped doing what was offensive to them.

There is no confusion in the religious world about what the Catholic Church teaches about Mass and ordination, about who may celebrate Mass and who may be ordained.  There is NO confusion about what the Church teaches!  Nevertheless, Protestants invite what the Catholic Church teaches is sacrilege to be committed in their churches.

Furthermore, in allowing this group of fakers into their churches, the Protestants are accepting the premise that what the women are doing in there actually is a Catholic ordination and Mass.

How dare PROTESTANTS decide what a Catholic Mass is?

And if they respond, “Gee, we mean no disrespect. We are just giving space to this group”, then what they are doing is aiding a protest against the Catholic Church.

There is no way around this.  Protestants who give these fakers aid are either on their side, and thus support their claim that what they are doing really is an ordination and Mass, or in claiming not to be taking sides they are still giving support to an anti-Catholic protest.

“But Father! But Father!”, you are certainly saying by now, “There really isn’t anything we can do about this!  They can do what they like in their churches and we are powerless!”

I respond: We are not powerless.  Bishops must act.

Imagine that some women-priest fakers have a sacrilegious ceremony at, say, St. Swithan-by-the Slough Episcopal Church – or whatever Protestant church – in Tall Tree Circle, within in the territory of the Catholic Diocese of Black Duck.

Upon hearing the news that this ceremony is going to take place (or has taken place), the Catholic Bishop of Black Duck must call the pastor of that Protestant parish and say, “I’m the Catholic Bishop.  Do not allow this sacrilege to be committed in your church.”  (Mutatis mutandis, if it already happened of course.)  He goes on to say, “You wouldn’t do this for a group of dissident Jews wanting to ordain rabbis, but we are Catholics so you don’t care what offense you give us.  Until an apology is issued, don’t look for us to dialogue with you again.”

Then the Catholic Bishop of Black Duck calls the head of the denomination, the Episcopalian Bishop of the zone or whomever they have depending on the group, and unloads the same message.

Then the Catholic Bishop sends informative notes to the USCCB’s ecumenical office, to the CDF and to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in order to let them know the facts about the the sacrileges against our most sacred rites and sacraments that were committed – with their help – in their church.

Then you call the press.

“But FATHER!” some of you are saying, all aghast and aflutter, “That’s… that’s… isn’t that over the top? Isn’t that a terrible over-reaction? You’ll hurt ecumenism! Shouldn’t we take the high road? Turn the other cheek?  Be nice!  Your response should be, I dunno, more proportionate!”

I respond: “PIFFLE! BULL PIFFLE!”

Protestants invite or permit sacrilege and anti-Catholic protest in their church and, when we say we don’t like it, Catholics are guilty of slowing down ecumenism?  I. Think. NOT.

And as for a “proportionate response”, what would that be?

You want a “proportionate response”?  Here’s a proportionate response!

Given that we are talking about the most sacred rites we have, a proportionate response would have to be something like a special service in the Cathedral of Black Duck.  There would be a prayer of reparation for the sacrilege at St. Swithan-by-the Slough, a sermon about the theological errors of their sect, and prayers for the mercy of God on their souls lest they go to Hell.  There would be handouts about the true teaching of the Church on Holy Mass and Holy Orders and, also, true ecumenism, articles in the local diocesan newspaper describing the errors of the sect and that they are not a true Church in the sense recognized by the Catholic Church.  There would be weeks of sermons in every pupit of the Diocese of Black Duck….  Get the drift?  That’s proportionate.

The response of my fictional Bishop of Black Duck is actually pretty mild compared to a proportionate response.

Take the higher road? Okay, let’s do. Let’s take the high road of true ecumenism.  Let’s start by not lying to each other and committing sacrilege against what others hold sacred.

True ecumenism does not consist in lying down and letting some other church kick you and define what Mass is for you, or say who can be ordained, or stick their “F-You” finger in your face when letting in these sacrilegious fakers.

Enough.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, Dogs and Fleas, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The Drill, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Of Women Priests and Ecumenism and how we should respond. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

  1. aleighanne says:

    Don’t know what is the more potent nightmare fuel; the womyn priests or the puppets.

  2. thefeds says:

    Looks like the bus stopped long enough for the nuns to swap their polyester leisure suits for their polyester albs and stoles. I’m just wondering how they were able to get the giant puppets in and out of the bus…

  3. diem says:

    Devil’s advocate hat on. Doesn’t this essentially rule out almost all ecumenical gestures towards other Christian sects? By which I mean, objectively most of their rites are–from the perspective of Catholic theology–just as sacrilegious. So do we demand that Anglicans stop performing Anglican ordinations before we consent to have a dialogue with them and start a protest every time the Lutherans hold a communion liturgy? [I think this is a different situation. What they do, consistent with their own books, their churches is not the same as having dissident Catholics do bad things in their churches.]

  4. marajoy says:

    Thanks, diem.
    that’s what I was also thinking…

  5. Sissy says:

    Father, take it from a refugee, the episcopal organization is not a Christian entity. They aren’t even pretending anymore. They couldn’t care less about ecumenism with Christians; they would rather hang out with pagans. The best you can say about their group is that they are universalists. Right now, in the midst of General Convention, one group of bishops is busy suing another group of bishops because group B bishops testified truthfully in depositions in law suits where group A bishops are suing group C bishops. Their dying cult is imploding, and not a minute too soon. I just wish these womyn would go ahead and join the Piskies and stop pretending to be Catholics.

    As for our own leaders, I ardently wish our Catholic Bishops would speak up to defend the faith on lots of issues, not just this one. I’m grateful for their united stand on the HHS mandate, and I’m hopeful they’ll start defending the faith a big more vigorously.

  6. Sissy says:

    Diem and marajoy: don’t confuse US episcopalians and US Anglicans. They are two different critters. Anglicans are still an ecclesial community, with many of them well on their way back home to Mother Church. The episcopal organization is something else entirely.

  7. Gail F says:

    I wrote to the female rabbi of a synagogue that held one of these ceremonies and asked her what she would would think if my parish rented our church to a supposed Jewish sect to make some nut rabbi — because WE thought the person should be one, whatever Jews thought of it. She never wrote back.

  8. ddoyle1220 says:

    Ok- I know this has nothing to do with Ecumenism, at least on the surface, but when you mentioned a proportional response, I couldn’t help but think of this clip from The West Wing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtrX9rZl-j4

  9. diem says:

    Sissy: . . . don’t confuse US episcopalians and US Anglicans. They are two different critters. Anglicans are still an ecclesial community, with many of them well on their way back home to Mother Church.
    Did I? The Anglicans still have invalid orders (cf. Leo XIII, Apostolicae curae). Hence their sacraments (aside from Baptism and Matrimony) are invalid simulations of Catholic sacraments.

  10. Cheesesteak Expert says:

    Such ignorance abounds, all these goofball events (what serious person can look at this pictures and not laugh) are teaching moments. To be truly ecumenical, at a minimum it’s important to educate people about what this or that Church believes. So at a minimum, there is the onus on the local Catholic bishop, pastor and laity to somehow get the word out via as much media as possible to say, “Whatever it is these dying, ex-hippies and younger hippie-wanna be’s say they believe or say they are, they are not a part of our communion, as we believe this and that, which is different from what they believe. They can knock themselves out at making up whatever it is they want, but don’t mix up their stuff with ours.”

  11. OrthodoxChick says:

    In addition, why can’t the USCCB just put together a list of behaviors such as the above, along with all of the other common offenses committed by disidents. Then the USCCB distributes it to all Bishops under orders from the President of the USCCB to begin enforcing warnings for first offenses with excommunications to follow, effective immediately. Any Bishop who doesn’t follow through should be subject to a peer review and hearing by the USCCB. If after that, the matter can still not be resolved, the Bishop who was subject to review gets reported to the proper authority in the Vatican.

    Start holding Bishops accountable in some way so the bad apples will be called out and dealt with if they don’t reconcile, and the good apples will hopefully establish and enforce a similar system among the priests of their Diocese.

    Maybe if the USCCB takes Fr.Z’s suggestion along with taking on the dissenters in their own ranks, we’ll stop making a laughing stock of ourselves while simultaneously allowing others to do the same.

  12. Sissy says:

    diem: I’m not suggesting that I thought Anglicans have valid orders. I’m saying that their religious beliefs fall within the Christian family, although only as an ecclesial community. There are many grounds on which to engage Anglicans, as we can see from the Anglican Ordinariate. The episcopal organization at the top does not adhere to Christian belief, although some people in the pews still do. There is no common ground left at this point. That’s what I was referring to. Sorry if I was unclear.

  13. Mariana says:

    I’ve got many Lutheran minister friends and can honestly say no Lutherans here in Scandinavia would welcome these self-ordained ladies, at least the ministers would pretty quick put a stop to such antics as they wouldn’t want to offend Catholics or the Greek Orthodox.

  14. acardnal says:

    @Orthodox Chick: the bishops are not organized like the military. They are not responsible to the national or regional (e.g. CELAM) bishops’ conference. They are responsible only to the Pope and God.

  15. disco says:

    I have to check my basement because I’d swear I made those “ciboria” in fourth grade pottery class.

  16. OrthodoxChick says:

    @acardnal,

    Yeah, how’s THAT workin for us? Is there anything canonically preventing the Bishops from setting up their own such system? Can the USCCB president request permission from the Pope to set up self-governance system? If it’s not explicitly prohibited, then it should be on the table for consideration (IMHO).

  17. Supertradmum says:

    Sissy, wait until Monday.

  18. diem says:

    If I may push my advocacy of the devil’s cause further. Fr. Z: What they do, consistent with their own books, their churches is not the same as having dissident Catholics do bad things in their churches.
    It seems that you are saying that it is the length of time since each defied the Catholic Church that distinguishes the cases (after all I can’t imagine that you would change your analysis of the female ordinations if you learned that the night before the ceremony, they had run off an Order of Ordination for a Woman on their bubble jet, such that the rite was “consistent with their own books,”). One set is of first generation ex-Catholics the other is of 25th generation ex-Catholics; hence the 25th generation ex-Catholics’ books have a certain legitimacy that the first generation ex-Catholics’ books want.
    But isn’t this somewhat arbitrary, at least from the non-Catholic church-owner’s perspective?
    How can we (without appearing arbitrary) expect Christians who have (long ago) rejected the authority of Rome to enforce Rome’s beliefs and discipline on other’s who have (recently) joined them in rejecting the beliefs, practice, and authority of Rome? Both are ultimately dissident Catholics. Why should the community with a long-standing tradition of rejecting Rome side with Rome in Rome’s dispute with a community that is only recently joining them in rejecting Rome?

  19. Frankly so much of what passes as Ecumenism is of this ilk. To give it much coverage endows it with an authority which is not warranted. We know who are really interested in church unity, and it isn’t this crowd.

  20. MrTipsNZ says:

    Father Z. – you deserve one of your own gold stars. Bravo!

    This post is LOADED with Z-swag and authenticity. Should be made compulsory reading at the LCWR website.

    Love the last photo – looks like a scene from Hair!

  21. catholicmidwest says:

    Those are the ugliest puppets ever. And the “church scene” isn’t even remotely Christian-looking. Weird.

  22. fvhale says:

    Things like this do not just fall out of the sky. The group Sophia in Trinity has been gathering at Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco, CA, for some years. Here is the text from their “History of the Community” on their website:

    September 28, 2008, Bishop Otis Charles and the community of Trinity Episcopal Church in San Francisco invited Dr. Victoria Rue, a Roman Catholic woman priest, to preach at their Sunday Eucharistic liturgy. After the Eucharist, Bishop Otis and the Vestry of Trinity Episcopal Church with the blessing of its community asked Victoria if she would like to begin a Roman Catholic community at Trinity. They invited her to celebrate the Eucharist on a regular basis in St. Mary’s Chapel, attached to Trinity’s main church. Dr. Rue presided at the first Roman Catholic Eucharist at Trinity at 10:30 am on January 10, 2009, and this liturgy has continued bi-monthly since that day.

    Thank you Bishop Otis and the Vestry!

    While they send their “thank you” to the retired and openly gay Episcopal bishop Otis, they also stick their finger in the eye of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, and the cathedral, located less than 10 minutes away by foot.

    If they want to meet in an Episcopal church, and they want to practice ordination of women (fine in the Episcopal church), and they really have no (positive) interest in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and, by they way, if they are doing things that bring automatic excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, then, gee, I would just ignore them and think of them as de facto Episcopalians, still my sisters and the occasional brother, who have a sentimental attachment to their Roman Catholic past. And, having lived in the San Francisco area over thirty years, I already know that the local flavor of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue is too often, “anything has goodness as long it is not the Roman Catholic Church with the hierarchy; they only deserve scorn.” That is just too often the situation here.

  23. Charles E Flynn says:

    If St. Augustine was correct when he wrote that “beauty is the splendor of truth”, it is worth noting that the top photo shows no beauty in a single man-made object. Even the ceramics are astonishingly banal.

  24. Matthew78 says:

    diem,

    I think part of Fr. Z’s reasoning is the question and degree of scandal. These protestant groups are being malicious by so casually welcoming and supporting what are grave moments of scandal for the Catholic faithful. It does not so much scandalize Catholics in 2012 that protestant communities have their mock liturgies, sacraments, etc., for we know this has been the situation since the reformation. It is a far more serious scandal when significantly-numbered groups leave a parish, find a protestant group, and then use that group’s building to openly dissent from the Church through sacrilege. Afterwards, these dissident groups then publicly display their sacrilegious actions through some secular media agent. The issue of scandal cannot be overlooked. Catholics who apostatize are encouraging others to do so in their very actions. This deeply-rooted pride is far more difficult to address and fight than the centuries-old pride of the protestant communities, which is quickly dwindling.

  25. Chrysologus says:

    I think that you make a valid point. If a Christian denomination wants to have official relations with the Catholic Church, then they should think very, very carefully about cooperating in an act with Catholics that the Catholic Church forbids by law under pain of excommunication. On the other hand, if they are going to go forward with that act, they may still continue grassroots ecumenism with those Catholics who support women’s ordination. I assume this is exactly how they would feel, that while they may have little relationship to the bishops, that they do feel that there is a relationship to those Catholics who support women’s ordination, and that is where the ecumenism will come in. As long as this division exists within the Catholic Church, can we really blame Protestants for taking sides?

    Also, your hypothetical “proportionate” response about preaching about the errors of their “sects,” which may send their practitioners to hell, is quite at odd with both the spirit and actual text of Unitatis Redintegratio. This gives me some pause in accepting your ideas about ecumenism.

  26. Diem:

    The difference is this: when First Lutheran Church, or Second Presbyterian Church, etc., have their own Lutheran, Presbyterian or whatever service, it is not in any way being presented as worship as Catholics engage in it. When they ordain their own ministers–however they do it–it is not, in any way, being presented as the ordination of a Catholic priest. I admit I don’t monitor all their activities, but I will bet they don’t do that. On the contrary, they’d be very clear, if you ask, that they are doing a Methodist thing, or an Assembly of God thing, etc. They aren’t attempting to simulate, or host, a Catholic sacrament or rite.

    But when they do–whether it be a fake ordination, as Father referred to, and from that, a fake Mass; or else, let us imagine, they proceeded to host other Catholic rituals–and made them known as such–then we have something different.

    @Father Z: Amen, brother, amen, amen, amen!

  27. Oops I messed up the italics. You’ll figure it out.

  28. PhilipNeri says:

    Counting the Blue Hairs and Bald Spots in the circus seats. . .I’m not too worried about these three-rings going on for much longer.

    Say it with me, folks: The.Biological.Solution.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  29. diem says: It seems that you are saying that it is the length of time since each defied the Catholic Church that distinguishes the cases (after all I can’t imagine that you would change your analysis of the female ordinations if you learned that the night before the ceremony, they had run off an Order of Ordination for a Woman on their bubble jet, such that the rite was “consistent with their own books,”). One set is of first generation ex-Catholics the other is of 25th generation ex-Catholics; hence the 25th generation ex-Catholics’ books have a certain legitimacy that the first generation ex-Catholics’ books want.

    Look, those who were never Catholics to begin with are not ex-Catholics. Apart from the Catholics who leave and join Protestant churches, today’s Protestants are not, from a moral point of view, similarly situated to the first Protestants. The first Protestants were renegade Catholics who deliberately jumped ship. Those who are born into Protestantism find themselves outside the Church through no fault of their own. If they remain outside the Church, they are culpable only to the extent they willfully reject the search for truth, or to the extent they know the Catholic Church to be the True Church, but refuse to join her.

  30. aviva meriam says:

    THANK YOU FATHER.

    Highly annoyed that anyone outside of the Catholic Church would have the “chutpah” to try to define what is Catholic.

    One useful thing would happen if/when bishops respond to this “stuff”….. laity who aren’t well catechized would learn.

  31. Kudos to you, Father!
    Thank you…

  32. Marine Mom says:

    …….Yes , days are coming, says the Lord God,/ when I will send famine upon the land:/ Not a famine of bread, or thirst for water,/ but for hearing the word of the Lord./ Then shall they wander from sea to sea/ and rove from the north to the east/ In search of the word of the Lord,/ but they shall not find it. AM 8: 11,12

  33. Joseph-Mary says:

    Our community -one parish in particular-has allowed almost anything and everything in the dissenting category to go on unchecked. Last year the old priest stepped down and two orthodox priests were sent in to clean up the mess. No more dissenting speakers and no more other agendas were to be allowed. There are several married ex-priests leading the dissent and some of them were never even laicized. One stood up during the pastor’s homily and called him a liar as he was preaching on a tough issue.

    The pastor tried to prevent the split but the group went into schism. They joined up with other malcontents and call themselves the ‘ecclesial catholic community’. And they meet at the ‘welcoming’ episcopal church (NOT welcoming to Catholics or pro-lifers however) and hold liturgy. The pastor at that place is a lesbian with a partner. Some say that the Masses could even be valid (but illicit) when presided by the ex-priests. But they have womyn presiders now too I guess–and they take the dissenting line with pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agendas included.

    It is a sad, bad thing.

  34. BLB Oregon says:

    When a local Protestant church, the Zion United Church of Christ (Gresham), hosted the attempted ordination of women within the Archdiocese of Portland in the summer of 2007, an event characterized by its promoters as the ordination of Roman Catholic priests, Archbishop Vlazny publicly took issue when the event was characterized as Roman Catholic in the Oregonian newspaper. He essentially said that what you do in your chuch is your business, right up to the point where you let it be implied that my church is doing it. At that point, you are crossing a very important and non-negotiable boundary. He said he hoped the disrespect for our sacraments was not intentional. In 2008, the same group held their attempted ordinations not only at the very same church, but this time on the very same day that Archbishop Vlazny was performing valid ordinations at the Cathedral. So much for “unintentional” disrespect.

    I tried to explain to someone once that the North learned that it is impossible to appease those who would secede in order to manipulate the group to bend to their will. When you are done, you will have forfeited your integrity, and yet their demands will not stop until you concede all control over to them. You will have sold your soul for nothing…and if this is true in a democracy, how much more is it true of those whose sacred duty it is to exercise authority beholden only to the truth! This is something that the Church understands and most of America seems to have forgotten since it was learned the hard way in the 1860s.

  35. Bea says:

    I guess our leaders have not yet come to the realization that “ecumenism” is a one way street.
    Evangelization is the only “street” we should be on, We cannot cooperate with error. The Episcopalian Trinity Church is doing just that, cooperating with error. I hope somebody in authority complained to the Episcopalians.

    From Wikipedia:
    Aggiornamento (Italian pronunciation: [add??rna?mento]), a.k.a. “A bringing up to date”, was one of the key words used during the Second Vatican Council both by bishops and the clergy attending the sessions, and by the media and Vaticanologists covering it. It was used to mean a spirit of change and open-mindedness. It was the name given to the pontifical program of John XXIII in a speech he gave on January 25, 1959.

    I remember when this was first promulgated that Aggiornamento was a bringing “up to date” a bringing the Church into the 20th century. Ecumenism took a turn in the road and as the above quote from wikipedia said “to mean a spirit of change and open-mindedness” was a wrong turn. It got so open-minded that their brains (common sense) fell out. (not my quote, I read it somewhere but I don’t remember who coined that witty phrase).

    That “V” for victory on the puppets: victory over WHAT?
    All those grey heads, makes me want to cry. It was my generation! What happened? Breaks my heart. I wish we could have seen it coming, but then, what could we have done? We were meek and gentle lambs following our priests and bishops. A new age of “free-thinking” “follow your conscience” without knowing if these consciences had a proper formation.
    Woodstock, The Beetles, Frank Sinatra and “I did it my way” song that’s who these grey headed individuals followed and are still following. I don’t know how my husband and I escaped , only by the Grace of God did we and scattered “remnants” here and there. We read the “Wanderer” a lot, maybe that was the life preserver that kept us afloat.

  36. Joker Phinn says:

    “And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do…” – Luke 23:34

  37. Ken Mafli says:

    Well, being a Protestant, I am a little taken back by the actions of these churches. While my denomination practices the ordination of women, I would not expect to impose that doctrine on my Catholic brothers and sisters.

    Although the irony is a bit palpable… a Protestant denomination is protesting the doctrines of the Catholic church… seems a bit “old hat,” don’t you think? I would put it to the denominations in question: that they should clarify their own doctrines, reach out to those that are unchurched, and declare the Gospel – since Catholics are not the ones in need Christ.

  38. Gibbons in SF says:

    I sent Episcopal Bishop Marc Andrus a letter about the “Roman Catholic Womanpriest” using one of his churches back on March 1, 2011, but he never responded. The letter is here: http://calcatholic.web141.discountasp.net/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=dda4a2e6-a1b1-4e24-92e7-462091b73217

  39. JKnott says:

    Amen, amen is right!
    Father, I agree with MrTipsNZ . You earned your GOLD STAR on this one! Three of them actually.

  40. AnAmericanMother says:

    I hope that kid in the sweatshirt is somebody’s grandchild who was guilted into being there.
    Otherwise the whole biological solution thingy is in danger.
    Come to think of it, he does look a bit like he wishes he were somewhere else.

  41. Cath says:

    Do these women pretend to hear confessions?

  42. Sissy says:

    Supertradmum said “wait until Monday”.

    It appears certain they will vote for same-sex “blessing ceremonies”, although my naive relatives still in the TEO are convinced it will never pass. It will pass (and their bishop will vote “yes”) and the unseemly jubilation and celebration will be sickening. I don’t think I can bear to follow the vote. It feels like too much like gawking at a fatal car accident.

  43. APX says:

    @Cath

    Do these women pretend to hear confessions?
    Confession is too traditional. They likely have communal penance services with “general absolution”, only rather than raising their right hand over the penitents during “absolution”, they raise their “absolution “tambourine in their right hand and shake it in a joyful noise. Though, that’s probably stretching it, as I doubt these wymyn believe in sin other than the eviil sin of oppression against wymyn by the Church. *eye roll*

  44. Marie S. says:

    A revolting attack on the Church. The symbol on the “altar cloth” looks more like the international symbol for woman rather than a Christian, let alone Catholic, symbol. And, ooh, look at the pretty lavender people in the middle. Is it supposed to represent the trinity, or shiny happy people holding hands? It’s looks like a logo, but I can’t quite place it.

    This is not what I came Home for.

    Matthew 18:17: And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

    Heathens indeed. We’re beyond charity with people who would do this, and certainly cannot expect them to obey self-excommunication. When can we expect the public excommunications?

  45. Dr. K says:

    Thank you for making this post, Father!

    Locally we have a similar situation where a schismatic group with 4 priestesses worships at a Presbyterian church.

  46. AnnLewis says:

    Father – I wonder if it would be possible for a Catholic bishop to actually threaten a lawsuit of the other denomination if they allow such a mockery of our rites to take place. I don’t know what legal beef they could sue under, but I’m wondering if some smart lawyer could come up with something….

    (Barring that, of course, I think what you said is terrific…)

  47. AnnAsher says:

    My responses, in no particular order, eye rolling, uncharitable groaning, gagging. I’ve a loss for words for the faux communion in Dixie cups.

  48. Tradster says:

    Father, I agree with and applaud every word you wrote. That said, I could not miss the irony when you asked “how dare Protestants decide what a Catholic Mass is?” That is precisely what we invited and permitted them to do with the Novus Ordo. That brought the camel’s nose into the tent, leading directly to this situation.

  49. eulogos says:

    It is offensive to real Protestants to call these Episcopalians Protestants. They are no longer Christians. And if a Catholic bishop conveyed his displeasure at these fake ordinations, they would get to say things like, “We spoke truth to power and refused to yield to repressive patriarchy. We will continue to support women who hear God calling them to image the sacred.” Or something like that.

    The bishops ought to do it anyway, to make things clear to weak minded Catholics. But not because it would make an ounce of difference to the Episcopalians.

    Susan Peterson

  50. PA mom says:

    I would have great admiration for a bishop who would be willing to respond in that way. Many people would, provided he could explain himself as well as you have here.

  51. AnAmericanMother says:

    AnnLewis,
    Our archbishop here did that some years ago.
    A group of imposters set up a fake “Catholic” church here – not for any theological reason, however. They were defrauding non-Englsih-speaking Hispanic immigrants out of their money.
    I don’t remember if the Abp. actually got a permanent injunction or just scared them out of town – but I do think they at least got a TRO preventing them from using the name “Catholic”.
    I would give it a shot myself, but I’m sorta litigious.

  52. Johnno says:

    “Do these women pretend to hear confessions?”

    Not so long as they and many who follow them pretend they have no sins.

  53. Sixupman says:

    “acardinal”:

    I think you are wide of the mark, you do not reflect the de facto situations in both the UK and Continental Europe and, I suspect. the USA.

    In the UK the Bishops’ Conference reigns and pays only nominal obeisance to BXVI. In effect ‘National Churches’ have been created where, it is held, that the papacy can only act collegially with themselves [Pastor inter Pares an idea of the CofE Anglo-Catholic communities (pre-Vat II)].

    This issue is ‘the elephant in the room’, perhaps Fr. Z might illuminate us on the matter.

  54. jflare says:

    “Both are ultimately dissident Catholics.”

    diem, I don’t wish to pile on much, but I think this comment helps explain a great deal quite briefly. I see an error here that’s the epitome of why we see a difference between a Protestant minister who practices a Protestant faith and a “catholic” who actively and publicly dissents from Catholic faith.

    Both are NOT dissident Catholics.
    Not in the sense of what that usually means in daily life anyway.
    While we can certainly say that the Protestant minister DOES dissent from Catholic faith–that’s what Protestant faith IS by definition, we cannot say that the Protestant necessarily intends to attempt to refer to themselves as Catholic but with a differing point of view. No, they refer to themselves as..whatever brand of Protestant faith they choose.
    A dissenting Catholic, on the other hand, insists on referring to themselves as Catholic–and insists that others refer to them as Catholic as well–even while summarily rejecting–and refusing to live by–numerous tenets of declared Catholic faith.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these ministers believe they’re being “ecumenical” by virtue of offering an avenue for angry Catholics to pursue “faith”.

    It’d be interesting to see the reaction of an ex-Lutheran minister attempted “ordaining” Lutheran ministers in a liberal Catholic church. I hope the Catholic faithful–especially of that parish–would be ticked. I ALSO hope the Lutherans might be quite displeased.

  55. CharlesG says:

    I fully agree with Father Z here that Protestants who host dissident Catholics should be called out for unecumenical behavior, intepreting ecumenism as at least meaning having some minimal politeness toward other Christian bodies. A couple of other examples of unecumenical actions by Protestants that fry my nose: (a) I once read an article about Trinity Episcopal Church in Boston where the priest in charge was crowing about all the “recovering Catholics” in his congregation, and (b) Protestants who complain that the Catholic Church should open up communion to non-Catholics.

  56. CharlesG says:

    @Tradster: Some Protestants were asked to give input by Bugnini’s Consilium, but the vast majority of those who developed the Novus Ordo were Catholic, and it was approved by the Pope Paul VI, so I don’t think it is fair to say that “Protestants decided what the Catholic Mass is” in the case of the Novus Ordo. At most one can say that there was perhaps an oversensitivity among the Catholics developing the Novus Ordo to make innovations that might appeal to Protestants. One has to keep in mind that Protestants at the time of the council had not yet tossed out most of traditional Christianity in favor of left-wing political causes at that time, so there was still some real hope of ecumenical progress at the time. Of course I’ve always thought that proponents of Tradition should have had a greater presence on the Consilium to balance out Bugnini’s Bolshies, but in the end, it was Catholics and the Pope who decided the shape of the Novus Ordo.

  57. Kerry says:

    Interesting that though “the group has repeatedly rejected the ruling of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, they go through with a ‘ceremony’. Why do they need a ceremony? Why not just declare, by fiat alone, “Tu es wymen deacon”? [They desperately crave the approval of the men they want to be like. That's why.]

  58. Kerry says:

    Looking at the puppet heads again, maybe the priestesses don’t know what’s behind them. The hand of the head on the right is doing the V-sign behind the head of the man with glasses, like photos in the fourth grade. Heh.

  59. AnAmericanMother says:

    Cath, APX,
    I think you’ve got hold of something significant here.
    It’s one thing to watch a gaggle of silly women stand around a makeshift table with tacky props and pretend that you’re in Solidarity with them doing something bold and feminist and Significant.
    But Confession is real, and risky, and requires that the penitent trust.
    Nobody in their right mind or out of it would trust these women with a confession. Everybody knows they’re disobedient – why expect them to honor the Seal when they have no concept of honor?

  60. Supertradmum says:

    But, do you not all understand that this is what most people think is ecumenism? That is, that one must tolerate, in a false eirenism, and gloss over the differences in order to have union, is what many see as ecumenism. I have a section of Humani Generis on my blog put on just yesterday, as this is the document which clarifies the falsity of a movement to have Christian unity at any cost. Why the Anglicans in GB are going to split again is that a church without a Pope and a real hierarchy asking obedience cannot stand against any stupid innovation.

    That Protestants are open to women priests is just part of being Protestant and protesting against the Vatican, still and always. I would not expect any other response, except from the Anglo-Catholics who will come over in droves….

  61. Pingback: It’s a Sacrilege: A Woman’s Ordination | Courageous Priest

  62. APX says:

    Let’s just say the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity got involved? What exactly would they do? Back in my quaint little home diocese, the bishop was recently appointed to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He’s a great bishop, great with real ecumenism, very personable, etc, but I can’t see the council actually doing anything about this out of fear for stepping on toes.

  63. robtbrown says:

    The work in producing the Novus Ordo was not done from scratch. It was the consequence of what had been done for decades. There were two main strategies: 1) To make Eucharistic liturgy more resemble the Passover (cf. Offertory), and 2) To bring it closer to Protestantism. NB: There was almost no effort to bring it closer to Eucharistic liturgy of the Eastern Church.

    The big change after Vat II, however, was vernacular versus populum celebration, neither of which was mandated by the Council or by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.

  64. Gail F says:

    Other churches: I am fully prepared to believe that some of these “other churches” that rent their buildings to the “womanpriests” don’t know or care much about it, being more interested in themselves. But the woman rabbi I wrote to (mentioned above) was quoted in a newspaper story saying she supported the “womenpriests” because she was a woman rabbi, and so that is clearly a matter of telling another religion what to do.

    Episcopalians: In my diocese, the bishop told them more than a year ago that each churches could choose whether or not to perform same-sex ceremonies, but that he would have to approve each one individually. I don’t know if that was a future thing (waiting for TEC to approve it) or they are already doing it without approval. But like most of these things, the ball is rolling and people are rolling with it.

    Novus Ordo: It’s a valid Catholic mass! The pope approved the EF and it is on the rise! Can we give that whole thing a rest now?

  65. RichardC says:

    I think Father Z.’s idea, if carried out, would be an example of what Blessed John Paul II called “creative orthodoxy”.

  66. dburnette10 says:

    I want to say that when posting or commenting on these girl-priest-wanna-bes, if we aren’t going to refer to them as girls (they don’t have the maturity of women, i.e. acting like grownups) can we PLEASE spell the word “women” properly! I am tired of having to explain to my kids that yeah, they’re women, but they spell it wrong because they have no real reason besides trying to stick to the man, usually Catholic men.

    Back to the post topic, other denominations ought not to get in to these family feuds. It’s not ecumenism, it’s enabling.

  67. Pingback: It’s a Sacrilege: A Woman’s Ordination | Catholic Canada

  68. Nah says:

    We don’t know what the bishops do or don’t do. Maybe they have called this particular church and made said request. But I doubt the Episcopalians are super concerned about offending the bishop or any group that they view as “intolerant”. I guess I am not too shocked to see protestants protesting. Especially a very liberal denom.

    And as for your response to one of the other questions, I really don’t think the reason they want a ceremony is because they desire mans approval. [Of course they do. It is self-evident by the fact that they are always asking for it.]

  69. acardnal says:

    robtbrown says:
    8 July 2012 at 10:44 am
    The work in producing the Novus Ordo was not done from scratch. It was the consequence of what had been done for decades. There were two main strategies: 1) To make Eucharistic liturgy more resemble the Passover (cf. Offertory), and 2) To bring it closer to Protestantism. NB: There was almost no effort to bring it closer to Eucharistic liturgy of the Eastern Church.

    The big change after Vat II, however, was vernacular versus populum celebration, neither of which was mandated by the Council or by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo.

    I concur with robtbrown’s above comments but add that one other strategy was a diminishment of the sacrificial nature of the Mass and an emphasis on the Protestant communion supper aspect instead.

  70. Nah says:

    I guess I would assume, that they are desiring the Church’s approval. [They want the approval of men.] A Church whose hierarchy is made up of men, but that is an institution founded by Christ that they want to be apart of. It seems kind of odd to go to they just want a man’s approval. It seems a lot more likely to me they are seeking the Churches approval and thus the ‘liturgy’ or ceremony. [No. They crave the approval of men.] If they are seeking a bishops approval doesn’t it seem reasonable that they are seeking it because of his authority in the Church and not because of his gender? However misguided they are. [They want men to approve of them.]

  71. pinoytraddie says:

    God Forbid a TLM Celebrated by Women Priests! That would be the WORST. SACRILEGE. EVAH!!!

  72. florin says:

    July 8th, 2021: I know we shouldn’t judge but to me it seems that these ‘women’ are not only spiritually challenged but mentally and emotionally challenged as well. A vocation comes from God; we do not choose which vocation we want – we choose to say yes or no to the vocation God gives us. The LCWR is full of ‘women’ like this and Sr. Joan Chittister is a prime example of this unbalance…they stand against the Church and her teachings on almost every essential issue including abortion, euthansia, same sex marriage, women’s ordination, sterilization, etc…what unhappy, foolish,miserable creatures they look to be – they set up their own little gods in competition with Almighty God who will not be mocked. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do!” – or do they?

  73. jessicahoff says:

    As an Anglican, and a woman, and as somone who has never been reconciled to the idea that women can be priests, as well as somone who believe in ecumenism, I also believe that someone needs to find the biggest book possible and throw it at these people. They are a disgrace.

  74. Indulgentiam says:

    Father:  ”When Protestants allow dissident Catholics to commit sacrileges in their churches, they effectively wave their middle-digit directly in the face of the Catholic Church.”

    Well they’ve been effectively doing that since martin luther. As others here have pointed out it’s what protestants do, they protest and want nothing more than to increase the number of protesters. 
    I’ve been studying this whole ecumenisim movement. No matter the angle it still looks, to me, like humans trying to do a God size job. It is God Who brings peace and unity, not our puny words. He enlightens the minds and hearts of whom He Wills. If I am understanding the Saints and Scripture correctly Our Lord did not command us to go out and bring peace and unity. He commanded us to preach to all nations. He even knew that many would not accept and told us to shake the dust and move on. Ecumenism, IMHO, is a distraction. Thrown at us to keep us from doing the job we have been assigned, simply; spread the gospel exactly as taught by Holy Mother Church from the beginning without innovation or purpose of evasion. 

  75. Mariana says:

    Ecumenism, IMHO, is for protestants. Let THEM learn about US. I did my bit of ecumenism 10 years ago when I was accepted into the Church!

  76. wmeyer says:

    It is beyond sad. These people have been taken in by the devil–why else excommunicate themselves through “ordinations” invariably staged in odd venues, whether synagogues, Unitarian churches, or public parks. Given the current state of the Episcopal Church, I won’t even attempt to categorize that site.

    I pray for these people, that they may repent, and undergo a true conversion.

  77. jhayes says:

    it seems that these ‘women’ are not only spiritually challenged but mentally and emotionally challenged as well. A vocation comes from God; we do not choose which vocation we want – we choose to say yes or no to the vocation God gives us.

    But what if they believe this is the vocation God has given to them?

    Presumably, women priests in the Episcopal Church believe that.

    And then they say yes to it.

  78. I was an Episcopal priestess for 18 years. I left on the Sunday that Gene Robinson was consecrated. I can’t speak for other women priests, but you may read my story (in 3 parts) here:
    http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/08/telling-my-story.html (Part 1)

  79. fvhale says:

    I have this dialogue so often where I live, that sometimes I wonder, “do I have MY story straight?” Here is a dialogue in the Greek tradition of philosophical dialogues. Please comment.

    Sophia is a Roman Catholic woman who feels that God has given her a vocation to the priesthood.
    Rosa is another Roman Catholic woman who feels that God has called her to accept “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” and believes in acceptance of the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

    Sophia: I feel deeply, and my conscience is clear, that God is calling me to the ordained, minsterial priesthood. Dignitatis Humanae n. 3 says that I am “bound to follow my conscience in order that I may come to God,” and that I “may not be forced to act in a manner contrary to my conscience.” And DH 11 says that I am “bound to obey my conscience.” So, in the Spirit of Vatican II, I am going to follow my vocation and be ordained as a woman priest.
    Rosa: But DH 14 says that “In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. ”
    Sophia: Exactly, and that is why many bishops and theologians also teach that priestly ordination should be open to women. It is only that old, male hierarchy, fearful of a loss of power, that keeps saying that it is impossible. Jesus said in the Gospel, “With God, nothing is impossible” (Luke 1:37).

    You get the idea. The two sides of the issue can pick and choose their Biblical, ecclesial and historical citations to support their position. Except that one is in rebellion against the authority of the Church, and one is in submission to the authority of the Church.

    Am I missing something?
    I sometimes get tired of all the Sophia’s around me.

  80. Sissy says:

    jhayes: If these women know the teachings of the Church, how could they honestly believe God has called them to do what the Church says cannot be done? This is the same argument people with same-sex attraction use to try to justify their behavior. They claim that God has changed His mind, and that He has called them to be “gay”. What really motivates them is their desire to create their own church, to be their own god. They don’t like the real thing because of their selfish desire to “set up on their own” as C. S. Lewis says.

  81. Bea says:

    Fr Z
    Did you see? This article and your comments were listed on “Courageous Priest”
    Way to go More Gold Stars for you.

    http://www.courageouspriest.com/

  82. Genesispete says:

    Okay, this has crossed into Michael Voris territory. Time for me to pull out that bumper sticker that I was saving for the start of the end days that reads “Its all fun and games until someone gets burned at the stake!” I knew there was a good reason that I had a favorite Spanish Inquisitor.

  83. theidler says:

    Embarrassing…just embarrassing. It’s like complaining that I can’t be a Mother Superior, just because I am a married man.

    Yuck.

  84. Pingback: Men's Catholic Households Bishop Ma Daqin Cathy Lynn Grossman | Big Pulpit

  85. rujx says:

    I am simply DISGUSTED!

  86. rlvankirk says:

    What you suggest is New Evangelization! This is what the Church is about. Evangelization is taking TRUTH and spreading it like fire. It is the zeal of Jeremiah and Ezekiel for the Truth of God’s sole Institution. How many “catholics” have left the Church to join other churches? The Truth will bring them back in droves!

  87. Oneros says:

    Someone may have already made this point, but I’ll make it again:

    “From our point of view as Catholics, these women-priest supporters are committing sacrilege in simulating Mass and Orders.”

    But, from our point of view…that’s what the Episcopalians are already doing each week.

    “The Protestants who host them are also, objectively speaking, committing a sacrilege. They are permitting or inviting a mockery of our Holy Mass and a mockery of the priesthood.”

    Again…that’s what the Episcopalians ALREADY do each week.

    “When Protestants allow dissident Catholics to commit sacrileges in their churches, they effectively wave their middle-digit directly in the face of the Catholic Church.”

    The Protestants ARE dissident Catholics who commit sacrileges in their churches.

    Why is it at all surprising or objectionable that Episcopalians, a group that preforms mock sacraments with womenpriests of their own in rebellion against the Catholic Church from which they sprang…would provide aid and comfort to a new, similar Protestant sect??

    I really don’t see why this is remarkable at all. Or by what (double) standards you imagine we should get mad at them for hosting the Womynpriests but then not simply be mad at them for existing themselves in the first place.

  88. Cecilianus says:

    If there was an attempted ordination to the diaconate, it could have been “valid” (though without any grace, an illicit but “valid” ordination to the diaconate is all but meaningless). The Eastern Church had female deacons for many centuries, who were charged with various responsibilities such as baptizing female converts (since people were baptized nude back then). In Greek the term “diaconessa” is now used to refer to a priest’s wife, who has no ordination whatosever. Whether or not the old ordained diaconessas had an “indelible mark” is immaterial and more or less meaningless (what is an “indelible mark”, anyway? Eastern theology has never used the term), since a deacon cannot celebrate the Eucharist or pronounce absolution or do anything that a layman is not ontologically enabled to do. And no diaconessa was ever valid matter for ordination to the priesthood.

    There is no need for female deacons today, and Holy Orders is no place for women to try to be “empowered” or whatever other agenda they are pursuing. But historically there had been such an institution when it was needed by the Church, and the possibility of imparting such graces to women through the laying on of hands is a theological truth, a rather interesting one imo.

  89. fvhale says:

    Here is the link to the January 2002 interview with Abp. Müller, the new prefect of the CDF,
    http://www.zenit.org/article-3431?l=english
    in which he answered a few questions which are repeatedly asked today:


    Q: Is it possible to separate the diaconate of women from the priesthood of women?

    Müller: No — because of the unity of the sacrament of orders, which has been underlined in the deliberations of the Theological Commission; it cannot be measured with a different yardstick. Then it would be a real discrimination of woman if she is considered as apt for the diaconate, but not for the presbyterate or episcopacy.

    The unity of the sacrament would be torn at its root if, the diaconate as ministry of service, was opposed to the presbyterate as ministry of government, and from this would be deduced that woman, as opposed to man, has a greater affinity to serve and because of this would be apt for the diaconate but not for the presbyterate.

    However, the apostolic ministry all together is a service in the three degrees in which it is exercised.

    The Church does not ordain women, not because they are lacking some spiritual gift or natural talent, but because — as in the sacrament of marriage — the sexual difference and of the relation between man and woman contains in itself a symbolism that presents and represents in itself a prior condition to express the salvific dimension of the relation of Christ and the Church.

    If the deacon, with the bishop and presbyter, starting from the radical unity of the three degrees of the orders, acts from Christ, head and Spouse of the Church, in favor of the Church, it is obvious that only a man can represent this relation of Christ with the Church.

    Q: Are there binding doctrinal declarations regarding the question of the feminine diaconate?

    Müller: The liturgical and theological tradition of the Church uses unanimous language. It is a binding and irreversible teaching of the Church on this matter, which is guaranteed by the ordinary and general magisterium of the Church, but which can be confirmed again with greater authority if the doctrinal tradition of the Church continues to be presented in an adulterated manner, for the purpose of forcing the evolution of a specific direction.

    I am amazed at the lack of historical knowledge of some, and the absence of the meaning of faith; if it wasn´t like this, they would know that it has never been possible and never will be to place the Church, precisely, in the central ambit of her doctrine and liturgy, in contradiction with sacred Scripture and her own Tradition.

    Q: What happens when a validly ordained bishop, outside the communion of the Church, ordains a woman as deaconess?

    Müller: Invisibly, that is, before God, nothing happens, because such an ordination is invalid. Visibly, that is, in the Church, if something [like this] happens, a Catholic bishop who carries out an irregular ordination incurs the penalty of excommunication.

    Q: Could the Pope say that in the future women will receive the diaconate?

    Müller: Contrary to what many think, the Pope is not the owner of the Church or absolute sovereign of her doctrine. He is only entrusted with safeguarding Revelation and its authentic interpretation.

  90. Oneros says:

    fvhale: if that is dogmatic (though, at one point, Ratzinger himself implied the door was a LITTLE bit open on the question) we can only accept it.

    However, a Cecilianus says…what does it really mean?

    We know there were “deaconesses” in the early Church and even some places in the East today.

    If we’re required to say “That’s a sacramental, not a Sacrament” fine, that’s easy enough to accept…but what’s the difference?

    Deacons don’t get any new powers. The only “difference” would be the abstract question of whether the “ordination” gave an increase in sanctifying grace or “merely” actual grace. Whether there was an “indelible character” or not. But neither of those imply anything practically or concretely (nor is the sacramental/Sacrament distinction made so strictly in the East).

    So, fine, deaconesses are a sacramental and not a Sacrament. Given that deacons don’t get any new powers intrinsically though…the difference seems a purely theoretical one that, frankly, it seems one could remain agnostic about without any PRACTICAL effect at all.

  91. Pingback: A really important post by Fr. Z « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

  92. athanasios832 says:

    A bootleg “ordination” recently took place here in the Diocese of Venice (FL). The so-called “bishop” was a woman who was technically an “episcopa vagantis,” [Technically, no. She is nothing of the sort, since she can never be a bishop.] a wandering unlicensed bishop [No.]with no discernible credentials or authority from the Church. [How could she?] She had no standing with the local diocesan bishop, no credentials with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and no standing or credentials with the Holy See in Rome. [Again, how could she?] The “ordination,” which was patently invalid (because the ordaining authority lacked any discernible credentials or license with the Catholic Church), took place in a Protestant (Episcopal-Lutheran) joint congregation church – a sure sign that the “ordination” is bootleg – and it took place in defiance of a strong letter from the local Catholic bishop warning that the ordination was illegitimate and that the participants, including the bootleg bishop, would be automatically excommunicated. [There it is.]

    Since the participants were, according to the Fort Myers News-Press article, in rebellion against the true and real Catholic Church, they could hardly claim that, as a result of the [fake] “ordination,” they would be Roman Catholic Priests.

    Personally, I call them Protestants, because that is what a Protestant is – a Christian in rebellion against the Catholic Church.

    I have no idea whether our legitimate Catholic diocesan bishop pointed out the serious consequences to Christian Unity of the Episcopal Church’s and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s willingness to harbor and pander to an illegitimate bootleg group that is in defiance of the Church to which they claim falsely to belong.

    The only thing our bishop did NOT do was to show up personally at the so-called “ordination” service service and personally denounce both the bootleg bishop and the ordinands as phonies.

  93. JacobWall says:

    I’ve had the fortune of knowing many ministers and pastors from just about every church. I’ve discussed this with a handful of these friends; real ecumenism isn’t based in saying, “it’s OK, let’s just avoid offending the people who offend us.” This kind if ecumenism is a like a paper house with no foundation – it will fall apart with the slightest breeze or even as soon as reaches any significant height. There can only be real ecumenism if they begin to have some concept of how sacred Holy Mass and the priesthood are.

  94. UPDATE:

    A priest, reader sent this:

    Dear Father Zuhlsdorf:
    The following is in regard to that branch of American Protestantism known as “the Episcopal Church”.
    The word “Episcopalian” is always a noun and never an adjective, whereas the word “Episcopal” is always an adjective and never a noun. Therefore, it is incorrect to say “the Episcopalian Church”. Instead, one should say “the Episcopal Church”. A person who is a member of the Episcopal Church is an Episcopalian. In one of your recent rants, you mistakenly wrote “the Episcopalian Church”.
    Thank you.
    Fr. ____

    I stand corrected!

  95. jflare says:

    fvhale:
    I’m not entirely sure you need an answer to the dialogue you provided earlier, but here’s mine, if you’re interested:
    Sophia’s interpretation of these documents does not conform to revealed, objective Truth. She does not have the authority to interpret the magisterium as she wishes, nor does she have the authority to declare her conscience clear precisely. No matter how passionate and sincere she may believe herself to be, Sophia will be routinely disappointed because she has essentially become her own pope, which we know she can’t do.

    After we make such a case to a person like Sophia, we can really do little more, unless we want to repeat ourselves a whole bunch.
    We CAN pray a lot though.

  96. Pingback: NCR OR NCR??? Reporter or Register–You Decide | catholicboyrichard

  97. jesusthroughmary says:

    Ecumenism = U-come-in-ism. It is for the sake of those outside the true faith. We are to find ways to present the true faith that are understandable to them, but we are never to change the faith in any way.

  98. robtbrown says:

    Oneros,

    Deacons don’t get any new powers. The only “difference” would be the abstract question of whether the “ordination” gave an increase in sanctifying grace or “merely” actual grace. Whether there was an “indelible character” or not.

    With an indelible character sanctifying grace would be involved.

    But neither of those imply anything practically or concretely (nor is the sacramental/Sacrament distinction made so strictly in the East).

    That’s one of many distinctions not found in the East.

  99. robtbrown says:

    Oneros,

    Deacons don’t get any new powers. The only “difference” would be the abstract question of whether the “ordination” gave an increase in sanctifying grace or “merely” actual grace. Whether there was an “indelible character” or not.

    With an indelible character sanctifying grace would be involved.

  100. Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam says:

    AMEN, AMEN, AMEN. That penultimate photograph made me shudder. What a bunch of slovenly she-devils (and the one, lone hen-pecked guy with a baseball cap on). What a dufus.
    The last photo reminds me of the movie, Elmer Gantry…more shivers down by back.

  101. athanasios832 says:

    Father Z is of course absolutely correct in his red-ink mark-up of my post. Since the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church does not recognize and will not countenance women in the priesthood or in the episcopate as contrary to the Lord’s revelation and therefore the magisterium, what I should have said is that the woman in the bootleg ceremony was not only masquerading as a bishop but that the ceremony was masquerading as an ordination. And of course the fake bishop had no credentials, as the Church, acting through the Vicar of Christ in the Vatican, could not give her any such credentials for the reasons stated.

    In other words, the entire event was an exercise in spiritual deception.

    The irony is that I own all the pertinent documents of the Holy See regarding the question of the ordination of women, including “Inter Insigniores.”

    I might add, as a footnote, that rebellion against the Church is rebellion against Christ in His Mystical Body the Church. Such rebellion can therefore put one’s eternal salvation into great danger. Rebellion is no little thing. We have, for example, the rebellion of Lucifer and his angels against God. God ultimately granted Lucifer’s wishes, and he and his minions were consigned to Hell. And they were in Heaven at the time! That, among other reasons, is why it is so important for us to be obedient sons and daughters of the Church and to strive, by the grace and aid of the Sacraments, for holiness in this life and for a holy death in preparation for the next just as we pray in the “Hail, Mary.”

    I repent in dust and ashes.

    Athanasios