Tuesday, 7 February 2017

Bergoglio's sycophantic Spadaro floats the WomynPriest trial-balloon

Image result for women priests
The magazine published by Bergoglio's sycophant Antonio Spadaro a fellow Jesuit and intimate of the Bishop of Rome has floated a trial-balloon on the ordination of women.

Is there one, just one Cardinal who will confront this man directly to his face?

Do they have no fear of Hell?

From Sandro Magister:


 by Giancarlo Pani, S.J.
[…] On Pentecost of 1994, Pope John Paul II summarized, in the apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” the outcome of a series of previous magisterial statements (including “Inter Insigniores”), concluding that Jesus has chosen only men for the priestly ministry. Therefore “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. This judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
The statement was a clear word for those who maintained that the refusal of priestly ordination for women could be discussed. Nonetheless, […] some time later, following the problems raised not so much by the doctrine as by the force with which it was presented, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented with a question: can “ordinatio sacerdotalis” be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith?” The answer was “affirmative,” and the doctrine was described as “infallibiliter proposita,” meaning that “it must be held always, everywhere, and by all the faithful.”
Difficulties with the answer’s reception have created “tensions” in relations between magisterium and theology over the connected problems. These are pertinent to the fundamental theology on infallibility. It is the first time in history that the congregation explicitly appealed to the constitution “Lumen Gentium” no. 25, which proclaims the infallibility of a doctrine that is taught as definitively binding by the bishops dispersed throughout the world but in communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter.
Moreover, the question touches upon the theology of the sacraments, because it concerns the subject of the sacrament of Orders, which traditionally is indeed man, but this does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century. This is a matter of ecclesial dignity, responsibility, and participation.
The historical fact of the exclusion of woman from the priesthood because of the “impedimentum sexus” is undeniable. Nevertheless, already in 1948, and therefore well ahead of the disputes of the 1960’s, Fr. Congar pointed out that “the absence of a fact is not a decisive criterion for concluding prudently in every case that the Church cannot do it and will never do it.”
Moreover, another theologian adds, the “consensus fidelium” of many centuries has been called into question in the 20th century above all on account of the profound sociocultural changes concerning woman. It would not make sense to maintain that the Church must change only because the times have changed, but it remains true that a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history; in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the “auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism. Today there is unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.” […]
In the judgment of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” therefore, not only should the infallibility and definitiveness of John Paul II’s “no” to women priests be brought into doubt, but more important than this “no” are the “developments that the presence of woman in the family and society has undergone in the 21st century.”
These developments - the reasoning of the magazine continues - now render incomprehensible the “rationes” for prohibitions “that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.”
“One cannot always resort to the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit. Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the courageous assumption of new perspectives.”
And Francis is the first “not to limit himself to what is already known, but wants to delve into a complex and relevant field, so that it may be the Spirit who guides the Church,” concludes “La Civiltà Cattolica,” evidently with the pope’s imprimatur.
(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)


Eirene said...

A picture is worth a thousand words! There stands a line of wannabe holier than priests females (together with a tatty looking man at the end of the line) holding up a stupid sign with a message absolutely against the teaching of the Roman Catholic. In the background is the Dome of the Church of St. Peter - presumably there to give some validation (?) to this extraordinary claim! Oh, really! Give us a break and just GO AWAY to your nearest Protestant Church! Some good ones in Sweden, I hear, where the head of the Church (prot) is a woman!
Will that cause your emotional, virtue signalling cups to overflow!!!?

Dan said...

As someone now in his fifties, I can't help but wonder if those who were my age at the time of VII felt the same kind of horror at what was happening in the Church.

The difference is PF and friends want to cause VIII all by themselves.

Dan said...

If I was politically incorrect, I might even suggest that this is all revenge by the homosexuals in the Church for being "outed" by the media.

Ana Milan said...

Soros activists, LOL?

Vox Cantoris said...


I just turned 60, I can remember as a young lad a plywood table erected one Sunday in the sanctuary. It would have been around 1964. I was told, in late 1966, "congratulations, you are the first altar boy class that does not need to learn Latin." My parents were not happy with any of it. They would have been in their 50's then.

They had not way to fight back. They were told by the suffering Pastor who baptised me, "well, they say it is Vatican II."

They had not Internet to know any better. They had no documents of Vatican II and why would they read them anyway? They trusted the Church. the priests, the bishops. They were horrified but could do little; partly, because they believed the Council was a good thing and were told it was necessary.

We do not have their excuse.

TLM said...


You got it!! My parents the same.....I remember my mom and a group of 'PTO' (Parent Teacher Organization-Catholic School) women going to the Pastor because they 'yanked out' the Communion Rails, changed the Mass, etc., etc. They were APPALLED! But, like yours, what the Pastor says is the way it is, and what the Pope says is LAW. They couldn't understand how and why God wanted it that way, but as they thought....God doesn't think like we do, and the Pope must know what he's doing......you NEVER question the Pope!! And unlike them......we can find a traditional latin Mass.....they had no such option. WE had no such option for a number of years. I believe we are the first generation of the Church Militant that God has blessed and chosen to fight this abomination. He has lifted the veil for us to see what's really going on and woe be to us if we do not take up His sacred cause!!!

Anonymous said...


Maybe they need to take a lesson from your parents (.....you NEVER question the Pope) and not question the infallible teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.


Johnno said...

Baby steps... my guess is that they'll first leverage Anglican ecumenism to familiarize Catholics with the concelebrations with women priests and bishops of the Anglicans to justify more female presence.