Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Roman Catholic Womenpriests: Catholic Church Needs A New Pentecost of Reform and Renewal, End Clericalism Now
At our Mary Mother of Jesus Inclusive Catholic Community liturgies, the people assemble around the altar for Eucharistic Prayer and recite the Words of Consecration.
The New Pentecost has begun and all are welcome in our inclusive communities! Roman Catholic Womenpriests call for a Truth Commission made up of people of integrity, including non-ordained to start the process of procuring justice and healing in response to the global sex abuse crisis in our church. This includes the institutional church opening the priesthood to women priests, married priests and an end to mandatory celibacy.
This in my view will lead to worldwide Ecumenical Council: Vatican 111.

Bridget Mary Meehan, RCWP

Clercalims and Liturgy
Paul Philibert
"To the idea that the priest celebrates the Eucharist and that the faithful are nourished from afar, the council insisted on the contrary: “The eucharistic celebration is the center of the assembly of the faithful over which the priest presides. Hence priests [must] teach the faithful to offer the divine victim to God the Father in the sacrifice of the Mass and with the victim to make an offering of their own lives” (Presbyterorum Ordinis 5). By offering themselves and their apostolic action in the world, the faithful bring the fruit of their baptismal priesthood (which is essentially non-liturgical and lived out in the world) to the church’s fundamental act of sacrifice and self-offering to God at Mass. When this role of the faithful is denied, then Sunday Mass becomes the place where people assemble not as a priestly people offering their lives to God, but as individuals praying private devotions as they watch the priest offer sacred rites on a distant altar."

"To the idea that the faithful are sanctified uniquely through the ministries of the ordained, the “Constitution on the Church” clearly says: “The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that through all their Christian activities they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the marvels of him who has called them out of darkness into his wonderful light” (Lumen Gentium 10). In other words, the vocation that the church offers to the faithful is not a secondary role as clients of clerical ministries, but a Spirit-filled participation as pioneers in the church’s role as herald of the kingdom of God."


Anonymous said...

I don't see a person under 60 in that picture. Your movement is dying.

Second, how can one claim any sort of authority on the documents of the Church when one spits upon so many of the rubrics and the clear definitive teaching that men alone are called by God to be ordained priests?

Ravensbarque said...

Why won't the church define MALE?

Canon 1024 says only a baptized VIR (male) may be ordained. It is one of the shortest canons in all of canon law.

But, nowhere does the church define VIR. Why not?

Perhaps you can help the church out by offering a definition.

The Catholic Apologist said...


What are you? Some lawyer or something?

The Perpetual Virginity is not a defined Article of Faith, but it is an Article of Faith none the less. To deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would get you into some trouble.

Rav, you are assuming that every teaching needs an infallible proclamation in order to be binding, or even in order to be an Article of Faith. The Church only makes in infallible pronouncement when NECESSARY. In this case it is not necessary to "define" "Vir" becasue the meaning of "Vir" pretty obvious. It is not obvious to those who wish to remain in denial about the possibility that the Church in fact DOES have the authority to ordain women.

So tell you what Rav, please produce a list or lists of all the relavent document or documents which infallibly state that all Articles of Faith must be infallibly defined in order for them to be binding on the Christian Conscience.

The Catholic Apologist said...

Dr K,

Great observation! You hit the nail on the head! The movement is basically comprised of aging hippies. And they tell us we are out of date! These people are perpetually stuck in the 1970's! They haven't figured out the 1970's ended 40 years ago!

Want to know something else? The traditional groups in the Catholic Church are the ones that are experiencing the most growth! Lesson? The Church knows what she is doing, she knows where she has been, and she knows where she is going. Doing what the Church asks, leads to life, working against the Church may in the short run bring life, in the long run it brings DEATH.

Ravensbarque said...

Apologist --

I said absolutely NOTHING about perpetual virginity. I also said absolutely NOTHING about infallibility.

I simply asked for definitions. Perhaps you can offer one.

The Catholic Apologist said...


For heaven's sake! You need a definition of male?

A male, Rav, is one who is a MALE!

You know what? I can play your little game too!

Rav, please be more specific in your question. I mean to say- are you asking for a scientific definition of a male, or a philosophical definition? Please define what you mean when you say "Give me a definition of male."

Ravensbarque said...

Apologist --

Give me a theological definition. And if you can do that without including a biological definition, then let me know. And let me know the biological definition while you are at it.

To say a male is one who is a male is circular and that doesn't work anywhere.

Linda Monk said...

Okay Fellas,
You ALL are stuck on that Male thing again !

Let us just reflect back a couple of thousand years ...yes guys there were STILL males then. I am reasonably sure of that. Let us look at the custom and culture of males and females during those times. If you have studied, you will see that females were of less public "defined" need and education, amongst an entire long list of differences. Do you all really think that women are not an image of Christ ?

If you do, tell ME where it says women are NOT an image of Christ or Women are NOT in the image of Christ !

Dr. K- or Dr. Pepper or whomever you are, if you have traveled to Southern Florida you would know that a lot of retired persons live there. Your "dying" remark is a little premature in judgment ( not to mention rude and insensitive and totally against any employable ethics policy) - or have you studied the World Wide Women Priest's ...Uh...guess Not ! I am going to suggest that you studied the worldwide movement before jumping to such conclusions and for your employability sake, I suggest that you take an HR refresher course on "The dangers of Bias and how to avoid them" - just a suggestion as I know that everyone wants to remain employed. Steering clear of discriminatory practices know THAT kind of stuff.

If you post titles like "old hippiee" (wondered if I spelled that correctly ?). I will have to start classifying you.
But then again, why step down to a new low ?
You keep speaking about the church as if you know the church law and procedures..but do not cite your source - sounds like opinion and cultural to me.

But then again, I am a woman, so how or what would I know ?

Somos El Barco ! Si se puede ! La communidad de fe !

peace if you are a hippie !

Ravensbarque said...

Si, mi amiga!!!

The Catholic Apologist said...


Go right a head and classify me. In fact, I will do it myself:

I am a Republican Conservative politically, (though I do not always agree with Republican Conservative Policy) and in matters of ecclesiology I am middle right in taste, and obedient to what the Church asks even if it goes against my own personal preferences or taste.

Yes, middle right. I can tolerate a certain amount of contemperary music within Mass, whereas some of my friends abhor it completely. I am in no way "into" Latin, and definitely not into the Old Mass. This does not mean however I think those that are, are wrong, or bad. It just is not my taste.

But I am open minded- which means I will accept certain options which are in keeping within sound Liturgical Pirnciples, even though the options might not be to my taste or preference.

If washing of the feet of women on Maundy Thursday for example was permitted, I would not be closed to the idea. As it stands, the practice is not allowed, and therefore I cannot be open to the idea. The Mass is not my personal property, and therefore I have no authority over it. It certainly is not my taste- since Scripture seems clear this was a lesson most importantly for the apostles- but at the same time I would not necessarily be closed to the idea.

So Linda, you may catagorize me all you like- that is the difference between you and I- I would proudly profess what I believe and not shrink when people identify it. You are a liberal, and so is Bridget Mary, yet when identified as such, you refuse to own up to it.

Much of your theology and ideology is charastic of the 1970's. I can say the Church has moved on. You also reflect Modernistic tendencies. Correct me if I am wrong, but the way you post, and the way Bridget Mary posts, it would appear as though you do not believe Revelation possesses a transcendent, objective character, but rather believe it's meaing is derived from cultural principles and whims, and is therefore subjective in nature.

For example- "The Church should ordain women" Why? Becasue the practice of not doing so is "outdated" and "based upon cultures which were steeped in anti-feminist values." Whereas the Church would hold the practice of not ordaining women is NOT based on custom, but rather Divine Will.

If you want to be liberal, then BE LIBERAL- but for heaven's sake, done't deny it and claim I am "putting you into a box!"

I don't mean to imply you agree with everything of a liberal agenda, but you certainly exhibit more liberal tendencies then conservative in your thinking. I have identified that,

Linda Monk said...

I did not ask you to classify me.
My statement of classification was made in "Jest" as you called the people in the photo "Old Hippiees" !
When I tease you, you go over board !
IF I would care to classify you, it would not include any of the terms that you used to describe and advertise yourself. Those terms are neither accepted, defined, or scientific.
I was going to classify you using a DSM IV - or DSM 4 coding.
You do not know law of the church, you do not know State law, and you ramble about your supped up "Let's say" situations.
No one, after reading your ramblings on this Blog - let alone your own blog, really cares what you think.
I am really thinking that you have power and women issues. I am not sure whom you deplore the most at this point, myself or Bridget Mary, but give it a rest, you are not acting in a healthy way.
I did post on your Blog on one of the Holy Days that you said you were not posting. I talked about INVOLVEMENT to help in change. At this point that would be a welcome solution as ANYONE can ramble on and on, but a real servant is an active servant of the Lord !
Salud y paz !

Ravensbarque said...

Linda --


The Catholic Apologist said...


Your response is so typical of people like you! You don't agree with me, and so you resort to telling me I have "issues." In some ways this reminds me of what I have read in "Goodbye Good Men." Seminarians who loved the Church, and were proud of what she stands for were sent to the shrink and told they had "issues" in the liberal seminaries.

No, it can't possibly be that I believe what I say. I can't possibly be that I have actually considered other positions and believe the position of the Church to be the true position. No, it must be that I have women issues and power issues!

As for the "jest" perhaps I did take it too seriously- but that is the problem with the internet. You can't always tell when someone means something in jest.

You tell me that I am not "acting in a healthy way." Oh? And Bridget Mary is with her grand total of four themes she constantly regurgitates on this blog? Every day there are posts on the same theme- women should be ordained, Magesterium outdated and bad, the church covered up sex abuse, women should be in charge. That IS healthy? I have issues but Bridget Mary doesn't? I have power issues but Bridget Mary doesn't?

Well, I am not a psycologist so I cannot pronounce on Bridget Mary's psycological state, nor your's for that matter. You are what you are, I am what I am. I simply deal with what Bridget Mary claims and what you claim, and I like talking to you. I would not say I dislike Bridget Mary, nor you. I have never met you nor her. I am sure if I ever did meet Bridget Mary I would be polite and respectable, just the same with you.

No one may care what I have to say Linda, but I care what I have to say. As for defining terms, we can play that game all night. Well how do you define X? How do you define Y? Linda, my name is not Bill Clinton, and I am not a former President. I know what IS means. I don't need to play word games.