A woman priest reflects on her 10-year anniversary

You have nothing to fear, as she explicitly states that she has no further desire to reconcile with the RC Church. Which is a shame, because we could use more priests like her. It should bother everyone that the Roman Catholic Church believes that a penis is necessary to be a good priest, which is ironic considering how much trouble that particular organ has caused the Church.

Her ordination is "totally invalid" in the eyes of the R.C. Catholic Church, yes. But in the eyes of God, it may very well be valid. I tend to think this is true.

RIGHT ON! You can decide to call an elephant a goat, but that doesn't actually make it a goat!

To use the term 'priest' is hilarious, as Catholics we all know only men can be ordained priests. You could call them ministers, then they wouldn't be Catholic at all.

my turn next
By Diogenes | September 13, 2007 9:23 AM

Newsweek has vouchsafed us an interview with Jessica Rowley, an energetic young woman who is, Newsweek tells us, a Catholic priest.

Let the magazine explain; I couldn't make this stuff up by myself:

"Rowley’s ordination—which took place at Eden Theological Seminary, a progressive institution in Webster Groves, Mo.—is approved by the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, a group of churches that decline to recognize the authority of the pope but see themselves nevertheless as Roman Catholic."

Right. Absolutely. And I think the Ecumenical Catholic Communion even has a post-office box, too.

The teaser on the Newsweek web site reads: "Woman Explains Choice to Be Catholic Priest." Next week, in that space, look for the article about me: "Man Explains Choice to Be Archduke."

If you're free, you're cordially invited to my coronation, which will take place this Friday night at the Dew Drop Inn, a progressive institution in Yonkers, NY, under the auspices of the Monarchist Restoration Society, which is not recognized by the current government of Austria, but then what the heck, we don't recognize them, either.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=4376

As a Gnostic priest, I must comment that the ordination passed from Bishops must be valid, but not licit, as is true of Anglicans and Gnostics. A valid Bishop ordains validly. No?

Calling anon: The shuttle of God's Justice aiming for Rome's GAG-hysterium is scheduled to crash-land on your bigoted excuse for faith. Amen.

Anonymous: I find Mary Ramerman to be a woman of faith and conviction! She reveals much courage in responding to the call from God to be and become a "Catholic priest." I find her ministry to be valid and filled with inspiration. It is no longer a dream: Women have stepped up to the plate and are priests!

While you're at it, also pray for holy Mother Church who denies herself the gifts that this woman-- and many others-- has, by the grace of God, to offer. In refusing their gifts the church is ensuring that it will never be at "shalom," peace in the sense of being whole and complete.

as I daily pray for yours, my dearest colleague, Clint, novaki amice.

What does it mean to be in the Universal Church?
Jesus founded one Church – the community of believers in Him as the Son of God and Redeemer of fallen humanity. What happened after that was simply that fallen humanity has had a long time to distort the message and turn the Church from an assembly into an institution.
There are some basic and solid issues that were thrashed out very early in the life of the Church. If we look to Scripture we find in the Acts of the Apostles the dispute between the Jewish Church, based in Jerusalem, and the Gentile Church of Paul’s missions (Acts 15: 5‐12). These disputes were about observance – nothing of theology, just practice – and yet they give us the truth of the early Church. Paul “went up to Jerusalem again” (Galatians 2:1) and in discussion with the other Apostles reached agreement on how they should act towards those they called “pagans”.
Throughout the first several centuries of the life of the Church this was the way all decisions were made – by meeting, discussion and consensus. The process we now call “collegiality”. As the Church spread through the Roman Empire and numbers of communities grew these meetings became what we now call Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical because they involved all the leaders of the communities and what was agreed at these Councils was binding on all the faithful. Throughout this period the Bishop of Rome was considered as successor
of Saint Peter to have a primacy of honour that meant he was, effectively, the chairman at these Councils.
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, as commonly understood, are:
1. FirstCouncilofNicaea(325) 2. FirstCouncilofConstantinople(381) 3. CouncilofEphesus(431) 4. CouncilofChalcedon(451) 5. SecondCouncilofConstantinople(553) 6. ThirdCouncilofConstantinople(680) 7. SecondCouncilofNicaea(787)
These Councils, all Christians agreed, were the meetings that defined what was necessary to be believed for salvation. The faith they agreed was summed up in what we now call the Nicene Creed. It was also understood that nothing could be added to or taken away from that Creed without the agreement of an Ecumenical Council.
As the Roman Empire went into decline divisions started to appear in the Church that mirrored the politics of the Empire, the main division being between East and West, between Constantinople and Rome. Things came to a head in 1085 when the Rome‐based Church wished to change the Nicene Creed by adding one word “filioque” in the passage referring to the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Churches saw this as making the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and Son, and they objected. Cutting a long story short this bitter dispute ended in mutual excommunication that lasted until the 1970s and a division and mistrust that still endure.
The central point is that the essentials of faith were defined by Ecumenical Council and no such gathering has happened since 787. The later Roman Councils have been called Ecumenical but truly are not because of the exclusion of the Eastern Churches. Their proclamations and decrees cannot be seen as binding on the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that contains and embraces the whole of Christendom.
For this reason alone any later decrees of Popes and Councils may be seen as mere guidance and not true dogma.
The most contentious statements of Rome are regarding the issues of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. In order to understand these more fully we must look at the First Vatican Council, its context and its history.
The context of the Council is an imperial church under threat – the unifying armies of Italy were swallowing up the Papal States and Pius IX was losing his worldly realm. The Council was primarily a political attempt to re‐assert the position of the Roman Church in a changing world. The Council convened in December 1869 and lasted until September 1870. It produced only two agreed Constitutions – one on the Catholic Faith and the second on Papal Primacy and Infallibility.
The first of these documents was intended to bolster the position of the Roman Catholic Church, but its wording is such that it can be seen as an understanding of the “Catholic” faith in the wider sense and therefore is not for deeper consideration here.
The second topic caused wide and uncomfortable dispute among the assembled bishops and it is apparent from the documents and transcripts of that Council that agreement was unlikely. In fact it was more than likely that the concept of personal primacy and infallibility would be rejected, primarily by the bishops of what we now call the new and emerging worlds. In the summer of 1870 Pius suspended the Council and the bishops began their journeys homeward. When Pius then unexpectedly re‐convened the Council it was almost entirely the European bishops that attended the final sessions – the very bishops who had aligned themselves with Pius in the earlier sessions. This “rump” of the Council acclaimed the personal primacy and – worse – the personal infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Head of the Universal Church.
All of this history is documented fact to be found in the records of the Council itself. Even without the absence of the Eastern churches this final session of the first Council of the Vatican was a sham, an artifice to provide a politically weak
institution with a moral stature that it would utilise to replace the political power it had so long wielded with a moral one.
I have not touched on other dogmas declared by Rome, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary since both of these were wide‐spread pious beliefs held throughout the whole church and its history and simply did not need to be declared “essential to salvation”.
Most certainly it is not a part of the ancient faith that we preach to the modern world that belief in the supremacy and infallibility of one man (other than Jesus, of course!) should be essential to salvation.

Sorry I left a few lines about the ordination of women out of first post.

What does it mean to be in the Universal Church?
Jesus founded one Church – the community of believers in Him as the Son of God and Redeemer of fallen humanity. What happened after that was simply that fallen humanity has had a long time to distort the message and turn the Church from an assembly into an institution.
There are some basic and solid issues that were thrashed out very early in the life of the Church. If we look to Scripture we find in the Acts of the Apostles the dispute between the Jewish Church, based in Jerusalem, and the Gentile Church of Paul’s missions (Acts 15: 5‐12). These disputes were about observance – nothing of theology, just practice – and yet they give us the truth of the early Church. Paul “went up to Jerusalem again” (Galatians 2:1) and in discussion with the other Apostles reached agreement on how they should act towards those they called “pagans”.
Throughout the first several centuries of the life of the Church this was the way all decisions were made – by meeting, discussion and consensus. The process we now call “collegiality”. As the Church spread through the Roman Empire and numbers of communities grew these meetings became what we now call Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical because they involved all the leaders of the communities and what was agreed at these Councils was binding on all the faithful. Throughout this period the Bishop of Rome was considered as successor
of Saint Peter to have a primacy of honour that meant he was, effectively, the chairman at these Councils.
The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, as commonly understood, are:
1. FirstCouncilofNicaea(325) 2. FirstCouncilofConstantinople(381) 3. CouncilofEphesus(431) 4. CouncilofChalcedon(451) 5. SecondCouncilofConstantinople(553) 6. ThirdCouncilofConstantinople(680) 7. SecondCouncilofNicaea(787)
These Councils, all Christians agreed, were the meetings that defined what was necessary to be believed for salvation. The faith they agreed was summed up in what we now call the Nicene Creed. It was also understood that nothing could be added to or taken away from that Creed without the agreement of an Ecumenical Council.
As the Roman Empire went into decline divisions started to appear in the Church that mirrored the politics of the Empire, the main division being between East and West, between Constantinople and Rome. Things came to a head in 1085 when the Rome‐based Church wished to change the Nicene Creed by adding one word “filioque” in the passage referring to the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Churches saw this as making the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father and Son, and they objected. Cutting a long story short this bitter dispute ended in mutual excommunication that lasted until the 1970s and a division and mistrust that still endure.
The central point is that the essentials of faith were defined by Ecumenical Council and no such gathering has happened since 787. The later Roman Councils have been called Ecumenical but truly are not because of the exclusion of the Eastern Churches. Their proclamations and decrees cannot be seen as binding on the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that contains and embraces the whole of Christendom.
For this reason alone any later decrees of Popes and Councils may be seen as mere guidance and not true dogma. Old Catholics have chosen to ordain women and they are part of the Apostolic Church. Recently Greek Orthodox has chosen to ordain women deacons. The idea that their is no authority to do comes simply from a prejudice against women and is misogynistic and sinful.
The most contentious statements of Rome are regarding the issues of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. In order to understand these more fully we must look at the First Vatican Council, its context and its history.
The context of the Council is an imperial church under threat – the unifying armies of Italy were swallowing up the Papal States and Pius IX was losing his worldly realm. The Council was primarily a political attempt to re‐assert the position of the Roman Church in a changing world. The Council convened in December 1869 and lasted until September 1870. It produced only two agreed Constitutions – one on the Catholic Faith and the second on Papal Primacy and Infallibility.
The first of these documents was intended to bolster the position of the Roman Catholic Church, but its wording is such that it can be seen as an understanding of the “Catholic” faith in the wider sense and therefore is not for deeper consideration here.
The second topic caused wide and uncomfortable dispute among the assembled bishops and it is apparent from the documents and transcripts of that Council that agreement was unlikely. In fact it was more than likely that the concept of personal primacy and infallibility would be rejected, primarily by the bishops of what we now call the new and emerging worlds. In the summer of 1870 Pius suspended the Council and the bishops began their journeys homeward. When Pius then unexpectedly re‐convened the Council it was almost entirely the European bishops that attended the final sessions – the very bishops who had aligned themselves with Pius in the earlier sessions. This “rump” of the Council acclaimed the personal primacy and – worse – the personal infallibility of the Pope as Supreme Head of the Universal Church.
All of this history is documented fact to be found in the records of the Council itself. Even without the absence of the Eastern churches this final session of the first Council of the Vatican was a sham, an artifice to provide a politically weak
institution with a moral stature that it would utilise to replace the political power it had so long wielded with a moral one.
I have not touched on other dogmas declared by Rome, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary since both of these were wide‐spread pious beliefs held throughout the whole church and its history and simply did not need to be declared “essential to salvation”.
Most certainly it is not a part of the ancient faith that we preach to the modern world that belief in the supremacy and infallibility of one man (other than Jesus, of course!) should be essential to salvation.

CLint croaks: 'Mother Church. In the meantime, I will also pray for the poor souls she is misleading into formal schism with Mother Church."

Notice he curtails the traditional Holy Mother Church, or Our Holy Mother Church, as after being put out on the corner for profit by the simoniac wojo and ratzo, these misogynists no longer call her Holy.

And yet she remains so ever to us who love her deeply, Our Holy Mother Church.

Meanwhile what Clint and crew have against their mother is for them to work out, not to denigrate and abuse and pimp any further Our Holy Mother Church by their own petty and personal resentments

The child rapists have not repented their sins, nor served time in jail. The priests who managed the cover up continue with their excuses and have not repented nor served time in jail for their crimes.
No,I am not obligated to forgive them. There are unforgivable sins, and child rape is one of them.

Who says we're free to leave, Regina? Just you?

LRC claims: "You seem to have a problem with male leadership". That is not obvious from my reading. She has an issue with the exclusion of females in ordained service. There is a mountain of difference.

"You seem to have a problem with male leadership"?

I'd say that comment is condescending and disingenuous, at best, when referring to a patently misogynist organization whose leadership affirmed, in the latter half of the 20th century, that women's only two proper roles in life and society were virgin and breeder.

I have never been asked as I approached the altar for communion if I were gay, straight, republican or democrat. The argument that gays are not welcome is phony. The Church will love the sinner, but not the sin.