July 16, 1994
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel

We know that in recent weeks, the Conciliar Church has ratified the use of girl servers in their liturgical rites. This seems to be in response to the question as to whether women may be ordained priests. In the Catholic Church, before Vatican II, the role of woman is clearly defined. There was no attempt of usurping a role they did not have; they understood their role. Could a woman ever conceive of representing Christ, the God-Man? Could a mother ever represent God, the Father? By nature they were excluded by such a role and enjoyed being “the handmaid of the Lord.” Unfortunately, with Vatican II, this role had become very cloudy and uncertain and even denied. Invited as consultants during the Council, they were soon sitting commissions and invited to be elected in so-called Parish Councils. This evolved, when men were introduced as lay-deacons, to the office of “lector” and, finally of “Eucharistic ministers” [N.B., there is no practical distinction between a lay deacon and a Eucharistic minister, only one is named attached to the male and the other to the female]. Could a woman go another step, to the step of priesthood? For, as you see, she apparently has assimilated the deaconate. The Conciliar Church, I believe, found itself in a predicament and optioned to distract the controversy by “officially” (since altar girls were everywhere in use) sanctioning the use of altar girls. This would not be shocking, for as a modernist priest of Notre Dame University stated, woman are already lectors and Eucharistic ministers. The sight of woman performing liturgical actions in the sanctuary was becoming customary, but the acting the role of presider was not yet acceptable to the traditionally minded majority.

Yet, according to these same, it can be done as it is only disciplinary rule of the Church, and as the Mass has been changed, as women now minister several of the Sacraments, so also will they soon be entitled to minister all the Sacraments. Can we agree with them that this is only a mere law of the Church, that can be abrogated when the ideology of the day is more acceptable to feminist rule? This brings us back to the question now under discussion. Can a woman be a doctor of the Church? This is not to be confused with, say, a Doctor of Medicine, giving to one who has mastered the art of medicine, or any other human science. This touches upon a rule of being a teacher, that is, part of Magisterium of the Church. And it is thus, we should applied it to when we speak of Paul VI he bestowed the title of Doctor of the Church upon two of the greatest woman writers enrolled in the Canon of the Saints. Definitely it was an Ecclesiastical Decree and the title of the Doctor of the Church received it’s official and liturgical sanction from Boniface VIII (1298) in his sixth book of the Decretals and confirmed by Pope Benedict XIV [Apostolic Constitution, Militantes Ecclesia, October 13th, 1754], and not of Apostolic Institution. Yet, the understanding of the Church is clear in these words of Pope Benedict XIV:

“God, Who created and governs the Church Militant, Who found it on the Apostles and the Prophets and willed that it should rest on Christ as the principal cornerstone, also wisely saw to it that holy and eminent Doctors should watch over defend it to the end of time. Not only were they to guide the lives of the faithful to sanctify and justice by the example of the most sublime virtue, but also, by means of their vigor and the excellence of their doctrine they were to preserve the faithful in the sincerity of their faith and in the truth of the knowledge of salvation.” The Universal Master and Doctor show that He attached such importance to their work as to call them the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Not only were they, as the other shepherds of the holy people, to the provide for the salvation of their contemporaries by the ministry of the living word, but, adorned by the Holy Spirit with an extraordinary light of wisdom, they were also by means of the learned books to instruct the entire Church and teach religion throughout the ages.
For this reason, the Church herself, filled with the Spirit of her Spouse and careful to guard His teachings has usually bestowed on these glorious men, endowed by God with a greater gift of doctrine, special honors. In the solemnities both of the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Ecclesiastical Offices celebrated on their feast days, the Church orders prayers, lessons and panegyrics in which the title Doctor is attributed
to them and their wisdom and doctrine especially exalted.”

Therefore, according to Pope Benedict XIV promulgating that decreed by Pope Boniface VIII, the Doctors of the Church are not only to be teachers in the hierarchical sense, but also teachers of tradition. It is necessary to reflect upon this, because, as even those within the Conciliar Church must confess, Vatican II with it’s interpretation of Catholic Dogma an institution of a new liturgy is a break from tradition.

Let us go to the traditional understanding of the role of women in the Church [here we are speaking only of her role in the Church as an institution]. St. Paul writes in I Timothy Chapter 2 8:15,

“I wish, then, that the men pray everywhere, lifting up your hands without wrath and contention. In like manner I wish women to be decently dressed, adorning themselves with modesty and dignity, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothing, but with good works such as become women professing godliness. Let a woman learn silence with all submission. For I do not allow a woman to teach,
or exercise authority over men: But she is to keep quite. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and was in sin. Yet women will be saved by child bearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with modesty.”

And in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14, verses 33:35

“Thus I likewise teach in all the churches of the saints. Let woman keep silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be submissive as the Law also says. But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is unseemly for a woman to speak in church.”

“This Paul VI denies having done by saying: ‘this has not been done without reference to St. Paul severe words: ‘Let a woman keeps silence in the churches’ [1 Corinthians. XIV.34]. This still signifies today that woman is not meant to have hierarchical functions of teaching and ministering in the Church.” [Noi Abbiamo Conferito, TPS, 15 (1970), 218-22; Observatore Romano 41 Oct. 8, 1970}. But we know these are empty words, because women have a hierarchical role and do minister in the Vatican II Church, whether they be on the Parish Council or as a lector or Eucharistic Minister, or altar girl.

Therefore, we must ask if the Apostolic Tradition and these words of St. Paul can be cast aside as a mere rules of no consequence? I believe not, and to consent to even this inroad upon the integrity of the role of the Hierarchy (Bishops, priests, deacons) even upon this point would be the dire admittance of women into all realms of the Ecclesiastical offices to teach, to sanctify, and to rule, contrary to the faith and therefore implying an heretical belief. This has been the consequence since Vatican II, since all the Ecclesiastical Laws, (which apparently even Christ precept’s are confined) are subject to change according to the interpretation in the modernist understanding. It is a denial of that which the Church has constantly held concerning the role of women, for even, under the title “women”, we can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The same Apostle who so energetically maintained a personal independence of women, forbids to women authoritative speech in the religious assemblies and supremacy over men; (1 Tim. ii. 11, 12). Nevertheless, personalities like Pulcheria, Hildegrade, Catherine of Sienna, Theresa of Jesus, show how great the extraordinary, indirect influence of women can be in the domain of the Church.
[The Catholic Encyclopedia, bol. 15 XV, New York, 1909 p. 691]

But, on September 27th 1970, when Paul VI proclaimed St. Theresa of Avila a “Doctor of the Church”, he acknowledge the departure from tradition (why else would it be an historical event), saying: “[U] pon the act We have just performed – that deed we are inserting into Churches history and which We entrust to the piety and reflection of the People of God [a term never defined but applied to all men by Vatican II Theology]. We referred to the bestowal of the title of Doctor upon Theresa of Avila…” [ibid.]. And he uses this opportunity to promote his changes “it comes to us children of the Church at a time marked by great effort and reform an renewal of liturgical prayer” [ibid.] Paul VI’ s response to breaking tradition:

“No. In reality it is not a matter of a title entailing hierarchical teaching functions: but at the same time We must point out that this does not in the least signify a lesser appreciation of the sublime mission which women have in the mist of the People of God. On the contrary, having entered into being apart of the Church through Baptism, women partakes of the common priesthood of the faithful. This enables obliges her to “profess before men the faith received from God through the Church.” [cf. Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, no. 11]. So many women have reached the highest summits in such profession of faith, to the point that their words and writings have given light and guidance to their brethren…[Paul VI, op. cit. ].”

The above is the same rhetoric that has constantly been used to destroy the distinction between the priesthood and the laity. And in his homily (definitely in itself no dogmatic pronouncement) for the occasion of proclaiming St. Catherine of Sienna a “Doctor of the Church”, he, uses her filial obedience to the papacy as the grounds for submission to his innovation: “Most Holy Father…you know the great necessity for you and for Holy Church to keep this people (of Florence) in obedience and reverence to Your Holiness, since here is the head and the beginning of our faith.” [La Spiritualla esultanza, TPS 15 (1970), 196 – 202; Observatory Romano part 42 Oct. 15, 1970; Letter 170 in homily]. This can be understood only as a representative of Christ. Who is the Truth and object of our Faith, in as much as the Pope holds to the true Faith. But, Paul VI did not, and even proceeds this quote with the words: “almost anticipating not only the doctrine but also the very language of the Second Vatican Council” [Paul VI, op. cit. ]. Not Christ’s doctrine but Vatican Council II! Not “to preserve the faithful in the sincerity of their faith and in the truth of the knowledge of salvation” [Pope Benedict XIV, op. cit.], but “for reform of the Church” [Paul VI, op. cit.] Vatican II style.
It is absolutely heretical to proclaim a woman a Doctor of the Church? One can only say that it is contrary to Tradition to Sacred Scripture to the Constitution of the Church and implies a role given to women not even given by her nature. May I conclude with these words taken from Isaias [iii. 12]:

As for my people, their oppressors have stripped them, and women have ruled over them. O my people, they call thee blessed, the same deceive thee and destroy the way of thy steps.

But what of which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: ” And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,..” Acts 2:17.
Yes my friends as long as what is being spoken conforms with the MIND of the CHURCH and the One God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Grace be with you through Mary our hope in Christ,

Joseph Bruno Dominic Saraceno