Explaining female ordination

[Petaro]

This implies that I am not faithful, with is judgmental and indicates that you simply do not understand anything I am saying. It’s also typical of many people to start accusing and name-calling when they can’t defend their own point of view.

The fact is I simply stated something that is the Truth: The Church cannot ordain woman, and the Church does not know why that is the case. Those that disagree simply have personal opinions.

Furthermore, a faithful Catholic can study and ask questions to learn. Deacons do it, priests do it, and bishops do it. I seriously doubt you would make the same accusations against them.

I did not imply. You simply inferred. The fact is that you simply stated something that is not the truth!
That the Church does not know why it cannot ordain women is just not true!

There is nothing wrong with a faithful Catholic studying and asking questions. But yours was not a question, but a mistaken statement of what you claim to be true without seeming to have done any research you state is so legitimate for a faithful Catholic.

 

[livingwordunity]

You make some interesting points. This issue gives us the opportunity to explain the difference between Catholicism and those pagan religions.

Christian theology vs. Pagan theology

To understand why we pray “Our Father” and not “Our Mother” and why women are not called to Ordained Priesthood consider:

Christianity does not teach that God the Father is male, but rather that He is pure spirit without sex. We refer to Him in masculine terms because He was revealed to us by the Son in that manner. Besides that, referring to the godhead in feminine terms is consistent with pagan theology, but it does not fit with Christianity. For example, Hindus believe that all creation is part of god. They view the world as being created out of the very substance of god.

The Latin derivation for “mother” is “mater” (think of maternal etc.) It means origin, source, or the substance out of which something is made. Also see the derivation for “matter.” Both words “mother” and “matter” come from the same word. If we had a Mother god, as pagans do, then that would imply that we are made out of the same substance of that god. Hence we would be gods ourselves.

However, Christians have a God who is Father. His creation is something outside of Himself. And the male and female symbolism tell us something about God and who He is and who we are. Unlike pagans, God transcends the universe. He is not part of it. And Divine revelation tells us about our relationship with God by describing Him as the Groom and the Church as the bride.

It has been said that Jesus is the most un-original person to have lived. He only did what He saw the Father doing. John 5:19 His Mother is the holiest human being. (Jesus is a Divine Being –Person). Yet, Jesus chose not to ordain her or any other woman. And so the Church has no choice but to follow Jesus’ example.

Gender is a lot more than just a set of sex organs.

To really answer this question we need to study the following:
What is a Priest?
What is Sacrifice?
What is a Vocation?
What is a Sacrament?

The small booklet reproduced digitally below answers these important questions.

**Letter To Marianne On The Ordination Of Women **
By Maureen Mullins

Because Protestants often don’t understand these issues they often act more like the pagans in having women priestesses.

.

That’s a really good answer. But no matter how good the explanation some people will still continue to be obsessed with this because they want the forbidden fruit.

 

[mdcpensive1]

That’s a really good answer. But no matter how good the explanation some people will still continue to be obsessed with this because they want the forbidden fruit.

That is an excellent observation. I have been in situations where explanations are given but they are just put aside because they still want the forbidden fruit. Thanks.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That is an excellent observation. I have been in situations where explanations are given but they are just put aside because they still want the forbidden fruit. Thanks.

Well, sometimes they really don’t think it’s forbidden because “It’s not an INFALLIBLE statement from the Pope” and “The Church has CHANGED STUFF before”.

(Both of which premises, while they contain an element of truth, are wrong in this regard because they are not the ONLY things to consider).

First, not every infallible teaching in the Church is made through “an infallible statement from the Pope”. Many infallible teachings are found in the Creeds, or as part of the deposit of the faith.

And second, the changes the Church can make are disciplines (The Church can allow married priests, for example, if the Holy Spirit guides her in that direction, because there is nothing that dogmatically requires a priest to be celibate. The Church, for pastoral reasons, can require celibacy. . .OR can eliminate that requirement. .

And abstinence from meat on non-Lent Fridays is the Universal Norm, but bishops can, and have, requested an indult for their flocks on non-Lent Fridays, The whole reason they have to request that ‘indult’ means that this is a departure FROM THE NORM, but it is a discipline, not a dogma. (And eating meat itself was never sinful. Disobeying a bishop who asked for abstinence on a given time was the sin, not the meat eating in and of itself).

People who just look (or are told) that "The Church has changed X, why not this?’ without realizing what changes can or cannot be made, or who are convinced that only in one way are they ‘bound’ to obey a given teaching, often do so from ignorance at first. If after being shown the reasons they persist in the ignorance, it’s a little more problematic.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Well, sometimes they really don’t think it’s forbidden because “It’s not an INFALLIBLE statement from the Pope” and “The Church has CHANGED STUFF before”.

(Both of which premises, while they contain an element of truth, are wrong in this regard because they are not the ONLY things to consider).

First, not every infallible teaching in the Church is made through “an infallible statement from the Pope”. Many infallible teachings are found in the Creeds, or as part of the deposit of the faith.

And second, the changes the Church can make are disciplines (The Church can allow married priests, for example, if the Holy Spirit guides her in that direction, because there is nothing that dogmatically requires a priest to be celibate. The Church, for pastoral reasons, can require celibacy. . .OR can eliminate that requirement. .

And abstinence from meat on non-Lent Fridays is the Universal Norm, but bishops can, and have, requested an indult for their flocks on non-Lent Fridays, The whole reason they have to request that ‘indult’ means that this is a departure FROM THE NORM, but it is a discipline, not a dogma. (And eating meat itself was never sinful. Disobeying a bishop who asked for abstinence on a given time was the sin, not the meat eating in and of itself).

People who just look (or are told) that "The Church has changed X, why not this?’ without realizing what changes can or cannot be made, or who are convinced that only in one way are they ‘bound’ to obey a given teaching, often do so from ignorance at first. If after being shown the reasons they persist in the ignorance, it’s a little more problematic.

Yes, I have heard all those excuses. It makes me wonder if anyone has written a book on refuting excuses of Catholics for not believing ???