Explaining why women can't be priests is not anti-women

[Tantum_ergo]

I think people are overlooking something important:

The Church **has no authority to ordain women.

**This has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of Jesus, the 12 apostles, the state of ‘society’ in the first century AD, sex, power, or anything else.

**The Church has no authority to ordain women.

**Likewise, the Church has no authority to consecrate pizza and beer as the Eucharist–or tortillas and Tequila, or rice cakes and sake, or tofu and smoothies. . .etc etc.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to ‘marry’ two men to each other, or two women to each other.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to permit confession ‘over the phone’ or ‘on line’.

The point is not the reasons --**which may indeed be varied, multifaceted, and ever more deeply understood.

The point is the AUTHORITY.

Either it is given, or it is not.

If it is given, the reasons are usually quite clear, Scriptural, and traditional.

**For example, the Church **does have authority to marry a male and a female, and the ways in which it can demonstrate that authority include the authority to determine if indeed that marriage was valid. The Scripture is clear, the tradition is long-held.

The Church DOES have the authority for its priests to consecrate bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ. The Scripture, from John 6, is clear. The teaching and tradition are apostolic.

The Church DOES have the authority to confer priestly orders (again, Scripture, tradition, apostolic). Should it then, now, or ever have the authority to ordain women, this would be clearly shown, Scriptural, and traditional, and furthermore, there would never have been, be, or ‘be in future’ an absolutely opposite teaching.

**The fact that the Church has continually stated it has no authority to ordain women, from the time of the apostles, and in modern times absolutely stated by St John Paul II, and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, that the Church has no authority to ordain women would indicate that this is an infallible teaching and will not change.

It would be as though after 2000 years the Church were to solemnly declare that the Eucharist would from henceforth be confected not just as bread and wine, but also in water (so much healthier) and potato chips (to accomodate the gluten-sensitive).

It won’t happen.

Again, this is not about, and never **has been about, the innate ‘dignity’ of women, or their putative ‘inferiority’ to men.

It is SOLELY about GOD and what HE has revealed. Since God created women AND MEN, and loves each equally, it stands to reason that GOD does not ‘diss’ women by this teaching, or that HE is ‘anti-woman’.

So please stop complaining that the CHURCH is anti-women, or that it makes up these crazy rules, or has some kind of vested interest in ‘subjugating women’ or making them ‘second class’.

I’m a woman, and I have NO PROBLEM accepting God’s revelation of the Church’s authority in this. It is a great pity that so many people want to be their own POPES and want to determine what part of GOD’S TEACHING they will ‘accept’ and what they want to reject in favor of their own imperfect understanding.
**

 

[Memaw]

I think people are overlooking something important:

The Church **has no authority to ordain women.

**This has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of Jesus, the 12 apostles, the state of ‘society’ in the first century AD, sex, power, or anything else.

**The Church has no authority to ordain women.

**Likewise, the Church has no authority to consecrate pizza and beer as the Eucharist–or tortillas and Tequila, or rice cakes and sake, or tofu and smoothies. . .etc etc.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to ‘marry’ two men to each other, or two women to each other.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to permit confession ‘over the phone’ or ‘on line’.

The point is not the reasons --**which may indeed be varied, multifaceted, and ever more deeply understood.

The point is the AUTHORITY.

Either it is given, or it is not.

If it is given, the reasons are usually quite clear, Scriptural, and traditional.

**For example, the Church **does have authority to marry a male and a female, and the ways in which it can demonstrate that authority include the authority to determine if indeed that marriage was valid. The Scripture is clear, the tradition is long-held.

The Church DOES have the authority for its priests to consecrate bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ. The Scripture, from John 6, is clear. The teaching and tradition are apostolic.

The Church DOES have the authority to confer priestly orders (again, Scripture, tradition, apostolic). Should it then, now, or ever have the authority to ordain women, this would be clearly shown, Scriptural, and traditional, and furthermore, there would never have been, be, or ‘be in future’ an absolutely opposite teaching.

**The fact that the Church has continually stated it has no authority to ordain women, from the time of the apostles, and in modern times absolutely stated by St John Paul II, and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, that the Church has no authority to ordain women would indicate that this is an infallible teaching and will not change.

It would be as though after 2000 years the Church were to solemnly declare that the Eucharist would from henceforth be confected not just as bread and wine, but also in water (so much healthier) and potato chips (to accomodate the gluten-sensitive).

It won’t happen.

Again, this is not about, and never **has been about, the innate ‘dignity’ of women, or their putative ‘inferiority’ to men.

It is SOLELY about GOD and what HE has revealed. Since God created women AND MEN, and loves each equally, it stands to reason that GOD does not ‘diss’ women by this teaching, or that HE is ‘anti-woman’.

So please stop complaining that the CHURCH is anti-women, or that it makes up these crazy rules, or has some kind of vested interest in ‘subjugating women’ or making them ‘second class’.

I’m a woman, and I have NO PROBLEM accepting God’s revelation of the Church’s authority in this. It is a great pity that so many people want to be their own POPES and want to determine what part of GOD’S TEACHING they will ‘accept’ and what they want to reject in favor of their own imperfect understanding.
**

AMEN, AMEN and AMEN. God Bless, Memaw

 

[k5thbeatle]

Since posting my initial post to start this topic I would also like to add that I am trying to find words to explain that the Church is not trying to diminish women’s roles in any way.

One colleague that I converse with on this subject always throws the following out at me and I’m not sure exactly how to respond:

Galatians 3:28 says…
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Thus he believes that “men” have hijacked the faith, love and spirit that Jesus wanted us all to share…

Can you help me respond to this graciously?

 

[SerraSemper]

Since posting my initial post to start this topic I would also like to add that I am trying to find words to explain that the Church is not trying to diminish women’s roles in any way.

One colleague that I converse with on this subject always throws the following out at me and I’m not sure exactly how to respond:

Galatians 3:28 says…
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Thus he believes that “men” have hijacked the faith, love and spirit that Jesus wanted us all to share…

Can you help me respond to this graciously?

Just curious. Did you understand my point that only female virgins are allowed to become sacred virgins in the Church? Is the Church anti-man for discriminating thus against men?

 

[ChemicalBean]

Just curious. Did you understand my point that only female virgins are allowed to become sacred virgins in the Church? Is the Church anti-man for discriminating thus against men?

I see where you are going here (and I’d love to PM you privately about this vocation), but in the realm of a healthy devils-advocate discussion, perhaps yes.

You propose that the order of presbyters and the order of virgins are complementary and mutually exclusive vocations, by virtue of sex. A priest “marries” the church. A virgin “marries” Christ. Both embody an icon of this mystical marriage of Christ and the Church.

Yet, we do have married priests who are in a real sacramental marriage, even in the Roman rite. Such priests are “twice married.” But why would we allow this?

Ordination is to a responsibility/ministry/office, a “doing”. Consecration is to an identity, a “being.” These are complementary functions, but they are not exclusive to male or female sex.

Further, masculinity and femininity are complementary types, but whole and integral persons exercise both types. Even as the human body ages, men become more feminine and women become more masculine. Maturity brings about both types in one person.

Christ was virginal. God the Father is virginal in his creational generativity. While it’s easier to see “receptivity” in women, why couldn’t men represent this in a virginal state?

Likewise, Wisdom the word not-yet-incarnate was female. Christ was motherly in feeding the world with his own body (pelican-style) and giving birth to the Church on the cross. The apostle-to-apostles was a woman. While it is easier to see “donation” in men, why couldn’t women represent this in a priestly state?

I do see a great argument for the complementarity. I just don’t see a reasonable argument for mutual exclusion, and by sex. Somewhere it becomes a matter of faith and that cannot be explained.

 

[PazzoGrande]

First of all, please, I am not wanting to start any debate on why women should/should not be priests. They cannot be priests in the Catholic church.

I am looking for information and maybe looking for something that doesn’t exist? Specifically I am trying to find something that explains the reason why women cannot be priests and more importantly that the reason this is so is not anti-women or about lessening women’s roles in the church. I have a non-believing colleague that I talk with about this and I’m afraid I cannot put the reasons behind this into words eloquently enough for him to understand and hence am looking for some help.

Can anyone point me to anything that was written on this subject that might perhaps shed a better light on the topic?

Thanks and God bless.

To put it simply: Jesus didn’t ordain any priests, so we can’t either. There are zero female Apostles.

Jesus certainly could have appointed women to be Apostles – the Gospels tell us women were around – but he didn’t. Why is that? Well, we believe the Christian priesthood is a continuation of the priesthood of the Old Testament, where only men were ordained priests. There is theological meaning in continuation from our originating with the Jews.

If the Church could ordain women, it would. There’s a clerical shortage and we need priests. Yet we simply can’t. We didn’t make the rule.

Does it mean women have no power? Does it mean we want to suppress them? No, at least not ideally. News flash: the most important creation is a woman. She’s not only Queen of Heaven but also Queen of the Apostles. We get accused of worshiping Mary and get accused of suppressing women all the time. Oh, the irony.

We gotta ask, how much of the fingerpointing against the Church claiming it’s mysoginistic is just bias? Most Jewish denominations don’t have women Rabbis, yet when was the last time anybody complained their religion hates women? Never. It’s just fashionable to pin blames on the Catholic Church for everything, including imagined issues.

 

[FCEGM]

Since posting my initial post to start this topic I would also like to add that I am trying to find words to explain that the Church is not trying to diminish women’s roles in any way.

One colleague that I converse with on this subject always throws the following out at me and I’m not sure exactly how to respond:

Galatians 3:28 says…
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Thus he believes that “men” have hijacked the faith, love and spirit that Jesus wanted us all to share…

Can you help me respond to this graciously?

You might find these helpful:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a51.htm

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12019794&highlight=male+priesthood#post12019794

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8223740&highlight=male+priesthood#post8223740

 

[KP3243]

Isn’t Galatians 3 talking about who is welcome in the kingdom of God it isn’t specifically talking about the structure and vocations of the new community. If you take it to mean how your friend is, then a rabbi to speaking to about Christianity to his parish should be considered completely ok.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No kidding?!! I never knew that.
But I wonder…how many castrated men are there in the world, and of that number, how many try to be priests? If the number was large, I imagine someone would fight this one to be changed! Do we have any reports in modern day, in this century, of a castrated man wanting to be a priest and being denied?
And what if a longtime priest was diagnosed with testicular cancer and had to have them removed? Would he have to then stop being a priest?

Maybe back then, they had a lot of eunichs? But again, if someone examined this rule today, I’m thinking it would be seen as archaic and senseless…and it would be changed, as per my priest example above.

For the same reasons that if the female/priest thing is based on male-only apostles, it doesn’t make sense for today, either. He would have been making that choice in the reality of the context of the bronze-era times.
A woman wouldn’t be chosen to be Emperor of Rome then, either–we didn’t see women in those positions yet. But today, they are prime ministers and presidents. Back then we didn’t have females in any roles that we do today–doctors, teachers, business owners, etc.
But today, other areas of hiearchy in most countries and vocations of the world, we have updated these traditions with our new knowledge that women are more than capable.

Mary M did go and give sermons all over in Rome and elsewhere after Jesus died. And if the others died a martyr’s death–as per “tradition”–I suspect she did, too (actually, I bet she was smart enough to evade it).

St. Augustine–whom i see many Catholics revere-- calls her “the Apostle to the Apostles”.

.

You didn’t read the citation provided above about castration and body mutilation did you? I’ll provide it here-

"1. If anyone in sickness has undergone surgery at the hands of physicians or has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy. But if anyone in good health has castrated himself, if he is enrolled among the clergy he should be suspended, and in future no such man should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this refers to those who are responsible for the condition and presume to castrate themselves, so too if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians or by their masters, but have been found worthy, the canon admits such men to the clergy. "

and-
“5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide”

 

[PJM]

=k5thbeatle;12023830]First of all, please, I am not wanting to start any debate on why women should/should not be priests. They cannot be priests in the Catholic church.

I am looking for information and maybe looking for something that doesn’t exist? Specifically I am trying to find something that explains the reason why women cannot be priests and more importantly that the reason this is so is not anti-women or about lessening women’s roles in the church. I have a non-believing colleague that I talk with about this and I’m afraid I cannot put the reasons behind this into words eloquently enough for him to understand and hence am looking for some help.

Can anyone point me to anything that was written on this subject that might perhaps shed a better light on the topic?

Thanks and God bless.

Now SAINT John Paul II, in an Infallible pronouncement erxplains it well

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Pope John Paul II
Apostolic Letter On Reserving Priestly Ordination To Men Alone

In summary he explained the following reasons

1. Ordination is one of the Seven Sacraments ALL Instituted by Jesus Cjrist, so the Church lacks the Power and Authority to change it.

He said" cf. “I am not saying that the church will nor Ordainm women; I AM SAYING that the Church CANNOT Ordain women” [my emphasis]

1. Sacred tradition: the Church has held this teachinf=g without exception from the time of Christ choosing 12 MEN as Apostles
2. Because the Most holy Eucjarist is the REAL, substantual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ;*** who is male gender***; in order to EFFECT the Sacrament in which the words of Christ are used:

THIS IS MY BODY
THIS IS MY BLOOD

The priest MUST ALSO be male gender."

May I suggest you Google the document and read it for yourself.

God Bless you, and thanks for asking,
Patrick

 

[nunsuch]

This is not an argument about women’s ordination, but the document by St. John Paul II has never been declared to meet the criteria of infallibility. This is not to say it isn’t authoritative, but not due to infallibility.

 

[FCEGM]

This is not an argument about women’s ordination, but the document by St. John Paul II has never been declared to meet the criteria of infallibility. This is not to say it isn’t authoritative, but not due to infallibility.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING*
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic LetterOrdinatio Sacerdotalisto be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the ChurchLumen Gentium25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

 

[PJM]

=nunsuch;12037298]This is not an argument about women’s ordination, but the document by St. John Paul II has never been declared to meet the criteria of infallibility. This is not to say it isn’t authoritative, but not due to infallibility.

Actually it is:

It was a defiend teaching by the Pope on a matter of BOTH Faith and Morals, from the seat of Rome. have you read it? I have.

It’s some who choose NOT to accept its obvious teaching that continue to spread theis Rumor.

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Pope John Paul II

". Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.

From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."
**
Code of Canon Law:**

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident

Can. 750 §2.** “Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”**

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Sarcelle]

I think people are overlooking something important:

The Church **has no authority to ordain women.

**This has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of Jesus, the 12 apostles, the state of ‘society’ in the first century AD, sex, power, or anything else.

**The Church has no authority to ordain women.

**Likewise, the Church has no authority to consecrate pizza and beer as the Eucharist–or tortillas and Tequila, or rice cakes and sake, or tofu and smoothies. . .etc etc.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to ‘marry’ two men to each other, or two women to each other.

Likewise, the Church has no authority to permit confession ‘over the phone’ or ‘on line’.

The point is not the reasons --**which may indeed be varied, multifaceted, and ever more deeply understood.

The point is the AUTHORITY.

Either it is given, or it is not.

If it is given, the reasons are usually quite clear, Scriptural, and traditional.

**For example, the Church **does have authority to marry a male and a female, and the ways in which it can demonstrate that authority include the authority to determine if indeed that marriage was valid. The Scripture is clear, the tradition is long-held.

The Church DOES have the authority for its priests to consecrate bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ. The Scripture, from John 6, is clear. The teaching and tradition are apostolic.

The Church DOES have the authority to confer priestly orders (again, Scripture, tradition, apostolic). Should it then, now, or ever have the authority to ordain women, this would be clearly shown, Scriptural, and traditional, and furthermore, there would never have been, be, or ‘be in future’ an absolutely opposite teaching.

**The fact that the Church has continually stated it has no authority to ordain women, from the time of the apostles, and in modern times absolutely stated by St John Paul II, and confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI, that the Church has no authority to ordain women would indicate that this is an infallible teaching and will not change.

It would be as though after 2000 years the Church were to solemnly declare that the Eucharist would from henceforth be confected not just as bread and wine, but also in water (so much healthier) and potato chips (to accomodate the gluten-sensitive).

It won’t happen.

Again, this is not about, and never **has been about, the innate ‘dignity’ of women, or their putative ‘inferiority’ to men.

It is SOLELY about GOD and what HE has revealed. Since God created women AND MEN, and loves each equally, it stands to reason that GOD does not ‘diss’ women by this teaching, or that HE is ‘anti-woman’.

So please stop complaining that the CHURCH is anti-women, or that it makes up these crazy rules, or has some kind of vested interest in ‘subjugating women’ or making them ‘second class’.

I’m a woman, and I have NO PROBLEM accepting God’s revelation of the Church’s authority in this. It is a great pity that so many people want to be their own POPES and want to determine what part of GOD’S TEACHING they will ‘accept’ and what they want to reject in favor of their own imperfect understanding.
**

This.

I’m surprised it didn’t come up earlier in the thread.

The Church has no more authority to ordain women than I in appointing the next Supreme Court justice.

 

[Brendan]

The priesthood is male only BECAUSE God is fair and just.

In Catholic terms, a human person is a union of body and soul ( Corpre and Animus Unis). It is not a Soul occupying a body, like Plato once suggested, but what defines the human person is a soul in union with the body. Neither is complete without the other, neither is greater than the other in terms of our human ‘completeness’

We also see in God that His greatest desire is for us to spend Eternity with Him. In other words, to have Saints in Heaven with Him.

Since the human person has two realities, the biological and the ontological, we see the sexual experience in both.

The woman brings forth the biological, or more specifically, has the greater role in bringing forth the biological aspect of humanity. The priest enhances the ontological. Both operating together are what produce a saint.

We see that reality in the biological sense, where the man and the woman together, but with the woman’s unique biology, bring forth physical life.

In the Sacraments, we see the man, with his unique ontology, bring forth spiritual life. Since the body is the Form of the Soul (thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas), we know that the souls of each person are not only unique, but the souls of men and women differ as well.

Now a Platonist, who views the spiritual elements of humanity to be greater than the biological, would therefore hold that the priest has the greater role in making a saint. Not so with a Catholic. As I mentioned, we are not Platonic dualists. We are Ontologically Unitists.

Nor are we Protestants, who view the priesthood as a simply a presider role, who simply leads a congregation. In our priesthood, the priest brings forth the Sacrament of the Eucharist, an ontological reality that requires a soul that is changed and configured for exactly that purpose, as in the same way, a woman’s body is both changed and configured to bring forth biological life

We therefore see God dividing the role of the participation of His creation of new Saints to be equally and fairly divided between the sexes. And equality and fairness is a good thing

 

[PJM]

=FCEGM;12038508]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING*
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic LetterOrdinatio Sacerdotalisto be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the ChurchLumen Gentium25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

THANKS, I hadn’t seen this before!

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Jerurussia]

As presented to my then-bishop, James Patrick Keleher, sin guilt is attributed to the First Man, Adam, who had the divine grant of power and authority to obey or disobey and bring sin and death into the world. Then the Woman, here used as a title from Genesis 3:15 (which Christ used of His mother) was given a separate but intertwined divine grant of power and authority: to prosecute the war against Satan and his minions.

From Adam onward, males alone offered sacrifice to atone for the gender-linked “Sin of Adam.” To ascribe Original Sin to the Woman is a legal fiction as she had not this ultimate authority to betray; and Woman cannot make atonement for something that had nothing to do with her. Sin and death did not enter into the world when the Woman ate of the forbidden fruit. Only when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin and death came into the world. I believe it was a literal biological break as did Custance in his “Doorway Papers” available online. custance.org/

In short, it is an insult to females to suggest they should, could or may atone for the “Sin of Adam” and females grasping after the male-only priesthood or males wishing this horror upon them and the sin-guilt it entails only displays a profound foolishness.

The Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ fulfill the Woman & Seed role that is open to all the elect united in the Body of Christ. To suggest the Woman should hop up on the altar and offer, not herself, but her Child is repulsive and wrongheaded; and would not confect the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; a thoroughly satanic scenario.

 

[Memaw]

Actually it is:

It was a defiend teaching by the Pope on a matter of BOTH Faith and Morals, from the seat of Rome. have you read it? I have.

It’s some who choose NOT to accept its obvious teaching that continue to spread theis Rumor.

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Pope John Paul II

". Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.

From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate."
**
Code of Canon Law:**

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident

Can. 750 §2.** “Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church”**

God Bless you,
Patrick

Thank you and God Bless, So many Catholics don’t understand what Infallibility covers. God Bless, Memaw

 

[CathConvert2013]

As presented to my then-bishop, James Patrick Keleher, sin guilt is attributed to the First Man, Adam, who had the divine grant of power and authority to obey or disobey and bring sin and death into the world. Then the Woman, here used as a title from Genesis 3:15 (which Christ used of His mother) was given a separate but intertwined divine grant of power and authority: to prosecute the war against Satan and his minions.

From Adam onward, males alone offered sacrifice to atone for the gender-linked “Sin of Adam.” To ascribe Original Sin to the Woman is a legal fiction as she had not this ultimate authority to betray; and Woman cannot make atonement for something that had nothing to do with her. Sin and death did not enter into the world when the Woman ate of the forbidden fruit. Only when Adam ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin and death came into the world. I believe it was a literal biological break as did Custance in his “Doorway Papers” available online. custance.org/

In short, it is an insult to females to suggest they should, could or may atone for the “Sin of Adam” and females grasping after the male-only priesthood or males wishing this horror upon them and the sin-guilt it entails only displays a profound foolishness.

The Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ fulfill the Woman & Seed role that is open to all the elect united in the Body of Christ. To suggest the Woman should hop up on the altar and offer, not herself, but her Child is repulsive and wrongheaded; and would not confect the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; a thoroughly satanic scenario.

THIS makes perfect sense to me. Wish I had it in a booklet I could share with my MIL. She is baptist but speaks to my SIL a lot who I thought was Lutheran but my MIL thinks she may be episcopalian.

 

[PJM]

Memaw;12043916]Thank you and God Bless, So many Catholics don’t understand what Infallibility covers. God Bless, Memaw

Your very welcome!