Female ordination in light of Vatican II

[Yggdrasil]

One of the primary arguments put forth against the Church allowing female priests is that there is no precedence for such a thing. It is said that the inclusion of females among the clergy is not hallowed by tradition.

And yet, so much that was never traditionally sanctioned was in fact permitted by either the Second Vatican Council or its subsequent popes. When, for example, in the Church’s long history, were the words of the consecration of the wine recorded as including “for you and for all”? Not a single extant liturgical text, either or Eastern or Latin Rite, attests to “for all” in the sacramental form. This appears to be nothing other than a complete rupture from the Church’s tradition. Lest we forget, this is the very form of the Eucharist—which is at least as serious a business as the gender of the clergy. If radical change of this magnitude is permissible, why is the proposal for clergywomen considered so non-negotiable?

John Paul II wrote: “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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis §4). Now that’s fine, but St. Pius V made a declaration of his own: “if the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament” (De Defectibus §20). If St. Pius V can be blithely ignored, why not John Paul II? In light of the apparently endless waves of scandals that suggest institutional rot, it seems the hierarchy could benefit from a female perspective a lot more than the faithful could benefit from a sacrament of doubtful validity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And yet, so much that was never traditionally sanctioned was in fact permitted by either the Second Vatican Council or its subsequent popes. When, for example, in the Church’s long history, were the words of the consecration of the wine recorded as including “for you and for all”? Not a single extant liturgical text, either or Eastern or Latin Rite, attests to “for all” in the sacramental form.

A problem I see here in this argument is that “for you and for all” is a translation. The Latin, which is the official text, does not say this.

Also the new Missal which was just approved by Rome fixes this and returns the English translation to “for many”.

Also, what must be noted is that even the “for all” is not against Church Tradition,

The sacrifice of the Mass is for all but is only efficacious for many.

 

[StillWondering]

Yeah it’s a translation issue. In the Vietnamese translation there are distinct differences in the text. It really helps for someone like me who is a learner to see the differences. It’s like saying a shadow can help to understand light more.

 

[Garyjohn2]

but St. Pius V made a declaration of his own: “if the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament”

I don’t think adding “for all” instead of “for many” changes the wording so it does “not mean the same thing.” It’s still being shed, so that sins may be forgiven. That’s the whole point. The meaning is still there, its not changed.

Therefore, I don’t think having a minor change of 1 word in a sentence of over a dozen words violates the words of Pope Pius V (even if it is a bad translation). I don’t think this can be compared to completely violating the words of Pope John Paul II and doing the exact opposite of what he said, by ordaining women priests.

You know what I mean? I don’t think its solid logic. These two things aren’t so similar.

 

[scylla]

Vatican II did not call for a crummy translation to be made, it just happened and now is being corrected. We are human and Churchmen can make poor decisions we can certainly discuss if decisions are good or bad. I personally feel there have been, many, many poor decisions over the last 40 or so years, yet that is nothing new, there have been poor decisions done by all Catholics for the last 2000 years.

The Latin texts were accurate and are accurate, all Priests have the option to use Latin in the new Mass (the Ordinary form of the Mass) anyways so really it seems to be a moot point. It can be argued that the new Mass is a poor implementation of Vatican II or a good implementation, but there really is no denying that the original texts in Latin of the official Mass are valid. The New Mass done properly is valid.

In the same way Vatican II did not change any part of the faith, so as that would apply to the Mass, this would also apply to female ordination. To promote female ordination is to deny the Priesthood of Jesus and against the Catholic faith. It is something that the Church does not have the ability to change and we should be faithful to that.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[cctabb]

I agree it is a translation issue.

I do not know how a mentally healthy woman’s perspective would be any different than a mentally healthy man’s perspective.

What many people don’t understand that back in the day the mentality of preserving the church from scandal was first and foremost in the minds of those in charge. It has come back to bite them in the tushie in triplicate.

Now those that are in charge are doing what ever is humanly possible to fix things for the victims who are now adults. Should this have happened back when it was found out? Yes. Would a woman in church authority have prevented this? No.

If you think that just because one is a woman that one does not sexually violate children, you need to read more news. There are more teachers and administrators in schools violating children then there ever were priests. No, I do not have statistics. If you do a bit of googling you can do the math yourself and see.

Women priests won’t fix the problems the church is facing today.

 

[Lormar]

I was about to ask what this topic had to do with traditional catholicism. Then I saw it was you, Yggsy.

Carry on!

 

[centurionguard]

A problem I see here in this argument is that “for you and for all” is a translation. The Latin, which is the official text, does not say this.

Also the new Missal which was just approved by Rome fixes this and returns the English translation to “for many”.

Also, what must be noted is that even the “for all” is not against Church Tradition,

The sacrifice of the Mass is for all but is only efficacious for many.

The sacrifice of the Mass is for all but is only efficacious for many.

Exactly; Jesus never said that

ALL

were Saved.

Noted is the erroneous wording in the Eucharistic Liturgy heard in many parishes

“For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for ALL for the remission of sins.”

Verses the correct form

"For this is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." -Matthew 26:28.

 

[I_Fortuna]

One of the primary arguments put forth against the Church allowing female priests is that there is no precedence for such a thing. It is said that the inclusion of females among the clergy is not hallowed by tradition.

And yet, so much that was never traditionally sanctioned was in fact permitted by either the Second Vatican Council or its subsequent popes. When, for example, in the Church’s long history, were the words of the consecration of the wine recorded as including “for you and for all”? Not a single extant liturgical text, either or Eastern or Latin Rite, attests to “for all” in the sacramental form. This appears to be nothing other than a complete rupture from the Church’s tradition. Lest we forget, this is the very form of the Eucharist—which is at least as serious a business as the gender of the clergy. If radical change of this magnitude is permissible, why is the proposal for clergywomen considered so non-negotiable?

John Paul II wrote: “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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis §4). Now that’s fine, but St. Pius V made a declaration of his own: “if the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament” (De Defectibus §20). If St. Pius V can be blithely ignored, why not John Paul II? In light of the apparently endless waves of scandals that suggest institutional rot, it seems the hierarchy could benefit from a female perspective a lot more than the faithful could benefit from a sacrament of doubtful validity.

Jesus died for YOU and FOR ALL. He offered himself to ALL, it is up to the ALL or MANY to accept Him.

Ordination of women is a completely different matter. “Institutional rot” is a mischaracterization of the Holy Catholic Church and I believe inappropriate at best. Being the largest church, you will hear more scandal true and false most of which ocured 20, 30 or more years ago. There are now and have been for some time policies and actions in place that are meant to prevent scandal and bad behavior in the future.

If you go to your church, you will learn that they do background checks on volunteers and paid employees just like the Boy Scouts, teachers, police and other large institutions and corporations.

I believe you are being too legalistic without considering the spirit of the consecration. and that your comparison is not a valid one which serves only your agenda.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I was hoping we wouldn’t get into a discussion of sacramental theology. It’s not in dispute that, as ByzCath rightly points out, “the sacrifice of the Mass is for all but is only efficacious for many.” The reason the form must contain “for many,” however, is because the sacramental forms must “signify the grace which they effect” (Apostolicae Curae §24). The signification therefore needs to pertain to the fruits of the sacrifice, not the sufficiency. “For all” signifies the atonement for the sins of all mankind; it does not signify the Eucharist, which is the gift to the Christian: “that we might be partakers of His Divinity.”

At any rate, this is really only one example and I don’t wish to get stuck on it. To take another one: there is no instance in either history or the Church’s tradition for the sweep and scope of the changes to the Mass in so short a time. The manner in which the Mass was altered goes entirely against the convention of slow and organic growth in the liturgy. There’s no precedent for it. Arguably, the Gregorian reforms might constitute the closest analogy, but those are small potatoes (microscopic potatoes, really) by comparison.

There are also the various novelties introduced in the documents of Vatican II themselves. The Council taught that “the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this is followed from Holy Scripture” (Nostra Aetate §4). Regardless of whether one appreciates this sentiment or not, we can objectively notice that the Church had previously, in all of her centuries, taken a contrary position as regards to the followers of the Jewish religion—and largely because it does (John 8:40-47, Matthew 27:25, Galations 3:10) seem to follow from Holy Scripture! Now the Church reserves the right to interpret her Scriptures however she sees fit; all I’m saying is that she has gone against the grain of how she traditionally interpreted them in the past. Since that is what is at the heart of the position against female clergy (bible and tradition), I’m not sure why it stands to reason that the Church can’t change in this regard. In light of Vatican II, “tradition” does not seem to carry the weight that the opponents to female ordination are assuming. Radical change appears permissible.

 

[pnewton]

If St. Pius V can be blithely ignored, why not John Paul II? In light of the apparently endless waves of scandals that suggest institutional rot, it seems the hierarchy could benefit from a female perspective a lot more than the faithful could benefit from a sacrament of doubtful validity.

The error here is that no one is “blithely ignoring” anyone. Just because the Holy Father and other theologians do not put the same weight or understanding as you do on a particular document does not mean it is ignored. This is why authority is also a critical component of the the Church on Earth.

Female ordination has been asked and answered. Priest have been excommunicated and remain in schism for refusing to accept this doctrine.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Now those that are in charge are doing what ever is humanly possible to fix things for the victims who are now adults.

Last I checked, Cardinal Bernard Law was still basking in the splendor of St. Mary Major’s Basilica. And Cardinal Roger Mahony was still “kickin’ it” in the California sun. That these situations persist indicates that those in charge of Church are hardly doing whatever is humanly possible to rectify the Church’s image as a crooked boy’s club that protects its own. Actions speak louder than words.

We can argue forever over whether or not women would’ve (or can) change things in the hierarchy. The bottom line is that something has to break the wicked spell of institutional fealty that still holds sway.

 

[malphono]

This thread is fairly new and already it seems to be all over the place. Does it have a point?

 

[Yggdrasil]

The error here is that no one is “blithely ignoring” anyone. Just because the Holy Father and other theologians do not put the same weight or understanding as you do on a particular document does not mean it is ignored. This is why authority is also a critical component of the the Church on Earth.

Then the authority is provisional—things change at the whims of those who hold Apostolic office. Your error is assuming that my understanding is my own. Leo XIII took precisely the same attitude toward De Defectibus as I’m doing. By your logic, a future “Holy Father and other theologians” could just as easily put a different “weight or understanding” as you & Benedict XVI do on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In this case, you don’t have a tradition, really. You just have a series of shifting trends. Which appears to be what Vatican II affirms.

 

[Yggdrasil]

This thread is fairly new and already it seems to be all over the place. Does it have a point?

Yes: female ordination would be no more radical a change in the Church than many of the changes made at or after Vatican II.

 

[pnewton]

Then the authority is provisional—things change at the whims of those who hold Apostolic office. Your error is assuming that my understanding is my own. Leo XIII took precisely the same attitude toward De Defectibus as I’m doing. By your logic, a future “Holy Father and other theologians” could just as easily put a different “weight or understanding” as you & Benedict XVI do on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In this case, you don’t have a tradition, really.

And without authority you have nothing better than sola scriptura, with each Catholic determining for themselves not Scripture, but billions of words of tradition. And like the effect of sola scriptura, we will have a splintering based on ideas of individual interpretation and understanding.

BTW- You took my “wrong” the wrong way. I did not mean that no one in the universe has ever held the same idea as you, only that you are willing to put your idea of tradition as supreme arbitor of truth.

 

[malphono]

Yes: female ordination would be no more radical a change in the Church than many of the changes made at or after Vatican II.

Oh, but it most certainly would be. The dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” is one thing, but female ordination is quote something else. The quote from the late Pontiff on the latter was simply a reiteration of Apostolic Tradition. He was right: neither he nor any other Pope had, has, or will have the authority to change it. No one does.

 

[Onegin]

In light of Vatican II, “tradition” does not seem to carry the weight that the opponents to female ordination are assuming. Radical change appears permissible.

I see your point. Another argument (rather than the pro multis approach) might be to describe the “subsists in” teaching that arose with Lumen Gentium and was confirmed in Ut Unum Sint. Personally, that is one of my biggest problems with the Vatican II documents that present the “rupture” from prior Tradition. This is also why I don’t agree with the “hijack” theory of the Council. What is taught here is not an erroneous interpretation but what the documents themselves actually state!

Either the fullness of Truth IS the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church as was taught prior to *Lumen Gentium *or the Fullness of Truth “subsists in” the Catholic Church but is not exclusive to it and “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines” as Lumen Gentium states.

This, at least to me, presents one of the most obvious contradictions between Pre and Post Conciliar theology.

 

[Yggdrasil]

And without authority you have nothing better than sola scriptura, with each Catholic determining for themselves not Scripture, but billions of words of tradition. And like the effect of sola scriptura, we will have a splintering based on ideas of individual interpretation and understanding.

But the general theory behind ecclesial authority is that the power of the Apostolic office ends where it contradicts established tradition.

Your theory of the Apostolic office is that it wields absolute authority, and that “tradition” is whatever the contemporary churchmen say it is. If you’re right (which is the thrust of my OP), then female ordination is a possibility.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Oh, but it most certainly would be. The dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” is one thing, but female ordination is quote something else. The quote from the late Pontiff on the latter was simply a reiteration of Apostolic Tradition. He was right: neither he nor any other Pope had, has, or will have the authority to change it. No one does.

Right. But my argument is that the changes to the Mass were no more licit (by the standards of Apostolic Tradition) than would be the authorization of female clergy. So with the Church having officially indicated the tenuous weight that “tradition” carries, female ordination seems—if not permissible according to the post-conciliar popes—at least possible according to some future Roman Pontiff.

Before Paul VI, four centuries worth of popes took the Quo Primum at its word. Now granted, Benedict XVI seems not to want to contravene Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. But with the precedent established at Vatican II, it appears that a Council or a Pope potentially could.