Female Ordination

[mayxanh]

Another question of mine is

Is Female Ordination issue infallible?

I google it. Some says no

astro.temple.edu/~arcc/burns.htm

Some say yes

nytimes.com/1995/11/19/world/vatican-says-the-ban-on-women-as-priests-is-infallible-doctrine.html

However, the infallibility of the issue seem not come directly from the pope

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Another question of mine is

Is Female Ordination issue infallible?

I google it. Some says no

astro.temple.edu/~arcc/burns.htm

Some say yes

nytimes.com/1995/11/19/world/vatican-says-the-ban-on-women-as-priests-is-infallible-doctrine.html

However, the infallibility of the issue seem not come directly from the pope

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

I recommend you see "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ and Pope Benedict’s remarks on the subject.

It would be better if you stick to actual sources like the Vatican rather than Googling stites that are not associated with the Church. I mean, if you want to know the ingredients in Heinz ketchup, would you look for them in the site at Hunts (a competitor), or in your local paper, which might or might not have gotten the correct information? Isn’t it better to go with information from the maker itself?

 

[clem456]

These are meritless feminist lies about patriarchy that in no way correspond to historical reality.

That, on the other hand, is exactly what patriarchy is.

Inferiority has nothing to do with it. Unless you think hierarchical relations always and everywhere imply some sort of ontological defect in the ones subject to rulership. Are you inferior to Obama?

Patriarchy has been commonly assumed to have some of these elements:
Simple definition from wikipedia

Patriarchy (rule by fathers) is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. Many patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.

While I don’t have any idea if this is how you are defining patriarchy, this is the context in which most people see it. This of course would not be the Church’s view of the roles of men and women.

 

[mayxanh]

I recommend you see "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ and Pope Benedict’s remarks on the subject.

Could you please to give me the link? Thank you

 

[aemcpa]

Could you please to give me the link? Thank you

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

It is very clear that Bl. John Paul intended to make an infallible proclamation. Read this analysis:

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

The First Vatican Council:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

[(Link)](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff)
Pope JPII:

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. Lk 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.

It doesn’t get more infallible than this.

 

[Catholic80]

I am not quite convinced. If Jesus chose a women apostles, she would definitely not be allowed to preach. You know, at the time, the place of women is inside the household, not in front of the public. **Noone listen to her **and she **might be stoned to death for going against the tradition **(women stays home)

From the Theology of the Body understanding (I’m going to attempt to put my understanding of it into words, and so I apologize in advance for my poor explanation)

Seminary comes from the word "seed’ …to inseminate.

When Mary received the Holy Spirit, she was impregnated with Christ. A man cannot become impregnated. A man impregnates. He gives his seed and by impregnating a woman, gives life. A woman, in essence, receives this new life by becoming impregnated.

The Church is the Body of Christ and is referred to always in the female. She becomes impregnated when She receives the Holy Spirit.

At the consecration of the Eucharist, the priest is acting as Christ. He is in persona Christi. Christ, at the Last Supper, in Eucharistic Communion and in death, gave over His body to the Church. By giving over His Body, He gives us life.

A woman cannot impregnate. She cannot give her seed. She receives this divine life within her and becomes pregnant with it. This is a role given to women, and the role to give seed is given to a man. It’s not that one is better than the other, it just is.

A man cannot bear a child. It’s not to say that women are better than men. It’s simply that the laws of nature have ordained him as such. The laws of nature ordain him to give seed. Now, he could go around upset that he cannot bear a child and nurse it, but no matter how much he thinks it’s unfair, it doesn’t change the fact that he is not created by God as such. And that’s okay, because he also has his part in creation that is equally as beautiful.

When the priest consecrates the Eucharist, by acting in persona Christi, through him, Christ gives over His body again and again and again. The Last Supper is re-presented… not to be confused with represented. Each Mass is the re - presentation of the Last Supper. There is no time barrier. We are experiencing what happened 2000 years ago at the very moment of the Consecration.

A priest or a nun’s vocation is not merely a “job.” It’s not a “job” at all. It is preordained by God. The priestly functions, such as preaching, pastoral work, etc. could be done by a female. Most men and women can do each others work relatively on the same level. But, the vocation of priest is MORE than work because it was preordained that it be so.

A man is created as father, son and spouse. A woman is created as mother, daughter and spouse. On another post, we could get into the topic of the role of women in Creation as God’s masterpiece, Mary being the supreme masterpiece, but that is a whole other discussion.

Men and women both have roles to play in the Church, and they are equally as beautiful, even if they are different.

 

[Catholic80]

I also wanted to post something about understanding and obedience.

Our priest had a really good homily recently on fasting and understanding why we fast. He gave a story about when he was a young child, he disobeyed his father and ended up in a dangerous situation. Later, when he was safely out of danger, his father said to him, “You see… I tell you these things because there are things that I understand and can see/foresee that you cannot. This is why you need to listen and obey me because I tell you these things out of love for you.”

How often do parents tell teenagers, “Don’t have sex before marriage.” The teenager does anyway and ends up with an STD or pregnant or both. He/She isn’t prepared for the difficult years that lie before them. They didn’t foresee the consequences. But the parent did. It is foolish to disobey a loving parent simply because one cannot understand.

The Church has 2000 years of history and understanding. The Church leaders, who have devoted their life to God and the Church, are much more learned in these matters. I have met so many Catholics who don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of why the Church teaches certain things. A few months ago, I overheard some elderly women talking at Church and one said, “I don’t know why the priest sometimes wears green and sometimes wears purple. I’ve always wondered that…” I was blown away. How could she have gone her whole life not knowing something very basic to Catholicism? It wasn’t a matter of moral theology, but it was still a basic concept. If she didn’t know why there are different colors used, then what else doesn’t she, and many Catholics around the world know?

It is our duty to try to understand why the Church teaches these things to the best of our abilities, but if we cannot understand, then we also need to accept, with humility, our lack of understanding.

Mary did not understand why her Son was being crucified, but she accepted it as the will of God.

At the same time, Lucifer didn’t understand why he was to serve us lesser, human creatures. And he refused. Hell was what he chose.

It’s not the same as a blind, ignorant following of some crazy idea. The institution of men being priests is not something that is contrary to our humanity. It is not something that destroys or is harmful.

Christ’s death on the Cross goes against our human understanding. It is a mystery that we slowly grow closer and closer to each day, but will never fully understand until the end. The Church has 2000 years of teaching on the matter of only men serving as priests. There are reasons and things that we may not see or understand, but that doesn’t mean that their reasons are not just and right.

Just because a child doesn’t understand his parents’ or teacher’s rules, that doesn’t mean that they child shouldn’t obey unless he can understand fully.

 

[Walcot]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too.

God has no gender. However, Jesus became human inside a history and He had to follow the prevailing norm of that society.

Just imagine if Isreal society was matriarchy at the time, Jesus must be born as women. Otherwise, noone would listen to Him. QUOTE

I agree.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.
Remember that matriachy does exist in many places on earth.

 

[Walcot]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too.

God has no gender. However, Jesus became human inside a history and He had to follow the prevailing norm of that society.

Just imagine if Isreal society was matriarchy at the time, Jesus must be born as women. Otherwise, noone would listen to Him.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.
Remember that matriachy does exist in many places on earth.

 

[Walcot]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too.

God has no gender. However, Jesus became human inside a history and He had to follow the prevailing norm of that society.

Just imagine if Isreal society was matriarchy at the time, Jesus must be born as women. Otherwise, noone would listen to Him.

************Remember that matriachy does exist in many places on earth.

.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the**** church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.

 

[aemcpa]

.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the**** church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.

The Church of England is a whitewashed sepulcher, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is as much a bishop as I am. Our Lord also said to the Apostles, “Whoever hears you, hears Me,” and “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven.” This nonsense about a “power struggle” is a tired attempt to see everything in history through modern feminist lenses, and it’s complete garbage. Authority and power are not the same thing. The hierarchy has responsibility, and it has authority, but it does not have “power” as if it is some despotic government.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the**** church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.

Here is what he did say: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” Followed by what St.Paul said: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

 

[CarolNoel]

I can just see going to confession. Bless me uh, uh, father nope, mom nope, uh person.

May our Church stand firm and not ordain females.

 

[Della]

.
I DO expect to get stones thrown at me for this but I will be brave and answer YOU! What started out as a practical expediency of the time in the 1st century world and the following centuries when women had no OFFICIAL power at all, gradually became a part of the whole fabric of the**** church. It became part of the ‘power struggle’ within the church politics - ‘control’ if you like, and over time a whole theology developed to justify this stance, so that now it is so part of the fabric of Catholicism that it can’t be safely unravelled. Which is a shame. Women will be kept in their place - even Catholic women dedicated to a religious life have no powers - they are expected to be submissive. Why even they can’t have important and constructive roles to play in church politics I don’t know. I strongly suspect misogynism disguised by layers of tradition. Suffice to say, I know of some very good and effective ‘lady vicars’ in the church of England.
Jesus did not say ‘thou shalt not have a woman priest’. It’s pretty arrogant (strong word I realise) to read a whole theology into something he DIDN’T say.

Being a non-Catholic it is understandable that you see this as a power struggle. You’ve been told this by those who want it to be that so they can claim their “rights” are being violated, but it’s not about power at all.

No priest has more power than a nun. Many a priest has learned the hard way that to oppose Mother Superior is to have his head handed to him on a plate. The Church does not regard some people as more worthy than others nor is anyone judged better than another based on his/her vocation–marriage is also a vocation in the Church.

Authority is not about power, but about responsibility. Each of us has certain responsibilities and therefore certain authority. Bishops have a great deal of responsibility, but then so does the head of a religious order, no matter if that order is a female or male order. The Church has named women Doctors of the Church and many women are our most revered saints because of their strength of character and the many good things they accomplished with their lives.

Mere power is nothing if one does nothing good with it. We Catholics admire those who do good with their abilities and their station in life no matter if they were truck drivers or prime ministers, kings and queens, or slaves and servants. Within the Body of Christ all are called to the same vocation–that of holiness and love. Whoever gains these are more powerful with God, and in the eyes of the Church, than any number of bishops who were not faithful.

 

[mikeeh]

The Church is always referred to as a female. Priests are married to the Church. Religious sisters and nuns are married to Jesus Christ. For a woman to be a priest is to encourage lesbianism. To be honest I’m a little jealous of women. A bromance with my Lord would be awesome.

 

[mayxanh]

The Church is always referred to as a female. Priests are married to the Church. Religious sisters and nuns are married to Jesus Christ. For a woman to be a priest is to encourage lesbianism. To be honest I’m a little jealous of women. A bromance with my Lord would be awesome.

I have thought both priests and nuns are married to Jesus, aren’t they?

“Marriage” here does not refer to physical union but the state of giving self to the services of God. Don’t take it wrong

 

[aemcpa]

I have thought both priests and nuns are married to Jesus, aren’t they?

“Marriage” here does not refer to physical union but the state of giving self to the services of God. Don’t take it wrong

The priest stands in the person of Christ, and thus takes the Church as his bride.

 

[SonCatcher]

I have thought both priests and nuns are married to Jesus, aren’t they?

“Marriage” here does not refer to physical union but the state of giving self to the services of God. Don’t take it wrong

In common parlance, the priest is “married to the Church” (which is referred to in the feminine, as mikeeh wrote) while a nun is “married to Christ”. I don’t know about the case of religious brothers.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

In common parlance, the priest is “married to the Church” (which is referred to in the feminine, as mikeeh wrote) while a nun is “married to Christ”. I don’t know about the case of religious brothers.

In any case these are pious metaphors not theological realities.