A
ariane
Guest
Does anyone know if the all-male priesthood was infallibly defined? I found it in the catechism, but haven’t been able to clarify if the door has been finally closed on the subject.
DO’OH!!!RyanL,
Did you mean to say, Jesus didn’t make any female priests?
You don’t need the word “infallible.” It’s a closed issue based on a profound understanding of both human nature and Sacred Tradition. Here’s a link to a Vatican press release on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.I asked the question because the pastor at a local church called for female ordination in his homily. I drafted a letter of disappointment to him. I just wanted to know if I would be incorrect to state in the letter that this matter was infallibly defined and thus, any opposition to formal church teaching should have been discussed privately, not in his position as shephard of his flock.
So here’s another question then, if the matter is not infallibly defined, was the priest in error to discuss it?
John Paul II; Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994:Does anyone know if the all-male priesthood was infallibly defined? I found it in the catechism, but haven’t been able to clarify if the door has been finally closed on the subject.
The priest was most definitely in error, although sadly he is not alone. A local priest in a rural NSW town had an interview published in the local paper in which he hinted it may be necessary although he was wise enough to stop short of calling for it. It is time these priests were called to order. This not a matter for either discussion or difference of opinion. It is required to be held by the faithful. By all means print off and give him a copy of the previous post.I asked the question because the pastor at a local church called for female ordination in his homily. I drafted a letter of disappointment to him. I just wanted to know if I would be incorrect to state in the letter that this matter was infallibly defined and thus, any opposition to formal church teaching should have been discussed privately, not in his position as shephard of his flock.
So here’s another question then, if the matter is not infallibly defined, was the priest in error to discuss it?
That would be technically incorrect. It is infallible, but it has not been infallibly defined. As I said in my post #2, it is a non-defined dogma.I just wanted to know if I would be incorrect to state in the letter that this matter was infallibly defined
This is my guess – and it IS a guess: the ontological conditions are rooted deeply in our human nature and in the Incarnation. God has revealed himself to us all through history as “Father.” Christ came into the world as male. The ministerial Priesthood is an icon of that. I recall, while reading The Theology of the Body, being won over completely to “understanding” the depth of this truth and the necessity of male priesthood. I put the word “understanding” in quotation marks because without revisiting the text I am at a loss to convey the concept in a way that would make sense to anybody else.What I’m confused about is how this issue is related to faith/morals? it seems to me to fit into the same category of whether priests can marry. I do not believe that women should be priests, but I don’t see how a non-faith, non-moral subject can be infallible.
I would include the following text in your letter.I asked the question because the pastor at a local church called for female ordination in his homily. I drafted a letter of disappointment to him. I just wanted to know if I would be incorrect to state in the letter that this matter was infallibly defined and thus, any opposition to formal church teaching should have been discussed privately, not in his position as shephard of his flock.
So here’s another question then, if the matter is not infallibly defined, was the priest in error to discuss it?
It is a matter of faith that women cannot be priests, just as it is a matter of faith that married men can become priests (provided that the Holy Father gives his dispensation from ecclesiastical law).What I’m confused about is how this issue is related to faith/morals? it seems to me to fit into the same category of whether priests can marry. I do not believe that women should be priests, but I don’t see how a non-faith, non-moral subject can be infallible.
It is a matter of faith because the priesthood is a sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders. And, it is a matter of faith that we believe that special graces are conferred through the sacraments.What I’m confused about is how this issue is related to faith/morals? it seems to me to fit into the same category of whether priests can marry. I do not believe that women should be priests, but I don’t see how a non-faith, non-moral subject can be infallible.
I think I would have to disagree with the part about married men being able to be priests being a matter of faith. It is more appropriate to fall under a Church Discipline as oppossed to a matter of faith. If it was a matter of faith, the Holy Father would not grant a dispensation to a matter of the faith. For instance, the Holy Father would not grant a dispensation to believe that Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist.“It is a matter of faith that women cannot be priests, just as it is a matter of faith that married men can become priests (provided that the Holy Father gives his dispensation from ecclesiastical law).”
When I said, “it is a matter of faith that married men can become priests,” what I meant was that it is incompatible with the Catholic faith to hold that the Church has no power to ordain married men and that all such (attempted) ordinations of married men were in fact invalid.I think I would have to disagree with the part about married men being able to be priests being a matter of faith. It is more appropriate to fall under a Church Discipline as oppossed to a matter of faith. If it was a matter of faith, the Holy Father would not grant a dispensation to a matter of the faith.
You are mistaken. It HAS been infallibly DEFINED. It is defined DOGMA on the same level as the Immaculate Conception. Ratzinger DEFINED it. See the link in my post #5 (which other later posters have also cited).That would be technically incorrect. It is infallible, but it has not been infallibly defined. As I said in my post #2, it is a non-defined dogma.