Female Priests

[aidanbradypop]

Deacon Harold gave a wonderful reply to this last night on EWTN Live. Even if the Church wanted to ordain women, it would do so without the authority of Christ. There were deaconess in the EC but they were not ordained.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Don’t hold your breath.

Women can and should be ministers. But they can never be priests. Beginning with the sacrifices of Cain and Abel and continuing throughout all of Judeo-Christian salvation history, there is no instance of a woman offering a sacrifice to God on an altar.

God has always limited the pool of people who are eligible to become his priests. The Old Testament priesthood was limited to firstborn (?) sons of the descendants of Levi/Aaron. So even a devout son of the tribe of Judah could not have become a temple priest. A rabbi, certainly, but a priest no. The priesthood of the New Covenant is limited to celibate men in the Roman rites and to celibate and certain married men in the Orthodox rites. So if a married man or a woman desired to become priests, they could not. God’s ways are not our ways. The reasons for His will are often inscrutable and beyond our understanding. We must accept them rather than seek to change them or even understand them.

Those who push for women priests have a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the priesthood but also of the nature of the Church. They’re pursuing an agenda of change/reform rather than holiness. They’re examining this issue through the feminist paradigm of power. They see Priests as being the figures of power within the Church and the denial of this office to woman as a way of excluding them from power. Power is a terrible lens through which to analyze the Church. Leaders are servants. The laity is the Church. Women can exert influence and if that influence is holy and an expression of God’s will, then it will have an effect. many women have been key reformers and influences in the Church. But secular analysts see things through the lens of power and feel that if women would have a say that the dogma and policies of the Church would be changed. But the Church is not a democracy. It isn’t run by shifting consensus. That works for Protestants who vote on what to believe, but it doesn’t fit the Catholic or Orthodox paradigm. The Church is a supernatural entity, not a human one. It is the bride of Christ. Despite all the manifest failings and shortcomings of its individual members (i.e. me and you) and its “official” representatives (i.e. the clergy and hierarchy) it remains first and foremost a divine institution, not a human one. God is immutable. Holiness, not relevance is the aim of his Church.

Amen Robin! Well said…

 

[Bruised_Reed]

[No message]

 

[Mike30]

So let me see if I have this right. This ruling is considered by some to have the weight of Papal Infallibility even though it was never declared to be so but rather is an act of the ordinary Magesterium.

That being the case, if I am understanding correctly, a future Pope could not overturn it.

Is that correct?

 

[tabycat]

To those who are pro female priests: In the past two thousand years of Church history where are there any female priests that are in union with the Church?

 

[Rosinante]

Consider this…***the Church IS the Bride of Christ ***(many Bible citations) and ***the priest ***- who celebrates all Sacrament does so - by his ordination - ***as the “person of Christ.” ***According to all traditions, Traditions and Church documents - a priest can only be male.

Otherwise it would be a woman in relationship with a woman.

This makes sense to me. When I understood this I was completely convinced about the teaching of male only priesthood.

Excellent.

This is the substantive rationale; the rest (i.e.–because PJP II issued the OS, Tradition, history, etc.), is merely procredural. And this is why it will never happen (or at least, should never happen)–because it would be an abomination–and a complete disregarding of the very essence of what the Church is, and what the priesthood is.

Stated differently, it wouldn’t just be altering tradition, or Tradion–it would be a complete destruction of the structure and identity of the Church–a complete compromise of the foundation of the church, on par with reversing the trinitarian doctrine, and finding in favor of Arius.

This literally stikes at the very foundations and identifty of the Church.

While we can never really say ‘never’, if it ever did happen, I’d be inclined to view it as a sign of Christ’s second coming (ref. Section 675 of CCC, and the ‘Church’s ultimate trial’).

 

[anruari]

So let me see if I have this right. This ruling is considered by some to have the weight of Papal Infallibility even though it was never declared to be so but rather is an act of the ordinary Magesterium.

That being the case, if I am understanding correctly, a future Pope could not overturn it.

Is that correct?

Come on people.
This has been declared infallibly

1. it has been held definitivly by all and for all time until extremely recently
2. it has been declared to be belonging to the Deposit of faith, and to be definitively held by all believers
3. Questions about it’s possible infallibility were directly asked of rome and a clear response given: Yes this is an infallible statement

The church does not have the authority to confer Holy Orders on Women. Only Christ himself has the authority to change that declaration. and when He comes again I don’t think this will be top of his agenda, as the world as we know it will be at an end.

 

[brb3]

Consider this…the Church IS the Bride of Christ (many Bible citations) and the priest - who celebrates all Sacrament does so - by his ordination - as the “person of Christ.” According to all traditions, Traditions and Church documents - a priest can only be male.

Otherwise it would be a woman in relationship with a woman.

This makes sense to me. When I understood this I was completely convinced about the teaching of male only priesthood.

Exactly… Christ came as man and remains male FOREVER…as I interpret the CCC on this.
Therefore, any priest, MUST BE MAN, to function IN PERSON OF CHRISTOS.

For this to change, would require, a New Revelation on matter from Christ himself.

 

[brb3]

Lets put it this way …

I wouldn’t want to be the Female Priest candidate …nor that Bishop attempting to confirm that lady. That just might constitute a death sentence, heart attack event, for both.

 

[brb3]

Consider this…the Church IS the Bride of Christ (many Bible citations) and the priest - who celebrates all Sacrament does so - by his ordination - as the “person of Christ.” According to all traditions, Traditions and Church documents - a priest can only be male.

Otherwise it would be a woman in relationship with a woman.

This makes sense to me. When I understood this I was completely convinced about the teaching of male only priesthood.

Exactly …it would constitute a Sodom/Gomorrah Abomination & Death Verdict.

 

[Loving_disciple]

Well not just the Bl. John Paul 2 said this. This was made with the authority of many Bishops. The chances of it being changed are very slim plus the fact that he may be declared a saint adds to the likely hood that no Pope will oppose his rule on the matter. Unless the Pope that overrules it is an antipope

 

[lvcabbie]

I think an even more interesting question is: When will Roman Catholic priests be allowed to marry?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Exsisting Roman Catholic Preists will never be allowed to marry. Will married Preists be allowed in the future… it is possible but highly unlikely.

Peace!

 

[floresco]

So let me see if I have this right. This ruling is considered by some to have the weight of Papal Infallibility even though it was never declared to be so but rather is an act of the ordinary Magesterium.

That being the case, if I am understanding correctly, a future Pope could not overturn it.

Is that correct?

The take away idea is that it can not be overturned. The exact nature of its infallibility can be debated by theologians. I think what makes the most sense for us non-experts is to go with the CDF assessment which called it an infallible act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

 

[pnewton]

Exsisting Roman Catholic Preists will never be allowed to marry. Will married Preists be allowed in the future… it is possible but highly unlikely.

Peace!

That pretty much sums it up!

Oh, I will add that we do have a handful of married priests who were married clergy before they converted.

 

[jwinch2]

It raised an interesting question and one that no one who posted on the thread raised. Everyone stated basically that because Pope John Paul II said it could never happen, even though it was not declared infallibly, it never could.

It was declared infallibly to begin with, and was later confirmed to be so.

However, I have seen numerous postings on this forum, particularly from Brother JR which state that the statements made by past Popes are not binding on future Popes. That being the case, could Pope John Paul II not be reversed at some point in the future? Or do his particular pronouncements fall under a special category?

Matters of discipline can be changed, matters of doctrine cannot. The sacred priesthood is a matter of doctrine.

 

[johnnyjones]

Recently a thread that had been posted here was moved and then closed. It concerned the possibility that at some point in the future women could be ordained as Priests.

It raised an interesting question and one that no one who posted on the thread raised. Everyone stated basically that because Pope John Paul II said it could never happen, even though it was not declared infallibly, it never could.

However, I have seen numerous postings on this forum, particularly from Brother JR which state that the statements made by past Popes are not binding on future Popes. That being the case, could Pope John Paul II not be reversed at some point in the future? Or do his particular pronouncements fall under a special category?

It would make sense as we have seen that statements made by previous Popes have been overturned or re-interpreted in accordance with modern sensibilities and ideas.

I have no horse in this race, I just found the entire idea interesting…

Never happen, The word “priest” alone is antithetical to the female gender.

 

[Mike30]

After reading the entire document, I came upon the last paragraph

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.

So I will assume that this staement fulfills the conditions of Papal infallibilty and as such, Popes have now spoken infallibly on three occasions. I had always thought it was only used twice.

Oh well, live and learn.

 

[Mark121359]

I find the constant probing regarding this issue interesting. The issue is closed. The answer is no female priests.

Peace,
Ed

I couldn’t agree with you more! Why do I keep thinking of the line from Paul Newman from Cool Hand Luke;…"Stop beating it into the ground. You ain’t doing nobody no good."

 

[brb3]

After reading the entire document, I came upon the last paragraph

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.

So I will assume that this staement fulfills the conditions of Papal infallibilty and as such, Popes have now spoken infallibly on three occasions. I had always thought it was only used twice.

Oh well, live and learn.

Basically he’s saying there is ZERO Scripture or Tradition to justify…neither of which will ever change in future.

Put a lid on it … it would never get a single yes vote.