Galatians 3:28 and women priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JD27076

Guest
[BIBLEDRB] Galatians 3:28[/BIBLEDRB]

This is talking about baptism that no one is male or female, gentile or Jew…

And Canon 849…

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments, is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire. By it people are freed from sins, are born again as children of God and, made like to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church. It is validly conferred only by a washing in real water with the proper form of words.

This includes Women too…

So, how… I have a question. If women are open to the Sacraments, and no one is a male or female… how do we know women cannot be priest?

Also the argument comes up with that Jesus never choose women priest…Then why for the first 1200 years did the Catholic Church ordain women?

I have heard that the Catholic Church ONLY ordained them to deacons and not to anything else. But I’m not sure.

Can someone help me on understanding why women cannot be ordained priest?

I have never accepted Women priesthood, and I probably will never will. Thank you.

PUNNY QUOTE
“Women Ordination is like a Man having a right to be pregnant.”
 
JD27076 said:
Then why for the first 1200 years did the Catholic Church ordain women?
Click to expand...
It did not. You are confused. The Church did not ordain women, ever, let alone for 1200 years.
JD27076 said:
I have heard that the Catholic Church ONLY ordained them to deacons and not to anything else. But I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
You have heard wrongly.
JD27076 said:
Can someone help me on understanding why women cannot be ordained priest?
Click to expand...
Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
 
There are a lot of really good reasons for this. One is that a priest acts “in persona Christi”.

1Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ. (KJV)

That is, It is Christ’s mouth speaking the words of consecration, Christ’s hands conferring the Holy Spirit, Christ’s absolution in the confessional. MORE THAN SCANDELOUS if it were a woman because Christ is a MAN.
 
The history of the priesthood does not begin with Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the priesthood which began with Aaron. God didn’t make Aaron’s sister a priestess even though she was a capable leader. Jesus didn’t make any women apostles even though there were capable women who followed Him. There are those who want ordination for women and so they have a revisionist look at history. It is this revision that you have run into.

There are many threads about the subject on this site. You may want to do a search for them.
 
JD27076 said:
So, how… I have a question. If women are open to the Sacraments, and no one is a male or female… how do we know women cannot be priest?

Can someone help me on understanding why women cannot be ordained priest?

I have never accepted Women priesthood, and I probably will never will. Thank you.
Click to expand...
One of the best and most complete defenses of the Church’s position comes from Peter Kreeft.

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
 
JD27076 said:
Can someone help me on understanding why women cannot be ordained priest?
Click to expand...
They can, ontologically speaking. Women and men share a common human nature, so women have “Sacramental capacity” to receive Orders (presuming they are Baptized, of course).

There is absolutely no reason why a woman is not capable of receiving Orders. There are five elements which must all be valid for any Sacrament to be valid: subject, minister, intent, matter, and form. A Baptized woman is a valid subject, and the Church has absolutely never taught otherwise.

The discrepancy comes in the minister. We would need a minister (a Bishop) who has divine authority to ordain women. But the Church finds that Her Bishops lack the divine authority to do so, and thus no such Bishop exists. A Baptized woman is a valid subject, but there is no valid minister to ordain her.

When John Paul the Great issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he was very careful to say that the limitation was on the Church - that the Church lacks the authority to ordain women. He never said (and the Church has never taught) that women were somehow incapable of receiving Orders.

FWIW, he was also very careful to limit this teaching to priestly Orders (and, by extension, to Episcopal Orders, since all Bishops are priests). The translation of the title of the encyclical is “On Priestly Orders” (Sacerdotalis means priestly). While the teaching forever closes the door on women priests (and Bishops), it has nothing to say about women deacons.
 
catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Women were never ordained in the Church. Women were made “deacons” but the ordination process never occurred for this, because they were not deacons in the sense we know deacons today. The laying on of hands on women never legitimately occurred within the Church.
 
DavidFilmer said:
FWIW, he was also very careful to limit this teaching to priestly Orders (and, by extension, to Episcopal Orders, since all Bishops are priests). The translation of the title of the encyclical is “On Priestly Orders” (Sacerdotalis means priestly). While the teaching forever closes the door on women priests (and Bishops), it has nothing to say about women deacons.
Click to expand...
Deacons are ordained as well.
 
DavidFilmer said:
FWIW, he was also very careful to limit this teaching to priestly Orders (and, by extension, to Episcopal Orders, since all Bishops are priests). The translation of the title of the encyclical is “On Priestly Orders” (Sacerdotalis means priestly). While the teaching forever closes the door on women priests (and Bishops), it has nothing to say about women deacons.
Click to expand...
I have seen this debated before. The question is are deacons part of the priesthood? Deacons are ordained which begs the question of what are they ordained to if not the priesthood?

From the Vatican website
Cleric: one who is constituted in sacred ministry in the Church; clerics are divided into deacons, priests and bishops.
Dispensation from the obligations of priesthood: Sacred Orders, once validly received, never become invalid. A priest or deacon, however, who recognizes his inability to continue to function as a cleric, can request from the Holy Father a dispensation from the juridic obligations connected with priesthood, including that of celibacy. The grace of such a dispensation is granted only for the gravest reasons. Once it has been granted, the cleric is barred from performing functions connected with priesthood or presenting himself as a priest.
Click to expand...
It would seem that the priesthood incorporates deacons, priest and bishops. It would then follow that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis coverd all the priesthood which is deacons, priest and bishops. Ordained deacons cannot be women.

You might also want to check out Basic Norms FOR THE FORMATION
OF PERMANENT DEACONS
 
I think people are missing the historical aspect of this to determine why there were deaconesses in the Early Church, and they there aren’t today.

First know what a deacon/deaconess is. Diakonia means service so a deacon is one who serves. In the early Church, as noted in Acts, the Apostles decided to appoint 7 men to do the works of service of the Church. They were performing acts of service, not really Liturgical functions at this point.

Even the presbyter did not have priestly functions in the early Church. By the time of St. John Chrysostom, it was still the Bishop who is the sole priest in every Church. Back then it was still one city, one Church. That is why we had early canons in the Church saying that there should only be one bishop per city. Back then there were no issues of overlapping territories because cities were far apart from one another.

As the Liturgies developed, the roles of the presbyter and deacon evolved in the Liturgy. The functions were passed down from bishop to presbyter, and from presbyter to deacon. This then created a difference between the male deacons and the deaconess.

So today it is impossible to have a deaconess. The role of the deacon today necessitates that they be only male, unlike in the past that their roles can be fulfilled also by a woman. So there is no point in calling for the restoration of the deaconess, they were never meant to do the same functions as the deacons do as we see today.
 
adrift said:
Deacons are ordained which begs the question of what are they ordained to if not the priesthood?
Click to expand...
They are ordained to the Deaconate. Not the priesthood.

According to dictionary.com, the word sacerdotal means
of, relating to, or characteristic of priests
Click to expand...
The origin of the word is
c.1400, from O.Fr. sacerdotal, from L. sacerdotalis “of or pertaining to a priest,” from sacerdos (gen. sacerdotis) “priest,” literally “offerer of sacrifices,” from sacer “holy” + stem of dare “to give”
Click to expand...
The word “sacerdotal” is closely connected with the priest’s offering of sacrifice (namely the Sacrifice of the Mass), which is the primary function of his Office. A deacon cannot do this - only a priest can offer sacrifice (and this is hardly unique to Catholicism - in every religion that has priests, the priest alone can offer sacrifice. It’s what priests do). A deacon does not have a sacerdotal office.

Therefore, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (meaning “On priestly (sacerdotal) Orders”) cannot apply to deacons. I don’t know if the Church has otherwise definitively taught (as doctrine) that She cannot ordain women deacons, but John Paul the Great certinally did not say so in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
 
JD27076 said:
how do we know women cannot be priest?

Can someone help me on understanding why women cannot be ordained priest?

I have never accepted Women priesthood, and I probably will never will. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute…we do not know that “women cannot be priest”. We know without the possibility of error that the Church cannot confer the Holy Orders to women, because Christ the Bridegroom told us through His Bride, Holy Church.

The Ordinatio Sacerdotalis could not be any clearer:
We 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.
Click to expand...
So, from the standpoint of apologetics, we could say that it is not so much a matter of a woman “not being able to be a priest”, but a matter of “the Church not being able to make a woman priest”.
 
R_C said:
it is not so much a matter of a woman “not being able to be a priest”, but a matter of “the Church not being able to make a woman priest”.
Click to expand...
Which is what I said. Women can be priests - they can receive Holy Orders, and the Church has never taught otherwise.

But there are no Bishops with the divine authority to ordain them.

The limitation is not upon women, but upon the Church. A Baptized woman has full and complete Sacramental capacity to receive Orders, provided there was a valid minister (a Bishop) to confer them. Alas, no such Bishop exists.
 
adrift said:
It would seem that the priesthood incorporates deacons, priest and bishops.
Click to expand...
No… the clerical state includes deacons, priests, and bishops.
It would then follow that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis coverd all the priesthood which is deacons, priest and bishops.
Click to expand...
No… strictly speaking, Ordinatio sacerdotalis deals with priesthood, not the clerical state.
 
babs57 said:
There are a lot of really good reasons for this. One is that a priest acts “in persona Christi”.

1Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ. (KJV)

That is, It is Christ’s mouth speaking the words of consecration, Christ’s hands conferring the Holy Spirit, Christ’s absolution in the confessional. MORE THAN SCANDELOUS if it were a woman because Christ is a MAN.
Click to expand...
But that’s where Galatians 3:28 is relevant. If there’s no male and female in Christ, then your argument fails. Furthermore, I notice that no one objects to men being part of the Bride of Christ, which one would think would be equally “scandalous”🤷.

We’ve been over and over this, and probably no one will convince anyone. I’m not trying to convince anyone that women should be ordained–I’m back in RCIA (although with many misgivings and hesitations), and I accept that becoming Catholic means that I have to trust the Church on this one. But it doesn’t mean that I have to accept bad arguments as good. There needs to be a lot more theological exploration of this issue, because at present the arguments against women’s ordination (and to be fair, most of the arguments you hear presented for it as well) are really weak.

Edwin
 
DavidFilmer said:
Which is what I said. Women can be priests - they can receive Holy Orders, and the Church has never taught otherwise.

But there are no Bishops with the divine authority to ordain them.

The limitation is not upon women, but upon the Church. A Baptized woman has full and complete Sacramental capacity to receive Orders, provided there was a valid minister (a Bishop) to confer them. Alas, no such Bishop exists.
Click to expand...
I thought it was Catholic teaching that women were “invalid matter.” Your argument seems highly strained to me, as if you are trying to make the Catholic position seem less offensive than it is.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top