No Female Priests a Dogma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Is there being no Female Priests a Dogma or Discipline? And Why is it that way? Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie,

It is not a dogma in that it is not explicitly stated in “the faith once given.” It is more than a discipline because John Paul II has stated once and for all that the Church does not have the authority to go against Jesus’ practice in ordaining only men.
  • Liberian
 
He we go again on the Female Ordination topic:rolleyes: :banghead:

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis explicitly prohibits the ordination of females into the priesthood. And, despite what others will say, it has been infallibly defined. Here is a section from Women and the Priesthood (This Rock: November 2003) on the subject:
Quote:
In 1994, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter that pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 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” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
Therefore it is infallibly defines and is doctrine, no disipline.
 
The priest at Mass is Alter Christus - Christus is a man - therefore the priest must also be a man.

So it is not a disciplinary matter.

Ken
 
Is there being no Female Priests a Dogma or Discipline? And Why is it that way? .
Not Again! Asked and answered hundreds of times already. If you sincerely want the answers to this question, do a search for previous threads, otherwise seeing why the Church teaches this one more time isn’t going help understand it any better.
 
It is de fide, first by virtue of ordinary Magisterium, having been taught and affirmed through the entire history of the Church, and by virtue of John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, meeting the requirements of infallibility given in the first Vatican Council, which affirmed its dogmatic standing by extraordinary Magisterium. There can be no women priests. Not now, not ever. Roma locuta est. Causa finita est.
 
Is there being no Female Priests a Dogma or Discipline? And Why is it that way? Thanks and God bless.
It is an infallible, immutable teaching that is to be held by all the faithful. It is called in Catholic dogmatic theology, “doctrines de fide tenenda” or “sententia definitive tenenda” which all the Catholic faithful are to assent to, and that “assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, *Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem). *In his doctrinal commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly states:
  1. The second proposition of the professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals”. The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expoinding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman pontiff when he speaks “ex cathedra” or by the college of bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
  1. The truths belonging to this second paragraph [of the http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfoath.htm”]professio fidei
] can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historic relationship; while other truths evince a *logical connection *that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.
  1. With regard to the *nature *of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
Continued…
 
Continued…
  1. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be* believed as divinely revealed* … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an *ex cathedra *pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed … or as a truth of Catholic doctrine… Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
(ibid.)
The above explains the nature of the teachings which include doctrines de fide tenenda. That the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is among doctrines de fide tenenda is explicitly cited by Cardinal Ratzinger in the same commentary…
Examples. Without any intention of completeness…,

With respect to the truths of the second paragraph, with reference to those connected with revelation by logical necessity, one can consider … the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, **it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. **(ibid.)
 
Some issues are tests of Catholic fidelity, either by design or by default. I in my heart of hearts think some women would make most excellent priests, as some men do. I think unmarried men and women priests would be more effective and able to dedicate themselves no matter the cost in ways that married priests of either gender would be and single priests could lead disciples and married priests, of either gender could counsel families, and provide healing in parishes torn apart by sexual; scandal.
For me the command of Jesus to go and make disciples as I have taught you,calls to me It has colored my thinking and I think I experiemcehim next to me to strengthen me.
I am a faithful daughter of the church, and my priest is a man by a bishop. I don’t think its a dogma, but it’s the teaching of the magisterium and it really is good enough for me, Stay well, Susan
 
Call me a bad Catholic, but I disagree on this one. I think women should at least be allowed to be deacons. I go to a Catholic college and I meet a lot of “independent” young women. I met a girl who expressed her deep sadness and frustration at the fact that she can not be a deacon. She wants to serve the Church, but is drawn to the fact that if she became a Methodist or an Episcopalian this would not be a problem.
The problem is this person in question is very educated and has strong leadership potential. I am scared that we are not getting enough men for the priesthood but at the same time alienating women. I understand fully that she could become a nun, and there are a lot of “other ministries” she could be a part of. Or Mary is a great example, but as a women you are not good enough to give a sermon. Eventually we will have to face facts when it comes to the numbers. How many priests can we bring in from the global south? Do you really think we are going to reverse the cultural trend of the attitude toward celibacy? I would become a priest tomorrow if I could get married. I understand PJPII teaching on this matter and disagree with him.
I understand that this post may cause a little controversy. I understand the label “cafeteria”, and that I may not be “catholic” according to some of the disgusting and unloving legalism that is posted on this site sometimes, Jesus would be embarrassed. Maybe that I somehow misunderstand, or don’t submit to the authority of the Church could be true and am open to changing my opinion on this matter.
 
Call me a bad Catholic, but I disagree on this one. I think women should at least be allowed to be deacons. I go to a Catholic college and I meet a lot of “independent” young women. I met a girl who expressed her deep sadness and frustration at the fact that she can not be a deacon. She wants to serve the Church, but is drawn to the fact that if she became a Methodist or an Episcopalian this would not be a problem.
The problem is this person in question is very educated and has strong leadership potential. I am scared that we are not getting enough men for the priesthood but at the same time alienating women. I understand fully that she could become a nun, and there are a lot of “other ministries” she could be a part of. Or Mary is a great example, but as a women you are not good enough to give a sermon. Eventually we will have to face facts when it comes to the numbers. How many priests can we bring in from the global south? Do you really think we are going to reverse the cultural trend of the attitude toward celibacy? I would become a priest tomorrow if I could get married. I understand PJPII teaching on this matter and disagree with him.
I understand that this post may cause a little controversy. I understand the label “cafeteria”, and that I may not be “catholic” according to some of the disgusting and unloving legalism that is posted on this site sometimes, Jesus would be embarrassed. Maybe that I somehow misunderstand, or don’t submit to the authority of the Church could be true and am open to changing my opinion on this matter.
Jesus (God) empowered only men for ordination but I guess you know better than God.
 
*Can the Priest turn a treacle tart in the Body of Our Saviour?

Can a Deacon baptise a chair?

Can a dog and a man get married?*

The Church has no authority to change the “matter” used in the sacraments.

The “matter” (Matter is the object that a sacrament is performed on) I.e In baptism the matter is a human being with original sin and in the Eucharist it is bread, in marriage it is a man and a women etc

The fact of the issue is that Christ Himself, by His Divine Kingship, chose to turn Bread and Wine into Himself and men into Priests.

Holy Mother Church no authority whatsoever to change women into Priests. When we get to heaven (God willing!) Catholics can carry on the debate with God.

JD
 
Jesus (God) empowered only men for ordination but I guess you know better than God.
Exactly the kind of response I would expect. At first I was very excited about finding Catholic Answers, as sometimes I couldn’t escape the evangelical environment of my peers. Now having spent a year on this forum I have never been more disappointed with my faith. Not with the questions I ask, as sometimes they include heresy and I’ve been known to speak out against orthodoxy. I am guilty of rude comments too on this forum, but this is not the Catholicism I know. All I see in my life is a history of very loving people who took me in as family, who were Catholic. On this site I see the opposite of that.
 
Jesus did not choose Mary to become a priest.
Or any other women.Jesus allowed women to join in His mission, His decision not to ordain women had nothing to do with culture.

Judges 17:10

10Micah then said to him, “Dwell with me and be a father **and a priest **to me, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, a suit of clothes, and your maintenance.” So the Levite went in.

Judges 18:19

19They said to him, “Be silent, put your hand over your mouth and come with us, and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be a priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and a family in Israel?”

fatherhood and priesthood are synonymous terms. Micah says, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest.” Fathers/priests give life, and mothers receive and nurture life. This reflects God our Father who gives the life of grace through the Priesthood of His Divine Son, and Mother Church who receives the life of grace and nourishes her children. In summary, women cannot be priests because women cannot be fathers

**Mark 14:17 **
17When it was evening He came with the twelve.

Jesus is God and yet He chose the twelve to be men and we are to imitate Him.

**1 Corinthians 14:34-35 **

34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Paul says a woman is not permitted to preach the word of God in the Church. It has always been the tradition of the Church for the priest or deacon alone (an ordained male) to read and preach the Gospel.

**1 Timothy 2:12 **

12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Paul also says that a woman is not permitted to hold teaching authority in the Church. Can you imagine how much Mary, the Mother of God, would have been able to teach Christians about Jesus her Son in the Church? Yet, she was not permitted to hold such teaching authority in the Church.

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html#priesthood-V

For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 A.D. 225]).

Women and the Priesthood
catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp
 
*Can the Priest turn a treacle tart in the Body of Our Saviour?

Can a Deacon baptise a chair?

Can a dog and a man get married?*

Jd - awesome!!

I am convert from the Episcopal denomination, and my father, until he retired (pension, you know 😉 ), was an Episcopalian priest. I grew up in a very “high” church atmosphere, where the Eucharist was taught as indeed being the Body and Blood of Jesus. When the Episcopal church, in their infinite ‘wisdom’, voted to allow women into the priesthood, it was by a very slim margin of votes. The whole issue was extremely divisive, and resulted in parishioners leaving by the hundreds; entire parishes were welcomed into the Catholic Church because they so disagreed with the vote. Since then, the rolls of the Episcopal church still are falling, and the convention has since allowed avowed, practicing homosexuals into the priesthood and as bishops. The slope is very slippery once you allow one teaching to be overturned. As a classical feminist (one that adheres to Susan B. Anthony’s adamant pro-life stand), I don’t disagree that a woman could be a priest; but whether you should is another thing altogether. It’s a matter of theology, not equal rights.
 
Exactly the kind of response I would expect. At first I was very excited about finding Catholic Answers, as sometimes I couldn’t escape the evangelical environment of my peers. Now having spent a year on this forum I have never been more disappointed with my faith. Not with the questions I ask, as sometimes they include heresy and I’ve been known to speak out against orthodoxy. I am guilty of rude comments too on this forum, but this is not the Catholicism I know. All I see in my life is a history of very loving people who took me in as family, who were Catholic. On this site I see the opposite of that.
Unfortunately, people are fallible creatures and can be rude. You’ll find that on any webblog or just in normal conversation. I daresay you’ll find it more so than perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, too. It’s not that it’s because it’s a Catholic website. I think that because this issue has been discussed so much, despite the Church’s decree, that some people may be tired of arguing about it. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top