Ordination of Women

[Harpazo]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but doesn’t the idea of ordaining women strip them of their femininity?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[rpp]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but doesn’t the idea of ordaining women strip them of their femininity?

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

It has, but in a different manner. When pointing out that the priest acts in Personae Christe when consecrating Holy Communion at Mass and giving absolution in Confession. Since Christ was a male and the Church is repeatedly referred to in Scripture as the “Bride of Christ” it became clear to many that a woman could not “marry” the Church not could she act as the person of Christ because they are not male.

 

[rpp]

Ordinantio sacerdotalis. Here you are:

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

And then the Responsum to the Dubium, written by a gentleman named Ratzinger:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM

Which seems pretty definitive, to this Anglo-Catholic. Though I have seen replies that the Responsum is not itself a part of the Ordinary or Extra-ordinary magisterium, nor are either documents declared ex cathedra, and hence…, etc, etc.

Protestants everywhere.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Thank you very much, GKC.

I had not seen the cover letter from the CDF before. Well I would say that it Pope John Paul II’s statement is certainly definitive then.

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

     Responsum: In the affirmative.

** 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. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

Emphasis mine.

 

[rpp]

Here is the document from authorized by Pope Paul VI that was referenced in both Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation and the then Cardinal Razinger’s cover letter for the Exhortation.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

This goes into more of whys and wherefores of a male only priesthood.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Here is the document from authorized by Pope Paul VI that was referenced in both Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation and the then Cardinal Razinger’s cover letter for the Exhortation.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

This goes into more of whys and wherefores of a male only priesthood.

Thanks for that link, rpp; I found section # 5 to be particularly interesting.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I’d like to get a good debate/discussion going on this issue.

Women are equal to Men. We all know that, no one should disagree.

“For God does not show favoritism.” (Romans 2:12)

However St. Paul makes it very clear that women may not be ordained.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

However their are many other situations for women to have an active role in Church life such as becoming nuns. Becoming a nun is a very wonderful thing to do.

 

[Scottgun]

Thanks for that link, rpp; I found section # 5 to be particularly interesting.

Yes. I particularly like how it expressly dismantles the it-was-just-the-times baloney.

 

[Myqyl]

Thanks all That answers it for me…

While I may not fully understand the reasons, I accept the teachings of the Church to be the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

I still don’t understand how this is not in conflict with Romans 16. But I’ll just pray for guidence and enlightnment and accept my own ignorance. I don’t understand quantum physics either

Thank you all again for your help…

May God bless and guide us.

 

[Myqyl]

Oh! One last question…

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

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. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

(emphasis added)

In the present circumstances… Does this leave open the possibility that this teaching, while valid in the past, and vaild in the present, is open to future interputations/changes? Or is this refering to the need to clearify this teaching in light of the present circumstances? Does “is to be held always” imply for all eternity or that we are presently always to hold it as belonging to the deposit of the faith? I know these statements never include unnessassary phrases or words so as to be as precise as possible, so I wonder how this is meant…

Thanks again.

 

[rpp]

Oh! One last question…

(emphasis added)

In the present circumstances… Does this leave open the possibility that this teaching, while valid in the past, and vaild in the present, is open to future interputations/changes? Or is this refering to the need to clearify this teaching in light of the present circumstances?

I believe your second explanation is the correct one.

Does “is to be held always” imply for all eternity or that we are presently always to hold it as belonging to the deposit of the faith? I know these statements never include unnessassary phrases or words so as to be as precise as possible, so I wonder how this is meant…

To say that a teaching is part of the “deposit of faith” is to state that they are unchangeable teachings and not open to reversal or repeal at some future time. The only thing that can happen a better understanding of the doctrine, but it cannot change. There can never be a female priestess, not this year, not next year, not 10,000 years from now.

 

[Myqyl]

To say that a teaching is part of the “deposit of faith” is to state that they are unchangeable teachings and not open to reversal or repeal at some future time. The only thing that can happen a better understanding of the doctrine, but it cannot change. There can never be a female priestess, not this year, not next year, not 10,000 years from now.

Opps… This I have a real problem with. This would imply that God could not, if He desired, change this teaching. God gave laws to Moses that He later reversed through the teachings and Gospel of His Son. If God decides there will be women ordained to the priesthood, it WILL happen… Like it or not.

I believe what you may have meant to say is that “they are unchangeable teachings and not open to reversal or repeal at some future time by the Church” Please correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption.

God can,reverse and repeal whatever He pleases to reverse and repeal…And He has done so in the past.

 

[rpp]

Opps… This I have a real problem with. This would imply that God could not, if He desired, change this teaching. God gave laws to Moses that He later reversed through the teachings and Gospel of His Son. If God decides there will be women ordained to the priesthood, it WILL happen… Like it or not.

I believe what you may have meant to say is that “they are unchangeable teachings and not open to reversal or repeal at some future time by the Church” Please correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption.

God can,reverse and repeal whatever He pleases to reverse and repeal…And He has done so in the past.

I believe your perspective does not take certain aspects of Catholic theology into full account.

First, God cannot change. He is all knowing, perfect and eternal. God it outside of time. Change by it’s very nature means an improvement. It also, by it’s nature, implies a progression in time. Since it is impossible to improve on perfection and God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), God cannot change. God cannot reverse Himself. This is key to all theology.

God did not reverse Himself by reversing the Law of Moses through the Gospel. Christ Himself said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17).

The Law of Moses prefigured Christ and His mission. We see this in the way the Tabernacle was designed, the Arc of the Covenant, the manner in which the Law was delivered to the people and so on. Everything lead to Christ.

The Church on Earth was founded by Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects it from error. The Church does represent God’s ineffable presence on Earth. Thus the Church cannot change her teachings as God does not change.

If God were somehow imperfect and thus subject to changing His mind, then the Church would be foolish to claim it can never change. You see, if God did change, but the Church did not, then the Church would no longer be teaching correctly or authentically about God.

On the other hand, if God does not change, but the Church were to change teachings, would the Church still be teaching correctly and authentically? No they would not, something would be missing or wrong.

 

[Myqyl]

When the children of God were wandering in the desert to the promised land, God instructed them that they must observe certain dietary laws. I don’t claim to “know the mind of God”, but I suspect this had a lot to do with the conditions His children were living in.

When Jesus came to Earth, He told us that it is not what goes into a man’s (person’s) mouth that makes them unclean, but what comes out.

While God does not change, He can and has changed His teachings of how we are to conduct ourselves. (Possibly based on the situation we are in at the time but just as likely based on something we can not hope to understand). I do not claim that God might “change” or “change His mind” on this or any issue. Simply that He may not have revealed every aspect of His plan to us yet. If God desires women to enter the priesthood at some future time, He will make it known to His Church and it will happen. I’m not saying it’s likely, but I think it’s imperative that we not try to bind God to our understanding of God. God reveals His will… We follow it.

 

[ralphinal]

When the children of God were wandering in the desert to the promised land, God instructed them that they must observe certain dietary laws. I don’t claim to “know the mind of God”, but I suspect this had a lot to do with the conditions His children were living in.

When Jesus came to Earth, He told us that it is not what goes into a man’s (person’s) mouth that makes them unclean, but what comes out.

While God does not change, He can and has changed His teachings of how we are to conduct ourselves. (Possibly based on the situation we are in at the time but just as likely based on something we can not hope to understand). I do not claim that God might “change” or “change His mind” on this or any issue. Simply that He may not have revealed every aspect of His plan to us yet. If God desires women to enter the priesthood at some future time, He will make it known to His Church and it will happen. I’m not saying it’s likely, but I think it’s imperative that we not try to bind God to our understanding of God. God reveals His will… We follow it.

This is where the issue of revelation comes into account. We must believe public revelation: things that God has told to everyone. We are not required to believe private revelation: things told to only one person. We believe that public revelation ended when the last apostle died. In other words, if it is not in the Bible or already in sacred tradition, it is not part of the deposit of faith. Now, our understandings may deepen or grow, but right is always right and wrong is always wrong.

When “rules” changed in the Bible, God changed them publicly through Jesus or the Church in the Bible days.

 

[holdencaulfield]

First, God cannot change. He is all knowing, perfect and eternal. God it outside of time. Change by it’s very nature means an improvement. It also, by it’s nature, implies a progression in time. Since it is impossible to improve on perfection and God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8), God cannot change. God cannot reverse Himself. This is key to all theology.

Quite true. Many Protestants don’t believe this, so the feel free to change Scriptural meaning as much as they like.