Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[nickybr38]

But that is such a weak argument for this, though.
Jesus never picked, say, a doctor to be one of twelve. Does that mean a doctor cannot become a priest? He didn’t pick an albino…or someone over 7 feet…or maybe none of them had red hair. Does that mean they cannot be priests today?
It was harder for women to move around in those days because they were always pregnant. At the time, it just might be that he looked out into the group and had to pick those who could move around easily in harsh conditions.

So you think he picked the Twelve randomly and by chance?

And you don’t think many, many woman were amongst his disciples?

Because if you do, you’re wrong.

 

[johnnyjones]

Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.

Some of what you said is in line with Protestant deominations. They have no magisterium and and have varying interpretations as it relates to this issue. I think that women can spread the Gospel and “preach” the truths of Christianity but ordination to the priesthood comes from a mandate of the church. The Catholic church is holding to tradition which is an intregal part of what makes us different than Protestants. Thankfully we have tradition and scripture.

 

[curlycool89]

But how is this doctrine received by Jeshua if he never said it?

Jesus never said the word “Trinity” either, but it is a foundational part of Catholicism (it’s a Dogma). To say “where did Jesus say that” is to endorse the heresy of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

Catholics take our doctrines from 3 sources: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Universal Magisterium.

Also, you probably didn’t know that Jesus broke major ground with women in his time. Speaking to the Samaritan women at the well was downright scandalous, so to say that Jesus just kept to norms is simply a lie. Nothing less then a lie.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

Jesus never said the word “Trinity” either, but it is a foundational part of Catholicism (it’s a Dogma). To say “where did Jesus say that” is to endorse the heresy of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).

Catholics take our doctrines from 3 sources: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Universal Magisterium.

Also, you probably didn’t know that Jesus broke major ground with women in his time. Speaking to the Samaritan women at the well was downright scandalous, so to say that Jesus just kept to norms is simply a lie. Nothing less then a lie.

Just a serious, though slightly snarky, aside: Did Jesus ever say “Jesus”?

 

[AndyF]

Brothers and Sisters, we are called to stand firm in our resolution to uphold the traditions of our Church. Satan will attempt to offer immediate solutions to false problems and we need to be calm and trusting of the Holy Spirit. We have seen many times that He is not restrained by our time table in implementing change. Church attendance has at times wavered in the past, but one thing is for sure, we don’t need to panic has we are led to believe we should. Hell will not prevail, that is the promise made to us by our Lord.

Let us break the pattern of giving an inch to our traditions so that satan can gain a foothold. Let us stand firm and not be afraid to back our Pope who’s love for Her is unquestionable.

Andy

 

[Dale_M]

I read about this earlier. It’s awesome that the Holy Father would use such a public occasion of solemn importance to deliver a stunning rebuke to those renegade priests, identifying them explicitly as models of how priests shouldn’t behave.

It is a remarkable homily. Although he specifically mentioned female ordination, it was simply as an obvious example of priestly disobedience to Church teaching. The pope made no bones about the need for priests to be obedient.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

At this Holy Mass our thoughts go back to that moment when, through prayer and the laying on of hands, the bishop made us sharers in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, so that we might be “consecrated in truth” (Jn 17:19), as Jesus besought the Father for us in his high-priestly prayer. He himself is the truth. He has consecrated us, that is to say, handed us over to God for ever, so that we can offer men and women a service that comes from God and leads to him.

“Are you resolved to be more united with the Lord Jesus and more closely conformed to him, denying yourselves and confirming those promises about sacred duties towards Christ’s Church which, prompted by love of him, you willingly and joyfully pledged on the day of your priestly ordination?” After this homily, I shall be addressing that question to each of you here and to myself as well.

Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church? We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date. But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for all true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?

All our preaching must measure itself against the saying of Jesus Christ: “My teaching is not mine” (Jn 7:16). We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the Church, whose servants we are. Naturally this should not be taken to mean that I am not completely supportive of this teaching, or solidly anchored in it.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20120405_messa-crismale_en.html

 

[bscastro]

What a beautiful homily. Thank you for sharing it.

God bless,
Bryan

 

[George_Stegmeir]

This thing of disobedient priests makes me yearn for the days before Vatican II, where all priests were obedient either to the head of their religious order or their Bishop. In those days, if a priest dared to publicly state anything against the teaching of Holy Mother the Church, he was gone in an eyeblink. There were many priests who were relieved of pastoral duties and sent to various monestaries to atone…And there were many who simply were defrocked.
I really think we would be better off as a smaller but more unified Church of pious, obedient believers and let the dissidents go the way of all heretics.

 

[Marybeloved]

But how is this doctrine received by Jeshua if he never said it?

The Gospel is not just what Jesus said- It’s what he did, too. And what he did was deliberately exclude his Holy mother, his faithful women followers and his loyal women friends who fed, clothed and took care of him throughout his ministry (one of them, throughout his life!) from the event where he instituted the priest-hood.

-So when he said “Do this in memory of me…” he said it only to the 12 men. When he washed their feet, it was the feet of the 12 men only.

Remember that he included Judas, his betrayer. Though he knew all about his betrayal. But not his women followers who would stick with him through Calvary and death and even after death (they were still going to attend to him on Sunday when they discovered he had risen). Yet he included the men who deserted, denied and betrayed him.

Now, if you look at Christ as some ordinary prophet, preacher etc- perhaps you may speak as you do. But to us, Christ is God- he knows everything. Yet knowing all this, he made the choices he did. Who are we to say that he did not mean or intend exactly what he did? Being God, everything he did and said is revelation to us and has meaning.

No Pope or Bishop or Priest or religious or lay person, has the right or power to include into Christ’s ministerial priesthood, persons that Christ deliberately excluded. The priest-hood, like the Church, is Christ’s property. What goes there is what he wants- no one else. We can meditate on why he would choose this (you’ve already been given good examples- The priest takes the place of Christ, the Bridegroom, who is male, and so cannot be a woman!). But bottom line is the will of our Lord- The Church cannot claim for herself authority that she has not received from her Lord.

It was interpreted this way by mortal men of another era, culture, and context nearly 2000 years ago. Today, and for a long time now, many people look at Jesus’ words and actions and don’t see this interpretation at all–not at all.

It has been interpreted that way for 2,000 years! Only the modern era has decided that Christ was not really thinking when he made his choices and that his choices were not deliberate, that his Apostles, who did not dare to change the custom as they received it from him, were somewhat confused. The Church says that Christ is God, he knew what he was doing, he did it deliberately and the Apostles obeyed him- No one has the right to usurp Christ’s will in the Church.

 

[Fiasco]

This thing of disobedient priests makes me yearn for the days before Vatican II…

I really think we would be better off as a smaller but more unified Church of pious, obedient believers and let the dissidents go the way of all heretics.

Remember that God doesn`t allow evil unless He can bring a greater good out of it. Those of us who are determined to defend Holy Mother Church against all-comers have our resolve strengthened by rebellions like this.

Thanks be to God, the ringleaders of most of the heretic/dissident groups are rather advanced in years.
Its a pity theyre not advanced in wisdom, along with the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Scoobyshme]

But how is this doctrine received by Jeshua if he never said it?

It was interpreted this way by mortal men of another era, culture, and context nearly 2000 years ago. Today, and for a long time now, many people look at Jesus’ words and actions and don’t see this interpretation at all–not at all.

“People” weren’t given the guarantee by Christ to properly interpret His truths. His Body, the Church, however, was. Especially Peter and his successors, the Popes.

Keep in mind that NOT everything Jesus said, did, and taught are IN the Bible. (See John 21:25)

Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles (and, by extension, their successors, the bishops) to go forth and teach “all” that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20).

So, if they were to teach “all” that Jesus taught them, and NOT everything Jesus taught is IN the Bible, where’s the rest?!

In the oral teachings of Christ, which we call Sacred Tradition (see 2 Thes 2:15), which have been faithfully carried forward, by the power of the Holy Spirit, for almost 2000 years now.

Jesus never wrote a book.

To the best of our knowledge, Jesus never commanded anyone to write a book.

The vast majority of people were illiterate until the last century. Until the late 1800’s, universal literacy was not a consideration. Therefore, a Bible-only, Bible-reading Church was not practical. It would have precluded the vast majority of people and been reduced to the literate elite.

Couple that with St. Peter’s warning not to self-interpret Scripture (2 Peter 1:20), and the disastrous results of self-interpreting Scripture (Protestantism, which continues to splinter into thousands of man-made, doctrinallly disunified denominations), and you have the Church as your sure guide. In fact, 1 Tim 3:15 calls the Church the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Historically, the only Christian Church in existance was the Catholic Church. The Orthodox split off in 1054 A.D., and Protestantism didn’t split off till 1517 A.D.

 

[heaintheavy]

So you think he picked the Twelve randomly and by chance?
And you don’t think many, many woman were amongst his disciples?
Because if you do, you’re wrong.

Not so random, no.
But that’s my point. Why are you looking at it as that he picked men as his apostles to mean that only men for the rest of eternity here on earth can be priests?
That may not have been his criteria.

There may have been other thinking behind his decision at that very moment in time.

It makes sense that he looked out at the group…saw that perhaps the women were in a difficult position having to have their periods every month (no convenient, portable tampons back then) or going through difficult pregnancies…and saw that it would be rough, unhealthy, dangerous for them to travel around to preach in harsh environments not knowing where they’d sleep or eat or whatever.

Also, he may have thought at the time that people will listen more to men than to women–since women held no positions of authority back then and were told to keep their mouths shut (as per that one biblical quote by…Paul, is it?). If that was the case, then that was a good choice. If I was hiring for apostle jobs, I may have done the same then–THEN, as per the surrounding conditions and culture.

But the set-up is completely different today, two thousand years later.
Most priests sleep in comfortable homes and go to a safe church to preach.
Women vote and are doctors and lawyers and politicians and in positions of authority, and people will listen to their wisdom.
Women today go out and fight wars.

His decision at the time may have been based on pure practicality of that specific era and we are misinterpreting it to mean something way different.

If he meant only men to be priests, you don’t think he would have been wise and clear to specify such an important point?

 

[heaintheavy]

Some of what you said is in line with Protestant deominations. They have no magisterium and and have varying interpretations as it relates to this issue. I think that women can spread the Gospel and “preach” the truths of Christianity but ordination to the priesthood comes from a mandate of the church. The Catholic church is holding to tradition which is an intregal part of what makes us different than Protestants. Thankfully we have tradition and scripture.

Please tell me…who exactly made this mandate?
And at what date?

Just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
People make decisions that are good at the time…that end up not being good in the future.
We’ve seen a lot of past traditions evolve over time because of need and for the good of humankind.
If we stay rigid and not keep our eyes open as to what needs to bend a bit…it will just break.

 

[fix]

Please tell me…who exactly made this mandate?
And at what date?

Just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
People make decisions that are good at the time…that end up not being good in the future.
We’ve seen a lot of past traditions evolve over time because of need and for the good of humankind.
If we stay rigid and not keep our eyes open as to what needs to bend a bit…it will just break.

Does truth contradict truth? I mean does the Holy Spirit speak through the magisterium one way and through dissenters another way? Who is the authority?

 

[heaintheavy]

Jesus never said the word “Trinity” either, but it is a foundational part of Catholicism (it’s a Dogma). To say “where did Jesus say that” is to endorse the heresy of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).
Catholics take our doctrines from 3 sources: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Universal Magisterium.
Also, you probably didn’t know that Jesus broke major ground with women in his time. Speaking to the Samaritan women at the well was downright scandalous, so to say that Jesus just kept to norms is simply a lie. Nothing less then a lie.

Yes…and from what I’ve read in a few books that examine the bible’s creation…the trinity was not decided upon as “dogma” until 3-4 hundred years after Jeshua died. That’s interesting. Many gospels at the time–banned and burned after the canon was decided upon–didn’t support a trinity way of thinking.
It is odd when paradigms and rules and set-ups are created on topics that Jeshua said nothing about, don’t you think?

(Not sure what you mean about Jesus keeping to norms? Must be from another post).

 

[heaintheavy]

Just a serious, though slightly snarky, aside: Did Jesus ever say “Jesus”?

I think he was called “Jeshua”? That is the proper way to say his name?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Not so random, no.
But that’s my point. Why are you looking at it as that he picked men as his apostles to mean that only men for the rest of eternity here on earth can be priests?
That may not have been his criteria.

There may have been other thinking behind his decision at that very moment in time.

It makes sense that he looked out at the group…saw that perhaps the women were in a difficult position having to have their periods every month (no convenient, portable tampons back then) or going through difficult pregnancies…and saw that it would be rough, unhealthy, dangerous for them to travel around to preach in harsh environments not knowing where they’d sleep or eat or whatever.

Also, he may have thought at the time that people will listen more to men than to women–since women held no positions of authority back then and were told to keep their mouths shut (as per that one biblical quote by…Paul, is it?). If that was the case, then that was a good choice. If I was hiring for apostle jobs, I may have done the same then–THEN, as per the surrounding conditions and culture.

But the set-up is completely different today, two thousand years later.
Most priests sleep in comfortable homes and go to a safe church to preach.
Women vote and are doctors and lawyers and politicians and in positions of authority, and people will listen to their wisdom.
Women today go out and fight wars.

His decision at the time may have been based on pure practicality of that specific era and we are misinterpreting it to mean something way different.

If he meant only men to be priests, you don’t think he would have been wise and clear to specify such an important point?

Jesus taught both by His words and by His actions. I think, perhaps, you are discounting Holy Tradition, which is equal in authority to Holy Scripture. We are heavily influenced by a Protestant mindset in this country in that many think that it HAS to be in the Bible to be believed. Not so. The question should not be, “Where is that in the Bible?” The question should be, “What does the Church, the Body of Christ, teach on the subject?”

Those who argue for women’s ordination usually do so using three forms of argumentation: 1. Utilitarianism 2. Sentimentalism 3. Civil Rights. The utilitarian argument goes like this: “Jane can do the job just as well–and better than a man. She has a degree in theology. She’s a great preacher. She is a sensitive pastor and a good servant of the Lord. Women have shown that they can do any job as well as a man. We need good priests. These women would be great priests.

The sentimental argument goes like this, “Sally is such a nice person. She is so loving and funny and kind and good. How can you be so cruel and unkind not to let her be a priest! It is so unfair and so hurtful. Sally’s mother was a pillar of the church and she’s such a good Christian woman. How can you hurt her like this? Don’t you know what pain you’re causing?”

The civil rights argument is simple: “Women and men are equal. You’re discriminating against women by denying them. By denying them ordination you’re treating them as second class citizens.”

Read the whole article here:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/03/why-women-cannot-be-priests.html

 

[CatholicGOPer]

Pope reaffirms ban on women priests
In his response to the Austrian group, his first in public, Pope Benedict noted that, in its “call to disobedience”, it had challenged “definitive decisions of the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) such as the question of women’s ordination …”
Story at Irish Times.

Full transcript of Pope Benedict XVI’s April 5, 2012 homily can be read here.

The title of this thread, to me, is a bit innaccurate. Its not that there is a “ban”, its just that it can never be: Period. Its sort of like saying there is a ban on living on the Sun. LOL! You could never live on the Sun anyway: It can never be.

Also, when John Paul II addressed this issue, it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who said that the Pope’s words should, in essence, be taken as an infallible statement when church officials asked for a clarification. So to say the Pope reaffirms this teaching is like saying the Pope reaffirms that there are 27 books in the New Testament. What else can he do. It is what it is, forever.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Please tell me…who exactly made this mandate?
And at what date?

Just because something is tradition, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
People make decisions that are good at the time…that end up not being good in the future.
We’ve seen a lot of past traditions evolve over time because of need and for the good of humankind.
If we stay rigid and not keep our eyes open as to what needs to bend a bit…it will just break.

Again, I think you are confusing “tradition” with “Tradition.” Mere “tradition” is customs. Those are always up for grabs and able to be changed. “Tradition,” on the other hand, is the oral teachings of Christ, passed on from the Apostles to their successors, the bishops, for almost 2000 years now. We do not have the authority to change “Tradition” because we do not claim the right to correct Christ, Who gave it to us.

 

[Marybeloved]

Not so random, no.
But that’s my point. Why are you looking at it as that he picked men as his apostles to mean that only men for the rest of eternity here on earth can be priests?
That may not have been his criteria.

There may have been other thinking behind his decision at that very moment in time.

It makes sense that he looked out at the group…saw that perhaps the women were in a difficult position having to have their periods every month (no convenient, portable tampons back then) or going through difficult pregnancies…and saw that it would be rough, unhealthy, dangerous for them to travel around to preach in harsh environments not knowing where they’d sleep or eat or whatever.

Also, he may have thought at the time that people will listen more to men than to women–since women held no positions of authority back then and were told to keep their mouths shut (as per that one biblical quote by…Paul, is it?). If that was the case, then that was a good choice. If I was hiring for apostle jobs, I may have done the same then–THEN, as per the surrounding conditions and culture.

But the set-up is completely different today, two thousand years later.
Most priests sleep in comfortable homes and go to a safe church to preach.
Women vote and are doctors and lawyers and politicians and in positions of authority, and people will listen to their wisdom.
Women today go out and fight wars.

His decision at the time may have been based on pure practicality of that specific era and we are misinterpreting it to mean something way different.

If he meant only men to be priests, you don’t think he would have been wise and clear to specify such an important point?

-Being a priest has nothing to do with travelling and preaching.
-Jesus claimed that he was God-----GOD! If he thought that women should be priests, absolutely nothing would have stopped him from saying so. Claiming Divinity is by far themost crazy thing a person could have claimed (Isn’t Good Friday proof enough of that?)
-Jesus was willing to be tortured and killed for his beliefs, with very few followers. It’s absurd for modernists to tell us that he wanted women priests but couldn’t do it because of the culture-LOOK at the man and tell me if you think that “culture” determined his choices and teachings.
-Jesus chose peasant, illiterate, uncultured fishermen as the forebearers of his message! Are you still going to insist on telling us that he made his choices based on who would be likely to be listened to? Jesus chose to be born a peasant himself- the son of a carpenter and he did not make much money at all, never traveled outside Palestine- Then he went and told the people including the elite that he was in fact God- Again, are you still going to keep making that argument that he was concerned about picking people the world would likely listen to? Seriously? Jesus is the last person to be in any way concerned about what the world respected and would be likely to listen to!

Jesus said and did what he believed was true, right and just- telling us that he deliberately excluded women simply for expediency or culture is an insult (a big one) to him.