Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[Tantum_ergo]

It’s interesting that the words of Tertulian are brought up.

However, it is possible that this particular work stems from the period where Tertullian was beginning to fall into error and heresy.

Likewise from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Tertulian himself we see this:

he next period of Tertullian’s literary activity shows distinct evidence of Montanist opinions, but he has not yet openly broken with the Church, which had not as yet condemned the new prophecy. Montanus and the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla had been long dead when Tertullian was converted to belief in their inspiration. He held the words of Montanus to be really those of the Paraclete, and he characteristically exaggerated their import. We find him henceforth lapsing into rigorism, and condemning absolutely second marriage and forgiveness of certain sins, and insisting on new fasts. His teaching had always been excessive in its severity; now he positively revels in harshness. Harnack and d’Alès look upon “De Virginibus velandis” as the first work of this time, though it has been placed later by Monceaux and others on account of its irritated tone. We learn that Carthage was divided by a dispute whether virgins should be veiled; Tertullian and the pro- Montanist party stood for the affirmative. The book had been preceded by a Greek writing on the same subject. Tertullian declares that the Rule of Faith is unchangeable, but discipline is progressive. He quotes a dream in favour of the veil. The date may be about 206. Shortly afterwards Tertullian published his largest extant work, five books against Marcion. A first draft had been written much earlier; a second recension had been published, when yet unfinished, without the writer’s consent ; the first book of the final edition was finished in the fifteenth year of Severus, 207. The last book may be a few years later. This controversy is most important for our knowledge of Marcion’s doctrine. The refutation of it out of his own New Testament, which consisted of St. Luke’s Gospel and St. Paul’s Epistles, enables us to reconstitute much of the heretic’s Scripture text. The result may be seen in Zahn’s, “Geschichte des N. T. Kanons”, II, 455-524.

IOW, just because a work is written by an author whose other works may have been good and representative of Church teaching doesn’t mean all his works are, or that even some works may not have ‘good’ parts and also ‘bad.’

 

[LucyLight]

As someone who was virtually unique for his day in demonstrated compassion for women, respect for them, as well as (“scandalous”) fellowship with women, including encouraging women to be among his disciples (which we know from history they were, abundantly), Jesus was verifiably not anti-female.

With Divine wisdom, He knew that the spiritual and practical roles women played then and play now do not require the ministerial priesthood itself. One of the paradoxes of Christian life is that, while the priesthood is “objectively” speaking a “superior” state, that status does not confer in itself any superior spiritual state for the man who has received the sacrament of Holy Orders. There are millions of women – both lay and religious – who are probably holier (closer to God) than possibly thousands of priests, due to the practice of virtue. And honest, aware priests would be the first to acknowledge that.

The Christian God is not a deity of power and privilege, but a God who values humility in every man and every woman, regardless of state in life. Those who follow that path are those most pleasing to God, whatever functions or roles they play in and outside of the Church. It’s a mistake to look upon the priesthood as one looks upon the presidency, the Cabinet, the Congress – and in general to look upon the Christian journey as a path to earthly power instead of a path to sublimate one’s own wish to exercise power & to dominate. Any man or woman who views the Catholic priesthood as an opportunity for “power” has completely lost the message of the gospel and does not understand the meaning of spiritual power.

Further, the majority of Catholic priests never make it to the rank of bishop or Cardinal, which is the only place to exercise “power” in any practical sense in the ecclesial body. The typical parish priest has amazingly little power. His power is to celebrate the sacraments, and to have some opportunity (less so in modern times with priesthood shortages) to avail himself of spiritual aids to become closer to God.

Women are enormously influential in the Church. They essentially run most parishes and are in charge of most catechesis. They often lead retreats, which is where those attending contemplate & receive spiritual power. Religious women, in Orders, make use of prayer & fidelity to their vows to exert all kinds of power (influence) in positive ways in the lives of others – those known & unknown to them. Many religious women do things like start television networks hmmm, draw major world attention to the conditions of the poor in Third World countires – thus becoming a force for change. There are women activitists (lay & religious) in the Church who have exerted more power for change & shown more leadership than many men in the Church, who, though faithful, have no charism for leadership and have chosen “only” to be simple parish priests, ministering to their local flock.

Among those who misunderstand the above are those not acquainted with the Catholic faith – and shockingly so, those Catholic women who should be most acquainted with their Catholic faith but thoroughly misunderstand the significance & limitations of the ministerial priesthood – not to mention what holiness does and does not mean. It is not achieved through a title or a specific role: all the great Saints have shown us that & written about that.

Okay this was posted a long time ago and I don’t have time to read all of the posts so forgive me if this has already been said.

Yes women run parishes and we have women teaching at seminaries and even female doctors of the Church. However, this is all a recent phenomenom. I don’t want to get controversial but I believe the SSPX do not accept female Doctors of the Church(correct me if I’m wrong here). This speaks to it being a change. Women have been marginalized in society and in the Church. Thank God this is changing or you could even say has changed within the Church. I don’t believe that the Priesthood being all male marginalizes women because it is a position of service and in that light you could argue elevates women.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay this was posted a long time ago and I don’t have time to read all of the posts so forgive me if this has already been said.

Yes women run parishes and we have women teaching at seminaries and even female doctors of the Church. However, this is all a recent phenomenom. I don’t want to get controversial but I believe the SSPX do not accept female Doctors of the Church(correct me if I’m wrong here).** This speaks to it being a change. **Women have been marginalized in society and in the Church. Thank God this is changing or you could even say has changed within the Church. I don’t believe that the Priesthood being all male marginalizes women because it is a position of service and in that light you could argue elevates women.

I am not following how the rejection by the SSPX of female doctors “speaks to it being a change”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is my opinionated conclusion based on a comparison of study of European history, modern U.S. history, and the history of the Catholic Church and Christianity.

As I see it, the position of women AND men in various countries over the period of AD1 to AD 2012 has varied widely.

And it is going to continue to vary.

Meaning, in AD 2212, for example, 200 years from now, there are going to be an additional 200 years (of which we obviously now have no conception of what will take place) in which our current idea of the nature of women and men in society may have evolved, so to speak, in a direction that is quite different to today’s understanding.

That doesn’t mean, pace Margaret Atwood, that we will 'go back to ’ the so-called ‘unenlightened dark ages’. But it doesn’t mean that it will continue on a trajectory in which the supposed summit of what male and female fulfillment and dignity and equality as we see it today**** will be regarded in the future****as being even minimally correct or adequate to what will then be considered appropriate and ‘right’.

So before we get our knickers in a twist in a fury at how women (and sometimes men) were treated or understood by that narsty old Church and its patriarchical society blah blah ad infinitum as though only what is accepted in AD 2012 is the GOLD STANDARD by which EVERY male and female and institution in history MUST BE JUDGED, let’s remember we are not writing in stone as to what truly is ‘right’.

And let’s not, for heaven’s sake, keep trying to foist a narrow AD2012 according to ‘societal norms’ view as what people should have done, espoused, and taught x years ago,

Do I think that there were cases where, just because the current ‘society’ believed that women were not able to handle jobs or engage in behaviors that were seen as masculine, meant that sadly not just women then but men were unable to realize a full potential? Sure. I believe those cases exist today, in spite of our supposedly more female-friendly society as well. We women are not all living perfect equal lives. And neither are men. I’m glad that women have more opportunities in many spheres but there is always going to be a cost because we don’t have ‘infinite’ money and infinite jobs and infinite time.

In order to take the opportunity to work outside the home, we have to pay the costs. Those aren’t simply money costs, they are time costs and they are societal costs. Because some women now take outside jobs they have less time to interact with their families (just as before the middle class white women in the U.S. worked outside the home, it was the paterfamilias of the family who had ‘less time’ to interact with the family.) IF women working outside the home mean (in a given scenario) that the husband has more time to interact with the family, that is a positive that helps balance the cost of the wife having less time.

But IF women working outside the home mean wife and husband have less time to interact with each other, with the children, and with the community outside each other’s workplace, that is a cost that needs to be balanced and so far rarely has been.

Hopefully in time men and women will be able to satisfy themselves at home, at work, with their spouses, with their children, with their communities. But how that happens might involve some very different concepts than we see today. Because the current system is really not working out very well for many many people.

 

[LucyLight]

I am not following how the rejection by the SSPX of female doctors “speaks to it being a change”.

Catholic tradition has not had any female doctors. Theresa of Avila was named a doctor of the Church in 1970.I just assummed posters would know what I was talking about. I could break it down more but SSPX is a controversial topic and I don’t want to derail this thread. I probably shouldn’t of brought it up.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholic tradition has not had any female doctors. Theresa of Avila was named a doctor of the Church in 1970.I just assummed posters would know what I was talking about. I could break it down more but SSPX is a controversial topic and I don’t want to derail this thread. I probably shouldn’t of brought it up.

There’s no reason to apologize for bringing it up, Lucy.

I just don’t understand the connection with SSPX rejection meaning that it’s a change. Why do you assume their rejection is necessarily because it’s “a change” and not due to the fact that they don’t believe women should be given that honor?

 

[LucyLight]

There’s no reason to apologize for bringing it up, Lucy.

I just don’t understand the connection with SSPX rejection meaning that it’s a change. Why do you assume their rejection is necessarily because it’s “a change” and not due to the fact that they don’t believe women should be given that honor?

The common factor in a lot of the SSPX’s positions is that they are in opposition to modern changes in the liturgy and the Church. Since naming women as female doctors of the church is a recent phenomenom I would assume this would be seen as one of those changes. They seem to believe that these modern changes are errors made by the Church. I do believe that they genuinely don’t believe women should be given the honor. I would assume that this was because this is how many of the older members where catechized. As where all Catholics before 1970.

 

[PRmerger]

The common factor in a lot of the SSPX’s positions is that they are in opposition to modern changes in the liturgy and the Church. Since naming women as female doctors of the church is a recent phenomenom I would assume this would be seen as one of those changes. They seem to believe that these modern changes are errors made by the Church. I do believe that they genuinely don’t believe women should be given the honor. I would assume that this was because this is how many of the older members where catechized. As where all Catholics before 1970.

Fair enough. I suppose 'tis possible that this is their rationale.

 

[mtngal25]

I don’t know why we have to keep discussing this issue but it seems that people are really ignorant of Catholic doctrine. The church is not an umbrella system where anything goes. It is hierarchical and if people don’t like that, they can choose a more democratic system in another denomination. God gave man free will, so mature people will use that to choose where they belong in a religion. There are different denominations to accomodate everybody so there is no reason in the world why anyone should waste time trying to change the church they are in. Just move over to another one. Liberal dissidents are troublemakers and very selfish people because they want to mess it up for the faithful who love the church the old way. They like to displace people when it is not necessary to do that. All these dissidents do is create more splits and groups. They ruin the unity of the church and only cause upset.
I would never accept women priests no matter what people say. It is not a social or rightist issue. It is a theological issue and people trying to persuade me to accept something I don’t want is going to get nowhere. There is no arguement that will make me change my mind so it is an act of futility to keep yapping about it.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know why we have to keep discussing this issue

This is about the 3rd time you’ve made this comment on this thread, and I am puzzled why you keep coming back, if you feel the discussion is over.

Discussions on a forum may go on as long as people have something to say (given the parameters of the CAFs).

It’s like being on a math forum and everyone knows that the differential equation is solvable, but some need to work it out in their heads first.

That’s what some are doing here.

 

[mtngal25]

There are a lot of guys who apply for the priesthood but don’t get in. If he is missing hands or has certain deformities and can’t perform the Mass, he has to find something else to do to serve the church. A person who is not specifically a man in the true sense of the word, can’t become a priest. The entersexual person has mixed DNA of both sexes and mixed sex organs. He has to decide what sex he is to be when he passes puberty. Most become women because their male organs don’t function sexually and it is easier to make them women than men. It is a hard situation to handle and they have to have lots of counciling and help. Unfortunately, men for the priesthood have to be able to function as true men and be an example of a real man. It is sad but that is the way it is. There are rules for being accepted into the priesthood. I remember the Menendez guy who had no arms and he played the guitar with his feet. He wanted to be a priest but could not because he had no hands. Yet, instead of rebelling and causing trouble about it, he chose another path where he is a real blessing. He understood why he could not be a priest but he certainly chose a wonderful way to minister to the public. He even received a papal kiss from Pope John Paul II in Iowa when the pope visited there some time ago. People have to learn that there are many things that we cannot always get. Life is not always fair and we have to have second choices when the first can’t be met.
Once again, if some people find the Catholic churches’ rules and doctrines too hard to accept, there are always other alternatives.

 

[mtngal25]

I keep coming back because I keep getting notices about another post in my email. I always want to know what someone else says so I read the posts. Seems like there are ideas that come up that has not been mentioned before so I respond. Once people are over talking about this issue then I guess it is really over. It is over for me and my beliefs but evidently other people keep on talking about it so it goes on. I think people get social rights issues mixed up with doctrinal issues and that is where the problem is.

 

[PRmerger]

I keep coming back because I keep getting notices about another post in my email. I always want to know what someone else says so I read the posts. Seems like there are ideas that come up that has not been mentioned before so I respond. Once people are over talking about this issue then I guess it is really over. It is over for me and my beliefs but evidently other people keep on talking about it so it goes on. I think people get social rights issues mixed up with doctrinal issues and that is where the problem is.

There’s an icon at the top that says Thread Tools. If you click on it you can find a thing that says “unsubscribe from this thread”, and then you won’t get any more notices.

Of course, you are always welcome to post here and dialogue.

My point was that it’s futile to tell folks, “The question has been answered! Move on!” because sometimes people have other points they’d like to make. They are still wrestling with the idea and it’s helpful for them to pose the question another way.

 

[mtngal25]

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.

What a great post! People who stay in the church in order to defy the church’s authority are defying the Holy Spirit Himself. As I said before, God gave the true church the power to carry on the teachings and traditions of the church and if anyone can’t accept that, then they have become protestants at that moment and should go to another church out of honesty. Dissidents are like a disease in the body which upsets the operation of the body and must be ousted for the health of the church. Vatican II has been used by dissidents to destroy the church from within. It is obvious to me and has been for years. As far as someone having to work things our in their minds, this has to be done by reading and prayer, not by fighting to maintain one’s error. Trying to push one’s error is evil as a Catholic. It means that one has not converted to the true faith and that they are trying to make people believe their way instead of submitting to the will of the church. I stayed outside the church for years before becoming Catholic so that I had all these problems resolved before coming into the church. It seems as if people want to resist the truth even though people are explaining over and over why we can’t have women priests. Once I became a Catholic, I did not try to hang on to protestant thinking. Notice that the Orthodox do not have women priests either. The Catholic church hopes to bring the east and the west together and that will not happen if we ordained women priests. Women priests is a pagan idea and goddess worship and witchcraft had women priestesses. We come out of Judaism which was the true faith before Christ revealed Himself so we follow that tradition. That is Christ’s tradition, not paganism and goddess worship.
Mtnga

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

What a great post! People who stay in the church in order to defy the church’s authority are defying the Holy Spirit Himself. As I said before, God gave the true church the power to carry on the teachings and traditions of the church and if anyone can’t accept that, then they have become protestants at that moment and should go to another church out of honesty. Dissidents are like a disease in the body which upsets the operation of the body and must be ousted for the health of the church. Vatican II has been used by dissidents to destroy the church from within. It is obvious to me and has been for years. As far as someone having to work things our in their minds, this has to be done by reading and prayer, not by fighting to maintain one’s error. Trying to push one’s error is evil as a Catholic. It means that one has not converted to the true faith and that they are trying to make people believe their way instead of submitting to the will of the church. I stayed outside the church for years before becoming Catholic so that I had all these problems resolved before coming into the church. It seems as if people want to resist the truth even though people are explaining over and over why we can’t have women priests. Once I became a Catholic, I did not try to hang on to protestant thinking. Notice that the Orthodox do not have women priests either. The Catholic church hopes to bring the east and the west together and that will not happen if we ordained women priests. Women priests is a pagan idea and goddess worship and witchcraft had women priestesses. We come out of Judaism which was the true faith before Christ revealed Himself so we follow that tradition. That is Christ’s tradition, not paganism and goddess worship.
Mtnga

As I have said before:
These would-be priestesses would be better off joining a religion that has more respect for the capabilities of women:shrug:

 

[scipio337]

As I have said before:
These would-be priestesses would be better off joining a religion that has more respect for the capabilities of women:shrug:

Only if one buys into your bare assertion fallacy that the Catholic Church doesn’t respect those capabilities.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[Lochias]

As I have said before:
These would-be priestesses would be better off joining a religion that has more respect for the capabilities of women:shrug:

You’re actually being quite insulting to all of those hardworking women in the Church who would disagree with you…but then, there’s not a lot one can say to a person who’s present merely to argue.

You can lead a horse to water, but they never say anything about the ***…

 

[mtngal25]

A couple days ago, there was a protest after Palm Sunday Mass in my city regarding this. It seems to have been part of a bigger movement.

I always have trouble answering this question (why can’t women be priests), so I’ll have to study it…I know it’s been asked here probably many times.

God bless,
Bryan

Here is the way I made my decision about which church to actually join. I got out a paper, wrote down the beliefs and issues that I had studied and had answers to, then I compared it to what other churches taught. The Catholic church stood out as the one that I agreed with. It took years to come to a conclusion. I liked the fact that there was a pope who made the decisions and not the laity. I did not question the church because I had gone through that before my decision. Women priests was an issue I studied and I knew that it was not scriptural and I was much happier with the Catholic setup. I believe that people should get all these issues taken care of in their hearts before making a decision. I do not believe in infighting on these issues. If one finds that his or her decision was wrong, then find another church that fits your belief system. It is like marriage. Make sure you have the right person and that you love that person more than anything. Otherwise, don’t get married to that person. The church is like that. Either love it or recognize that you made a mistake and look elsewhere but don’t fight the system. It ruins the unity of the church and always realize that the Catholic church is not a democracy. If one wants that, then look into the congregational church or one that just has elders to vote on things. Ordaining priests is a theological thing, not a social or rightist thing. Also, most of the changes after Vatican II did not come from the documents or the council itself but from liberal infiltrators who got the changes through disobedience and weak bishops. I have no obedience to these changes and therefore bypass them in the fssp parish which I attend regularly.

 

[mtngal25]

Only if one buys into your bare assertion fallacy that the Catholic Church doesn’t respect those capabilities.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

There is no other church on earth other than the Orthodox that honors a woman more than the Catholic church. The Blessed Mother is honored greatly and revered in our church. She is loved everywhere in our parishes. Women have a special place in our church but cannot be priests because of the theological teachings of the right matter for a valid sacrament. The church has it all written out and it cannot be changed, period. Just as we use only water for baptism, one man and one woman for marriage, properly consecrated oils for confirmation and ordination, etc we use only men for priests. Any other usage would invalidate the sacrament according to Catholic teachings. If anyone changed this, then it would no longer be the Bride of Christ. Pope John Paul stated this in the Catholic Register in Denver when he came for World Youth Day in 1993.He said that if the church renigned on Her divine teachings then She would no longer be the Bride of Christ. That is when some dissidents were harrassing the pope for the church to change its teachings on gay activity, women priests, moral issues, you name it, they said it. The pope stood firm. That is one of the things that keeps me Catholic–the pope makes the decisions and not the dissidents.

 

[vsedriver]

Quote:

As I have said before:
These would-be priestesses would be better off joining a religion that has more respect for the capabilities of women:shrug:

What you should have said is that would-be priestesses would be better off joining a religion that allows priestesses.

It is a lie that the Catholic Church doesn’t respect the capabilities of women. Please don’t malign the Church because of your opinion.