Priesthood-Males Only-Question

[CollegeKid]

Let’s face it-“women’s ordination” is a contradiction in terms. My question then, is this-what is a good way to respond to those who claim that the 2000-year history of an exclusively male priesthood is simply a practice, that you can claim its part of ordinary infallibility but you can’t actually prove that all bishops have always and everywhere taught that only males can be ordained?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Let’s face it-“women’s ordination” is a contradiction in terms. My question then, is this-what is a good way to respond to those who claim that the 2000-year history of an exclusively male priesthood is simply a practice, that you can claim its part of ordinary infallibility but you can’t actually prove that all bishops have always and everywhere taught that only males can be ordained?

You can however point out that Christ called twelve and they were all men. There were Women that played an IMPORTANT role in salvation history, but never as an Apostle.

Also, Priests act in corpus Christie during the Eucharist, they are the Bridegroom to Christ’s Bride the Church. The first hurdle to overcome in ordaining Women, is getting the Church to change her stance on same sex marriage so that women could marry women. Then you could have a women representing Christ to his bride the Church…Go luck with that.

 

[CollegeKid]

good points. thanks. anyone else who wants to respond please do.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The question of the ordination of women to the deaconate is an open question. Currently, a Catholic may hold the opinion that the Church has the authority to ordain women as deacons.

I believe that Pope John Paul II’s letter on women’s ordination to the priesthood contains a use of papal infallibility such that a Catholic can no longer hold the opinion that the Church has authority to ordain women as priests or bishops.

Ron

 

[CollegeKid]

from what I’ve heard, even the diaconate is closed to women because of the essential unity of all three holy orders.

 

[az_4_faith]

Let’s face it-“women’s ordination” is a contradiction in terms. My question then, is this-what is a good way to respond to those who claim that the 2000-year history of an exclusively male priesthood is simply a practice, that you can claim its part of ordinary infallibility but you can’t actually prove that all bishops have always and everywhere taught that only males can be ordained?

Actually, the male-only priesthood has been in place long before even Jesus ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood. It goes all the way back through the Old Testament - back to Adam (can’t go much further than that!).

Before the Levitacal priesthood of Moses’ time, the priesthood was implied in the first-born male of the family. The family blessing was passed from father to first-born male, then the Levites became a tribe of priests leading up to Jesus’ ordination of the twelve, who in turn ordained their successors -all male.

Because of this, John Paul II affirmed what has only been in place since the beginning. This is why it is not up to us - any one of us - to change, as he stated.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Remember, these are the neo-age skeptics who have been indoctrinated over the last 40 years in schools, universities, etc. to ‘question everything.’

For them, nothing is capable of being proved 100%. The Bible? How do we know it was not tampered with at some point? How do we know that what we think is the Bible is the real one?
How do we know that there were never any female priests? No records? Could have been destroyed. No documentation? Could have been suppressed. (and don’t forget Pope Joan. Even though that story can be traced back to anticlericals who made it up out of whole cloth, you’ll still have die-hard skeptics going, “but where did the idea come from if such a thing had never happened?”)

It’s a great position from their point of view. If something is ever mentioned (verbal or written), then it happened, if it supports what they argue for. If it doesn’t, then “how do you know this oral or written event happened for sure?”

If something is not mentioned, then it’s “how do you know that it did** not **happen and was covered up?”

You can’t argue with someone who basically argues that something is not provable and that therefore anything goes because you can’t ‘prove’ it wasn’t done, wasn’t approved, wasn’t taught.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t ‘make him drink.’

 

[jbuck919]

For them, nothing is capable of being proved 100%. The Bible? How do we know it was not tampered with at some point? How do we know that what we think is the Bible is the real one?
How do we know that there were never any female priests? No records? Could have been destroyed. No documentation? Could have been suppressed. (and don’t forget Pope Joan. Even though that story can be traced back to anticlericals who made it up out of whole cloth, you’ll still have die-hard skeptics going, “but where did the idea come from if such a thing had never happened?”)

These are not at all the questions educated skeptics, let alone believers exercising their God-given critical faculties, ask. These are the questions some people would like to be asked because they would make doubters and questioners appear sufficiently stupid so as to dismiss them out of hand.

On the matter of the level of solemnity with which JP II proclaimed the “solemn dogma of the male-only priesthood,” it is not the first time a pope has tried to tie his succressors’ hands this way. Pius V canonized the Traditional Latin Mass for all time with an even more solemn document involving anathemas, and we know how well that eventually took. The issue is, what is of the nature that can be dogma, and what is of the nature of what must remain (however immutable over time) church disipline, and nothing, not even the indomitable will of a stubborn pope, can put in one category what belongs in the other.

 

[CollegeKid]

I assume that by “the indomitable will of a stubborn pope” you’re referring to John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The male-only priesthood may only look like a matter of church discipline at first glance, but if you’re just going on this I think that’s way too dismissive of the nature of the male-only priesthood of the Old Testament, Christ’s selection of only male apostles, the fact that He ordained neither his mother nor Mary Magdalen nor any other woman, the fact that there are no Gospel instances of a woman being ordained, the writings of Church Fathers who condemned those who tried to ordain women, a 2000-year history of the male-only priesthood and as others have noted the key tenets of the theology behind just what a priest is-“another Christ,” one who is acting in place of the One Whose Bride is the Church. A woman cannot serve in this capacity.

 

[Karianne]

I assume that by “the indomitable will of a stubborn pope” you’re referring to John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. The male-only priesthood may only look like a matter of church discipline at first glance, but if you’re just going on this I think that’s way too dismissive of the nature of the male-only priesthood of the Old Testament, Christ’s selection of only male apostles, the fact that He ordained neither his mother nor Mary Magdalen nor any other woman, the fact that there are no Gospel instances of a woman being ordained, the writings of Church Fathers who condemned those who tried to ordain women, a 2000-year history of the male-only priesthood and as others have noted the key tenets of the theology behind just what a priest is-“another Christ,” one who is acting in place of the One Whose Bride is the Church. A woman cannot serve in this capacity.

Cannot or MAY not?
I think that some women COULD be very good priests.
No girls in the priesthood is the least of the problems in the Church, in my opinion, though.
To me, the worst thing, right now, are the bishops and cardinals who failed to protect the children of the church against the pedophiles.
I believe to the bottom of heart that had women been in charge that those priests would have been out on their ears!

 

[fix]

These are not at all the questions educated skeptics, let alone believers exercising their God-given critical faculties, ask. These are the questions some people would like to be asked because they would make doubters and questioners appear sufficiently stupid so as to dismiss them out of hand.

On the matter of the level of solemnity with which JP II proclaimed the “solemn dogma of the male-only priesthood,” it is not the first time a pope has tried to tie his succressors’ hands this way. Pius V canonized the Traditional Latin Mass for all time with an even more solemn document involving anathemas, and we know how well that eventually took. The issue is, what is of the nature that can be dogma, and what is of the nature of what must remain (however immutable over time) church disipline, and nothing, not even the indomitable will of a stubborn pope, can put in one category what belongs in the other.

So, when the pope says the teaching is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium he is wrong and you are correct?

 

[jbuck919]

So, when the pope says the teaching is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium he is wrong and you are correct?

An old (well sick and late-middle-aged) man holds his head in his hands and says, “Oh God, oh God, I can’t believe they are contemplating making women priests. I can’t even stand them as altar servers. Please make this go away. It is such a painful thing for me to contemplate that I think I will go to the extremest length available to me, even though it is a matter of neither faith nor morals as defined by Vatican I. Yes, I will attempt to bind my succssors’ hands forever by using those magic words ‘magisterium’ and maybe even ‘infallible.’ All for the greater good, not to mention the repose of my own soul, of course.”

 

[Franciscan]

An old (well sick and late-middle-aged) man holds his head in his hands and says, “Oh God, oh God, I can’t believe they are contemplating making women priests. I can’t even stand them as altar servers. Please make this go away. It is such a painful thing for me to contemplate that I think I will go to the extremest length available to me, even though it is a matter of neither faith nor morals as defined by Vatican I. Yes, I will attempt to bind my succssors’ hands forever by using those magic words ‘magisterium’ and maybe even ‘infallible.’ All for the greater good, not to mention the repose of my own soul, of course.”

Not only do you not know the Church’s teaching on the All-Male priesthood very well but now we can see the root of your problem- A complete lack of understanding of the nature of the Church.

Like most heresies this one too can be traced back to a errant understanding that the Church is Both a **Human institution **and Divine mystery.

It’s the divine mystery part that so many people today fail to get. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bishops are the successors of Peter and the Apostles. They have an unbroken chain of ordination through the laying on of hands(Holy Orders).

The Holy Spirit guides, sanctifies and protects the Spouse of Christ, the Church.

The Holy Spirit teaches through the Magisterium the same way he Inspired the writers of scripture guarding them to be innerant in matters of faith and morals.That’s why the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (and not you).

As soon as we think of Scriptures or the Church as merely human in origin or in essence then we can disregard anything they say.

 

[jbuck919]

There is plenty of mystery in the truly dogmatic teachngs of the Church wihout someone having to go into the depth of–what is it–the 500 or more pages of the CCC. I have to wonder whether it ever occurred to Benedict XVI that the average person across the world can barely manage ten pages of indoctrination, let alone a tome of that scope. I realize that many people here are proud of observing to the last syllable, even when it may present moral contradicitons. May you all have the pleasure of meeting one another in the audience hall in Vatican City, shaking hands across the empty seats in between. “Ordinary” educated observant Catholics know the difference between loyalty and brown-nosing, and exercise their God-given critical faculties because that is actually the morally courageous way to go, where extreme fundamentalisim and an ultra-orthodox position is a moral cop–out that boils down to people giving up their moral autonomy to take the easier road. Except that I don’t believe for one minute that all these posters are in such a state that butter would not melt in their mouth.

 

[Brendan]

Let’s face it-“women’s ordination” is a contradiction in terms. My question then, is this-what is a good way to respond to those who claim that the 2000-year history of an exclusively male priesthood is simply a practice, that you can claim its part of ordinary infallibility but you can’t actually prove that all bishops have always and everywhere taught that only males can be ordained?

Actually, it’s not necessary to prove that all bishops everywhere taught this, but only all bishops in communion with the Pope.

So to be outside of the Ordinary Magisterium, it would have been necessary for a Pope to have taught it, in addition to other bishops.

Can this person name a single Pope who ordained women.

 

[kleary]

Let’s face it-“women’s ordination” is a contradiction in terms. My question then, is this-what is a good way to respond to those who claim that the 2000-year history of an exclusively male priesthood is simply a practice, that you can claim its part of ordinary infallibility but you can’t actually prove that all bishops have always and everywhere taught that only males can be ordained?

At the first Mass Jesus said, “This is my body”.

The priest in every Mass must also say, “This is my body”.

Jesus has the body of a man. End of discussion and debate. Jesus did not have the body of a woman therefore no woman can offer Holy Mass.

Ken

 

[Linkowski]

I think the scriptures are very clear…

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 4 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 NKJV 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

It all goes back to the beginning of human history and is not cultural in nature.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Priests must act in persona Christi during the Mass and during Confession. Since Christ was a male, a woman is unable to act in the person of Christ. That ends the argument for me… combined with the Biblical fact that Jesus did not choose a woman to give the authority to “bind and loose”.

For those who insist that the Church must modernize and conform to the standards of todays society, I would remind them that the Bible warns us not to conform to the world around us (Rm 12:2).

Further, I would like to see records documenting all the validly ordained (that is, with the approval of the Church) women. I suspect those records are non-existent.

Lastly, I would kindly suggest that women play an important role in the Church. I can rattle off many female saints who served God faithfully in a role outside of the priesthood. Some duties in life are made for a man, some for a woman. Perhaps if God changes the way things are done, women will be priests and men can give birth. But until then we have to stick with the rules He set up.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There is plenty of mystery in the truly dogmatic teachngs of the Church wihout someone having to go into the depth of–what is it–the 500 or more pages of the CCC. I have to wonder whether it ever occurred to Ratzinger that the average person across the world can barely manage ten pages of indoctrination, let alone a tome of that scope. I realize that many people here are proud of observing to the last syllable, even when it may present moral contradicitons. May you all have the pleasure of meeting one another in the audience hall in Vatican City, shaking hands across the empty seats in between. “Ordinary” educated observant Catholics know the difference between loyalty and brown-nosing, and exercise their God-given critical faculties because that is actually the morally courageous way to go, where extreme fundamentalisim and an ultra-orthodox position is a moral cop–out that boils down to people giving up their moral autonomy to take the easier road. Except that I don’t believe for one minute that all these posters are in such a state that butter would not melt in their mouth.

I would put forth that is takes a lot more courage to stand up today and say Women cannot due to their nature be Priests,Homosexual acts are mortal sins, abortion is wrong… then to cop an attitude like yours that presents itself as morally and intellectually superior because of worldly views.

Now you obviously have an opinion on the matter so instead of making fun of the truth why not try and defend your beliefs? Or is that the best argument you have? “I don’t believe it because it doesn’t suit my agenda and some old guy made it up.”

 

[fix]

An old (well sick and late-middle-aged) man holds his head in his hands and says, “Oh God, oh God, I can’t believe they are contemplating making women priests. I can’t even stand them as altar servers. Please make this go away. It is such a painful thing for me to contemplate that I think I will go to the extremest length available to me, even though it is a matter of neither faith nor morals as defined by Vatican I. Yes, I will attempt to bind my succssors’ hands forever by using those magic words ‘magisterium’ and maybe even ‘infallible.’ All for the greater good, not to mention the repose of my own soul, of course.”

Again, we cannot trust the pope but we can each become a pope. Where is that in Scripture or Tradition?

Perhaps the divinity of Christ is really a matter of opinion as well?