Question for those who think women should be ordained.

[Brendan_64]

One more important point, among many I forgot to mention:
Women feel a “calling” to this as passionately and truly as the men do

But it is not about fulfilling one’s own calling. This would seem to be a very people-centred approach, using the fact women feel called to this cannot be a justification do something that the Church has no power or authority to do. Gay people can feel strongly ‘called’ to ‘marriage’ to one another. Is that a justification for accepting gay ‘marriage’?

If you’ve ever read an interview with one of the women who have gone thru the ordination process by a bishop, you will see this honest devotion to the calling.

No woman has ever gone through a valid ordination process. If women feel ‘called’ to be priests, then they should conform themselves to the teaching of Christ’s Church and accept that they are mistaken. There are not, have not been, and never will be, valid women priests.

 

[frizzgrig]

I agree that women should be ordained.

I think Jesus meant for it to be so.
I think the biblical canon is probably lacking many books and stories that would have shown more female involvement and leadership, but these were not included in the official canon centuries later for various reasons.
Take the fragment that was found recently, quoting Jesus talking about Mary M, telling the other male disciplines she is “worthy” of the job.
In the catacombs in Rome, several paintings on the walls show women as priests wearing albs and as deacons.
Many NT scholars agree that in early Christianity in the first few centuries, women took leadership roles and gave out the Eucharist at home with their families.
But as the heirarchy and structure of the church was established, they were left behind. Perhaps it was Paul’s infamous words in his letter decades later about women not talking in church that snuffed them out.

And if Jesus did only choose men for apostles that one day, it may have been for other reasons.
Maybe he was worried for the women’s safety, that men would not accept listening to a woman (Paul!!!) and would stone them. He may have thought the road was too difficult for them. Or that it would be hard for them to be pregnant and preach at the same time. Or maybe on the day he chose the Apostles, there were no women nearby. The point is, he didn’t say why …so it could have been anything. And if it was the reasons above, these obstacles no longer exist…and no where, no time, did he say it was only to be men, and forever.

As many have pointed out, Jesus exalted women higher than most did in that day. After Jesus died, Mary Magdalene did go off and preach for the rest of her life. She was, in essence, a priest/preacher. Who knows what he would have done had he lived longer.

Why didn’t he make Mary his mother an Apostle? Well, maybe she didn’t want to be one, we don’t know. In that one scene in Mark 3 , she has many of Jesus’ brothers around her to take care of. She was needed at home. Also in that scene, he and Mary seem a bit at odds…

People have argued that the priest needs to be male because he is representing or embodying Jesus. Well, why would the sex parts be important here? There is nothing physical or sexual that a priest does in his duties that are gender-specific. It’s not as though the priest must impregnate a woman or anything. It is the soul and spirit that is important here.

I assume the women were present at that last Passover meal and partook of the bread and wine. I think all four gospels say he went for the meal with his “disciples” not apostles…and that includes women. Passover dinner is a very important ritual…Jesus was very Jewish…it’s not like he’s going to send the women out into the night on Passover.
When he gives out the bread and wine, the bible says it was to his disciples…not his apostles, even tho just the 12 Apostles are mentioned in other moments to differentiate just them.

Matthew 26:26–
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

The two Marys–his mother and Magdalena, were with him from start to finish–at birth and at death–as women often do. Mary Magdalena even helped to fund his ministry. They did not run when Jesus was to be crucified, as the other male disciples did. They never denied him or betrayed him.
Surely, these two strong, wise, unflinching women in his life have earned their stripes enough for all women.

.

And yet, even with the strong support of His mother Mary and Mary Magdalen, Jesus did not - as far as we know, or have evidence of - ordain any women. We don’t know the reason He did not, but this is what we have given to us in scriptures and through the tradition of the Church.

 

[frizzgrig]

I do not believe you will find a statement from Christ that women are not fit for ordination -the Apostles were the product of their times where women did not rank too highly

I have heard the arguement “well the 12 Apostles were men” -yes they were but what about Mary Magndalene and those daughters of Philip-Mary Magdalene did not abandon Christ on the Cross as did at least 10 of the Apostles

The Blessed Virgin was fully human and female and I believe that She ranks higher than the Apostles in Roman Catholic teaching

so it is fine for a woman to be the Mother of God-but she can not be a Priest-you will admit that in the early Church there were female Deacons-

Can you show a source that confirms there were female deacons ordained in the Catholic Church? I am not talking about wives of deacons being called deaconess, or women appearing in albs, assisting with baptism (which they did for reasons of propriety), or even teaching - but an actual source that verifies a woman was ordained by a bishop to the order of deacons.

 

[iepuras]

Hi Brendan 64:

In a previous post earlier today, I advocated for the ordination of women - or at least gave my understanding of why denying them ordination was on somewhat shaky ground, but expressly stated I am not a member of the church, just investigating. Let me play devil’s advocate with you. If the church DID want to ordain women, HOW would that authority be obtained? Direct revelation from Christ thru Pope Francis? And IF that happened and the church made it clear that it would be so, WHY would the women “never actually be priests”? Wouldn’t a “proclamation” from the Pope be sufficient? Kind of reminds me of back a few decades ago when blacks were not allowed in the LDS (Mormon) priesthood. The church’s president stated he had a “revelation” that that doctrine should be reversed. No one (publicly) refuted that. If your argument - and a widely held one I’m not disputing that - is that the RC Church does not have the authority to ordain women, IF it could be done, HOW could it be done? Trying to learn!!

Popes are not prophets in either the bibical or Mormon sense. Jesus and the Apostles warned us about false prophets. One of the main proofs of a false prophet is that the prophet teaches something contrary to the deposit of faith left us by Jesus and the Apostles.

Mormon prophets make things up as they go along and are not even officially considered “infallible” by Mormon faithful even though they supposedly talk to God. I can tell you the Mormon propeht who received a “revelation” to give blacks the priesthood did so after other universities were starting to refuse to play against BYU in athletic events and the IRS was starting to poke around BYU’s tax exempt status (similar to what they did to Bob Jones University). This “revelation” also came about a few months before the LDS church dedicated their first temple in Brazil. They were growing along in Brazil and struggled with leadership since anyone with a drop of African ancestry was barred from the priesthood. They were also having PR problems in Brazil since a large number of their faithful who donated their money to build the temple would not even be able to go inside. No one refuted the prophet publicly because 1) the priesthood ban and racist statements of prior prophets were embarassing and 2) one can be excommunicated for publicly disagreeing with the Mormon prophet. The Mormon prophet who “ended” the practice of polygamy did so so that Utah would be admitted to the Union.

The pope’s job is to be faithful to, protect and teach the deposit of faith. He doesn’t get to make it up as he goes along.

 

[Las_Vegas]

Popes are not prophets in either the bibical or Mormon sense. Jesus and the Apostles warned us about false prophets. One of the main proofs of a false prophet is that the prophet teaches something contrary to the deposit of faith left us by Jesus and the Apostles.

Mormon prophets make things up as they go along and are not even officially considered “infallible” by Mormon faithful even though they supposedly talk to God. I can tell you the Mormon propeht who received a “revelation” to give blacks the priesthood did so after other universities were starting to refuse to play against BYU in athletic events and the IRS was starting to poke around BYU’s tax exempt status (similar to what they did to Bob Jones University). This “revelation” also came about a few months before the LDS church dedicated their first temple in Brazil. They were growing along in Brazil and struggled with leadership since anyone with a drop of African ancestry was barred from the priesthood. They were also having PR problems in Brazil since a large number of their faithful who donated their money to build the temple would not even be able to go inside. No one refuted the prophet publicly because 1) the priesthood ban and racist statements of prior prophets were embarassing and 2) one can be excommunicated for publicly disagreeing with the Mormon prophet. The Mormon prophet who “ended” the practice of polygamy did so so that Utah would be admitted to the Union.

The pope’s job is to be faithful to, protect and teach the deposit of faith. He doesn’t get to make it up as he goes along.

Very true in relation to why the LDS Church began to admits blacks to the priesthood and Utah statehood. You have a very good LDS theological background. Just trying to compare their “revelations” to HOW the Pope could change the doctrine regarding no women priests.

 

[L_Marshall]

Point of clarification:
Some people have said that women would make good priests because they are better consolers, or counselors.

The role of consoler or counselor is not vital to the vocation of priesthood. The goals of the priesthood are the offering of sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins.

Consoling is something that belongs to pastorality.

While priesthood is definitely configured in a way to be extremely compatible with pastorality, it is not required. Someone who does not work in ministry can act pastorally. Some people work full-time in pastoral ministry without being priests.

Some priests work full-time outside of pastoral roles. I know several priests who have never acted as pastors, but teach or act as administrators. This does not make them any less of a priest. Be careful not to make the priesthood something it’s not.

 

[Brendan_64]

Just trying to compare their “revelations” to HOW the Pope could change the doctrine regarding no women priests.

The bottom line is he can’t do this. The Pope does not have the power or authority to change Church dogma. The Pope cannot simply decree something like this, he simply cannot do it. That is what John Paul II, Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis have all said.

 

[johnmann]

Technically, Pope John Paul II closed the door to women priests. There is still lively debate about the viability of women deacons.

Both proponents and opponents have tough questions to answer. All of God’s commandments have reasons. The prohibition against female ordination is unique in that it has no raison d’etre. It just is. That makes it very difficult to accept. On the other hand, Jesus only picked male apostles. Why? He wasn’t held back by social norms. Even if he were, at the very least he could’ve said he chose men only because it was easier. But he offered no excuse. It was to be men only. That’s very difficult to explain.

 

[FCEGM]

Hi Brendan 64:

In a previous post earlier today, I advocated for the ordination of women - or at least gave my understanding of why denying them ordination was on somewhat shaky ground, … . .Trying to learn!!

Excellent!

The Incarnation of God as Man is a key to understanding the Church’s teaching on this. True inspired religion was essentially different from pagan religion because true inspired religion was ordered toward the mysterious and eternal Fatherhood of God (see Eph. 3:14-15), and thus had male priests to image this Divine Fatherhood, whereas pagan religion worshipped forces of the created universe (as if they were gods), and thus had priestly ministers who imaged the qualities of these created forces, which were seen as either male (a god) or female (a goddess). The true God of Israel could not be imaged as a female, i.e., a receptive nurturer of life, since He is the initiating Creator of all, and thus a clear Progenitor and Originator of life - a role held in human and created biology by men, not by women. To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices. Thus a Tradition which is Divine in origin and Divine in being sustained by the Holy Spirit manifests the will of that Christ. Faith accepts that. Human perception and self-will do not respect that.

Given this insistence on the material medium as being essential for the validity of sacramental grace and not faith in it alone, a Catholic may not hold to another understanding of the priesthood. In Protestantism the personal sincerity self-affirmed is the interior condition alone which validates, and then the outward sign is merely expressing this already existing spiritual reality believed in so that it is merely a political issue to get the institution to accept the believed-valid spiritual reality already existing.

For Catholics the only valid spiritual reality is made present through the integrity of the sacramental signs which confer the interior reality. Any corruption of the sign (essential alteration of the matter, form, i.e., words and meaning, minister) invalidates the presence of the Reality.

An article that may help in your inquiry:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[Brendan_64]

Technically, Pope John Paul II closed the door to women priests. There is still lively debate about the viability of women deacons.

Both proponents and opponents have tough questions to answer. All of God’s commandments have reasons. The prohibition against female ordination is unique in that it has no raison d’etre. It just is. That makes it very difficult to accept. On the other hand, Jesus only picked male apostles. Why? He wasn’t held back by social norms. Even if he were, at the very least he could’ve said he chose men only because it was easier. But he offered no excuse. It was to be men only. That’s very difficult to explain.

God does not have to justify His actions to me. He does not have to explain Himself. He chose only men as His apostles, even though He could have chosen women.

You say, “at the very least he could’ve said…”. This is Almighty God we’re talking about, should He really be expected to justify His decisions to us mere mortal men? Surely it is enough to accept that He has chosen to do this, and therefore we must accept and obey without expecting Him to justify His actions?

 

[Abu]

DaddyGirl #20
I agree that women should be ordained.
I think Jesus meant for it to be so.

Both feelings are in error by rejecting the reality of the institution of the male priesthood by Jesus Himself, and the reality of His teaching, ruling and sanctifying Church.

1) It is vital to know what Jesus actually taught and to know what he actually did – neither in teaching nor in His actions did He allow for women priests. Precisely the opposite.
He chose His twelve male Apostles with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and founded His Church on them.

It is God the Son Himself who came not to destroy but to fulfill, and who instituted the New Covenant of which His Church is His Bride. That is why He instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper for His male Apostles who became in persona Christi, that is, in the very person of Christ, who becomes truly present at the consecration at Mass. It should be quite obvious why Christ chose only men as no woman could be in persona Christi. There is no flaw there, but a failure to accept reality. The fact that Jesus commanded them to “teach all nations” leaves out no one from that mandate.

**2) It is vital to know that He founded His Church to teach dogma and doctrine infallibly.**This is the core of the authority given by God the Son:
Christ who wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

**3) It is vital to know what His Church actually teaches. **
Popes may and have taught infallibly within a document as for instance the doctrine on male-only priests in Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 which confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself.

 

[Brendan_64]

Very good post Abu.

 

[ChemicalBean]

For those who think women should be ordained as priests what is the reasoning behind this thought? Why do you think women should be priests? Is it just for equality? something more?

Disclaimer: I hope to respond to this without trying to engage in passionate argument. I have often struggled with this teaching and come up with no resolution. God gives humans faculties of reason. Questioning, pondering, and reasoning are things that we humans are designed to do. By doing these things with a sincere heart, we glorify God who designed us that way. Engaging in this topic, especially if it is troubling, should never be cause for being called dissenting, disobedient, or disloyal. If a reader has any intention of replying to this in a “militant-stamp-out-the-heresy” fashion, it is best to ignore the remainder of this post and depart in peace.

• Much hay is made that Jesus chose 12 Jewish men to lead in his example. Jesus wasn’t dumb, and so reason tells us it was somehow an intentional choice. We just don’t necessarily know why, and if it was to be a model for all time.

• We know that Jesus loved and respected both men and women, unusual for his day. He could have chosen women if he wanted. It is reasonable that Jesus may have known that in his absence, it would have been harder for the New Way to take hold if women were also entrusted with that ministry.
• We know that his mother Mary was not one of the 12. People often use this to say “Well, if the most perfect among women wasn’t chosen, he wouldn’t have chosen any woman.” But, that reasoning forgets that she already was the Mother of God, spouse of the Holy Spirit, living tabernacle, etc. “Ordaining” her would have been a demotion.
• 12 Jewish men carries the meaning of re-establishing the 12 tribes of Israel, and this makes sense because the Jewish priesthood was male. But, one of the early church controversies was whether the Gentiles had to convert to Judaism before being Christian, and the answer became a loud and clear “No.” So the successors to the 12 were not necessarily Jews, and today I doubt most bishops are either. In the new order, there is no “Gentile or Jew”, why should there be “male or female”? Also, we have way more than 12 patriarchs and bishops in the world today, so number is not important either.

• Much hay is made that because Jesus was male, then those who iconically represent him in the Eucharistic sacrifice and feast must also be male.

• From a sacramental standpoint, it is argued that ordaining women is impossible because they are invalid matter, and there would be no ontological change. Yet, we know that men and women are the same substance. What did Adam say after waking up from surgery? “Ah, here is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone!” Likewise, the wine we use for communion elements can be white or red wine (even though red more easily reminds the senses of blood), just so long as it is pure grape wine.
• We share in one baptism. There is no separate rite for male baptism and female baptism. There is no separate male/female confirmation, reconciliation, or anointing of the sick. Even in marriages, couples say the same vows, and the only sex-differentiated blessings are ordered to procreation and family.
• Although Jesus was physically a man (and so becomes the unblemished male passover Lamb), he seems to be revealed as both male and female, masculine and feminine. He is the Wisdom incarnate, but scripturally Sophia is female. In his virginity, like his Mother, he is fruitful and gives birth to the Church from the blood and water flowing from his side (ladies…we know about this every month or so…). While it is easy to see the how Jesus that plants the Seed of holiness and life in us is male, the Jesus that feeds us with his very Body and abundance of Joy is very female.

Clearly, I cannot in good reason defend a male-only Christian priesthood. The only peace I can get about it is that the Roman Church prizes unity and fidelity. Women priests at this time would further tear the unity we share, and are rebuilding, with the East. Also, the Church is trying to remain faithful to the model it has been given, and in humility just doesn’t believe it has the authority to change, even if it wanted to.

 

[Abu]

ChemicalBean #37
Clearly, I cannot in good reason defend a male-only Christian priesthood
the Church is trying to remain faithful to the model it has been given, and in humility just doesn’t believe it has the authority to change, even if it wanted to.

The Church is NOT teaching in “humility”, it is teaching with the authority of Christ, the Son of God in truth, while ruling and sanctifying.

Since reason and faith are the cornerstones of Catholicism it is most unreasonable to challenge the Rock which Christ established in and through St Peter. Such a challenge is now refuted by one who felt the same, and has come to the fullness of the truth from Christ and unmistakably shows us why.

You may find the following helpful. Please peruse.

Women and the Catholic Priesthood
By Monica Migliorino Miller Wednesday, September 26, 2007,
Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D., is associate professor of sacred theology at St. Mary’s College of Madonna University, Orchard Lake, Michigan, and author of Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church.
Extracts:
As a Catholic, theologian, and university professor, I know that many Catholics continue to reject Catholic teaching on the all-male priesthood and certainly cannot articulate the Church’s reasons for the teaching, much less defend it.

*The Catholic Priesthood and Women *is a defense and an interpretation of the Church’s doctrine. It attempts to provide a new generation of young Catholics and, most especially, seminarians with an understanding of the Church’s teaching and give them a “theological orientation to the topic that engages the chief objections.” Its author, Sister Sara Butler, MSBT, is a well-respected theologian who taught at Mundelein Seminary and currently holds a position at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York. She openly confesses in the book’s introduction that for many years she supported the ordination of women. She credits John Paul II’s “theology of the body” and “his response to the feminist critique in the apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988)” for her change of heart on this matter.

Butler believes that those who advocate for women in the priesthood are too preoccupied with the theological arguments and do not sufficiently appreciate or understand the “fundamental reasons” for the Church’s position.

The theology of an all-male priesthood has to do with the complementary/nuptial meaning of human sexuality and Christ’s masculine identity as bridegroom to the Church—a marital I/Thou relation that forms the very order of the covenant of salvation itself.
As important as the fundamental reasons are for the all-male priesthood, these reasons must be doctrinally based on something. In the chapter that deals specifically with these reasons, Butler recognizes that doctrinally the male gender of Christ and the Apostles “is not arbitrary, but significant.” Thus a close connection does exist between the fundamental reasons or Church doctrine and the theological reasons. I would argue that, indeed, the doctrine and the theology overlap and begin to merge into one another. This merger is rooted in the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi. This is not simply a theological argument. It is the doctrine of the Church. Acting in the person of Christ means to act in his role as head to the Church. Eucharistically, Christ cannot simply be identified with the Church. He is the head that causes the being of the Church. Christ’s gender is a sign of his headship—his masculinity is a sign of his difference-in-relation to his people.

Catholics need to be well informed on the subject of this book if they are to offer a reasoned defense to a world that fails to appreciate sexual differences, much less the sacramental significance of those differences.
firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/09/women-and-the-catholic-priesth

Further:
Why Can’t Women Be Priests in the Catholic Church?
The reasons for the all-male priesthood
By Scott P. Richert
catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

 

[Brendan_64]

Also, the Church is trying to remain faithful to the model it has been given, and in humility just doesn’t believe it has the authority to change, even if it wanted to.

One of the core teachings of our Church is the infallibilty of the Pope on issues of faith and morals. Pope John Paul II stated in Ordiantio Sacerdotalis 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”.

Therefore we may discuss and debate this issues all we like, but in the end our discussions, rationale etc. makes no difference. The Church cannot, and will not ordain women priests. Pope John Paul II has made it clearly, in his position as infallible Supreme Pontif, that the Church has no authority to do so. Whether God makes it clear to us why this should be so is really not that relevant. We can debate and discuss all we like, but in the end Our Lord owes us no justification for His decisions.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Here is my try at answering the original question. (And hoping that I haven’t highjacked nor contributed to the highjacking of this thread):

I don’t think I can be called a supporter of female priests. I support the Churches teaching on the view and strongly support tradition. People who ‘ordain’ female Catholic priest and those who are complicit with it should be expelled from the Church, in my opinion. It also caused me to cringe when I read St. Theresa of the little flower describing how as a child she built altars, etc.

On the other hand, when combined with the Church’s practice (which if I recall correctly is also infallible) that only priests can be leaders of the Church it leads to a situation where only men can be leaders of the Church. And while, this is obviously not discriminatory against any particular man or woman. The message that this practice screams is clear and is contrary to the Biblical injunction that ‘men and women have an equal share of the inheritance’ and that ‘in God’ ‘there is neither male nor female’. Pope Francis seems to be aware of this problem and has mentioned it; although, I cannot foresee a way that he can fix this problem in any substantial way without violating tradition. (I find it very amusing that Pope Francis’ response to whether or not women can be ordained was ‘that door has been closed’; for what does Christ say about closed doors?) This is a very serious problem in the Church that I pray often that our Lord will fix.

Further, the traditional reasons given for forbidding women as priest are either lame don’t hold under scrutiny or both. The lamest, of course, although it by definition holds under scrutiny is the matter of ‘infallibility’. A Pope declaring something as infallible is like a parent telling a child ‘do it because I told you to.’ When a parent says something like this it is only because they have failed to explain why. Sometimes it indicates a failure of a child to listen, but even that often means that the parent failed to develop a relationship of trust with the child. When a parent tells a child ‘do it because I told you to’ the child will never truly believe it and worse will never understand it even if they believe.

As far as the traditional explanations none of them hold water under scrutiny. While nobody in an Apostolic tradition denies that Jesus ordained the 11, nobody is exactly sure what He ordained them as. Nor did He give them instructions of who they can ordain. The concept of priest simply did not exist in the early Apostolic time as far as we can tell. None of the 12 (after Judas was replaced) or the other Apostles (like Paul and Barnabas, and possibly Junias) were priests in anything close to the modern sense of the term. The earliest church seem to be formed around ‘Apostles, prophets, and teachers’ whatever that means; none of the ministries survived as official ministries. We are not even sure who all of the Apostles are. The list obviously includes the twelve but Paul includes himself and Barnabas (and possibly a woman named Junias, although that is not the traditional reading of the passage). Although it is only partially relevant, I find it quite ironic that the first ‘Apostle’ (the Apostle to the Apostles) is St. Mary Magdalene.

Further, though we know that the Eucharist was important, there is no mention about who (if anybody at all) presided over the ‘consecration’ or even if there was a consecration in the traditional sense. We know that Churches sometimes met in houses of women, whatever that means. We also know that Communion occurred without any Apostles present. But again we have no mention of anyone being appointed nor ordained to consecrate Communion. The sacramental life was important, but was secondary in the New Testament writing to spreading the good news. Paul in the pastoral letters talks about appointing ‘Presbyters’ (as well as the female form of Presybter.) but do not indicate what the function of these ‘priests’ and ‘priestesses’ are or even if they held an official position of some sort. The two terms actually mean elders not priests but the term Presbyter (as a title) was later used to mean priest, male only.

Even if you accept the idea that the 11 were priests and that if Jesus wanted female priest he would have appointed a female to the 12, that point is made moot by the fact that they also were all Jewish. Yet, the Church felt they had the authority to allow gentiles to become priests. The reason why is irrelevant. The relevant part is that the Church felt it had the authority to change the qualifications to be a priest. If in God there is no Jew nor Greek and in God there is no male nor female, should not the same logic apply to both. If the Church has the authority to change one it has the authority to change the other.

The Church does not claim the same authority as the Apostles, but it is not clear at all that the Apostles are the one who made the change to allow for gentile priests or even if any of the Apostles would have understood the term priest at all.

With all of this, it might seem that I am supporting female ordination, but I am not. I merely cannot understand the traditional explanations and am troubled by the implication of combining it with the idea of a church run by priests. It is not my place to tell God nor the Church what to do. That does not mean I can’t poke holes in the traditional arguments (arguments are not infallible) nor does it mean that I can’t pray that God will change his mind, if it is indeed His will that women not be priest.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

One of the core teachings of our Church is the infallibilty of the Pope on issues of faith and morals. Pope John Paul II stated in Ordiantio Sacerdotalis 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”.

How is this an ‘issue of faith or morals’. It a matter of discipline and Church’s belief of its authority. In any case ‘infallibility’ is a weak tool (in the sense of being useful to convince people) that is only used when all else is failing. The only people convinced by ‘infallibility’ are those who do not need to be convinced. You might as well put a band-aid over a severed limb. No person who is seriously bothered by this issue is going to go ‘well the Pope said it was true so it must be alright.’

 

[Abu]

Tony the mad #40
Further, the traditional reasons given for forbidding women as priest are either lame don’t hold under scrutiny or both.
While nobody in an Apostolic tradition denies that Jesus ordained the 11,

The lack of knowledge here is very evident. Post #35 shows clearly the powers which Jesus gave His Apostles and their successors with Peter as the Supreme Vicar.

“Jn 14:25: The Holy Spirit who the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you.”

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied? It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

nobody is exactly sure what He ordained them as. Nor did He give them instructions of who they can ordain. The concept of priest simply did not exist in the early Apostolic time as far as we can tell. Further, though we know that the Eucharist was important, there is no mention about who (if anybody at all) presided over the ‘consecration’ or even if there was a consecration in the traditional sense.

False.

Mediator Dei
“40. Only to the apostles, and thenceforth to those on whom their successors have imposed hands, is granted the power of the priesthood, in virtue of which they represent the person of Jesus Christ before their people, acting at the same time as representatives of their people before God. This priesthood is not transmitted by heredity or human descent. It does not emanate from the Christian community. It is not a delegation from the people.”
Pope PIUS XII 1947
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

Even Karl Rahner’s Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (vol 1, p 189) emphasises that Lumen Gentium: “[Article 20] deals with the historical continuation of the apostolic office in the institution of the episcopate….The concrete content of what is laid down in the Scripture as of divine right meets us in the form of historical fact and we have no right to separate the two things.”
[From Msgr George A Kelly, *The New Biblical Theorists: Raymond E Brown and Beyond, 1983, p 86].

In Romans 15:15-16, Paul emphasises: “[God] has appointed me as a priest of Jesus Christ” and he speaks of the Eucharist’s sacrificial nature in 1 Cor 10:14-22, and in 1 Cor 11:23-29. Thus the credibility of Christ’s Church is clearly shown in Her teaching that the priesthood is established by Jesus Christ.

The Church does not claim the same authority as the Apostles

False.

She has all of the authority which Christ gave to His chosen Supreme Vicar St Peter and his successors (post #35).

#41
How is this an ‘issue of faith or morals’. It a matter of discipline and Church’s belief of its authority. In any case ‘infallibility’ is a weak tool (in the sense of being useful to convince people) that is only used when all else is failing.

False – a discipline can be changed not definitive doctrine, and Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself:
** ‘Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 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.’**

 

[sennincatholic]

Excellent!

The Incarnation of God as Man is a key to understanding the Church’s teaching on this. True inspired religion was essentially different from pagan religion because true inspired religion was ordered toward the mysterious and eternal Fatherhood of God (see Eph. 3:14-15), and thus had male priests to image this Divine Fatherhood, whereas pagan religion worshipped forces of the created universe (as if they were gods), and thus had priestly ministers who imaged the qualities of these created forces, which were seen as either male (a god) or female (a goddess). The true God of Israel could not be imaged as a female, i.e., a receptive nurturer of life, since He is the initiating Creator of all, and thus a clear Progenitor and Originator of life - a role held in human and created biology by men, not by women. To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices. Thus a Tradition which is Divine in origin and Divine in being sustained by the Holy Spirit manifests the will of that Christ. Faith accepts that. Human perception and self-will do not respect that.

Given this insistence on the material medium as being essential for the validity of sacramental grace and not faith in it alone, a Catholic may not hold to another understanding of the priesthood. In Protestantism the personal sincerity self-affirmed is the interior condition alone which validates, and then the outward sign is merely expressing this already existing spiritual reality believed in so that it is merely a political issue to get the institution to accept the believed-valid spiritual reality already existing.

For Catholics the only valid spiritual reality is made present through the integrity of the sacramental signs which confer the interior reality. Any corruption of the sign (essential alteration of the matter, form, i.e., words and meaning, minister) invalidates the presence of the Reality.

An article that may help in your inquiry:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a49.htm

 

[Brendan_64]

How is this an ‘issue of faith or morals’. It a matter of discipline and Church’s belief of its authority. In any case ‘infallibility’ is a weak tool (in the sense of being useful to convince people) that is only used when all else is failing. The only people convinced by ‘infallibility’ are those who do not need to be convinced. You might as well put a band-aid over a severed limb. No person who is seriously bothered by this issue is going to go ‘well the Pope said it was true so it must be alright.’

This is absolutely not an issue of discipline, this is most definitely an issue of faith. This is not the same as the issues of married priests (where there is actually no conflict regarding scripture and teaching). The issue here relates to issues including the priest acting in Persona Christi during the Sacraments of Mass and Confession. There are definitely theological issues involved here and this is certainly an issues of faith. Pope John Paul II spoke infallibly on this (as did Paul VI). Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis for John Paul II’s rationale.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Yes Pope John Paul II has spoken infallibly on this issue, and he has also doing so. The Pope does not make infallible declarations simply to avoid having to explain (although he is under no obligation to explain) he speaks infallibly to declare that teaching is actually the will of God.

We are not simply a Church made up of human beings, with human intellects and wills, thrashing out ideas and coming to consensus. We are not simply a horizontal, human, Church, our Church is governed by the divine through our Church hierarchy. The doctrine of infallibility is a core dogma of our faith, it does not exist to stiffle debate or compel the members of the Church to comply. It exists to clarify the will of God, through the Pope, upon which Christ built His Church.