Should women be ordained?

[Tantum_ergo]

So, patg, is your contention that Jesus Himself never started a church? Or that He started a church (ecclesia) but when, in your words, “He wasn’t returning for them as soon as He’d led them to believe”, that church somehow either disappeared or was so radically changed that it, the “Catholic Church” (and the Orthodox as well), has absolutely no more basis or legitimacy to call itself a church “established by Jesus” than any Protestant group?

P.S. I’d recommend that you look very carefully at this passage, Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

This is from the Douay-Rheims translation, which is a faithful translation of Jerome’s Vulgate. In this passage Jesus establishes His Church, built upon the Rock (Peter), before His (Christ’s) suffering, death and resurrection. So we do know that Jesus established a Church. Your contention that the Catholic Church (BTW, do you add the Orthodox Church in your denial of being established by God? Yes, I suppose you must) is a “thing” of men made by men who were DISAPPOINTED by being misled by Christ into thinking his return a matter of weeks or months hence is another sad example of revisionism, of “private interpretation” and speculation based on what you “think” the “feelings” of the apostles and saints “must have been”, even though your interpretations are flatly contradicted by the teachings of the Church, the words of the Bible itself, and the testimony of those involved as well.

Since your post can be considered to touch the actual topic of this thread peripherally (I suppose in that you’re attempting to make everything said or believed by the “Catholic Church” as suspect to what you THINK Christ MEANT–and of course he probably MEANT to have women priests in your opinion), in the interests of keeping to topic please PM me if you wish to address Christ’s church and its founding, and stick to the topic of the thread in further replies on this thread. Thank you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ByzCath:

In the Sacraments, you must have the correct matter. As in the Eucharist, in the Latin Church, you must have bread (wheat and water only) and wine. If you add something to them, like flavor or use grape juice instead of wine, they can not become the Body of Christ. For Holy Orders, the matter has always been a male. So you can substitue the male with a female but the Holy Orders will not be confered as the matter is incorrect.

QUOTE]

A wise man said (I can’t remember his name), “A bishop cannot stretch his hands out over a rock and sea water, say the words of consecration, and confect the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood, and he cannot lay his hands on a woman’s head and ordain her to the priesthood.” He can try all he likes, but it’s like teaching a pig to sing: a waste of his time and entirely annoying to the pig.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

JKirkLVNV:

ByzCath:

In the Sacraments, you must have the correct matter. As in the Eucharist, in the Latin Church, you must have bread (wheat and water only) and wine. If you add something to them, like flavor or use grape juice instead of wine, they can not become the Body of Christ. For Holy Orders, the matter has always been a male. So you can substitue the male with a female but the Holy Orders will not be confered as the matter is incorrect.

A wise man said (I can’t remember his name), “A bishop cannot stretch his hands out over a rock and sea water, say the words of consecration, and confect the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood, and he cannot lay his hands on a woman’s head and ordain her to the priesthood.” He can try all he likes, but it’s like teaching a pig to sing: a waste of his time and entirely annoying to the pig.

And I would add, that the diaconate is the first level of the priesthood just as the priesthood is a lower lever of the episcopate.

It is the understanding of the Church that the fullness of Holy Orders resides in the bishop. So as only a man can be a bishop, only a man can be in the orders that fall beneath it.

And I will say it again, even though it is starting to feel like I am http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/banghead.gif or I am http://www.rocksmyfaceoff.net/forum/images/smiles/deadhorse.gif, a deaconess is not a female deacon.

 

[patg]

Since your post can be considered to touch the actual topic of this thread peripherally (I suppose in that you’re attempting to make everything said or believed by the “Catholic Church” as suspect to what you THINK Christ MEANT–and of course he probably MEANT to have women priests in your opinion), in the interests of keeping to topic please PM me if you wish to address Christ’s church and its founding, and stick to the topic of the thread in further replies on this thread. Thank you.

I apologize. It was, however, a fairly logical progression:

1. 
   *]The primary argument seems to be “Christ chose men”
   *]I said, “Actually, he chose Jewish men”
   *]Some then said “No, they became Catholic when he chose them.” (or some such thing)
   *]I said, “That’s funny - both the chosen and the chooser remained practicing Jews through the day He died.” Now, that doesn’t sound like a bunch of Catholics intent on starting a new church to me.
   
   The argument as to whether “He chose men” is the sufficient and defining statement is what I was addressing. I personally think it is ridiculous but since it has nothing to do with my relationship with God, I’ll move on.

 

[Catholic2003]

ByzCath:

I see what you are saying but I believe that the Holy Father has said that there will not be women deacons. I beleive he made this statement when many women were applying to diaconal programs.

My recollection was that some bishops had started up diaconal programs for women, and were told by the Holy See to shut them down because there were no plans to allow women deacons in the immediate future.

The Holy Father has also said that priestly celebacy will not be changing in the immediate future. And even if preistly celebacy remains the norm for the entire future of the Church, this cannot elevate the practice to a doctrine.

ByzCath:

That being said. It seems that you have not read the previous discussions here about deaconesses. A deaconess is not a female deacon. The role of a deaconess was very different.

I am familiar with the discussions.

ByzCath:

I think you must show that the major Holy Order of deacon is different from that of priest in such a way that a woman could be ordained to it with out then begin able to be a priest.

This is indeed a requirement to demonstrate that the ordination of women deacons is a possibility. Thus, this is another issue that has not yet be definitively settled by the magisterium.

I don’t see the magisterium ruling one way or the other in the near future, either by allowing female deacons or by proclaiming the impossibility of female ordination to the diaconate.

 

[mjt]

People who think women should be ordained have a misguided view of human sexuality.

See Theology of the Body

 

[mjt]

Those who say women can or should be priests have a misguided view of sexuality.
See: Theology of the Body

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic2003:

My recollection was that some bishops had started up diaconal programs for women, and were told by the Holy See to shut them down because there were no plans to allow women deacons in the immediate future.

That is my recollection also. So I guess we are agreed.

The Holy Father has also said that priestly celebacy will not be changing in the immediate future. And even if preistly celebacy remains the norm for the entire future of the Church, this cannot elevate the practice to a doctrine.

You must qualify this. The Holy Father has not said that priestly celibacy is the norm of the Church. He said that it is the norm for the Latin Church. When he made this statement he did so as patriarch of the West, he was not addressing the Church as a whole.

As in other documents he has called the Eastern Churches to return to our traditions and one of those traditions is to allow married men to be ordained. This is going on today in our Byzantine Churches.

Just a little distinction I am compelled to point out.

But I do agree with the point you are making here.

This is indeed a requirement to demonstrate that the ordination of women deacons is a possibility. Thus, this is another issue that has not yet be definitively settled by the magisterium.

I don’t see the magisterium ruling one way or the other in the near future, either by allowing female deacons or by proclaiming the impossibility of female ordination to the diaconate.

Ah but the problem you run into here, is that if somehow they say that women deacons are ok, then one could argue women priests are ok because they are share one thing in common, there have never been either in the History of the Church.

So if they can invent women deacons then they can invent women priests.

If one of the reasons we can not have women priests is, “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church” (this is from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) then it stands to reason that since there have never been women deacons that this is also “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church”.

Again, while there have been deaconesses, a deaconess is not, nor was it ever, a female deacon.

 

[Catholic2003]

ByzCath:

You must qualify this.

Thanks for the correction. I should have specified the Latin Rite only.

ByzCath:

Ah but the problem you run into here, is that if somehow they say that women deacons are ok, then one could argue women priests are ok because they are share one thing in common, there have never been either in the History of the Church.

Dissenters will always find something to justify their dissent. I don’t think that the Church should decide the truth of important issues based on how groups of dissenters will react.

ByzCath:

If one of the reasons we can not have women priests is, “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church” (this is from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) then it stands to reason that since there have never been women deacons that this is also “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church”.

If something has been taught as a doctrine by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church, then it is infallible and cannot be changed in the future. If something has been practiced as a discipline by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church, then it is still a discipline and can be changed at any time by the Church. It is sometimes very hard to distinguish between the two.

Several such traditions have recently been changed in the post-Vatican II Church, e.g., women not required to wear veils to Mass, female altar servers, and indeed, women in the sanctuary. Radical conservatives have left the Church because they could not see that these were not doctrinal issues but only long-standing disciplines.

There are those who are argue on both sides of issue of diaconal ordination of women. The Church has not condemned either side as heretical. (The Canon Law Society of America is strongly in favor of ordination of women to the permanent diaconate.)

ByzCath:

Again, while there have been deaconesses, a deaconess is not, nor was it ever, a female deacon.

The question of whether the particular duties of deaconesses can be expanded is related, but subordinate to, the larger question of their sacramental ordination.

 

[jturnbull]

dennisknapp:

Should women be ordained?

To the priesthood?

As a Deacon?

What do you think?

Peace

No the matter is closed and whats the point of discussing it???

 

[joshua1]

jturnbull:

No the matter is closed and whats the point of discussing it???

Precisely what I was thinking. The Pope has spoken and taught infallibly on the issue and from what I understand, it is disobedience to even be discussing it. It will never happen. Wonder what part of that does people not understand?

 

[Catholic2003]

joshua1:

Precisely what I was thinking. The Pope has spoken and taught infallibly on the issue and from what I understand, it is disobedience to even be discussing it. It will never happen. Wonder what part of that does people not understand?

How about these two parts:

• First of all, the Pope did not teach infallibly on this issue (according to Cardinal Ratzinger). Pope John Paul II’s act of teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was a non-infallible act of confirmation that the Church’s teaching that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood was already infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
• Second of all, the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis relates only to priestly ordination. The question of diaconal ordination of women has not been definitively settled (according to a 1977 Vatican statement).

 

[TobyLue]

Sure, women should be ordained… Then maybe those rad-nuns who want to be priest will allow a married homosexual man to join their order…fair is fair… If women are so set in becoming priest, they should join those Anglicans that allow women priest and homosexual bishops. They should fit right in…

 

[redkim]

patg:

So I wonder why all priests aren’t required to be practicing Jews since Christ only chose Jews…

patg:

I don’t know if anyone has answered this, but I will attempt to. I believe that women should NOT be priests, and let me lay out why.

First, let’s take a look at 1st Century Palestine: Women were second class citizens, to be sure. They were essentially treated like property. I think this is well understood today.

Now, with keeping that in mind, let’s take a look at Christ’s attitudes toward women:

• First, He broke many taboos with women. Most notably with the woman at the well. He spoke with her while none of the men in her family were present. That was a no-no in that society.
• Second: Let’s face it, Mary Magdalene and Mary His Mother were far better disciples than any of the Twelve, YET He did not choose them to be among the Twelve. Keep in mind that Mary Magdalene was the first to proclaim that He is Risen.
• Third: While Christ came in human form, He was not a “man of His times”. He is beyond time and had NO issues with breaking cultural taboos with women, as noted above.

So, from this information we know that:

• He saw women as at least spiritually equal to men.
• He had many women disciples
• Often those women were better disciples than the Apostles.
• He was not betrayed nor denied by any women that we know of.
• His Mother, of course, is the most faithful of disciples

Yet, for all of this, we see that He picks only men to be His Apostles. He did NOT choose His Mother, nor Mary Magdalene to be one of the Twelve.

Why not? The truth of the matter is that we do not know. We can’t say that it’s because there were cultural taboos, because as noted earlier, He broke those. We cannot say that He was limited: He is not. He is God.

So, the only conclusion we can come to is that for some Divine Reason known only to Him, women are not to become priests.

As to your statement about Priests becoming Jews: this question was essentially settled in Acts, when there was a dispute if people had to become Jewish first before becoming Christian. The rest of the world is forever grateful that the answer was NO.

The first Apostles were Jews because that is where God chose to reveal Himself to us, through Abraham, Moses, the Prophets,and ultimately through Christ. But the priesthood does not remain with the Jews because it doesn’t have to: as Christianity expanded, so did the need for priests and as we can see, priests and proclaimers were taken from the people in the community. Paul himself was from Rome and not Galilee or Jerusalem.

 

[j802]

Are there are any good books (and simple books so people would be interested in borrowing them!) on the matter about so-called women’s ordination??? I am looking for as much good info as possible as I am trying to innoculate folks against the crazy upcoming WOW conference is unfortunately coming to Ottawa, CANADA in July…

Any other dioceses done good prep work BEFORE these conferences to educate faithful Catholics about the truth??

Thanks in advance

 

[redkim]

Actually, all you really need is to tell them that Rome has spoken and there is to be no ordination of women. That’s it in a nutshell.

 

[bones_IV]

Now you agree with Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture also says that Christ said to Peter that he is the rock on which Christ will build His Church, but you don’t accept that as evidence. You pick and choose what you want to believe from Scripture.

Now I have an amazing lack of logic, when in the last post you agreed with my logic. Make up your mind, which is it?

You level an attack against me but give no reason why I have an amazing lack of logic. Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The Jews were the chosen people of the Old Testament. Christ would choose Jews to be His followers rather than Gentiles since the Jews are the chosen people and Christ fulfills the Old Testament. Since Christ did not come to destroy the Old Testament but fulfill it, it is logical for Him to choose only men as priests since only men were priests in the Old Testament. The difference being Christ’s priesthood is eternal, since he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Once again I am supposed to believe something without a reason simply because you said it.

I find it hard to believe you have no opinion of FDR when you seem to have an opinion of everything else.

The Wiggam quote doesn’t apply to this topic because I believe Christ should have ordained priests for the first time, that Christ should have founded His Church for the first time, and that Christ should have instituted the sacraments for the first time. I just don’t possess the arrogance to know better than God.

Priesthood is not just a function, which is what those who want women’s ordination make it to be. John Paul II addresses this in his Apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which can be accessed by clicking on the link below.

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

Since we’re also on the subject of quotes, here’s one for you, with all due respect to TNT:

Liberalism : A mental disorder wherein the illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.

Sort of applies to your way of thinking, doesn’t it?

I stooped to your level with that comment about you hating the Church, so I deserve the reply you gave me.

I take back that you hate the Church, but I will say you have an extreme prejudice against the Church, given the fact you won’t accept any Church teaching as evidence if you personally disagree with it.

I’m new to this forum, but I have noticed a number of people who post here don’t give any reason or evidence for their comments. We are to believe them because they said it. They act like their comments are coming from the burning bush and we dare not ask for a reason or evidence to support their comments.

I’m not singling you out on this patg because there are many more people here who do it. I know there are trolls here, as their are on every internet forum. I’m not talking about them. Trolls don’t really believe anything, they just post to antagonize.

Please accept my apology on saying you hate the Church and good luck with your business.

You are right on the point. Patg is a heretic.

What is a heretic?
“Heretic-when an individual has been baptized a Christian, claims to be a Christian, and tenaciously rejects or questions an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church which the Church authorizes to be contained in sacred Scripture and/or sacred Tradition that person is by definition a heretic” (Trail, Tribulation and Triumph, Simon Birch).

Padre Pio “The Rosary is the weapon.”

 

[patg]

redkim:

• First, He broke many taboos with women. Most notably with the woman at the well. He spoke with her while none of the men in her family were present. That was a no-no in that society.
• Second: Let’s face it, Mary Magdalene and Mary His Mother were far better disciples than any of the Twelve, YET He did not choose them to be among the Twelve. Keep in mind that Mary Magdalene was the first to proclaim that He is Risen.
• Third: While Christ came in human form, He was not a “man of His times”. He is beyond time and had NO issues with breaking cultural taboos with women, as noted above.

Thank you for your reasonable response. I agree, your points are all supportable (and correct, I think).

Yet, for all of this, we see that He picks only men to be His Apostles. He did NOT choose His Mother, nor Mary Magdalene to be one of the Twelve.

First, lets review the definition of apostle (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

“The word “Apostle”, from the Greek apostello “to send forth”, “to dispatch”, has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched–in other words, who is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has, however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much as a delegate.”

In spite of the great accuracy of your statements that Jesus counted women as some of his premier followers and that he was way beyond the views of his time concerning women, he was still sending his message into a society which would think such views of women were insane (Some might even say that the society had very conservative views on women).

So, in spite of his very liberal views on women and his related actions concerning them, the only way he could seriously hope to spread his message was by using messengers/delegates which would be accepted by the society they were preaching to. He didn’t have any choice! We do have a choice - our world and our society accepts women messengers and teachers (well, for the most part) so we can use rather than waste a valuable and necessary resource.

 

[Ignatius]

dennisknapp:

Should women be ordained?

The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women*.*

 

[tee_eff_em]

patg:

So, in spite of his very liberal views on women and his related actions concerning them, the only way

The *only *way!? What *limits *we place on the Son of God…

patg:

he could seriously hope to spread his message was by using messengers/delegates which would be accepted by the society they were preaching to.

“And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake.”
and another
“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.”
This is a mission of acceptance?

patg:

He didn’t have any choice!

I can only repeat: What *limits *we place on the Son of God…

tee