SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[FAB]

No, it isn’t. Women cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Church teaching is clear on this point. Should the Church see fit to institute some sort of female deacon position, it would not involve ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

I have indicated at a couple of studies, and an magazine article that all looked at the possiblity, which found no theoligical or historical reason against the idea and it is now up the the Magisterium. It is a touchy issue, and as such is being advoided, as in the article, a study done under John Paul II was suppressed because the theologians and historians who looked at the issue found no prohibition against women being ordained as perminate deacons. You can deny the truth, it doesn’t change it.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

You can deny the truth, it doesn’t change it.

The existence of magazine articles questioning the doctrine and studies commissioned doesn’t mean that there isn’t a definite doctrine regarding this already. The Truth is, this matter has been defined already by the magisterium (the infallible one - I’m sorry I can’t remember if its Ordinary or Universal or both) of the Church and as such is a part of Catholic Dogma. Women are not, as a previous poster put it, proper matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The members of the Church, be they councils, popes, saints or anyone, cannot change the matter of the Sacraments, as they were established by Christ. This is also a dogmatic teaching of the Church, not subject to debate.

So again, women might be “ordained” as deaconesses, but the use of the word here doesn’t imply Holy Orders, no matter what someone wants to infer from it.

As a side note - are you in agreement that women can’t become priests? It seems you have dodged around the main issue that I started the thread with to try and “back-door” a justification for the priest’s comments, and haven’t mentioned whether it was right or wrong for him to imply what he implied.

 

[mlchance]

You can deny the truth, it doesn’t change it.

Quite so, and the Church teaching on who can receive Holy Orders is clear and true. The Church teaches, as a matter of doctrine, that only men can receive Holy Orders. Since women aren’t men…

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[CentralFLJames]

They hold a specific role of service to the church and those men who become perminate deacons, know that it is next to impossible to ever become a priest. Their call is service to the Word, Service to Liturgy and Service to Charity.

Peace,
FAB

I have never heard it said that becoming a deacon makes it next to impossible to become a priest. Deacons take a conditional oath of celibacy if they are married. In the event their wives die they can not remarry without a special dispensation. So its clear to me that a deacon has a natural path to the priesthood if he becomes widowed – its his option to go to the seminary if he is not too old.

James

 

[FAB]

I have never heard it said that becoming a deacon makes it next to impossible to become a priest. Deacons take a conditional oath of celibacy if they are married. In the event their wives die they can not remarry without a special dispensation. So its clear to me that a deacon has a natural path to the priesthood if he becomes widowed – its his option to go to the seminary if he is not too old.

James

I have am very complete knowlege to what I have been indicating. Very much up on the latest issue and the direction of the Church. Even after a death of a spouse, it would have to be an extradinary circumastance with special permission granted for a Perminate Deacon to become a priest. Possible yes, but very unlikely. So the men who become Perminate Deacons know this up front, including that if widowed they are to remain celibant. It’s part of the reason why women could serve in the same role.
My point in thse blogs is that the issue of women becoming perminate deacons has been discussed in the recent past and is still an open issue at the highest levels of the Church. Going to the scriptures, it seems unlikely that Jesus ment for half the population to be excluded from service to His Church or even regulated to minor roles. In Paul’s letters he speaks of women serving the Church as deacons. Since Holy Orders were not yet established as we know them, and the earliest order established by Peter and the apostals were deacons how can it be said without question that the issue is settled.
The doctrine for only men to be ordained to Holy Orders applies to the priesthood. The Perminate Deaconate was reastablished after 100’s of years of abstance only 45 years ago. The future as always is in God’s hands.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

The doctrine for only men to be ordained to Holy Orders applies to the priesthood. The Perminate Deaconate was reastablished after 100’s of years of abstance only 45 years ago.

Hope this helps

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1554 "The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.“32 Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . the diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are **all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” **that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders”

And
"1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.“66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68”

"1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,“71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72” (all bolds and underlines are mine)

In this third quote from the catechism, the phrase “normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life…” doesn’t imply that in “abnormal” case a woman may be chosen, but rather that the man may be married at the time of his ordination (although this is not the “normal” circumstance.)

 

[pickguard1]

Also from the Code of Canon Law

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

“Can. 1025 §1. To confer the presbyteral or diaconal orders licitly, it is required that the candidate, having completed the period of probation according to the norm of law, is endowed in the judgment of his own bishop or of the competent major superior with the necessary qualities, is prevented by no irregularity and no impediment, and has fulfilled the prerequisites according to the norm of ⇒ cann. 1033-1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in ⇒ can. 1050 are to be obtained and the investigation mentioned in ⇒ can. 1051 is to be completed.”

“§2. Furthermore, it is required that he is considered in the judgment of the same legitimate superior as useful for the ministry of the Church.”

While some canons can be changed as they are disciplinary in nature - such as the celibacy for the priesthood or where and when a Mass may be licitly said, these canons, coupled with the teaching from the catechism as well as numerous writings of the Fathers, all point to the Sacrament of Holy Orders as being limited to males by virtue of the fact that this is the example and wish of Our Lord. It is my understanding that constant and unchanging tradition have the effect of establishing such a thing as a matter of faith (de fide) and therefore dogmatic without the necessity of an *ex cathedra * statement from the Pope. Simply put, it has always been that way, therefore it always will be.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I have am very complete knowlege to what I have been indicating. Very much up on the latest issue and the direction of the Church. Even after a death of a spouse, it would have to be an extradinary circumastance with special permission granted for a Perminate Deacon to become a priest. Possible yes, but very unlikely. FAB

Most men in the seminary are ordained to the deaconate a couple of years before they are ordained as priests. If they never go on to become priests they are still deacons. I don’t understand why it would take an extraordinary circumstance for a widowed deacon to go on to be a priest.

I am not disputing your statement, I just don’t understand why it is the case.

 

[lobster]

Being a priest is beyond a woman’s capabilities, therefore she cannot be ordained a priest.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Being a priest is beyond a woman’s capabilities, therefore she cannot be ordained a priest.

The early church fathers no doubt recognized the problem with certain proclivities to gossip and creating problems in keeping the confessionals secret?



James

 

[mapleoak]

The early church fathers no doubt recognized the problem with certain proclivities to gossip and creating problems in keeping the confessionals secret?



James

I think you might have something there. How on earth would confession be possible. Your sins would be all over the parish. “Did you hear what so and so did?”

 

[pickguard1]

The early church fathers no doubt recognized the problem with certain proclivities to gossip and creating problems in keeping the confessionals secret?



James

Hopefully the women in this thread can appreciate a lighthearted joke at their expense.

 

[FAB]

Most men in the seminary are ordained to the deaconate a couple of years before they are ordained as priests. If they never go on to become priests they are still deacons. I don’t understand why it would take an extraordinary circumstance for a widowed deacon to go on to be a priest.

I am not disputing your statement, I just don’t understand why it is the case.

The Deaconate has always been a step along the formation to be a priest, usually in the last year of formation, but his track is to become a priest and the line of studies and formation differ than those who go for the Perminate Deaconate.
The Perminate Deaconate has been created as a specific order in the church with specific rules for goverance. The men in the program are told from the start that it is not a track to the priesthood even if they are widowed.
Part of the reason is the history of the deaconate. It was originally established before the priest hood, but as with many things it was stopped as a perminate possition because of abuses i.e. deacons acting as priest.
The men I know who are perminate deacons or are in formation to be deacons have no desire to become preist, even if it became possible, such as the band on marriage being lifted. Theirs is a service to the church. There are also none that I know who would object to women performing the same service. Most of their wives either took or are taking the same courses in formation and often excel in the studies.

To Pickguard1,
I know the caticism of the church and previous statements from previous councils, all of which are specific to the preisthood.
This thread started because of a complaint against a priest that said Holy Order might be possible for women. I’m certain he knows the same documents concerning the priesthood. It is also possible that he knows of the on going studies and discussions concerning women in the deaconte and that the last word has not been issued.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

Part of the reason is the history of the deaconate. It was originally established before the priest hood,

To Pickguard1,
I know the caticism of the church and previous statements from previous councils, all of which are specific to the preisthood.

This thread started because of a complaint against a priest that said Holy Order might be possible for women. I’m certain he knows the same documents concerning the priesthood. It is also possible that he knows of the on going studies and discussions concerning women in the deaconte and that the last word has not been issued.

How do you understand the diaconate to predate the priesthood? That makes no sense!

I am the original poster, by the way - it was my prish priest who implied that women might one day become priests. He did use The word “Holy Orders” and, if you do know the catechism, etc. some of which i just posted, the teaching of the Church is most definitively clear that Holy Orders includes the diaconate - and the catechism and all other sourse as are also clear that only MEN may receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

I reiterate from the catechism:

1554…Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders"

And
“1577 Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”

So - A. Holy Orders is a sacrament.
B. Holy Orders inlcudes the episcopate, priests and deacons
C. All receive that sacrament through ordination
D. Only men can receive ordination in this manner
E. Conclusion: Women CANNOT receive Holy Orders

 

[FAB]

How do you understand the diaconate to predate the priesthood? That makes no sense!

It a matter of historical fact. In the early church there were bishops and the deacons who assited and worked for them. The deacon would always stand to the right of the bishops during the celebration of Eucharist and in the event of the death of the bishop, would liturally, step into his place.
The priesthood only devopled as the Church grew and the communities grew beyond the abilities of a bishop to serve it’s needs mainly in providing the sacraments.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

FAB

Don’t forget that bishpos are priests and that the apostles were the first priests.

from the Catholic Encyclopedia
“The Christian law also has necessarily its priesthood to carry out the Divine service, the principal act of which is the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the figure and renewal of that of Calvary. This priesthood has two degrees: the first, total and complete, the second an incomplete participation of the first. The first belongs to the bishop. **The bishop is truly a priest **(sacerdos), and even a high-priest; he has chief control of the Divine worship (sacrorum antistes), is the president of liturgical meetings; he has the fullness of the priesthood, and administers all the sacraments. The second degree belongs to the priest (presbyter), who is also a sacerdos, but of the second rank (“secundi sacerdotes” Innocent I ad Eugub.);”

And here

“The independence of the diaconate appears earlier and more clearly in the oldest sources than that of the priesthood, chiefly because of the long-continued fluctuation in the meaning of the titles episcopus and presbyter, which until the middle of the second century were interchangeable and synonymous terms. Probably there was a reason in fact for this uncertainty, since the hierarchical distinction between bishop and priest seems to have been of gradual growth.”

That is to say, it means that while the diaconate appears earlier as a distinct class, that is not because it was in fact, prior to the priesthood - only that the distinction between the two higher orders was not as quick to become clear.

“For the valid reception of the Sacrament of Orders, it is necessary that the minister be a bishop and the recipient a baptized person of the male sex. The first requisite is based on the episcopal prerogative of ordaining; the second on the conviction that baptism opens the door to all the other sacraments and that women are definitively barred from the service of the altar (cf. Epiphanius, “De hær.”, lxxix, 2). St. Paul is a resolute champion of an exclusively male priesthood (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34).”

“**The early Church **condemned as an absurdity the female priesthood of Montanism and of the Collyridiani, and it never regarded the Apostolic institute of deaconesses as a branch of Holy orders.”

It seems as though we are going round and round with this dialogue and it’s not progressing. Maybe you can cite your sources to enhance my understanding of your position.

Nothing that I have read from official Catholic sources refutes the always held and absolute exclusion from Holy Orders of women.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hopefully the women in this thread can appreciate a lighthearted joke at their expense.

Yeah - I regret it now… but it’s my old idiomatic reflex to act out and role-play the male stereotypical behavior that the feminists expect of men to confirm them in their faith with a reciprocation in kind. The motive is to italicize the double-hypocrisy of stereotypical expectations as a gender-neutral phenomena – a pragmatic concession to concede equality of dignity through the discovery of mutual vulnerability to faults independent of gender.

James

 

[FAB]

Don’t forget that bishpos are priests and that the apostles were the first priests.

No the apostles were the aposltes, not priest or bishops and only the pope is help in apostolic successtion to Peter.
The First individuals that were given to duty to teach the faith after the aposltes, as it is today are bishops.
The priesthood didn’t start to develope in ernest until the 4th century. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the first semiaries were estblished.
Peace,
FAB

 

[CentralFLJames]

No the apostles were the aposltes, not priest or bishops and only the pope is help in apostolic successtion to Peter.
The First individuals that were given to duty to teach the faith after the aposltes, as it is today are bishops.
The priesthood didn’t start to develope in ernest until the 4th century. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the first semiaries were estblished.
Peace,
FAB

I don’t buy this slant FAB. There is no ecclesial nor sacerdotal distinction between apostles and bishops. They are of the same spiritual rank on earth (but no doubt the original apostles are highly elevated in heaven above the successive bishops). The term “apostle” is more honorary than it is a distinction of spiritual authority. The apostles had the same spiritual marks that all ordained bishops receive (in addition to their baptismal marks). An apostle has no more spiritual authority than does a bishop and the apostolic succession is held in the college of bishops and not exclusively in the papacy.

The priesthood was established in the upper room at the last supper – but was held within the bishopric/apostolate.

The establishment of seminaries is irrelevant to the sacerdotal rank. That is more a measure of the formalization of Catholic dogma and the need to teach it holistically.

James

 

[pickguard1]

No the apostles were the aposltes, not priest or bishops and only the pope is help in apostolic successtion to Peter.

The priesthood didn’t start to develope in ernest until the 4th century.

Whoa! Whoever is giving you this information is in serious error my friend!

If what you claim were true, the priesthood never would have begun!

For there to be Eucharist, there must be priests. For there to be priests, there must be bishops who can ordain them - via the laying on of hands (or like in the case of St. Paul through direct contact with God).

We know the earlies Christians celebrated the Eucharist - hey it’s in the Bible! (which was written well before the end of the FIRST century. Thus, priests existed then.
The existence of priests means that they must have been ordained. Who was it that ordained the first priests? Jesus of course - his apostles. Who then ordained successors to them. (they wouldn’t have been able to ordain them if they hadn’t been Bishops already) St. Paul, as well as all the apostles were bishops. This is a fact. If not - how could St. Peter have been the “First Bishop of Rome?” No one can consecrate another man a bishop except the Pope - who is himself a bishop. (Of course the Lord could consecrate any and whomever he wanted as bishops.)

Now all of this presupposes that you understand that in the early church and even in the scriptural writings that the usages of the words episcopos and presbyteros
sometimes had synonymous meanings, and other times did not. The fact that there wasn’t a concrete definition to the distinctions between the two at that time doesn’t preclude either’s existence. I use these words as they are now understood. While some of the Apostles may not have been called a “bishop” even in their lifetimes doesn’t mean that they weren’t, in fact, bishops as we understand the term to mean today.

On the Apostolic Succession - ALL priests share in the apostolic succession, as all are ordained by a bishop, who, in turn is consecrated by the pope, who in turn was consecrated by a previous pope all the way back to the Apostles.

On the 4th century comment - I don’t know what you mean by “develop in earnest” but what does that have to do with anything at all. The fact that the worl’s population didn’t get to over 6 billion people until the 20th century doesn’t mean there weren’t people before the 20the century. I guess I don’t see your point here.

Finally onn the seminary comment - if it is true that seminaries weren’t established until the council of Trent (again I ask you to cite your sources), SO WHAT! What do the existence of seminaries have to do with when the priesthood began?