SPLIT: Women priests possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FAB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is what Pope John Paul II had to say about this:

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

The devil works through deception and by encouraging disobedience to authentic Church teaching. This movement is an example of modernism which is the false notion that something established by God should change, and is usually based on current, so-called ‘modern’ thought. In this case, the selling points are a new model for the Catholic Church as it moves into the 21st Century. A Church that is or should be, inclusive.

This appears to be a further outgrowth of the so-called Women’s Liberation Movement which sought to create a state of psychological and legal warfare between men and women. To tear apart the natural attraction men and women have toward each other and to completely devalue the roles of men and women as wife and husband, mother and father. To turn their relationship away from mutual trust and mutual self giving to one of competition where power and control are the only goals.

There is no possibility for this heretical idea.

Peace,
Ed
 
Cristiano said:
So you are stating that there is more than one sacrament of the holy orders? Are you saying that these two sacraments have different matter?
Click to expand...
No to the first. Of course not, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches. Although I think there is a certain vagueness in there only being one sacrament and yet a person may celebrate/receive it up to three times even though it imprints an ontological (presumably once-only?) character like Baptism and Confirmation.

To the second, well, actually, I have a problem speaking of human beings, people, as “matter.” I guess I’m just not conversant enough with Scholastic philosophy to see how it’s essential to the validity of sacraments to refer to people as “matter.” I always thought “matter” refers to “things” not people.

People celebrate sacraments. Through God’s grace and action, people are the beneficiaries of sacraments. Matter and form are, as I understand it, Scholastic philosophic categories to help us better understand, philosophically, the reality of sacraments. I’ve never really heard that “matter” or “form” according to those categories are equivalent to people, to human beings.
 
We are long overdue for allowing women to become priests. I mean, seriously, are men superior in anything that requires one to be a priest? Women will make excellent priest someday soon.
 
pickguard1 said:
ARGGGGHHHHHHH!

This thread is so off topic! Setting aside the debate about the diaconate - the priest was NOT RIGHT in implying women would one day be able to be priests. Period. He did NOT say, or even imply that women might be able to be ordained to the permanent diacontate. Thus, regardless of where one stands on the deaconess issue (it’s not going to get resolved here), there was serious error in what the priest pronounced from the pulpit.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was not intending to be off topic. In fact, I replied to the original post, so I don’t see how I was off topic.

Did I misread or misquote the OP?

I didn’t think this thread was about women’s ordination to the priesthood. I certainly didn’t read that in the original post nor in the majority of the subsequent messages.

Sorry again for any frustration this caused.
 
Catholic4Obama said:
I really hope you’re not serious…
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t word it as “beyond a woman’s capabilities,” but I’m pretty sure that was a serious post. A female human is not proper matter for Holy Orders, so in that sense certain things that are reserved to the priesthood–the ability to grant absolution or confect the Eucharist, for example–are thus “beyond a woman’s capabilities.”

The question has never really been whether women can do a good job of preaching, counseling, or hearing confessions. It has always been about whether they can actually receive Holy Orders, and the constant teaching of the Church has been that they cannot.
 
GJx86 said:
I wouldn’t word it as “beyond a woman’s capabilities,” but I’m pretty sure that was a serious post. A female human is not proper matter for Holy Orders, so in that sense certain things that are reserved to the priesthood–the ability to grant absolution or confect the Eucharist, for example–are thus “beyond a woman’s capabilities.”
Click to expand...
I think the legitimate question remains:

Are you serious?
 
diggerdomer said:
I always thought “matter” refers to “things” not people.
Click to expand...
You are quite correct. The matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the laying on of hands by the bishop. The claim that “women are invalid matter” for the Sacrament of Holy Orders (at any level) is complete nonsense.

The correct issue is whether women could be valid recipients of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
 
diggerdomer said:
I think the legitimate question remains:

Are you serious?
Click to expand...
That, er, would seem to be the point of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, would it not?

I confess that I jumped in on this thread without reading all of it, so if there has been some stunning argument for why the Church has been wrong all this time, despite the fact that “the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,” please do direct me to it.

Edit to quote:
The correct issue is whether women could be valid recipients of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
Very well, I may have spoken inaccurately. My apologies.
 
diggerdomer said:
Sorry, I was not intending to be off topic. In fact, I replied to the original post, so I don’t see how I was off topic.

Did I misread or misquote the OP?

I didn’t think this thread was about women’s ordination to the priesthood. I certainly didn’t read that in the original post nor in the majority of the subsequent messages.

Sorry again for any frustration this caused.
Click to expand...
This thread is a “split”? ( I don’t understand how this happened - it’s like my Original Post got railroaded). I originally posted under “Women priests in the future?” The “Original” original post had to do with a homliy my parish priest gave two weeks ago directed towards the children in the parish who were receiving First Holy Communion. He discussed the sacraments, and when he got around to Holy Orders, he described his experiences and journey to the priesthood briefly. Then he said to the boys that they may too be called to Holy Orders (implying the priesthood, as this is what he was immediately discussing prior) and then said to the girls "and with the way things are going you might too (also implying the priesthood). I was very disturbed by this and wrote the priest a letter expressing my dismay. I posted for feedback on what to do next (wait for response/write to the bishop etc.)

Apparently my original post didn’t make this clear enough as the discussion rapidly diverged into a debate over whether women might at some point be ordained into the permanent diaconate. So, my frustration is with this diversion - while it has been a lively discussion - it is way off the original topic.
 
GJx86 said:
T

I confess that I jumped in on this thread without reading all of it, .
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for letting us know. Once you read through it, could you re-post any question or comment you have? I’m not sure what the posting I’m replying to was really trying to convey.

Thanks.
 
GJx86 said:
I wouldn’t word it as “beyond a woman’s capabilities,” but I’m pretty sure that was a serious post. A female human is not proper matter for Holy Orders, so in that sense certain things that are reserved to the priesthood–the ability to grant absolution or confect the Eucharist, for example–are thus “beyond a woman’s capabilities.”

The question has never really been whether women can do a good job of preaching, counseling, or hearing confessions. It has always been about whether they can actually receive Holy Orders, and the constant teaching of the Church has been that they cannot.
Click to expand...
Why couldn’t a woman receive holy orders? What difference does sex make? I’m asking because I want to know, I’m not saying you are wrong. I believe deep down that there is nothing different about men for this kind of calling. BTW, I’m not a woman just so you know.
 
diggerdomer said:
How could you possibly know that? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Based on the Bible. Everytime the Bible mentions Mary with the exception of the annunciation, she is not center stage. She also has very few speaking lines. And the Bible highest praise of her is, “she pondered all these things in her heart.”
 
Marsha_Adams said:
Based on the Bible. Everytime the Bible mentions Mary with the exception of the annunciation, she is not center stage. She also has very few speaking lines. And the Bible highest praise of her is, “she pondered all these things in her heart.”
Click to expand...
Well of course!

But…the purpose of the Bible was not to detail Mary’s life, actions, words, etc., was it? So the fact that the Bible does not give details means what?
 
pickguard1 said:
This thread is a “split”? ( I don’t understand how this happened - it’s like my Original Post got railroaded). I originally posted under “Women priests in the future?” The “Original” original post had to do with a homliy my parish priest gave two weeks ago directed towards the children in the parish who were receiving First Holy Communion. He discussed the sacraments, and when he got around to Holy Orders, he described his experiences and journey to the priesthood briefly. Then he said to the boys that they may too be called to Holy Orders (implying the priesthood, as this is what he was immediately discussing prior) and then said to the girls "and with the way things are going you might too (also implying the priesthood). I was very disturbed by this and wrote the priest a letter expressing my dismay. I posted for feedback on what to do next (wait for response/write to the bishop etc.)

Apparently my original post didn’t make this clear enough as the discussion rapidly diverged into a debate over whether women might at some point be ordained into the permanent diaconate. So, my frustration is with this diversion - while it has been a lively discussion - it is way off the original topic.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what the “split” in the subject line meant either. I was simply replying to the message that I saw as the original posting in this thread. It did seem odd to me, as if it was part of some other conversation…but not knowing anything other than post #1 of this thread, I went on that. I thought the primary topic of the thread was the diaconate, not the priesthood, vis-a-vis ordination.

Thanks.
 
Catholic4Obama said:
Why couldn’t a woman receive holy orders? What difference does sex make? I’m asking because I want to know, I’m not saying you are wrong. I believe deep down that there is nothing different about men for this kind of calling. BTW, I’m not a woman just so you know.
Click to expand...
Because Pope John Paul II INFALLIBLY defined and declared that women cannot be priests. END OF STORY FOR CATHOLICS.

But more than that. For those now advocating for women priests could be accused of advocating heresy.

If you want women ‘priests’ go to Protestant denominations.
 
Catholic4Obama said:
Why couldn’t a woman receive holy orders? What difference does sex make? I’m asking because I want to know, I’m not saying you are wrong. I believe deep down that there is nothing different about men for this kind of calling. BTW, I’m not a woman just so you know.
Click to expand...
Now the reasons why. Because a priest is one who offers sacrifice. Christ is the High Priest. Christ was a man. Only a man can be an alter-Christ. Ever see a woman crucified on a cross? Christ chose 12 men for His priesthood, no women. Can we now say we know better than Christ. Only men can represent Christ on the altar.

Only in these days of ‘equality’ could there be a campaign to get women up there representing Christ Himself. It has nothing to do with ‘discrimination’ or culture. You might as well ask why Christ called the third person FATHER and not MOTHER. You could also ask why God didn’t chose Eve as the first person, after all isn’t it the woman that brings forth the children? But no, God created Adam and then Eve to be a wife and helper in this world. Obviously there are far more profound reasons for these things, but ultimately God knows why He did things the way they are and they are for OUR salvation. To rebel against His Will is to rebel against Him. If today’s women feel ‘left out’ which traditionally they NEVER DID, look at Mary, elivated to the Queen of Everything, infinitely greater than all the men saints put together.

Sorry Catholic4Obama if I seem harsh, I find it odd that Catholics do not know these things. I also read into your user name a contradiction. The first thing that man did on becoming president was to sign a bill endorsing death even to children born alive after failed abortions. When I hear that hypocrit talking about the good of his fellow men and cuddling his children I think about all those whose death warrant he signed. Not the posting I know, but explains why I explode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top