SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[pickguard1]

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.

By this I mean that they share in some degree. Of course it is the Bishops alone (not just the Pope) through whom the apostolic succession is passed. Apostolic Succession is also more than just the sequential ordination of bishops in a line. It carreis with it the weight of holding to the faith of the Apostles, passed down to the present thorugh tradition, scripture and the magisterium.

Thus, there were Anglican bishops who had been consecrated by Rome, but who consequently lost their apostolic succession after abandoning certain dogmas of the faith.

 

[lobster]

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

Hey, I was only kidding. FWIW, I have no idea what you said, but I apologize for my comment.

 

[FAB]

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?

The communities of the early Christians were small and a Bishop, taught the word and gave the sacraments. There has to a bishop to have a priest. Bishops came first and they are the ones who celebrated the Eucharist. The preist developed from a group of elders called the presbyters, but they were not ordained. As the Christain population grew, and it exploded in 315 when Constatine made it the official religion of Rome, and the bishops could no longer properly bring the word and the eucharist to the faith full, the order of priest came into existance in the Church from this group.

Paul in his letters speaks of bishops and deacons, no priest. The same is true with the writings of the church fathers.

Peace,
FAB

 

[davidv]

The communities of the early Christians were small and a Bishop, taught the word and gave the sacraments. There has to a bishop to have a priest. Bishops came first and they are the ones who celebrated the Eucharist. The preist developed from a group of elders called the presbyters, but they were not ordained. As the Christain population grew, and it exploded in 315 when Constatine made it the official religion of Rome, and the bishops could no longer properly bring the word and the eucharist to the faith full, the order of priest came into existance in the Church from this group.

Paul in his letters speaks of bishops and deacons, no priest. The same is true with the writings of the church fathers.

Peace,
FAB

Jesus is the high priest. Jesus ordained the apostles. Therefore the apostles and all bishops are priests.

 

[mlchance]

The Paul in his letters speaks of bishops and deacons, no priest. The same is true with the writings of the church fathers.

You say this as if it were true. When the NT speaks of presbyters, it speaks of priests. So to with the Church Fathers. You’re not helping your already very, very shaky case by relying on falsehoods.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jermosh]

Interesting thought on this is if the eastern Church’s allowing and having female deaconesses would prohibit their ability to come under Rome?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Interesting thought on this is if the eastern Church’s allowing and having female deaconesses would prohibit their ability to come under Rome?

I don’t see why. I don’t think that the Orthodox really do a real ordination of their women deaconesses anyway. The last I spoke to an Orthodox person they told me there was an abbreviated rite but I don’t think they really do a laying on of hands and if they did it would be invalid anyway and not spiritually convey. They are limited to reading patriarch sermons and chants but can not do any liturgy related to our equivalent of the liturgy of the Eucharist just like our men deacons can not. The pontiff would no doubt require very specific delineation of limited authority and roles. I would expect it would only be permitted a continued practise in remote areas where there were no regular male deacons or priests under some sort of special dispensation and it would probably be phased out.

Just my speculation.

Jame

 

[pickguard1]

FAB

I don’t know where you get your info, but it is not correct - or at least your interpretation of it is not correct. You seem to easily ignore the canons and magisterium of the Church while supporting your arguments with undocumented sources (except the one article). This is regrettable. Please have more faith in the tradition that is passed on to you from the Apostles and the teaching authority of the Church that Our Lord founded. Remember he gave the Church the authority and tools necessary to combat every error.

I really didn’t want this thread to drift into arguments of what the doctrine is, since when I posted I was unaware that anyone in the Church held a contrary view to the Church on this. I figured it was only Protestants or lapsed Catholics who would argue such a thing.

I think there have been clear posts by both me and other posters that demonstrate the dogmatic nature of this issue but I will repost some old and some new with my bolds and underlines for emphasis.

Again the Catchism states
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:" Note the phrasing here

1570 “Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way.55 The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all.56 Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the **proclamation of the Gospel **and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.57"
These are all things which are properly understood as priestly functions, not proper for a woman to perform.

1571 "Since the Second Vatican Council the Latin Church has restored the diaconate "as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy,"58 while the Churches of the East had always maintained it. This permanent diaconate, which can be conferred on married men, constitutes an important enrichment for the Church’s mission. Indeed it is appropriate and useful that men who carry out a truly diaconal ministry in the Church, whether in its liturgical and pastoral life or whether in its social and charitable works, should "be strengthened by the imposition of hands which has come down from the apostles. They would be more closely bound to the altar and their ministry would be made more fruitful through the sacramental grace of the diaconate."59

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination
By this last of course, “sacred ordination” refers to the Sacrament of Holy Orders - see 1554 above which makes this clear.

1537 The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture,4 has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. and so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,…
the* … *here implies there have been numerous others, this would include deaconesses.

1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” (sacra potestas)5 which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. the laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

This means to say that at earlier points in the church the term ordination meant both consecration to Holy Orders and also “simple election, designation, etc.” This is what I think has you tripped up, FAB. It is improper to maintain the notion that the perennial Tradition of the Church has been wrong and that roughly half the Catholic population throughout most of its history has been denied rightful participation in the Sacraments by those committed by Christ to preserve the Truths of the faith.

I apologize for my long posts - but I feel the supporting info is necessary. - Pickguard1

 

[FAB]

I don’t know where you get your info, but it is not correct - or at least your interpretation of it is not correct. You seem to easily ignore the canons and magisterium of the Church while supporting your arguments with undocumented sources (except the one article). This is regrettable. Please have more faith in the tradition that is passed on to you from the Apostles and the teaching authority of the Church that Our Lord founded. Remember he gave the Church the authority and tools necessary to combat every error.

All I tried to do is point out the an issue is still under discussion in the Church. I pointed you to the proof of 2 studies conducted about the question, even a quote from Radziger, that it was “under Study” to no avail.
I’m not denying what the teaching of the Church. Just exploring an idea.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

I’m not denying what the teaching of the Church. Just exploring an idea.

Peace,
FAB

Sorry FAB, I was under the impression that you were at odds with the teachings. But I am glad my misunderstanding led to this discussion as it has forced me to take a close and critical look at soemthing I have always taken for granted.

I will say this though, that even if the matter is up for study, my points about the definition(s)/understanding of “ordination” and the catechism/canon law on Holy Orders still stand. Therefore, any study must necessarily be regarding the re-introduction of deaconesses as they functioned in the ancient church. This is admittedly outside of Holy Orders. Thus, in my opinion, the study must be regarding what duties/functions they were appointed to and whether those still remain important/worthy of re-instating in today’s church, or if there might be new applications to which deaconesses might be better suited in the modern world. Any assumption that the study does, in fact, examine the possibility of sacramental Holy Orders for women, misunderstands the Chuch teaching on the issue and probably the history of what “ordination” has meant and currently means in the Church.

So, in light of this, your point regarding the priest’s possibility of being right when referring to the possibility of women receiving Holy Orders is still incorrect, IMHO.

 

[FAB]

You say this as if it were true. When the NT speaks of presbyters, it speaks of priests. So to with the Church Fathers. You’re not helping your already very, very shaky case by relying on falsehoods.

– Mark L. Chance.

The priest hood as we know it today did not exist in the early church, historical fact. We call Jesus the HIGH priest, and the apostles for aurgument sake could be called bishops or more correct presbyter-bishop. From Presbyter comes the term of priest, but in the early church the elders (presbyterio) was a form of a council with no sacredotal power. Catholic Encyclopedia. As the numbers of the faith full grew the bishops gave liturgical duties to this group, Eucharist and sacraments, in his abtance, in the second century. I was off with my time line. So I am not relying on any falsehoods when I stated that there were only deacons and bishops in the early church.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

. So I am not relying on any falsehoods when I stated that there were only deacons and bishops in the early church.

I don’t necessarily think you’re relying on falsehood, but rather misunderstanding the ancient uses of terms vs. the modern usage.

Just a question, do you understand the word bishop to also include the fact that he is a priest? (These are meant in the modern usage, of course.)

There is no dispute that the form of the heirarchy was not instantaneously established upon the appointment of the Apostles by Christ to “go and teach all nations, etc.” But the fact that there were “priests” (as in - those who could administer the Sacraments) before there were deacons seems like an obvious point from a rational and logical perspective, when taken in context with the theology of the sacraments. The fact that the terminology was not concrete, and that we might never be able to know with certainty in which instances scripture means “bishop” or “priest” (according to modern understanding) when it uses the terms episcopo and presbytr doesn’t mean that the people who exercised the functions we ascribe to these words today didn’t exist then.

 

[mlchance]

The priest hood as we know it today did not exist in the early church, historical fact.

Very little that exists today existed as we know it centuries ago. That doesn’t change the fact that, yes, the early Church had priests. Also, nothing changes the fact that women cannot receive the Sacrament of Ordination. There might be something “under study” regarding deaconesses, but it most certainly doesn’t involve questioning what constitutes valid matter for Holy Orders.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[FAB]

Enough of debate as to what “it” means.
It’s been interesting, just don’t be surprised that sometime in the next 20 years a women in alb, stole and dalamatic ordained as a deacon is proclaiming the Gospel.
There are no doubt sticky points in doctrine and changes to people’s attitude and understanding before it can happen, but the possiblily is there.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Dramentia]

A woman priest (or deacon, for that matter) would probably seem strange initially, and I believe that is why the Roman Catholic Church would not allow it based on how bizarre it may be to some people. In my opinion, I would say that yes woman should be allowed to be ordained. But what do I know? I’m New Age!

 

[TLara]

The communities of the early Christians were small and a Bishop, taught the word and gave the sacraments. There has to a bishop to have a priest. Bishops came first and they are the ones who celebrated the Eucharist. The preist developed from a group of elders called the presbyters, but they were not ordained. As the Christain population grew, and it exploded in 315 when Constatine made it the official religion of Rome, and the bishops could no longer properly bring the word and the eucharist to the faith full, the order of priest came into existance in the Church from this group.

Paul in his letters speaks of bishops and deacons, no priest. The same is true with the writings of the church fathers.

Peace,
FAB

Once again where are you getting this information! If you read the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch written between 80 - 100 A.D he clearly talks about the presbyter and his role in the church and it is exactly the same today.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, we wouldn’t be surprised. . .

We have parishes where liturgy ranges from questionable to outright illicit. We have people ‘in authority’ who mock, deride and deny Catholic teaching while insisting their own ‘doctrines’ are the ‘real’ Truth.

So none of us would be surprised that in one–even several–'rainbow communities making their faith journey tuned into the cosmic experience some call ‘god’-they might have an ‘ordained’ woman in the requisite tie-dye vestments and bleating of her ‘status’ as a ‘restoration’ against the historic ‘inequity’ yadda yadda blah. That illegal, immoral, invalid actions are performed by people–even people ‘in authority’–doesn’t mean that those actions thus become ‘authentic Catholic teachings’ because they happen to be engaged in by those who call themselves Catholic.

But for women to be ‘ordained’ by, say, Pope Benedict XVI simply because some rag. . .um, MAGazine has quoted him as saying a matter is ‘under consideration’ is simply unbelievable. You know, the Pope has to ‘consider’ a lot of screwy things because some of his bishops (like a certain guy named Judas, for example) might get themselves ‘confused’ (even heretical) and bring up topics ‘for consideration’ that simply are completely against Catholic dogma. Since these men ARE bishops, and since Christian charity, at the LEAST, requires investigation in order to ‘admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant’,these things will be considered. . .considered to be falsehoods, reiterated to be falsehoods, and those admonished then to ‘accept’ that they were wrong, beg pardon, and accept truth. . .or for those admonished to continue in their error and be ‘expelled’ until they can accept truth.

So we’ll get bishops who will want ‘consideration’ of, say, allowing ‘divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received a decree of nullity’ to receive the sacraments. It will be considered because a bishop honestly (though incorrectly) thinks this COULD be something that would not be against the teaching of the Church. But it will not be instituted because it IS against the teaching of the Church. The good bishop(s) might have the best of intentions in wanting to ‘keep these people in the Church’, but good intentions are paving stones to a destination that isn’t heaven.

So this thread title is misleading at best (no, women priests are NOT possible, women deacons IF they are possible would not be in any sense comparable, the definition of ‘ordination’ would be thoroughly spelled out and it would be made extremely clear that a woman deacon was not ‘ordained’ and was a lay person performing a particular function under a title), and contentious at worst. For it seems that no matter how often one repeats authentic teaching ("Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, anyone?), some just will.not.listen.

 

[pickguard1]

So this thread title is misleading at best (no, women priests are NOT possible, …

OP here, just an FYI to all -
this topic thread is not the orignial one I posted under. It is a “split” (I don’t know how this happened-I guess anyone can change the thread topic line?) Anyway, I started a thread with the title “Women priests in the future?” And the reason for it was that at the homily my parish priest gave two weeks ago he was speaking to the children receiving First Holy Communion and discussing the sacraments. When he got around to Holy Orders he explained to the boys a bit of his history in receiving Holy Orders, and said that some of the boys might be called to the sacrament as well, and then immediately after said “and with the way things are going, some of you girls might, too.”

This prompted me to write him a letter protesting this, and I posted a thread here for feedback. Somehow, it devolved into this debate over the possibility of Holy Orders for women.

FAB-I still feel you have a poor understanding of what can and can’t be changed in the Church. I think you look at it more as what can and what might be changed. Two totally different concepts. There are absolutes in the Church - dogmas - and they must be believed. There is no democratic nature to dogma - it either is or isn’t. As Tantum Ergo put it, just because a doctrine is under study doesn’t mean it’s up for change. The ONLY thing Holy Mother Church can do in the case of women deacons is study their roles in the early church (as I already discussed), and possible roles in the future. The Church, if studying the nature of their “ordination,” will only be doing so to present a more clear understanding of it’s always existing doctrine - that women cannot receive Holy Orders.

So if one day you walk into your local Catholic Church 20 years from now and see a woman in an Alb, etc. proclaiming the Gospel during Mass (a funtion fo the priesthood), you can rest assured that you can leave that Church in good conscience and “kick the dust from your feet,” as that Church is no longer Catholic.

 

[edwest2]

Enough of debate as to what “it” means.
It’s been interesting, just don’t be surprised that sometime in the next 20 years a women in alb, stole and dalamatic ordained as a deacon is proclaiming the Gospel.
There are no doubt sticky points in doctrine and changes to people’s attitude and understanding before it can happen, but the possiblily is there.

Peace,
FAB

The possibility is not there. The teaching about only men being priests must be definitively held by all of the faithful. There is no human idea here, this is the way God set up His Church. This is not about people’s attitudes or any other human derived process. This is also about a heretical propaganda campaign. I urge everyone to stop it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[FAB]

The possibility is not there. The teaching about only men being priests must be definitively held by all of the faithful. There is no human idea here, this is the way God set up His Church. This is not about people’s attitudes or any other human derived process. This is also about a heretical propaganda campaign. I urge everyone to stop it.

Peace,
Ed

I was ready to leave this thread, but since I keep getting notices.
I fully understand the doctrine of the church as it currently stands concerning Holy Orders.
Women cannot be ordained to the preisthood.
Even though, in the last 15 -20 years there have been at least three different studies by the Church as to the historical and theological prohibition on women being ordained as deacons. Studies not done by some “rag” magazine as another poster indicated (by the way reporting on theses studies) but by the Church.
This is not a heretical propaganda campaign, but serious studies. All you need to do is a quick internet search and find a number of sites about the issue.
I present to you, that if the issue was closed, there would not be discussions concerning the issue going on within the church and these studies, one of which commission by John Paul II, would not have happened.

Peace,
FAB