The ordination of women as priests

[Usbek_de_Perse]

It seems that you are pounding the table as the outmoded, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal middle ages are infecting our enlightened modern age of great peace and fairness.

The fact that women can not receive holy orders is and has always been an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. And if you don’t believe that His Holiness using His authority as the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church binds this fact upon the faithful. This should close the discussion.
(Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

It does close the discussion for Catholics who do not wish to be bothered with thinking further.

Please note, that according to Catholic teaching, the ordinary magisterium is not infallible. The document from JP2 came in 1994. But he never said that the woman’s person is not capable of receiving holy orders. Re-read the passage.

As to the enlightenment, my dear friend, we have largely been robbed of the power of the mystery of the Eucharist by two centuries denying the virgin birth, the trinity, the real presence (transubstantiation) of Christ in the Eucharist. Do not suppose for a moment that I exalt the enlightenment.

 

[stuart12]

I never said that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible but the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood is an infallible teaching. It was handed on by Christ to the Apostles and from them to their successors and fellow Christians.

 

[SunnaB16]

If you Google “catholic women priests”, there`s an excellent article by Joanna Bogle titled
“Women Priests - No Chance”. Looks as if it was in “This Rock” magazine.

Sorry: still don`t know how to provide links.

Our Lords washing of the Apostles feet was part of their "initiation" into the Priesthood. Apparently, it was done to the Jewish priests, as well. The washing of the feet symbolized something deeper: it politely symbolized the washing of that which is between the feet, between the knees, ie the male genitals which symbolise FATHERHOOD. A woman cant “image” that. Thats also a good reason for not washing womens feet on Holy Thursday Night.

The Church is the Bride of Christ: Christ is the Bridegroom. The Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride. A woman cant "image" that. "Liturgical Lesbianism" is a term used by one speaker to describe a "priestesss" relationship with the Bride.

This was posted yesterday.
Maybe it should be re- posted…

PLEASE READ JOANNA BOGLE`S ARTICLE!

So what if the human author of Genesis had no understanding of the Trinity: his writing was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so God is the ultimate Author of Genesis. So, the writer would not even have been aware of the significance of some of his statements.
The life-giving love between husband and wife, and the life- giving love between Christ and His Bride reflect the Life- giving Love between Father and Son in the Trinity. That Love is the Holy Spirit.

Were not using marital language to describe God: were using “God language” to describe the relationship between Christ and His Bride, and the relationship between husband and wife.
A woman CANNOT “image” the Bridegroom, or Spiritual Fatherhood.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I never said that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible but the teaching that only men can be ordained to the priesthood is an infallible teaching. It was handed on by Christ to the Apostles and from them to their successors and fellow Christians.

Read your own quote to see where you said it is infallible.

Where did Christ hand this teaching to the Apostles? What did he say?

 

[stuart12]

This doctrine has been taught at all times and everywhere. Christ only told the Apostles to confect the Eucharist. The Apostolic Fathers are of the same opinion regarding the priesthood and the episcopate. The other Fathers teach the same.

“[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea [A.D. 360]).

“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] … In an unlawful and b.asphemous ceremony … ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Epiphanius of Salamis,Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses” (ibid.).

“[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (Saint John DamasceneThe Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (The Apostolic Constitutions 8:28).

“[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman” (Saint Augustine of Hippo.Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]).

Oh and…

And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). From Catholic.com

ROMA LOCUTA EST…CAUSA FINITA EST

 

[FAB]

What is wrong with an error free translation from God…which is what the Douay Rheims is…but granted more traditional…it is still error free. The NAB is also error free, but translated in a more modern form of English…not as accurate when it comes to a literal translation, but still error free. I don’t have a problem with the NAB, because I still recognize that the Holy Spririt prevents it from being error free…therefore, if we have established that both the DR and the NAB are error free, what is the problem with the more classical form of English and literal translation you find in the DR?

The bible is onlyerror free in matters of salvation. I believe the NAB is closes to the original Greek, it’s original language.

Can you please explain that…and explain why you have to seem to have a problem with anything traditional…even though what you attack is upheld and supported by The Church…why is it that you all get a pass for blatantly thumbing your nose at The Church and the Magisterium

,
I am a traditionalist in that I believe the teachings of the Church are from scripture and the continual revelation of the Holy Spirit as represented by our tradition and teaching. The teaching of the Church for the past 45 years has come from the Magisterium, who wrote it and approved it, built on the previous 2000 years of history. As an example the OF of the mass more fully represents our earliest traditions than does the EF. In true terms, they went to our past to bring us into to future. I disagree with traditional term as used on this site who want to go to preVII and continually criticize today’s church as somehow being less than before.

but when the SSPX question one little thing they are schismatics and should be avoided like the plague…the double standard is appalling.

The SSPX refuses to recongize the authority of the Pope and the reforms of VII, there is no double satandard.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Erich]

If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of why women are not allowed to be priests, you need to look into a few theological ideas.
…
The Church’s teachings on what a priest is, and does, and how that relates to Christ’s gender, and the gender of the priest.

Specifically: a priest acts *in persona Christi *(in the person of Christ).

Women can be fine counselors, but this does not encompass the Sacrament of Reconciliation fully. Women can be very good speakers, and they are certainly capable of certain gestures and words, but this does not encompass the Holy Mass and Holy Eucharist fully.

While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).

(Collosians 3:18-20) 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them. 20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord.

Add to this the following:

(Revelation 21:9-10) 9 One of the seven angels who held the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 He took me in spirit to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

(Ephesians 5:22-23) 22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

A woman CANNOT “image” the Bridegroom, or Spiritual Fatherhood.

I hadn’t heard the term “liturgical lesbianism” before, but that sure sums it up pretty well.

 

[Rence]

When I lived in a big city, there were Catholic Churches surrounding me in all directions. Each one had one to two priests in the past few years. There was only one that had more than two priests and they were retired. When they passed away, or were moved, they were not replaced. There were four masses on sunday. Each priest had to Celebrate two Masses on Sunday. That hasn’t changed in 20 years. Where I come from, there is a big shortage of priests.

Now I live in a more rural area. The closest CC is over 17 miles away. It only has one elderly priest to celebrate masses and do all the works of a priest, including home visits to confined people. There are three Masses on sunday, so I don’t know if he celebrates all of them or someone comes in to help him. The next one is 37 miles away. They also only have one elderly priest. Here, there is alos a big shortage of priests, even worse than in the big city.

Over the past 20 years, I’ve seen in my own area, the attempts to get more men to join the priesthood without much success. I can’t really speak for other areas. I only know my own area. My brother attended a seminarian preparatory high school but declined to go further because he knew he wanted to be married later. He talked about converting to Eastern Orthodox, getting married, being ordained, and converting back to RC as a married priest. There was a bit of not getting why one could do this, but not just remain RC and be a married priest. Anyway, he declined this option. None of his friends went further for the same reason. I have no idea how many actually did go further, but it was a handful. There were two seminarian preparatory HSs (one north, one south, same school). The year my brother graduated, the north one closed. A few years later, the south one closed. Now there is no such school in the big city.

The way I see it, from my perspective, three things can happen. 1) the elderly priests wil not get replaced and some churches will not have priests serving them. Which may not be a bad thing because instead of having 4 area churches only 1/3 full, people will have to travel to a central parish and be 100% full. 2) the Church will attempt to get more men to join the priesthood by allowing them to get married and/or 3) they will start ordaining women.

I know this thread is raising a lot of blood pressures, and I’m sorry about that. But I have to say, I personally would love to see male priests being married, as well as women being ordained. And I’m betting that both will eventually happen. I just hope I’m around to see it. For me, both senarios would be a wonderful thing!

 

[SunnaB16]

We can go on about this until DOOMSDAY, but women CANNOT and WILL NOT be ordained, EVER!
Why cant some of you people read the reasons on this thread, and on others! ITS A NON-ISSUE!
And it has nothing to do with bloodymindedness on the Church`s part. In fact, She is remaining faithful to Her God-given mission. Truth is changeless; the Zeitgeist can (metaphorically speaking) go to hell!

Rence:
Father Corapi explains how to have a vocations crisis: (in general, at least)
“Disobey the Church; disobey the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church; badmouth the Pope, and send them to LOUSY seminaries! You will have no vocations.”.

We reap what we sow.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Why do you feel like God owes you an explanation of why He does things? Honestly…does it really matter…that is the way He set it up and that is the way it has to be. There may be nothing they lack when compared to Men, but that is how God willed it to be…in Judaic and Christian law and tradition, Men are the head, whether it be the family, Church, etc…It is something that just has to be accepted and needs to explanation…it is how it is

Woah there, I was questioning something I did not understand, and was wondering where the idea originated. Calm down.

Thank you The bunny wiggles his nose in appreciation (feel free to pass him on…)

It is not the case that women “lack” something. Women and men are just different. The soul is a simple substance, which means that it does not have parts, which means it cannot be divided and “mix’n’matched”, and also which means that we cannot speak of a woman’s soul “lacking” something that a man’s “has”. So, basically, what a woman “lacks”, is a man’s soul.

Also, I do not think we should be speaking of what a woman cannot do “simply” because of her gender. Gender is an integral part of who we are, and if our very identity is not compatible with a certain task, that is not a “simple” matter.

Finally, yes! Women were the first to be shown the Resurrection! But…so what? It seems to me, actually despite the women’s role as premiere witnesses to the Resurrection, they were not chosen as priests.

I guess for me, being a non-Catholic (or should I say Apostate), there is a lot I don’t understand about the Church(I know a lot, but I don’t understand) Your explanation from a faith standpoint makes sense, for your faith, with the Biblical evidence as proof, but I am still just wondering why, when Jesus did include women in such a bigger way than most other faiths. Especially in regards to the Resurrection, where women played a pivotal role in bringing the news of Christ’s Resurrection to the other followers. But then again, this is all pretty much coming from an outsider looking in, so to speak. So I appreciate you answering to the fullest extent.

For me, gender hasn’t really played a big part in my life. I’ve never really seen myself as a “Girl” or a “Boy”. I always identified more with being “Me”. I was and still am a tomboy, and being a “Girl” really didn’t mean much to me. I guess I’m jsut weird

 

[stuart12]

If we do ‘ordain’ women, we can know one thing. The Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, as the gates of hell have prevailed over her.

You can’t teach one thing infallibly then change to keep up with the ‘the times’.

Stop give up your hopes of female ordination, it won’t happen

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Eh, it’s no skin off my nose I was just curious. I enjoy talking to people of different faiths. I was just wondering, because it is one of the many things I didn’t understand about the Church. I like learning.

 

[FAB]

. She doesn’t understand why this shouldn’t be allowed when a woman could be “just as good or even better” as a man at being a priest. I think her problem with this stems from the fact that, even though the apostles were obviously all men, this could be seen as just something that made sense at the particular period in history when Christ lived rather than a specific regulation. .

All the rest of the conversation aside, back to your original question.
Primarily we look at the sacraments as instituted by Christ, the priesthood no different. In a sacrament we have a sign, water for baptism, water and wine for the the Eucharist. In the priest we have a person as that sign, he is the represenative of Christ on earth, to remind us guide us to do the work of Christ. It’s not that a woman could not perform the duties or say the words, the sign sacramentally would be akin to using sand instead of water, or cake and milk for the bread and wine. As such it would loose it’s meaning and we could no longer say it was institued by Christ, it would become a job, like a prespertian pastor.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

While I already said my part…

But I have to say, I personally would love to see male priests being married, as well as women being ordained.

I full-heartedly agree Rence.

 

[edwest2]

I think some look at the Church as a purely human institution. It is run by men who may or may not change their minds. First, there should be obedience to definitive statements made by the Holy Father. Then, a careful look at the reasoning that stands behind it. Jesus spoke to the religious leaders during the time He was on earth. He spoke of things that actually happened and spiritual things as well.

The Church has as its beginning, a supernatural source that named a man who upon this rock I will build my Church. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit of God. It recognizes the dignity of the human person, in some ways, more so than even the modern and civilized United States as it is today.

I wonder where all the talk about women’s right is coming from? Do women, today, make as much as men who perform the same work? Why not? Why has this not come before the Supreme Court and been settled?

The Church is not a man-made institution. It is not to be designed around fashions of the moment. As one poster wrote, you don’t use oranges to make an apple pie, yet I keep running across the occasional comment that women need to be men. God has given to the man and the woman, certain proper physical and psychological orientations that are appropriate for their natures. Is a man less than a woman because he cannot get pregnant? Or is he greater than a woman because of this? If we insist on total equality when certain biological circumstances exist then we are not being realistic at all.

Finally, what may be reasonable in the world may not be considered reasonable regarding certain matters related to Church teaching, especially as it regards divine revelation.

Is the real presence in the Eucharist reasonable? Is adoration of the Eucharist reasonable? Ashes on the forehead on Ash Wednesday?

I’ve met people who want me to produce God physically before they consider believing in Him, and one who considered the Bible to be a book of fairy tales.

To those who believe that ordaining women will somehow help the Church, it would be against God’s established order to do so. The Church may get smaller, and that, in itself, may be good. People want to belong to the Catholic Church, not a version of the Catholic Church that might appeal to a few.

In the end, the Father draws people to Christ, who, upon accepting Him as Lord and Savior, receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism. This is the goal: to preach the Gospel, the true Gospel, not another Gospel.

Peace,
Ed

 

[srp643]

This doctrine has been taught at all times and everywhere. Christ only told the Apostles to confect the Eucharist. The Apostolic Fathers are of the same opinion regarding the priesthood and the episcopate. The other Fathers teach the same.

“[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 of the Council of Laodicea [A.D. 360]).

“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] … In an unlawful and b.asphemous ceremony … ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Epiphanius of Salamis,Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses” (ibid.).

“[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (Saint John DamasceneThe Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (The Apostolic Constitutions 8:28).

“[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman” (Saint Augustine of Hippo.Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428]).

Oh and…

And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). From Catholic.com

ROMA LOCUTA EST…CAUSA FINITA EST

Excellent post, great research. The greatest of all human beings was a woman, Our Blessed Mother. What made her great? Her profound humility. Women would rather focus on radical feminism than their own Mother who has already shown us all the Way. No wonder she cries during apparitions. Sad.

 

[SunnaB16]

While I already said my part…

I full-heartedly agree Rence.

You`ll never learn, will you!

 

[ac_claire]

Why do you feel like God owes you an explanation of why He does things?

Kinda harsh , but this is the root of the situation. If we perfectly understood everything in creation, then knowledge would be faith and true faith would be worth nothing. Isn’t it absolute pride to say that God’s reality has to conform to my own understanding?

I ask again: What about the female persona, gender, body, soul makes her unable to receive holy orders?

As far as we can reason, there’s nothing about a woman that would make her unable to perform the duties of a priest. But this is all beside the point. The point is, Jesus instituted the sacrament of the priesthood for men only. We don’t know exactly why.

It’s a very hard teaching, just like when Jesus explained the Eucharist in John 6. He lost many followers that day, people who just didn’t understand what he was saying. It didn’t make any sense. The true believers couldn’t have understood any better, but they stayed with Jesus anyway. Seriously, think about which group you want to be in.

 

[Rence]

While I already said my part…
I full-heartedly agree Rence.

With the male priests disappearing, the closing of seminaries due to lack of admissions, with no one to replace the old, with general dissatisfaction among the clergy and potential-clergy, it’s like all other things that are NON ISSUES FOR SOME PEOPLE: As with all things, it’ll only take time. Only time will tell. And things will keep getting worse until something is done to make it better. I’d like to see a jump in seminary admissions, but sadly, I just don’t see that happening.

I find it hard to believe that if the Holy Fathers kept changing their minds about abortion in the very early Church, that this too won’t change. Maybe I’ll see it, maybe I won’t, but I’m sure it’ll happen. There are some people that believe that women had a much bigger role in the Church at one time. A prime example is of ancient artwork depicting women in liturgical roles. Though they were dismissed as ‘heretical’ by some, there’s no proof of it, and it made others think about those roles and ask questions. And the questions were answered with claims that we had no right to ask the questions. Though, notice we accuse other denominations of denying their members the right to question and seek out answers, and frown upon it. A lot of reasons cited by those against the orination of women priests are interpreted with contrasting meaning by those who are not against it. So who’s right? I guess time will tell.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I find it hard to believe that if the Holy Fathers kept changing their minds about abortion in the very early Church, that this too won’t change. Maybe I’ll see it, maybe I won’t, but I’m sure it’ll happen

With respect, the reason this is ‘hard to believe’ is that it didn’t happen.

The Popes did not keep ‘changing their minds about abortion’ in the very early Church.

What you have apparently received is a mixed up ‘version’ of the truth in which theologians like St. Augustine (late 4th century) and Thomas Aquinas (not 'the very early Church BTW but the 12th century or so), who spoke of the infant ‘quickening’ at the age of say 6 months in utero have their words presented as a Church teaching which (supposedly) indicated that abortion was ‘all right’ until then.

But that is not the case.

A. Though St. Thomas spoke of ‘quickening’, he did not and never did attempt to state that quickening was the ‘cut off’ point for abortion.
B. From the time of the Didache (and that IS the early Church) abortion at all ages, all stages, was viewed as a grave sin.
C. While a sin can be seen as grave, there are degrees of gravity based on situation. For example, we know that an action can be grave, but if the person doing the action does not have full knowledge, that person’s sin is not necessarily mortal. An infant ‘lost’ through an early abortion (perhaps, especially in times where the scientific knowledge was not as thorough as we see today, not even seen as being reliably ‘there’. . .a 4 week old infant is extremely tiny, even a 12 week old infant is tiny, the mother may not even ‘show signs of pregnancy’, and so the loss does not appear as ‘grave’ as it would had the mother been showing signs of pregnancy and the child, when still born, be ‘recognizably’ an infant.

The Church has never taught that abortion in ‘early days’ was ‘all right’, simply because it was ‘early’. Depending on circumstances, an abortion in such early times might be viewed as lesser than a later abortion because of such situations as the above, or because the woman might not have fully realized she was pregnant and took a toxic herbal brew which she would not have done had she realized, etc., but abortion itself was never seen as something that was ‘acceptable’ at a given point of ‘gestational age.’ However, apparently this mixed up allegation IS being taught and you’ve unfortunately accepted it, not knowing it’s made up out of whole cloth.

One of the worst things about revisionist and trashy ‘history rewriting’ like this is that even for a person who might never consider abortion whether or not they swallowed this dreck, is that they might believe that the Church "has changed its mind’ on important teachings, and thus, they think that it will ‘change again.’

it hasn’t and it won’t. . .and all that will happen is that entitlement queens (and no, I am NOT accusing anybody here of being one) and bitter and hate-filled anarchists will get more and more outrageous and keep spreading more and more lies about the Church. . .and more and more people will fall for them, or at least get confused enough to fall for the so-called ‘social injustices’ and to start demanding the Church change this, that, and the other thing. No, it won’t work in the end–Christ has promised we will prevail–but the damage it does to good and honorable people who are misled and turned into adversaries of the Church is incalculable.