The Ordination Of Women Priests

[anilorak13ska]

I need to correct you, because the post you responded to addressed me, and you will see that I have written several posts in response to that accusation. No, there is no “truth” to the charge that somehow those who understand their own (and the Church’s) opposition to female ordination “need to get used to female priests” (because we’ve never seen them before ) – and mistakenly drawing a parallel to (secular) doctors and lawyers.

I have never "had a problem" with secular female leadership. Be very, very clear about that. There has always been Zero adjustment time for me. If you’re projecting your own or someone else’s imagined reaction to female leadership, then own that, please.

Sorry if I misquoted here, there were a lot of posts I was trying to keep track of. I guess I better do away with quotes and just address the issues. I have no problem with female leadership, and I’m not sure why you’d think that. I think you were being quoted by someone else, and their response is what I was trying to address. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Sorry if I misquoted here, there were a lot of posts I was trying to keep track of.

No problem!

I have no problem with female leadership, and I’m not sure why you’d think that.

I didn’t (necessarily). It’s just that you weighed in that you could agree with adaptation being necessary, and I was just distinguishing the projection of one’s own, or others’, discomfort or need to adapt, with what mine was not. “I think there’s some truth to that” implies that one can imagine oneself or others needing adjustment time. Just correcting for the record here, because many women, themselves in positions of secular leadership, have no problem understanding and supporting the radical difference between female secular leadership and a vocation to Roman Catholic ordination. Two different animals.


Appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[anilorak13ska]

You had courses on “Women’s Studies.” Why? And were men supposed to be left out of the loop?

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not But if not, the reason they even offer women’s studies courses is the same reason we celebrate Black History Month and the like: white men are the norm in our society, and their accomplishments are the foundation of all basic coursework - history, government, psychology, literature, what have you, generally contains a massive focus on what men did, and leaves out women’s contributions as less important. For this reason they have women’s studies, and for this reason I took women’s studies courses. I wanted to know what all people contributed, not just the men. Men by no means were left out, bc they dominate the majority of academic topics.

Now, having said that, some of the courses did more than just portray the facts of lesser known contributors to society. Some of them tried to indoctrinate certain attitudes and philosophies on its students, and this is where it becomes problematic. But I by no means think offering women’s studies courses in and of itself is somehow a negative. Until women’s contributions are equally appreciated and covered in standard coursework, there will be a need for women’s courses.

But of course, this has little to do with the ordination of women.

 

[anilorak13ska]

No problem!
many women, themselves in positions of secular leadership, have no problem understanding and supporting the radical difference between female secular leadership and a vocation to Roman Catholic ordination. Two different animals.

Right, which is why what I tried to say was that while I see that some people may simple be opposed to something bc they’re not used to it, that in itself is not a reason to do it. Rather, a reason to keep an all male priesthood is because of Jesus’s choice, not cultural norms.

 

[edwest2]

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question or not But if not, the reason they even offer women’s studies courses is the same reason we celebrate Black History Month and the like: white men are the norm in our society, and their accomplishments are the foundation of all basic coursework - history, government, psychology, literature, what have you, generally contains a massive focus on what men did, and leaves out women’s contributions as less important. For this reason they have women’s studies, and for this reason I took women’s studies courses. I wanted to know what all people contributed, not just the men. Men by no means were left out, bc they dominate the majority of academic topics.

Now, having said that, some of the courses did more than just portray the facts of lesser known contributors to society. Some of them tried to indoctrinate certain attitudes and philosophies on its students, and this is where it becomes problematic. But I by no means think offering women’s studies courses in and of itself is somehow a negative. Until women’s contributions are equally appreciated and covered in standard coursework, there will be a need for women’s courses.

But of course, this has little to do with the ordination of women.

Thank you for your reply. I think it has a great deal to do with women priests. The fact of the matter is: should someone complain because a white person does not celebrate Black History month, or certain Mexican festivals or have a solid grounding in Native American history? Should all of that material be included in standard courses?

The whole problem revolves around the equally part. Should we add Russian history and the histories and cultural practices of everybody to the standard courses?

These women priests believe that being a priest is just another job description. And that the Church is not just being unfair but is just plain wrong because now we are living in the “modern” world, as opposed to last week, and that Progressive forces demand change.

Until Catholics, at least, read what Pope John Paul II wrote plainly, as written, then the dead horse will be brought out again shortly, for another beating.

Peace,
Ed

 

[anilorak13ska]

Feminism by it’s very name, is exclusionary of almost 50% of the world’s population.

Just a technicality here, perhaps, but feminism is not an “all girl’s club” that doesn’t let boys play. Men are feminists too. Men advocate for abortion “rights” too. But on better days, men advocate against sexual harassment and rape, too. I know feminism has gotten a very bad rap, but there are still issues that we as Catholic Christians could see eye to eye with them on, believe it or not. The sexualization of girls is one such issue. Domestic violence is another.

The point is, let’s not blame a political movement for infiltrating Catholic mindsets. Each person has free will to test such theories and choose in conscience whether or not it serves God or not. I’m not suggesting feminism is great by any means. I’ve now seen how they’ve totally skewed their original intent. The first feminists were pro-life, for crying out loud. But the movement as a whole has given us the 19th amendment. Without feminism, women wouldn’t be able to contribute by their vote towards electing pro-life candidates, for example.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The first feminists were pro-life, for crying out loud. But the movement as a whole has given us the 19th amendment. Without feminism, women wouldn’t be able to contribute by their vote towards electing pro-life candidates, for example.

Good post, but respectfully, is that really how most self-professed feminists would vote today?

There are indeed issues that are not considered by many to be part of the “feminist agenda”, as you’ve mentioned. Everyone stands against that which threatens the welfare and dignity of women, most especially physical assaults and sexual crimes. Yet, many would also see them first as part of the human agenda.

 

[Nimzovik]

Quite true… I wonder… What feminist groups are there…other than Pro - Abort N.O.W.?

 

[Nimzovik]

Just a technicality here, perhaps, but feminism is not an “all girl’s club” that doesn’t let boys play. Men are feminists too. Men advocate for abortion “rights” too. But on better days, men advocate against sexual harassment and rape, too. I know feminism has gotten a very bad rap, but there are still issues that we as Catholic Christians could see eye to eye with them on, believe it or not. The sexualization of girls is one such issue. Domestic violence is another.

The point is, let’s not blame a political movement for infiltrating Catholic mindsets. Each person has free will to test such theories and choose in conscience whether or not it serves God or not. I’m not suggesting feminism is great by any means. I’ve now seen how they’ve totally skewed their original intent. The first feminists were pro-life, for crying out loud. But the movement as a whole has given us the 19th amendment. Without feminism, women wouldn’t be able to contribute by their vote towards electing pro-life candidates, for example.

When I am acting on the behalf of women, I call that being Catholic.

Yes, Feminism today, is indeed a Political Faction. Let us say it as it is. Ok boys and girls, can we say ‘Sebellius?’ ‘How about Pelosi?’ ‘N.O.W.?’ Shall we talk about Planned Parenthood’s agenda infiltration into the Girl Scouts via Feminism? Ahmmmmmmmmm?

Nooooooooooooo… The title of ‘Feminism’ is **not **just a technicality. It does **not **advocate for women to stop killing men’s babies,as well, now does it?

Here. You may need this.

 

[Roy5]

Attended a funeral service at a Protestant church today. Two ministers officiated - a man and a woman. They both did a superb job.

 The world changes and so must the Church. In fact, the Church has changed considerably during my lifetime.I recall, as a child, when a Catholic was told emphatically not to attend a Protestant church. The mass was all in Latin. Mixed marriages were performed in rectories, not in the church. We never heard of an annulment, as they were so rare. The Protestants were heretics. Luther was an evil man who married a nun and violated his ordination vows. The Anglican church was founded by Henry VIII. Etc.

  Today Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant churches and often hold joint services at Thanksgiving, Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, etc. The mass is in the language of the people (like Luther had wanted). Priests and ministers sometimes officiate together at Catholic-Protestant weddings. Annulments are commonplace. Protestants are not heretics but separated brothers and sisters. Luther had some valid points. Really informed Catholics recognize that Henry VIII was not a Protestant. He assailed Luther and Protestant doctrines. He was a schismatic who wanted a divorce which the Pope refused to grant. Elizabeth I established Protestantism in England.

  My point: many changes have been made. The day will come, perhaps in the lifetime of many (not me) when women will be ordained Deacons. You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, when societies were strongly patriarchal, when women were treated basically as property, when many patriarchs (Old Testament) were polygamists (Gideon, for example, had 70 sons - no daughters mentioned - and many wives and at least one slave concubine!), etc. Traditionalists will find all sorts of reasons to oppose change, as they always do, but they will lose out. 

  I see the present hassle over women in all of its dimensions - including birth control, too - as doing major injury to the church. True or not, it is viewed by millions as stubbornly opposed to the equality of women.

 

[Nimzovik]

Roy 5 wrote: "… My point: many changes have been made. The day will come, perhaps in the lifetime of many (not me) when women will be ordained Deacons. You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, when societies were strongly patriarchal, when women were treated basically as property, when many patriarchs (Old Testament) were polygamists (Gideon, for example, had 70 sons - no daughters mentioned - and many wives and at least one slave concubine!), etc. Traditionalists will find all sorts of reasons to oppose change, as they always do, but they will lose out.

I see the present hassle over women in all of its dimensions -** including birth control,** too - as doing major injury to the church. **True or not, it is viewed by millions as stubbornly opposed to the equality of women. **

Bolding Mine:

Oh really…? Surely you jest.

You think the Holy Mother Church is going to reverse itslef on Birth Control, such as the Pill, which is an abortion in essence, do you? Especially since Humanae Vitae addresses these issues soooooooo… astutely?

As for : “…You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, …”

I see. And of just which ‘traditions’ do you speak, exactly? Which are ‘traditions of an ancient age’ and which are in actual reality -Theology- ahmmmmmmmm?

I could go on…however for now…let’s just start there, shall we?

We all have seen churches that have compromised the Gospel, with say, Gay Marriage, for example… and just look at what has happened to them.

 

[adrift]

Attended a funeral service at a Protestant church today. Two ministers officiated - a man and a woman. They both did a superb job.

 The world changes and so must the Church. In fact, the Church has changed considerably during my lifetime.I recall, as a child, when a Catholic was told emphatically not to attend a Protestant church. The mass was all in Latin. Mixed marriages were performed in rectories, not in the church. We never heard of an annulment, as they were so rare. The Protestants were heretics. Luther was an evil man who married a nun and violated his ordination vows. The Anglican church was founded by Henry VIII. Etc.

  Today Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant churches and often hold joint services at Thanksgiving, Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, etc. The mass is in the language of the people (like Luther had wanted). Priests and ministers sometimes officiate together at Catholic-Protestant weddings. Annulments are commonplace. Protestants are not heretics but separated brothers and sisters. Luther had some valid points. Really informed Catholics recognize that Henry VIII was not a Protestant. He assailed Luther and Protestant doctrines. He was a schismatic who wanted a divorce which the Pope refused to grant. Elizabeth I established Protestantism in England.

  My point: many changes have been made. The day will come, perhaps in the lifetime of many (not me) when women will be ordained Deacons. You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, when societies were strongly patriarchal, when women were treated basically as property, when many patriarchs (Old Testament) were polygamists (Gideon, for example, had 70 sons - no daughters mentioned - and many wives and at least one slave concubine!), etc. Traditionalists will find all sorts of reasons to oppose change, as they always do, but they will lose out. 

  I see the present hassle over women in all of its dimensions - including birth control, too - as doing major injury to the church. True or not, it is viewed by millions as stubbornly opposed to the equality of women.

I would point out that the changes you list had nothing to do with dogma only discipline. The changes you propose are dogma. Dogma cannot change but disciplines can. Your point confuses the two hence your point is invalid.

 

[steve53]

“The world changes and so must the Church.”

I am getting a headache here…

 

[Nimzovik]

Yah… No kidding.

 

[edwest2]

Good post, but respectfully, is that really how most self-professed feminists would vote today?

There are indeed issues that are not considered by many to be part of the “feminist agenda”, as you’ve mentioned. Everyone stands against that which threatens the welfare and dignity of women, most especially physical assaults and sexual crimes. Yet, many would also see them first as part of the human agenda.

The “dignity of women” should mean that feminists should encourage all women to stop appearing in porn movies and degrading themselves by appearing nude in magazines designed for the sole purpose of arousing men.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nimzovik]

Yes… They could advocate more there than on Pro - Abortion… And why not export Feminism to Iran? I mean if they are **really **serious about Female rights as they see them…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Attended a funeral service at a Protestant church today. Two ministers officiated - a man and a woman. They both did a superb job.

The world changes and so must the Church. In fact, the Church has changed considerably during my lifetime.I recall, as a child, when a Catholic was told emphatically not to attend a Protestant church. The mass was all in Latin. Mixed marriages were performed in rectories, not in the church. We never heard of an annulment, as they were so rare. The Protestants were heretics. Luther was an evil man who married a nun and violated his ordination vows. The Anglican church was founded by Henry VIII. Etc.

Today Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant churches and often hold joint services at Thanksgiving, Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, etc. The mass is in the language of the people (like Luther had wanted). Priests and ministers sometimes officiate together at Catholic-Protestant weddings. Annulments are commonplace. Protestants are not heretics but separated brothers and sisters. Luther had some valid points. Really informed Catholics recognize that Henry VIII was not a Protestant. He assailed Luther and Protestant doctrines. He was a schismatic who wanted a divorce which the Pope refused to grant. Elizabeth I established Protestantism in England.

My point: many changes have been made. The day will come, perhaps in the lifetime of many (not me) when women will be ordained Deacons. You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, when societies were strongly patriarchal, when women were treated basically as property, when many patriarchs (Old Testament) were polygamists (Gideon, for example, had 70 sons - no daughters mentioned - and many wives and at least one slave concubine!), etc. Traditionalists will find all sorts of reasons to oppose change, as they always do, but they will lose out.

I see the present hassle over women in all of its dimensions - including birth control, too - as doing major injury to the church. True or not, it is viewed by millions as stubbornly opposed to the equality of women.

Well gee.

There are millions who believe in no god, Roy, and see the Church–as well as all your Protestant churches–as being ‘stubbornly opposed’ to the ‘equality of belief’ by which belief in God is considered as no more ‘true’ than NO belief in God.

Are you, Roy, as a Christian, going to ‘tone down’, stop talking about Jesus, and wimpishly claim that of COURSE belief in the "christian god’ is no more ‘true’ than your atheist friends’ ‘choice’ to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, or the Force, or just ‘random molecules in the wind’?

Or are you going to keep on speaking the truth no matter HOW it is perceived by others?

I wish you had been alive in the early Christian era, Roy. . .

I can just see you looking all perplexed as your fellow Christians are led off to the lions and the crufixes, wondering why on EARTH they didn’t just ‘shut up’ when all the pagans started to whine about how belief in Jesus was just so STUBBORNLY AGAINST the nice Roman ideas of ‘equal gods’ whether it was the Emperor, the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, whatever. .

 

[Church_Militant]

Attended a funeral service at a Protestant church today. Two ministers officiated - a man and a woman. They both did a superb job.

 The world changes and so must the Church. In fact, the Church has changed considerably during my lifetime.I recall, as a child, when a Catholic was told emphatically not to attend a Protestant church. The mass was all in Latin. Mixed marriages were performed in rectories, not in the church. We never heard of an annulment, as they were so rare. The Protestants were heretics. Luther was an evil man who married a nun and violated his ordination vows. The Anglican church was founded by Henry VIII. Etc.

  Today Catholics are permitted to attend Protestant churches and often hold joint services at Thanksgiving, Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, etc. The mass is in the language of the people (like Luther had wanted). Priests and ministers sometimes officiate together at Catholic-Protestant weddings. Annulments are commonplace. Protestants are not heretics but separated brothers and sisters. Luther had some valid points. Really informed Catholics recognize that Henry VIII was not a Protestant. He assailed Luther and Protestant doctrines. He was a schismatic who wanted a divorce which the Pope refused to grant. Elizabeth I established Protestantism in England.

  My point: many changes have been made. The day will come, perhaps in the lifetime of many (not me) when women will be ordained Deacons. You simply cannot govern a church by traditions of a different and distant age, when societies were strongly patriarchal, when women were treated basically as property, when many patriarchs (Old Testament) were polygamists (Gideon, for example, had 70 sons - no daughters mentioned - and many wives and at least one slave concubine!), etc. Traditionalists will find all sorts of reasons to oppose change, as they always do, but they will lose out. 

  I see the present hassle over women in all of its dimensions - including birth control, too - as doing major injury to the church. True or not, it is viewed by millions as stubbornly opposed to the equality of women.

As a non-Catholic Christian, I will wager that you will make an appeal to scripture for authority to allow the ordination of women.

Can you supply any such scripture that supports it? No? I thought not.

The Catholic Church however, in the clear teaching of Pope John Paul the Great states:

*%between%Can women be ordained to the priesthood? This is a question which provokes much debate in our modern world, but it is one to which the Church has always answered “No.” The basis for the Church’s teaching on ordination is found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers. 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).
The following quotations from the Church Fathers indicate that women do play an active role in the Church and that in the age of the Fathers there were orders of virgins, widows, and deaconesses, but that these women were not ordained.
The Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. Throughout medieval times and even up until the present day, this teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although 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, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (*OrdinatioSacerdotalis 4).
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).

(See more at Women and the Priesthood)

So the Church can find do support for it either in scripture or in Sacred Tradition. Modern times are irrelevant to the facts of this matter and any Christians who practice otherwise do indeed “go beyond what is written.” Those who do so may think they are right, but they have nothing but their own errant thinking to base it on.

The changes that you mention…are not all you make them out to be. Luther was asking for many things…most of which were serious errors. Vernacular versions of the scriptures were already out long before he was even born. so he was talking through his hat there.

As for the “change” with regard to n-Cs, the fact is that a careful reading of authentic Church teaching will clearly express that most of you are only Christian due to your valid Trinitarian baptismal formula which is taken from the Catholic Church. Most of you lack communion and have embraced errors brought about by Luther and others in his time (and since). Read Who belongs to the Catholic Church.

 

[patg]

While the blatantly self-serving arguments against women priests presented here are focused on the actual priesthood, there is an even more insidious result from this that also needs to be considered.

I am referring the total banning of the (name removed by moderator)ut of half the membership of the church from the church’s magisterium - the pope and bishops. Since women are denied the priesthood, they are by default denied (name removed by moderator)ut to this group which solely has the task of teaching and interpreting the truths of the faith. Thus all decisions for every catholic are reached by ignoring the insight and inspiration of half the church’s membership. The concept that god only speaks to men, only gives teaching authority to men, and does not give women any unique inspiration is simply untenable.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

While the blatantly self-serving arguments against women priests presented here are focused on the actual priesthood, there is an even more insidious result from this that also needs to be considered.

I am referring the total banning of the (name removed by moderator)ut of half the membership of the church from the church’s magisterium - the pope and bishops. Since women are denied the priesthood, they are by default denied (name removed by moderator)ut to this group which solely has the task of teaching and interpreting the truths of the faith. Thus all decisions for every catholic are reached by ignoring the insight and inspiration of half the church’s membership. The concept that god only speaks to men, only gives teaching authority to men, and does not give women any unique inspiration is simply untenable.

What part of ‘The Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women’ is so hard to grasp?

God (we like to give Him the ‘capital G’), being totally just, doesn’t DENY anybody a ‘right’, does He? In fact, we all are given by Him, freely, a ‘right’ to life, a freedom of choice in regard to good and evil, and at life’s end, we are also given whatever we freely choose.

Could you please explain how God has ‘denied’ women any ‘right’ by His decision to have only male priests? I mean, last I looked, any man --like you for instance pat–doesn’t have a RIGHT to be a priest, and any woman --like me–doesn’t have a RIGHT to be a nun or sister.