The Pope, infallibilty, and female priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter FuzzyBunny116
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jbuck919 said:
The only Catholic in history who ever said that was Pope John Paul II . I absolutely defy you to find me another example. And he did not make it an infallible pronouncement. I mean Lord save us from these Gianpauloduolators who think he was the only pope there ever was. And at some point someone is going to come here and support me for the technical reason that I happen to be right about this. As I said on another thread, I couldn’t care less if the church never ordains a woman until the crack of doom, but it is not for a reason of dogma, it is for a reason of church disipline.
Click to expand...
Sure, try Pope Paul VI for starters.
 
jbuck919 said:
I believe that I may not murder, and that a woman may not be a priest. Exactly how ridiculous does that sound?
Click to expand...
Not at all. What also does not sound ridiculous is: I believe I that I may not murder, and that beer and pretzels may not be substituted for bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Women priests are in the same category as substituting fundamental matter in the sacraments.
 
This is a course at Boston College:

bc.edu/schools/gsas/irepm/academics/online/onlinece/cd-onlinece/#cath

Much of the course material is related to a book by Sister Elizabeth Johnson.
fordham.edu/Academics/Programs_at_Fordham_/Theology/Faculty/Elizabeth_A_Johnson__8033.asp

This is an apparent example that even in Catholic Universities some still promote female ordination.

The Pope indicated in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that he was aware of the debate and the failure of previous documents to settle the debate. Yet despite his clear intention to end all debate it goes on.

I think the Pope’s intention to end all debate (remove all doubt) is an indication that he spoke ex cathedra since the ordinary means of ending all doubt had not ended discussion. Therefore I seek an explanation of the document that says Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not taught in a solemn way.

Also it is not right that some Catholics apparently still promote the idea of female ordination even at Catholic Universities.
 
What the statement by Cardinal Bertone means is that the pope was not defining it for the first time. The Church had already settled the matter of whether women could be preists, and it said they could not. Pope JPII simply refered to that constant magisterial teaching and said it is de fide, women can not be preists.

All sacraments require a certain matter and form in order to be valid. The matter of the sacrament of ordination is a male. If it is a woman there is no sacrament. It is like trying to baptize a person with motor oil, it isn’t the sacrament of baptism. Or like attempting to use potato chips for the Eucharist, it is not the sacrament of the Eucharist and it will not be consecrated. This is infallible Catholic teaching since it was declared in the Ecumenical Council of Florence.
 
Coder said:
Hi,

“not in a solemn way” has little/nothing to do with whether it’s the first time.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t defining anything. It was already defined by the ordinary magisterium. For him to define it it would mean that it is not already settled. The only sense in which he defined it was that he affirmed what the ordinary magisterium had already said and he was refering those who still hoped for women preists to that ordinary magisterium. No one can go against it, it is de fide, or in other words it is dogma.
 
So, at this point, is it accurate to say that there are no conceivable circumstances whatsoever under which the Catholic Church would knowingly ordain a woman to the priesthood? (I say “knowingly” to avoid the question whether a woman could deceive the Church into ordaining her as a priest, if such deception were even possible).
 
CONTEMPLATIONS ON THE PRIESTHOOD. By St John Chrysostom

“For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers.” (p46,-Vol IX,NPNF).

“…when one is required to preside over the Church, and 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;…”(p40,IBID).
 
rr1213 said:
So, at this point, is it accurate to say that there are no conceivable circumstances whatsoever under which the Catholic Church would knowingly ordain a woman to the priesthood? (I say “knowingly” to avoid the question whether a woman could deceive the Church into ordaining her as a priest, if such deception were even possible).
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be accurate, and furthermore there are no circumstances under which the Church could unknowingly do it either.

A woman cannot be ordained a priest in the same way that a man cannot become pregnant.
 
jbuck919 said:
The only Catholic in history who ever said that was Pope John Paul II . I absolutely defy you to find me another example. And he did not make it an infallible pronouncement. I mean Lord save us from these Gianpauloduolators who think he was the only pope there ever was. And at some point someone is going to come here and support me for the technical reason that I happen to be right about this. As I said on another thread, I couldn’t care less if the church never ordains a woman until the crack of doom, but it is not for a reason of dogma, it is for a reason of church disipline.
Click to expand...
Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as sententia definitive tenenda.
Click to expand...
Such doctrines are joined to Divinely Revealed truths by a. historical relationship or b. logical connection. Even though they are not proposed as formally revealed they could, by dogmatic development, one day be declared to be revealed. ASSENT REQUIRED These doctrines require firm and definitive assent based on theological faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable consent which must be given to teachings set forth as I. divinely revealed and II. those proposed as to be definitively held.
Click to expand...
·****the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. “The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.”
Summary of Categories of Belief in Professio fidei
Click to expand...
 
neophyte said:
Yes, that would be accurate, and furthermore there are no circumstances under which the Church could unknowingly do it either.

A woman cannot be ordained a priest in the same way that a man cannot become pregnant.
Click to expand...
So, if a woman somehow was successful in hiding the fact that she was a woman, and went through the ordination proceedures (because the Bishop was deceived), then even though she was facially ordained, the “ordination” would be void ab initio since she was a woman?
 
So, if a woman somehow was successful in hiding the fact that she was a woman, and went through the ordination proceedures (because the Bishop was deceived), then even though she was facially ordained, the “ordination” would be void ab initio since she was a woman?
Click to expand...
It is like the “Pope Joan” issue-even “IF” a woman deceived a bishop into ordaining her-the very fact that she is a woman makes the sacrament utterly null and entirely void.

It would also be like if a bishop performed the ordination rites over a cardboard cut out of Will Smith-there is no sacrament because you can’t ordain cardboard, you can only ordain a man, a male of the human species who is baptized.
 
jimmy said:
He wasn’t defining anything. It was already defined by the ordinary magisterium. For him to define it it would mean that it is not already settled…
Click to expand...
Hi Jimmy,

The Vatican has made it clear that ex cathedra teaching is often for the purpose of removing doubt about existing teachings:

“The*** reason for ex cathedra definitions*** is almost always to give this certification to the truths that are to be believed as belonging to the “deposit of faith” and to exclude all doubt…”
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…9930317en.html

Also consider that both the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were well known before they were declared ex cathedra. The doctrine of papal infallibility itself is also an excellent example. This doctrine was held by the Ordinary Magisterium long before it was taught definitively by the Extraordinary Magisterium: “…the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been…and had even been explicitly proclaimed…by more than one of the early ecumenical councils.”
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (ver) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is NOT possible.
 
Wow, this thread got bigger than I had ever expected:D.

Still, I have never seen the doctrine that only men can be priests on any sort of list of infallible statements. How come?
 
FuzzyBunny116 said:
Still, I have never seen the doctrine that only men can be priests on any sort of list of infallible statements. How come?
Click to expand...
Stay tuned, I think it will be and maybe in our lifetimes. In fact I am not sure that Ordinatio Sacerotalis is not an ex cathedra declaration.
 
Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Click to expand...
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
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). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995. Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Click to expand...
 
FuzzyBunny116 said:
Wow, this thread got bigger than I had ever expected:D.

Still, I have never seen the doctrine that only men can be priests on any sort of list of infallible statements. How come?
Click to expand...
Because there is no such thing as an official list of infallible teachings. We have rather, a living and authoritative Church. If they were to make a list, the loophole people would ask if the list was infallible, and then if the declaration that the list is infallible is infallible and so on in attempt to keep the fiction of women priests alive. Continued insistence on women priests will only lead to hearbreak and bitterness.
 
Scottgun said:
Because there is no such thing as an official list of infallible teachings. We have rather, a living and authoritative Church. If they were to make a list, the loophole people would ask if the list was infallible, and then if the declaration that the list is infallible is infallible and so on in attempt to keep the fiction of women priests alive. Continued insistence on women priests will only lead to hearbreak and bitterness.
Click to expand...
Trust me, I don’t believe in women priests. I just want solid grounding to say that it has been set out infallibly, the case is closed. Thats all I’m trying to get.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top