Validity of female "ordination"

[SpectatorX]

Yes I agree.

How could you not?

Regarding the last sentence concerning axioms - I cannot see any ‘supplementary reason’ so to speak - for not considering such. However such has not so far been established within this topic - in one sense not being theologically necessary, yet as an aside is of intellectual interest.

The post to which I was replying ran afoul of my argument quite directly.

I don’t really understand that analogy. A man can’t have a baby, not because another human has told him he can’t, but because he’s not physiologically able. Both a man and a woman are physiologically capable of entering a priesthood. The only difference is, the woman is told she can’t. There is no other impediment but her gender, defined by human limits.

Rence, here, presumes that the Catholic teaching is merely an arbitrary preference by a masogynist hierarchy rather than and in spite of the continuous Christian Tradition. The question of women’s ordination came up several times in history, and the same answer was reached every time by the bishops in union with the pope. To deny what their unanimity declares is, by definition, to deny Catholicism. By establishing the axiomaticism of male-only-ordination to Catholicism I have fulfilled your contention; one who holds Catholicism to be true ought be convinced. To convince a noncatholic, Catholicism must be demonstrated (a simple enough task).

 

[PJM]

=tomhuth;8467339]I’m in a dialogue with a woman who claims to be an “Orthodox Catholic” bishop. Best I can tell, her tiny group is a distant derivation of the Old Catholic schism. I’m discussing a number of topics with her, and eventually I want to get around to the touchy subject of the validity of female ordination (touchy because it will be very personal for her). But I want to be sure I’ve got my facts straight.

I believe I can competently explain and defend the Church’s teaching on the male-only priesthood, but there is one aspect that I want to make sure I understand properly. My presumption is that a woman is not the proper matter for Holy Orders, in a manner of speaking. Meaning, even if a woman undergoes the proper sacramental process by a valid bishop, the sacrament cannot “take” in her. Consequently, none of her attempts at conferring any of the sacraments that require a validly ordained priest would have any effect, so that, for instance, she cannot actually confect the Eucharist. Another way of putting it would be that her ordination would not only be illicit, it would be invalid.

Have I got that right?

His Holiness; Blessed John Paul II explained it clearly and precisely: He says that the Church does not have the power and authority to Ordian women; not only does not; but CANNOT ordian a female. For ALL of the following reasons>

1. Gender: Jesus indispuitably is male gender. Therefore in the Transubstanuation when the words: THIS IS MY BODY; and THIS IS MY BLOOD are pronounced; it MUST be a male gender priest in order to actually permit it to take place.
2. When Christ used the terms and empowered the priesthood He spoke ONLY to Peter and the Apostles: All male gender. This is was NOT a chauvinistic action as Christ could ONLY do Good and the WILL of a Perfect God.
3. Sacred Tradition even in the OT always and everywhere had only male gender priest and the Church has not the authority to orver-rule it.

BASED on these FACTS, the ordination of any women to the priesthood is invalid. Period.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Anna Claire;8467669]She is not a Roman Catholic therefore this is a non issue.

Well said Anna; if fact she is not a catholic at all

God Bless,
Pat