Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Vince1022]

He said, “I declare” - it’s infallible.

Thanks. But that in no way meets the requirements of the Catholic Church for teaching infallibly.

The Pope could also declare “wow, that’s the best BLT sandwich I’ve ever had.”

That doesn’t make such infallibly taught.

 

[Vince1022]

Because all doubt has been removed.

Can you please cite your source that says that teachings that have been taught infallibly (please also cite an example of a statement you consider infallible) do not have room for development and further understanding.

Thanks!

Teachings that have been taught infallibly certainly have further room for development and understanding.

For instance, the Immaculate Conception. Or the Assumption of Mary. Both are considered infallibly taught by the Catholic Church. That is, faithful Catholics are not free to disagree with the truths taught by those teachings.

But, that does not mean those teachings say all that can be or need be said about the mystery they point to. In fact, doctrinal statements are inherently incapable of such when referring to mysteries of the faith.

So…there can always be a more complete or fuller understanding of what these infallibly taught teachings mean for the faithful.

Reference: Canon Law and the Catechism.

Hope this helps.

 

[minkymurph]

THe person presiding at Mass OF COURSE needs to be ordained (not just ordained, but an ordained priest) according to the Catholic Church.

But as Vatican II and the Catechism teaches, everyone present “offers”.

Everyone offers themselves, yes. But I’ve never heard it said everyone offers the body of Christ.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks. But that in no way meets the requirements of the Catholic Church for teaching infallibly.

The Pope could also declare “wow, that’s the best BLT sandwich I’ve ever had.”

That doesn’t make such infallibly taught.

A Pope can only teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals - and the goodness or otherwise of a BLT isn’t an issue of faith and morals. Although I suppose he might occasionally experience a sandwich that’s so bad it’s a sin

Women’s ordination, on the other hand, IS a matter of faith and morals, at least in the context of the Pope’s declaration. He didn’t simply say that as a matter of discipline the Church wouldn’t ordain women exactly as it wouldn’t (ordinarily) ordain married men. He said something quite different - that God has not given the Church the POWER to ordain women. That moves the topic out of the realm of discipline and into the matter of faith and morals

The fact that the TOPIC of the BLT comment renders such a pronouncement fallible doesn’t mean that words to the effect of ‘I declare’ on the part of a Pope aren’t usually an excellent signpost, among others, to the following statement being an infallible pronouncement.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes and no. It has as much to do with the fact that the priest enacts on behalf of the bride. Since Jesus taught that marriage is one man, and one woman, and the marriage is a figure of Christ’s relationship with His Bride, the Church, this enactment would become perverted if the person standing in persona christi were female.

Not up on that but yes, as far as I have been taught, the proper form of the sacrament of marriage is a man and a woman which is why the Church cannot recognise a marriage between two persons of the same sex as sacramental.

I’ve never really thought of the priest acting on behalf of the bride. Must explore that avenue of thought.

 

[TommyWommy]

Everyone offers themselves, yes. But I’ve never heard it said everyone offers the body of Christ.

“Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins, and those of the whole world.”

(From the Chaplet of Divine Mercy)

Not said at Mass, but wondering if it is applicable to the conversation in some way.

(Sorry for jumping in)

 

[guanophore]

Why aren’t women allowed to be priests? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

When I read this question, I always fixate on the word “allowed”, or “forbidden”.

I guess it is the same as "Why were Adam and Eve forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Because God set it up that way. We are His creatures, and it is His perogative to make parameters in which we are to live.

Another similar question would be: Why are men not allowed to get pregnant and have babies?

The answer is the same, because God set it up that way. He created men and women to reflect Himself, and therefore, both male and female represent the image and likeness of God. Both exemplify and embody aspects of the divine in their gender. Women embody the ability to conceive and bear forth life and men embody the sacrificial self donation that Jesus made to the Church.

God could have created humans to be bi-gendered, or even without gender. He did it the way He has because He wanted to.

Isa.45
[9] "Woe to him who strives with his Maker,
an earthen vessel with the potter!
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, What are you making'? or Your work has no handles’?

Refusing to accept the limitations God has placed upon us is the same as rejecting His commandment in the Garden of Eden. It is the ultimate hubris, thinking that we know better than He how His creation should be governed.

 

[romesweethome]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

Hey bible guy, where in scripture does it say that there were women ordained by jesus or the apostles by the laying on of hands? where in the bible does it give the requirements for priestesses and deaconesses in the new testament? it doesn’t. therefore I think you have answered your own question by using scripture alone.

 

[minkymurph]

“Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins, and those of the whole world.”

(From the Chaplet of Divine Mercy)

Not said at Mass, but wondering if it is applicable to the conversation in some way.

(Sorry for jumping in)

Don’t apologise for jumping in. That’s what forums are all about.

I would say the Chaplet of Divine Mercy is a prayer. Prayers have a specific purpose. The Chaplet of Divine Mercy is a good example. Rosary, prayer of exorcism, I could go on and on but I’m sure I don’t need to.

At the Mass, only the priest says the Eucharistic prayers; the prayers of consecration. Only the priest invokes the spirit, only the priest raises the host, I’m sure I don’t need to outline this anymore. The point I was making in another post was that the priest is playing a unique role during the Mass, one which is unique to those ordained. If you have ever been at a Mass where there is more than one priest present, they commune during the consecration of the gifts; they all stretch out their hand even though they are not saying the Mass. The people do not do this. Therefore, the priests participate in the Mass in a different way. That does not make them more holy, superior, or mean that none of the rest of us are priests in our own right through baptism. It does not mean that we are not mystically participating in the sacrifice of the Mass. It means we don’t do it in the same way. The priest uses the words, ‘this is my body’ because he is the only one who is standing in the place of Christ. No one else participates in the Mass in the same way the priest does as no one else invokes the spirit, takes the host and the cup of wine in their hands, raises it, fragments it etc, etc.

I am not saying I disagree totally that we all offer the body and blood of Christ at Mass. Perhaps in some mystical sense we do. You could argue that as we are all mystically incorporated into the body of Christ, we are all in a sense offered with Christ. It’s just that I’ve never heard it before.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks. But that in no way meets the requirements of the Catholic Church for teaching infallibly.

The Pope could also declare “wow, that’s the best BLT sandwich I’ve ever had.”

That doesn’t make such infallibly taught.

No. If he says, “I declare, that’s the best BLT sandwich I ever had,” then - well, it’s still not infallible because it’s not a matter of faith or morals.

But if he actually uses the words “I declare” (and not just “wow”) then this is his way of showing his intention to make an infallible statement.

 

[minkymurph]

When I read this question, I always fixate on the word “allowed”, or “forbidden”.

I guess it is the same as "Why were Adam and Eve forbidden to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

I read this post again and this is an interesting take. When God tells us we can’t have something, is it because our heavenly Father wants to deny us something good? Is this not how Satan tempted Eve? Suggesting God was witholding something from her she had a right to have?

I appreciate the ‘God says no’ response is not enough for an intelligent, thinking adult. Just as ‘because I say so,’ while a useful answer to a young child, and I should know, becomes inadequate. However, why does God say ‘No?’

Why does he ask men and women to stay faithful to each other? What are the consequences when they don’t? Pain! If God says ‘No,’ it is to prevent pain. It’s fair enough for an intelligent thinking person to ask why does God says no, and a reflection of why leads to a deeper understanding of faith. Therefore, think of why ‘no’ rather than just ‘no’ if you know what I mean.

 

[PRmerger]

Teachings that have been taught infallibly certainly have further room for development and understanding.

For instance, the Immaculate Conception. Or the Assumption of Mary. Both are considered infallibly taught by the Catholic Church. That is, faithful Catholics are not free to disagree with the truths taught by those teachings.

But, that does not mean those teachings say all that can be or need be said about the mystery they point to. In fact, doctrinal statements are inherently incapable of such when referring to mysteries of the faith.

So…there can always be a more complete or fuller understanding of what these infallibly taught teachings mean for the faithful.

Reference: Canon Law and the Catechism.

Hope this helps.

Can you give an example, Vince, of a teaching that you believe is taught infallibly that’s from the ordinary magisterium, not ex-catherdra?

 

[Vince1022]

Teachings that have been taught infallibly certainly have further room for development and understanding.

For instance, the Immaculate Conception. Or the Assumption of Mary. Both are considered infallibly taught by the Catholic Church. That is, faithful Catholics are not free to disagree with the truths taught by those teachings.

But, that does not mean those teachings say all that can be or need be said about the mystery they point to. In fact, doctrinal statements are inherently incapable of such when referring to mysteries of the faith.

So…there can always be a more complete or fuller understanding of what these infallibly taught teachings mean for the faithful.

Reference: Canon Law and the Catechism.

Hope this helps.

Yes, of course!

 

[Vince1022]

Can you give an example, Vince, of a teaching that you believe is taught infallibly that’s from the ordinary magisterium, not ex-catherdra?

No, the only teachings I know of that are considered taught infallibly were done so either by the Pope ex cathedra or by an ecumenical council.

Note, infallible teaching can be done in three ways: the Pope ex cathedra, an ecumenical council, and via the ordinary magisterium while united with the Pope. It’s not simply either papal ex cathedra OR the ordinary magisterium.

If you or anyone has ideas of any teaching taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium it would be interesting to discuss.

 

[diggerdomer]

Everyone offers themselves, yes. But I’ve never heard it said everyone offers the body of Christ.

Read the Catechism. For example, para 1356 ff. Note it does not say one person offers, but WE offer.

I think you bring up a really good point for reflection and discussion, too…what does it mean to offer “the body of Christ?” The body of Christ is…the consecrated bread…the Church…etc.?

 

[prodromos]

There are canons which restrict who may approach the altar. For example if a priest had suffered a nocturnal emmision the night before then he was not to perform the liturgy that day unless there was no one else who could serve. Under the latter circumstances he could still serve provided he first “purified” himself. Other canons state that women who are menstruating should not approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. If that is what is recommended for lay women then I imagine a ‘female priest’, if such existed, would not be permitted to serve. Thus on a practical level you would have churches where the divine liturgy could not be celebrated for several consecutive days each month if they were served by ‘women priests’.

John

 

[diggerdomer]

There are canons which restrict who may approach the altar. For example if a priest had suffered a nocturnal emmision the night before then he was not to perform the liturgy that day unless there was no one else who could serve. Under the latter circumstances he could still serve provided he first “purified” himself. Other canons state that women who are menstruating should not approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. If that is what is recommended for lay women then I imagine a ‘female priest’, if such existed, would not be permitted to serve. Thus on a practical level you would have churches where the divine liturgy could not be celebrated for several consecutive days each month if they were served by ‘women priests’.

John

Ummm…ok…so…where exactly are such canons?

This seems really goofy. When you refer to “canons” what exactly are you referring to? Certainly not the Code of Canon Law for the Catholic Church?

Thanks for any clarification.

 

[jmcrae]

There are canons which restrict who may approach the altar. For example if a priest had suffered a nocturnal emmision the night before then he was not to perform the liturgy that day unless there was no one else who could serve. Under the latter circumstances he could still serve provided he first “purified” himself. Other canons state that women who are menstruating should not approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. If that is what is recommended for lay women then I imagine a ‘female priest’, if such existed, would not be permitted to serve. Thus on a practical level you would have churches where the divine liturgy could not be celebrated for several consecutive days each month if they were served by ‘women priests’.

John

I would also be interested in seeing any such citations. I doubt they are followed, today, in any case, since most people don’t consider these kind of situations to be anyone else’s business, and wouldn’t advertise the fact by changing their Mass attendance habits. I know lots of young women who are daily Communicants, and no one has ever mentioned anything about there being anything the matter with this.

 

[minkymurph]

Read the Catechism. For example, para 1356 ff. Note it does not say one person offers, but WE offer.

I think you bring up a really good point for reflection and discussion, too…what does it mean to offer “the body of Christ?” The body of Christ is…the consecrated bread…the Church…etc.?

With all due respect, telling someone to read something over and over again does not, in my opinion, enhance their understanding.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I really don’t like the ‘read the catechism’ approach. It reminds me of a friend of mine who is ‘born again.’ Time and time again she has said to me ‘read the Bible.’ Why does she think I haven’t? Why does she think I need to be told this? Why does she think she knows what’s in it better than I do?

We had a discussion on Romans one time. I said I would interpret the passage of scripture in question in the way she was interpreting it. She told me to read it. I said I had. She told me to read it again. To be fair to her, I did read it again. I still didn’t go with her interpretation. What was her answer? ‘Your reading it the wrong way.’ My response was, reading something over and over again will not make it say what you want it to say.

The Catechism is a statement of Catholic belief and if you want to know what the Church teaches, the Catechism is the place to go. However, it is mostly used as a reference book rather than an explaination of Catholic teaching. To illustrate, if a student asked me a question in an RE class, what sort of a teacher would I be if my response was ‘read the Cathechism?’ If the student then said, ‘I don’t think the Catechism is says what you say it says, it’s not how I would understand it,’ what sort of teacher would I be if I told them to read it again and again until such times as they agreed with my point of view? The same words can mean very different things to different people.

I have no dispute that all make an offering at the Mass. The issue in question is what that offering is and why an ordained priest should say the Mass if we all offer the body of Christ? I would still say the only one who offered the body of Christ was Christ himself. If someone else can shed greater light on the meaning of ‘offering the body of Christ,’ I’m willing to see their view. It’s not like I’m an authority on Liturgy.

 

[LilyM]

I would also be interested in seeing any such citations. I doubt they are followed, today, in any case, since most people don’t consider these kind of situations to be anyone else’s business, and wouldn’t advertise the fact by changing their Mass attendance habits. I know lots of young women who are daily Communicants, and no one has ever mentioned anything about there being anything the matter with this.

Sounds like prodromos is thinking of praxis (and canons?) in the Orthodox faith, to which he belongs, not the Catholic. Only he can clarify, of course, but it sounds like that’s what he’s saying.

I certainly have one Orthodox female acquaintance who, when I knew her about 15 years ago, invited me to Orthodox liturgy with her one Sunday - and told me she was not going to commune because it was her ‘time of month’. If memory serves she didn’t even venerate the icons as the other congregants did, for the same reason.