Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[JimG]

The Catholic Church does not base its teaching on the ordination of women on the fact that Jesus was male.

Let me quote Dum_Spiro_Spero in post #319:

“.for a Sacrament to be valid, it requires proper form and proper matter—Women are not proper matter for confecting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore, it is an impossibility, even if the Church wanted to do so, to ordain a woman to the priesthood…”

The Pope has stated that the Church “has no authority” to ordain women to the priesthood. They are not proper matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Is that because Jesus was male, and priests must act in the person of Christ? Sounds reasonable to me. In any case the ordination of women is an impossibility.

 

[marymary1975]

Because it simply is not possible…for a Sacrament to be valid, it requires proper form and proper matter—Women are not proper matter for confecting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore, it is an impossibility, even if the Church wanted to do so, to ordain a woman to the priesthood…which means that all of those women running around playing fake priestess in their heretical churches are just imposters…they are not capable of being ordained as priests.

Great explanation!

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry, but Pope John Paul II in 1994 affirmed that this was part of the infallible deposit of the faith.

**Canonists, theologians, and bishops can be–and often are–in error. Their roles do not protect them, especially if they have become confused and put themselves ‘against’ the Church. The Church–and especially the Pope, even if not speaking ‘ex cathedra’, if he speaks on matters of faith and morals in affirming a particular practice as being authoritative, is teaching ‘infallibly’. **
**
I mean, what part of “The Church has no authority to ordain women” (Pope John Paul II) is 'open to speculation"?

That somehow the Church will be GRANTED AUTHORITY? If so, why not include “at this time” in the papal wording? **

Where and how exactly did John Paul II say this was taught infallibly?

 

[diggerdomer]

Because it simply is not possible…for a Sacrament to be valid, it requires proper form and proper matter—Women are not proper matter for confecting the Sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore, it is an impossibility, even if the Church wanted to do so, to ordain a woman to the priesthood…which means that all of those women running around playing fake priestess in their heretical churches are just imposters…they are not capable of being ordained as priests.

Can you give us some reference from current Church teaching that women are not proper “matter” for ordination? I would appreciate it. It would help quell a lot of discussion on this issue. Thanks.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

From “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”—John Paul II

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

“2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)”

And,

“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. Lk 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.”​

Read the entire thing in you want…basically, it is saying that The Church HAS NO AUTHORITY to ordain women for a variety of reasons…chief one being that “Christ established things in this way”. Perhaps that is not a good enough excuse for you and others…but it certainly is for me.

Can you give us some reference from current Church teaching that women are not proper “matter” for ordination? I would appreciate it. It would help quell a lot of discussion on this issue. Thanks.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

The Catholic Church does not base its teaching on the ordination of women on the fact that Jesus was male.

I beg to differ. The 1976 CDF declaration Inter Insigniores, made by order of Pope Paul VI, states that

The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible[18] and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted upon the human psychology: “Sacramental signs”, says Saint Thomas, “represent what they signify by natural resemblance”.[19] The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.

Then there is Pope John Paul the Great’s apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem:

Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man.

So male-only priesthood is linked to Christ’s being a man.

Note: all bold emphases are mine.

 

[diggerdomer]

From “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”—John Paul II

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

“2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)”

And,

“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. Lk 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.”​

Read the entire thing in you want…basically, it is saying that The Church HAS NO AUTHORITY to ordain women for a variety of reasons…chief one being that “Christ established things in this way”. Perhaps that is not a good enough excuse for you and others…but it certainly is for me.

Yes of course, but nowhere do your citations refer to “women” as “matter.” That was my point.

 

[diggerdomer]

I beg to differ. The 1976 CDF declaration Inter Insigniores, made by order of Pope Paul VI, states that

Then there is Pope John Paul the Great’s apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem:

So male-only priesthood is linked to Christ’s being a man.

Note: all bold emphases are mine.

Thanks. Good points. Appreciate the reminder.

I still think there are significant theological and anthropological problems with this position. But, we’ll just have to live with and see how the Church continues to address this.

Among the varied reasons put forth by the Church for restricting priestly ordination to males, I think Tradition (e.g. the Church has never done this, does not feel authorized to do this) carries more weight than the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was male. But…again…open to speculation.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes of course, but nowhere do your citations refer to “women” as “matter.” That was my point.

Still say it’s something to do with sacrifice and the original sin of Adam and Eve being different. I know there are writings on this thought. Can’t direct anyone to them. If anyone else can find any, please let me know.

The Mass is a sacrifice. Men have always, traditionally, been the sacrifice. I thought of this when I saw the film Titanic. The women and children were saved, the men stayed on the boat, the sacrifice, so their women and children could live. Some women wanted to stay with their husbands, but in the end agreed to go. There never seems to be any question that in a situation like this, of a woman giving her life for a man to be saved, seems a bit unatural.

It’s like the military. People seem to find it more acceptable for men to be killed in battle than women. Sorry guys! When a woman is murdered, or a female police officer killed, the crime seems more repugnant.

Of course, I may be going off in a tangent. It’s just something to think about in relation to the meaning of sacrifice.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Does The Church owe you a litany of excuses on the matter other than it saying that Christ established The Church in that matter and it does not have the right or authority to change it. What else does it take for you to understand it. It will never happen and the quicker that the modernists, anti-Catholics (because someone who supports women’s ordination is an Anti-Catholic) start to understand this and stop pushing for it, maybe they can then concentrate their efforts on getting more young men to pursue vocations to the priesthood…the gender that can actually be ordained as a priest.

Yes of course, but nowhere do your citations refer to “women” as “matter.” That was my point.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

Among the varied reasons put forth by the Church for restricting priestly ordination to males, I think Tradition (e.g. the Church has never done this, does not feel authorized to do this) carries more weight than the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was male. But…again…open to speculation.

Fair enough; only the teaching itself is infallible, not necessarily the reasons which form its basis. I think that the two carry equal weight, but it seems like that is a topic for another thread, so I’ll let sleeping dogs lie on this one.

 

[diggerdomer]

Still say it’s something to do with sacrifice and the original sin of Adam and Eve being different. I know there are writings on this thought. Can’t direct anyone to them. If anyone else can find any, please let me know.

The Mass is a sacrifice. Men have always, traditionally, been the sacrifice. I thought of this when I saw the film Titanic. The women and children were saved, the men stayed on the boat, the sacrifice, so their women and children could live. Some women wanted to stay with their husbands, but in the end agreed to go. There never seems to be any question that in a situation like this, of a woman giving her life for a man to be saved, seems a bit unatural.

It’s like the military. People seem to find it more acceptable for men to be killed in battle than women. Sorry guys! When a woman is murdered, or a female police officer killed, the crime seems more repugnant.

Of course, I may be going off in a tangent. It’s just something to think about in relation to the meaning of sacrifice.

Men have been the sacrifice? What in the world are you referring to? Certainly nothing from the Jewish or Christian tradition?

 

[diggerdomer]

Does The Church owe you a litany of excuses on the matter other than it saying that Christ established The Church in that matter and it does not have the right or authority to change it. What else does it take for you to understand it. It will never happen and the quicker that the modernists, anti-Catholics (because someone who supports women’s ordination is an Anti-Catholic) start to understand this and stop pushing for it, maybe they can then concentrate their efforts on getting more young men to pursue vocations to the priesthood…the gender that can actually be ordained as a priest.

Of course I accept what the Church teaches. But the reason “because we say so” is received by many as inadequate and insufficient in these times. Just like many question reception of communion in the hand, or the Church’s teaching on immigration, or abortion, etc. “Because we say so” is not adequate for most adults in our age. People of faith are also people of reason. As John Paul II beautifully said, reason AND faith are the two wings that carry the soul to heaven. That’s all.

 

[diggerdomer]

Fair enough; only the teaching itself is infallible, not necessarily the reasons which form its basis. I think that the two carry equal weight, but it seems like that is a topic for another thread, so I’ll let sleeping dogs lie on this one.

The teaching is not infallible. Authoritative and binding, yes. But not infallibly taught.

 

[Vince1022]

Sorry, but Pope John Paul II in 1994 affirmed that this was part of the infallible deposit of the faith.

**Canonists, theologians, and bishops can be–and often are–in error. Their roles do not protect them, especially if they have become confused and put themselves ‘against’ the Church. The Church–and especially the Pope, even if not speaking ‘ex cathedra’, if he speaks on matters of faith and morals in affirming a particular practice as being authoritative, is teaching ‘infallibly’. **
**
I mean, what part of “The Church has no authority to ordain women” (Pope John Paul II) is 'open to speculation"?

That somehow the Church will be GRANTED AUTHORITY? If so, why not include “at this time” in the papal wording? **

I didn’t know this was taught infallibly. Can you give a reference where Pope John Paul II said this was taught infallibly? Thank you.

 

[minkymurph]

Men have been the sacrifice? What in the world are you referring to? Certainly nothing from the Jewish or Christian tradition?

Jewish tradition -

Abraham offered his *son * Issac.
Animals offered under the Mosiac Law, had to be male.
Priests who offered the sacrifice *had to be male. *
Men were warriors, not women.

Christian tradition - Jesus was male, he offered his life so others could live.
The Mass is a sacrifice, the person who offers the Mass is male.
During the Mass the priest says 'this is
my body.

I think we can say there’s a connection between the male gender and sacrifice which is what in world I’m referring to.

I believe another poster made a very good point in that, if Eve sinned and Adam resisted, he would have been able to offer sacrifice for her, so I am not alone in my belief.

The point I was opening up for discussion was that down through the ages and throughout different cultures, it is considered more acceptable for men to give their lives so others can live. I made reference to the film Titanic because the men left on the sinking ship were going to drown. Their wives knew this and accepted their men were going to die so others could live. Society has always been able to live with the idea of a man giving his life so women and children more readilty than than a woman giving her life so men can live. The lives of women and children are often given priority. There was no question of, for example, drawing lots on the Titanic for a place in the lifeboat. Their was no question of older women giving their places to young men. It was expected of the men to die so the women and children could live.

Of course in modern times, this may no longer be the case if a ship was sinking. Equality has it’s drawbacks!

The other point I was making was, it has always been considered more acceptable for men to be warriors, or soldiers, than women. It is somehow considered more acceptable for men to be sacrificed on the battlefield. Society finds it considerably more distasteful when a woman is killed in battle.

If a sacrifice is to be made, the one to be offered in sacrifice, the one who dies so others can live, is by tradition male

I hope I’ve explained were I would see an association of sacrifice and masculinity.

Of course we could debate forever why.

 

[karoleck]

All the posts have great merit but no one has given the REAL REASON!

I mean let us say that if a “woman” priest got called out of bed at 3am in the morning–by the time she chose what to wear,put on her make up and done her hair ,talked to the cat,wrote down instructions on the kitchen table --just in case she would be late—it would be 6 o’clock by the time she attended to the scene!

sorry,girls–not politically correct am I?

 

[minkymurph]

All the posts have great merit but no one has given the REAL REASON!

I mean let us say that if a “woman” priest got called out of bed at 3am in the morning–by the time she chose what to wear,put on her make up and done her hair ,talked to the cat,wrote down instructions on the kitchen table --just in case she would be late—it would be 6 o’clock by the time she attended to the scene!

sorry,girls–not politically correct am I?

No, but funny; and you have a point. A guy wouldn’t care what he looked like.

Never let it be said we have lost our sense of humour!

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t be there until 6 o’clock. Not because I would have to choose what to wear, put make up on etc… but because I wouldn’t get out of my bed at
3 am for anyone! The only exception to that rule is my own kids.

 

[jmcrae]

All the posts have great merit but no one has given the REAL REASON!

I mean let us say that if a “woman” priest got called out of bed at 3am in the morning–by the time she chose what to wear,put on her make up and done her hair ,talked to the cat,wrote down instructions on the kitchen table --just in case she would be late—it would be 6 o’clock by the time she attended to the scene!

sorry,girls–not politically correct am I?

And not accurate at all.

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t know this was taught infallibly. Can you give a reference where Pope John Paul II said this was taught infallibly? Thank you.

“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” **Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Infallible!