Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[adrift]

That is incorrect.

“A man and a woman are truly married as soon as they commit themselves to each other by vow before God—not when the marriage is consummated.” source

and

“Thus, any valid marriage between two baptized people is a sacramental marriage and, once consummated, cannot be dissolved.” source

For two baptized persons who are in no way impeded from marriage, the sacrament is conferred with the mutual exchange of vows. That remains a valid, sacramental marriage even if it is never consummated. (Prior impotence, of course, would be an impediment to marriage. The couple must have at least the ability to complete the marital act.) Consummation of the marriage makes it indissoluble except by death, but the sacrament along with its graces occurs with the mutual public consent.

A one night-stand, or any sort of fornication, is a lie, in that the body professes a union which the heart does not intend to keep.

But I’m surprised at the ongoing discussion of women’s ordination. It simply cannot happen, and the pope has said as much.

You try to make this an either or but it is both. Otherwise, you could not obtain an annulment for a marriage that is not consummated. If it weren’t necessary than impotence would not be an impediment. If only an exchange of vows were necessary than you would not be able to annul. An annulment after all means no marriage took place.

Catholic encyclopedia

According to this marriage in the strict sense, and therefore marriage as a sacrament, is not accomplished until consummation of the marriage is added to the consent. It is the consummation, therefore, that constitutes the matter or the form.

 

[PRmerger]

According to this marriage in the strict sense, and therefore marriage as a sacrament, is not accomplished until consummation of the marriage is added to the consent. It is the consummation, therefore, that constitutes the matter or the form.

Catholic encyclopedia

It’s curious that you snipped the section from the Catholic encyclopedia that said the above was a theory, and **this theory was later retracted. **

The full context here (bold mine), red text what was quoted in isolation by adrift:

To complete our inquiry concerning the essence of the Sacrament of Marriage, its matter and form, and its minister, we have still to mention **a theory **that was defended by a few jurists of the Middle Ages and has been revived by Dr. Jos. Freisen (“Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts”, Tübingen, 1888). According to this marriage in the strict sense, and therefore marriage as a sacrament, is not accomplished until consummation of the marriage is added to the consent. It is the consummation, therefore, that constitutes the matter or the form. But as Freisen retracted this opinion which could not be harmonized with the Church’s definitions, it is no longer of actual interest. This view was derived from the fact that marriage, according to Christ’s command, is absolutely indissoluble. On the other hand, it is undeniably the teaching and practice of the Church that, in spite of mutual consent, marriage can be dissolved by religious profession or by the declaration of the pope; hence the conclusion seemed to be that there was no real marriage previous to the consummation, since admittedly neither religious profession nor papal declaration can afterwards effect a dissolution. **The error lies in taking indissolubility in a sense that the Church has never held. **In one case, it is true, according to earlier ecclesiastical law, the previous relation of mere espousal between man and woman became a lawful marriage (and therefore the Sacrament of Marriage), namely when a valid betrothal was followed by consummation. It was a legal presumption that in this case the betrothed parties wished to lessen the sinfulness of their action as much as possible, and therefore performed it with the intention of marriage and not of fornication. The efficient cause of the marriage contract, as well as of the sacrament, was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way. This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb., 1892, by Decree of Leo XIII, as it had grown obsolete among the faithful and was no longer adapted to actual conditions.

 

[adrift]

It’s curious that you snipped the section from the Catholic encyclopedia that said the above was a theory, and **this theory was later retracted. **

The full context here (bold mine), red text what was quoted in isolation by adrift:

You are right I read to fast and missed what you rightly state.

However, I note you ignored the other points.

 

[minkymurph]

But I’m surprised at the ongoing discussion of women’s ordination. It simply cannot happen, and the pope has said as much.

To be honest, I don’t understand it either. Ordaining women would completely change Catholic understanding of sacramentality. If people do not accept the Catholic understanding of sacramentality, no one is forcing you to be Catholic. Join a Church that does support your view and ordains women.

I can understand people who want to dispel negative concepts of women, and they are right. I believe the Catholic Church has addressed this, and as a consequence of greater understanding of the sacraments, women are portrayed in a more positive light in keeping with the economy of salvation. Not being an ordained priest does not mean God views women as some kind of lesser being, or, the laity or lesser Christians than ordained priests. I think this has been made very evident on this thread and explained well.

There is no doubt that in the past, Western society had a very negative view of women. This is no longer the case. So, let’s get over it. It happened, things have changed. The fact that the Catholic Church does not ordain women is not because they think they are lesser beings and want to deny them in some way. Men who deny women the human dignity they deserve, and see their role in the economy of salvation as inferior, are not fully embracing the Catholic faith because they don’t want to. Such men have little to offer, and women, or men for that matter, who see the ordination of women as a means of enhancing the status of women, are living in a dream world.

What a sad day it would be for the Church if ordination is the only way your God given gifts can be recognised.

 

[JimG]

To clarify further, a non-consummated valid marriage can be dissolved by the pope, but only if requested by one or both of the parties for just cause.

Here is a quote from "This Rock"magazine discussing the matter, as it relates to the marriage between Mary and Joseph.

Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1435

The parents of St. Therese of Lisieux had intended such a marriage. They had a valid marriage, having exchanged mutual consent, but intended not to exercise the conjugal right. Their confessor later convinced them that this was not God’s will for them.

Impotence is only an impediment to marriage if it is permanent, antecedent–i.e.existing prior to the marriage, and incurable.

 

[PRmerger]

You are right I read to fast and missed what you rightly state.

Thank you for that humble admission.

However, I note you ignored the other points.

I was not able to decipher your meaning.

A marriage can not be annulled.
If it was a marriage, it is a union that lasts until death.

If a union in which vows were made was not a marriage, before consummation or after consummation, then it can be annulled.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Again, I understand the need for a lay missionary woman in a remote area to be able to baptise - emergencies arise where baptism needs to be done quickly. I don’t understand the need for a lay missionary to be able to perform marriages.

Do we need to understand everything for something to happen? Its in Church Law that there is a provision for it, and I gave a probable scenario where would it apply. Whether we understand the reasons or not, its going to happen.

My own grandparents lived in a remote area in WWII, if memory serves they ended up not being able to get a priest to marry them for about three years. There was no talk of deputising anyone else to do it, for the simple reason that they didn’t NEED to be married right away. No-one does.

If you have issues with it, why not take it up with the Vatican? If they authorized a lay person to ordinarily baptize or witness marriages for the Church, then its for reasons the Church believes that benefits the faith and the Church. They don’t need to justify this to anyone else except God.

 

[PRmerger]

If you have issues with it, why not take it up with the Vatican? If they authorized a lay person to ordinarily baptize or witness marriages for the Church, then its for reasons the Church believes that benefits the faith and the Church. They don’t need to justify this to anyone else except God.

This is an unnecessary comment.

The point of this entire CAFs is to discuss Catholic issues. If the answer to our questions is, “Because the CC says so!” (which, of course, in the end it is!) then there is no point to being here. Each time a person says, “I don’t understand why the CC does ______” the answer would be, “They don’t need to justify this to anyone else except God”. That would be quite a boring forum, eh?

 

[diggerdomer]

Why is it so important to you?

When you proclaim something to your children (if you’re not a parent, imagine yourself one )
do they ask, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring that I have to be home at midnight?” or “Are you infallibly stating that I turn right at the McDonald’s to get to Aunt Vi’s house?” or “Even though you said that you were definitively stating and I couldn’t watch that movie, I watched it 'cause you didn’t meet the criteria we’d established for 100% certainty.”

Sorry, not sure what you’re referring to (long thread, I only check in periodically). Why is WHAT so important to me? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is the first time I had heard this so I can’t comment.

I will check it out with the Priest whose area of expertise is the sacraments when I return to college.

I would ask one question. Do you think the person who offers the Mass needs to be ordained? Irrespective of the answer, what are your reasons for thinking this.

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”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is an unnecessary comment.

The point of this entire CAFs is to discuss Catholic issues. If the answer to our questions is, “Because the CC says so!” (which, of course, in the end it is!) then there is no point to being here. Each time a person says, “I don’t understand why the CC does ______” the answer would be, “They don’t need to justify this to anyone else except God”. That would be quite a boring forum, eh?

My apologies to you and to LilyM. I must not be in a good mood when I posted.

 

[diggerdomer]

But any kind of ‘deacon’ position for women would not involve Holy Orders. That IS definite. A ‘deaconess’ position would be considered to have the same relation to the male diaconate as a nun has to a priest. A nun is a religious but does not receive Holy Orders. A priest does. A deacon also receives Orders. A woman who was a ‘deacon’ (just like a nun in professing her vows) would not receive Orders.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that the possibility of ordaining women as deacons would not involve Holy Orders? Thanks for any reference or resource.

I don’t think your analogy of nun/priest to deaconess/deacon is part of Catholic teaching, but again, if you have any references, please share.

Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, the priest is the only one who offers the Body of Christ. There is also a differentiation between the Body of Christ (the Church) and the Body of Christ (the Eucharist); they’re not the same thing.

What you’re thinking of is during the “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”, the people in the congregation enable the priest to offer the sacrifice in their names. A congregation is not required for a valid consecration (hence the existence of private masses). Without a priest, there is no consecration…

Read the Catechism 1345ff. Note how often reference is made to “we” (not only the priest presider) “offers.”

 

[diggerdomer]

Canon Law

I don’t see that this has to be a man only.

Of course it doesn’t. Clearly, as Canon Law indicates. Excellent point.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Read the Catechism 1345ff. Note how often reference is made to “we” (not only the priest presider) “offers.”

Only the priest offers up to God. Everyone brings the offering to the priest, that is why “we”.

In the old testament, when someone has an offering, they bring to a priest to offer to God. The same way today in Mass. We bring our offerings to the priest to offer to God. The offering comes from us, but it is the priest who makes the offering.

 

[diggerdomer]

Only the priest offers up to God. Everyone brings the offering to the priest, that is why “we”.

In the old testament, when someone has an offering, they bring to a priest to offer to God. The same way today in Mass. We bring our offerings to the priest to offer to God. The offering comes from us, but it is the priest who makes the offering.

Then how do you interpret CCC 1357? It says “WE offer…” Actually, please read CCC 1356 ff.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then how do you interpret CCC 1357? It says “WE offer…”

Offering on the altar have always been made by the priest, even in the OT. Like I explained earlier, Melkizedek made an offering for Abraham. No one else can make a valid offering on the altar except for a priest.

 

[diggerdomer]

Offering on the altar have always been made by the priest, even in the OT. Like I explained earlier, Melkizedek made an offering for Abraham. No one else can make a valid offering on the altar except for a priest.

I never said anything about who’s at the altar, nor did anyone else in this thread (I think?). Your point, then?

 

[guanophore]

I agree with you the Mass is a sacrifice.

However, is it not the case the case that the Mass is not series of sacrifices, but a re-inactment of the one sacrifice of Christ and this is why is it imperitive the person who stands in the place of Christ is male?

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.

That he is not sacrificed over and over again. The *same *sacrifice of the cross is presented us? The one original sacrifice presented because Christ rose body and soul to heaven. Therefore, the one sacrifice is ongoing and not limited to time and place? It is not the case that Christ is sacrificed again and again but we are raised up to heaven during the Mass and not Christ is sacrificed again?

Well said.

 

[Vince1022]

To clarify further, a non-consummated valid marriage can be dissolved by the pope, but only if requested by one or both of the parties for just cause.

Here is a quote from "This Rock"magazine discussing the matter, as it relates to the marriage between Mary and Joseph.

Basically, a marriage is valid as long as the two parties exchange valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. The intent to exercise that right is not required for the consent to be valid. Therefore, according to the standard account, the marriage between Mary and Joseph was valid because the right was exchanged even though it was not intended by the parties to be used. There have been parallel cases down through history, and these are known as “Josephite” marriages, after St. Joseph.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1435

The parents of St. Therese of Lisieux had intended such a marriage. They had a valid marriage, having exchanged mutual consent, but intended not to exercise the conjugal right. Their confessor later convinced them that this was not God’s will for them.

Impotence is only an impediment to marriage if it is permanent, antecedent–i.e.existing prior to the marriage, and incurable.

I’d advise relying on canon law and canon lawyers rather than references such as this.