Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[PRmerger]

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

Please follow the thread quotes:

On this point we agree. The Church also teaches that women cannot be ordained as priests–we both agree to this too, the difference being to whether we accept this as infallible or not. I don’t think we’re getting anywhere at this point on that particular topic, so please allow me to ask a different question.

Question: does it matter to you whether not this teaching is infallible? You’ve already stated that you accept this as binding and authoritative. It seems to me that the only thing that infallibility adds is whether or not the teaching will change in the future.

Yes. Very much so.

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.”

So the question remains, digger, why is infallibility so important to you, and would you accept your children’s impertinence in asking, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring something?”

 

[PRmerger]

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

This thought sounds quite different from a posting you made earlier. It sounds quite contradictory, in fact!

My point is that is has not been taught infallibly. So while it’s binding, definitive, etc…there is room for development and further understanding,** while those teachings that HAVE been taught infallibly do not admit the same**.

So are you stating now that teachings that are infallible can develop and elicit further understanding (post #1) or that they cannot develop and elicit further understandin (post #2)?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

So you’re saying that while it’s possible in theory for the Church teach infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium, there is no example in the history of the Church of this being done?

 

[Vince1022]

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

Can you give an example of any canon that you refer to? I’d love to read it for myself. Thank you.

 

[Vince1022]

This thought sounds quite different from a posting you made earlier. It sounds quite contradictory, in fact!

So are you stating now that teachings that are infallible can develop and elicit further understanding (post #1) or that they cannot develop and elicit further understandin (post #2)?

Thanks! If I sounded self-contradictory, please give me further info on exactly what I said in different posts that seemed such. Hey, this helps me learn!

Here’s my thought on teachings that have been taught infallibly:

If taught infallibly, the teaching is considered by Catholics to be divinely true.

At the same time, teaching infallibly on a given doctrine (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) does not mean that one particular expression of a divine truth has said everything that can be said about it. Teaching infallibly claims truth, not completeness. In fact, as God (and the Church) is mystery, no one or any number of teachings, humanly, will ever fully express the divine truth.

Does that help?

Thanks again.

 

[Vince1022]

So you’re saying that while it’s possible in theory for the Church teach infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium, there is no example in the history of the Church of this being done?

Maybe. I’m not sure. I think that’s my point. While the Church teaches that the teaching infallibly is possible via the Ordinary Magisterium, I’m not sure of any specific instance all Catholics agree points to this exercise.

If you or anyone has an example of a teaching that has been presented by the Ordinary Magisterium as infallibly taught I’d love to hear it.

Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way dismissing or minimizing the importance of the Ordinary Magisterium, nor the obligation of the faithful to adhere to it.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I was simply wondering if the post I responded to was based on an understanding of the Catechism, i.e. what the Church in fact teaches. I agree with you that the Catechism is a great reference, but not the be all and end all that can be said on a certain question. That’s the nature of the genre of a catechism. It just seems to me that people often post thoughts here that seem to not be aware of what the Church teaches, as expressed for example in the Catechism.

In one sense, yes, of course, Christ Himself is the only one who offered Christ Himself. The point is, in the Eucharistic liturgy, those celebrating join Christ in that same offering. Everyone, not just the priest or any other select part of the Faithful.

 

[diggerdomer]

P
So the question remains, digger, why is infallibility so important to you, and would you accept your children’s impertinence in asking, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring something?”

Infallibility is important to me because it’s a teaching of the Catholic Church.

I accept my children’s impertinence no matter what the subject because they are children. Impertinence has nothing to do with teaching infallibly.

 

[minkymurph]

I was simply wondering if the post I responded to was based on an understanding of the Catechism, i.e. what the Church in fact teaches. I agree with you that the Catechism is a great reference, but not the be all and end all that can be said on a certain question. That’s the nature of the genre of a catechism. It just seems to me that people often post thoughts here that seem to not be aware of what the Church teaches, as expressed for example in the Catechism.

In one sense, yes, of course, Christ Himself is the only one who offered Christ Himself. The point is, in the Eucharistic liturgy, those celebrating join Christ in that same offering. Everyone, not just the priest or any other select part of the Faithful.

I would agree there are posters who express what is no more than their opinion. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion; so long as you make it clear it is a personal opinion and not a Church teaching and perhaps some posters don’t make this clear. The catechism was written so we would know what the Church teaches. To be fair though, you could spend a lifetime studying the catechism and still only have scratched the surface! :hypno: I don’t know many who have read it cover to cover, so I wouldn’t be too hard on someone who don’t know what it says.

I agree that through baptism we are mystically incorportated into Christ’s Paschal mystery, his dying and rising. I agree those who celebrate the Eucharist are united in that celebration and united in partaking of the divinity of Christ. In that sense, there is no distinction between members of the faithful.

I agree it is not just the priest who celebrates or offers the Eucharist. However, the ordained are consecrated for a different work than the faithful if that makes sense. As far as I have been taught, the bread and wine are symbols of our work; ‘fruit of the vine…work of human hands…they will become our spiritual drink etc…’ The work the priest offers is a different work. The encylical Christifidies Laci explains this well.

 

[PRmerger]

Infallibility is important to me because it’s a teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think the question, more specifically, is why do you care so strongly about whether a teaching has met the criteria for infallibility?

I accept my children’s impertinence no matter what the subject because they are children. Impertinence has nothing to do with teaching infallibly.

We *are *children in the Body of Christ. Even younger and more immature, proportionately, than children in our domestic churches. 40-80 years old, compared to 2000…quite the newborns, aren’t we?

And, wouldn’t you be a bit indignant if you heard one of your nieces questioning her parents, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring that I have to be home at midnight?”

 

[minkymurph]

I think the question, more specifically, is why do you care so strongly about whether a teaching has met the criteria for infallibility?

We *are *children in the Body of Christ. Even younger and more immature, proportionately, than children in our domestic churches. 40-80 years old, compared to 2000…quite the newborns, aren’t we?

And, wouldn’t you be a bit indignant if you heard one of your nieces questioning her parents, “With what degree of certainty are you declaring that I have to be home at midnight?”

I would agree that we can be young and immature in terms of faith irrepective of our age.

Fortunately, God does not get indignant. He is patient with us because we are his children. He did not get indignant when Abraham questioned him. Jesus did not get indignant with his apostles when they lacked understanding. Therefore, I believe God’s agents should also be patient.

As I understand it, unless something is taught infallibly, Catholics are free to believe what they choose. They are not compelled to believe something that is not infallible. However, beliefs that have not been declared infallible are not necessarily wrong and I don’t think that as Catholics, we could say there is no truth is something simply because it has not been declared infallible.

As I understand it, the question is has it been declared infallibly that women cannot be ordained? I would say no, it hasn’t. However, as the ordination of women would change our whole understanding of the Mass, the Incarntion and original sin, the core beliefs of the Catholic faith. A deep understanding of the core beliefs of Catholicism, to me, demonstrate there should be no need for the Pope to declare infallibly women cannot be ordained.

 

[PRmerger]

As I understand it, unless something is taught infallibly, Catholics are free to believe what they choose.

That is actually not correct.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ. From Mark Shea

From the Catechism #892:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe. I’m not sure. I think that’s my point. While the Church teaches that the teaching infallibly is possible via the Ordinary Magisterium, I’m not sure of **any specific instance all Catholics agree **points to this exercise.

Huh? Here’s how many teachings all Catholics agree on: exactly 0

If you or anyone has an example of a teaching that has been presented by the Ordinary Magisterium as infallibly taught I’d love to hear it.

I really don’t care to provide an example, but will discuss if others care to.

Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way dismissing or minimizing the importance of the Ordinary Magisterium, nor the obligation of the faithful to adhere to it.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks! If I sounded self-contradictory, please give me further info on exactly what I said in different posts that seemed such. Hey, this helps me learn!

Here’s my thought on teachings that have been taught infallibly:

If taught infallibly, the teaching is considered by Catholics to be divinely true.

At the same time, teaching infallibly on a given doctrine (e.g. the Immaculate Conception) does not mean that one particular expression of a divine truth has said everything that can be said about it. Teaching infallibly claims truth, not completeness. In fact, as God (and the Church) is mystery, no one or any number of teachings, humanly, will ever fully express the divine truth.

Does that help?

Thanks again.

Fair enough. It is indeed well stated that an infallible teaching claims truth not completeness.

So what was your intention in this post:

My point is that is has not been taught infallibly. So while it’s binding, definitive, etc…there is room for development and further understanding, while those teachings that HAVE been taught infallibly do not admit the same.

It sounds as if you’re saying if it’s infallibly taught there is no room for development and further understanding.

See my confusion?

 

[Vince1022]

Huh? Here’s how many teachings all Catholics agree on: exactly 0

I’m sorry, I don’t understand. What do you mean? Thank you.

 

[Vince1022]

I really don’t care to provide an example, but will discuss if others care to.

Oh, well, if you don’t care to provide an example that’s fine.

But I can’t help but wonder…is it really that you don’t care to provide an example, or you can’t find an appropriate example to offer? Just curious. Thanks again.

 

[Vince1022]

It sounds as if you’re saying if it’s infallibly taught there is no room for development and further understanding.

See my confusion?

No, that’s not what I am saying and so do not see your confusion. Clarify, please. Thanks!

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree it is not just the priest who celebrates or offers the Eucharist. However, the ordained are consecrated for a different work than the faithful if that makes sense. As far as I have been taught, the bread and wine are symbols of our work; ‘fruit of the vine…work of human hands…they will become our spiritual drink etc…’ The work the priest offers is a different work. The encylical Christifidies Laci explains this well.

According to Catholic teaching, the bread and wine are NOT “symbols of our work.”

 

[diggerdomer]

I think the question, more specifically, is why do you care so strongly about whether a teaching has met the criteria for infallibility?

I did not bring the topic of infallibility up in this Thread. I was merely responding to others who did.

 

[diggerdomer]

I

We *are *children in the Body of Christ. E:

Where does the Catholic Church teach we are Children in the Body of Christ?

Thanks.