Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[minkymurph]

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

I’ll check this out with my lecturer, who is a priest as he said it. It’s not beyond the realms of possiblity he is wrong or I have misinterpreted what he meant.

The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. They don’t start life like that if you know what I mean. The words of the Mass, work of human hands are used for a reason.

Christ could have chosen to use anything to symbolise his body and blood. I don’t think that reason was, ‘I need something to symbolise my body and blood, I wonder what I will use? Ah! Bread and wine.’ I’m not suggesting you mean that. I’m exploring the reason we use bread and wine. Yes, we were instructed to use bread and wine, but I don’t think Christ intended us to blindly do as he said without considering for a moment why.

 

[minkymurph]

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.

In that context, what I said would not be correct. I didn’t mean it in that context. I think I went on to say in my post that if something has not been declared infallible, that does not mean it is not true.

There are Catholic beliefs the Church does not compel Catholics to accept. As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, Catholics are free to believe Mary died before she was assumed into heaven, or, she was taken to heaven before she died. The Assumption has been declared infallible, but the Church has never declared whether she died before her assumption or not. The Church has not fully recognised the apparitions at Medjugorie. (Hope I spelt that right!) There are people who believe in it, and there are people who do not. As the Church has not yet declared the apparitions to be authentic, Catholics are free to believe in them, or not believe in them. The Church has no definate teaching on unbaptised children other than, it commits them to God’s mercy. Therefore, in the case of an individual child, we are free to believe in the possibility of it being in heaven.

The point I was making was not, ‘let’s see how little we can believe and get away with it.’ Rather, just because something has not been declared infallible, does not, in itself, mean we should not believe it.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Thanks.

Perhaps my phrase was poorly stated. I was not making a declaration of Catholic teaching. I was making an analogy reflective of Catholic teaching.

We are children of God.
When our children ask us, “With what degree of certainty are you telling me that I have to be home at midnight?” it’s the same impertinence that some of us children of God seem to be portraying in asking, “With what degree of certainty are you telling me ________”

It’s the exact wrong question to be asking.

 

[PRmerger]

In that context, what I said would not be correct. I didn’t mean it in that context. I think I went on to say in my post that if something has not been declared infallible, that does not mean it is not true.

Yet you were saying that Catholics are free to disagree on doctrine (that is, church teaching which has not necessarily been defined infallibly)

That is not true.

While there are certainly many matters in which Catholics may have differing opinions ·

• Capital punishment
• Communion on the tongue vs hand
• Confession face to face or behind a screen
• Does the book of Revelation deal with the future or 1st century Christianity?
• When did the Patristic era end? Who exactly are the ECFs?
• Whether Mary experienced labor pains

as I cited earlier, the CC teaches that all of its teachings must be given the assent of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Fair enough.

However, I wasn’t asking whether you brought it up.

I was asking why you stated, in response to this question: does it matter whether this teaching is infallible?

Originally Posted by diggerdomer View Post
Yes. Very much so.

So, whether something is taught infallibly is “very much” important to you. Why?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Originally Posted by Vince1022
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.

I don’t understand what you meant in the bolded section. Could you please expound?
It sounds like you’re contrasting 2 different things, yes? One: not infallible means room for development; Contrast that with Two: infallible means no room for development.

If that’s not what you’re saying, please clarify. :tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I really just don’t care to provide an example. That’s all.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Nevermind.

 

[minkymurph]

Yet you were saying that Catholics are free to disagree on doctrine (that is, church teaching which has not necessarily been defined infallibly)

That is not true.

No, that’s not what I I was saying. I did not say Catholics are free to disagree with Church doctrine. Not if they want to be truly Catholic. I don’t think I mentioned the word ‘doctrine.’

There are Church teachings that have not been defined infallibly that Catholics are obliged to believe, if they want to call themselves Catholic. If they choose not to believe these teachings, they have changed the nature of their faith and can no longer call themselves truly Catholic. However, there are beliefs the Church itself says you do not have to believe in order to be truly Catholic; it is not a requirement of the Church that you believe them on order to be Catholic. I mentioned some of these. There may be many others I don’t know of.

If you say that’s not true, then what you are saying is different to what I have been taught. (Most of my lecturers are priests)

as I cited earlier, the CC teaches that all of its teachings must be given the assent of faith.

Please, I’m getting the Catechism quoted at me again!:banghead:

I stopped posting on these forums for a while, as it became so confusing. The reason it was so confusing, was because there appear to be so many different interpretations of the Cathechism out there. Many of these interpretations are contrary to what I have been taught and I suspect there are those who use the Catechism to support what they think, which is not why the Catechism was written. I’m not saying your doing this. I’m just explaining why I have an aversion to ‘Catechism says’ posts.

 

[PRmerger]

No, that’s not what I I was saying. I did not say Catholics are free to disagree with Church doctrine. Not if they want to be truly Catholic. I don’t think I mentioned the word ‘doctrine.’

There are Church teachings that have not been defined infallibly that Catholics are obliged to believe, if they want to call themselves Catholic. If they choose not to believe these teachings, they have changed the nature of their faith and can no longer call themselves truly Catholic. However, there are beliefs the Church itself says you do not have to believe in order to be truly Catholic; it is not a requirement of the Church that you believe them on order to be Catholic. I mentioned some of these. There may be many others I don’t know of.

If you say that’s not true, then what you are saying is different to what I have been taught. (Most of my lecturers are priests)

Please, I’m getting the Catechism quoted at me again!:banghead:

I stopped posting on these forums for a while, as it became so confusing. The reason it was so confusing, was because there appear to be so many different interpretations of the Cathechism out there. Many of these interpretations are contrary to what I have been taught and I suspect there are those who use the Catechism to support what they think, which is not why the Catechism was written. I’m not saying your doing this. I’m just explaining why I have an aversion to ‘Catechism says’ posts.

Well, perhaps we’re having some semantics issues and actually are agreeing?

What, exactly, do you mean by church teaching and doctrine?

In my understanding, they are one and the same.

Are you saying they are different?

 

[minkymurph]

Well, perhaps we’re having some semantics issues and actually are agreeing?

Yes, one really does have to watch one’s language on the internet. I have been misunderstood many times due to the manner in which I have phrased things. When I read my post again I understand why you interpreted it in the way you did. Look at the trouble the filioque caused!

What, exactly, do you mean by church teaching and doctrine?

In my understanding, they are one and the same.

Are you saying they are different?

Yes and No. It’s a good question.

I would understand the term doctrine to mean ‘dogma,’ something defined very definately by the Church. For example, the divine and human nature of Christ, the Theotokos.

‘Teachings’ are not defined quite so definately. This leaves room for manoever concerning our understanding of dogma. The dogma doesn’t change but how we understand can. ‘Teachings’ are also fallible, they need to be to allow for greater understanding.

To explain, the Church has always believed in Real Presence. Catholics are compelled to believe in Real Presence as this is a core belief of Catholicism, and an essential element of being Catholic. However, sacramentality and how the bread and wine are changed, has been explained in many ways over the centuries.

As I understand it, the ‘dogma’ is transubstantiation, but we can pretty much believe what we want in relation to how the Holy Spirit accomplishes this. Much of our understanding of the sacraments comes from Aquinas who was into metaphysics. Lots of theologians now don’t like metaphysics, but believe in Real Presence. If the Church defined how the bread and wine are change in definitive terms, then Catholics would be obliged to accept it.

The Church also teaches people can receive personal revelations, locutions, and miracle cures. There are personal revelations, locutions and miracle cures the Church has endorsed as authentic. There other revelations, locutions and miracle cures the Church has said are not authentic, and there are those in-between, the Church has not said one way or the other. Therefore, Catholics cannot deny personal revelations, locutions and miracle cures as a teaching of the Church, but are free to believe or not believe the ‘in-betweenies’ as they choose, as the Church has not said one way or the other.

Phew! I think I need a lie down after that!:coffeeread:

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, one really does have to watch one’s language on the internet. I have been misunderstood many times due to the manner in which I have phrased things. When I read my post again I understand why you interpreted it in the way you did. Look at the trouble the filioque caused!

:tiphat:
Indeed. While I am not an expert in the EO/CC schism (it make my eyes glaze over, actually), I think that perhaps both sides agree, essentially, about the nature of the Trinity as articulated in the* filioque*. It’s really an issue of semantics, and perhaps pride, on both sides?

I would understand the term doctrine to mean ‘dogma,’ something defined very definately by the Church. For example, the divine and human nature of Christ, the Theotokos.

Ah. So here’s the confusion in a nutshell.

Doctrine is not synonymous with dogma.

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed. source

‘Teachings’ are not defined quite so definately.

“Teachings” are doctrines.

What is part of the Deposit of Faith must be given religious assent, whether it’s been defined formally (as in dogma), infallibly, or simply as a doctrine.

The Church also teaches people can receive personal revelations, locutions, and miracle cures.

These are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[minkymurph]

:tiphat:
Indeed. While I am not an expert in the EO/CC schism (it make my eyes glaze over, actually), I think that perhaps both sides agree, essentially, about the nature of the Trinity as articulated in the* filioque*. It’s really an issue of semantics, and perhaps pride, on both sides?

In fairness, yes, we are are guilty to a certain extent of pride. I think the ‘pride’ comes from the passion we have for our belief. I am passionate about my beliefs, and so are others. There is nothing wrong with a passion for truth. Sometimes, our passion for truth compels us to listen to what we would prefer not to listen to, and accept what we would prefer not to accept.

Ah. So here’s the confusion in a nutshell.

Doctrine is not synonymous with dogma.

In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed. source

Ok. I think what you have said here, is what I trying to say, but you have put it better. Dogma is something that is more narrowly defined than teaching. That does not mean teaching is not part of the deposit of faith. I see where you are coming from and yes, I would agree. As far as I understand it, there are teachings of the Catholic Church which, for want of a better expression, are more ‘inallible’ than others. That does not mean we do not accept them. What it means is there is kind of a hierarchy of belief is you know what I mean. For example, it is more difficult to be truly Catholic and doubt the Incarnation, than it is to be truly Catholic and doubt the Assumption. I don’t know I’ve explained this well. Does it make sense?

“Teachings” are doctrines.

What is part of the Deposit of Faith must be given religious assent, whether it’s been defined formally (as in dogma), infallibly, or simply as a doctrine.

Yes, teachings are doctrines. But I would say there are teachings that can be re-interpreted for the purpose of greater understanding, and there are teachings that cannot be re-interpreted for greater understanding as they have been infallibly defined. Does that make sense?

In my post, I was actually making the point that dogma or teaching does not have to be declared infallibly in order for it to be truth. That was the point of my previous post. Does something have to be declared infallibly for us to accept it? As Catholics, yes, we give assent to the Church’s teaching even if they have not been declared infalllibly because of our confidence the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

Now, this is what I love about the Catholic faith. I think this post demonstrates the unity of the Catholic faith. Yes, we can have huge differences, but can it be said two strangers who post on the internet have both found greater understanding of their faith through dialogue? If we were Protestant, both of us may have gone off and joined another Church, or started another Church by now. I don’t mean to be disrespectful of Protestants but, Catholics kind of hack it together despite differences, and thrash things out until they acheive greater understanding of each other.

We may be different Catholics but if you ever come to Ireland, look me up and I’ll stand you a pint of Guinness!

 

[PRmerger]

Ok. I think what you have said here, is what I trying to say, but you have put it better. Dogma is something that is more narrowly defined than teaching. That does not mean teaching is not part of the deposit of faith. I see where you are coming from and yes, I would agree. As far as I understand it, there are teachings of the Catholic Church which, for want of a better expression, are more ‘inallible’ than others. That does not mean we do not accept them. What it means is there is kind of a hierarchy of belief is you know what I mean. For example, it is more difficult to be truly Catholic and doubt the Incarnation, than it is to be truly Catholic and doubt the Assumption. I don’t know I’ve explained this well. Does it make sense?

Indeed it does make sense. Like I said, I thought we were both agreeing and talking past each other.

If we were Protestant, both of us may have gone off and joined another Church, or started another Church by now.

'zactly. Just what the devil ordered, IMHO. :sad_yes:

We may be different Catholics but if you ever come to Ireland, look me up and I’ll stand you a pint of Guinness!

Well, thanks minkymurph! I just might take you up on that…in about 20 years. We have 4 daughters, which means 4 Catholic school tutions for grade school, high school and college (maybe non-Catholic at the college level), and, probably 4 weddings…so I probably won’t be doing much traveling for a whle. Ah, but I can dream, can’t I?

 

[verum_peto_1]

Shallow is where the view has a cursory knowledge of a subject.

IGNORANT is where the view has preconcieved NOTION of a subject and usually incorrect.

This entire post suffers the latter although it reeks of a shallow knowledge of being a Catholic!

Ignorant = uninformed, unaware. QED

Catholicism has become a shallow caricature of a spiritual path, because its leaders have chosen to disengage from the modern world. Where is the shallowness? The dismissal of anachronistic superstition for what it is?

We need more spirituality, more integrity, less materialism, etc… The world is careening toward nihilism, and yet the Church chooses bureaucracy, irrelevance and materialism. Why is that?

When an outsider reads the comments on this forum, there is a sense that the Church still has the silly notion that it can define reality by referring to the writings of, no doubt learned people, of hundreds and thousands of years ago, without any recognition that the rate of growth in knowledge is growing exponentially.

As for women in the Church and sexuality. The Church is indeed irrelevant, yet tries to position itself as an expert on the topic. The child molestation problems in the Church, which the Pope apparently played a role in hiding, is an example of the underdeveloped and immature sexuality which many priest have. How could one expect a person who became a priest as a young adult to understand sexuality? There is fairly strong (though not conclusive) evidence that the current Pope is gay. This might explain his inaccurate and irrelevant pronouncements in the areas of sexuality and gender. Don’t you think he is a bit old to have never come to terms with his sexuality? Why did he become a priest originally, was it to avoid or deny his impulses? Where does all of this fit into his view of women as priests?

So on the topic of ignorance, are the pronouncements of mystics hundreds and thousands of years ago anything other than ignorance, by current standards? We know the sad history of the Church with respect to hard science. It has failed to even recognize the advances in behavioral science of the past 60 years.

Look in the mirror when you want to call someone ignorant.

 

[PRmerger]

Where does all of this fit into his view of women as priests?

Just so you know, women have never been ordained as priests, so it’s not our current pope’s view that is expressed in this ancient teaching.

 

[minkymurph]

Just so you know, women have never been ordained as priests, so it’s not our current pope’s view that is expressed in this ancient teaching.

We were discussing the hierarchy of belief in a previous post. The way it was explained to me was as follows:

The Church teaches Mary was Mother of God, conceived immaculately, and Assumed into heaven. It also teaches the Virgin Birth. If you did not believe any of these teachings, the nature of your faith would have changed and would no longer be truly Catholic.

It is also a Catholic belief Mary was ever Virgin. Apparently, Catholics are not *compelled * to believe due to the fact that believing Mary and Joseph had other children would not change the nature of your faith. I’m not saying what I think one way or the other.

As said here, the Catholic Church has never ordained women. The ordination of women would change the whole nature of the Catholic faith as it would require and overhaul of the Mass, sacrametality, original sin to mention but a few. The Catholic faith would become unrecognisable as Catholic.

I think celebacy is a greater issue. The Church, to my knowledge, has ordained married men in the past. Someone else may inform me otherwise but I don’t think it would change the essence of the Catholic faith either. I’m not against the idea of those who give up marriage and become ‘eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom,’ but I see no theological reason why priests can’t marry.

 

[Lutheranteach]

simply because Jesus himself never chose any women to be priests
while women played important roles in Jesus’ ministry on earth, none of them had the same roles as the Apostles, who are the ordained

Nor did he choose Asians, Europeans, Native Americans, the disabled, anyone over the age of 50, Just what is the phantom “pixie dust” that makes someone have the right “matter” to become a priest. What if there was a priest who had a genetic test and his chromosomes were XXY? (it happens) What if there were an accident or questionable genitalia at birth and he was raised as a female but was actually a male based on genetics. Could “she” become a priest? hermaphrodites? Let me be totally ridiculous. If a man were forced to have a sex change could he become a priest. Does the “matter” reside in the testicles or the brain? Or is it located somewhere else? OR is it a purely spiritual aspect we’re talking about here in which case we’re merely saying women are spiritually lacking something. I say all of the above somewhat tongue in cheek…but also admit I disagree with this doctrine and saw it as totally non-sensical on its face. Then I studied and thought about it… and still saw it as totally non-sensical.

 

[PRmerger]

Nor did he choose Asians, Europeans, Native Americans, the disabled, anyone over the age of 50,

Yes, I agree that it’s a poor argument against women’s ordination: Jesus never chose women so that’s why we can’t ordain women.

However, I think it ought not be dismissed that he did not ordain The Woman, His Mother, the first to hear the Word and incarnate this into her life. This is not insignificant, IMHO.

Just what is the phantom “pixie dust” that makes someone have the right “matter” to become a priest.

Well, it’s not actually “pixie dust”.

The better word is “ontologically”. At his essence, a male has the right “matter”, ontologically, to be a priest.

If the priesthood were a job or a career or even just another ministry, then I could see how a woman ought to be able to be ordained. For, truly, a woman can “do” all the jobs that a priest does–she can counsel, she can manage a parish, she can preach and provide insightful observations about Scripture and theology. In fact, she can even do and say the very words of consecration–perhaps even with more feeling and emotion.

HOWEVER, as well have all understood,** the priesthood is not a job,** or even a ministry. Ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is not the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law, as someone so trenchantly pointed out on a thread here once.

At his sacred ordination,** a profound ontological change occurs** and what existed 30 seconds prior exists no more. **Ontologically, he has changed and become a priest.

And no amount of ontological change can transform a woman into a priest–at her essence she always remains a woman.**

***And a woman can never be a father. ***

No matter what “jobs” or “ministries” I perform as a woman that are exactly the same as what my husband does, it’s always as a mother. I can’t do the parenting duties and turn into a father. It’s just not ontologically possible, even if you were to sprinkle pixie dust on me.

 

[catholicgirl201]

The Church’s view is that Christ did not Ordain Women.