Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[FCEGM]

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.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is as much a dogmatic belief as her Divine Motherhood (Theotokos), her Immaculate Conception and her Assumption and as such cannot be denied by a Catholic. Her Perpetual Virginity is significant to the faith because each doctrine of the Church is connected to the others. Thus contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother. God does nothing for no reason, thus the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has a great significance, pointing to the unique identity of her Son.

This article addresses this further:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

 

[minkymurph]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is as much a dogmatic belief as her Divine Motherhood (Theotokos), her Immaculate Conception and her Assumption and as such cannot be denied by a Catholic. Her Perpetual Virginity is significant to the faith because each doctrine of the Church is connected to the others. Thus contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother. God does nothing for no reason, thus the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has a great significance, pointing to the unique identity of her Son.

This article addresses this further:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

I thought someone might add something.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not one of my areas of expertise. (Not sure what is.)

I wasn’t suggesting Catholics should stop believing it.

As far I know, the Church does not *compel *Catholics to believe it in order to be Catholic. To explain, if you wanted to become Catholic and you doubted Catholic teachings concerning the Incarnation, you could not become Catholic as that is the core of all other teachings; as you have pointed out in relation to Marian theology.

I remember reading a list; there where 10 things in all, that the Church requires those who want to convert to Catholicism to accept. Mary’s perpetual virginity was not one of them which is why I used it as an example. The book was called ‘Faith Alive’ (sorry, can’t remember the author) and it was written for people who wanted to convert to Catholicism. As far as I know, if you believed Mary and Joseph had other children, you could still become Catholic if you believed Mary was Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception and Assumed into heaven. However, I take your point that Mary’s perpetual virginity may be an essential element of Marian teachings that have been declared infallible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God has chosen that His Church has no authority to ordain a woman as a priest.

Why did He chose this? Well, there could be several reasons – many of which have been brought up --or there could be some reason known to God alone because it is something that we (particularly in our current era of 'men/women are interchangeable in all roles society) cannot grasp.

It’s difficult enough to believe in God becoming man, dying for us, rising from the dead and then returning to heaven. It’s 2000 years later and a lot of people (even some who identify themselves as Christian) don’t even believe --they speak of a ‘historical Jesus’, they speak of how the ‘texts’ were corrupted, the story ‘made up’, ‘he never really died’, but "it’s the message --the love-one-another-peace-at-all-costs MESSAGE’ that lives on, blah blah.

So it’s even harder given that so many don’t believe in God Himself to believe in God’s teaching.

No, we want to believe our own teachings --the ones that ‘make sense to us’, the ones that make us feel all ‘noble’ and ‘egalitarian’ and ‘progressive’ and, God help us, more ‘perfect’ than God Himself.

The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women.

**WHY? Because God has not given it that authority. **

**Why can’t we confect the Eucharist with a gluten-free host and grape juice? Because we can’t. Even though those with celiac disease may not take the Body, and alcoholics may not take the Blood. It may not seem ‘fair’, but the Eucharist isn’t just ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ and so we can’t make substitutions to accomodate people who have allergies to bread or to wine. **

Why can’t we ordain a woman as a priest? Because we can’t. It may not seem fair but a priest isn’t just some man carrying out some tasks and so we can’t make substitutions to allow it to be just some WOMAN carrying out some tasks.

The Eucharist is a Holy Sacrament and it requires certain elements to be that sacrament; otherwise, it does not become the Eucharist. Gluten-free bread and grape juice, even if offered by the Pope himself with the words of consecration, will not become the Eucharist.

Holy Orders is a Holy Sacrament and requires certain elements; otherwise, no sacrament takes place. A woman, even ‘ordained’ via formula by the Pope himself, will not become a priest. The Church–and that means up to and including the Pope himself–have no authority to confect the Eucharist with gluten-free bread or grape juice; nor the authority to ordain a woman as a priest.

 

[FCEGM]

I thought someone might add something.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not one of my areas of expertise. (Not sure what is.)

I wasn’t suggesting Catholics should stop believing it.

As far I know, the Church does not *compel *Catholics to believe it in order to be Catholic. To explain, if you wanted to become Catholic and you doubted Catholic teachings concerning the Incarnation, you could not become Catholic as that is the core of all other teachings; as you have pointed out in relation to Marian theology.

I remember reading a list; there where 10 things in all, that the Church requires those who want to convert to Catholicism to accept. Mary’s perpetual virginity was not one of them which is why I used it as an example. The book was called ‘Faith Alive’ (sorry, can’t remember the author) and it was written for people who wanted to convert to Catholicism. As far as I know, if you believed Mary and Joseph had other children, you could still become Catholic if you believed Mary was Mother of God, the Immaculate Conception and Assumed into heaven. However, I take your point that Mary’s perpetual virginity may be an essential element of Marian teachings that have been declared infallible.

minky, this article addresses the infallible character of the Church’s teaching on the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity. A text, such as the one you mention, that doesn’t include this belief in instructing potential Catholics would be inadequate, imop.

campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html

But we drift off topic.

 

[minkymurph]

minky, this article addresses the infallible character of the Church’s teaching on the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity. A text, such as the one you mention, that doesn’t include this belief in instructing potential Catholics would be inadequate, imop.

campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq18.html

But we drift off topic.

What’s imop?

I am glad you replied because I was unaware the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity was infallible in character. To be honest, I’m not great on infallibility either. The only thing I know for sure in relation to infallibility, is the Creed, and the fact that the Pope has spoke infallibly twice in the last 300 years. Once was the Immaculate conception, the other was the Assumption.

I will read this article in depth. I don’t like to read something and come straight back on it. I like time to think.

We are drifting off the topic of the thread. However, the direction I was coming from is even if the Church does not declare a teaching infallible, or compel Catholic’s to believe it, does not mean it is not Spirit inspired truth. In relation to the thread, it may never have been declared infallibly women cannot be priests. Other infallible teachings have been declared which to me, make it clear they can’t. ‘Can’t’ is such a bad word as it infers some lesser status. The English language is so inadequate at times! :banghead:

This is not why women cannot be priests. The role women play in the economy of salvation is just as important as being a priest. As another poster said, they give birth to children who will become part of the kingdom of God. A man can’t do that. I can recall the birth of my first child. I was lying in hospital with a drip in my arm, and my husband was in the pub, drinking whiskey, telling people HE couldn’t go through that again!

I think the problem comes from the fact that for a long time, women’s role in the economy of salvation was underplayed, considered some kind of lesser role due to misunderstandings of gender role, and theology written by women was not given the same credence as theology written by men. That is no longer the case. I think today women are coming into their own in society and the Church, and they don’t feel they have to be a men to be valued. They can be valued in their own right, and rightly so!

 

[FCEGM]

What’s imop?
. . .

We are drifting off the topic of the thread. However, the direction I was coming from is even if the Church does not declare a teaching infallible, or compel Catholic’s to believe it, does not mean it is not Spirit inspired truth. In relation to the thread, it may never have been declared infallibly women cannot be priests. Other infallible teachings have been declared which to me, make it clear they can’t. . . .

Ah, I understand your point. Yes, a formal declaration does not mean that something isn’t infallible or wasn’t an essential part of the Catholic Faith until a formal declaration.

imop = in my opinion.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Because the Church takes such care to regulate and define it so explicitly (i.e. in the Catechism and Canon Law). Is it not so important to you? I mean, why do you ask whether teaching infallibly is important?

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Christ didn’t do a lot of things the Church currently does (including things Bishops, Priests, and Deacons do). So what’s your real point, relevant to this tread? Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

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

For starters we can’t presume that one or more of the Apostles weren’t disabled, and we can’t presume that one or more of them weren’t over the age of 50 either. Certainly no details are given re their physical abilities or ages.

For seconds - there WERE no Asians or Native Americans living in Palestine in the time of Christ - so there wasn’t even the possibility of His choosing them. Unlike women. It’s a moot point.

As for Europeans - well, there were the Romans, of course, but they were enemies of the Jews and weren’t exactly friendly with Christ in particular. Apart from the centurion I suppose, but he seems to have showed no interest in becoming an Apostle even though he was a believer.

Greeks perhaps? Well, Philip is certainly a Greek name, so again we don’t know that there were none among the Apostles

 

[diggerdomer]

For starters we can’t presume that one or more of the Apostles weren’t disabled, and we can’t presume that one or more of them weren’t over the age of 50 either. Certainly no details are given re their physical abilities or ages.

For seconds - there WERE no Asians or Native Americans living in Palestine in the time of Christ - so there wasn’t even the possibility of His choosing them. Unlike women. It’s a moot point.

As for Europeans - well, there were the Romans, of course, but they were enemies of the Jews and weren’t exactly friendly with Christ in particular. Apart from the centurion I suppose, but he seems to have showed no interest in becoming an Apostle even though he was a believer.

Greeks perhaps? Well, Philip is certainly a Greek name, so again we don’t know that there were none among the Apostles

So you agree that who Christ chose was based on cultural and historical conditions. Which of course implies anyone Christ would absolutely NOT have chosen are similarly based on cultural and historical considerations, and so open to interpretation? Right?

Or are Catholic ministries limited to those with Palestinian origins in the time of Christ? And of course, non-Romans (so we can rule out anyone in any way descended from “Romans”)?

 

[Vince1022]

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

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

Sorry…I didn’t catch you your response showed Catholics agreeing to something taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium. Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

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

So what was your intention in this post:

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

See my confusion?

I agree, infallible teachings are open to further development and understanding.

 

[Vince1022]

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

Ok, thanks. Too bad. It would certainly help clarify what you mean if you could provide at least one example. Oh well, I guess the rest of us will be left guessing. Not very productive.

 

[Vince1022]

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.

The ordination of women would not necessarily change the whole nature of the Catholic faith.

The first obvious example would be ordaining women as deacons. Nothing in Tradition or Scripture prohibits such.

 

[LilyM]

So you agree that who Christ chose was based on cultural and historical conditions. Which of course implies anyone Christ would absolutely NOT have chosen are similarly based on cultural and historical considerations, and so open to interpretation? Right?

Or are Catholic ministries limited to those with Palestinian origins in the time of Christ? And of course, non-Romans (so we can rule out anyone in any way descended from “Romans”)?

If not choosing your enemies as your Apostles is a ‘cultural’ or ‘historical’ consideration, may as well say He deliberately didn’t choose Pharisees or members of the Sanhedrin as well - they too were His enemies.

Not choosing those who were bound and determined to thwart, destroy and/or kill Him is a matter of common sense, and has nothing to do with culture, after all He was of the same culture as the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. The same considerations applied in not choosing Romans.

If you’re saying ‘He didn’t choose women because they were considered culturally inferior’, then absolutely not. He was extremely egalitarian in His treatment of women, much more so than was the norm at the time.

 

[minkymurph]

The ordination of women would not necessarily change the whole nature of the Catholic faith.

The first obvious example would be ordaining women as deacons. Nothing in Tradition or Scripture prohibits such.

You may have a point. To be honest, I don’t know much about the deaconate. We don’t have any deacons in my part of the world. I know in other parts they do have deacons. This is an area which is very new to me, and people in my part of the world.

The question I would ask, does one have to be ordained in order to be a deacon?
Now nobody jump on me, I’m on a topic here I know very little about.

It is not necessary to be ordained to baptise. I’ve heard it said deacons can preside at a funeral or marriage. I suppose yes, women could preside at a funeral or marriage. Ministers of the Eucharist, Readers at the Mass, and those who offer the prayers of the faithful don’t need to be ordained. If you don’t hear confessions you don’t need to be ordained.

The Sacrament of the Sick I suppose is the hard one. As far as I know, deacons can offer the Sacrament of the Sick, which is why they need to be ordained? This is where I would see the difficulty. I would guess you would have to be ordained to confer a sacrament. You can’t really be ordained to confer one sacrament, can you? Not without changing our understanding of sacraments. If deacons cannot offer the Sacrament of the Sick, then I’m asking myself why they need to be ordained. However, baptism is a sacrament and anyone can baptise.

I think I’ve just backed myself into a corner with my own arguements. :frighten:

 

[PRmerger]

Because the Church takes such care to regulate and define it so explicitly (i.e. in the Catechism and Canon Law). Is it not so important to you? I mean, why do you ask whether teaching infallibly is important?

I find it puzzling that you keep going around the question.

The question wasn’t why is it important that the CC have infallible teachings.

The question is, as it relates to the ordination of women, why do you care so strongly about whether a teaching has met the criteria for infallibility?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry…I didn’t catch you your response showed Catholics agreeing to something taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium. Can you clarify? Thanks.

No,* I’m *sorry. I have no idea what your question above says.

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, thanks. Too bad. It would certainly help clarify what you mean if you could provide at least one example. Oh well, I guess the rest of us will be left guessing. Not very productive.

Oh, I just can’t stand the thought that there are people left guessing.

 

[minkymurph]

For starters we can’t presume that one or more of the Apostles weren’t disabled, and we can’t presume that one or more of them weren’t over the age of 50 either. Certainly no details are given re their physical abilities or ages.

For seconds - there WERE no Asians or Native Americans living in Palestine in the time of Christ - so there wasn’t even the possibility of His choosing them. Unlike women. It’s a moot point.

As for Europeans - well, there were the Romans, of course, but they were enemies of the Jews and weren’t exactly friendly with Christ in particular. Apart from the centurion I suppose, but he seems to have showed no interest in becoming an Apostle even though he was a believer.

Greeks perhaps? Well, Philip is certainly a Greek name, so again we don’t know that there were none among the Apostles

My lecturer made an interesting point in relation to this. It was concerning the ancestry of Jesus as recorded in Matthew. Matthew names Ruth and Rahab as ancestors of Jesus. I always felt a bit sorry for Rahab. She’s always referred to in scripture as ‘the harlot.’ Will the woman ever be allowed to live it down?

Anyway, if Jesus had Gentile ancestors, it could be argued he was not truly Jewish. Yes, Rahab and Ruth accepted the God of the Jews and lived in accordance with the Jewish community. However, they where not born Jews and chosen at a time when there where any number of faithful Jewish women could have become ancestors of Jesus. Jesus was also criticised for associating with Gentiles and sinners.

Jesus mission also centred around Galillee which is in Samaria, the Northern kingdom. He chose his apostles in the region of Galillee which was quite multicultural; one of the reasons ‘Jews’ looked down on them. The ‘Jews’ where from the Southern Kingdom of Judah and Benjemen. (Apologies for any bad spelling, in a hurry)

How does this relate to the thread? A study of the Gospels shows a great deal of controversy around the life and ministry of Jesus. I would say Jesus would have chosen women as apostles had he wanted to. The question we have now is did he, or didn’t he?