Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

What? What do you mean, did He or didn’t He? He didn’t. You can’t possibly think that Jesus would have ‘wanted to’ ordain women in AD 33, yet (because He was SO sensitive to the patriarchical and male-dominated times) He decided to WAIT until the enlightened 21st century when people would be ready to ‘accept it.’

God DOESN’T CHANGE.

If Jesus had wanted women priests in AD 33 He would have ordained them and the world would have accomodated itself to HIM. HE does not go around accommodating Himself to the WORLD. He doesn’t wait until the world is ‘ready’ to accept things (like the Jews were so ready to accept Him as the Messiah. . .oh wait, they weren’t. . . and Rome was so ready to accept Him as God. . .oh wait, they weren’t. . .and people are so ready to accept Christian teachings as true. . .oh wait, they aren’t. . .

Yikes.

 

[minkymurph]

What? What do you mean, did He or didn’t He? He didn’t. You can’t possibly think that Jesus would have ‘wanted to’ ordain women in AD 33, yet (because He was SO sensitive to the patriarchical and male-dominated times) He decided to WAIT until the enlightened 21st century when people would be ready to ‘accept it.’

I think if you read my post again you will see I wasn’t saying anything like this.

What do I mean did He or didn’t He? I was replying to another poster. Some argue he did, some argue he didn’t. That is what I meant by did He or didn’t He. I believe I ended my sentence with a question mark. Apologies if I did not. Does that not mean I am posing a question and not offering an opinion as to what I might or might not think?

Tantum_ergo:

If Jesus had wanted women priests in AD 33 He would have ordained them and the world would have accomodated itself to HIM. HE does not go around accommodating Himself to the WORLD. He doesn’t wait until the world is ‘ready’ to accept things (like the Jews were so ready to accept Him as the Messiah. . .oh wait, they weren’t. . . and Rome was so ready to accept Him as God. . .oh wait, they weren’t. . .and people are so ready to accept Christian teachings as true. . .oh wait, they aren’t. . .

Yikes.

I made no reference in my post to culture, the 21st century, people being ready to accept Christian teachings. If another poster did, you need to quote them, not me. What I said was, if Jesus had wanted to ordain women He would have. Let me put that another way. If God desired women to be priests, Jesus would have ordained women. Is that better?

I believe I wrote in my post there was a lot of controversy surrounding the ministry of Jesus. The Gospels are full of controversy stories. Therefore, Jesus would not have been afraid to create controversy by ordaining women. I don’t believe my post suggested that He would have, so I don’t understand what you have said here, 'you can’t possibly think that Jesus would have ‘wanted to’ ordain women in AD 33, yet (because He was SO sensitive to the patriarchical and male-dominated times) He decided to WAIT until the enlightened 21st century when people would be ready to ‘accept it.’ I don’t think anything in my post suggested that. Further, I posted this in answer to the suggestion Jesus did not ordain women because of the restrictions of the society he lived in. The evidence of the Gospels would suggest otherwise, as you have quite rightly stated.

If Jesus did not ordain women, then the Church cannot ordain women as Jesus instituted the Sacraments and the Priesthood. That is why I posed the question. There is no evidence, to my knowlege, Jesus ordained women. The suggestion that he didn’t ordain women for cultural reasons doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

However, if Jesus did ordain women, and some claim he did, then the Church can ordain women. This is why I posed the question. Perhaps you didn’t read the post I was responding to. I often have to read previous posts to understand where someone is coming from in their response.

 

[edwest2]

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

No they’re not. Infallible means infallible.

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

No they’re not. Infallible means infallible.

God bless,
Ed

Are you saying there is no more we could learn or understand about the relationship of the Holy Trinty, the Incarnation? Are you saying if we did learn and understand more about the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation it would bring the authenticity of these teachings into question?

 

[jmcrae]

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

Do we know that for sure? How old was Matthew? I thought he was an older man. And Bartimaeus had been a blind man until Jesus healed him. And other than Native North American, every race was represented in Rome of that time - it was very cosmopolitan, and there could certainly have been people of Asian and European ancestry among His disciples and followers who became priests.

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.

No, and no. The person of the priest is the person of Adam - the male. Jesus on the Cross was the Second Adam, doing for the human race what the First Adam failed to do for Eve.

Christ’s priests image Him in their likeness to Adam, and make the Sacrifice of the Altar in perpetuation of Christ’s Sacrifice of the Cross, which was the sacrifice proper to Adam.

Women, even if they cut their hair and dress like men, have no likeness to Adam, which is why they cannot be priests. It has nothing to do with ability, or talent, or even appearance - it has to do with ontological essence.

You would not hire a female actor to play the role of Jesus on stage, unless the production were intended to be a farce, or some kind of amateur role play. For exactly the same reason, you can’t ordain a woman to be a priest.

 

[edwest2]

Are you saying there is no more we could learn or understand about the relationship of the Holy Trinty, the Incarnation? Are you saying if we did learn and understand more about the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation it would bring the authenticity of these teachings into question?

What I’m saying is directly on topic: The Church has no authority to ordain women. This is definitive.

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

What I’m saying is directly on topic: The Church has no authority to ordain women. This is definitive.

God bless,
Ed

If anyone disputes that, they would have to come up with a good reason why the Church has the authority to ordain women. To be honest, that is an arguement I have yet to hear. I hear lots of other things, but I have not heard, 'the Church has the authority to ordain women and this is why.

However, I do think we can reason together on why the Church has no authority to ordain women to gain a greater understanding of our faith.

 

[minkymurph]

Do we know that for sure? How old was Matthew? I thought he was an older man. And Bartimaeus had been a blind man until Jesus healed him. And other than Native North American, every race was represented in Rome of that time - it was very cosmopolitan, and there could certainly have been people of Asian and European ancestry among His disciples and followers who became priests.

No, and no. The person of the priest is the person of Adam - the male. Jesus on the Cross was the Second Adam, doing for the human race what the First Adam failed to do for Eve.

Christ’s priests image Him in their likeness to Adam, and make the Sacrifice of the Altar in perpetuation of Christ’s Sacrifice of the Cross, which was the sacrifice proper to Adam.

Women, even if they cut their hair and dress like men, have no likeness to Adam, which is why they cannot be priests. It has nothing to do with ability, or talent, or even appearance - it has to do with ontological essence.

You would not hire a female actor to play the role of Jesus on stage, unless the production were intended to be a farce, or some kind of amateur role play. For exactly the same reason, you can’t ordain a woman to be a priest.

I have read many of your posts and while I may not always agree with you, I like the way you reason with people, it’s good. No, ‘Church is right, do what it says.’ You can make such a good defence for your faith.

 

[edwest2]

If anyone disputes that, they would have to come up with a good reason why the Church has the authority to ordain women. To be honest, that is an arguement I have yet to hear. I hear lots of other things, but I have not heard, 'the Church has the authority to ordain women and this is why.

However, I do think we can reason together on why the Church has no authority to ordain women to gain a greater understanding of our faith.

No one can reason together unless they know Church teaching:

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

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

No they’re not. Infallible means infallible.

I think what Vince has articulated is correct: Infallibility is a pronouncement of truth, not completeness.

That is, while it is an infallible teaching that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

And,

While it is an infallible teaching that the church cannot ordain women, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

 

[edwest2]

I think what Vince has articulated is correct: Infallibility is a pronouncement of truth, not completeness.

That is, while it is an infallible teaching that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

And,

While it is an infallible teaching that the church cannot ordain women, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

That’s an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. What? We will find out that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived after further study?

There are two problems with this view:

A) The assumption that more study may yield different results.

B) The Church can and does make definitive statements which cannot be changed later on.

All of this is based on assumption: things change within the Church. What was definitive and even infallible yesterday may change. The current obsession of some in the current age is an idol called change. It is even a god for some.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. For the Church, many issues are indeed black and white. The question has been asked and answered.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think what Vince has articulated is correct: Infallibility is a pronouncement of truth, not completeness.

That is, while it is an infallible teaching that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

And,

While it is an infallible teaching that the church cannot ordain women, all that has to be said about it may not have been said yet.

Right. A teaching can be more fully understood --It seems fairly certain that even St. Paul did not understand the Trinity as fully as we understand it today --but there is no way that a teaching can be ‘changed.’

The Trinity will not become the Fab Four or the Dynamic Duo. The Trinity will always remain three–cannot change to four or two (or anything but three).

And the Church not having authority to ordain women will not ever somehow become 'The Church now DOES have authority to ordain women because."

Rather, it will, if developed, become, “The Church does not have authority to ordain women and this is the definitive reason why NOT.”

We’ll only know exactly WHY the Church has no authority; we’ll never suddenly develop the authority because that would involve a complete change of the teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. What? We will find out that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived after further study?

No, that’s impossible, of course!

But further study could reveal traits of her Immaculate character that are worthy for us to imitate, so further study would not be without merit or benefit to us. We could come to understand things that are meaningful to us about this teaching, that are not yet known.

 

[clmowry]

If anyone disputes that, they would have to come up with a good reason why the Church has the authority to ordain women.

I think a key issue is that many folks, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, seem to operate under the belief that the Pope can just teach any old thing he likes.

The Pope is in fact probably the most limited Church leader on the planet in terms of what he can put forth for belief by the members of “his” Church.

Your local non-denominational pastor can put forth just about anything he can dream up and if the congregation accepts it…walla…it’s the truth.

The Pope is limited by tradition, the rest of the bishops, the universal Church and most importantly, the Holy Spirit to teaching ONLY that which God has chosen to reveal to His Church.

So until Christ returns and says “Hey, I wanted women to be priests” there will not be a female priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Chuck

 

[PRmerger]

That’s an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. What? We will find out that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived after further study?

Nah. You’re forgetting the first part of it. Infallibility is a pronouncement of Truth.

You’re only focusing on the “incompleteness” part.

Put them both together, and you’ll get it.

 

[edwest2]

Nah. You’re forgetting the first part of it. Infallibility is a pronouncement of Truth.

You’re only focusing on the “incompleteness” part.

Put them both together, and you’ll get it.

Modernism is still around. That’s why this gets brought up so often. And why just opinions? I’m sure there have been other, published Catholic articles about this.

The answer will remain the same.

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

No one can reason together unless they know Church teaching:

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

God bless,
Ed

I argee. No one can reason on Church teaching unless one knows what the teaching is. However, just because you know what Church teaching is, does not mean you understand it very well, and just because you know what Church teaching is, does not mean you do understand it. Many can quote the Bible. Do they understand it just because they can quote it? No, and that is where sola scripture falls down. Unfortunately for Catholics, just because they know what the Church teaches, does not mean they understand it.

I have encountered many on these forums who can quote the Catechism back to front, upside down, round and round. This does not in itself mean they understand what the Church teaches.

 

[minkymurph]

I think a key issue is that many folks, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, seem to operate under the belief that the Pope can just teach any old thing he likes.

The Pope is in fact probably the most limited Church leader on the planet in terms of what he can put forth for belief by the members of “his” Church.

Your local non-denominational pastor can put forth just about anything he can dream up and if the congregation accepts it…walla…it’s the truth.

The Pope is limited by tradition, the rest of the bishops, the universal Church and most importantly, the Holy Spirit to teaching ONLY that which God has chosen to reveal to His Church.

So until Christ returns and says “Hey, I wanted women to be priests” there will not be a female priesthood in the Catholic Church.

Chuck

The Pope cannot teach what he likes. Well, he could teach what he likes if he was so inclined but if he teaches what he likes, it is not Spirit inspired truth. Everything the Pope says is not infallible. Infallible truth is limited by the Spirit. If the Pope says, ‘I think it is a good thing to eat coco pops for brekfast, is that infallible?’

Perhaps there are Catholics who think the Pope can teach what he likes and everything he says is infallible. That is their perogative. Until of course he teaches something they don’t like. Then they call the understanding of infallibility into question.

The Pope is not there to endorse what we think, what suits us. He is there to guide us to truth under the direction of the Spirit. Sometimes that means telling us something we don’t want to hear. He wouldn’t be God’s agent if that was not the case. Look at the prophets of the OT.

 

[minkymurph]

What I’m saying is directly on topic: The Church has no authority to ordain women. This is definitive.

God bless,
Ed

There are many here who would not dispute that but come on, we are allowed to ask why. You can’t be advocating we blindly obey in the absence of reason and knowledge?
Are people not entitled to ask why the Church has no authority to ordain women and expect an intelligent, coherent answer?

 

[minkymurph]

That’s an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. What? We will find out that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived after further study?

There are two problems with this view:

A) The assumption that more study may yield different results.

B) The Church can and does make definitive statements which cannot be changed later on.

All of this is based on assumption: things change within the Church. What was definitive and even infallible yesterday may change. The current obsession of some in the current age is an idol called change. It is even a god for some.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. For the Church, many issues are indeed black and white. The question has been asked and answered.

God bless,
Ed

If Mary was Immaculately Conceived is as divine truth, then no, further study will prove she wasn’t. Do you fear further study? If something is a divine truth there is nothing to fear from further study. It will not prove she wasn’t if it is true.

A definitive statement can never reveal all we need to know for the simple reason it is expressed in human language which will always be inadequate in terms of expressing the divine. Futher study cannot not make it wrong if it is true. It deepens our understanding of the definitive statement. If I said to my child, ‘don’t touch the oven it’s hot,’ will investigating the consequences of touching a hot oven and why it is hot mean the oven is no longer hot and perfectly safe to touch?