Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Tantum_ergo]

Indeed.

And what about teachings that have been definitively defined? Are not those “important to the Church” as well?

See, I just don’t get why it matters whether the teaching on the ordination of women has been defined “infallibly”. It has been defined “definitively”, correct?

Again, it’s like your children saying to you, “You said I had to be home at midnight–and you made that quite clear-- but you didn’t have it written down on the note with the other instructions you gave me…so do I still have to be home at midnight?” :banghead:

Exactly. I don’t think that everybody who says "but it isn’t infallible’ is saying "and that means that someday women could be priests’.

BUT. . .I do think that some people who say, "not infallible’ do mean by that that they (personally) believe or even teach that the teaching could in fact ‘changed’ by permitting women to be priests.

And that is a problem. There is no way that a definitive teaching is ever going to ‘reverse’.

The Eucharist is, definitively, bread and wine. It will never turn into something other than bread and wine.

Marriage is definitively between man and woman. It will never turn into man/man or women/women.

And priesthood is for men only. It will not turn into "Oh, and ladies too --because despite what John Paul II said, he only MEANT it as a suggestion for the repressive and anti-woman 20th century, and it was only for the limited time until the Church ‘caught up’ with the modern world and realized it miraculously HAD authority to ordain women all along. . "

**ANY deepening of the teaching will only be in revealing either WHY the Church has no authority to ordain women, OR in revealing why the priesthood is definitively reserved to men. IOW, it will explain more fully why priesthood is for men, and/or why the Church lacks authority to ‘change’ this teaching. **

 

[edwest2]

What baloney. The Pope’s words are final. No further explanation is required. We’re not talking about interpreting the entire Bible here.

My opinion has no value. If the Holy Father says it’s definitive, the choice I have is to obey.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

What baloney. The Pope’s words are final. No further explanation is required. We’re not talking about interpreting the entire Bible here.

My opinion has no value. If the Holy Father says it’s definitive, the choice I have is to obey.

God bless,
Ed

Of course we have to obey. Do you have any posts from Catholics on this thread who say that we can disobey infallible teachings?

 

[edwest2]

Exactly. I don’t think that everybody who says "but it isn’t infallible’ is saying "and that means that someday women could be priests’.

BUT. . .I do think that some people who say, "not infallible’ do mean by that that they (personally) believe or even teach that the teaching could in fact ‘changed’ by permitting women to be priests.

And that is a problem. There is no way that a definitive teaching is ever going to ‘reverse’.

The Eucharist is, definitively, bread and wine. It will never turn into something other than bread and wine.

Marriage is definitively between man and woman. It will never turn into man/man or women/women.

And priesthood is for men only. It will not turn into "Oh, and ladies too --because despite what John Paul II said, he only MEANT it as a suggestion for the repressive and anti-woman 20th century, and it was only for the limited time until the Church ‘caught up’ with the modern world and realized it miraculously HAD authority to ordain women all along. . "

**ANY deepening of the teaching will only be in revealing either WHY the Church has no authority to ordain women, OR in revealing why the priesthood is definitively reserved to men. IOW, it will explain more fully why priesthood is for men, and/or why the Church lacks authority to ‘change’ this teaching. **

Some people worship the god Change. They believe everything’s going to change because they have been brainwashed by the media. Too many commercials contain the phrase “not your father’s” car, truck, lawn mower, whatever. Brainwashing people to believe everything is going to change always and forver ignores a fundamental truth. Man has not changed in 2000 years. Sure, we have cars, cell phones and the rest, but one good power outage and it’s goodbye computer, cell phone, TV and the rest.

The other problem is people, some people, believe in the “time is change” concept. Example: “We’ve got to get rid of those outdated laws.” Or “That sort of thinking is outdated.” By who? What method did you use to determine anything is outdated? Could it be that the reason anyone calls anything outdated is because what they really mean is: “We want that to change because we don’t like it.”?

Or my favorite - predicting the future: “In 20 years (or whatever), we’re going to see What I Want actually happen!” Really? And how do you know this? Predicting the future is hardly scientific.

Finally, there’s the fake “education” concept. “If we look More DEEPLY into this, we’ll eventually find some loophole, often referred to as an “interpretation,” that will make it possible to get what we want.”

Let’s be honest here. This will not change since it’s a definitive teaching.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Of course we have to obey. Do you have any posts from Catholics on this thread who say that we can disobey infallible teachings?

Perhaps you can explain why this is brought up over and over and over again. And perhaps you can explain why after the answer is posted over and over and over again, it appears a ‘definitive’ teaching is still viewed as anything but definitive?

“We know you explained it to us, but we think it needs to be gone over and over and over again, because we still Want What We Want and we’re looking for a loophole in order to get it.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

What baloney. The Pope’s words are final. No further explanation is required. We’re not talking about interpreting the entire Bible here.

My opinion has no value. If the Holy Father says it’s definitive, the choice I have is to obey.

God bless,
Ed

So, are you saying that if the Pope said ‘Coco Pops are good for you,’ every Catholic worldwide should eat Coco Pops for brekfast?

I know this isn’t exactly what your saying, but this approach is exactly what Protestants jump on us for. More than once, a Protestant has said to me that the Catholic faith is dictatorial, doesn’t allow freedom of thought, and Catholics don’t understand the Bible, or their own faith because they just do what the Pope tells them. The way you have phrased things in your posts endorses their arguement.

This approach endorses stereotypical images of Catholicism. If that doesn’t bother you, fine. But will only touch a minority of people inside and outside the Church with your faith.

 

[edwest2]

So, are you saying that if the Pope said ‘Coco Pops are good for you,’ every Catholic worldwide should eat Coco Pops for brekfast?

I know this isn’t exactly what your saying, but this approach is exactly what Protestants jump on us for. More than once, a Protestant has said to me that the Catholic faith is dictatorial, doesn’t allow freedom of thought, and Catholics don’t understand the Bible, or their own faith because they just do what the Pope tells them. The way you have phrased things in your posts endorses their arguement.

This approach endorses stereotypical images of Catholicism. If that doesn’t bother you, fine. But will only touch a minority of people inside and outside the Church with your faith.

I heard that in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Can’t you think for youselves?”

Today, “freedom of thought” usually means, I want what I want so I’ll come up with an argument to justify getting it, and convince other people to agree with me.

The first fundamental idea to acknowledge is that there is truth, not opinions. There are various things being debated today and most include issues related to human sexuality and in this case, issues related to gender roles. On another forum, I read the following “We’ve got to teach the heteros about gender neutrality.”

Right after the Hippies’ Sexual Revolution, they started with the Same Sex concept. Same-Sex Hair Salons, and same-sex this and same-sex that. The goal was to get others, including Catholics, to view life and to live exactly as they wanted to live.

We had to think “new.” We had to reject the old. Why? New good, old bad.

By linking up with the god Change, we could create something new and, supposedly, better. Instead, we got the following: long hair, people smoking dope, talking dirty, living with their ‘old ladies,’ porn and feminism. The latter boiled down to women getting into positions of “power” and into jobs formerly dominated by men, as if any job being dominated by men was automatically a bad thing.

A friend of mine is a partially brainwashed disciple of the god Change. He believes that better “thinking” is required, and is only partly aware that better thinking requires truth, not a constant redefinition/distortion of truth, reality and even history. All of that constitutes the arsenal of some people who call themselves free thinkers. Some people have been conditioned to believe that religion ‘gets in the way’ of thinking/progress. They miss the fact that “progress” is often narrowly defined by a small group that simply wants to have its way. And even if what they want is contrary to the truth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[davidv]

I heard that in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Can’t you think for youselves?”

Today, “freedom of thought” usually means, I want what I want so I’ll come up with an argument to justify getting it, and convince other people to agree with me.

The first fundamental idea to acknowledge is that there is truth, not opinions. There are various things being debated today and most include issues related to human sexuality and in this case, issues related to gender roles. On another forum, I read the following “We’ve got to teach the heteros about gender neutrality.”

Right after the Hippies’ Sexual Revolution, they started with the Same Sex concept. Same-Sex Hair Salons, and same-sex this and same-sex that. The goal was to get others, including Catholics, to view life and to live exactly as they wanted to live.

We had to think “new.” We had to reject the old. Why? New good, old bad.

By linking up with the god Change, we could create something new and, supposedly, better. Instead, we got the following: long hair, people smoking dope, talking dirty, living with their ‘old ladies,’ porn and feminism. The latter boiled down to women getting into positions of “power” and into jobs formerly dominated by men, as if any job being dominated by men was automatically a bad thing.

A friend of mine is a partially brainwashed disciple of the god Change. He believes that better “thinking” is required, and is only partly aware that better thinking requires truth, not a constant redefinition/distortion of truth, reality and even history. All of that constitutes the arsenal of some people who call themselves free thinkers. Some people have been conditioned to believe that religion ‘gets in the way’ of thinking/progress. They miss the fact that “progress” is often narrowly defined by a small group that simply wants to have its way. And even if what they want is contrary to the truth.

God bless,
Ed

Ed,
I usually can agree with most of what you post. In this case I believe you have missed the mark badly.

Development of doctine is not “Change” in the way you used it above. God is infinite. Humans are finite and can never exhaust what we can know about Him.

In this particular case, I agree that is an unchanging doctrine in that ordained priests will forever only be male. That does not mean that the ways to explain it and teach it will remain static.

 

[jmcrae]

Where does Scripture prohibit women priests? I’m curious because Catholic scholars, as recognized by the Vatican have demonstrated that there is nothing in Scripture itself that prohibits ordaining women. Thanks for any Scriptural references that are part of Catholic Church teaching on this issue! I look forward to it.

It wasn’t an issue at the time, since the Apostles were the only ones ordaining anyone, and they weren’t attempting to ordain women, or thinking about doing so. In the passages relating to ordination, we see that the deacons, priests and Bishops are to be at the service of the widows, virgins, and mothers of their community - which makes it clear that no one was expecting widows, virgins, or mothers to enter the ordained ministry - they were the “customers” so to speak; not the workers.

 

[edwest2]

Ed,
I usually can agree with most of what you post. In this case I believe you have missed the mark badly.

Development of doctine is not “Change” in the way you used it above. God is infinite. Humans are finite and can never exhaust what we can know about Him.

In this particular case, I agree that is an unchanging doctrine in that ordained priests will forever only be male. That does not mean that the ways to explain it and teach it will remain static.

David,

I agree with that but it does nothing to explain the constant, regular posts on this subject. Something I should also mention is the anti-theist fascination with it as well. I watched as a man explained how a future female Pope will do something.

If this were a Catholics Only forum, that would be one thing, but since non-Catholics read posts here as well, it is always important to be clear. As you know, we are living under a Dictatorship of Relativism and a doctrine of constant change. As I tried to illustrate, people are conditioned to believe in constant, ongoing change. For Catholics, this foundational truth needs to be realized: Man has not changed. There is no sin being committed today that was not committed 2,000 years ago. And that should be our primary focus.

Again, after being given the explanation numerous times, this question is asked again. I can only conclude that at least in some cases, the only reason is to create confusion. That’s not a good thing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, are you saying that if the Pope said ‘Coco Pops are good for you,’ every Catholic worldwide should eat Coco Pops for brekfast?
Now Ed did say ‘definitive teachings’, not 'every word that the Pope speaks on any topic whatsoever.

I know this isn’t exactly what your saying, but this approach is exactly what Protestants jump on us for. And the problem is that the Protestants make that kind of ‘jump’ above. They mistake “The Pope speaking on Catholic dogma and doctrine, infallibly or definitively taught” and leap into "The Pope saying anything at all about anything. " We Catholics should not make that kind of mistake, we know better. When we (as Catholics) use the same kind of argument from the same kind of mistaken idea that Catholics have to do ‘everything the Pope says even if it’s on breakfast cereal’, we’re unconsciously bolstering up the Protestant argument. Hey, they think, even the fellow Catholics know how crazy it is for Catholics to be all ‘lock step with the Pope. Even fellow Catholics ‘think for themselves’ and any Catholic who is saying "listen to the Pope on definitive teachings’ is showing himself to be a fanatic whom his fellow Catholics don’t even support. That is not good. More than once, a Protestant has said to me that the Catholic faith is dictatorial, doesn’t allow freedom of thought, and Catholics don’t understand the Bible, or their own faith because they just do what the Pope tells them. The way you have phrased things in your posts endorses their arguement. While I can’t speak for ALL Ed’s posts, the fact is he very SPECIFICALLY and DISTINCTLY said, “DEFINITIVE TEACHINGS” in the post you just responded to, and that makes a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

This approach endorses stereotypical images of Catholicism. If that doesn’t bother you, fine. But will only touch a minority of people inside and outside the Church with your faith.

Again the problem is not that Ed’s particular post (which I repeat referenced, specifically and clearly, "DEFINITIVE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS) endorsed a ‘stereotype.’

The problem is that you, minky, embraced an incorrect PROTESTANT stereotype and reinforced it as almost a type of ‘valid’ argument by saying that Ed’s posts ‘looked’ like they were all ‘don’t think for yourself.’

The fact is that Protestants are WRONG when they say that Catholics in obedience to the Pope in accepting the definitive teachings of the Church are NOT ‘thinking for themselves.’ Since when did ‘thinking for yourself’ become defined as "rejecting what the authority teaches?’ Only in rejecting are we supposedly ‘thinking for ourselves.’ Bah humbug!

They are WRONG. By your post, you appear to be saying, "OH wait, the Protestants have a POINT, we LOOK like we might be all ‘don’t think for ourselves’, so we need to be all eggshell walking careful not to LOOK wrong.’

But we aren’t wrong. They’re wrong. It is a kind of falsehood to argue that we need to bend over backward and rephrase and spin so that we don’t ‘look’ like a MISTAKEN IDEA that Protestants have garnered of us.

 

[minkymurph]

I heard that in the 1960s. “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Can’t you think for youselves?”

Today, “freedom of thought” usually means, I want what I want so I’ll come up with an argument to justify getting it, and convince other people to agree with me.

The first fundamental idea to acknowledge is that there is truth, not opinions. There are various things being debated today and most include issues related to human sexuality and in this case, issues related to gender roles. On another forum, I read the following “We’ve got to teach the heteros about gender neutrality.”

Right after the Hippies’ Sexual Revolution, they started with the Same Sex concept. Same-Sex Hair Salons, and same-sex this and same-sex that. The goal was to get others, including Catholics, to view life and to live exactly as they wanted to live.

We had to think “new.” We had to reject the old. Why? New good, old bad.

By linking up with the god Change, we could create something new and, supposedly, better. Instead, we got the following: long hair, people smoking dope, talking dirty, living with their ‘old ladies,’ porn and feminism. The latter boiled down to women getting into positions of “power” and into jobs formerly dominated by men, as if any job being dominated by men was automatically a bad thing.

A friend of mine is a partially brainwashed disciple of the god Change. He believes that better “thinking” is required, and is only partly aware that better thinking requires truth, not a constant redefinition/distortion of truth, reality and even history. All of that constitutes the arsenal of some people who call themselves free thinkers. Some people have been conditioned to believe that religion ‘gets in the way’ of thinking/progress. They miss the fact that “progress” is often narrowly defined by a small group that simply wants to have its way. And even if what they want is contrary to the truth.

God bless,
Ed

There are undoubtly some who, no matter WHAT you would say, it would make no difference because they are not interested in what you actually think, but only want you to agree with them. If you explain something and the question is still asked, walk. You’ve done all you can, said all you can say, nothing more to be said. When I get into this situation with people, I just say, ‘well, we’ll just have to agree to differ.’

However, there are many people on this forum who don’t want to change what they believe, but want a deeper understanding of what they do. There are also people who doubt. If there are people on this forum who have never doubted, they are either exceptional people are being economical with the truth. When people who are genuinely searching for truth, they need support not condemnation when they doubt. Telling people to obey, or the ‘God says so, Catechism says so, Pope says so,’ is and insufficient way to dispel doubt.

If someone wants an explanation as to why the Catholic Church does not ordain women, they are entitled to have it, and it will deepen your faith if you get it. It does necessarily mean you want to change everything or just want people to agree with you. You can’t tar everyone with the same brush. Particulary on an internet site when you know little about the person.

 

[edwest2]

Again,

The explanation has been given numerous times.

The question just keeps getting raised numerous times.

The outside, anti-theist pressure on the Church for what they want is driving this.

You seem to ignore, for some reason, the plain language in Pope John Paul II’s explanation. The Catholic Church has no authority. No authority means no authority. There is nothing nuanced about this. Will there be another commentary about this in the future?

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

As is often the case, only in response to outside events.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you can explain why this is brought up over and over and over again. And perhaps you can explain why after the answer is posted over and over and over again, it appears a ‘definitive’ teaching is still viewed as anything but definitive?

“We know you explained it to us, but we think it needs to be gone over and over and over again, because we still Want What We Want and we’re looking for a loophole in order to get it.”

God bless,
Ed

Perhaps it’s 'cause you keep posting your opinions here and others keep responding…

Anyway, isn’t this the ENTIRE POINT of the CAFs. If the answer to each thread was, “Because it’s a teaching of the Catholic Church, that’s why!” we wouldn’t have any need for a CAF, would we?

 

[Ignatius]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me.

Only pagans have ever had priestesses. Priestesses.have never been part of God’s priesthood neither in the old testament nor in the New Testament. It may not make sense to our faulty and darkend minds, but it is pretty clearly the way He set it up.

 

[FOFEBA]

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.

If I understand you, then you are asserting that the very nature of the being who is ordained is changed. Please explain what you mean by this. I have never met a priest who was any different than any other man. I have known priests who were great spiritual men, and I also now of one who purloined a friend’s estate in the name of his church. My point is that I have not observed anything which uniquely identifies a priest as being better or worse than other men. So, just what is this “ontological change” which you refer to?

 

[PRmerger]

If I understand you, then you are asserting that the very nature of the being who is ordained is changed. Please explain what you mean by this. I have never met a priest who was any different than any other man. I have known priests who were great spiritual men, and I also now of one who purloined a friend’s estate in the name of his church. My point is that I have not observed anything which uniquely identifies a priest as being better or worse than other men. So, just what is this “ontological change” which you refer to?

It’s a similar paradigm as what happens at baptism. And at marriage. What existed 30 seconds before the confection of the sacrament exists no more.

As Fr. Vincent Serpa says (paraphrasing): if we could look into the soul at what happens to the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

I see with interest that you are confirmed as an Episcopalian. If you understand the teachings of your church, your church teaches the same thing as the Catholic church does regarding baptism.

I suspect that there are some Episcopalians, baptized and ontologically changed, who also purloined estates?

 

[davidv]

If I understand you, then you are asserting that the very nature of the being who is ordained is changed. Please explain what you mean by this. I have never met a priest who was any different than any other man. I have known priests who were great spiritual men, and I also now of one who purloined a friend’s estate in the name of his church. My point is that I have not observed anything which uniquely identifies a priest as being better or worse than other men. So, just what is this “ontological change” which you refer to?

It is a change similar to that caused by baptism. If an adult is baptised, do you see any physical change from before to after? But, there is a change nonetheless. From not being a member of God’s family to being one. Likewise the man goes from not a priest to being a priest.

 

[minkymurph]

Again the problem is not that Ed’s particular post (which I repeat referenced, specifically and clearly, "DEFINITIVE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS) endorsed a ‘stereotype.’

The problem is that you, minky, embraced an incorrect PROTESTANT stereotype and reinforced it as almost a type of ‘valid’ argument by saying that Ed’s posts ‘looked’ like they were all ‘don’t think for yourself.’

The fact is that Protestants are WRONG when they say that Catholics in obedience to the Pope in accepting the definitive teachings of the Church are NOT ‘thinking for themselves.’ Since when did ‘thinking for yourself’ become defined as "rejecting what the authority teaches?’ Only in rejecting are we supposedly ‘thinking for ourselves.’ Bah humbug!

They are WRONG. By your post, you appear to be saying, "OH wait, the Protestants have a POINT, we LOOK like we might be all ‘don’t think for ourselves’, so we need to be all eggshell walking careful not to LOOK wrong.’

But we aren’t wrong. They’re wrong. It is a kind of falsehood to argue that we need to bend over backward and rephrase and spin so that we don’t ‘look’ like a MISTAKEN IDEA that Protestants have garnered of us.

As you don’t know me from Adam, don’t jump to conclusions about what I embrace and what I don’t embrace. Time and time again, I see posts on the internet that become personalised, and all sorts of inaccurate assumptions made. This demonstrates how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusions, and take things that are written out of context. This demonstrates how papal encylicals, Church documents and statements such as; ‘the Church has no authority to ordain women’ is in itself, an insufficient answer.

I wasn’t suggesting any of things you state above. I did not say I thought Protestants had a point, I did not say they were right, I did not say we were wrong. I did not say we should bend over backwards for Protestants.

What I was saying is what many a Catholic Educator has said. What I was saying is endorsed by the findings of studies from universities published by Rausch. Catholics who cannot explain their faith to others endorse the Protestatnt argument. Whether we like it or not, there are lots of Catholics, who do not have a good understanding of their faith. One of the reasons for this is poor catechesis and when questioned, some Catholics revert to ‘Church is right,’ or ‘the Pope is right’ because they can’t explain why they believe what they do. I am not suggesting this is the case with the poster I was responding to, as I don’t know them from Adam. However, the poster I was responding to was relying heavily on this argument. I was not arguing we should bend over backwards, rephrase and respin. I was arguing that if we should be able to offer more than ‘the Pope is right’ when making a defense for our faith.

My point was, if the only defence we can make for our faith is, ‘we must obey the Pope,’ we are lending weight to the Protestant arguement, and we must do better if we are to counteract this stereotypical image.

 

[minkymurph]

Again,

The explanation has been given numerous times.

The question just keeps getting raised numerous times.

The outside, anti-theist pressure on the Church for what they want is driving this.

You seem to ignore, for some reason, the plain language in Pope John Paul II’s explanation. The Catholic Church has no authority. No authority means no authority. There is nothing nuanced about this. Will there be another commentary about this in the future?

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/15/vatican-attempted-ordination-women-grave-crime

As is often the case, only in response to outside events.

God bless,
Ed

The explanation may have been given several times, but perhaps there are those here who are only hearing it for the first time. Certainly I have learned things I didn’t know before on this thread.

I don’t know what you mean by you ssem to ignore the plain language in Jean Paul II explanation. What exactly did I say in my post that suggests that? What exactly did I say in my posts that suggests the Church has the authority? I did not use the word ‘nuanced’ anywhere in post, other than perthaps in relation to scripture.

My lecturer gave us a reading list of commentary’s on certain Church documents and encylicals. Was he completely wasting our time expecting us to read some of them? Should we merely have read the document and not bothered reading the commentary’s? Would this have been sufficient to gain understanding of Catholic teaching? Where people who wrote the commentary’s wasting their lives writing them?