Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[PRmerger]

This has been an interesting conversation to watch.
I have a singe comment from the apostle Paul "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. - 1Cor 2:2

I think the Holy Spirit inspired you to write that, as I have been involved in another discussion regarding why Catholics use crucifixes…and the above verse is a great apologia for this!

We preach Christ crucified!
And we preach Christ resurrected.

Glory be to God!

 

[PRmerger]

But moving beyond the disingenuous posts and the attempt at condescension, my question persists, what is meant here by an ontological change which is possible in a male, but it impossible in a female?

I am not a philosopher, so I probably do not understand the nuances of the use of the word here. To me, the word means that the very essence of the being is changed. In physical terms, this could be a structural or chemical change. If you are simply saying that the spiritual aspect of the person has changed, then I may understand what is meant, but ontological is not the adjective which I would use to express that concept.

Perhaps this will help?

“Above all, formation, the Pontiff tells us, must be rooted in “awareness of the specific ontological bond which unites the priesthood to Christ the High Priest and Good Shepherd” **In my judgment, this concept of the ontological nature of the priesthood, is critical. We don’t just put on vestments; we don’t just receive an assignment. Neither makes us priests. We become priests at ordination. There is an “ontological change” in our spiritual nature. **Such is a profound mystery. **Is it too bold an analogy to compare the change to Christ the Son of God’s retaining His Divinity while becoming a man? Or to observe that after bread becomes the Sacred Body of Christ, it still tastes like bread and feels like bread, but is now the Body of Christ? There has been an ontological change. A cup of wine still smells like wine and tastes like it, but it is now the Blood of Christ. At ordination an ontological change takes place.”
** source: vatican.va

 

[Vince1022]

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.

So…you agree? Nothing in Scripture prohibiting ordaining women?

Somewhat related… do you think St. Paul was ordained? By whom?

 

[Lynchand]

I have seen many women mightly used by God. The scripture doesn’t say that women can’t preach. There are instances in the bible where women did teach in homes. Kathryn Khulman was very powerfully used by God to bring healing and deliverance to thousands. How could the scripture contradict that?. please explain?

 

[Vince1022]

Most Catholics would agree that 1 Timothy and Titus were both inspired and Scriptural as taught by the Catholic Church. So I will put these two verses out there.

Douay-Rheims Bible

1 Timothy 3:1; A faithful saying: If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth good work.
1 Timothy 3:2; It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

Titus 1:6; If any be without crime,the husband of one wife. having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.

When Paul was giving the requirements for bishops and deacons I think he would know who the Church was allowing to be bishops, priests, and deacons.

In the list of requirements please explain to me how a woman could possibly EVER be the husband of one wife.

Well OF COURSE the Catholic Church (and all Christians) consider 1 Timothy and Titus as inspired and canonical books of the New Testament. Did anyone on this thread raise any doubt of that?

Your interpretation of these passages raises interesting questions:

1. Clearly according to the passage you cite, Bishops can be married. So how do you explain the current Catholic Church teaching that contradicts Scripture? Meaning…if the Church can contradict Scripture on this point regarding ordination, why not others?
2. You still fail to respond to the question I posed earlier, that the Catholic Church teaches there is nothing in the New Testament that prohibits ordination of women to the diaconate. What do you think about that?

 

[Vince1022]

There are also a great many divine truths that are not taught infallibly - such as that Jesus is God and Man, the Trinity, the nature of the Church, and so on, which we are also required to believe, since not to believe them would be heresy.

Are you saying the truths expressed in the Creed (as taught by Ecumenical Councils, and definitively received by all Christians) are not taught infallibly? There’s room for doubt? Just curious.

 

[FOFEBA]

Oh! No insult intended. I apologize, brother FOFEBA!

I sometimes find it difficult not to become emotional in discussions regarding faith or religious views. I don’t mean to insult anyone, or deprecate their views.

 

[FOFEBA]

I think there is a fundamental disagreement here, which is the Protestant vs the Catholic view, with respect to where religious authority resides.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying the truths expressed in the Creed (as taught by Ecumenical Councils, and definitively received by all Christians) are not taught infallibly? There’s room for doubt? Just curious.

The fact that a doctrine is not taught infallibly does not mean that there is any room for doubt.

That’s my whole point.

We are to believe every teaching of the Church without any doubt in our hearts - not only those that have been explicitly defined infallibly.

The term “infallible” is really only of interest to professional theologians, since all it is is a category of teaching. It is not “more true” than other teachings. It is just a different category of teaching than other teachings.

It’s a bit like asking, which balls bounce better - blue ones, or red ones? And you have to reply, no, no, the colour of the ball has nothing to do with how well it bounces. And someone would say, well, then, why divide them into red and blue, then, if it doesn’t affect how well they bounce?

This is exactly the same thing - calling a teaching “infallible” simply tells us which “box” it belongs in - it has no effect on how correct it is.

 

[FOFEBA]

I thought that Mother Theresa spoke quite eloquently about her periods of doubt, and how she managed to get through those periods in her life, and what the ultimate impact was on her faith.

I readily admit that others are more knowledgeable, and also have deeper faith than my own. I value what they have to teach me. But I also don’t accept doctrine blindly. Is this my own ego, or is it a healthy skepticism which leads me along a more rewarding spiritual path? I think elements of each are at work.

 

[minkymurph]

I thought that Mother Theresa spoke quite eloquently about her periods of doubt, and how she managed to get through those periods in her life, and what the ultimate impact was on her faith.

I readily admit that others are more knowledgeable, and also have deeper faith than my own. I value what they have to teach me. But I also don’t accept doctrine blindly. Is this my own ego, or is it a healthy skepticism which leads me along a more rewarding spiritual path? I think elements of each are at work.

Someone who is convinced they are absolutely right about everything would worry me, and a healthy skepticism prevents us from becoming inhuman.

Doubt, or wonder, is not the same thing as disbelief or rejection of what we believe to be true. Our Lord himself probably wondered what it was all about from time to time. Did he go off into the wilderness because he was absolutely sure about everything? Was he absolutely certain he would rise from the dead. If so, he did not need to believe in anything, and asks a greater thing of us; to believe without the same degree of certainty.

People often emerge from periods of doubt with a stronger faith. Personally, I would say there’s nothing like a good dose of doubt to strengthen your faith.

 

[jmcrae]

I thought that Mother Theresa spoke quite eloquently about her periods of doubt, and how she managed to get through those periods in her life, and what the ultimate impact was on her faith.

I readily admit that others are more knowledgeable, and also have deeper faith than my own. I value what they have to teach me. But I also don’t accept doctrine blindly. Is this my own ego, or is it a healthy skepticism which leads me along a more rewarding spiritual path? I think elements of each are at work.

It’s not about accepting anything blinding - it’s good to have questions, and it’s good to study things, to understand them better. If all I did was accept the Church’s teachings blindly, I wouldn’t know anything about them. But if you have questions, take the time to study and learn - don’t just dismiss it as being, couldn’t possibly be true because I don’t understand it. Give it a chance, and learn what you can about it.

 

[Pat_De]

I think the Holy Spirit inspired you to write that, as I have been involved in another discussion regarding why Catholics use crucifixes…and the above verse is a great apologia for this!

We preach Christ crucified!
And we preach Christ resurrected.

Glory be to God!

Unfortunately; taking the apostle out of context is anything but noble. However the Catholic church has every right to use a crucified “Christ” as it sees fit.

 

[PRmerger]

Someone who is convinced they are absolutely right about everything would worry me, and a healthy skepticism prevents us from becoming inhuman.

Doubt, or wonder, is not the same thing as disbelief or rejection of what we believe to be true. Our Lord himself probably wondered what it was all about from time to time. Did he go off into the wilderness because he was absolutely sure about everything? Was he absolutely certain he would rise from the dead. If so, he did not need to believe in anything, and asks a greater thing of us; to believe without the same degree of certainty.

People often emerge from periods of doubt with a stronger faith. Personally, I would say there’s nothing like a good dose of doubt to strengthen your faith.

Yes, it’s the dictum of St Augustine–* fides quaerens intellectum*: faith seeking understanding

 

[diggerdomer]

You just prove you have made God into your own understanding since the qualification are quite clear,

No I did not. Why do you claim such? Besides being possibly provocative and inflammatory, it’s simply not true based on what I posted. Care to clarify? Thank you.

Christian parents, for example, in our society have virtually sold their children for the earthly goods of the world rather than following the God’s placement of women within the household and I’m not talking about the scrubbing of toilets, but making a home a home that nourishes the child, the husband physically and spiritually and honors the Lord.

Ummm…WHAT? Sorry, I’m a Christian parent (and so is my wife) and we have not virtually (or otherwise) sold our children in any way. What in the heck are you talking about and how does it even remotely relate to this Thread?

So the moral of the story is that people pick and chose which commands fit their tastes as though they have a better plan than God; thus proving by their fruits of unrighteousness their heart toward God. Obviously there are circumstances that make it impossible to do it exactly as God intended such as injuries to the man that forces the woman into the workplace or mothers/fathers who lose their spouse for a variety of reasons, like early death…but these are the exceptions, not the rule.

Your apparent ideas do not cohere with Catholic teaching. Do they? If so…care to provide a source/reference? Thanks for any help.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why can’t men have babies?

What? Of course men can have babies, but not without a woman.

What do you mean?

 

[Vince1022]

The fact that a doctrine is not taught infallibly does not mean that there is any room for doubt.

That’s my whole point.

We are to believe every teaching of the Church without any doubt in our hearts - not only those that have been explicitly defined infallibly.

The term “infallible” is really only of interest to professional theologians, since all it is is a category of teaching. It is not “more true” than other teachings. It is just a different category of teaching than other teachings.

It’s a bit like asking, which balls bounce better - blue ones, or red ones? And you have to reply, no, no, the colour of the ball has nothing to do with how well it bounces. And someone would say, well, then, why divide them into red and blue, then, if it doesn’t affect how well they bounce?

This is exactly the same thing - calling a teaching “infallible” simply tells us which “box” it belongs in - it has no effect on how correct it is.

I disagree that the term “infallible” is only of interest to professional theologians.

All Catholics, not just professional theologians, are bound to adhere to teachings taught infallibly by the Church. Infallibly taught teachings are not an academic exercise, it’s a gift to the Church in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel.

Do you disagree?

Regarding how Catholics are to “believe every teaching of the Church without any doubts in our hearts” I would encourage you to review what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Canon Law, and the Second Vatican Council teaches, e.g.:

Vatican II. LG para 25 vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Catechism 888 ff.

Canon Law–perhaps most directly relevant to your post…see para 747ff.: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Hope this helps.

 

[stephe1987]

Jesus’s followers happened to be Jews, but he did have women followers and did not choose any of them to be His apostles, only men. Notice how priests can be from many different backgrounds, but they are all men?

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree that the term “infallible” is only of interest to professional theologians.

All Catholics, not just professional theologians, are bound to adhere to teachings taught infallibly by the Church.

Right, as well as every other teaching of the Church. There are only two manifestly infallibly teachings of the Church; should we say that the Church has only two doctrines that are required for belief?

Regarding how Catholics are to “believe every teaching of the Church without any doubts in our hearts” I would encourage you to review what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Canon Law, and the Second Vatican Council teaches, e.g.:

Vatican II. LG para 25 vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Catechism 888 ff.

Canon Law–perhaps most directly relevant to your post…see para 747ff.: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Hope this helps.

From your last link:

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I disagree that the term “infallible” is only of interest to professional theologians.

All Catholics, not just professional theologians, are bound to adhere to teachings taught infallibly by the Church. Infallibly taught teachings are not an academic exercise, it’s a gift to the Church in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel.

Do you disagree?

Regarding how Catholics are to “believe every teaching of the Church without any doubts in our hearts” I would encourage you to review what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Canon Law, and the Second Vatican Council teaches, e.g.:

Vatican II. LG para 25 vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Catechism 888 ff.

Canon Law–perhaps most directly relevant to your post…see para 747ff.: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Hope this helps.

Just to add a few thoughts:

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to the teachings of the Church, whether they are infallible or not. If our children are bound to obey us, even when we’re fallible, how much more should we children obey our Mother, the Church. Even if she’s not speaking infallibly. * Even if she’s wrong!*

"Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right?** Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did?** Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”

Heb 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you."

I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.

Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…

Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”

Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

For example,** wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, **away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.

By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard."

The fabulous commentary above was originally posted by itsjustdave1988 here