Why Can't Women Become Priests?

[Mickey]

So, with the matter of the divinely-ordained nature of the male-only priesthood. If a Catholic struggles with this and comes to a conclusion different from the Church’s infallible teaching, then his or her perception is not in line with that divine reality and has, rather, been shaped (often unwittingly) by forces inimical to the Faith.

Well said!

 

[Kendy]

If you really really really truly truly believe all people are equal in the eyes of God, then try a couple of simple exercises.

1. Next time you drive past a hospital, go on in and perform some brain surgery.
2. Next time you fly on an airliner, announce that YOU will fly the plane instead of the airline pilot, because you are equal.

Similar exercises can be conducted with art (bring your paintings to the Louvre) or with writing (bring your work to one of the big publishing houses) or with language (visit the UN and tell them you can translate).

This is supposed to prove that people are not equal?

Kendy

 

[Contarini]

Thus those who approach the priesthood must approach it on God’s and His Church’s terms, not their own terms or those of a secular ideology such as Feminism. The feminists also distort the priesthood, by turning what should be a ministry of service and self- sacrifice into a position of power and prestige. A priest is a servant, not a master. Indeed, if a man treats his priesthood as a position of power and authority, he has perverted his calling and yielded to the temptation to the greatest sin of all, the sin of pride. Indeed, if the priesthood were a position of power, it would be an injustice to deny it to women. However, the priesthood is only one of many ministries and leadership positions within the Church.

The priest is not superior to the laity, but serves Christ by serving His people, the laity. Those not ordained are not inferior Christians, but are equal before God in every way. Some Feminist theologians argue that the Church began to oppress women because it perverted the original teachings of Christ by adopting the views of the secular society of that time towards women.
orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MorrisFeminism.php

Mickey,

None of this has any relevance to anything I said. I’m not talking about power, I’m talking about ontology.

The “it’s just about power” line is silly and demeaning, no matter which side uses it.

Edwin

 

[Al_Masetti]

This is supposed to prove that people are not equal?

Kendy

No. It demonstrates that just because people are equal doesn’t mean that everyone is able to take on any job they want to.

Read my post #118.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey,

None of this has any relevance to anything I said. I’m not talking about power, I’m talking about ontology.

The “it’s just about power” line is silly and demeaning, no matter which side uses it.

Edwin,

Frankly, I don’t feel that it is relevant whether you are arguing from the perspective of power, superiority, or ontology. I hold to the teaching that an all male priesthood is grounded in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I understand that you do not accept this. I also understand that you are in favor of women’s ordination.

You are free to have your opinion.

 

[Contarini]

No. It demonstrates that just because people are equal doesn’t mean that everyone is able to take on any job they want to.

Read my post #118.

Surely you don’t think Holy Orders is just “a job”?

If you don’t, this argument is simply irrelevant.

I repeat–it’s all about ontology.

Do women fully and completely bear the image of God? Can women share through baptism in Christ’s eternal priesthood? Are they partakers of the divine nature?

If they are, then how can they be ontologically incapable of ordination? Whether or not women *should *be ordained is a completely different issue. For most of us, the answer is automatically “yes” once we’ve resolved the ontological question. But not for everyone.

Edwin

 

[Kendy]

Eve was never required to give her life for Adam, nor to make any sacrifices on his behalf, but Adam ought to (instead of biting the apple, or whatever it was that he did) have made reparation to God for Eve’s sin - the quality or character of Eve’s sin was personal - her sin did not doom human-kind to death. Adam’s role at that point was to have interceded for her with God.

Why is Adam required to make reparations for Eve’s sin? Where is this supported by scripture.

 

[Mickey]

Whether or not women *should *be ordained is a completely different issue. For most of us, the answer is automatically “yes” once we’ve resolved the ontological question. But not for everyone.

When you say “not for everyone” I’m guessing you mean many Catholics, most Orthodox, and some stubborn protestant holdouts.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I repeat–it’s all about ontology.

Edwin

Please explain what YOU mean by “ontology”.

God is Infinite. God makes the rules. God is the CreatOR. Humans are creatIONS. Humans are finite and extremely limited and need definitions.

God needs no definitions. He is Infinite and He makes the rules.

 

[davidv]

Surely you don’t think Holy Orders is just “a job”?

If you don’t, this argument is simply irrelevant.

I repeat–it’s all about ontology.

Do women fully and completely bear the image of God? Can women share through baptism in Christ’s eternal priesthood? Are they partakers of the divine nature?

If they are, then how can they be ontologically incapable of ordination? Whether or not women *should *be ordained is a completely different issue. For most of us, the answer is automatically “yes” once we’ve resolved the ontological question. But not for everyone.

Edwin

ontology - “the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such”

27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Gen 1:27 (NRSV)

The nature of our being is described for us in Genesis. We are created in God’s image, yet have two different forms, male and female. So, if our physical expression of “being” can be different, why is it so hard to see that our vocations can be different?

 

[Mickey]

Please explain what YOU mean by “ontology”.

Edwin can supply no solid reasoning for his position. He has supplied no Biblical or historical argument for women’s ordination. He keeps preaching ontology, yet it does not prove anything. Scripture and Tradition is a very powerful witness against his position.

 

[Kendy]

ontology - “the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such”

27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Gen 1:27 (NRSV)

The nature of our being is described for us in Genesis. We are created in God’s image, yet have two different forms, male and female. So, if our physical expression of “being” can be different, why is it so hard to see that our vocations can be different?

I think what Edwin is asking is what particular aspects of a woman’s nature makes her insuitable for priesthood. Or what characterstics of a man’s nature qualify him for this particular vocation.

Kendy

 

[Contarini]

ontology - “the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such”

27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Gen 1:27 (NRSV)

The nature of our being is described for us in Genesis. We are created in God’s image, yet have two different forms, male and female. So, if our physical expression of “being” can be different, why is it so hard to see that our vocations can be different?

That’s not the problem. The Catholic Church does not simply teach that no women are called to be ordained. It teaches that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained, even though they are full image-bearers of God and in no way inferior to men.

So here’s the question: Do men and women share one nature, or are there two human natures? If the latter, you are probably embracing heresy–certainly your view is not traditional. If the former, you need to explain how women can be ontologically incapable of being ordained.

Mickey,

No one has provided any evidence that the doctrine of a bifurcated human nature (with each part being fully equal) is found in Christian tradition. My argument is that if you change the basic assumptions about human nature that lay behind the traditional view, you can’t still maintain that you are defending the traditional view. You haven’t answered this. You haven’t even tried to. You mounted a defense against something unrelated to what I was saying, and when I pointed this out you said that you didn’t care.

If you don’t care to understand what I am saying, how can you evaluate whether it is adequate or not?

If your position is “the Pope says, it, I believe it, that settles it,” then why not say so? Why claim to be able to offer reasons for your view and then retreat when the reasons are challenged?

I can respect the idea that this is the traditional practice and we don’t dare change it, even though we can’t at this point come up with a good reason for it. I am not arguing so much against the male-only priesthood as against the reasons alleged for it.

As an Anglican, I do not hold to a view of ecclesial infallibility that requires me to accept the traditional practice as unquestionable. So the failure of rational arguments for the male-only priesthood is a factor for me. I don’t fault Catholics for trusting that the Church will eventually come up with a better reason. I only fault them for believing the reasons they have advanced on this thread so far.

Edwin

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The idea that He didn’t smacks of Docetism. But we can trade these barbs all week. . . .

Docetism is the heresy that says that Jesus never assumed human form but the whole human thing was just an illusion, basically a form of Gnosticism. What I said does not smack of Docetism, but the very notion of a priestess in the Catholic Church is Modernism. It was no childish barb.

He was Jewish Himself. Are you saying that He didn’t care what he thought? What His Blessed Mother thought? This makes no sense.

But He was also God, it is not a matter of caring.

The Twelve happened to be men. There is no indication in the Gospels that this was for some theological reason. It makes perfect sense that they would be men–why on earth not?

We do not follow sola scriptura, there is plenty of reason for the male priesthood in Sacred Tradition.

This is a straw man. I’m not talking about cultural sensibilities. I’m saying that

a) I don’t believe men are superior to women, and the contemporary Catholic Church seems to agree with me; and

b) if men are ontologically capable of the highest and most glorious office in the Church (offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is after all the “source and summit of the Church’s life”) and women are not, then logically men are superior to women.

While we may not use the same lingo today, if you want to say men are superior in light of their ability to be priests, so be it. I have no problem with this, I think it is a nuanced definition of “superiority” though.

c) therefore, there is at the very least a strong presumption against the proposition that only men can be priests.

Furthermore, I’m saying that the notion of a bifurcated human nature propounded by many “conservative” Catholics today is a far more radical break with Tradition than the idea of women priests.

If you’re a hardline traditionalist who is willing to call JPII a modernist and affirm that men really are superior to women, then we probably don’t have much ground on which to have an argument. But if you aren’t willing to do that, then I don’t think you can make a coherent case for the male-only priesthood.

And yes, that means that great and wise as JPII was and B16 is, I think (with all due respect) they both fail to make a coherent case.

Cite where the Pope teaches that men and women are completely and totally equal. He does not. He teaches that they are different, but complimentary. The doctrine of a male-only priesthood doesn’t have to make a “coherent case” according to you. We don’t have to “prove” it according to your game rules.

 

[jmcrae]

Why is Adam required to make reparations for Eve’s sin? Where is this supported by scripture.

It is hinted at throughout Scripture, but it is really only in the Early Fathers that we see the explicit idea of Jesus as the Second Adam.

Paul’s teachings on marriage are founded in the relationship between Adam and Eve, and the corresponding relationship between Jesus and the Church; this is where we see most explicitely that Adam was intended to be the one who made the sacrifices. We can deduce from the fact that he did not that part of why death came into the world was that he did not make the proper sacrifice for Eve’s sin, and instead, partaking of it with her.

 

[lrs]

Question: Does the Pope adhere to the fact that women should be priests?
Answer: No, WHY?

Question: Are women and men Sanctified and created equally in the Image of Christ?
Answer: YES

Question: If GOD created man and woman, and the two come together as ONE to be the vehicles thru which life is created, how can one be less Sacred than the other.
Answer: They can’t.

IRONIC ENOUGH: I feel that women have been anointed with the gift of having children, there is nothing more Sacred than this. I just want everyone to explain fully their reasons why women should not be priests. Some answers given will not promote evangelization of this Church, women are not inferior, are not feminists, for wanting a legitament, authentic, God given answer. It is the mind set that is scary as Hell, on why some people believe women should not be priests.
I accept the authority of the Church that states men should be priests, but I want answers that ring pure in truth, not some women aren’t good enough slams.

Hope, Faith, and Love,
Lisa

 

[lrs]

Again: Do We Know The Name Of All 12 Disciples.

 

[Philthy]

The Catholic church does not let women become Priests… Why is that?

Wasn’t Mary Magdalene a great preacher and teacher? Why has that all of a sudden been stopped?

For the same reason that men cant become Nuns, men cant be mothers, and women cant be fathers…life is so cruel.

 

[lrs]

For the same reason that men cant become Nuns, men cant be mothers, and women cant be fathers…life is so cruel.

FLIPPANT REPLY
What do you think we are Whinnig.
Stand up and address the issue in a real and coherent way.

 

[adrift]

Question: Does the Pope adhere to the fact that women should be priests?
Answer: No, WHY?

Question: Are women and men Sanctified and created equally in the Image of Christ?
Answer: YES

Question: If GOD created man and woman, and the two come together as ONE to be the vehicles thru which life is created, how can one be less Sacred than the other.
Answer: They can’t.

Hope, Faith, and Love,
Lisa

I am glad you explained yourself more for your intent is quite different than your post. We are not created in the image of The Christ. I know you know that God is one being in three persons and that Jesus has two natures that of God and that of a human. We are created in the image of God.

.
Christ is fully present equally in and to all of us on this earth

No that is what the original sin of Adam and Eve took from us and the Cross gave back to us through baptism.