Why doesn't the Church have the power to ordain women to the priesthood?

[Ana_v]

If it has the authority to bind and to loose.

I want to note, that I do not have some personal objection against the priesthood being reserved for men. I ask, for the purpose of clarification, on when the authority to bind and to loose is applicable and when it is not.

So for example, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, but it has the authority to discontinue communing baptized infants (well, speaking about the Latin Rite anyway)? If we cannot break from tradition (someone’s probably going to point out a Big “T” little “t” distinction) in regards to ordination, why was it okay to break from tradition in regards to communion? Both issues have to do with Sacraments.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The power to bind and lose doesn’t mean the Church has the authority to change anything that God has establish. Another example would be the Church cannot say that a slice of cucumber and orange juice can be used for Communion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If it has the authority to bind and to loose.

I want to note, that I do not have some personal objection against the priesthood being reserved for men. I ask, for the purpose of clarification, on when the authority to bind and to loose is applicable and when it is not.

So for example, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, but it has the authority to discontinue communing baptized infants (well, speaking about the Latin Rite anyway)? If we cannot break from tradition (someone’s probably going to point out a Big “T” little “t” distinction) in regards to ordination, why was it okay to break from tradition in regards to communion? Both issues have to do with Sacraments.

I have the authority to smash my paid for car to bits. I have the “power” to do it. I have no desire to do it.

Do you see the logical fallacy you are subjecting us to?

The issue is not about a lack of power of the Catholic Church to “do” something here.

The Catholic Church has the authority to remain the Catholic Church, and what you are proposing would render it useless as an authority.

 

[GwenL]

If it has the authority to bind and to loose.

I want to note, that I do not have some personal objection against the priesthood being reserved for men. I ask, for the purpose of clarification, on when the authority to bind and to loose is applicable and when it is not.

So for example, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, but it has the authority to discontinue communing baptized infants (well, speaking about the Latin Rite anyway)? If we cannot break from tradition (someone’s probably going to point out a Big “T” little “t” distinction) in regards to ordination, why was it okay to break from tradition in regards to communion? Both issues have to do with Sacraments.

This is not a tradition, or even a Tradition. This is not a discipline of the Church, subject to binding and loosing. This is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, which all of the faithful must hold.

This is from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Read the whole thing, it is fascinating and very clear.

Here’s how I explain it in catechesis.

1. This is how Christ established the priesthood. He called men to be Apostles. We can’t change what He did. The power to bind and loose does not extend to changing what Christ most specifically put into place.
2. Christ was a man. The priest acts in the person of Christ. He says “this is my body” when he consecrates. A woman cannot say “this is my body” about the body of Christ, which is masculine.
3. Christ is the bridegroom; the Church is the bride; this symbology is throughout the New Testament. You gotta be a man to marry a bride. Unless you are into liturgical lesbianism.

 

[Spirithound]

If we cannot break from tradition in regards to ordination, why was it okay to break from tradition in regards to communion? Both issues have to do with Sacraments.

Both issues have to do with the sacraments, but they relate to the sacraments in very different ways. Whether or not to commune a person in infancy or in later childhood is a matter of timing, which is not one of the issues of validity for sacraments. Whether or not to ordain a woman is a matter of the valid material for the sacrament.

 

[formerlysure]

Certainly the church could change the requirement that only men can be ordained but to do so would be contrary with the beliefs and teaching of the faith. It’s not for lack of authority that women have not been permitted to be ordained, but rather for adherence to church doctrine that ordination is reserved for men who have been called to the priesthood.

 

[Spirithound]

Certainly the church could change the requirement that only men can be ordained but to do so would be contrary with the beliefs and teaching of the faith. It’s not for lack of authority that women have not been permitted to be ordained, but rather for adherence to church doctrine that ordination is reserved for men who have been called to the priesthood.

Such an understanding reduces the objective truth of Catholic doctrine to the subjective whims of a capricious bishop. The Church does not have the authority to ordain women because the Church does not have the authority to contravene her own doctrine.

 

[Ana_v]

Do you see the logical fallacy you are subjecting us to?

No, I don’t. I was using the word “power” and “authority” synonymously. And, I was using them in accordance to how I’ve seen them used on other threads concerning this very topic of women’s ordination, i.e. that the Church does not have the authority to effect such a thing.

The Catholic Church has the authority to remain the Catholic Church, and what you are proposing would render it useless as an authority.

What was I proposing? I was asking a question, relating to the Church having the authority to do some things, and not others.

 

[Elizium23]

Just a reminder that the person being ordained is the subject of the sacrament, not the matter. The matter of Holy Orders is the imposition of hands.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

The whole concept of women’s ordination is like a cross between a wire-haired pointer and an Alaskan malamute: it’s a moot point.

 

[Ana_v]

Here’s how I explain it in catechesis.

1. This is how Christ established the priesthood. He called men to be Apostles. We can’t change what He did. The power to bind and loose does not extend to changing what Christ most specifically put into place.
2. Christ was a man. The priest acts in the person of Christ. He says “this is my body” when he consecrates. A woman cannot say “this is my body” about the body of Christ, which is masculine.
3. Christ is the bridegroom; the Church is the bride; this symbology is throughout the New Testament. You gotta be a man to marry a bride. Unless you are into liturgical lesbianism.

Hi GwenL, thank you for the explanations, they are helpful.

As to the second one though – and please forgive me if I am over-analyzing or “mis-analyzing” (so to speak) – it does makes sense, but at the same time I wonder the relevance of particulars of the priest, since the priest is acting in the person of Christ afterall. e.g. a priest who is black African is still acting in the person of Christ when he says “this is my body” at consecration, though Christ was not black African.

In any case, 2 and 3 taken together though, do give a readily understandable reason for at the very least, the appropriateness of the priests being men.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, I don’t. I was using the word “power” and “authority” synonymously. And, I was using them in accordance to how I’ve seen them used on other threads concerning this very topic of women’s ordination, i.e. that the Church does not have the authority to effect such a thing.

What was I proposing? I was asking a question, relating to the Church having the authority to do some things, and not others.

The Catholic Church can do what she pleases about matters relating to her business. She has never been in the business of ordaining women. This does not mean she is impotent to ordain them. This means she has never done it, desired to do it nor ever will do so.

The Church could do anything it wanted to, yet it would no longer be an authority in any menaingful way on any matter if it did ordain women after making it clear it has not, nor will do so.

The Catholic Church is not to be confused with say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Harold Camping. There will no longer be a Catholic Church with any type of authority if it allows itself to ordain women. It will give up whatever authority it has to the faithful if it does so, and I am confident it will never allow that to happen.

 

[Ana_v]

Whether or not to commune a person in infancy or in later childhood is a matter of timing, which is not one of the issues of validity for sacraments. Whether or not to ordain a woman is a matter of the valid material for the sacrament.

(emphasis mine)

I like that explanation, it is very succinct. Thank you.

 

[midori]

If Christ had the desire to call one woman to the priesthood, who do you think he would have called but his own mother, who was his most faithful, most perfect disciple?

But he didn’t. He bypassed her in favor of guys like Peter, who denied him three times, or Thomas, who refused to believe in the Resurrection until he had seen the proof in front of his nose.

So it’s different from something changeable like mere discipline (ie, married vs. unmarried priests), but rather falls in line with our Deposit of Faith, which we have no power to add to or subtract from.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A priest is a stand in for Christ…Christ was male…end of story.

Oh and I’m female…but the fact that the priesthood is for males only does not bother me in the least…because it is the way that Christ designed it…

 

[StrawberryJam]

A priest is a stand in for Christ…Christ was male…end of story.

Oh and I’m female…but the fact that the priesthood is for males only does not bother me in the least…because it is the way that Christ designed it…

There you go trying to use the authority card.

 

[stephe1987]

Some people will claim that Jesus was constrained by the culture of the day and he could not choose women for cultural reasons.

But that is just silly, because, if I’m not mistaken goddesses had priestesses. There were female religious people, but Jesus chose only men.

I think Jesus wanted only males to be priests, and that’s what His Church has been doing for the last nearly 2,000 years now.

 

[Little_One0307]

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION
TO MEN ALONE

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: “She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church.”(1)

But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. This was done through the Declaration Inter Insigniores, which the Supreme Pontiff approved and ordered to be published.(2)

1. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God’s eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord’s way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

1. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”(10)

---

Cont. in next post.

 

[Little_One0307]

cont. from last post

---

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. “By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church’s faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel.”(11)

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: “the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints.”(12)

1. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

---

God bless.

 

[Little_One0307]

Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Approved for Publication by His Holiness Pope John Paul II
John Paul II
October 28, 1995

Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

---

Seriously, I don’t know why people keep bringing this up. Oh well, it gets in another three extra posts I suppose. And this is all I will have to say about this.

God bless.