Why not Women Priests?

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Was it an explanation of the Mass that provided this information? I’m not sure but the
explanation was that the Priest is actually taking the place of Jesus at Mass. And
because of that, the Priest cannot be a woman.
That made a lot of sense to me when I heard it and makes sense today. Anyone else
heard that explanation?

 

[choy]

I don’t know what this means. Jesus didn’t “make a provision” for priests at all, afaik. Whatever is going on in this century, women served in what would today be considered priestly roles in ancient times. I don’t care one way or the other if women become priests now, I just think it has to be okay to accept the history of how what we have came to be.

read the whole thing
i said that everyone would accept women priests if Jesus made a provition for it. but fact is, He didn’t. the Church has no power on that matter as there is nothing in Tradition or Scripture that would show that Jesus would allow women priests

 

[choy]

Alright folks, another claim you should just dismiss. If such a person existed, they were not a bishop of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not expect any evidence to support your claim.

you know what, there are female priests and bishops, just NOT in the Catholic Church

 

[MarkThompson]

Pretty sure there have been. Come to think of it, I believe also a female Bishop. I have a busy afternoon, but I’ll try and find the reference tonight.

If you’ve ever read the material from groups like Roman Catholic Womenpriests (which, I’m sad to say, I have), you’d know that they would be the first to shout from the rooftop if there had been female priests or bishops with any sort of recognition. Instead, they limit themselves to claims about some woman allegedly secretly ordained by a renegade bishop in Bulgaria in 1970, the typical arguments about deaconesses in the 2nd century, and that sort of thing. That’s as good an indicator as any that there’s no further case to be made for the historicity of women bishops or priests that could pass the laugh test.

 

[bilop]

you know what, there are female priests and bishops, just NOT in the Catholic Church

They are not validly ordained priests and bishops with apostolic succession.

None of the Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox) ordain women.

Such an ordination is impossible as a woman is not valid matter for the sacrament.

These female “priests” and “bishops” are simply ministers in other Christian groups, not ordained sacramental priests of Jesus Christ, able to confect the Eucharist or absolve sins.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

From the Catholic Catechism, via the USCCB,

1577
"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (ver) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

Note that this is only in the ROMAN Catholic Churches. There are independent Catholic Churches that ordain women. And of course many Protestant denominations do ordain women. Maybe not as “Priests”, but certainly as Ministers, recognized by law. You should especially note the ordination of women priests in the Episcopal Church:yup:

The bold is mine. The ordination of any women, even by a validly ordained bishop, is invalid. Therefore, that Church, even though they may be independent, loses its apostolic succession and it is no longer Catholic. You cited the Episcopal Church. They have no apostolic succession, because their ordinations are invalid. Therefore, they cannot be called Catholic.

The Orthodox can be called Catholic, though everyone agrees not to do so for other reasons, but they have apostolic succession, because they have never violated the validity of the sacraments. Some of the Traditional Anglicans have apostolic succession, though we’re not sure which ones. That’s why we re-ordain them when the are received into the Catholic Church. It’s a conditional ordination.

We have to be very careful whom we call Catholic with a capital C. Whoever ordains women, loses the apostolic succession. Women cannot succeed the apostles. In fact, the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not the right of men either. It is the privilege of SOME males.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KathleenGee]

Women have a far greater chance of being abused and violated than men…

What if the ‘wrong’ guy comes into the confessional at night for a priestess to hear his confession…

or will the men in church even listen…??? zzzzzzz z zz zzz z zzzzz z z zz z z

–a married woman

 

[EasterJoy]

Note that this is only in the ROMAN Catholic Churches. There are independent Catholic Churches that ordain women. And of course many Protestant denominations do ordain women. Maybe not as “Priests”, but certainly as Ministers, recognized by law. You should especially note the ordination of women priests in the Episcopal Church:yup:

Which is to say that “Independent Catholic Churches” are no more Catholic than the Episcopalians are. Roman Catholic Womenpriests are like a Grapenut–which is not a grape, and not a nut. They’re not Roman Catholic, and they’re not women priests. They are Protestants, and they have ministers, mostly female, who attempt consecration, but they have no valid Orders.

 

[aball1035]

Which is to say that “Independent Catholic Churches” are no more Catholic than the Episcopalians are. Roman Catholic Womenpriests are like a Grapenut–which is not a grape, and not a nut. They’re not Roman Catholic, and they’re not women priests. They are Protestants, and they have ministers, mostly female, who attempt consecration, but they have no valid Orders.

What are “Independent Catholic Churches”? Arn’t you either Catholic or not?

 

[Roy5]

Yes, the twelve disciples were men. Jesus lived in a patriarchal age when women faced severe discrimination in many areas of life. We can assume that there were no women lawyers (or their equivalent) either. Probably there were no women carpenters, blacksmiths, and a variety of other artisans. Women were second-class and treated so.

 Even here in the USA women did not vote until after WWII, less than a century ago. I recall one woman attorney during my childhood, and no women doctors in the area. Nurses, secretaries, school teachers, store clerks, and perhaps a few other jobs. The rest were male-only territory. 

  Protestants now have thousands of women ministers, and they seem to work out okay. I believe I've read that about 20% of United Methodist ministers, 10,000 out of their 50,000 US clergy - now are women. And something like 15 of their 50 bishops in the US. The percentage may be a bit higher within the United Church of Christ. Etc. 

  Honestly, I would guard against a female-majority clergy because many parishes already suffer from a dearth of males. But it's time to break this glass ceiling, recall the key role women played in the time of Jesus and the early church, remember that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", and move into the contemporary age. I know women who have become alienated from Catholicism because they feel that they face discrimination. When they turn on EWTN and see a long processional, everyone dressed in clergy garb, all of them men, usually older men, some can squirm and feel left out.

   Will the Catholic church ordain a woman before the USA has a woman president? It doesn't look that way. Sad. It could also help the church confront its serious shortage of priests.

 

[RobbyS]

There have never been validly ordained women priests.

We have a habit of thinking of the Church in political and sociological terms. Indeed some bishops and priests also think this way but more often nuns who have been influenced by modern feminism. Feminists think in terms of power. If a woman can be president then they ought also to be pope. But the Church is an institution that receives its authority from Christ, not society. He who is Christlike is the most powerful of all. Catherine of Siena was a greater figure than any pope of her time. A Spanish bishop once shocked the crowd by knelling to do homage to St. Teresa. He wasn’t abdicating his “power.” he simply recognized in this woman the very source of his power, and someone “ahead of him” in the race to glory.

 

[KathleenGee]

We do have issues in American culture.

Women and girls were given the right to an education by Bishop Zumarraga in the 1500’s, hundreds of years before Americans were.

 

[choy]

Yes, the twelve disciples were men. Jesus lived in a patriarchal age when women faced severe discrimination in many areas of life. We can assume that there were no women lawyers (or their equivalent) either. Probably there were no women carpenters, blacksmiths, and a variety of other artisans. Women were second-class and treated so.

 Even here in the USA women did not vote until after WWII, less than a century ago. I recall one woman attorney during my childhood, and no women doctors in the area. Nurses, secretaries, school teachers, store clerks, and perhaps a few other jobs. The rest were male-only territory. 

  Protestants now have thousands of women ministers, and they seem to work out okay. I believe I've read that about 20% of United Methodist ministers, 10,000 out of their 50,000 US clergy - now are women. And something like 15 of their 50 bishops in the US. The percentage may be a bit higher within the United Church of Christ. Etc. 

  Honestly, I would guard against a female-majority clergy because many parishes already suffer from a dearth of males. But it's time to break this glass ceiling, recall the key role women played in the time of Jesus and the early church, remember that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", and move into the contemporary age. I know women who have become alienated from Catholicism because they feel that they face discrimination. When they turn on EWTN and see a long processional, everyone dressed in clergy garb, all of them men, usually older men, some can squirm and feel left out.

   Will the Catholic church ordain a woman before the USA has a woman president? It doesn't look that way. Sad. It could also help the church confront its serious shortage of priests.

Roy, to say that Jesus only picked men because of the prejudice of the times is somewhat ignorant of what Jesus really did during his time on earth

Jesus is not beyond breaking social norms to establish the righteousness of His Kingdom on Earth. Jesus is a Jew and lived in a Jewish society that is so intent on following the Jewish law. and yet Jesus didn’t think twice about working on the Sabbath nor communicating with Samaritans, both of which were taboos by their society. if He willed women to be priests, he could have done so regardless of what the society at large thinks and feels

also, there were many priestesses among the pagan religions of that time. Christianity would hardly be the first religion to have women priests. so it isn’t as groundbreaking of the time as you claim it to be.

the fact is, there was nothing preventing Jesus from ordaning a female Apostle. they had constant women companions in their travels and he could have easily chosen at least one of them to become an Apostle is He so wished to. but He knows that the priesthood is for men and the good reason behind it.

 

[EasterJoy]

What are “Independent Catholic Churches”? Aren’t you either Catholic or not?

Independent Catholic churches are churches meant by their founders to be Catholic, but which have broken away from obedience to any of the patriarchates of the Catholic Church. Branches have broken away from both the Roman Catholic Church and from the Greek Orthodox. As far as I know, all of the Roman Catholic iterations are considered by Rome to have left the Church. Since their Orders are not valid, they’re essentially Protestants, newly broken off directly from Rome instead of from an existing Protestant denomination. The ones that have split off from the Greek Orthodox Church may be considered by their patriarchs to have left or to be in schism; I don’t know. It could even differ from one instance to the next. The reasons for the splits differ, so their theology could be anything from SSPX conservative to Roman Catholic Womenpriest liberal…and who knows, some combination of the two.

Generally speaking, if you go to the websites of these new churches, they make it quite clear that they are not affliliated with the mother church, and do not speak for it or any other independent branch of it.

 

[curlycool89]

Yes, the twelve disciples were men. Jesus lived in a patriarchal age when women faced severe discrimination in many areas of life. We can assume that there were no women lawyers (or their equivalent) either. Probably there were no women carpenters, blacksmiths, and a variety of other artisans. Women were second-class and treated so.

 Even here in the USA women did not vote until after WWII, less than a century ago. I recall one woman attorney during my childhood, and no women doctors in the area. Nurses, secretaries, school teachers, store clerks, and perhaps a few other jobs. The rest were male-only territory. 

  Protestants now have thousands of women ministers, and they seem to work out okay. I believe I've read that about 20% of United Methodist ministers, 10,000 out of their 50,000 US clergy - now are women. And something like 15 of their 50 bishops in the US. The percentage may be a bit higher within the United Church of Christ. Etc. 

  Honestly, I would guard against a female-majority clergy because many parishes already suffer from a dearth of males. But it's time to break this glass ceiling, recall the key role women played in the time of Jesus and the early church, remember that "in Christ there is neither male nor female", and move into the contemporary age. I know women who have become alienated from Catholicism because they feel that they face discrimination. When they turn on EWTN and see a long processional, everyone dressed in clergy garb, all of them men, usually older men, some can squirm and feel left out.

   Will the Catholic church ordain a woman before the USA has a woman president? It doesn't look that way. Sad. It could also help the church confront its serious shortage of priests.

You know what, here’s what the problem is. Every time you hear someone asking for women “priests”, there’s never a theological or Tradition reason given, it’s always the same emotional argument on how society is misogynistic and the Catholic Church is behind and why won’t the Catholic Church be less Catholic and be more like and blah blah blah.

It’s all fluff. There’s no substance.

 

[JReducation]

What are “Independent Catholic Churches”? Arn’t you either Catholic or not?

Independent Catholic Church is a politically correct way of saying Schismatic Catholic Churches. There are several: Old Catholics, Polish Catholic Church, Chinese National Catholic Church. They have apostolic succession, so they are truly Catholic. But they are not in communion with Rome and they remain excommunicated, unlike the Orthodox who are not in full communion with Rome, but are not excommunicated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Excuse my naivete, but why are Catholics even discussing this question? The Holy Father has already issued an apostolic decree that does not allow this question past the front door of the Vatican. His decree is binding on future popes. From my perspective it’s like asking whether or not we can consecrate pound cake and Coke. It’s just not going to happen, because it’s doctrinally impossible.

**ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

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.**

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

Or is there something that I’m missing here? I’m not trying to be rude. I’m just trying to be realisitc and ask why discuss something that is a given for all eternity. Infallible statements cannot be retracted. You see where my question comes from?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choy]

Independent Catholic Church is a politically correct way of saying Schismatic Catholic Churches. There are several: Old Catholics, Polish Catholic Church, Chinese National Catholic Church. They have apostolic succession, so they are truly Catholic. But they are not in communion with Rome and they remain excommunicated, unlike the Orthodox who are not in full communion with Rome, but are not excommunicated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

correct me if i’m wrong, but i think the Chinese Patriotic Church is somewhat a unique situation where some of the Bishops and Priests don’t wish to be schismatic, but given their circumstance they are forced to because China doesn’t want anyone of its citizens to submit to a foreign power (further complicated by the fact that the Pope is also a Head of State)

i’ve read that some Bishops and Priets are recognized by the Vatican and also recognized that they belong to a schismatic organization not by choice. most schismatic Catholics separate by choice, because they don’t agree with a teaching or the direction of the Church. but China is just purely a political reason enforced by the government on its citizens

 

[JReducation]

correct me if i’m wrong, but i think the Chinese Patriotic Church is somewhat a unique situation where some of the Bishops and Priests don’t wish to be schismatic, but given their circumstance they are forced to because China doesn’t want anyone of its citizens to submit to a foreign power (further complicated by the fact that the Pope is also a Head of State)

i’ve read that some Bishops and Priets are recognized by the Vatican and also recognized that they belong to a schismatic organization not by choice. most schismatic Catholics separate by choice, because they don’t agree with a teaching or the direction of the Church. but China is just purely a political reason enforced by the government on its citizens

There is are two different subjects here. The Chinese Church is schismatic… However, many of its members are not schismatic, for as you have correctly pointed out, they have no choice in their situation.

It was like the issue with the SSPX, the act was schismatic, but the individuals were not. The bishops were excommunicated, but the rest of the followers of the SSPX were not. The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church, but everone of those persons does have a canonical status, because they are all baptized Catholics and are faithful to the Church.

The point is that the Church makes clear distinctions between institutions and the members. Many people are part of an institution for reasons other than schism or heresy. However, the institution exists outside of the Church. That’s one of the definitions of schism.

We always have to be very charitable with people who belong to these groups. Because even though the founders and the group as a whole is illegal, the individuals may or may not be subjectively culpable. It all depends on their degree of support for the actions of the leadership.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EasterJoy]

Independent Catholic Church is a politically correct way of saying Schismatic Catholic Churches. There are several: Old Catholics, Polish Catholic Church, Chinese National Catholic Church. They have apostolic succession, so they are truly Catholic. But they are not in communion with Rome and they remain excommunicated, unlike the Orthodox who are not in full communion with Rome, but are not excommunicated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, kind of. Some of the denominations that characterize themselves as “Independent” don’t have valid Orders, so they don’t have valid succession. It just depends. Then there is Roman Catholic Womenpriests, who, as they put it, “reject” their excommunications. In other words, they maintain that they have not left the Church at all, and reject the idea that Rome has any authority to decide who is or isn’t Roman Catholic. That is the extreme in wanting to have one’s cake and eat it, too, but as nearly as I can tell the whole continuum exists out there somewhere.

It is the ultimate in the American notion that we all have the right to define ourselves as we like, and whatever we define ourselves as becomes an objective truth about us. If I were to decide I am a chicken, then the burden would be on you to expand your parochial and outdated notions concerning poultry. To “be objective” has come to mean to be willing to swallow the subjective opinions of others, hook, line, and sinker.

We’re nearly twenty-five years past 1984, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.