Why not Women Priests?

[choy]

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 If I were to decide I am a chicken, then the burden would be on you to expand your parochial and outdated notions concerning poultry.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.

thats a very Protestant viewpoint, “there’s no authority on earth, the only authority is Jesus. and based on my own personal interpretation on Jesus, this is i think what he would want (which in reality is what i personally want)”

 

[KathleenGee]

JREducation, true, the Church has completely, forever closed the discussion on women ordination. It happened through then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1994. I was taking a required class by a feminine nun and when the ruling came out, she and others were extremely upset…they said that was it.

I come from another archdiocese…the first thing our new bishop did was close down the seminary. Then for the boys in our diocese who believed the Lord was calling them to the priesthood, nevertheless a council was set up to discern them. It was f illed by feminist nuns…One fellow was asked what he thought of women priests…the interview had been going ok for awhile. When he said it didn’t matter to him, he’d do whatever the pope would decide, he was then rejected. I heard of others who went before the board and were refused entrance into the seminary in a nearby state.

So people started praying for vocations. I moved here. I visited the priest who became an auxiliary bishop. He told me about 33 local boys from that diocese were now studying for the priesthood, and the one I moved to had only one seminarian. Praying for vocations works.

 

[JReducation]

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.

You have just described what Pope Pius X called “The Great American Heresy”. His predecessors and his successors have always been strongly concerned that American citizens are buying into this message that the American Government is trying to teach our people. The message goes something like this.

“We are the most powerful nation on earth.” – True
“We are the most free nation on earth.” – True
“We can have anything we want.” – False

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JREducation, true, the Church has completely, forever closed the discussion on women ordination. It happened through then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1994. I was taking a required class by a feminine nun and when the ruling came out, she and others were extremely upset…they said that was it.

I come from another archdiocese…the first thing our new bishop did was close down the seminary. Then for the boys in our diocese who believed the Lord was calling them to the priesthood, nevertheless a council was set up to discern them. It was f illed by feminist nuns…One fellow was asked what he thought of women priests…the interview had been going ok for awhile. When he said it didn’t matter to him, he’d do whatever the pope would decide, he was then rejected. I heard of others who went before the board and were refused entrance into the seminary in a nearby state.

So people started praying for vocations. I moved here. I visited the priest who became an auxiliary bishop. He told me about 33 local boys from that diocese were now studying for the priesthood, and the one I moved to had only one seminarian. Praying for vocations works.

I hope sonmeone reported this insanity and crime against these boys to the Vatican.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[praxising]

** Originally Posted by praxising
I doubt God cares about the gender of a priest, or the marital status of one.**

No doubt your extensive theological training and lifetime of deep religious study, plus your ability to pronounce infallibly on matters of faith and morals, makes this judgment a reliable one. Oh wait, my bad, that’s the Catholic Church I was thinking of.

Well, Mark, I don’t recall having insisted my opinion should be adopted by anyone else. I was trying to answer the OP’s question,. Because that question was not “Why does the cRCC (corporal Roman Catholic Church) not want women priests?” but rather, OP wanted to know why God would object.

Like every Christian since the inception of Christianity, I am called upon every single day to try and discern God’s will, and for a couple millenia now, this has been required of all Christians, educated or not, prayerful or not. And so, I will give my opinions in a discussion forum where opinion is all any human can give.

One of my opinions is that God may be more concerned with your rudeness and sarcasm to a fellow human than with the gender of a priest.

Revisiting the actual topic: why would God care? Or, imo, why wouldn’t He? Seems to me God cares about our spiritual lives, why in Time should God give much attention to the human trappings? Gender is just an artefact of our species reproductive strategy. It has no more spiritual weight than racial characteristics.

 

[praxising]

I would discard that book, if it is a book or magazine article. There has never been a female priest in any of the 22 Catholic Churches or the 21 Orthodox Churches. In other words, none of the Churches that have Apostolic succession have ever had female priests…

I believe you are mistaken.

The Roman church of Saint Prassede houses a mosaic “portrait” of Bishop Theodora, except the last letter of the name which feminizes it has been defaced so as to be unreadable. The rest is intact, though, so that the “male” Bishop is wearing a female headress. It seems to be common knowledge there that Theodora was a Bishop. And possessed of two X chromosomes.

The source I read asserted that women priests were common in the early centuries, when there were no churches in terms of buildings, but those who traveled and brought the Gospels (“apostles”) house-to-house. The meal was presided over commonly by a woman (the “priest”) who served in all capacities her local Christian group (“parish”) as a pastor does. This presider said the prayers and distributed the Sacramental meal.

All you have to do is read tombstones from this time in France, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Yugoslavia to find inscriptions that identify women as priests. After Constantine, Christians were moved into the pagan temples - now Christian churches and the whole pattern of evangelization and worship changed. Now, the “apostles” stayed put and the people came to them and they also presided over the feast which was served on one table - altar.The culture of male domination also came with the sudden shift from paganism to Christianity and a lot of norms were established, including that women were not to be priests.

But the tradition was so entrenched in southern Italy that the author found a letter from Pope Gelasius 1 (492-496) complaining about women still being priests and administering the Sacraments.

 

[praxising]

con’t from previous post…

As to whether or not God cares, he certainly does.

This point came up in Paul’s age. This is where Paul made that famous statement that is often taken out of context “Women should remain quiet.” …

This is from Romans 16

1 2 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is (also) a minister of the church at Cenchreae, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the holy ones, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a benefactor to many and to me as well.

Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I am grateful but also all the churches of the Gentiles; greet also the church at their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the firstfruits in Asia for Christ.

Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.

All these names but Epaenetus and Andronicus are female. Junia, it seems, has been changed in a lot of post-Constantine texts to be a male name - seems the reference to her being an “apostle” was too much for the now-male-dominated Church

In the Gospels we see many women among the disciples of Jesus, but none of them were selected to be Apostles. Some people say that Jesus was acting according to his culture. That would not fly, because Jesus would never commit an injustice to satisfy cultural expectations.

But it isn’t about injustice, it’s about the way things work, then, now, whenever. Jesus chose apostles who went out and traveled and spread His Gospel. Jesus also had many disciples he kept close to Him and who cared for him and supported Him. This group comprised both women and men. Women were always some of His closest confidants and companions.

But He would not send women on the road at that time, certainly due to cultural considerations. You do what works. And what is also true is that there were no priests as we know them, no “ordination” none of what everyone is discussing here at that time.

Finally, Pope John Paul II has already stated that from now to eternity this question may never be brought up again. …(I’m redacting two of your posts)…

**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

When this letter was uttered there was a great deal of discussion about the “infallability” intention and reality. You may interpret this as meaning something “eternal” but many others, including clergy, do not. JP II would not, imo, and that of others, hinder future Popes from making the change they feel necessary when the good of the Body of Christ requires it. He settled the question for his own lifetime. I agree, it would be much too divisive, even today. But soon it will not be.

Interpretations vary, of course.

The other reason we discuss it, with all due respect, is because we are the Church. The Pope is not the Church, nor is the Magesterium. All the cells make up the body.

Resource. While the book I got this information from may be reasonably criticized for the author’s apparent delight in exposing the warts of Vatican history, the Resource list is extensive. Mistress of the Vatican by Eleanor Herman

Now - we are so far far off topic.

Does God want there to be no women priests?

No one on this earth can know the mind of God. There is simply no reason at all why He would want such a thing. But I’m pretty sure He is not at all pleased with much of the performance of the male-only priesthood. I’m also pretty sure He is more concerned with how we treat each other ITT than what our opinions are of this issue.

Having had my say, I’ll go back to not posting in Catholic forums on divisive issues.

Peace of Christ be with you all.

 

[JReducation]

con’t from previous post…

This is from Romans 16

All these names but Epaenetus and Andronicus are female. Junia, it seems, has been changed in a lot of post-Constantine texts to be a male name - seems the reference to her being an “apostle” was too much for the now-male-dominated Church

But it isn’t about injustice, it’s about the way things work, then, now, whenever. Jesus chose apostles who went out and traveled and spread His Gospel. Jesus also had many disciples he kept close to Him and who cared for him and supported Him. This group comprised both women and men. Women were always some of His closest confidants and companions.

But He would not send women on the road at that time, certainly due to cultural considerations. You do what works. And what is also true is that there were no priests as we know them, no “ordination” none of what everyone is discussing here at that time.

When this letter was uttered there was a great deal of discussion about the “infallability” intention and reality. You may interpret this as meaning something “eternal” but many others, including clergy, do not. JP II would not, imo, and that of others, hinder future Popes from making the change they feel necessary when the good of the Body of Christ requires it. He settled the question for his own lifetime. I agree, it would be much too divisive, even today. But soon it will not be.

Interpretations vary, of course.

The other reason we discuss it, with all due respect, is because we are the Church. The Pope is not the Church, nor is the Magesterium. All the cells make up the body.

Resource. While the book I got this information from may be reasonably criticized for the author’s apparent delight in exposing the warts of Vatican history, the Resource list is extensive. Mistress of the Vatican by Eleanor Herman

Now - we are so far far off topic.

Does God want there to be no women priests?

No one on this earth can know the mind of God. There is simply no reason at all why He would want such a thing. But I’m pretty sure He is not at all pleased with much of the performance of the male-only priesthood. I’m also pretty sure He is more concerned with how we treat each other ITT than what our opinions are of this issue.

Having had my say, I’ll go back to not posting in Catholic forums on divisive issues.

Peace of Christ be with you all.

There are two points here. The author to whom you’re referring fails to show that there was ever an imposition of hands. Without that, there is no ordination.

As to John Paul’s statement, the world can argue whatever it wants. We can too. But you must acknowledge that while we are part of the Church, we are not the Church, nor are we the supreme authority in the Church. The Church does have a Supreme Pontiff who is the only legitimate law giver in the Church. When a pope uses the term “define” in Latin, which is the writing of this document it means “the end” Define in Latin does not have same meaning as we have for it in English. For us to define is to give something meaning. For Romans to define is to bring something to an end, to close the discussion.

John Paul was not trying to put this aside so that it would not bother him while he was pope. Popes don’t do this, especially saintly ones. Pope John Paul was calling a discussion to an end.

The only way that it can be re-opened would be to prove that John Paul violated some doctrine or that he tried to create a new dogma, which is not allowed. The teaching Magisterium is defnitely the final authority in the Church. In the hierarchy of the Church the rest of us have no voice unless we’re asked for our opinion. Remember, the Church is a monarchy, theocracy and a autonomic government. This excludes her subjects from the deicison making processes unless the pope chooses to include them, like any other monarch.

Do you see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[choy]

No one on this earth can know the mind of God. There is simply no reason at all why He would want such a thing. **But I’m pretty sure **He is not at all pleased with much of the performance of the male-only priesthood. **I’m also pretty sure **He is more concerned with how we treat each other ITT than what our opinions are of this issue.

this paragraph contradicts itself

first, you start by saying no one on earth can know the mind of God. then you continue by saying you’re pretty sure with what God is thinking

 

[curlycool89]

The other reason we discuss it, with all due respect, is because we are the Church. The Pope is not the Church, nor is the Magesterium. All the cells make up the body.

And that is schematic. In all matters of faith and morals the Pope speaks infallibly for the Church. It doesn’t matter what everyone else says, because only the Pope can speak infallibly, not Joe Catholic. This is a dogma of the 1st Vatican Council that all Catholics are to give assent to.

As Brother JR pointed out, the Church is not an open democracy. The Church (Peter and his successors) was given authority to give us the definite the teachings on faith and morals. No one else. It doesn’t matter if everyone else disagrees, they’re still all wrong and the Church is still right.

 

[Tietjen]

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.

I’ll be here when you locate your sources; for I am far more than “pretty sure” that there has never been nor will ever be an ordained female priest(ess) or Bishop within the Catholic Church. God bless.

 

[mlund]

There have been women in various ministries of the Church from its inception. They’ve stood as living witness to the Truth of Christ and his Gospel. They have never received valid ordination as handed down by Jesus to his Apostles and from those Apostles to their successors. The have never held the office of Priest or the fullness of the office in the position of Bishop within the Catholic Church.

All given examples of women being mentioned as “apostles” in Pauline letters are clearly indicative of missionaries and witnesses, never priests or presbyters. Arguments to the contrary require poor reading comprehension and the conclusion that Paul contradicts himself in divinely inspired scriptures.

• Marty Lund

 

[Tietjen]

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.

Funny, Mother Angelica (A Woman) started EWTN proving that one does NOT need to be a priest in order to produce great accomplishments. Why is it that you aren’t seeing women as serving important roles within the Church unless they can be ordained as priests? It’s sad that women you know feel discriminated against simply because cannot be ordained as priests. If it’s any consolation, I know of no men who have been allowed to become nuns.

Will the Catholic church ordain a woman before the USA has a woman president?

Nope.

It doesn’t look that way. Sad. It could also help the church confront its serious shortage of priests.

Yes, and mass-world-wide abortions and genocide could help alleviate hunger. However, I could never endorse this method either. You cannot destroy the Sacrament of Holy Orders in order to solve a priest shortage.

 

[Tietjen]

I believe you are mistaken.

The Roman church of Saint Prassede houses a mosaic “portrait” of Bishop Theodora, except the last letter of the name which feminizes it has been defaced so as to be unreadable. The rest is intact, though, so that the “male” Bishop is wearing a female headress. It seems to be common knowledge there that Theodora was a Bishop. And possessed of two X chromosomes.

“Theodora Episcopa” refers to an inscription found in a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Prudentia and Praexedis in Rome. It is usually translated as “Bishop Theodora,” and is often pointed to as evidence that women were bishops in the early Christian Church.

Actually, Theodora was the mother of Pope Paschal I, who built this church in honor of his mother. Why is she referred to as “Episcopa?” Throughout the first millenium, it was very common for the wives of bishops, priests, and deacons to take on the honorary title of their husbands. Many bishops wives were known as “Episcopa,” for example. This sort of practice lasted longer in the Eastern Churches. In the case of Theodora, she was probably given this honorary title because her son was the bishop of Rome.

The source I read asserted that women priests were common in the early centuries, when there were no churches in terms of buildings, but those who traveled and brought the Gospels (“apostles”) house-to-house. The meal was presided over commonly by a woman (the “priest”) who served in all capacities her local Christian group (“parish”) as a pastor does. This presider said the prayers and distributed the Sacramental meal.

What source was this and does it have an imprimatur declaration?

But the tradition was so entrenched in southern Italy that the author found a letter from Pope Gelasius 1 (492-496) complaining about women still being priests and administering the Sacraments.

You’re talking about Otranto’s claim made concerning Epistle 14. Let’s take a look at what it actually says:

“Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine
affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to
officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to
the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong.”

Otranto believed that this had to mean that Bishops had ordained women as priests. Coming to that conclusion was quite a leap I think. Anyway, you can read all about how Otranto’s silliness was proven false a long time ago by clicking here.

God bless.

 

[Seatuck]

I believe you are mistaken.

The Roman church of Saint Prassede houses a mosaic “portrait” of Bishop Theodora, except the last letter of the name which feminizes it has been defaced so as to be unreadable. The rest is intact, though, so that the “male” Bishop is wearing a female headress. It seems to be common knowledge there that Theodora was a Bishop. And possessed of two X chromosomes.

The source I read asserted that women priests were common in the early centuries, when there were no churches in terms of buildings, but those who traveled and brought the Gospels (“apostles”) house-to-house. The meal was presided over commonly by a woman (the “priest”) who served in all capacities her local Christian group (“parish”) as a pastor does. This presider said the prayers and distributed the Sacramental meal.

All you have to do is read tombstones from this time in France, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Yugoslavia to find inscriptions that identify women as priests. After Constantine, Christians were moved into the pagan temples - now Christian churches and the whole pattern of evangelization and worship changed. Now, the “apostles” stayed put and the people came to them and they also presided over the feast which was served on one table - altar.The culture of male domination also came with the sudden shift from paganism to Christianity and a lot of norms were established, including that women were not to be priests.

But the tradition was so entrenched in southern Italy that the author found a letter from Pope Gelasius 1 (492-496) complaining about women still being priests and administering the Sacraments.

Perhaps you should give this a read.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/womprs.txt

 

[Seatuck]

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.

I think of it in terms of Sacraments. Ordination is a Sacrament .We have to have proper matter and form for Sacraments. Women are not proper matter for Ordination in the same way that rice cakes are not proper matter for the Eucharist. Womanhood, indeed, has her own glorious place in Salvation History.

 

[Seatuck]

“Theodora Episcopa” refers to an inscription found in a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Prudentia and Praexedis in Rome. It is usually translated as “Bishop Theodora,” and is often pointed to as evidence that women were bishops in the early Christian Church.

Actually, Theodora was the mother of Pope Paschal I, who built this church in honor of his mother. Why is she referred to as “Episcopa?” Throughout the first millenium, it was very common for the wives of bishops, priests, and deacons to take on the honorary title of their husbands. Many bishops wives were known as “Episcopa,” for example. This sort of practice lasted longer in the Eastern Churches. In the case of Theodora, she was probably given this honorary title because her son was the bishop of Rome.

What source was this and does it have an imprimatur declaration?

You’re talking about Otranto’s claim made concerning Epistle 14. Let’s take a look at what it actually says:

“Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine
affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to
officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to
the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong.”

Otranto believed that this had to mean that Bishops had ordained women as priests. Coming to that conclusion was quite a leap I think. Anyway, you can read all about how Otranto’s silliness was proven false a long time ago by clicking here.

God bless.

“The Mother of” said man in power has always had her place in her sons government. The Queen Mother has always had a place in the King’s government. Mary takes that place now as our Queen Mother for our King, Jesus Christ. It is quite acceptable and reasonable that we have seen this relationship and set up throughout the ages. It is found repeatedly in history.Not so unusual for men of the church to bring thier mothers to their episcopate’s for protection and support

 

[Brendan]

I believe you are mistaken.

The Roman church of Saint Prassede houses a mosaic “portrait” of Bishop Theodora, except the last letter of the name which feminizes it has been defaced so as to be unreadable. The rest is intact, though, so that the “male” Bishop is wearing a female headress. It seems to be common knowledge there that Theodora was a Bishop. And possessed of two X chromosomes. .

No, the titulus of that particular piece states that she is an Episcopa, not a bishop. In Greek terms, the wife of a priest had the title Presbytera. This noted that she was that the wife of a priest. Likewise, the title Diacoissa noted the wife of a Deacon. Having the feminine form of a clerical title did not ( and never did) denote that the woman held that particular ecclesial rank.

Back when a married man could be ordained a bishop ( and he and his wife would become clelibate), she would also take the title Episcopa.

In the case of Theodora, whose son was the Pope at the time, she retained that title.

So you are clearly mistaken.