Why women cant be Catholic Priests

[Elizabeth3]

It is questionable of the Church to make arbitrary distinctions about who we think more closely images Christ.

The Church hasn’t made arbitrary distinctions about who we think more closely images Christ. The Church, first and foremost, sees that She has no authority to do other than Christ had done as far as choosing the Twelve men as apostles and giving them the power to bind and loose. She also sees a precedent from the beginning of the laying on of hands from the original Twelve to other men down through the ages. The theological arguments attempt to explain why Christ chose as He did. The arguments follow from Christ’s original example.

We can make up all kinds of interpretations to try to make a female priesthood “fit” theologically but they aren’t based off of Christ’s example but instead from personal desire or opinion.

We could also say, “But God clearly intended that all priests be of Middle Eastern origin, because the canonical apostles were all Middle Eastern!” Yet, modern priests hail from all countries and ancestries, and not all Jews. Similarly, none were extremely elderly, yet we permit priests to remain active into old age (many of the most senior emeritus cardinals are in their 90s!). We didn’t have any paraplegic apostles, deaf apostles, or apostles with one leg. We do not require these distinctions be perpetuated, yet the doctrine of gender persists on comparable logic.

Yes, but it is Christ’s original example of calling Twelve men combined with the Tradition of the laying on of hands of other men, begun by the Apostles and so on that shows us that while being a baptized male is a requirement, the other distinctions were not. The Church isn’t looking only at Christ’s example but also that of the Apostles and Fathers of the early Church. They can see that age or nationality provided no impediment to the priesthood. The Apostles were taught by Christ so they would know best what His full intentions were regarding who could or could not be a priest.

 

[Elizabeth3]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded that there was insufficient scriptural basis to deny Holy Orders to women.

Wasn’t that from a leaked draft that had no official status?

There are no official documents from the Commission on this list about women priests.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_doc_index.htm

From the draft document I think you are referencing

“It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.”

The text around this statement says

"But given the relationship between the sacramental economy and the hierarchy, the administration of the sacraments should not be exercised independently of this hierarchy. It is therefore within the duties of the leadership of the community that we must consider the issue of eucharistic and penitential ministry.

In fact there is no proof that these ministries were entrusted to women at the time of the New Testament. Two texts (1Cor. 14:33-35 and 1Tim. 2:11-15) forbid women to speak and to teach in assemblies. However, without mentioning doubts raised by some about their Pauline authenticity, it is possible that they refer only to certain concrete situations and abuses. It is possible that certain other situations call on the church to assign to women the role of teaching which these two passages deny them and which constitute a function belonging to the leadership.

Is it possible that certain circumstances can come about which call on the church to entrust in the same way to certain women some sacramental ministries?

This has been the case with baptism which, though entrusted to the apostles (Mt. 28:19 and Mk. 16:15f) can be administered by others as well. We know that at least later, it will be entrusted also to women.

Is it possible that we will come to this even with the ministry of eucharist and reconciliation which manifest eminently the service of the priesthood of Christ carried out by the leaders of the community?

It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.

[Looking at the possibilities discussed before this statement, it was those that were being considered in which they unoffically found that the New Testament alone couldn’t affirm.]

It goes on…

However, some think that in the scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the New Testament.

Others, on the contrary, wonder if the church hierarchy, entrusted with the sacramental economy, would be able to entrust the ministries of eucharist and reconciliation to women in light of circumstances, without going against Christ’s original intentions."

It doesn’t say there was insufficient scriptural basis to deny Holy Orders to women.

 

[edwest211]

Just posting the same thing over and over will not change anything.

 

[simpleas]

True that, but many people may benefit from learning more about why the church teaches certain rules.
I know nothing will change completely but am hopeful there is some room in the ministerial priesthood for female human beings in the near future. Time will tell.

 

[edwest211]

Pope John Paul II made it quite clear. Speaking generally, some people view the Church as a political or corporate entity. Not so. I saw a TV commercial with a female voice-over. It basically said, “I can be a carpenter, a plumber and a priest” as if priest is just like any other job. I am also watching the carefully orchestrated radical feminist propaganda machine at work. I open the newspaper and see “male dominated this and male dominated that.” It is always viewed by me in context. The most interesting bit of ‘non-news’ was “Female CEOs cut fraud, add value.” I work at a job where I see business word usage vary as time passes for no particular reason. Recently, one of our suppliers added “Women Owned” to the top of their invoices. I could care less who owns/runs anything as long as the work is done right.

 

[Gorgias]

So, we start with this post (quoted in its entirety):

Why Women Can’t Be Catholic Priests | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

And, seventeen days and 415 posts later, this post, quoted in its entirety:

In an unintended and therefore subtly ironic way, this seems to be a rather apropos summary of the discussion.

 

[simpleas]

Pope John Paul II made it quite clear.

Yes, he decided to try and silence peoples voices, not sure that was a good thing to do.

 

[edwest211]

The Holy Father has the authority to do this and provided a lengthy explanation of why he chose to say this was not a possibility - social pressure notwithstanding. I’m familiar with the “Power to the People” slogan but the Church is not a corporate or political entity.

 

[edwest211]

John 15:16

New International Version
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit–fruit that will last–and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.”

New Living Translation
“You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name.”

English Standard Version
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

 

[Gorgias]

[Pope John Paul II] decided to try and silence peoples voices

I would say that he decided to answer a question definitively.

To-may-to, to-mah-to, eh?

 

[guanophore]

I must disagree with the assertion that a woman would not properly represent the sacramental content associated with administering Communion.

There is a great difference between consecration and serving as an extraordinary minister.

Priests, by virtue of holy orders, are able to execute the transsubstantiation, but they remain distinct from the perfect and eternal Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is the sacrament par excellence.

I think you are somehow saying this should make it so women can be priests?

Second, in the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests are inducted into an order of priesthood modeled on Christ. What do we know about Christ? We are taught that he was, simultaneously, divine and human during His Earthly life. He took on the garb of humanity, but never ceded His divinity in the act of the Incarnation.

I don’t see how this supports women priests either?

Per CCC 355, male and female counterparts were required to properly image God as “man”. From this interpretation, both male and female are equal subsets of the divine, jointly required to image Christ in fullness. It logically follows, from this accepted teaching of the Church, that the priesthood fully images Christ when it incorporates both constituent members- male and female.

It is a good line of reasoning, and I agree with your assumptions, but the priest already incorporates both. Acting in Persona Cristi he becomes Christ at the altar, and as the Presider, he also represents the Bride, for whom he offers the gifts.

One without the other is still fundamentally human, but only in an incomplete fashion. From this logic, the only way to accurately image Christ in the priesthood is through the inclusion of both genders.

I agree with this, and I am sure this is part of what the Church has examined.

 

[guanophore]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded that there was insufficient scriptural basis to deny Holy Orders to women.

I am interested to read this. Can you send a link?

 

[guanophore]

As with Humanae Vitae, it was another instance of the papacy diverging from the sensus fidelium—including a heavy contingent of senior bishops—to maintain continuity in the most recent interpretation of the doctrine of infallibility.

I am interested in hearing more about this too. Is a “heavy contingent of senior bishops” somehow a recipe for error?

 

[guanophore]

Nice analysis up till this point, but this assertion is erroneous. Where does CCC 355 say that genders are required to image God? After all, God is genderless – purely spirit. How does a physical body ‘image’ God? How does a gender – or combination of genders – ‘image’ God?

I agree that male and female counterparts are not required to properly image God as “man”. By that I mean that Jesus was fully God and fully man without being female.

But the Scriptures are clear that God created male and female to best reflect his “image”. Now perhaps it has nothing to do with gender (the image of God being manifest) and He just wanted procreation to occur, but it seems clear the God intended for the male and female to complement each other to represent fullness.

male + female’.

Humanity – that is, הָֽאָדָם֙ or ἄνθρωπον or hominem – is what is “in the image of God”, not ‘male’ or ‘female’ or ‘male + female’.

Yes but there is no denying that He chose to create them in His image, then “male and female He created them”.

Yes, he decided to try and silence peoples voices, not sure that was a good thing to do.

Clearly this did not happen and has not happened. When the Magesterium teaches, it is for the purpose of guiding the faithful into “all Truth”. Only those who are willing to obey the authority appointed by Christ will then fall into obedience and refrain from kicking against the goads. For those who are not willing to submit with an attitude of humble obedience, such statements “silence” nothing. The voices of rebellion, on the contrary, will continue to be loud and oppositional, often resulting in the rebellious leaving the One Church.

It is a good thing to do to clarify the teachings of the church, and to provide clear guidance to the faithful.

 

[Gorgias]

But the Scriptures are clear that God created male and female to best reflect his “image”.

This is simply untrue. You’re reading your own story into the narrative.

In the creation account of Genesis 1, what God creates in His image is “anthropos” – human. (It also specifies that He created humanity as male and female.) However, it does not say that engenderedness ‘best’ images Him.

(Then, in the creation account of Genesis 2, God seems perfectly willing to have created only a male human, but later decides to find a helpmate for him.)

Now perhaps it has nothing to do with gender (the image of God being manifest) and He just wanted procreation to occur, but it seems clear the God intended for the male and female to complement each other to represent fullness.

Do men and women complement one another? Of course. Are they a representation of the ‘fullness’ of God’s image? No – each man and each woman fully image God, on their own.

 

[guanophore]

Do men and women complement one another? Of course. Are they a representation of the ‘fullness’ of God’s image? No – each man and each woman fully image God, on their own.

While I agree about complimentarity and that each of us reflects the image and likeness of God, I don’t think Paul would have used marriage as a model of Jesus’ relationship with His Church if there were no intention for both to be (together) the fullness.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think Paul would have used marriage as a model of Jesus’ relationship with His Church if there were no intention for both to be (together) the fullness.

Yes, but keep in mind: that ‘fullness’ happens in relationship with Christ, not in relationship with one another…

 

[Elizabeth3]

As with Humanae Vitae, it was another instance of the papacy diverging from the sensus fidelium—including a heavy contingent of senior bishops—to maintain continuity in the most recent interpretation of the doctrine of infallibility.

About sensus fidelium

St. JP II stated in Familiaris Consortio

“The “supernatural sense of faith” however does not consist solely or necessarily in the consensus of the faithful. Following Christ, the Church seeks the truth, which is not always the same as the majority opinion.”

 

[Brendan]

Deacon, the genetics of a person do not define the person, they simply form a code for the physical attributes of the corporal aspect of the human person. Ontologically, a person is either male or female. That is established by God at conception and cannot be changed. There might be physically impairments that hamper the physical representation of the ontological reality. But the reality exists as only one of the two. And that their are only two is a matter of Divine Revelation (Gen 5:2) that has been accepted by the Church for millennia.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Women can’t be Catholic Priests because women are not men.,.

Simple