Women in the Priesthood

[edwest2]

A common form of propaganda is to bring up a settled manner again and again in a supposed “debate” even when there is nothing to debate about.

Pope John Paul II stated what must be definitively held by all the faithful but enemies of the Church will come here to say why such clear teaching is wrong to them. It’s not wrong. And it will remain - forever.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Your intellectual pride and inflexibility is evident in your conviction that your interpretation of the Magisterium is superior to that of professors of theology who are acknowledged authorities on the subject.

Actually I used to think I knew better than the Church like those professors of theology. The fact is that I do not know better than the Church and nor do those professors.

The fact is that the Popes statement fulfills the conditions of infallibility set forth in Vatican 1. When the question was put forward to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about the infallibility they stated it was infallible and stated that this answer was approved by the Pope.

And BTW? Who acknowledges these professors opinions? Certainly not the Pope lol.

Do you really believe every statement by the Pope is infallible? If the Pope is not speaking ex cathedra and he says “The following statement is infallible” does that make his statement infallible?

Not every statement of the Pope is infallible. Just those that fulfill the conditions of infallibility. If the Pope says he is being infallible in such and such a statement it would be reasonable to assume that he is fulfilling said conditions, so therefore he cannot say such a statement unless he is speaking ex cathedra. Your little question is actually a contradiction.

You take it for granted that your ideas are right. It is an act of mercy to advise you to have more humility and charity - and abstain from calling people heretics. The Inquisition considered it an act of mercy to burn “heretics” like St Joan of Arc at the stake…

It would have been an act of mercy to have burned Luther, Zwingli, Calvin so as to stop their doctrines destroying the Faith of northern europe, and causing two or three generations of war.

And yes, when it comes to this particular subject it is obvious to all humble Catholics who accept the teaching of the Church that I do know more about it than those fancy heretical professors.

Paul

 

[Ender]

Not every statement of the Pope is infallible. Just those that fulfill the conditions of infallibility. If the Pope says he is being infallible in such and such a statement it would be reasonable to assume that he is fulfilling said conditions, so therefore he cannot say such a statement unless he is speaking ex cathedra.

The area of infallibility is complicated. When JPII’s letter on the ordination of women came out I believed he was speaking ex cathedra and was confused by the fact that, even within the Church, it wasn’t explained that way. I now believe that he was not speaking ex cathedra but it is nonetheless an infallible teaching that women may not be ordained. The Church makes a distinction between things that are infallibly declared (of which I believe there are only two) and things which are taught as infallible, which includes a rather large number of doctrines and it is in this way that infallibility applies here. If you look carefully at Lumen Gentium 25 you will see that infallibility is not limited exclusively to the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra.

On the point as to whether this teaching is infallible, however, there really is no dispute.

Ender

 

[PaulAndrew83]

The area of infallibility is complicated. When JPII’s letter on the ordination of women came out I believed he was speaking ex cathedra and was confused by the fact that, even within the Church, it wasn’t explained that way. I now believe that he was not speaking ex cathedra but it is nonetheless an infallible teaching that women may not be ordained. The Church makes a distinction between things that are infallibly declared (of which I believe there are only two) and things which are taught as infallible, which includes a rather large number of doctrines and it is in this way that infallibility applies here. If you look carefully at Lumen Gentium 25 you will see that infallibility is not limited exclusively to the pope when he is speaking ex cathedra.

On the point as to whether this teaching is infallible, however, there really is no dispute.

Ender

The only thing that needs looking at is the declaration part of the letter.

That quote does actually fulfill the conditions of papal infallibility.

He states that he is speaking as Pope, and then says that the judgment is binding upon all Christians. This is what makes statements infallible.

I never made a case that thise teaching was infallible because it was part of the magisterium of the Church, from constant repeated teachings etc…

Paul

 

[bobzills]

The only thing that needs looking at is the declaration part of the letter.

That quote does actually fulfill the conditions of papal infallibility.

He states that he is speaking as Pope, and then says that the judgment is binding upon all Christians. This is what makes statements infallible.

I never made a case that thise teaching was infallible because it was part of the magisterium of the Church, from constant repeated teachings etc…

Paul

Several things have been declared infallibly and then changed later on. Usually, they quote the idea of development of doctrine. For example, originally, in the creed, it was said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. and for the council, it is my understanding that anyone who disagreed was anathematised, or subject to an ecclesiastical curse. But then later on, they added the clause “filioque”, so they did change it . Now could the same thing happen with reference to women priests. Also, at one point in time, say in 1930, it was very difficult to get a marriage annulment. In that year, for example, there were about 9 marriage annulments declared in the whole USA. However, since Vatican II, in the USA there has grown and expanded an industry of paralegals who more or less guarantee that they can find some flaw or another which will get you your marriage annulment. This has resulted in the statistics that we see now of more than 60,000 marriage annulments per year in the USA alone in some years. Compare the two figures - 9 per year previously, and in recent years 60,000 per year. This shows the development or change in teaching as to what constitutes a valid marriage. Now if your husband spends too much time in the gym, you can use that as a reason to declare that your marriage was invalid? This type of reasoning was unheard of before. The Church did not allow these loopholes to be used, whereas now it is OK.
Similarly, in the case of women priests. They have changed a whole lot of other things, such as whether or not heretics should be burned, whether or not it is OK to own slaves, what constitutes a valid marriage, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and from the Son, whether the Blood is shed for many, or is it shed for all, and if they have changed these teachings, then why cannot they find some loophole in the future which will enable women to be priests? I don’t think it is inconceivable that this will be done in the future. The loophole might focus in on the role that women play in society today as contrasted with their role in society 2000 years ago. The argument can develop this loophole and say that in the past these declarations agaisnt women priests were made since the roles of women in society were different. Something like that would not be inconceivable, in my personal opinion.
Just as they have come up with all kinds of loopholes to let people divorce and remarry under the guise of saying the original marriage was invalid, so they will probably find a loophole and allow women to be priests.

 

[tonyrey]

It would have been an act of mercy to have burned Luther, Zwingli, Calvin so as to stop their doctrines destroying the Faith of northern europe, and causing two or three generations of war.

 

[CarlaOLS]

A question from an interested outsider
Does the highlighted and enlarged part of the quote make this ruling an ex cathedra-ruling?

YES The teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a definitive declaration from the the pope, acting as supreme pastor and teacher, on a matter of doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by all the faithful: that is all that is required for a papal teaching to be infallible.

Refer to : catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

Objections to the contrary notwithstanding, the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible because it fulfills the only requirements that must be fulfilled: those specified in Pastor Aeternus and repeated in Lumen Gentium.

On a personal note - I wish women would prayerfully consider this question:
Do you wish there were female priests as a matter of equality with men? Do you feel ripped off or of less importance because your gender cannot serve as priests?
Now the biggie - Why do you think Jesus did not “elevate” his own mother to that position?

I hope and pray my fellow women can gain humility in the dignity of their own calling and find peace in God’s ultimate plan for them. Your ways are not my ways O Lord…
and I’m ok with that.

Peace

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Several things have been declared infallibly and then changed later on. Usually, they quote the idea of development of doctrine. For example, originally, in the creed, it was said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. and for the council, it is my understanding that anyone who disagreed was anathematised, or subject to an ecclesiastical curse. But then later on, they added the clause “filioque”, so they did change it .

Completely false.

1. The development of doctrine did not “CHANGE” the previous doctrine. Only defined a different part of the deposit of Faith.
2. The original creed did not state “proceed from the Father only”.
3. Nor did it state “and not from the Son” either.
4. Therefore you have no case.
5. Whoever presented you with that argument should be beaten up for lying to you.

Now could the same thing happen with reference to women priests. Also, at one point in time, say in 1930, it was very difficult to get a marriage annulment. In that year, for example, there were about 9 marriage annulments declared in the whole USA. However, since Vatican II, in the USA there has grown and expanded an industry of paralegals who more or less guarantee that they can find some flaw or another which will get you your marriage annulment. This has resulted in the statistics that we see now of more than 60,000 marriage annulments per year in the USA alone in some years.

Compare the two figures - 9 per year previously, and in recent years 60,000 per year. This shows the development or change in teaching as to what constitutes a valid marriage. Now if your husband spends too much time in the gym, you can use that as a reason to declare that your marriage was invalid? This type of reasoning was unheard of before. The Church did not allow these loopholes to be used, whereas now it is OK.

This is not development of church doctrine, but development of abuse.

Similarly, in the case of women priests. They have changed a whole lot of other things, such as whether or not heretics should be burned, whether or not it is OK to own slaves, what constitutes a valid marriage, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father and from the Son, whether the Blood is shed for many, or is it shed for all, and if they have changed these teachings, then why cannot they find some loophole in the future which will enable women to be priests? I don’t think it is inconceivable that this will be done in the future. The loophole might focus in on the role that women play in society today as contrasted with their role in society 2000 years ago. The argument can develop this loophole and say that in the past these declarations agaisnt women priests were made since the roles of women in society were different. Something like that would not be inconceivable, in my personal opinion.
Just as they have come up with all kinds of loopholes to let people divorce and remarry under the guise of saying the original marriage was invalid, so they will probably find a loophole and allow women to be priests.

Development of an abuse + false idea about the Holy Spirit Doctrine does not = change in the teaching of the church with regards to women being possible.

Paul

 

[bobzills]

Completely false.

1. The development of doctrine did not “CHANGE” the previous doctrine. Only defined a different part of the deposit of Faith.
2. The original creed did not state “proceed from the Father only”.
3. Nor did it state “and not from the Son” either.
4. Therefore you have no case.
5. Whoever presented you with that argument should be beaten up for lying to you.l

According to the original creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
It was changed over the objections of the Eastern Church and it now reads that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
As far as your point 5 is concerned, I would not agree with Roman Catholics beating up faithful Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church because they adhere to the creed as it was origianlly written? I am for peace, harmony and collaboration and not for war, discord or violence between the two Apostolic Churches.

 

[bobzills]

Completely false. l

Hasn’t the teaching on slavery changed?
Before it was OK for Catholics to own slaves.
Now the teaching is that it is a sin for a Catholic to enslave people?

 

[tonyrey]

According to the original creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
It was changed over the objections of the Eastern Church and it now reads that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
As far as your point 5 is concerned, I would not agree with Roman Catholics beating up faithful Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church because they adhere to the creed as it was origianlly written? I am for peace, harmony and collaboration and not for war, discord or violence between the two Apostolic Churches.

Bravissimo!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

YES The teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a definitive declaration from the the pope, acting as supreme pastor and teacher, on a matter of doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by all the faithful: that is all that is required for a papal teaching to be infallible.

Refer to : catholicity.elcore.net/CoreOnOrdinatioSacerdotalis.html

Objections to the contrary notwithstanding, the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible because it fulfills the only requirements that must be fulfilled: those specified in Pastor Aeternus and repeated in Lumen Gentium.

On a personal note - I wish women would prayerfully consider this question:
Do you wish there were female priests as a matter of equality with men? Do you feel ripped off or of less importance because your gender cannot serve as priests?
Now the biggie - Why do you think Jesus did not “elevate” his own mother to that position?

I hope and pray my fellow women can gain humility in the dignity of their own calling and find peace in God’s ultimate plan for them. Your ways are not my ways O Lord…
and I’m ok with that.

Peace

Beautifully put, many thanks.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hasn’t the teaching on slavery changed?
Before it was OK for Catholics to own slaves.
Now the teaching is that it is a sin for a Catholic to enslave people?

Please provide the link for a Papal Encyclical that condones slavery, please.

 

[Brickmaker]

Please provide the link for a Papal Encyclical that condones slavery, please.

Will a papal bull or several do? I can only give one actual link to an English translation though.

Dum Diversas - a papal bull issued in 1452 by Pope Nicholas V - said:

"We grant you the (Portuguese and Spanish) by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery

Other papal bulls such as Romanus Pontifex (1455) nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html and Eximiae Devotionis (1493), instructed that all heathens, pagans etc. wherever they were located, should be found, captured, and reduced to perpetual slavery.

On the other hand, I can list and cite a considerably **longer **list of popes who expressly condemned slavery…

 

[LutheranDK]

According to the original creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
It was changed over the objections of the Eastern Church and it now reads that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

But you still have no case, because the original text of the creed did not say “…from the Father only”, or “and not from the Son”
The filioque can then be seen as expanding, rather than changing the original Creed.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Ok so now I have got to answer a whole bunch of stuff.

Hasn’t the teaching on slavery changed?
Before it was OK for Catholics to own slaves.
Now the teaching is that it is a sin for a Catholic to enslave people?

The thing is that this topic contains a whole bunch of issues.

Moral issues and truth never changes but what the prudent Catholic does using those principles in different times may do. In the early times the Church was in a society that practiced slavery in abundance so what it did in those days was different in the middle ages.

Remember that slavery has many different manifestations and some of the crueler manifestations are modern. Serfdom was a form of slavery but while the serf had personal rights, they couldn’t leave the land they cultivated or sell personal property.

Now as regards the papal Bull of Nicholas granting the right to enslave the saracens. Well 50 years later or so we have a Pope sending a guy called tetzel to germany to sell indulgences. These were turbulent times for the Church as it was a time of corruption, nepotism and simony. [edit: BTW that was a Bull, kind of like an executive order of the president. There is no teaching status attached to them.]

There are a number of resources on the web about the Catholic churches repeated condemnations of slavery and the differences in the manifestations of slavery throughout the ages. [edit: You should read a number of them before mentioning the subject because it is obvious to me you have not read a considered catholic answer on this topic.]

It isn’t as simple as just saying The teaching changed. That is primitive illogical thinking.

According to the original creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
It was changed over the objections of the Eastern Church and it now reads that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
As far as your point 5 is concerned, I would not agree with Roman Catholics beating up faithful Christians in the Eastern Orthodox Church because they adhere to the creed as it was origianlly written? I am for peace, harmony and collaboration and not for war, discord or violence between the two Apostolic Churches.

The creed has changed a number of times. Then often a council or a Saint writes a creed of Catholic faith.

The original creed did state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Ask yourself the following questions.

1. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only?
2. Given the above answer is No, does it mean that the Church cannot teach that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son?

Now it is clear that you cannot state Teaching changed.
tonyrey":

Bravissimo!

Thats right. An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Paul

 

[Ahimsa]

1. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”.
2. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

Looks like a change to me (and to the Orthodox).

Others may call it “development”.

Change is good. Just look what Jesus did.

Now, it is true that you can interpret #2 in a way that it is consistent with #1. But #2 is, at the very least a statement with a different emphasis, a changed emphasis, compared to #1; and, at the very worst, #2 is a statement with a different argument, a changed argument, compared to #1.

The Orthodox would not object to #2 if #1 were exactly the same as #2.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

1. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”.
2. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

Looks like a change to me (and to the Orthodox).

Others may call it “development”.

Change is good. Just look what Jesus did.

Now, it is true that you can interpret #2 in a way that it is consistent with #1. But #2 is, at the very least a statement with a different emphasis, a changed emphasis, compared to #1; and, at the very worst, #2 is a statement with a different argument, a changed argument, compared to #1.

The Orthodox would not object to #2 if #1 were exactly the same as #2.

Well in the context of the thread the question is.

Is it a true development? That is a true deepening of understanding?

From the teaching of the Church women priests would not be a true development and besides the Pope has infallibly declared that women priests are not possible.

Paul

 

[Th0t]

From the teaching of the Church women priests would not be a true development and besides the Pope has infallibly declared that women priests are not possible.Paul

Amen.

And as Peter Kreeft put it…

“The Church has spoken magisterially, officially, publicly, clearly, and authoritatively on this issue of women ordination. What more do you want?”

 

[bobzills]

Well in the context of the thread the question is.

Is it a true development? That is a true deepening of understanding?

From the teaching of the Church women priests would not be a true development and besides the Pope has infallibly declared that women priests are not possible.

Paul

It doesn’t look like it would be a development now, but I don;t think it would be inconceivable that this could change sometime in the future. For example, in the past it was taught that torture was allowed according to Catholic teaching. However, the Catholic teaching now is that torture is wrong and that it is not allowed.
It was also taught that it was OK to kill a person if he was a heretic. However, now it is taught that it would be wrong. And it is wrong today to beat up people if they have a belief that is different from yours. I don;t know if it was allowed to beat people up as you have suggested, but I personally, would not be in favor of it.
So things have changed with the times, and I guess that there will be some loophole developed according to which women will be allowed to be priests. One way around the present prohibition would be to say that our understanding has changed so that it really is a disciplinary question.