Women in the Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmar198
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
budgie2 said:
As for CarlaOLS I still think that the priesthood should change it’s title to brother or something like that as it is blatantly in contradiction with the words of Christ, to call no man father. Whether St Paul said something different is immaterial as Christ is greater than St. Paul although I appreciate the Church is run on a family and Christ said whoever does his will is his mother, father, sister and brother. I disagree with the doctrine of infallibility so I’m not here to argue whether the non-ordination of women’s priests is infallible. What I’m really concerned about is the role of the priest as provider of daily bread used to be a very masculine role as the men in the household brought home the daily bread and earned the wage. Women’s role may have changed to provider financially and materially rather than nurturer due to changes in family life such as contraception and single parenthood. I don’t know whether the Church should follow this trend. It is interesting to note that earning the daily bread and ploughing the fields was the male punishment for Original Sin. A lot of women nowadays are coveting the male punishment (my theory).
Click to expand...
Your beliefs sure sound Episcopalian rather than Catholic.
 
PJM said:
Physology. Jesus was Male gender, and the very words that institute the Sacramnet of Ordination are : “Do this in memory of ME!” Female gender cannot, a physical impossibility, fullfil this mandate. Not willnot, CANNOT!
.
I don’t think this argument holds up under close scrutiny. Here’s why:
Let’s follow more or less exactly your argument, but substitute one word as you will see:
Jesus was a Jew and according to the words of Ordination “Do this in memory of Me”. A non-Jew cannot fulfull this mandate, not will not but cannot because he is not under the Old Covenant. Therefore only a Jew can be ordained as a priest.
As you can see, the argument which more or less mirrors yours, does not hold water.
Click to expand...
 
davidv said:
Priest were Male more than a millennia ago, in a millennia they will still be male.
Click to expand...
What you are speaking of here are traditions, but we have seen that these change. For example, Holy Communion in the hand has been condemned and forbidden in Catholic traditon for two thousand years.
St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
However, we have seen that this Sacred Tradition has been overturned since Vatican II.
As far as women’s ordination is concerned, we see today hundreds of Catholic theologians who say that it is possible. So, although many of us may not like it, just as many of us do not like Holy Communion in the hand, or easy marriage annulments, or Halloween Masses, this is the situation in the Church and although we do not see valid women’s ordination today, I don’t think that you can so easily rule it out as a possiblity in the future. True, you have the declaration of Pope John Paul II, but already, you have hundreds of Catholic theologians who doubt its infallibility. Not everything that the Pope says is infallible and absolutely unchangeable.
 
I think female ordination is possible in the case of absence or shortage of priests. However, nowadays it may represent female greed. As a woman who is not on the contraceptive pill I have no desire to be a priest.

Interesting to note that our sexuality may be changed by chemicals nowadays and some women are on testosterone supplements as well as xenoestrogens are affecting male sperm count.
 
budgie2 said:
I think female ordination is possible in the case of absence or shortage of priests. However, nowadays it may represent female greed.
Click to expand...
But not always!
Interesting to note that our sexuality may be changed by chemicals nowadays and some women are on testosterone supplements as well as xenoestrogens are affecting male sperm count.
Click to expand...
In other words our sexuality is spiritually insignificant. What counts is our love for God and His Creation.
 
bobzills said:
I don’t think this argument holds up under close scrutiny. Here’s why:
Let’s follow more or less exactly your argument, but substitute one word as you will see:
Jesus was a Jew and according to the words of Ordination “Do this in memory of Me”. A non-Jew cannot fulfull this mandate, not will not but cannot because he is not under the Old Covenant. Therefore only a Jew can be ordained as a priest.
As you can see, the argument which more or less mirrors yours, does not hold water.
Click to expand...
bobzills,

I suggest that such a response is, in fact, a sophistical argument.

Christianity includes necessarily the opening of the covenant beyond ethnic boundaries to ‘all nations.’ It is quite clear from the witness of the apostles and apostolic men that soon after Jesus’ death and resurrection that Gentiles were being made elders and overseers of the Church.

I think you understand the argument in too simplistic a way. The interpretation of the apostles, the early Church and the Magisterium all understand that in choosing only Jewish men as the first priests, Jesus did not mean to restrict the priesthood only to the Jewish people. This is borne out by the testimony and practice of the Church, for Gentiles were ordained. To the contrary, the apostles, the early Church and the Magisterium all understand Jesus to have willfully excluded women from the priesthood in the New Testament by choosing only men.
 
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
However, we have seen that this Sacred Tradition has been overturned since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Yves Congar makes a distinction in types of Tradition. One type of tradition are the “unwritten traditions.” That is, the practices handed down, usually assumed to be apostolic, but not strictly doctrinal. To be fair, from what I remember, he also discusses ecclesiastical traditions (which perhaps would relate to communion practices, like this). Another type of Tradition is bound up much more closely with the authoritative interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. This is not a separate and secret source of revelation (as if containing one “part” of revelation), but rather, the Tradition and the Scriptures each, in a sense, contain the whole of revelation, the Tradition being the key to understanding the Scriptures (which contain materially the fullness of revelation, but not formally).

You are making a very subtle equivocation in your argument here.

You are saying that because the Church has overturned traditions of one sort therefore that it may overturn traditions of the other sort. This does not follow.

“Tradition” is the proper sense is part of the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith is the fullness of revelation given to us in Jesus Christ. It may not be negated, but of course may always develop without negation.

Thus,
  1. If the non-ordination of women is part of the deposit of faith, then it may not be negated.
  2. But the non-ordination of women is part of the deposit of faith, as testified to by the universal ordinary magisterium, and confirmed by the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
  3. But then it may not be negated.
Were the non-ordination of women of the type of tradition which you think it was, that is, a traditional practice merely, not belonging to the deposit of faith, then indeed it might be changeable. But once we distinguish between the different senses of tradition (which intelligent scholars like Fr. Yves Congar O.P. have taken note of), then it becomes clear that the question of the non-ordination of women does not belong merely to the apostolic tradition of unwritten practices handed down (of the sort which may be changed), but to the proper sense of Tradition, being part of the deposit of the faith, and confirmed as being part of the deposit of the faith by the Magisterium.

First let me set forth the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in “Lumen Gentium” on the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held… And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.
Click to expand...
See how infallibility is closely defined with the “deposit of Revelation.” And this is the very infallibility which is being invoked…

See these confirmations to this very point:
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
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.
Click to expand...
The “divine constitution” invokes the sacred deposit of Revelation. That is, he’s saying this is part of irreformable teaching.

The CDF:
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.
Click to expand...
Responsum: In the affirmative.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Again, this affirms that it is part of the deposit of the faith.

As I’ve said, this teaching is covered under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, as taught by the second Vatican Council, and has been confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff, whose mind has been corroborated by the CDF.

It’s really a closed case.

God bless,
Rob
 
bobzills said:
Are you speaking here about the beliefs of many of the post-Vatican II clergy?
Click to expand...
If they publicly disagree with the teachings and disciplines of the Church, yes. You cannot have a faith which consists of a “Body of believers” if many of them retain personal beliefs. They have separated themselves out by failing to deny themselves and to take up their cross of disobedience. Christ teaches us that we must do three things in order:
  1. Deny ourselves (our preferences, our choices, our very thoughts and beliefs if they differ from His)
  2. Take up our cross daily. Such a cross can consist of our desire to salve our ego by believing differently from the Church which Christ established for us. The root word of “disciple” is discipline.
  3. Follow Him.
Trouble follows when you reverse this order of events. When you begin your journey with rule three, you often never arrive at either one or two. By definition, you cannot be a disciple if you are undisciplined. The 1950s-1970s produced a generation of the most individualistic and undisiplined clergy ever seen. Many of them seem to be professors. All of them teach at some level. And, we wonder why Catholics are drifting away and the Church’s beliefs and teachings are under constant assault?
 
Honestly, I believe that part of the reason that Christ restricted his apostles to only men was to make the vow of celibacy easier. If women were being trained at seminary then there will be more temptation towards having a relationship or marriage. How does it look for single men and single women to be spending a lot of time in the same company? I don’t think these things become out of date. The Anglican Church also allows marriage.
 
budgie2 said:
As a woman who is not on the contraceptive pill I have no desire to be a priest…
Click to expand...
I am puzzled by this. Do you think that there is some sort of correlation between wanting to be a priest and being on the contraceptive pill? I read somewhere that a fairly large percentage of Catholic women are on the contraceptive pill?
 
RobNY said:
It’s really a closed case.
Click to expand...
You say it is a closed case, but is it really? On June 6 1997, the general assembly of the Catholic Theological Society of America voted on a resolution which said (in part): “There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of the teaching [that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught and requires the definitive assent of the faithful], and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question, not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church …"
This resolution passed 216 theologians voting ‘Yes’, 22 ‘No’ and 10 abstaining.
This vote of Roman Catholic theologians gives every indication that the case is not really a closed case. Why do so many Roman Catholic theologians disagree with you on this. If so many disagree how can you say that the criteria of canon law for infalliblity, Canon 749 §3, have been fulfilled?
 
bobzills said:
You say it is a closed case, but is it really? On June 6 1997, the general assembly of the Catholic Theological Society of America voted on a resolution which said (in part): “There are serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of the teaching [that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women to the priesthood is a truth that has been infallibly taught and requires the definitive assent of the faithful], and its grounds in Tradition. There is serious, widespread disagreement on this question, not only among theologians, but also within the larger community of the Church …"
This resolution passed 216 theologians voting ‘Yes’, 22 ‘No’ and 10 abstaining.
This vote of Roman Catholic theologians gives every indication that the case is not really a closed case. Why do so many Roman Catholic theologians disagree with you on this. If so many disagree how can you say that the criteria of canon law for infalliblity, Canon 749 §3, have been fulfilled?
Click to expand...
Like I said before,
I would warn, of course, taking a matter of disagreement of fact as to whether something is manifest, as evidence that something isn’t manifest. Rather, we need to find out what would count as “manifest” evidence, and see whether that is there.
Click to expand...
Indeed, if the criterion in the canon law for infallibility does require “manifest” evidence, then we ought to have some objectively manifest evidence. But this surely exists in the form of the Pope’s statement and the CDF’s response, both saying that this is part of the divine constitution of the Church or the deposit of the faith.

If this isn’t manifest evidence, then what is? Honestly.

God bless,
Rob
 
RobNY said:
If this isn’t manifest evidence, then what is? Honestly.
Click to expand...
When the Roman Catholic theologians agree that it is, then it will be so. But you have not answered why so many Roman Catholic theologians do not agree with you.
 
RobNY said:
Yves Congar makes a distinction in types of Tradition. One type of tradition are the “unwritten traditions.” That is, the practices handed down, usually assumed to be apostolic, but not strictly doctrinal.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s take a look at some of these traditions. For example, is it true that there was a tradition that included the Coronation of Roman Empresses as Augusti, who were vice-regents of Christ on Earth and held temporal authority over all Catholics. According to Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople: ‘They convoked the ecumenical councils and confirmed and decreed the acceptance of the pronouncements of the divine and holy canons regarding the correct doctrines and the government of Christians…’
 
How is a Catholic supposed to understand the writings of St. Paul? Are they theological and carved in stone, or can we disregard them? For example, 1Cor 11:3:“But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, 1 and God is the head of Christ.”
Does the Catholic Church really teach today that the man must be the head of a woman? I don;t think so. I think that with the discarding of the requirement that women wear headcovering, the Church no longer teaches this theological truth? Or does it?
 
bobzills said:
When the Roman Catholic theologians agree that it is, then it will be so. But you have not answered why so many Roman Catholic theologians do not agree with you.
Click to expand...
When these theologian are teaching in line with the Magisterium you might have a case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top