Women in the Priesthood

[Gerry_Hunter]

Catholic2003:

I would just like to caution anyone reading this thread about coming to any conclusions about the orthodoxy of Fr. Sullivan based on second-hand presentations of his ideas. I have found Fr. Sullivan to be a very reliable source for information about the Church’s Magisterium, as long as his position is read and understood in full.

Fair enough. Fr.Sullivan makes a tacit assumption common to many theologians of his generation. With Vatican II, these theologians presumed that they had been granted (or had carved for themselves) a place in the Magisterium of the Church. In his particular case, his approach frequently pivots on the notion that concensus among theologians is necessary for the valid exercise of ordinary and universal (as distinct from extraordinary) Magisterium. It doesen’t, and theologians have no such role.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Catholic2003]

Gerry Hunter:

Fair enough. Fr.Sullivan makes a tacit assumption common to many theologians of his generation. With Vatican II, these theologians presumed that they had been granted (or had carved for themselves) a place in the Magisterium of the Church. In his particular case, his approach frequently pivots on the notion that concensus among theologians is necessary for the valid exercise of ordinary and universal (as distinct from extraordinary) Magisterium. It doesen’t, and theologians have no such role.

I think that the consensus of the Church, including its theologians, is one possible way to recognize the infallibility of a teaching via the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Clearly this did not exist in the case of women priests.

My take on Fr. Sullivan’s comments about Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is that OS merely contains a bald assertion about the infallibility of the teaching via the ordinary and universal Magisterium, without any indication of what conditions needed to hold for that infallibility, much less how those conditions were checked. This leaves the Church in awkward position of knowing that the teaching against women priests is infallible via the ordinary and universal Magisterium, without having any insight how to tell whether any other given teaching is so infallible.

This situation has lead to all sorts of preposterous claims, like the Church’s teaching on limbo is infallible via the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

 

[stanley123]

Catholic2003:

I would just like to caution anyone reading this thread about coming to any conclusions about the orthodoxy of Fr. Sullivan based on second-hand presentations of his ideas. I have found Fr. Sullivan to be a very reliable source for information about the Church’s Magisterium, as long as his position is read and understood in full.

Right. I think that I referred people to read Father Sullivan’s presentation in post #168. Anyway, I agree that you have to read his presentation in full.

 

[Melissa]

Just for fun–consider the following quotes (don’t google the content to identify the documents they come from–I chose the three for specific reasons, but consider only the language in the snips). Of them, which (if any–up to all three) uses language which would be necessary for an infalliable statement (and what’s missing from any that doesn’t appear to be invoking infalliability):

Quote #1

The teaching of the Church [deleted identifying content] is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.

Quote #2

by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define [deleted identifying content]

Quote #3

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 [deleted identifying content] and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

 

[mikew262]

JimG:

I think that this topic has been covered on several previous threads. As a retreat director friend once told me, there’s not much point in beating to death in discussion something that is just not going to happen.

I’m sure that if Jesus had named women as apostles, there would long since have been women priests. But he didn’t, and there aren’t, and there won’t be.

For the sake of discussion, how do we really know he didn’t?

Yes, I know the bible doesn’t mention anything about it, but there are ancient biblical writings that the church left out for 1 reason or another. Remember, it was very much a male dominated society back then, and the writers of the allowed scripture were male. Because of this, any siginificant female disciples or potential apostles could’ve convienently been left out.

This is just conjecture on my part; I have no proof of this. However, you need to remember what the culture was at the time.

 

[mlchance]

Emphasis added:

mikew262:

…any siginificant female disciples or potential apostles could’ve convienently been left out.

This is just conjecture on my part; I have no proof of this.

Nor does anyone else, which is a point very much against the proposition.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

777:

Here’s one more:

1. The only function for women is house keeping, cooking, and giving birth.

NO FEMALE PRIESTS!! BLOODY 'NUFF SAID!!!

That was certainly a valuable contribution.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The question of why no female apostles has lead to a lot of what is called “special pleading.”

It is asserted that Jesus would have chosen female apostles, but the customs of the time precluded him from doing so. That’s special pleading, because there were many customs of the time that most certainly did not constrain his actions, but we are (according to dissident heretics) to accept that he was bound by, and bowed to, that one. The really nasty part of that special pleading is that it is an oblique attack on the divinity of Jesus Christ. If that custom could constrain him, so much for his divinity.

A fully divine Jesus Christ would not have hesitated to choose female apostles had he intended to do so.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

The question of why no female apostles has lead to a lot of what is called “special pleading.”

It is asserted that Jesus would have chosen female apostles, but the customs of the time precluded him from doing so. That’s special pleading, because there were many customs of the time that most certainly did not constrain his actions, but we are (according to dissident heretics) to accept that he was bound by, and bowed to, that one. The really nasty part of that special pleading is that it is an oblique attack on the divinity of Jesus Christ. If that custom could constrain him, so much for his divinity.

A fully divine Jesus Christ would not have hesitated to choose female apostles had he intended to do so.

Blessings,

Gerry

Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

Since Holy Scripture is part of the Deposit of the Faith, God the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jegow]

steveandersen:

that they one day might be given the authority.
(the mechanism? I don’t know.)

The point many on this thread have been showing all is that the Church has spoken on its not having the authority or power to do this.

 

[jegow]

Gerry Hunter:

The question of why no female apostles has lead to a lot of what is called “special pleading.”

It is asserted that Jesus would have chosen female apostles, but the customs of the time precluded him from doing so. That’s special pleading, because there were many customs of the time that most certainly did not constrain his actions, but we are (according to dissident heretics) to accept that he was bound by, and bowed to, that one. The really nasty part of that special pleading is that it is an oblique attack on the divinity of Jesus Christ. If that custom could constrain him, so much for his divinity.

A fully divine Jesus Christ would not have hesitated to choose female apostles had he intended to do so.

Blessings,

Gerry

Another good point in this is that Jesus came in the fullness of time (Galations 4:4). All the customs and social climates of that time were also apart of that fullness of time. Jesus came and did what He did in the time that was meant for Him to do it.

 

[johnnycatholic]

TO GNOSIS,

Quite frankly God’s actions throughout the old testament are more like those of a father, a male figure. Even in the act of creation he was a generator, he generated the universe he did not give birth to it. If anything Gods interactions with humanity over the centuries was the cause of the more patriarchal structure of ancient jewish society rather than the reaction to it.You should also consider the biological reality that males have x and y chromosomes where females only have x. So technically in assuming the male form women and men are both biologically represented.
Your assertion that God came to help us understand him better is entirely accurate. Gods primary mission was the forgiveness of sins and to open heaven for his people. God molded and instructed jewish society with prophets. God easily could have made the jewish people more receptive to recieving a female messiah by instituting a female priesthood rather than the all male levitical priesthood or he could have ordered moses to rework the law to allow female priests.
As it was stated by someone earlier the apostle Paul says that women should not speak in the temple and should be subject to the authority of men. Furthermore no apostle ever ordained a woman priest.
This is the teaching of someone who learned directly from God. God would not have taught the apostles this either while here on earth or via holy spirit if this teaching were wrong nor would he have allowed it to appear in infallible scripture. It is a blatant statement about the place of the women in the liturgy. To say that God inspired or taught error is obviously not the way to go and this is exactly what your saying: That God intentionally taught error. That Gods infallible apostles were inspired not to ordain women as priests nor were any of the deciples of the apostles. As was stated earlier God could have taught the apostles to ordain women for the gentiles (something that would have been perfect for Paul and the gentiles wouldn’t have batted an eyelash but it didn’t happen though some gentile males were ordained.)Which either means God allowed an injustice to continue or that women cannot be ordained priest.You have to keep in mind that Jesus came specifically for the Jews.
The only commonality of those the apostles did ordain is gender.
In answer to your basic question, God didn’t just represent or substitute for anyone when he was crucified, he actually paid the price we could not pay, we had no chance of repairing the damage on our own. If we had died on the cross it would have been meaningless to God, your statement implies that if we had died we would be saved. He paid our debt for us not as our substitute but as our saviour because we could not do so ourselves, male and female as you say.(Thus the fact that he died for females is irrelevant to whether or not they can be ordained or as you say represent him.) He can do that because he is God. He made the sacrifice, which is something that he has consistently chosen males to do, just as he has consistently chosen females to give birth. Where one is a physical ability the other is a spiritual ability. It’s more about the offering of the sacrifice than the representing(I mean representing in the sense of being in the place of Christ rather than the re-presenting of the sacrifice of calvalry).
Hope this helps.

If I have made any theological or grammatical errors here I submit myself to the authority of the magisterium.

 

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

Who is to say? Anyone with any sense.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Originally Posted by mikew262
Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

There’s one more thing to be noted about this particular line of argumentation. It incorporates a logical fallacy. The fallacy is a particular instance of the misplacement of the burden of proof.

On the one hand, we have what Holy Scripture does say. This is attacked with the assertion that there are omissions. Accompanying this assertion is a demand for proof that assertions were NOT made. However, the burden of proof that omissions were made lies with the one who asserts that there were indeed omissions, not with the one who presents the text as written.

The demand for proof is disingenuous because of the incorporation of this fallacy. And its implicit denial of the efficacy of the protection provided by God the Holy Spirit to the content of Holy Scripture is also very troubling.

Blessings

Gerry

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

Who is to say? Anyone with any sense.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well thought out, open-minded answer. Instead of being sarcastic, why don’t you offer a response with some substance.

I’m really not comfortable with the idea of women priests either, at least not at this point. However, I try to stay open-minded about this and other issues. The fact that it was a male dominated culture back then is legitimate, and the fact that the scriptures were authored my men is also legitimate.

If there were important women followers of Jesus, its entirely possible their contributions could’ve been downplayed by the male authors.

Just looking for a “Ok, I guess that could’ve been possible” answer. BTW, I’m not looking for any proof here; I’m not sure it can be proved, unless somebody digs up some previously unknown scrolls.

 

[Melissa]

Just looking for a “Ok, I guess that could’ve been possible” answer. BTW, I’m not looking for any proof here; I’m not sure it can be proved, unless somebody digs up some previously unknown scrolls.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that kind of answer, because I most certainly do not think it possible, and I think that Gerry Hunter’s posts have been very right-on-the-money as to why not.

 

[mikew262]

Gerry Hunter:

The demand for proof is disingenuous because of the incorporation of this fallacy. And its implicit denial of the efficacy of the protection provided by God the Holy Spirit to the content of Holy Scripture is also very troubling.

Blessings

Gerry

Keep in mind many of the undertakings of the church over the past centuries (crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were supposedly undertaken with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Those weren’t our church’s finest hours.

Do I believe the Holy Spirit was involved in the writing of the scriptures? Certainly!! However, man is inherently weak (Adam and Eve ring a bell? Peter?) and open to petty jealousies like everybody else. Even Peter and Paul didn’t see eye to eye at times.

BTW, I’m not demanding any proof here, there is probably none to be given. I’m just thinking out loud and asking for any discussion.

 

[mikew262]

Melissa:

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that kind of answer, because I most certainly do not think it possible, and I think that Gerry Hunter’s posts have been very right-on-the-money as to why not.

Alright, fair enough.

 

[johnnycatholic]

mikew262:

Keep in mind many of the undertakings of the church over the past centuries (crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were supposedly undertaken with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Those weren’t our church’s finest hours.

Do I believe the Holy Spirit was involved in the writing of the scriptures? Certainly!! However, man is inherently weak (Adam and Eve ring a bell? Peter?) and open to petty jealousies like everybody else. Even Peter and Paul didn’t see eye to eye at times.

BTW, I’m not demanding any proof here, there is probably none to be given. I’m just thinking out loud and asking for any discussion.

You Have to figure that God in his revelation both through Tradition and Scripture taught everything there is to know regarding faith and salvation. On issues that required clarification he left his church and if you can’t trust the church then your out of luck.