Women in the Priesthood

[LatinCat]

Gnosis:

No one has answered my question. If God is not a male deity, why is it wrong to refer to her as female?

The idea of reffering to God as male has to do with several philosophical/theoloigical principles. We say that every soul is femenine in relation to God because God impreagnates us with grace. Second, we say that God is a being ruled by reason and not by emotions. Even though there are exceptions to the rules, in general, men are less controled by their emotions than women are. This is not to say that women are bad, just different than men. Thus, since God is a being that is more rational, than passion controled, he is refered to as male. Next, God is never refered to as female in the bible. Some times he is given certian feminine attributes, but he is always refered to as Father, him, Lord, etc. Next, God did not Give birth to creation, as a mother would, that is creation is totally other from him. But rather, he inseminated the nothingness with being. He is Father, not Mother.

 

[stanley123]

estesbob:

They havent repopend the debate-their is no debate!!! It is SETTLED DOCTRINE I dont know how to make ir clearer than that.

Apparently you cannot read, or you are denying reality because:
“As well as opening vocations to married men, the council, which represents about half the country’s Catholic clergy, **has reopened debate **on women priests, questioning whether their exclusion from the priesthood is as a result of divine direction.”
According to your reasoning, half of the Catholic clergy in Australia are heretics? This is a real situation and there is no point in denying it.

 

[stanley123]

mlchance:

There is a difference between something being debated and something being debatable. Are there people who debate whether women can be ordained priests? Certainly. Is the matter actually debatable, meaning the answer is uncertain? Certainly not.

– Mark L. Chance.

Why are these clergy debating the issue, if it is settled infallibly?

 

[emsvetich]

mlchance:

There is a difference between something being debated and something being debatable. Are there people who debate whether women can be ordained priests? Certainly. Is the matter actually debatable, meaning the answer is uncertain? Certainly not.

– Mark L. Chance.

Thank you. I have yet to ascertain the reason behind the original post. It is somewhat disingenuous if they have ulterior motives that do not permit them to accept a fact of doctrine. Their glee with the resulting discussion is unseemly at best.

Their comment"We need to also check EVERY Biblical reference and verse." indicates that they are not done and no amount of discourse will answer their complaint. There is no further need to ask this same question again. The answers will always be the same from the Catholic Church.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

stanley123:

Why are these clergy debating the issue, if it is settled infallibly?

Because, for whatever reason, they have seen fit to be disobedient, like the child who takes cookies from the cookie jar in spite of being told not to lay hands on it.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Breton]

stanley123:

Why are these clergy debating the issue, if it is settled infallibly?

I’m having my doubts about this National Council of Priests in Australia that stanley123 is hanging his hat on. I see an undated, unsigned, undocumented press release from a group of Australian parish priests - no bishops on the board. I see no links to this council’s official website on any of the Australian archdiocese websites I have reviewed.

Regardless, just because this alleged National Council is debating ordination of women does not call into question the charism of infallibility. Calling yourself Catholic doesn’t necessarily make it so.

 

[stanley123]

Gerry Hunter:

Because, for whatever reason, they have seen fit to be disobedient,…

Would you say that this is a serious situation, when one half of the Catholic clergy in Australia refuse obedience to what the posters here say is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church? Are all of these Catholic clergy guilty of heresy? It seems like it is a rather large proportion? And what should be made of the Catholic tradition on sensus fidelium?
“The Catholic tradition holds that besides the revelation that is to be found in the Bible and the Church’s doctrines, the sensus fidelium, the “consensus of the faithful,” is helpful for understanding what God is revealing to the Church at any given moment in history.”

Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos. Why Be Catholic? Understanding Our Experience and Tradition. Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur.

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Would you say that this is a serious situation, when one half of the Catholic clergy in Australia refuse obedience to what the posters here say is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church? Are all of these Catholic clergy guilty of heresy? It seems like it is a rather large proportion? And what should be made of the Catholic tradition on sensus fidelium?
“The Catholic tradition holds that besides the revelation that is to be found in the Bible and the Church’s doctrines, the sensus fidelium, the “consensus of the faithful,” is helpful for understanding what God is revealing to the Church at any given moment in history.”

Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos. Why Be Catholic? Understanding Our Experience and Tradition. Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur.

At one time it was said that St. Athanasius was the only non-Arian in the Christian world. Numbers don’t cut it.

One must presume that “consensus of the faithful” means just that. Not “consensus of the discontent.”

 

[estesbob]

stanley123:

Would you say that this is a serious situation, when one half of the Catholic clergy in Australia refuse obedience to what the posters here say is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church? Are all of these Catholic clergy guilty of heresy? It seems like it is a rather large proportion? And what should be made of the Catholic tradition on sensus fidelium?
“The Catholic tradition holds that besides the revelation that is to be found in the Bible and the Church’s doctrines, the sensus fidelium, the “consensus of the faithful,” is helpful for understanding what God is revealing to the Church at any given moment in history.”

Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos. Why Be Catholic? Understanding Our Experience and Tradition. Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur.

You have repeatedly misrpresented the article you linked to. It merely said that the organization represented half the clergy in Australia -it didnt say that half the clergy in Australia supported Women Priests. In fact the document issued by the organiaztion was presented as 6 questions to the Vatican on what can be done to increase voactions.The last of these six wasa QUESTION on ordination of women. The document made no premise that the organization was supporting this., more or less half the Priests in Australia.

It would be helfpul, also., if you did some studying of Our faith and learned to disnguish the difference between SETTLLED infallible teaching AND Nihil Obtat ,imprimatur and the working documents of a clergy group.

 

[Brendan]

stanley123:

Would you say that this is a serious situation, when one half of the Catholic clergy in Australia refuse obedience to what the posters here say is an infallibly defined doctrine of the Church? Are all of these Catholic clergy guilty of heresy?
It seems like it is a rather large proportion?

Potentially. As I mentioned in my previous post, at one time 80% of the clergy in Asia Minor were Arian heretics.

Did that make the Divinty of Christ a debateable issue?

At the very least, the priests involved are great danger of the sin of disobedience.

As Lumen Gentium (25) said

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by it,and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church

John Paul clearly did that in O.S.

And what should be made of the Catholic tradition on sensus fidelium?

The Catholic tradition holds that besides the revelation that is to be found in the Bible and the Church’s doctrines, the sensus fidelium, the “consensus of the faithful,” is helpful for understanding what God is revealing to the Church at any given moment in history."]

And what about it?

The sensus fidelium is when the entire Christian faithful, together declare the Truth on a Matter of Faith and morals?

Are you saying that the entire Christian faithful, “from the Bishops to the last of the faithful” has made this declaration? In view of the opposition you are seeing on this board to your position, I would think that Sensus Fidelium clearly doesn’t apply

Here is the relevant text from Lumen Gentium BTW,

1. The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

 

[stanley123]

The confusing thing here is that there are pirests calling for a debate on the subject. Now can this teaching on women priests be changed or not. At first glance it looks like the teaching could not be changed. But the Church seems to be reevaluating its teaching on limbo. Previously, it was held to be true. However, now, it looks like they are set to change the teaching on it?
If they can change the teaching on limbo, then why can they not change the teaching on women priests?
the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
This is de fide according to theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Book, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

“illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originale decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas”

Also, Denzinger 464 states:
" souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

But according to Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith,” he said. “Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.” According to Italian Vatican watchers, the reluctance of theologians to even use the word limbo was clear in the way the Vatican referred in its official statement to the question up for discussion .

source:ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus…29_1975390.html

“The Catholic Church appears set to definitively drop the concept of limbo, the place where it has traditionally said children’s souls go if they die before being baptised .”

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

stanley123:

“The Catholic tradition holds that besides the revelation that is to be found in the Bible and the Church’s doctrines, the sensus fidelium, the “consensus of the faithful,” is helpful for understanding what God is revealing to the Church at any given moment in history.”

Richard Rohr and Joseph Martos. Why Be Catholic? Understanding Our Experience and Tradition. Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur.

The key phrase is “helpful for understanding.” Understanding what? Not what is, or what is not, de fide, a part of the Deposit of the Faith. And to reiterate, IT IS DE FIDE THAT ONLY MEN MAY RECEIVE HOLY ORDERS.

I also note that you bring up the question of limbo. Limbo is not de fide. So, a comparison between this concept, and the attributes of a Sacrament, is rather far fetched.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Brendan]

stanley123:

The confusing thing here is that there are pirests calling for a debate on the subject. Now can this teaching on women priests be changed or not.

It can’t

At first glance it looks like the teaching could not be changed. But the Church seems to be reevaluating its teaching on limbo. Previously, it was held to be true. However, now, it looks like they are set to change the teaching on it?
If they can change the teaching on limbo, then why can they not change the teaching on women priests?
the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”
This is de fide according to theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott in his Book, Fundamentals of Catholic dogma.

“illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel solo originale decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas”

Also, Denzinger 464 states:
" souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

But according to Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith,” he said. “Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.” According to Italian Vatican watchers, the reluctance of theologians to even use the word limbo was clear in the way the Vatican referred in its official statement to the question up for discussion .

source:ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus…29_1975390.html

“The Catholic Church appears set to definitively drop the concept of limbo, the place where it has traditionally said children’s souls go if they die before being baptised .”

First of all, Cardinal Ratzinger was quite correct about Limbo (Limbus Infantum) never being a Church teaching in the first place.

If you look at all the quotes, they clearly discuss the with the effects of Original Sin are going to Hell. That most certainly is a de fide teaching that is not under debate.

The one question that IS being discussed is if those who die without physical Baptism are eligible for the Sacrament of Baptism other ways.

And since that, unlike Women priests, has NOT be ruled on by the Church, it is a legitmate topic for discussion.

We know for certain that the Church has the Authority to despense the Sacrament of Baptism, the question then becomes to what extent does that Authority lie. Likewise, we know with equal certainity, that the Church does NOT have the Authority to Ordain women, so there is no question of the boundries of that Authority.

 

[mlchance]

stanley123:

The confusing thing here is that there are pirests calling for a debate on the subject. Now can this teaching on women priests be changed or not. At first glance it looks like the teaching could not be changed. But the Church seems to be reevaluating its teaching on limbo. Previously, it was held to be true. However, now, it looks like they are set to change the teaching on it?
If they can change the teaching on limbo, then why can they not change the teaching on women priests?
the Church has stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

The quote from the Lyons II has nothing to do with Limbo.

Things are confusing to those who assume more knowledge about matters than they really have. Silence, not frequent questions based on uninformed musings, is the beginning of wisdom.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[stanley123]

People are putting a spin on the teaching of what happens to unbaptised infants, but the news reports indicate that the teaching is about to change;
Previously, it was held de fide according to a Catholic theologian, that if you die with original sin only on your soul, you would go to hell.
Currently, the Church is reevaluating the teaching, so that for example, babies who die due to miscarriage in the womb, there may be some hope that they would not suffer this fate.
Now if the Church changes this teaching, why could they not change the teaching on women priests at some future date?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Disingenuous, stanley.

Limbo may have been a “small-t” tradition for many individual Catholics, even individual bishops or Popes, but it was NEVER a dogma or taught as your so-called “de fide” teaching by the Magesterium.

“Small-t” traditions, or personal devotions, or personal revelations, are NOT the same as inspired and infallible teachings. Read the catechism.

And what is required for sacraments, stanley, do you remember? VALID MATTER is required. That is why one cannot have a Eucharist made of beer and pretzels, or even a yeast bread and a wine cooler, even though the latter is “bread” and “wine” by a supermarket definition.

Holy Orders is a sacrament, correct? The only “valid matter” for the sacrament of Holy orders would be a baptized Catholic male, not a baptized Catholic female. Even though male and female are “equal” in soul, they are not interchangable. Not in this sacrament nor in ANYTHING in life. Male and female are complementary, both of equal WORTH, both of equal SPIRIT, both equally beloved by God. . .who, like any true Father, does NOT treat his children as 'equals" by making sure that each child has exactly the same thing as the other children, and does exactly the same thing as the other children. Any Father, or Mother, with a grain of sense in his/her head knows that each child is different, and to force little Johnny and Mary to wear the same clothing style, eat exactly the same food in the same portions, play the same games, etc. etc. is RIDICULOUS!

 

[Gnosis]

If Christ died in the place of both male and female…it seems that both male and female should be able to represent him on the altar. How could Christ have metaphysically saved the souls of females? How can Christ be “within a female” How can a female “be clothed in Christ” if the two are so incompatible?

I have not heard a legitimate argument yet against female ordination. All I hear is “Its Tradition”, “God gave it us, we don’t have the authority to change it”.

Such tactics are used when no legitimate argument stands, so something we “can not argue with” is invoked ie. God says so (we can’t argue with God)

I think the Church is afraid. Afraid of the power of women. Afraid of even indirectly blurring the lines between male and female. Afraid of change. Afraid of possibly being wrong. Afraid of looking stupid.

 

[masterjedi747]

Gnosis:

I have not heard a legitimate argument yet against female ordination.

“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, 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.” – Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II, 22 May 1999 (Apostolic Letter)

Now you have. And if you’re truly a Catholic, then you just need to get over it. This is infallible, and it’s never ever going to change. So stop trying to argue and start trying to understand.

 

[edward_george]

I have not heard a legitimate argument yet against female ordination. All I hear is “Its Tradition”, “God gave it us, we don’t have the authority to change it”.

If the fact that we don’t have the authority to change something God gave to us as it is is not a legitimate argument, I don’t know what is. We can’t change the will of God.

Such tactics are used when no legitimate argument stands, so something we “can not argue with” is invoked ie. God says so (we can’t argue with God)

No, such “tactics” are used when we can’t argue with the way God decided to do things–i.e. never. God is a King, not a democratically elected president. And he is a King that cannot be dethroned. His Word is law.

I think the Church is afraid

Well, since the gates of hell cannot stand against the Church, we really have nothing to be afraid of. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. Christ is a Holy, Mighty, Immortal God. He’s not afraid of anything.

Afraid of even indirectly blurring the lines between male and female.

How can anyone–the Church, the government, the guy that runs the 7-Eleven–blur the lines between male and female? Men and women are different. Saying this betrays no disrespect for either. There are differences, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

Afraid of change.

Why change the perfect Church? To say that it needs change is to say that it is imperfect. Sure, some practices like what priests wear, whether or not they may be married, etc. may be changed as would be appropriate. However, DOCTRINE DOES NOT CHANGE. As stated numerous times already, a Sacrament requires valid matter. Valid matter for Holy Orders is a Baptised Catholic male. Invalid matter=invalid sacrament. This is doctrine. This cannot be changed.

Afraid of possibly being wrong

Again, the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church. There is never a possibility of being wrong.

Afraid of looking stupid.

Oh yeah…It looks really stupid to hold to the same teachings as given to the Apostles by Jesus, preserved by the infallible Magisterium. Really stupid to do what God wants.

Dominus Iesus, Misererie nobis et totius mundi.

-ACEGC

 

[jegow]

steveandersen:

so there’s always hope

Yeah, hope for what? That people will realize that the Church has spoken. The Church has made a declaration that is does not have the authority to ordain women. It seems not to be just a question of what the Church has spoken on but whether or not people want to understand what it means for the Church to speak authoritatively.