Women priests.... why not?

[LokisMom]

Yes-the infallible doctrine that only men can be Priests.

Can I see it?

 

[LokisMom]

Im sorry guys… I think I expressed myself incorrectly. What Id like to know is, is the no women priest thing a Catholic dogma? (a dogma is something that has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed, right? Thats what I’m meaning to ask.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Can I see it?

The first quote below contains all the requirements for a statement of infallibility (made from the office of Peter (cf. Luke 22), on a matter of faith, for the whole Church to hold). And the following two quotes are from each Pope since, confirming that it was such a dogmatic teaching.
*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. (Pope John Paul II, speaking ex cathedra, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994)

Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. (Pope Benedict XVI, April 5, 2012)

And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : “No.” John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed. (Pope Francis I, July 28, 2013)*

The thing that is important to understand is that a sacrament can only occur if there exists the natural resemblance to the thing signified. Therefore, baptism demands water, because it is the sacrament of cleansing. You can’t baptize with peanut butter and call it valid. Likewise, a marriage requires a man and woman, because it signifies the espousal of Christ and his bride the Church. So too, holy orders demands a male, because he represents the male Incarnate Christ as well as Christ the bridegroom.

 

[CaptFun]

First and foremost, I’m not saying I think women should be priests. I honestly don’t really have an opinion on that either way.

I’m just wondering… is the no women priest thing an infallible Church dogma/doctrine of some sort? below I (CaptFun) highlight the parts of the Apostolic Letter that look to me to most quickly answer your question (with italics, underling and bolding). In RED would be my conclusions (not part of the document, given in answer to your Q as I see it)

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office

That too. IMO the two are not so much an either/or but a this/and.

the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” < may be the summary statement that makes your question(s) clear(?).

Note that the Church herself is referred to as a she … (and HER). Women’s CRITICAL role - and the Blessed Mother

the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”

Thanks to PaulfromIowa for posting the link to this document in his post.

“Male and Female He made them …” from Genesis reveals an equality of dignity in God’s plan that there BE two sexes … but also reveals that there are differences and a mystery in our complementary sexuality. And God given roles … maternity for instance is not available to men.

The idea that women are critical “necessary and irreplaceable” is beautifully put - and puts me in mind of the head and the heart. Both are critical to the life of the body. One is not the other. Without the one the other does not do well either (in the analogy that would be “dies” ).

 

[Tatian]

Did Jesus explicitly say anything about only men being able to be priests and not women? Playing devils advocate here, the fact that it was only men who were apostles who became priests could just be due to practicality… considering the sexist traditions of the time. No one would have listened to a woman.

Sr. Sarah Butler’s book, the one I recommended earlier, charts the history of this teaching. You could look there.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis invokes the ordinary Magisterial teaching on the matter of women and the priesthood. It is the consistent teaching of the Church that women cannot become priests - both JP II and Benedict XVI affirmed that the Church has no authority to change this. I have even met people who teach Theology who did not know the Church had stated her case so clearly on the matter. It has been settled since Christ, taught consistently since Christ, etc.

When one reads the Gospels, one sees that Christ was willing to offend cultural norms which were not right. He consistently spoke against the Pharisees and their cultural norms. He spoke to women, they traveled with Him - He spoke to non-Jews and blessed them, etc. The Gospels record for us that women were the first to see the Risen Lord. Were we to say that Christ did not ordain women in the first century due to “sexism”, we would be implying that Christ Himself was complicit in the sexist structures of the first century. But Christ did not operate like that. It also implies that the Church’s teaching is rooted in sexism - it is not (again, Sr. Sarah Butler’s book here is helpful).

 

[LokisMom]

The first quote below contains all the requirements for a statement of infallibility (made from the office of Peter (cf. Luke 22), on a matter of faith, for the whole Church to hold). And the following two quotes are from each Pope since, confirming that it was such a dogmatic teaching.
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. (Pope John Paul II, speaking ex cathedra, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994)

Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. (Pope Benedict XVI, April 5, 2012)

And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : “No.” John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed. (Pope Francis I, July 28, 2013)

The thing that is important to understand is that a sacrament can only occur if there exists the natural resemblance to the thing signified. Therefore, baptism demands water, because it is the sacrament of cleansing. You can’t baptize with peanut butter and call it valid. Likewise, a marriage requires a man and woman, because it signifies the espousal of Christ and his bride the Church. So too, holy orders demands a male, because he represents the male Incarnate Christ as well as Christ the bridegroom.

Thanks Marco!

Does this mean it is dogma?

 

[shawnbm]

Is there any sort of infalliable church doctrine that states that men only priests is an infalliable teaching.

There are some here better versed in how to explain this and point this out. I think the encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotis is a key document that, within its very body, declares this to be unchangeable doctrine of the Church, through the Holy Father in communion with his brothers in the College of Bishops. There is the extraordinary magisterium that is seen through pronouncement of dogma via the Pope in an ex catedra statement a la the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Mother of our LORD, but there is also the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Holy Teaching Office, which has set forth in writings over time much of what we believe. Indeed, it can be said that the Sacred Scripture’s authenticity and foundational importance to the Church sprouts from the ordinary magisterium. These teachings have been codified through the centuries in the Catechism, our liturgical calendars, our Eucharistic prayers, etc. Does this answer your question?

 

[Brendan]

^But is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis an infallible Church doctrine? She is a Theology professor at a Catholic institution and a very holy woman. So I’m sure shes up on her stuff.

It is infallible under the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Church (see Vatican II - Lumen Gentium #25)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Thanks Marco!

Does this mean it is dogma?

Yes, it is dogmatic that the sacrament of holy orders requires a male.

Let me also point out that females participate in the royal priesthood of all believers imparted at baptism to all believers (see for instance CCC#1268). So females are priests of a sort, but not the ministerial priesthood of holy orders which is centered on the priest acting specifically “in the person of Christ” as part of his ministry, especially when he re-presents Christ’s unique act on the cross as the bridegroom.

 

[LokisMom]

Yes, it is dogmatic that the sacrament of holy orders requires a male.

Let me also point out that females participate in the royal priesthood of all believers imparted at baptism to all believers (see for instance CCC#1268). So females are priests of a sort, but not the ministerial priesthood of holy orders which is centered on the priest acting specifically “in the person of Christ” as part of his ministry.

Thank you!

 

[Havard]

Just a thought, Loki(name removed by moderator), and I’m not saying it necessarily applies to your friend. There are a lot of heterodox/dissenting theologians in Catholic academia. If one’s colleagues are pushing a certain agenda, I imagine that it would be hard to remain unaffected by that bias.

 

[CaptFun]

A few other ideas I had to cut from my post #24 … in case they have value here.

Summary to Loki(name removed by moderator)'s Two Questions: Yes, and Yes (Both/and, not Either/or)

So in my opinion (based on the previous) the answer to your question number ONE (if I understand it correctly) would be a YES. NOT that a Pope made an ex-cathedra pronouncement on the matter - but, perhaps more powerful than THAT - it follows the infallible Christ AND the long tradition of the Holy Spirit led Church (which ushered in many just as radically new “changes” to the traditional Old Covenant Jewish worship - but never priestesses).

Church’s Obedience Is Humble In Concluding It Doesn’t Have Power To Change Some Established Things

It is a humble, obedient position taken by ALL of the Popes who have spoken (unanimously one after the other but with further clarity) that the Church of today (and even they the Popes, holder of Peter’s keys) do not have the power to change what the Lord had ordained, the Holy Spirit confirmed, and the Church throughout the ages had upheld.

This “controversy” is of recent vintage too. There was no record of an early priestess movement, female ordinations, etc. There WERE prominent women of great influence with the Church on earth … and more important than THAT - female SAINTS (a higher rank than priest, Bishop or Pope in a way because these men are still aspiring to BE saints)!

**Loki(name removed by moderator) **

Or is it mostly a tradition thing that we want to keep because our popes so far have all agreed that its best that way?

That too. IMO the two are not so much an either/or but a this/and.

the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” < may be the summary statement that makes your question(s) clear(?).

Note that the Church herself is referred to as a she … (and HER). Women’s CRITICAL role - and the Blessed Mother

the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them

. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, “the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church.”

Thanks to PaulfromIowa for posting the link to this document in his post.

“Male and Female He made them …” from Genesis reveals an equality of dignity in God’s plan that there BE two sexes … but also reveals that there are differences and a mystery in our complementary sexuality. And God given roles … maternity for instance is not available to men.

The idea that women are critical “necessary and irreplaceable” is beautifully put - and puts me in mind of the head and the heart. Both are critical to the life of the body. One is not the other. Without the one the other does not do well either (in the analogy that would be “dies” ).

As far as the “priesthood of all believers” and we, the Church being a “nation of priests” we lay persons who are NOT Bishop’s assistants nor empowered to do certain sacramental things DO offer our sacrifice(s) to the Lord. Being obedient to the Mother that Christ Himself put in charge over us can be a sacrifice of sorts. But not like the sacrifice HE made.

The Controversy - Is it of Holy Origin, Inspired? Or Prideful And An Attack Upon Her

A great deal of this controversy is a political attack against the Church from those who don’t like her. And a spiritual one by the Church’s eternal enemy who will appeal to our pride against humble obedience, anger against holy patience, envy against joyful generosity, and in general tempting us to rebellion and disdain against the Church rather than doing our part to build HER up. - In my opinion. :angel1:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There are countless TRUTHS that are not, and need not be taught “Infallibly”

For instance,
No pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra of the existence of God.
Direct scriptural revelations by Jesus Christ have never received the “stamp” of Infallibility.
In fact the first dogmatic definition (Infallible teaching), the Immaculate Conception, was not really necessary. There had been no public descent about the belief. Catholics accepted it from early teaching.

When teaching only about FAITH AND MORALS…and the pope says: “we declare and define that…" he is speaking Infallibly.

The pope and/or the bishops (In union) will not speak Infallibly about the color a church must be painted nor about nuns not wearing habits. Most things do not need Infallible teachings.

Since Jesus chose only men as his apostles, that should be evidence enough that it was His will and an Infallible definition is really not necessary.

 

[LokisMom]

Hmm now I’m confused again after reading someone else’s post that I missed earlier. Is it actually stated as being Catholic dogma that only men can be priests? Or is that open to being opinion on whether or not it is dogma?

As for Jesus’s disciples only being men, Ive already wrote about why I dont see that as a convincing reason. :-/

 

[Tatian]

Hmm now I’m confused again after reading someone else’s post that I missed earlier. Is it actually stated as being Catholic dogma that only men can be priests? Or is that open to being opinion on whether or not it is dogma?

As for Jesus’s disciples only being men, Ive already wrote about why I dont see that as a convincing reason. :-/

Yes, it is dogma. No, it’s not open to opinion. We can certainly discuss why it is so, but there’s nothing the Church can ever do to change this.

Did you see where I responded to the argument from sexism?

 

[LokisMom]

Yes, it is dogma. No, it’s not open to opinion. We can certainly discuss why it is so, but there’s nothing the Church can ever do to change this.

Did you see where I responded to the argument from sexism?

I didnt mean to say that Jesus was sexist. Just that the culture was sexist, and people would have been a lot less likely to listen to a woman during the times when evangelization was most important.

Not saying that this was the reason why there were no women apostles, just saying that it could be a possible way of interpreting the fact that there were no women apostles.

I’m researching on google and there seems to be some debate on whether or not it actually is dogma… so Im a little confussed. Isnt something either dogma or its not??

 

[Tatian]

I didnt mean to say that Jesus was sexist. Just that the culture was sexist, and people would have been a lot less likely to listen to a woman during the times when evangelization was most important.

Not saying that this was the reason why there were no women apostles, just saying that it could be a possible way of interpreting the fact that there were no women apostles.

I’m researching on google and there seems to be some debate on whether or not it actually is dogma… so Im a little confussed. Isnt something either dogma or its not??

Yes, something is either dogmatic or no. In this instance, it is. The “debate” typically circles around people trying to downplay the significance of the constant teaching of the Church, the ordinary Magisterium (understanding ‘dogma’ only in the sense of things spoken ex cathedra - which is wrong), etc. JP II was explicit. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, when prefect of the CDF, also said it was dogmatic/infallible.

I didn’t say you said Jesus is sexist. However, you’re making Him complicit in sexism. Why would He be willing to upset all of these other cultural norms, but not this one? Where would anyone get the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was interested in upholding cultural norms which were not in line with the Gospel?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I didnt mean to say that Jesus was sexist. Just that the culture was sexist, and people would have been a lot less likely to listen to a woman during the times when evangelization was most important.

Not saying that this was the reason why there were no women apostles, just saying that it could be a possible way of interpreting the fact that there were no women apostles.

I’m researching on google and there seems to be some debate on whether or not it actually is dogma… so Im a little confussed. Isnt something either dogma or its not??

Sounds to me like you are implying that Jesus made a mistake by NOT including women…??

 

[LokisMom]

Yes, something is either dogmatic or no. In this instance, it is. The “debate” typically circles around people trying to downplay the significance of the constant teaching of the Church, the ordinary Magisterium (understanding ‘dogma’ only in the sense of things spoken ex cathedra - which is wrong), etc. JP II was explicit. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, when prefect of the CDF, also said it was dogmatic/infallible.

Ok, thanks!

I didn’t say you said Jesus is sexist. However, you’re making Him complicit in sexism. Why would He be willing to upset all of these other cultural norms, but not this one? Where would anyone get the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was interested in upholding cultural norms which were not in line with the Gospel?

It could just have been a matter of practicality… not Him trying to make a statement either way. The main priority was to get The Word out there.

Again, Im not saying this was the reason. Just saying why I dont think it makes for a convincing argument for those who dont agree with men only priests.

 

[estesbob]

As for Jesus’s disciples only being men, Ive already wrote about why I dont see that as a convincing reason. :-/

So you think the Son of God would have been influenced by the culture he chose to be born into?