Women Priests

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, it is. The idea that the role of the laity is to just “pay, pray, and obey” went out with Vatican II. Hence the newfound importance of explaining Catholic doctrines and not just promulgating them.

The idea that the Catholic hierarchy can do whatever they want and are not accountable to the rest of the Church is what lead to the abuse scandals. (See all the other threads about this so as not to derail this thread.)

That an idea ‘went out’ does not mean that it was right to do so,

And coupling obedience to the idea that obedience was directly responsible for various abuses is ludicrous. It is not the obedience of people which leads other people to abuses. And since for the last 40 years we’ve had ‘abuses’, one could almost say that it is the LACK of obedience in many of the people which led or influenced the hierarchy to ALSO LACK OBEDIENCE. Because in all the abuses, they were done by people NOT BEING OBEDIENT to authentic Church teachings. . .even the clergy were disobeying the Church, not ‘obeying’ it.

 

[joandarc2008]

That an idea ‘went out’ does not mean that it was right to do so,

And coupling obedience to the idea that obedience was directly responsible for various abuses is ludicrous. It is not the obedience of people which leads other people to abuses. And since for the last 40 years we’ve had ‘abuses’, one could almost say that it is the LACK of obedience in many of the people which led or influenced the hierarchy to ALSO LACK OBEDIENCE. Because in all the abuses, they were done by people NOT BEING OBEDIENT to authentic Church teachings. . .even the clergy were disobeying the Church, not ‘obeying’ it.

Let me say this - I am not for ordaining women. Now, that being said - I do find value in apologetics as I find when one just blindly obeys everything there is not as much joy as when one understands at least some to most of what one is obeying. It is the difference between taking a five year old and a well-formed sixteen-yearl old to mass. Notice I said well formed. It is just that we must find moderation in this. The best use of free will is when we form our will to match the will of God for us.

 

[EasterJoy]

Originally posted by EasterJoy

The attitude that obedience is no longer in the job description of a Christian has caused plenty of its own scandals, too, not to mention countless abuses of the Holy Mass, denigration of the Sacraments, and splinterings of Christian sects away from the Church. Christendom’s lack of unity and the widespread sense that the faithful are entitled to sow strife whenever they don’t like what direction things are going is a scandal, too, probably the oldest and most stubborn scandal the Church has had to endure.

Europe and many other places were bathed in blood in service to that attitude. I wouldn’t be too quick to glorify it.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let me say this - I am not for ordaining women. Now, that being said - I do find value in apologetics as I find when one just blindly obeys everything there is not as much joy as when one understands at least some to most of what one is obeying. It is the difference between taking a five year old and a well-formed sixteen-yearl old to mass. Notice I said well formed. It is just that we must find moderation in this. The best use of free will is when we form our will to match the will of God for us.

Our Lady sought to understand the angel’s message concerning God’s will for her. She was prudent and in every way praiseworthy.

Zechariah and Sarah and Thomas withheld belief until they got the evidence they asked for. That is a different kettle of fish.

You will not find a Christian sect outside the Church with deeper explanations of why things are done the way they are. The Church does not just say “because I said so.” She does teach with explanations.

With regards to a celibate priesthood, some of those explanations have been posted here. When those explanations are met with an attitude that says, “Sorry, I’m not signing on until you come up with something more convincing”, though, that is not a desire to understand. That is a desire to be the ultimate authority for onesself, in effect to refuse to let anyone else have that authority. The heirarchy become, not shepherds, but people to go to for an opinion. That is not ever going to result in Christian unity. Never. I’m sorry, but unless I am totally missing the point being made, that is not a praiseworthy attitude.

 

[Bluegoat]

Our Lady sought to understand the angel’s message concerning God’s will for her. She was prudent and in every way praiseworthy.

Zechariah and Sarah and Thomas withheld belief until they got the evidence they asked for. That is a different kettle of fish.

You will not find a Christian sect outside the Church with deeper explanations of why things are done the way they are. The Church does not just say “because I said so.” She does teach with explanations.

With regards to a celibate priesthood, some of those explanations have been posted here. When those explanations are met with an attitude that says, “Sorry, I’m not signing on until you come up with something more convincing”, though, that is not a desire to understand. That is a desire to be the ultimate authority for onesself, in effect to refuse to let anyone else have that authority. The heirarchy become, not shepherds, but people to go to for an opinion. That is not ever going to result in Christian unity. Never. I’m sorry, but unless I am totally missing the point being made, that is not a praiseworthy attitude.

There is a difference though, between accepting the explanation of an authority you recognize, and one you are not sure of, or no nothing about. In the latter cases, discovering if the authorities claims are credible will involve judgement. Unfortunately, there is more than one viewpoint that is credible too, so that it isn’t an easy task to decide who to give your trust to.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is a difference though, between accepting the explanation of an authority you recognize, and one you are not sure of, or no nothing about. In the latter cases, discovering if the authorities claims are credible will involve judgement. Unfortunately, there is more than one viewpoint that is credible too, so that it isn’t an easy task to decide who to give your trust to.

We’re talking about whether or not the Pope and the college of bishops have the perogative to discern whether or not women are valid matter for the ministerial priesthood.

If you don’t recognize them as legitimately having that authority, then I don’t think it matters what kind of explanations they have for exercising it. Sooner or later, they will do something you don’t like, and no explanation in the world will make you like it. I think we are in precisely that situation now. We have women who think it their perogative to demand ordination to the ministerial priesthood.

It comes down to who has the authority to authoritatively discern that. The heirarchy has it. The laity does not. Obedience may be hard, but deciding who to believe is not.

OTOH, if you simply mean deciding who on CAF is really telling you what the Church teaches and who just has a keyboard and an opinion, then yes, you’re absolutely right!!

 

[Brendan]

Actually, it is. The idea that the role of the laity is to just “pay, pray, and obey” went out with Vatican II. )

Perhaps you haven’t actually READ the documents. Lumen Gentium 25 is very clear on the teaching authority of the Church, particularly of the Holy See.

Can you point out exactly where in Vatican II it says that the laity have a right to challenge the Church’s teaching authority on matters of Faith and Morals?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Can you point out exactly where in Vatican II it says that the laity have a right to challenge the Church’s teaching authority on matters of Faith and Morals?

Do you honestly not see the difference between “challenging a Church teaching” versus asking for an explanation of that teaching that actually makes sense? If so, I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already have.

 

[Brendan]

Do you honestly not see the difference between “challenging a Church teaching” versus asking for an explanation of that teaching that actually makes sense? If so, I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already have.

You can ask for an explaination, no one is objecting to that. But then if you then follow up with making claims that the explaination was inadequate, then there is a problem.

And the greatest problem would occur if one uses a lack of understanding to justify disobedience.

After all Vatican II had this to say

Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself

Lumen Gentium 25

So really, if one follows Vatican II, all the Holy See has to explain is that a particular moral doctrine ( such as the intrinsically evil nature of artifical contraception) is part of the revealed teachings handed to the Church, either written or as part of the Apostolic Tradition.

That is all the explaination of doctrine that is required by Vatican II.

 

[wisdomseeker]

**uote:
Originally Posted by Just Lurking
Actually, it is. The idea that the role of the laity is to just “pay, pray, and obey” went out with Vatican II. ) **

this is the group who believes and teach such a thing. they are hardly Catholics.

youtube.com:80/watch?v=9b1dhLg2a1E

 

[Just_Lurking]

But then if you then follow up with making claims that the explaination was inadequate, then there is a problem.

I notice you haven’t qualified this statement at all. I can agree that if the explanation was adequate, then still asking for more is a problem. But what if the explanation provided was in fact inadequate? Or do you think the documents of Vatican II preclude the possibility of the Catholic hierarchy ever providing an inadequate explanation?

And the greatest problem would occur if one uses a lack of understanding to justify disobedience.

Agreed.

That is all the explaination of doctrine that is required by Vatican II.

The question isn’t whether the Catholic hierarchy are required to provide an explanation. The question is whether the Catholic laity are entitled to ask for one.

 

[Bluegoat]

We’re talking about whether or not the Pope and the college of bishops have the perogative to discern whether or not women are valid matter for the ministerial priesthood.

If you don’t recognize them as legitimately having that authority, then I don’t think it matters what kind of explanations they have for exercising it. Sooner or later, they will do something you don’t like, and no explanation in the world will make you like it. I think we are in precisely that situation now. We have women who think it their perogative to demand ordination to the ministerial priesthood.

It comes down to who has the authority to authoritatively discern that. The heirarchy has it. The laity does not. Obedience may be hard, but deciding who to believe is not.

OTOH, if you simply mean deciding who on CAF is really telling you what the Church teaches and who just has a keyboard and an opinion, then yes, you’re absolutely right!!

Well, the person might be someone, for example, who wants to assess whether Catholicism makes sense because he is considering converting. I don’t think it is very sensible to simply say they must accept it on authority or to provide no attempt at an explanation.

Or the explanation might be adequate in a general sense, but still obscure to the person asking. By defining his objections he might get an explanation that makes more sense to him, either by including more, or coming at it from another angle.

And as you suggest, CAF answers are not actually always correct. I’ve seen answers given that were simply wrong, and then those who object be reprimanded for not being obedient.

 

[Just_Lurking]

And as you suggest, CAF answers are not actually always correct. I’ve seen answers given that were simply wrong, and then those who object be reprimanded for not being obedient.

I think the “women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders” nonsense is a perfect example of this.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the “women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders” nonsense is a perfect example of this.

So then do you hold to the idea, that some do in our society, that men and women are identical and whole equal in every way?

 

[Bluegoat]

So then do you hold to the idea, that some do in our society, that men and women are identical and whole equal in every way?

I think his point was that he doesn’t feel it is an accurate description of Catholic teaching on the matter.

I can say that the CC doesn’t allow women to be priests because they are not rational and are too emotional, but that would be incorrect.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I think his point was that he doesn’t feel it is an accurate description of Catholic teaching on the matter.

Exactly. Thanks!

I stand by my statement: Anyone who thinks that the recipient of Holy Orders is the “matter” of the sacrament is so misinformed as to be completely unreliable as a source of information or explanation of Catholic Church teaching.

I can say that the CC doesn’t allow women to be priests because they are not rational and are too emotional, but that would be incorrect.

Another good one I’ve seen is that women just can’t keep secrets, so they wouldn’t be able to maintain the seal of the confessional.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think the “women are invalid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders” nonsense is a perfect example of this.

It is a pretty good example, actually…that is, we can quibble all we like over the question of whether the recipient of the sacrament may be correctly described as “matter” or is more correctly described in different words. It’s a valid objection to make, of course it is important to give good explanations that don’t spread misinformation. In many cases, though, whether the explanation is correct or not won’t change the situation. The analogy of valid matter still applies as a way to explain:

You may think that rice and orange juice being invalid matter for Eucharist is nonsense, too, and all I can do is explain why only wheat and grape wine are valid. I don’t know what else to tell you. If you want to think I have some irrational cultural bias against rice or oranges, there isn’t much I can do about it. The Church is certainly not going to start pretending to consecrate orange juice and rice cakes because you don’t like how the Church explains the situation. You may think it nonsense that a person can’t be baptised without getting wet, that the Church holds that marriage is for life, or that a baptised Catholic can’t self-administer the Sacraments. There are many possible examples where the Church has discerned a particular way to administer the sacraments and particular boundaries concerning who may receive them, situations where you think that discernment is hogwash. Your thinking the explanations hogwash doesn’t make them that, except in your own mind.

My experience has been that there gets to be a point where I need to recognize that what the person I’m talking to wants is not an explanation, but a change in how the Church does things. In that case, there isn’t much to be gained by explaining the same thing over and over and over. It is like talking to a wall. There are converts like that, too. They don’t want to convert to Catholicism. They want Catholicism to convert to them, just like department stores and the rules of sports and everything else in the secular world that bends to suit the consumers.

Just Lurking, I could be wrong, but I don’t think you want to know why the Church holds that it is impossible to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood. I think you want the Church to change. If that is the case, there isn’t much more to say. If your mind is made up that you are right and the Church is wrong, then all the explanations in the world won’t make a bit of difference.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is a pretty good example, actually…that is, we can quibble all we like over the question of whether the recipient of the sacrament may be correctly described as “matter” or is more correctly described in different words.

Pope Pius XII, in an Apostolic Constitution (the highest form of papal proclamation in modern times), declared, decreed, and provided that the matter, and the only matter, of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the imposition of hands of the ordaining bishop, settling something that had been a theological controversy for over a millennium.

Why is that you have no trouble “quibbling” with Pius XII’s teaching, yet you take great offense at those who “quibble” with Pope John Paul II’s teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which as an Apostolic Letter is actually a lower form of papal proclamation?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Exactly. Thanks!

I stand by my statement: Anyone who thinks that the recipient of Holy Orders is the “matter” of the sacrament is so misinformed as to be completely unreliable as a source of information or explanation of Catholic Church teaching.

Another good one I’ve seen is that women just can’t keep secrets, so they wouldn’t be able to maintain the seal of the confessional.

That would be me, you are just SO kind as a human being. It’s not like I made it up or came up with the idea on my own. Others, more learned that I, have said the same thing. I’ve posted various links that say the same thing. I know, I know, you’re just so smart and I’m so dumb…but honestly, you dismiss something out of hand because you don’t like it. I’m a flawed individual as are you.

I read the papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM
and from my understanding it’s purpose is clearing up whether other rites have to change how they ordain. It’s interesting to note this passage at the beginning:

<<For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.>>

I think it is assumed that the person being ordained is MALE, because the person MUST be a Baptised Male according to the Church–there would be no need to include this in the instruction as maleness is the “substance” of the sacrament–so perhaps the word “matter” is the wrong word, or perhaps the translation of this document is a bit off, I don’t know.

So, you can continue to call names, dismiss arguements you don’t like, that’s fine by me, because it doesn’t make you right. I have the Church on my side. A Male Only Priesthood, promulgated by Christ himself. It doesn’t make me, a woman, any less valuable or important to the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

That would be me, you are just SO kind as a human being. It’s not like I made it up or came up with the idea on my own. Others, more learned that I, have said the same thing. I’ve posted various links that say the same thing. I know, I know, you’re just so smart and I’m so dumb…but honestly, you dismiss something out of hand because you don’t like it. I’m a flawed individual as are you.

I apologize if I’ve offended you. Ignorance is not permanent, and I trust you will continue to learn throughout your life, just as I need to.

Since everyone here seems so keen on debating my motives instead of the issues at hand, let me address that. I’m not Catholic, and I don’t care who the Catholic Church decides to ordain. My wife is Catholic, but she doesn’t want to be a priest (or priestess?), so that isn’t an issue either. I have read and admired a lot of Catholic theologians, and I find it distressing that their many contributions are being dismissed (if not treated as dissent) in this forum by people who think the reasons behind why women can’t become priests are trivial and settled. Especially when those people don’t even understand the basic importance of using physical objects in the material universe to make visible and tangible the invisible grace of God. (I.e., the “matter” of the sacraments.)