Women Priests?

[bilop]

It’s no surprise to me we’re having this debate. Our society is so confused on sexual identity that it can’t even clearly see what fatherhood and motherhood are.

To me, the debate on female ordination is a symptom of a much larger problem: a lack of understanding of what male and female really ARE.

May the Holy Spirit inspire our nation and lead us to the truth.

Not just a lack of understanding; in many precincts, there is an active denial of the inherent differences between man and woman. Not to mention, an active distaste for many aspects of maleness and femaleness that are inconvenient in a post-modern society, e.g. the natural rowdiness of young boys, the desire of women to care for their young children, the desire of males to be the main provider in their families, etc.

God Bless

 

[smichhertz]

Not just a lack of understanding; in many precincts, there is an active denial of the inherent differences between man and woman.

Very true. Many people become attached to a faulty idea and then become defiant in defending it. However, it always starts with a lack of understanding.

 

[adrift]

That teaching that is touted so widely today has not been proclaimed from the Chair of Peter (Ex Cathedra). The all male priesthood is based solely on tradition, and northing more. It is not an infallible dogma of the Church.

The mistake you are making is that the only infallible dogma is taught Ex cathedra. That would mean that all that is taught about Jesus is not infallible which of course is untrue. It is debated if priestesses not being allowed is infallible. Considering the way it was stated it does meet the criteria of an infallible statement even so the fact that it has been taught from the beginning is also gives credibility of it being infallible.

It must be remembered that the sacraments began in the old testament and fulfilled in the new. The priesthood started with Aaron. His sister was a prime candidate according to our worldly view, and yet God did not make her a priestess. He established a male priesthood. As it has been pointed out already, priestesses would not have been abnormal to the culture. To say that it is cultural is to say that God is powerless. If God had wanted priestesses Marion would have been made one. Jesus would have had a female apostle. Jesus went against established culture other times it is unreasonable to say this time He didn’t.

 

[zz912]

Yes, but these were ritual functions, not leadership functions. Or can you give me evidence to the contrary?

It was commonly accepted in the culture that women could not exercise positions of authority because they were less rational than men. This is the reason consistently given by Christians until very recent times for why women should not be ordained.

How do you know this? They certainly had more restricted functions. But do we actually have primary sources that clearly distinguish between “ordained” and “non-ordained” versions of the diaconal office in this way? This seems just as strained to me as the claims on the other side that there used to be female priests (in the Catholic/Orthodox Church–we all know that there were female priests in heretical churches).

Edwin

Moving the goalposts I see. First it was claimed there were no priestesses. And now that it has been shown that is false, now it is that there was no authority for women.

I remember reading on a thread on this topic, and some of our Orthodox brethren knocked down this argument pretty thoroughly. And the claim is being made by you that they were ordained, it is for you to prove they were ordained.

 

[zz912]

1. God’s word is unchanging, but every word that came from Paul’s mouth was not the word of God.
2. Paul fully accepted the institution of slavery. That institution is no more.
3. He told women to be subject to their husbands. Today, Christianity looks on a marriage as an union of equals. There is no subjection involved, or shouldn’t be.
4. Paul said a number of things that sound narrow minded today to our present era. However, they were the morays of the time, and not the Word of God.

1. This is heresy. Plain and simple. The letters and writings of Paul that have been declared by the Church to be Scripture ARE the word of God. It is telling that your personal beliefs eventually force you to deny even the most basic tenets of the faith. Maybe you should re-examine your personal beliefs and consider accepting the truth of the Christian faith instead?
2. No he didn’t. He merely tolerated it. Read the letter to Philemon. He views on slavery come through. As the Christians were a minority sect at the time of writing, Paul wrote what he did to limit harm, and to set a good example to win over converts. He wasn’t focused on overturning slavery b/c he simply had no power to do so. He fought his own battles against it, and trusted God would handle the larger battle in His time. It wasn’t for another 3 centuries until Christians were even legally allowed to openly celebrate the faith and live peacefully.
3. You are sorely mistaken on this teaching. It hasn’t changed. Our delicate and dainty sensibilities are aghast at the thought of ever being subject to another person, so it has been tempered down, but it should be. Wives SHOULD be subject to their husbands, just as husbands SHOULD love their wives as their own bodies, and to devote and sacrifice themselves for their wives, just as Christ gave His life for the Church.
4. Only sounds narrow-minded to those who are too wrapped up in today’s culture and world. Once you understand what Paul is actually saying, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Moonbug]

It’s happened to me, too.

It’s from his essay OF TRUTH:

“Again men have been kept back as by a kind of enchantment from progress in the sciences, by reverence for antiquity, by the authority of men accounted great in philosophy, and then by general consent. And with regard to authority it shows a feeble mind to grant so much to authors, and yet deny Time his rights, who is the author of authors, nay, rather of all authority. For rightly is truth called the daughter of time.”

Progress in the sciences, reverence for antiquity, great in philosophy, general consent.

Does that sound like what Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is concerned with, or based on, to you?

GKC

Blimey! I think you have it. Let’s mull this over. The Jesuit manual “SACRE THEOLOGIAE SUMMA” perhaps can shed light on this: “When the Pope defines EX CATHEDRA a doctrine concerning ‘Faith and Morals,’ he enjoys that infallibility with which our Lord willed the Church to be endowed.” Please note the words, “CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS.” It means he can speak without error ONLY on faith and morals and nothing more. Whether women can be priests or not in no way can be classified as a subject concerning “Faith or Morals.” It is concerned with house keeping, the way we do business. What we have here with ORDINATIO ACERDOTALIS is an acute case of misogyny

The Pope also teaches with authentic magisterium (teaching authority) that is NOT INFALLIBLE. Examples of such teachings are the encyclical letters of the Pope, and decrees issued by the Holy See in FORMA SPECIFICA. I think “Ordinatio Acerdotalis” wiould fit snugly in this pigeon hole.

Decrees of the Holy See that are issued “IN FORMA SPECIFICA” are those that are expressly published as the Supreme Pontiff’s on decrees. They are inferior to “Cathedra” statements, but as part of the authentic magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff they do not require the assent of faith but they do demand our religious submission of mind and will. LUMEN GENTIUM n.25 affirms this. :tiphat:

 

[bilop]

Very true. Many people become attached to a faulty idea and then become defiant in defending it. However, it always starts with a lack of understanding.

Lack of understanding, or evil. Lucifer and the rebellious understood perfectly, yet defied God anyway. They weren’t ignorant, they were evil.

Most of the people promoting these things are simply ignorant, but some, often the leaders, are simply malicious. They understand the truth, but hate it so much, they defy it anyway.

God Bless

 

[Moonbug]

It’s happened to me, too.

It’s from his essay OF TRUTH:

“Again men have been kept back as by a kind of enchantment from progress in the sciences, by reverence for antiquity, by the authority of men accounted great in philosophy, and then by general consent. And with regard to authority it shows a feeble mind to grant so much to authors, and yet deny Time his rights, who is the author of authors, nay, rather of all authority. For rightly is truth called the daughter of time.”

Progress in the sciences, reverence for antiquity, great in philosophy, general consent.

Does that sound like what Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is concerned with, or based on, to you?

GKC

 

[shelby_sun]

Blimey! I think you have it. Let’s mull this over. The Jesuit manual “SACRE THEOLOGIAE SUMMA” perhaps can shed light on this: “When the Pope defines EX CATHEDRA a doctrine concerning ‘Faith and Morals,’ he enjoys that infallibility with which our Lord willed the Church to be endowed.” Please note the words, “CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS.” It means he can speak without error ONLY on faith and morals and nothing more. Whether women can be priests or not in no way can be classified as a subject concerning “Faith or Morals.” It is concerned with house keeping, the way we do business. What we have here with ORDINATIO ACERDOTALIS is an acute case of misogyny

The Pope also teaches with authentic magisterium (teaching authority) that is NOT INFALLIBLE. Examples of such teachings are the encyclical letters of the Pope, and decrees issued by the Holy See in FORMA SPECIFICA. I think “Ordinatio Acerdotalis” wiould fit snugly in this pigeon hole.

Decrees of the Holy See that are issued “IN FORMA SPECIFICA” are those that are expressly published as the Supreme Pontiff’s on decrees. They are inferior to “Cathedra” statements, but as part of the authentic magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff they do not require the assent of faith but they do demand our religious submission of mind and will. LUMEN GENTIUM n.25 affirms this. :tiphat:

Really, why do not more people know this?

 

[adrift]

Blimey! I think you have it. Let’s mull this over. The Jesuit manual “SACRE THEOLOGIAE SUMMA” perhaps can shed light on this: “When the Pope defines EX CATHEDRA a doctrine concerning ‘Faith and Morals,’ he enjoys that infallibility with which our Lord willed the Church to be endowed.” Please note the words, “CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS.” It means he can speak without error ONLY on faith and morals and nothing more. Whether women can be priests or not in no way can be classified as a subject concerning “Faith or Morals.” It is concerned with house keeping, the way we do business. What we have here with ORDINATIO ACERDOTALIS is an acute case of misogyny:

So the priesthood is only how we do business

The sacraments are only how we do business.

It is certainly Faith not business. Housekeeping indeed.

 

[benjohnson]

I am sorry, Moonbug. But your catechesis was quite abysmal. Almost everything you say about the Catholic faith is tainted by error.

Moonbug, I sort of have to concur in PR’s assessment.

I’ve learned that to debate Catholics, I can’t just pick the weakest of un catechized Catholic as my opponent - In order to be intellectually honest, I have to pick the best example of Catholic thought and training that I can find.

I would say that your personal ideas are not the teaching of the Catholic church.

The Catholic (like my church) church is a top-down organization - it starts with Jesus Christ and goes down from there. Intellectually, you can’t pick an idea from the weeds and mix and match with whatever strikes your fancy to make your own religion in a Catholic image.

If I had any advice, I’d sit in on an RCIA class and read the CCC from cover to cover. You’ll be washed with the Gospel.

As a Lutheran, I’ve read the CCC from cover to cover twice - it’s good teaching (not perfect, as I would be Catholic).

 

[englishredrose]

Go back to the days when no one saw what was happening on the Altar because it was so protected etc, rood screens etc. Priests wear gowns so we do not really identify who they are. Now if we went back to those times sadly you know she is female via her voice, but if there was a general mix on the Altar you wouldn’t know who carried out what at what time would you …

 

[Moonbug]

Scholars are greatly revered in Catholicism of course.

What would be beneficial is for you to acknowledge when you are proclaiming your opinion, scholarly or otherwise, that has divorced itself from the Catholic faith.

At the moment, you are proclaiming, “Thus says the Church” when you actually mean, “Thus says Moonbug (or some putative scholars who thus far are unnamed).”

That is an egregious error, and one that needs to be rebuked.

Let me drop some names on you who are in agreement with me:
Karl Rahner, S.J.
Han Kung’
Richard McBrien
Robert Karris
Garry Willis
Jason Berry
John O’Malley, S.J.
Cullen Murphy
James Carroll
Mark Massa, S.J.
Colleen McDonnell
Donald Cozzens
Thomas Groom
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Bokenkotter
Peter Steinfels
Charles Curran

More than half of these people are priests in good standing with the Church. The laymen on the list are noted Catholic scholars. Google their names. check them out.

 

[bilop]

Blimey! I think you have it. Let’s mull this over. The Jesuit manual “SACRE THEOLOGIAE SUMMA” perhaps can shed light on this: “When the Pope defines EX CATHEDRA a doctrine concerning ‘Faith and Morals,’ he enjoys that infallibility with which our Lord willed the Church to be endowed.” Please note the words, “CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS.” It means he can speak without error ONLY on faith and morals and nothing more. Whether women can be priests or not in no way can be classified as a subject concerning “Faith or Morals.” It is concerned with house keeping, the way we do business. What we have here with ORDINATIO ACERDOTALIS is an acute case of misogyny

The Pope also teaches with authentic magisterium (teaching authority) that is NOT INFALLIBLE. Examples of such teachings are the encyclical letters of the Pope, and decrees issued by the Holy See in FORMA SPECIFICA. I think “Ordinatio Acerdotalis” wiould fit snugly in this pigeon hole.

Decrees of the Holy See that are issued “IN FORMA SPECIFICA” are those that are expressly published as the Supreme Pontiff’s on decrees. They are inferior to “Cathedra” statements, but as part of the authentic magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff they do not require the assent of faith but they do demand our religious submission of mind and will. LUMEN GENTIUM n.25 affirms this. :tiphat:

Incorrect. Who can be a priest is certainly a matter of Faith, as Christ established the Priesthood to deliver the Sacraments that are the ordinary means of Salvation. Whether a priest legitimately confects the Eucharist is core to our Faith.

Second, when a Pope or bishop teaches, on faith and morals, what the Church has always taught, he exercises the ordinary magisterium, which is every bit as infallible as an “Ex Cathedra” declaration.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Let me drop some names on you who are in agreement with me:
Karl Rahner
Han Kung’
Richard McBrien
Robert Karris
Garry Willis
Jason Berry
John O’Malley, S.J.
Cullen Murphy
James Carroll
Mark Massa, S.J.
Colleen McDonnell
Donald Cozzens
Thomas Groom
Thomas Doyle
Thomas Bokenkotter
Peter Steinfels
Charles Curran

More than half of these people are priests in good standing with the Church. The laymen on the list are noted Catholic scholars. Google their names. check them out.

Your list is chock full of dissenters. If Kung or McBrien or Curran told me it was a sunny day, I’d wear a rain coat and carry an umbrella. Kung is openly contemplating suicide, for Pete’s sake.

Instead why wouldn’t you listen to Bl. John Paul II, teaching infallibly, with the ordinary magisterium, what every Pope has taught since Peter.

God Bless

 

[Moonbug]

So the priesthood is only how we do business

The sacraments are only how we do business.

It is certainly Faith not business. Housekeeping indeed.

Oh, Toot !! Think I’m getting to the point where I need a vacation. Wonder how the air fares to Cancun are these days? :bigyikes::bigyikes:

 

[Moonbug]

Incorrect. Who can be a priest is certainly a matter of Faith, as Christ established the Priesthood to deliver the Sacraments that are the ordinary means of Salvation. Whether a priest legitimately confects the Eucharist is core to our Faith.

Second, when a Pope or bishop teaches, on faith and morals, what the Church has always taught, he exercises the ordinary magisterium, which is every bit as infallible as an “Ex Cathedra” declaration.

God Bless

It just ain’t so !!!

!

 

[Moonbug]

Your list is chock full of dissenters. If Kung or McBrien or Curran told me it was a sunny day, I’d wear a rain coat and carry an umbrella. Kung is openly contemplating suicide, for Pete’s sake.

Instead why wouldn’t you listen to Bl. John Paul II, teaching infallibly, with the ordinary magisterium, what every Pope has taught since Peter.

God Bless

Father Kung is a very sick man and has been for the past year. Have a little mercy on the poor man. In his prime he was a noted theologian respected by the entire Catholic world. You should pray for his soul. You may be in his shoes some day. :heaven:

 

[adrift]

Father Kung is a very sick man and has been for the past year. Have a little mercy on the poor man. In his prime he was a noted theologian respected by the entire Catholic world. You should pray for his soul. You may be in his shoes some day. :heaven:

Respected is that why the Vatican rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology?

We should pray that God has mercy on him.

 

[adrift]

It just ain’t so !!!

!

Because you say it isn’t?