women priests

[Ender]

If the Church has been empowered to interpret Scripture (because I am not aware of a passage in which Jesus actually forbids women from any priesthood), She is far from powerless, and this is the key to the controversy, I think. Whatever is believed about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, there will always be people who interpret the Scriptures differently - both outside and within Catholicism. There will remain those who hope for a closed door to open again.

This is not merely a matter of interpreting - and reinterpreting - Scripture until we arrive at the desired conclusion. The Catholic church, as distinct from Protestant denominations, has never relied solely on scripture. Rather, she teaches that “sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” (Dei Verbum #10)
In regard to the question of the ordination of women, JPII resolved it by officially declaring 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.*
The key point here is not that JPII declared it infallibly, but that he declared that it was infallible because of its nature; it is an infallible teaching, not an infallible proclamation. At this point there are only two options for Catholics: accept this teaching and move on, or reject the teaching…and effectively reject the basis on which she claims she is the church established by Christ. It is irrational to reject this teaching and yet believe the church is necessarily right about anything at all.

Ender

 

[pensmama87]

You meant male SEX, not male gender.

“Sex” refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

“Gender” refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

IIRC, not that long ago, gender only referred to grammar and had nothing whatsoever to do with humans.

 

[simpleas]

If the Church has been empowered to interpret Scripture (because I am not aware of a passage in which Jesus actually forbids women from any priesthood), She is far from powerless, and this is the key to the controversy, I think. Whatever is believed about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, there will always be people who interpret the Scriptures differently - both outside and within Catholicism. There will remain those who hope for a closed door to open again.

Pentecost makes me think :

This day became especially significant for Christians because, seven weeks after the resurrection of Jesus, during the Jewish celebration of Shavuot/Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon his first followers, thus empowering them for their mission and gathering them together as a church.

I believe Mary the Mother of Jesus and some other women were also present.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Pentecost makes me think :

This day became especially significant for Christians because, seven weeks after the resurrection of Jesus, during the Jewish celebration of Shavuot/Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon his first followers, thus empowering them for their mission and gathering them together as a church.

I believe Mary the Mother of Jesus and some other women were also present.

What significance do you take from these women being present for this event?

 

[simpleas]

What significance do you take from these women being present for this event?

Being there.

It is written that they were there in the room along side the men, and they were included as the first followers of Jesus, they were very much a part of the first moment the church was formed.( Acts 1)

Also the prophets words include women as prophesying :

“‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19 I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20 The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21 And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.’[c]

 

[Ignatius]

I can’t find where it explains why females should not be priest’s

In May, 1994 Pope John Paul II issued the Papal Encyclical Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In it he affirmed that everywhere and always the Faithful, must know and hold that The Church has no authority to ordain priestesses.
This is not open to debate by The Faithful.

Virtually every nation in the world had woman priestesses throughout the ages. It should be noted in fact, that in all of the history of The People of God in both Old Testament and New Testament times, God has never authorized priestesses. This in spite of the fact that in all of the nations to which He would send His people, all of the pagans had priestesses. It was not only socially acceptable, but considered backward and ignorant that His followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

Many have tried to argue that it was cultural restrictions that inhibited priestesses, but virtually every nation in the world had woman priests throughout the ages, so it was really the norm and it was not only socially acceptable, but considered very odd that the Hebrews and Jesus’ followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

Again, this is not a question open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

 

[simpleas]

Ignatius:
Again, this is not a question open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

Catholics can be faithful while questioning and examining their faith.

Why the repeat about pagans? I don’t know all about every pagan religion that was out there before and after Jesus, but I’ll assume most worshipped nature, and not because they rejected God, but they saw God in creation, in male and female and had no knowledge of Jesus.

 

[Ignatius]

":

Catholics can be faithful while questioning and examining their faith.

Why the repeat about pagans?.

The notion that having priestesses was cultural is one of the most erroneous arguments people put forward. It is very important to emphasize that it was really the norm for them to have priestesses and it was not only socially acceptable, but considered very odd that the Hebrews and Jesus’ followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

That pressure has apparently resurfaced and that is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics.

 

[Anthony_Kelly]

I watched one discussion of this at a Catholic College on Youtube from 2013 and they said that at that time there were over 120 women ordained in Canada and the US and that their numbers are growing almost daily. I for one would like to know who these women and their supporters are.

Glenda

Hi Glenda.
I have to respond to this. The 120 women are Sinead O’Connor and her 119 personality disorders. LOL

 

[antonabe]

The fact that Women in the era of Jesus was not entrusted with evangelical work may be due to the Cultural trend at that time. Having said that Women have the knack, the ability of caring and in this context perform a more responsible task of looking after people as a nun or as a Mother. The responsibility of bring forth Children to this World and moulding their Character is immense and I raise my hat to those Women who have brought forth great men to this world,that is their prerogative .God Bless All Mothers and would be mothers

 

[Ignatius]

The fact that Women in the era of Jesus was not entrusted with evangelical work may be due to the Cultural trend at that time.

I see that not all posters have read through the recent posts.
Ignatius;12682874:

Virtually every nation in the world at the time had woman priestesses throughout the ages. It should be noted in fact, that in all of the history of The People of God in both Old Testament and New Testament times, God has never authorized priestesses. This in spite of the fact that in all of the nations to which He would send His people, all of the pagans had priestesses. It was not only socially acceptable, but considered backward and ignorant that His followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

Many have tried to argue that it was cultural restrictions that inhibited priestesses, but virtually every nation in the world had woman priests throughout the ages, so it was really the norm and it was not only socially acceptable, but considered very odd that the Hebrews and Jesus’ followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

Again, this is not a question open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

The notion that having priestesses was cultural is one of the most erroneous arguments people put forward. It is very important to emphasize that it was really the norm for them to have priestesses and it was not only socially acceptable, but considered very odd that the Hebrews and Jesus’ followers did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans.

That pressure has apparently resurfaced and that is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics./quote]

 

[unstoppable_II]

glendab;12644330:

While yes I agree with you 110%. The issue is a non-issue and that in an official way, cannot be discussed. However, the fact remains that there are over 120 women priests who have been ordained in the US and Canada and their numbers are increasing. We really cannot just ignore this fact. …

Why would the Catholic Church concern itself with what Lutherans do?

 

[CarmelJerome]

Thanks for the link (caf)

I can’t find where it explains why females should not be priest’s, it has similar quotes from various church fathers that I have come across before, but they don’t explain the actual reason.
I realise the church says it does not have the authority to ordain women, but it is the authority, the church acts for God on the earth.

When a statement like “we have not permitted them to teach” is presented, this say’s two things to me. 1. We (church) are in control (authority) and can permit or not, women to teach (priest) if we desire. 2. Women are like another species separate to men, by the use of the word them.

I suppose its how the indiviual reads and understands what the church is actually saying. Some see it as an out of date teaching that needs to move into the present for the future of the church, some would say men only should be priests and women are satisfied supporting priests in their role, bit like a man and wife but not.

It’s an interesting subject, even if the church say’s it’s a closed case. We as individual’s wouldn’t say we shouldn’t talk/discuss it because that makes it seem like the church is controlling men and women, which I suppose to a degree it does!

Thanks.

  Defective ecclesiology leads to many poor conclusions. And the above descriptions betray the individualist and materialist assumptions that the Church is not, in fact, a supernatural body, that of Christ Himself extended and operating through a single spirit, but a sort of assortment of persons and committees under control of a clique.

There have been enough of such men in various periods, and the people arguing for women priests simply argue from the same motives: see power, want power. But the service of priesthood is denial of power - the condition of celibacy is a primary sign of such denial, and when prelates operate in defiance of it, the bring the normal corruptions of power. It’s unsurprising that people who think celibacy is a perversion also assert a need for priestesses: those who are made eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven have no heritage on earth. It’s the interests of this world that are.put at risk by a celibate male priesthood - and we can tell by the absence of a sense of the transcendent among the opponents of Catholic priesthood that the world is what they wish for. But the Church is not a particular preserve of the world and whenever it degenerates into such, that part perishes because it was torn away.
It’s bizarre that anyone should be insisting that somehow having priestesses will solve something: the Anglican- Episcopal churches have shrunk to a portion of upper middle classf folk who look on the African contingent with as much loathing as they look on Rome.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
It’s bizarre that anyone should be insisting that somehow having priestesses will solve something: the Anglican- Episcopal churches have shrunk to a portion of upper middle class [o]f folk who look on the African contingent with as much loathing as they look on Rome.

Are you assuming they want to solve something? If there is anything that defines the Left, it is its insatiable craving for change, not solutions to social problems.

“… there is remarkably little concern on the political Left as to the actual consequences of the laws and policies they advocate. Once they have taken a stance on the side of the angels against the forces of evil, that is the end of the story, as far as they are concerned.” – Thomas Sowell

The cry for women priests is, undoubtedly, a by-product of the feminist movement and its quest for radical equality. Jesus commissioned his Apostles to “go forth into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching what I have taught you.” He did not say, “go forth into the world, find out what is happening, and bring it back for incorporation into my church.” That is what I call the Gospel in reverse.

I believe there is also a more sinister motive: leave men without a place in society.

 

[Contarini]

As I have argued on these forums many times, the reason to ordain women is that women share in the human nature Christ assumed. To claim that they can’t act “in persona Christi” seems to deny this, which would mean that they shouldn’t be baptized and cannot be saved (or don’t need to be saved, or are saved by some means other than the Incarnation of the Logos in Jesus of Nazareth). All of these are heretical conclusions. Hence, the logic of orthodoxy actually seems to require women’s ordination.

The argument that Jesus only chose twelve men is a poor one, because there is nothing in the NT to indicate that he intended the maleness of the Twelve to be paradigmatic. The Twelve were also all Jews, but we all agree that Gentiles may be ordained. There is no record that any of them were slaves, and it’s extremely unlikely that any of them had blond hair.

Contrary to what a lot of Catholics claim, there are very plausible cultural reasons why Jesus would have chosen twelve men. This doesn’t “limit” Jesus except in the sense in which the Incarnation is a self-limiting. Obviously Jesus could disregard cultural norms when he chose (though even then he wasn’t disregarding them so much as violating them in ways that themselves made sense within his culture). And obviously he didn’t choose in this particular case. Possibly because the symbolism of the twelve sons of Jacob was important. At any rate, all we can deduce from this is that he wasn’t what we would call a feminist. Which may be shocking to some folks, but probably not to most on this forum. Jesus also did not directly challenge slavery, so the idea that he was a radical social reformer concerned with the things we think social reformers ought to be concerned with, and that any failure to act in accordance with 21st-century social norms must be explained, just doesn’t make sense.

The argument about pagan priestesses is also a poor one. While I do not deny that there is a sacerdotal aspect to the Christian episcopate and presbyterate, neither of these terms, nor the term “apostolos,” is simply equivalent to “hiereus” or the Latin “sacerdos.” Pagan priestesses had strictly ritual functions. Christian presbyters and bishops, as well as presiding at the Eucharist, were community leaders. The heretical communities that did ordain women were either Gnostic (arguing that the body didn’t matter) or Montanist (arguing that only the inspiration of the Spirit gave authority). The idea of a hierarchical authority structure requiring great qualities of reason and virtue in its members including women was, in fact, culturally unthinkable, and neither pagan priestesses nor heretical Christian communities ordaining women function as counter-examples to this.

Women were not ordained for centuries because women were thought to be inferior versions of humanity. That did not mean that women were not human or could no be saved, or could not be holy. But femininity was, in itself, seen as defective. This is well-documented from throughout the patristic, medieval, and early modern periods. Aquinas is the most obvious example, but it isn’t just Aquinas. Chrysostom said, “no women, and few men, should be ordained,” because to be ordained meant that one had to be fully possessed of rational faculties. This would have been obvious to most people. If you ask, “why didn’t Jesus challenge this ‘sexism’?” you have to ask also, “why didn’t Jesus challenge slavery?” And if you answer, “Jesus planted seeds that would lead people to reject slavery,” well, the same applies here.

 

[unstoppable_II]

As I have argued on these forums many times, the reason to ordain women is that women share in the human nature Christ assumed. …

No. One reason they shouldn’t be ordained is because if they ever were, the next thing they would complain about is the patriarchy pulled another one over on them by getting them to fix the meal and wash the dishes.

But the most compelling reason is because liberals want it and are completely unconcerned with the consequences.

 

[JimG]

Interesting discussion about something which can never happen.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Interesting discussion about something which can never happen.

Have you never heard the expression, “nibbled to death by ducks”?

 

[Jerurussia]

Men alone can atone for the “Sin of Adam.”

 

[Xeyed818]

Men alone can atone for the “Sin of Adam.”

I don’t follow. Isn’t Christ the only Atonement necessary for males or females? In what way would man go about ‘atoning for the sin of Adam’?

PJ