women priests

[unstoppable_II]

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

I think you are correct. As I understand the Catholic teaching, since man sinned, man must make atonement, but the sin was so grave that only God can atone, thus the dual God/man nature of Christ.

 

[Xeyed818]

I think you are correct. As I understand the Catholic teaching, since man sinned, man must make atonement, but the sin was so grave that only God can atone, thus the dual God/man nature of Christ.

Thanks. But didn’t Eve sin first? Is the ‘sin of Adam’ considered to be different from the ‘sin of Eve’? This distinction is new to me.

PJ

 

[unstoppable_II]

Thanks. But didn’t Eve sin first? Is the ‘sin of Adam’ considered to be different from the ‘sin of Eve’? This distinction is new to me.

PJ

I didn’t mean to distinguish between male and female. “Man” in this context means both or either/or.

 

[Ignatius]

A

The argument about pagan priestesses is also a poor one. The heretical communities that did ordain women were either Gnostic 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.

.

Actually, that argument just runs around the issue. Whether they were heretical, , Pagan or anything else, virtually every other religion in the world at the time had woman priestesses both then and throughout the ages. The argument that it is cultural is actually opposite of the facts, the norm in all of the cultures was to have priestesses. 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 it was the cultural norm to have priestesses.

Not only was it socially acceptable, but it was considered backward and ignorant that they did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans. The exact same arguments being given in this thread.

That same pressure is resurfacing masquerading as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ thinking when it is in reality the same tired arguments that have bee use against The Church for millennia. That is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued his statement on the priesthood, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics.

Again, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that this is not an issue open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

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.

In other words, you are uninterested in a serious discussion of this issue. Your lack of interest is noted.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually, that argument just runs around the issue. Whether they were heretical, , Pagan or anything else, virtually every other religion in the world at the time had woman priestesses both then and throughout the ages. The argument that it is cultural is actually opposite of the facts, the norm in all of the cultures was to have priestesses. 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 it was the cultural norm to have priestesses.

You just ignored everything I said.

I repeat: pagan priestesses were not remotely the same thing as Christian apostles, presbyters, or bishops. The parallel is absurd.

Not only was it socially acceptable, but it was considered backward and ignorant that they did not have priestesses,

Find me an ancient source saying this, please.

The exact same arguments being given in this thread.

Ancient pagans argued based on belief in the Incarnation? News to me:shrug:

That same pressure is resurfacing masquerading as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ thinking

I’m completely uninterested in being modern or progressive. I’m interested in being orthodox, rather than inventing a totally new theological anthropology to support a traditional practice, as defenders of the male-only priesthood have done. If the traditional theology points to a new practice, isn’t it more faithful to adopt the new practice rather than overhaul your theology of human nature radically?

Again, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that this is not an issue open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

True. And all he accomplished by this is to shut up the faithful Catholics who wanted to make substantive theological arguments, thus handing the debate over to the dissenters who didn’t care tuppence about the Tradition. Which of course allowed defenders of the status quo to claim that all proponents of women’s ordination fall into that camp. There are plenty who don’t, but they are being silent in obedience to the Pope. This is why solving theological debates prematurely by the use of authority has always backfired.

I am in a privileged position here, since I am not yet in full communion with Rome. I am in RCIA and will have to make a final decision in the next month, which scares the heck out of me. And one of the main issues I have with entering full communion with Rome is this one–not just the male-only priesthood per se but the heavy-handed use of authority to end debate before it had properly begun. There is simply no evidence I’ve seen that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination. There’s something deeply disturbing about this pattern of behavior, and in the past, as I said, it has never ended well.

Edwin

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that the Church is actually intended to operate primarily by way of theological arguments. The primary job of the magisterium is to hand down what has been received from Christ. They don’t have to understand why it was received, but they are not authorized to change the teaching. Ponder it, yes, examine the ramifactions of it, certainly. Draw it out in greater detail, yes. Change it, no. I doubt that Christ explained every teaching in great detail to his apostles. Did He elucidate the hypostatic union for them? How the ideas of person and nature help to understand the Trinity? Probably not. But apostles don’t have to be theologians. They only have to pass down what has been handed down to them.

I suppose a theolgian might profit by examining in greater depth what the idea of acting “in persona Christi” means when a priest starts the Eucharistic prayer in the third person but transitions to the first–this is my body. Reflection is good, but understanding will never be perfect.

I’m pretty sure that if Jesus had become incarnate as a woman, that men would never be priests, as a matter of acting ‘in the person of Christ.’ But that’s just speculative theology.

The Apostle’s probably didn’t receive the in-depth explanation of substance, accidents, and transubstantiation, either. But it wasn’t their job to understand. It was and remains their job to pass on the teaching.

 

[simpleas]

I think teachings can change, God doesn’t change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door?

 

[JimG]

I think teachings can change, God doesn’t change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door?

Teachings don’t change. They can be clarified, but not changed. That’s why the Church teaches that formal revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. And why Catholics are not bound by private revelations, no matter how worthy of belief.

 

[Mark121359]

I think teachings can change, God doesn’t change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door?

Well if that’s the case, then She can change the teachings of the Virgin Mary’s Divine Motherhood, her Perpetual Virginity, her Immaculate Conception, and her Assumption. After all, many Catholics, especially converts, struggle with these teachings to begin with. But why stop there. How about the Real Presence?..I mean let’s be honest, so many polls say that only a third of Catholics believe in it anyhow!

Peace, Mark

 

[Abu]

Contarini #86
I am in RCIA and will have to make a final decision in the next month, which scares the heck out of me. And one of the main issues I have with entering full communion with Rome is this one–not just the male-only priesthood per se but the heavy-handed use of authority to end debate before it had properly begun. There is simply no evidence I’ve seen that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination. There’s something deeply disturbing about this pattern of behavior, and in the past, as I said, it has never ended well.

Welcome – it is salutary to know that you are now nearing the end of your RCIA instructions – the warp and woof of the Catholic Church is the reality that Christ endowed Her with His authority – to teach in His Name:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

It is not the human nature that Christ took that defines the nature of the priesthood but the reality that Christ chose only males to be His Apostles and priests to reenact His Passion and Death in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – in persona Christi.

Thus there is no “heavy-handed authority” in defining dogma and doctrine infallibly – it is the Will of Christ.

Pastor Aeternus has the dogma of Ecumenical Council Vatican I on papal infallibility and you can find it at:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6
Chapter 3.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994, confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself:
“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.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think teachings can change, God doesn’t change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door?

No, the Church does NOT have the authority .

Basically if one took your argument to its logical conclusion, the Church could never teach anything as ‘finite’, because if it did, the Holy Spirit couldn’t ‘change’ that finite teaching because it was ‘closed off’.

But the Church does teach things as finite, doesn’t it? God is a Trinity, not a duo or a quartet, and **that will not change.

**So there are some things the Spirit has already decided as ‘final’, right?

Why is it so hard to accept the Spirit has already spoken through the Church regarding what is valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, and will not change, any more than the Spirit/Church will change matter for the Eucharist from bread and wine to pizza and beer, or change the criteria for matrimony from one man and one woman to two men, or two women?

 

[Xeyed818]

True. And all he accomplished by this is to shut up the faithful Catholics who wanted to make substantive theological arguments, thus handing the debate over to the dissenters who didn’t care tuppence about the Tradition. Which of course allowed defenders of the status quo to claim that all proponents of women’s ordination fall into that camp. There are plenty who don’t, but they are being silent in obedience to the Pope. This is why solving theological debates prematurely by the use of authority has always backfired.

I am in a privileged position here, since I am not yet in full communion with Rome. I am in RCIA and will have to make a final decision in the next month, which scares the heck out of me. And one of the main issues I have with entering full communion with Rome is this one–not just the male-only priesthood per se but the heavy-handed use of authority to end debate before it had properly begun. There is simply no evidence I’ve seen that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination. There’s something deeply disturbing about this pattern of behavior, and in the past, as I said, it has never ended well.

Edwin

There are plenty who don’t, but they are being silent in obedience to the Pope. This is why solving theological debates prematurely by the use of authority has always backfired.

There is simply no evidence I’ve seen that Rome has even considered or heard of the actual theological arguments for women’s ordination.

Normally, I’d agree with the first thought as a concept and from experience. Part of me, though, thinks this issue has ‘deep roots’ that the Vatican will never willingly disclose to the spiritually immature masses. Jewish thought has women as ‘unclean’, and an earlier poster in this thread mentioned the ‘spiritual inferiority of women’. There are just too many associated ideas stated throughout history to discount them all as ‘prejudice’ (to me, even if I don’t understand).

Currently, I think that the Church has said all that it is willing to say on this matter, not all there is to say.

Perhaps what you see as ‘heavy-handedness’, the Church sees as rightful authority. “This is the only acceptable intellectual/spiritual position.”

What I wonder about sometimes is what it might be like to belong to a church where, like the Apostles and their followers, each person Knew the Holy Spirit for themselves. Unless the members of the ‘body of Christ’ have the Holy Spirit with which to’ test the ‘spirits’ to determine Truth (and be led from within), then one must keep blindly depending on the thoughts of others (or self) - Biblically or otherwise.

Maybe that’s what the last 1,000 years will be like, eh?

PJ

 

[Abu]

Xeyed818 #93
Unless the members of the ‘body of Christ’ have the Holy Spirit with which to’ test the ‘spirits’ to determine Truth (and be led from within), then one must keep blindly depending on the thoughts of others (or self) - Biblically or otherwise.

There is no “blindly depending on the thoughts of others (or self)” as though Jesus of Nazareth did not found His Catholic Church on St Peter with the Twelve and leave us with the fullness of His Truth with His Magisterium to unfailingly teach His Truth.

These early signs are not a general part of the life of the Church as Christ Himself refused to perform a miracle when challenged by the devil – “It is written, thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.”

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12686939:

Actually, that argument just runs around the issue. Whether they were heretical, , Pagan or anything else, virtually every other religion in the world at the time had woman priestesses both then and throughout the ages. The argument that it is cultural is actually opposite of the facts, the norm in all of the cultures was to have priestesses. 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 it was the cultural norm to have priestesses.

Not only was it socially acceptable, but it was considered backward and ignorant that they did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans. The exact same arguments being given in this thread.

That same pressure is resurfacing masquerading as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ thinking when it is in reality the same tired arguments that have bee use against The Church for millennia. That is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued his statement on the priesthood, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics.

Again, Pope Saint John Paul II stated that this is not an issue open to debate by Faithful Catholics.

You just ignored everything I said.

Hardly, I directly addressed your arguments when I said "Actually, your argument just skirts around the issue. Whether they were heretical, Pagan or anything else, virtually every other religion in the world at the time had woman priestesses both then and throughout the ages. The argument that it is cultural is actually opposite of the facts, the norm in all of the cultures was to have priestesses. 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 it was the cultural norm to have priestesses. Not only was it socially acceptable, but it was considered backward and ignorant that they did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans. The exact same arguments being given in this thread.

That same pressure is resurfacing masquerading as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ thinking "

That is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued his statement on the priesthood, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

Hardly, I directly addressed your arguments when I said "Actually, your argument just skirts around the issue. Whether they were heretical, Pagan or anything else, virtually every other religion in the world at the time had woman priestesses both then and throughout the ages. The argument that it is cultural is actually opposite of the facts, the norm in all of the cultures was to have priestesses. 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 it was the cultural norm to have priestesses. Not only was it socially acceptable, but it was considered backward and ignorant that they did not have priestesses, so there was always considerable pressure to give in to the customs of the pagans. The exact same arguments being given in this thread.

That same pressure is resurfacing masquerading as ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ thinking "

That is why Pope Saint John Paul II Issued his statement on the priesthood, to end debate by Faithful Catholics. It is not open to question by Faithful Catholics.

No, you didn’t respond to my point. My point is that pagan priestesses were not remotely the same thing as Christian apostles, bishops, and presbyters. You have not shown that they were, or tried to deal with this fatal problem with your argument. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

While we’re at it, the same thing applies to the common claim that Catholics can’t be “anti-woman” because they venerate the Blessed Virgin. Neither pagans nor Catholics had any problem venerating women and giving them sacred roles. The problem was with giving them any role that involved governing others, because that implied the “hegemonic faculty” of reason, which women were thought to lack (at least not to possess in the way that some men possessed it). That is what was culturally unthinkable. Pagan priestesses are irrelevant.

Now please respond to this point or go do something else. Don’t just keep reposting the same paragraphs. That’s a singularly ineffective and annoying form of argument.

Edwin

 

[jbp]

the question of women priests is a closed issue. this had been definitively settled by the magisterium of the Church and as such the faithful can only submit. those who persist are committing heresy.

a catholic bishop can consecrate a statue, or horse, bull, cat or dog, or hamster with a valid ritual of priestly ordination but even if he does so, the form and substance of the one receiving the ordination is invalid, and therefore the transmission of ordination does not and cannot exist. not to mention that the bishop doing something so stupid excommunicates himself automatically. so for the same reason, since a female is not a valid form and substance to receive ordination, the priestly powers and authority are not transmitted and are not received and therefore could not exist. unfortunately, the outward signs pretend that they are priests which mislead people and is therefore a scandal and heresy in the eyes of the Church.

my recommendation: join the protestants because these people already are. if you do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, why spend the effort? there’s the anglicans, lutherans, episcopalians, etc. go there.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…my recommendation: join the protestants because these people already are [excommunicated]. if you do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, why spend the effort? there’s the anglicans, lutherans, episcopalians, etc. go there.

I could never understand why they don’t do just that. I compare it to going into a Ford dealer and demanding that he sell me a new Chevvy when all the time there is a Chevvy dealer down the block. If they want women priests so bad, they can have them in the various Protestant denominations; but if they get their way and force the Church to ordain women, where can the traditionalists go who want nothing to do with useless change?

 

[davidv]

I think teachings can change, God doesn’t change, but our way of thinking about him does. The Church has the authority to change the teaching, it is in charge of it. The holy spirit guides the church, but if the church closes off certain teachings how can the holy spirit guide from behind a closed door?

If the teachings are about God and God does not change, how can the teachings change, other than to refine its explication?
In theology this is called development, not change. Because if teachings can change, it could be possible for the Church to suddenly teach that Jesus is not God.

The Church has no authority to change truth. It exists to protect, preserve and to communicate the truth. It cannot create truth. It can only discover it or receive it directly from God.

 

[Contarini]

Where? Where can I find a discussion and refutation of the argument from the Incarnation that I have presented often on this forum? Where can I find evidence that anyone in Rome has even heard of this argument? If they have, why do they continually deal with the issue on a more superficial level in their official pronouncements?

Nothing about YOU qualifies you to decide this issue more so than the members of hierarchy and no one owes you anything in regard to proof of what was or was not discussed. If you are “orthodox” as you claim, you will accept that the one holy Catholic and apostolic church is guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects it from error and humble yourself to the authority of the wisdom of the Church. That is the ONLY orthodox position to take.

In other words, orthodoxy has been replaced by arbitrary submission to authority:shrug:

That’s not orthodoxy. That’s not how the great theological debates of the past were resolved. Authority has a very important place: first of all in causing people to question what they would otherwise take for granted (that, as I see it, is the proper role of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), and secondly in closing the debate when the Church has made up its mind. I may well be wrong about OS. You think I have no regard for the Church’s authority, but if I had no regard for the Church’s authority I wouldn’t give the anti-women’s-ordination position a second thought. Authority does not replace actual theological investigation of the issues.

And I don’t need to provide evidence that such investigation hasn’t taken place. No one can or needs to prove that something hasn’t happened. You need to provide evidence that it has.
Edwin