women priests

[Abu]

Contarini #140
Given the weak and undeveloped nature of the theological discussion so far, at least on the “orthodox” side, JPII’s statement in OS was at the very least inopportune, because it stifled real theological discussion while of course failing to shut down the genuine dissenters who don’t care about Church authority.

On the contrary, St John Paul II’s great Apostolic Letter *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988, *On The Dignity And Vocation Of Women *had shown why the Saviour chose only men.
“26. Against the broad background of the “great mystery” expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the “Twelve”. In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ’s way of acting. “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men” (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth’s behaviour. Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the “Twelve”. They are with Christ at the Last Supper. They alone receive the sacramental charge, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23).

"We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom because “he has given himself”: his body has been “given”, his blood has been “poured out” (cf. Lk 22:19-20). In this way “he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). The “sincere gift” contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God’s love. As the Redeemer of the world, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present and realizes anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of Christ, who “creates” the Church, his body. Christ is united with this “body” as the bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained in the Letter to the Ephesians. The perennial “unity of the two” that exists between man and woman from the very “beginning” is introduced into this “great mystery” of Christ and of the Church.

“Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood.50” {My bold].

 

[Tigg]

I’ve read posts here that clearly describe it as an issue of “progress” for women. Also, on sites that advocate for women as priests, we are told they don’t accept what the Church teaches. In another case, the idea is that women are being “marginalized” by not being allowed to be priests, which is simply untrue. **Secular ideas about “progress” cannot interfere with the Deposit of Faith. **These sorts of discussions become circular quite quickly. The issue has been answered, and answered…

Peace,
Ed

I guess some just don’t like the answer, Ed.

 

[Contarini]

I guess some just don’t like the answer, Ed.

No, I for one have said over and over that my position is not based on any such doctrine of progress.

But Ed and others don’t like that answer. They would rather flail away at their nice straw man.

I am working from no feminist principles not obviously shared by all the recent Popes. Indeed, as I have said several times already in this thread (but need to say again because people are resolutely ignoring it), the argument from the maleness of the Twelve implicitly rests on a feminist principle I do not share: that if Jesus could have ordained women, he would have been morally obligated to do so. (That’s the only way I can make sense of the very odd claim that Jesus’ actions can’t be explained by cultural factors.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

On the contrary, St John Paul II’s great Apostolic Letter *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988, *On The Dignity And Vocation Of Women *had shown why the Saviour chose only men.
“26. Against the broad background of the “great mystery” expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the “Twelve”. In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.

In other words, Jesus violated social norms of his time when he saw them as contradictory to the dignity of women. Clearly he did not think that choosing twelve men and no women to be representative of the new Israel violated the dignity of women. In other words, he was not a modern feminist, which ought to be news to no one.

It does not follow that Jesus’ actions had nothing to do with his culture.

This is simply a non sequitur on the Pope’s part.

Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ’s way of acting.

Straw man. Jesus was a first-century Jewish human being in all respects except sin. Jesus did not teach germ theory or democracy. He didn’t even speak directly against slavery, which is a far bigger problem than choosing twelve men. So this argument just doesn’t convince. I have pointed this out over and over and gotten nothing but evasion and obfuscation. You can’t explain why Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery. If you say, “but he planted seeds that would lead people to reject slavery,” I can respond “and he planted seeds–not least by the respect for women to which the Pope refers–which would lead to an egalitarian view of the role of women, including women’s ordination.” What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can’t explain Jesus’ silence on slavery (and even perhaps his apparent tacit approval of it in his parables, though that has very little force given Jesus’ penchant for using morally problematic examples in parables to make a specific point) without also explaining away his apparent tacit approval of the principle that only men should have public office within the community.

“Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men” (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth’s behaviour.

But in fact Jesus was not a 21st-century American (or even Pole) and did not act like one. He was a first-century Jew. To suggest that first-century Jewish culture can’t explain his actions is very odd, except on the assumption that he was morally obligated to choose women to be among the Twelve if he could have done so–an assumption I do not grant.

Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the “Twelve”. They are with Christ at the Last Supper. They alone receive the sacramental charge, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23).

The Pope here completely ignores the parallel with the twelve sons of Jacob. . . .

 

[Contarini]

"We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom because “he has given himself”: his body has been “given”, his blood has been “poured out” (cf. Lk 22:19-20). In this way “he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). The “sincere gift” contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God’s love. As the Redeemer of the world, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present and realizes anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of Christ, who “creates” the Church, his body. Christ is united with this “body” as the bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained in the Letter to the Ephesians. The perennial “unity of the two” that exists between man and woman from the very “beginning” is introduced into this “great mystery” of Christ and of the Church.

“Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood.50” {My bold].

This is the most theologically substantive section. But set against it these two paragraphs from the same document:

This characteristic of biblical language - its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God - points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal “generating” which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this “generating” has neither “masculine” nor “feminine” qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither “feminine” nor “masculine”. Thus even “fatherhood” in God is completely divine and free of the “masculine” bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood. In this sense the Old Testament spoke of God as a Father and turned to him as a Father. Jesus Christ - who called God “Abba Father” (Mk 14: 36), and who as the only-begotten and consubstantial Son placed this truth at the very centre of his Gospel, thus establishing the norm of Christian prayer - referred to fatherhood in this ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense. He spoke as the Son, joined to the Father by the eternal mystery of divine generation, and he did so while being at the same time the truly human Son of his Virgin Mother.

Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess “masculine” characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute model of all “generation” among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (3:14-15). **All “generating” among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All “generating” in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human “fatherhood” and “motherhood”, bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine “generating” and with that “fatherhood” which in God is “totally different”, **that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the “unity of the two”: both are “parents”, the man and the woman alike.

In the section I’ve bolded in particular, the Pope recognizes that both men and women reflect the generative fatherhood of God.

Similarly, both men and women are part of the Bride. The straightforward relationship between physical gender (or sex, if you prefer, as many conservatives do) and symbolic/sacramental gender that he portrays in the section you quoted just doesn’t hold up consistently, even within the same document.

Edwin

 

[simpleas]

Here’s a new twist (to me). In essence, all the walls preventing women from becoming priests…will come tumbling down…simply because there are not enough male priests?

articles.courant.com/2005-05-15/features/0505150531_1_pontifical-council-pope-john-paul-ii-dioceses

May 15, 2005|By PATRICIA MONTEMURRI Knight Ridder Newspapers

In a world dominated by men, some smart, powerful Catholic women are making inroads.

``If you knock the issue of ordination off the table, women have advanced significantly,’’ even at the Vatican, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in Rome recently.

The Vatican employee who established the website where Pope John Paul II’s teachings are posted in six languages is an American Franciscan nun, Sister Judith Loebelein, nicknamed Sister Web.

An Italian Salesian nun, Sister Enrica Rossana, was **named last year as the third-ranking official in the Vatican office overseeing religious *men and women ***-- the first time a woman was promoted to a position held by priests since the Roman Curia was established in the 16th century.

**The manpower shortage in the church -- there just aren't enough priests **-- will lead to major employment of women,'' predicted Paul Hofmann, author of The Vatican’s Women.’’

PJ

This is interesting. I see it all the time, women out number men on their committment to service of many events in the parishes around me. I actually find it sad that some men do not give their time along with women in service of the community.

 

[simpleas]

A priest once told me that the Church will let priests marry before it will ordain women.

I find it interesting that this thread was put in the social justice category, as though there were some injustice being done by not ordaining women. I don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but the priesthood does not exist to provide occupational opportunities for women, or any other group.

Priest’s did marry in the early church, bishops also, not sure about popes?

 

[simpleas]

Of course there have been a few posts made since I did the above back on #92, but nobody ever addressed it, not simpleas, and not even Edwin:

Quote:
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **simpleas** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12687132#post12687132) 				
			*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? :shrug:*

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?

******Again, the Church teaches with authority in the examples above: i.e. God is a Trinity, not a Duo or Quartet; valid matter for the Eucharist is only wheat bread and grape wine (yes, very low, not ‘no’ gluten is still wheat bread, yes, ‘mustum’ is still grape wine), and not beer and pizza, valid matter for the sacrament of Matrimony is one man and one woman (free to marry), not two men or two women,

WHY is it so hard to accept that the Church has no more authority to change who may be validly ordained than it does the above?

Of course we do have the fringies who are bleating ‘gay marriage is what Jesus would have wanted’ (the same as they insist He would have ordained women back in the day but was prevented by ‘social mores’ then). We have the ‘symbolic Eucharist’ crowd who see nothing wrong with serving up rice cakes and grape juice because it’s KINDER to the celiacs and alcoholics. And we have Unitarians and others who deny the Trinity, and let’s face it, what seems an unfortunate number of ‘closet’ Trinity deniers who while they say they ‘accept’ the Trinity are ‘more comfortable’ only addressing "Father’ or "Jesus’ and ignore anything else. I feel that we’re going to get more of these coming ‘out of the closet’ if you will and invoking Bart Ehrman and ‘theological experts’ to downplay Jesus (and of course the Holy Spirit, although they will probably rework that into the feminine SOPHIA and insist that the ‘God concept’ which is male and “Sophia” (female) are really us and that we invented God, yadda yadda.

NONE of this, as others have noted, has really anything to do with social justice. It has to do with a misunderstanding of various aspects of the Catholic Faith mixed in with a not-so-healthy kind of arrogant assumption that the Church, that tired old group of ‘old men’, is hopelessly out of touch and has passed the line into outright repression and needs to be ‘rescued’. . .for what, they dare not say!

Ok thanks for your thoughts.

Apologies for putting this thread in the wrong place, I didn’t realise it would anoy posters!

I don’t intend this discussion to become an arguement for women priests or not. I wanted to know what catholic lay people knew about the actual reason for a male only institution, that can act in the persona of Christ.

My post #17 was not addressed, I wondered why women needed to cover their heads/hands while in church and receiving communion, also that they at times were unclean and should pray elsewhere? It seems they were not regarded as men, since men took their hats off when in church. There are other points that I could make, but it’s all in the past, I just see it as that is what used to be believed, we no longer see it that way, so there is room for development regarding what the church used to teach.

My post # 127 was not addressed. Why was Our Lady painted as a priest if she was never regarded as one? Was it painted by some other sect not in communion with Rome?

Why would Jesus send the holy spirit into the room with women present if he did not intend for women to receive the holy spirit directly from himself? The 12 could have confirmed the women after they had received the holy spirit?

Maybe there could have been a female apostle? They drew lots for a replacement after Judas, and Matthias was chosen, maybe because as jews men were the ones that taught, even though there were some women present. I was thinking about the women being present, some that followed Jesus just as the men were. Women were restricted on what they could do, if it’s like saudi arabia today they may have needed a male family members permission to do something, so many women may have wanted to follow Jesus but were restricted for many reasons.

Just speculating alittle, the mind does wonder off on it’s own from time to time

Also Jesus would refer to God as his father, because God was his father, the holy spirit came upon Mary so that Jesus could become man.
(someone pointed this out on a earlier post)

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Contarini]

Priest’s did marry in the early church, bishops also, not sure about popes?

Married men were ordained. I do not know off the top of my head any example of a priest or bishop marrying after ordination, and it was certainly eventually forbidden in both East and West.

There is a big difference between the two things, in terms of historic Christian discipline. (I myself think that all churches ought to adopt the rule of no marriage after ordination, but admittedly this would lead to the spectacle I’ve heard of in Orthodoxy of seminarians rushing to find a bride before receiving deacon’s orders!)

Edwin

 

[Abu]

simpleas #150
Priest’s did marry in the early church

This gives a false impression.

In the beginning continence was the Apostolic norm in the whole Church. It still is the norm in the Latin Rite.

The disciplinary canons of the Council of Elvira in 305 are the Church’s earliest record regarding priestly continence. The council gave no explanation of its rulings, which were ancient and presumably well-known. Canon 33 forbade all married bishops, priests, and deacons from having sexual relations with their wives and begetting children. The council reminded the married clergy that they were bound by a vow of perpetual continence. Penalty for breaking that vow was deposition from the ministry. Commenting on this council, Pope Pius XI said that these canons, the “first written traces” of the “Law of Ecclesiastical Celibacy,” "presuppose a still earlier unwritten practice. " (*Ad Catholici Sacerdotii *, 43, 1935).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, I for one have said over and over that my position is not based on any such doctrine of progress.

But Ed and others don’t like that answer. They would rather flail away at their nice straw man.

I am working from no feminist principles not obviously shared by all the recent Popes. Indeed, as I have said several times already in this thread (but need to say again because people are resolutely ignoring it), the argument from the maleness of the Twelve implicitly rests on a feminist principle I do not share: that if Jesus could have ordained women, he would have been morally obligated to do so. (That’s the only way I can make sense of the very odd claim that Jesus’ actions can’t be explained by cultural factors.)

Edwin

I don’t know about the others, Edwin, but I am not, nor have I been, using the "argument from the maleness of the Twelve.’ I am, as I have always been, using the argument that the Church **has no authority to ordain women.

The fact that it has no authority to do this is the key point. Not why some people think it doesn’t, or what some speculate might be some reasons. The fact is, God did not give the Church the authority to ordain women.

**Maybe it’s from decades of raising children/grandchildren, but I’ve been through all the arguments involving, “WHY can’t I do/have X”. . .and let’s face it, anyone who has children knows that listing out reasons (especially when there might be several reasons, or the reasons may be complicated) to them degenerates quickly into tangents, side arguments, kids trying to ‘sneak around’ by looking for loopholes. . . not because they truly want to know a reason but because they want to do something which they should not. A simple “Because I said so” may sound mean and unfair to a preschooler, but it might truly be all they can understand.

We like to think that we’re incredibly smart and sophisticated, but it seems quite possible to me that God simply told us regarding male priests only, “because I said so” because that is truly all that we can understand about it, and that had He gone into detail, we would have wound up trying to do terrible things.

After all, it’s not as though Christians in the past 2000 years have shown humble obedience to Christ as their dominant attitude, any more than the OT Jewish people showed to Yahweh, despite the testimony of the prophets and God’s clear teachings. If anything, it seemed that people were desperate to ignore God’s word or to twist it around. We sure haven’t come far from that today. We might be oh so judgmental of the Jews who sacrificed their children to Baal, until we look at the US statistics on abortion over the last 42 years. If that isn’t a sacrifice to the devil, I don’t know what is.

Even if God had given an entire GOSPEL devoted to explaining in great detail the theological reasons for male only priesthood and saying in Red Letter words “Thou shalt only ordain men”, I guarantee that we’d have as many people today claiming that the text was corrupt, the book was ‘inserted’, it was a conspiracy by the Church, and finally, that the word ‘men’ obviously means ‘men and women’ just as it does today, and it was the Church who ‘locked up bibles and kept them from the people’ who had led them astray all these years. We have right now people who deny the ‘letters in red’ words that come from the mouth of Jesus already, we have people who deny the ‘Christ of the bible’, the ‘historical Jesus’ etc, do you think that they wouldn’t find some way to deny God’s teaching no matter how much Scriptural, cultural etc. evidence you could provide? Can you honestly tell me, Edwin, that if a messenger of God came down from Heaven and appeared simultaneously on all media, as well as showing up ‘in the sky’ and communicating in every language on earth, that God wished only males to be ordained in the Catholic Church, that you would THEN believe? And everybody ELSE would believe? Or would there be almost immediately the start of people calling the apparition ‘rigged’, the product of some kind of chemical that had been put in the water supply or beamed into our brains via the Vatican supercomputer? Calling the apparition 'obviously from the Devil since it goes against all that God would “REALLY want”? Etc etc?

 

[edwest2]

renewedpriesthood.org/ca/page.cfm?Web_ID=1229

Apparently 3 unnamed male bishops ordained some women as bishops, such that the ongoing ordination of women as priests can be self sustaining. Fascinating.

Curious that the Vatican is not more clear cut in denouncing all this (or maybe I’m just unaware of it).

A bit like the sedevacantists - how is it that such bishops and priests - who have outright rejected the the last so many Popes, get to continue to call themselves Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops? Ought they not to be defrocked? Or have they been?

From the New York Times:

"Still, the archbishop added. “The Catholic Church through its long and constant teaching holds that ordination has been, from the beginning, reserved to men, a fact which cannot be changed despite changing times.”

"At a news conference at the Vatican, Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the Vatican’s internal prosecutor in charge of handling sexual abuse cases, explained the change on women’s ordination in technical terms. “Sexual abuse and pornography are more grave delicts, they are an egregious violation of moral law,” Monsignor Scicluna said in his first public appearance since the sex abuse crisis hit. “Attempted ordination of women is grave, but on another level, it is a wound that is an attempt against the Catholic faith on the sacramental orders.”

“The revision codifies a 2007 ruling that made attempting to ordain women an offense punishable with excommunication. The new document said that a priest who tried to ordain a woman could now be defrocked.”

There have always been dissidents in the Church.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I guess some just don’t like the answer, Ed.

That’s it. So Catholics have to repeat the truth constantly.

Ed

 

[Xeyed818]

I don’t know about the others, Edwin, but I am not, nor have I been, using the "argument from the maleness of the Twelve.’ I am, as I have always been, using the argument that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

“No authority to ordain women” is exactly why I think that there is more below the surface. The Catholic Church has never been shy about “exercising authority” wherever it chooses. It does not choose to do so in this case and I, for one, accept that. But, to me, it is exactly the weakness of the reason given that invites questioning/skepticism. It seems more like a case of, “That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

Likewise, the reasons given by females for wanting to infiltrate the RCC priesthood, to date, don’t reflect the deeper motivations that would have to be in play (imo).

I’ve enjoyed the thread and it’s good to know that ‘the numbers’ won’t likely be a catalyst for reversal.

PJ

 

[Rau]

On the contrary, St John Paul II’s great Apostolic Letter *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988, *On The Dignity And Vocation Of Women *had shown why the Saviour chose only men.
“26. Against the broad background of the “great mystery” expressed in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, it is possible to understand adequately the calling of the “Twelve”. In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behaviour, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ’s way of acting. “Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man; for you do not regard the position of men” (Mt 22:16). These words fully characterize Jesus of Nazareth’s behaviour. Here one also finds an explanation for the calling of the “Twelve”. They are with Christ at the Last Supper. They alone receive the sacramental charge, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), which is joined to the institution of the Eucharist. On Easter Sunday night they receive the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (Jn 20:23).

"We find ourselves at the very heart of the Paschal Mystery, which completely reveals the spousal love of God. Christ is the Bridegroom because “he has given himself”: his body has been “given”, his blood has been “poured out” (cf. Lk 22:19-20). In this way “he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). The “sincere gift” contained in the Sacrifice of the Cross gives definitive prominence to the spousal meaning of God’s love. As the Redeemer of the world, Christ is the Bridegroom of the Church. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of our Redemption. It is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom and of the Bride. The Eucharist makes present and realizes anew in a sacramental manner the redemptive act of Christ, who “creates” the Church, his body. Christ is united with this “body” as the bridegroom with the bride. All this is contained in the Letter to the Ephesians. The perennial “unity of the two” that exists between man and woman from the very “beginning” is introduced into this “great mystery” of Christ and of the Church.

“Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the Apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is “feminine” and what is “masculine”. It is a relationship willed by God both in the mystery of creation and in the mystery of Redemption. It is the Eucharist above all that expresses the redemptive act of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church the Bride. This is clear and unambiguous when the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist, in which the priest acts “in persona Christi”, is performed by a man. This explanation confirms the teaching of the Declaration Inter Insigniores, published at the behest of Paul VI in response to the question concerning the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood.50” {My bold].

It seems to me a great deal is being inferred. Can we write a simple sentence: “Women cannot be ordained Priests because…”?

I’d like to see such a sentence that I can understand. Pending that, I hold to the view that the Church lacks any instruction or precedent on which it can base, or from which it can infer, a clear authority to ordain women. Therefore, it cannot assert it has the authority to ordain them and does not do so.

 

[Abu]

Rau #158

[Referring to St John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter *Mulieris Dignitatem 1988, On The Dignity And Vocation Of Women which had shown why the Saviour chose only men. [Post #144] states:

It seems to me a great deal is being inferred. Can we write a simple sentence: “Women cannot be ordained Priests because…”?

Not only was St John Paul II a great scholar and a great Pope, but Sister Sara Butler who, “for many years supported the ordination of women”, has changed, and considers the “fundamental reasons” and “theological reasons” as she openly confesses in the book’s introduction that for many years she supported the ordination of women. She credits John Paul II’s “theology of the body” and “his response to the feminist critique in the apostolic letter* Mulieris Dignitatem *(1988)” for her change of heart on this matter.

That testimony suggests that clarity rather than inference won the day.

 

[Gorgias]

“No authority to ordain women” is exactly why I think that there is more below the surface. The Catholic Church has never been shy about “exercising authority” wherever it chooses. It does not choose to do so in this case and I, for one, accept that.

PJ,

You’re right in that the Church “exercises [its] authority”. The question, though, is exactly what authority does the Church have?

The Church has the authority (and the duty) ** to teach the truth. It does not have the authority to teach what is not true.**

(The Church also has the authority to set disciplines – that is, rules for behavior that are appropriate in particular places and times.)

The notion of ordination isn’t a ‘discipline’, though – the Church is asserting that it’s a matter of the faith. Therefore, the Church has the authority to teach the truth that only men may be ordained, and does not have the authority to teach otherwise.

That’s all that’s in play here, notwithstanding that some would like to make this something that’s mutable based on societal standards.

 

[Gorgias]

My post # 127 was not addressed. Why was Our Lady painted as a priest if she was never regarded as one? Was it painted by some other sect not in communion with Rome?

See this article. In short, the identification of Mary with the priesthood isn’t in that she shares in the ministerial (i.e., ordained) priesthood, but rather, in the way in which she shares in Christ’s priesthood.

 

[Rau]

…
The notion of ordination isn’t a ‘discipline’, though – the Church is asserting that it’s a matter of the faith.
That’s all that’s in play here, notwithstanding that some would like to make this something that’s mutable based on societal standards.

What’s being debated is whether the Church arrived at its conclusion in a sound manner.

 

[kdfphd]

Jesus said that He would send the Spirit to guide us in all ways. He also said that He would be with us whenever two or three are gathered in His name. However, I guess, He was just kidding since the Church says that this subject cannot be discussed and if we talk about such things the Spirit will be upset.