- Status
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
I have come across that, too. I think it is the Gospel in reverse.
Social innovators never, but never give up.
E
Ender
Guest
There is a bit of a disconnect between what the church believes she can do and what others believe she can do. The perception is that she can do pretty much whatever she wants, after all, was she not given the keys to the kingdom and is not what she looses on Earth also loosed in heaven? Her actual authority is a bit more constrained than is generally recognized.553 * The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church… The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.
*The thing is, “pronouncing doctrinal judgements” means determining what is, not deciding what ought to be. She makes judgements, not decisions, and it is her judgement (based on Scripture, sacred tradition, and the teaching of the Magisterium) in this case that women may not become priests. This is not something she can decide to alter in the future…as she does not possess the authority to do so.
Ender
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Boy if that isn’t an understatement!
That is because they consider the Church a governing authority rather than a teaching authority, much like they have been conditioned to view politics.
Good post.
J
JimG
Guest
Here’s one such sentence: “Women cannot be ordained priests because they are not men.”
It’s similar in format to a statement such as: “Men cannot be mothers because they are not women.”
It all comes down to what you state in your second paragraph. The Church has no authority to ordain women.
X
Xeyed818
Guest
What I’m saying is that the Church could just as easily have come down on the side of supporting ordination of women using Biblical examples if they hadn’t seen greater underlying considerations.That’s cool. I was responding to Xeyed, though, who wasn’t making an assertion about process, so much as the legitimacy of the claim itself.
I’ve been chewing on this and think the stronger premise for not ordaining women may lie in the ‘spiritual ordering’ of men and women. (That might not be the right term.)
I doubt many would disagree with the observation that women were predominantly ‘counted as naught’ in the OT. But then Jesus comes and essentially tells us, “Not only Gentile men may be saved but women, also, may lay down their burden of shame, if they turn to Me.”
So, if a woman abides with the Holy Spirit, does that mean she has become the “persona of Christ”, as well? Not in the same way, perhaps…
If man is to become the “Mind of Christ” upon finding the Holy Spirit, then woman would become the “Heart of Christ” if she found the Holy Spirit.
Man - Mind infused by a pure heart.
Woman - Pure heart disciplined by a ordered mind.
Both seek to have hearts that are wicked and deceitful beyond measure - Purified by the Holy Spirit of God.
The Church has already made provision for the woman who seeks the “Heart of Jesus”…convents, and greater inclusion of lay women.
To me, it seems incongruent for a woman to display “drive/ambition/demand” for priesthood inclusion - and say it is a true Calling to manifest the “Heart of Jesus”.
My uncle almost returned to the Church when the shortage of priests led to a particular nun giving the homily and giving out Communion (blessed beforehand by a priest). (She was transferred soon after he experienced her message, so he stopped going to Church again.) Anyway, would that nun, as a priest, have presented the same ‘forthright meekness of spirit’ if she had ‘assumed the mantle of priesthood’ '? Not likely…to me, what she had touched was his heart…not his head. (Heart and emotions being different things, of course.)
If women are the “devil incarnate” (Lucifer)
Maybe. Sending this on a test run for a logic/concept check.
PJ
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
If a priest is not considered a leader in the community, who would be? Since the Catholic Church is universal, it is essentially the same the world over. How many cultures would accept a woman as a leader? Should American liberal jet-set philosophy be forced on those cultures?
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok thanks for the link. Pretty hard for me to understand, this is particulary difficult to grasp:
*Mary’s superiority is manifested in many ways. She formed the substance of the victim, the body of Christ; the priest gives Him only an accidental form. She played an important part in the sacrifice of the cross, a part uniquely sorrowful and loving, and lasting thirty-three years. But in the sacrifice of the Mass, the priest is content to lend his hands and tongue to Jesus, the true priest.
Pius X taught that Mary “associated by Christ in the work of salvation, merits de congruo what Christ merits for us de condigno.” The priest merits nothing for us in re-enacting the mystery of the redemption. He simply applies a part of the grace already merited by Jesus and Mary. In each Mass the priest renews the offering of the divine victim. Christ offered Himself directly and but once on Calvary; but He renews the offering each day through the ministry of the priest. Mary, like Jesus, offered the divine victim directly and only once on Calvary. But in heaven Mary renews it at each Mass, since each Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross. By God’s will, Mary fully cooperated in the sacrifice of the cross. The Mass would be only a truncated sacrifice of the cross, and not the same, if Mary’s mystical cooperation were absent. Furthermore, in heaven at the side of the Lamb of God, Mary remains the associate of his immolation throughout all eternity. The priest must renew the Eucharistic sacrifice each day, and that sacrifice will cease at the end of time.
When God calls a person to a particular office in the Church, he gives that person the necessary corresponding grace. God gives the priest the special grace he needs for his work. But to Mary he gives more graces than to all priests together.26*
Mary renews the offering in heaven, while the priest offers it on earth each day, so men as priest can do the renewel of the offering for us mortals, but women could not, even though Mary does so in heaven?
R
Rau
Guest
I’m not so much referring to process but rather to whether the reasoning is sound, persuasive, convincing. Some feel it is, some feel it is not. I have my different view on why the Church could conclude it has no authority to ordain women - the lack of precedent or any form of explicit authority. Precedent supports an all-male priesthood.That’s cool. I was responding to Xeyed, though, who wasn’t making an assertion about process, so much as the legitimacy of the claim itself.
R
Rau
Guest
Jim, you hold the matter as an article of faith and this fact enables you to avoid the “why” question posed. I gave a reason from which one can see why the Church would conclude she has no authority. No one has yet said they agree with me. The Vatican document of JPII presented by another poster attempts to provide a bottom-up reason for why women can’t be priests - I think…it was somewhat hard to follow.
R
Rau
Guest
This is how I see it. It is following thd lead (the precedent) set by Christ.
J
JimG
Guest
They are not the proper matter, yes. This is pretty much what I said, but I abbreviated it: they are not men.
S
simpleas
Guest
Comparing women with dogs, maple trees, dolphins is slightly strange…
Comparing bread and wine also with your suggestions is even stranger to me…
Didn’t Christ leave the last 12th apostle to be chosen to the others? They drew straws to decide who it would be…
Comparing bread and wine also with your suggestions is even stranger to me…
Didn’t Christ leave the last 12th apostle to be chosen to the others? They drew straws to decide who it would be…
R
Rau
Guest
But the reasoning of (name removed by moderator) goes the additional step. The only reason we know that men are the right matter is that Jesus picked them. We follow that precedent.They are not the proper matter, yes. This is pretty much what I said, but I abbreviated it: they are not men.
R
Rau
Guest
Your post is a little mischievous. Jesus chose men to be his first priests, not women. He chose bread and wine for use in the Eucharist. Can we do better than to emulate him? Should we depart from his fairly particular choices? How would we reach such a conclusion?
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
There is not quite a parallel between female ordinands and antifreeze, since the ordinand is not the matter of the sacrament but the subject. The matter is the laying on of hands.
X
Xeyed818
Guest
This changes everything, for me.
Are you saying that even St. Paul…would never have practiced the laying of hands on a women? That the Holy Spirit cannot be transmitted to a woman in this way?
I thought that the ‘laying of hands’ had become a ritual (inactive) like many other things (not just in the Church). Because if someone actually was “Full of the Holy Spirit” and could transmit by the laying of hands - why would they refuse to confer the Holy Spirit to anyone who was willing to Receive?
So, when the Church says it does not have the authority to ordain women - what they are really saying is that they do not have the Authority - the *Full Power of the Holy Spirit * to ordain women? But if they don’t have the Full Power of the Holy Spirit to confer the Holy Spirit to women in ordination - then they wouldn’t have it for men either.
Therefore, it isn’t a matter of women not being ‘of the right substance’. And it goes a long way in explaining the moral failings of many priests. Many people see Grace working in their lives - Grace is for everyone. But those who dedicate their lives to knowing Christ through Grace would, seemingly, receive more Grace. So, what would be the difference, in that case, between a male and a female priest - theoretically? (I’m still not on-board, at this point, with female priests because of so many other problems that may ensue.))
PJ
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The laying of the hands is still completely necessary for the transmittal of priestly authority. It is fully practiced today, as it was in the days of Christ and the apostles, and as it will be until the end of time. It is not a matter of refusal to do something, it is a matter of not believing we have the authority to ordain women.
When the Church says they do not have the authority to ordain women, we mean that it is not physically possible, Period. No one in this plane of existence has the authority to ordain women into the priesthood because the priesthood is not intended for women. This is similar to how males do not have the ability to bear children; child bearing wasn’t intended for us. It is not a slight against men that we cannot bear children, just as is it not a slight against women that they cannot become priests. It is simply a reality brought about by God’s intended purpose for the two sexes. We can’t do it because the Holy Spirit **won’t **do it because it would violate God’s designs. God does intend for men to be priests, and so the Holy Spirit will confer the priesthood to a man.
You are drawing baseless conclusions by assuming that all people are called to the same roles in life, which is not true. Women have their role and men have their role. As I said about, this is not intended to belittle men or women, it is simply the result of God’s designs, which are far and above any of us. Claiming that not having the authority to ordain women means that we lack the fullness of the spirit is akin to saying that our inability to perform a homosexual marriage means that we are lacking it. It’s not a matter of us lacking anything, it’s a matter of it not being possible for those things to be done, period. It cannot licitly be done. You can fake it all you want, but in the end it would still be hollow, meaningless, and an affront to God.
No, it is a matter of that, as I just explained above.
I’ll be honest, I don’t have the slightest idea how you arrived at this conclusion. It is completely non-sequitor. Grace is given to those who seek it, true; but grace is different from the office of the priesthood. There are certain graces which accompany the priesthood, but the priesthood itself is not a grace in the manner you seem to be implying.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I am saying nothing about what S Paul might or might not have done. I do not argue the rightness or wrongness of women’s ordination.
I say simply that putting a woman ordinand in the place of a male ordinand is not an exact parallel with replacing the matter of Eucharist with cake and ale, or replacing the matter of baptism with antifreeze, because the ordinand is not the matter of ordination, as (name removed by moderator) claimed, but the subject. The matter of ordination is the laying on of hands.
S
simpleas
Guest
Not mischievous at all, it was how it sounded to me.
Jesus didn’t ordain priests like we do now, he gave to authority to Peter in which to build his Church, I can not be 100% sure he never intended women to be priests, in fact it is sounding very strange now that women were never priests.
- Status