Women's Ordination Heresy?

[Kristopher]

a quote from the USCCB about women’s ordination.

For the sake of arguing the opposite view: it is unreasonable for any pope, as it has been unreasonable of any pope, to state that no woman, now and forever, should ever be ordained a priestess, why?

The ordination of men only is categorically a teaching of concern only to faith. What is this word “faith”? What is this word “moral”? Faith is trust in God’s existence. Trust in God’s existence may never be contingent upon gender: this would contradict the meaning of the Catholic Church in the word “universal” and its meaning: that all people, at all times, and at all places may always come to know God, and to be holy, to become saints and therefore, neither any male, nor any female is ever at anytime excluded on the basis of gender from being one among the faithful.

What is this word “moral”? Morality is simply doing what is right.

No matter to what extent the Sacrament of Holy Orders is for women only, whether we reference either our Catholic traditions, or our Judaic traditions of the Old Testament—what can we accept about this as a teaching: can we accept it as a teaching concerning either faith, or morals, or both faith and morals?

While I have to admit, while arguing this opposite view: that I am not knowledgeable enough about the substance as it concerns both the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and those traditions pertaining to it; I am, nonetheless, able to reason broadly, that we cannot teach others the following: it is wrong for women to bless others, (the primary function of a priest, or hypothetically the priestess), through the means of grace that are the seven sacraments of our Roman Rite. Therefore, what infallibility could possibly pertain to morality as a basis of exclusion, with respect to women being ordained priestesses?

It would seem that the controversy of women being ordained priestesses is relevant only to faith.

On what basis may anyone reason, that women infallibly must be declared impossible to ordain as priestesses, with respect to faith? Perhaps there is none. How then can I, or you, argue on the basis of faith, that women must never be ordained as priestesses? The only answer that I may give you at this time; is this: “infallibility” as a word must be interpreted in accord with what is contained within the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)—there is nothing within our faith, that may be contradicted by science. An integral element of science is logic. Within logic the conjunction “and” is interpreted in the following manner: where two elements of an argument are joined by the word “and”, both those elements must be true in order for the entire statement to be true, (PLEASE: keep in mind that I am arguing this point from an introductory to logic course point-of-view, which I passed with a grade of “C”.), otherwise the entire statement is false—no matter that one element was God’s truth and therefore, since a declaration of infallibility is contingent upon its pronouncement with respect, not to either faith, or morals, but to both faith, and morals—it is, consequently, fallacious to reason that women on the basis of faith, and morals must never be ordained priestesses, because as stated earlier: there is nothing immoral about a woman being ordained a priestess; however true it may be that as a matter of faith, women must never be ordained priestesses, which to my understanding is a genuine article of faith, because it does require trust, that the Holy Spirit, infallibly, allowed for the writing both of the Old Testament, and the New Testament to be written, without any reference to any woman being ordained a priestess, among Jews; that is “legitimately”, which must be used somewhat loosely as a consequence of the fact, that Jesus himself; formally was never ordained a priest, which would of lowered his stature: being the Messiah a more superior position of authority, than the inferior position of being a priest, which does necessitate, that a priest imitate Jesus.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. It is of course, right to reason that scripture alone is not a teaching of Catholicism, but of Protestantism and therefore, any evidence to the exclusion of Holy Scripture demonstrative of a fact, that women within Judaism once were ordained priestesses, would substantiate any arguement, that the ordination of women as priestesses must no longer be excluded, as an article of faith. Women have been ministers. Women have been prophetesses. Have women been priestesses?

NOTE: I posted this at another thread; now closed. I will read: what is posted above in the quote, which began this thread. My arguement is unrealted either to superiority, or to inferiority of males, of females.

I just read: the issue is neither one of morality, nor of immorality, but a lack of authority, not contingent upon both faith and morals.

 

[davidv]

Wouldn’t it just be easier for the Church when they come out with something to say it’s either binding or non-binding? To narrow it down further, don’t issue anything unless you intend it to be a binding doctrine.

I believe that this distintion is already made for the ordinary Catholic. It doesn’t matter whether its dogma, doctrine or discipline. Each is binding on us if we are to consider ourselve in full communion with the Church…

 

[Kristopher]

The UCSSB does neglect to mention in the link provided by the first post of this thread that the church not only has positions reserved for women, but also for men.

The church herself is female.

Jesus’ mother clearly led her son to begin his ministry at the Wedding at Cana, and it might very well have been in jest, that he retorted as he did.

The Church has a very clear history of men being married as priests, Leviticus is very clear about this, with children as well.

The papacy very clearly has not the authority to ordain priests, but this is neither a matter of faith, nor of morality and therefore, there is nothing infallible to conclude, that ordination into the priesthood, with respect to women, may ever be an infallible matter of the church–no matter to what extent it might contradict, that Jesus exemplified a life of being single as a man.

This example contradicted by married priests, with children, has always been established as a lifestyle within Catholicism, with respect to history, to Judaism. The importance of mentioning marriage and the priesthood, when this topic is about women ordained as priestesses must be included, to the extent that the UCSSB does reference as a basis for the ordination of men only into the priesthood, because it does serve the same, as an argument to found that men of the priesthood, should remain single; though, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) does cite, that priests married in the Eastern Orthodox churches have always been a very valuable contribution to the faith.

What might be important to reference as the reasoning behind citing Jesus’ life as exemplary, might not be the fact that he remained single, but the fact he remained too poor to marry, (A situation remedied among priests by their lack of vowing poverty, as Diocesan priests.), or perhaps some other aspect of his life–relevant to the importance of remaining unmarried: a travesty within Judaism, for men at the age of thirty.

Remaining single has never been regarded as anything of greater importance, with respect to holiness, than the married life; were it so, then the church would fail in its representation of the word “universal”.

We cannot say: it is a matter of faith, that priests must be men, as this would pre-suppose knowledge of God, that he had the Messiah come not as a woman, but as a man, but we must admit, that it is a matter of ignorance, that we say, men only must be ordained as priests.

 

[Cranch]

The Church has a very clear history of men being married as priests, Leviticus is very clear about this, with children as well.

The Levitical priesthood is under the old law. Jesus came to proclaim a new covenant.

The papacy very clearly has not the authority to ordain priests, but this is neither a matter of faith, nor of morality and therefore, there is nothing infallible to conclude, that ordination into the priesthood, with respect to women, may ever be an infallible matter of the church–no matter to what extent it might contradict, that Jesus exemplified a life of being single as a man.

I’m having trouble understanding this run-on sentence. If it means the Church (or the pope) has no authority to ordain priests, that’s nonsense on its face. If it further states the matter of women’s ordination is one that cannot be governed by infallible teaching, that is contrary to the Church’s statements on this issue. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you?

This example contradicted by married priests, with children, has always been established as a lifestyle within Catholicism, with respect to history, to Judaism. The importance of mentioning marriage and the priesthood, when this topic is about women ordained as priestesses must be included, to the extent that the UCSSB does reference as a basis for the ordination of men only into the priesthood, because it does serve the same, as an argument to found that men of the priesthood, should remain single; though, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) does cite, that priests married in the Eastern Orthodox churches have always been a very valuable contribution to the faith.

The issue of women’s ordination has nothing to do with married priests, children or celibacy.

Remaining single has never been regarded as anything of greater importance, with respect to holiness, than the married life; were it so, then the church would fail in its representation of the word “universal”.

The church honors marriage. It is a sacrament after all. But celibacy for God’s sake is special. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 says:
32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

 

[Brenda4God]

Two really excellent sources are Women in the Priesthood by Manfred Hauke (sp?) and then there’s one by Alice von Hildebrand and Peter Kreeft. That one’s just a little booklet but its excellent.

Anyone remember the name?

 

[Kristopher]

… The Levitical priesthood is under the old law. Jesus came to proclaim a new covenant. … celibacy for God’s sake is special. …

No doubt, and almost it goes without saying, Jesus established a New Covenant–it hardly needs to be mentioned, in my experience, but no doubt the lack of education provided to many faithful might actually warrant it being stated.

My apologies for the run-on sentence, I work within a limited amount of time to post, even without the limitation on time imposed by this forum when posting a reply, and do not always have the opportunity to proof what I have written, and to then correct what I have written. I let it stand. What I understood from the the UCSSB website was very plain: the church has no authority to declare that women may at some point be ordained. Of course priests are ordained, even with the run-on sentence how anything opposite could be misconstrued from what I wrote is beyond me.

Yes, you are right, again it seems to go without saying, though there are those here very much unfamiliar with the seven sacraments of the church, that marriage is a sacrament, etc. Additionally, it is recognized among Eastern Orthodox Churches by the CCC as a worthwhile contribution to the church.

The relevance of marriage within Holy Orders is by all means relevant to the discussion of women ordained as priestesses, as the lack of marriage among priests within the Roman Rite is established on the same basis as the arguement that opposes women being ordained priestesses: on the example of Christ’s life as he lived, not only unmarried, but also as a man; though many today would argue his manhood on the presence of his lengthy hair, and the lack of presence of a marital commitment and children to him–who hasn’t at some point ridiculed a single man as a homosexual, or a girl on account of long hair, but those are only minor, though, valid points.

The reason as I understand it, that the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women as priestesses is the lack of authority the church has to test God’s gifts to us, the sacraments, but you appear to agree that the church should in fact, and does in fact, possess this authority and proclaimed that it is in fact so, without providing any reference at all to where this is done.

I do not know why the messiah was not born as a woman, but it would have left us without males as priests; were it ever done. Why God has always been recognized as a patriarch, as opposed to a matriarch is another mystery. God according to the CCC is neither male, nor female, and the view of God being attributed with a gender–a purely human convention, though supported by more than one apperance to at least one sister as a man, not to mention the son, but the God as Father–where is the importance of this attributed to any act of God, as opposed to acts of men? I have no idea. The two genders created in the image of God are undoubtedly equal.

We know through a number of homilies, that women and children were chatel. A view held by some men to this day, even through the sacrament of matrimony. Slavery was as much of a Judaic tradition as it was a Catholic tradition, and being born into slavery was neither an American institution of origin, nor a Western institution–it was semitic. All this lends relevance to the fight both men and women give toward recognizing women not only as suitable to the highest calling within the Catholic Church, but also as necessary even some 2000 years after Jesus declared, that barren women, without children at their breasts would be praised by God; quite a horror to the instituion of matrimony among Jews, and the health and nurturing characteristics of a woman being attributed to the size of her breasts.

In anycase, so much as we all love to recognize Jesus as a New Covenant, rather than a fulfillment of the old, one God gave Adam and Eve–much of what God gave Jews throughout the Old Testament can be, and has been, substantiated as a healthy way to live even, or most especially, in these present times. Leviticus is full of very rich wise ways of living, and modern medical doctorates have confirmed there validity, that they easily surpass many standards of health that most Americans, children especially, fail to meet.

Guess we could all do well to curb the sin of gluttony.

My understanding of infallibility is that it must be based both on faith and on morals, not on ignorance of the Father’s will, through the son’s example as he lived on earth.

Most everything for God’s sake is special.

 

[Cranch]

The papacy very clearly has not the authority to ordain priests, but this is neither a matter of faith, nor of morality and therefore, there is nothing infallible to conclude, that ordination into the priesthood, with respect to women, may ever be an infallible matter of the church–no matter to what extent it might contradict, that Jesus exemplified a life of being single as a man.

What I understood from the the UCSSB website was very plain: the church has no authority to declare that women may at some point be ordained. Of course priests are ordained, even with the run-on sentence how anything opposite could be misconstrued from what I wrote is beyond me.

Well…you did begin by writing "The papacy very clearly has not the authority to ordain priests…

The relevance of marriage within Holy Orders is by all means relevant to the discussion of women ordained as priestesses, as the lack of marriage among priests within the Roman Rite is established on the same basis as the arguement that opposes women being ordained priestesses: on the example of Christ’s life as he lived, not only unmarried, but also as a man…

This is not so. The priesthood is based on the example of the apostles Christ chose. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this quite clear:1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. As some of the apostles were married (and so are some Catholic priests today), I say again that the issue of not ordaining women has nothing to do with marriage or celibacy. It has to do with gender.

The reason as I understand it, that the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women as priestesses is the lack of authority the church has to test God’s gifts to us, the sacraments, but you appear to agree that the church should in fact, and does in fact, possess this authority and proclaimed that it is in fact so, without providing any reference at all to where this is done.

Jesus says: “You shall not put the LORD your God to the test.” Are you referring to my assertion that the issue of women’s ordination is subject to infallible teaching, and there are Church’s statements on this issue? Here are the pertinent paragraphs from John Paul II’s* Ordinatio Sacerdotalis*:Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

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.
The infallibility of this teaching was confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Responsum Ad Dubium on October 28, 1995, when they responded to a Bishop’s inquiry about *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *with the following:This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25. 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

 

[Kristopher]

Well…you did begin by writing "The papacy very clearly has not the authority to ordain priests…

No, Cranch, I never made any statement at all pertaining to the priesthood and the authority of the Church, that was never brought into question, furthermore, had it been: I would have trusted that my post would have been moved to another forum appropriate to the question, (Where there should be no question at all), of the church’s authority to ordain priests.

The entire focus of this thread is the ordination of women to the priesthood, which you will note by the following quote and URL provided in the first post of this thread, the statement that I referred to:

" … This faith provides the context for understanding and accepting the teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood … ".

usccb.org/comm/archives/1998/98-210a.shtml

I wrote about the reasoning that I surmise is behind there being NO AUTHORITY behind any decision of anyone, within the Vatican or anywhere else within the Roman Rite to ordain women into the priesthood. THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH TO ORDAIN WOMEN INTO THE PRIESTHOOD!

Don’t bother posting if you are not going to read what people have written, and/or cited as the basis for their thread–you waste everyones time.

The question pertaining to women ordained to the priesthood is this: is it heretical. The answer is no. However, is it even a moot point, an arguable point, that women can be ordained to the priesthood? No. Why? Because there simply is no authority there to question Why God determined that the entire Judaic and therefore, Catholic tradition should be structured around a male only priesthood.

A male only priesthood has nothing to do with biology, nothing to do with skill–there is reason to question that it has anything at all to do with tradition, only based on the unknown; there can be no heresy, where there is nothing to substantiate the view that women ordained to a priesthood is either against the faith, or against morality. There can be nothing both immoral, and unfaithful about ordaining women to the priesthood, because there is nothing immoral, nothing wrong with women being ordained to the priesthood. It is not a matter of faith, because there is nothing there to trust as a matter of how or what or why God intended that men only should be ordained priests. There is only ignorance about these questions. It does remain a fact that in terms of written history, there would appear to be no account of there ever having been a woman ordained a priest, either within Catholicism, or within Judaism. Everyone is ignorant as to why this is so: was it a convention of man, or of God? Who knows. Is it even relevant? Who knows. We, again, we do know that Judaism and Catholicism are patriarchical. The why is lost. There may be no importance at all to the matter. We only know it is so.

So-to-speak, God said: Amen! And there you have it. If it has to be rooted in a why–it is only for God’s sake that we exist, that we might share in his creation, with men as priests, and women as everything else. There is a scriptural basis in Genesis for women to submit to their men, but this seems to be twofold–men must submit to their wives as well–every leader must submit to a follower, and every follower to a leader.

 

[Cranch]

No, Cranch, I never made any statement at all pertaining to the **priesthood **and the authority of the Church, that was never brought into question, furthermore, had it been: I would have trusted that my post would have been moved to another forum appropriate to the question, (Where there should be no question at all), of the church’s authority to ordain priests.

At the risk of being uncharitable, let me ask if you remember this from post #148:

                 Originally Posted by **Cranch**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2049739#post2049739)                 
             *Well…you did begin by writing "The **papacy*** very clearly has **not** the **authority** to ordain **priests**…

The words following the quotation mark YOU WROTE. They’re from your post #143, paragraph 5. If you didn’t mean to write it, or the word “not” is a typo, then cop to it; but don’t claim you didn’t say it.

There can be nothing both immoral, and unfaithful about ordaining women to the priesthood, because there is nothing immoral, nothing wrong with women being ordained to the priesthood. It is not a matter of faith, because there is nothing there to trust as a matter of how or what or why God intended that men only should be ordained priests. There is only ignorance about these questions.

Amazingly erroneous statements in the face of the clear, infallible teaching of the Church which I have already cited. You’re right, I guess I am wasting your time.

 

[Kristopher]

At the risk of being uncharitable, let me ask if you remember this from post #148:
The words following the quotation mark YOU WROTE. They’re from your post #143, paragraph 5. If you didn’t mean to write it, or the word “not” is a typo, then cop to it; but don’t claim you didn’t say it.

Amazingly erroneous statements in the face of the clear, infallible teaching of the Church which I have already cited. You’re right, I guess I am wasting your time.

My apologies to you, it is a statement that I wrote; however, it was the furthest thing from my mind–I understand why, now, you were addressing me this way: maybe in the future a direct quote from my post as a reference will save us all some confusion.

I have no doubt at all about the Church’s authority on the matter of ordaining priests, the word “priest” I attribute with being gender specific of males, hence the reason I did my best to reference to the topic of this thread concerning the ordination of women as priestesses; though, it does get a bit confusing, when there is doubt as to whether or not the word “priest” is actually gender specific, but I am one who has been growing-up with females as ministers ever since the late 1980’s; where I lived in So. Cal.

Again, I have no doubt at all, and as you must have gathered from my previous posts: it is so acceptable to me, (Men ordained as priests), that it hardly seems worthwhile to mention, or to question the church’s teachings or even lack of teaching on the matter of male priests ordained to the priesthood–I am sorry that post presented such a problem to you, that together with my other posts it did not come across clearly as a “typo”, or something completely opposite of what I meant.

The whole thrust of all that I have written is to support an arguement, that there is nothing heretical about women being ordained as priestesses, that the only characteristic lacking of the Catholic Church with respect to ordaining women into the priesthood is a lack of authority, on the part of the church; this lack of authority has been deeply rooted in so-far-as written history is concerned, in Judaic traditions of the faith. I never meant, intended, or even noticed–probably pressed for time, that I had made such a statement. Again my apologies to you for the confusion, sorry it did not come across as a very clear mistake, that it presented enough worth to be challenged, but definitely it is now very understandable that you wrote to me what you did, as you did, and without insult, very generous of you, and patient as well; though, I would have preferred an inquiry into what I had written, instead of a direct confrontation on the matter, and a clear quote to “click”, that I might see for myself; what I so unbelievingly have done. Something for the future, no doubt

 

[Cranch]

My apologies to you, it is a statement that I wrote; however, it was the furthest thing from my mind–I understand why, now, you were addressing me this way: maybe in the future a direct quote from my post as a reference will save us all some confusion…

In fairness, I did quote your statement in both my posts #144 and #147. In addition, as always, clicking the arrow button next to your name in a quote box will call up your original post containing the statement quoted. Anyway, this was a gracious post on your part and I thank you for it.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

It isn’t a truth, it’s a threat. We get it all the time – “If the Church doesn’t accept almost everyone will leave the Church.”

Are you implying that female ordination would be a sin ? I must presume you do from your blog that places it with abortion [murder] and gay marriage [an abomination]. Sorry but i think you will find many catholics , very devout catholics who would disagree with you.

 

[fix]

Are you implying that female ordination would be a sin ? I must presume you do from your blog that places it with abortion [murder] and gay marriage [an abomination]. Sorry but i think you will find many catholics , very devout catholics who would disagree with you.

How is one to be devout, yet reject the authority of His Church? It is like claiming to follow Christ, but only following the commands one finds appealing.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

How is one to be devout, yet reject the authority of His Church? It is like claiming to follow Christ, but only following the commands one finds appealing.

I will answer that after you have told me whether you see female ordination to be a sin…also is it biblically [spelling ] stated that a woman cannot be a priest. If so then please show me where.
Just one other thing that also troubles me is the entire ‘process’ of sainthood declaration by the pope…3 miracles ect.ect. Do i need to accept this catholic teaching considering that St Paul talks about us [believers] all being saints !!! To me it appears as if catholics are ‘doubting’ whether OR rather questioning whether the person has ‘made it’ into heaven.
I never seem to have this problem…take my loving , devout gran who passed away a while ago…i am convinced she , and other family members are indeed in heaven ; i do not doubt at all. Why don’t i doubt? Probably because i am catholic and was always taught that GOD is a loving GOD who went to prepare a place for my gran !!! That is why i find the entire sainthood issue to be ‘a mystery’ ?! Perhaps a wise soul could elaborate for us ! Peace to all this easter time !

 

[vern_humphrey]

Are you implying that female ordination would be a sin ?

Yes. It would also be null and void. John Paul the Great stated the Church has no power to ordain women, and this is to be held definitively by all the faithful.

I must presume you do from your blog that places it with abortion [murder] and gay marriage [an abomination].

I have a blog?!?!

Sorry but i think you will find many catholics , very devout catholics who would disagree with you.

God is not an elected official. We can’t vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He set up His Church.

So it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with the Pope’s statement – but when they do disagree what what he said must be held definitively by all the faithful, they do forfeit their claim to be “devout Catholics,” now don’t they?

 

[Kristopher]

In fairness, I did quote your statement in both my posts #144 and #147. In addition, as always, clicking the arrow button next to your name in a quote box will call up your original post containing the statement quoted. Anyway, this was a gracious post on your part and I thank you for it.

Maybe the plank remains in my eye, nonetheless, I do see more clearly, thank you! I will in the future give more astute attention to yourself and others, that reply to what I write.

 

[Brendan]

I will answer that after you have told me whether you see female ordination to be a sin…also is it biblically [spelling ] stated that a woman cannot be a priest. If so then please show me where.p:

That is Protestant Sola Scriptura, not Catholic teaching.

Catholics understand that the Apostles passed on the teachings of Christ in both written and unwritten forms, Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Part of Sacred Tradition is that it must be passed on whole. The Church has no authority to add what is not there.

Female Ordination falls into that category. We have no guarantee that an attempt to ordain a woman would be valid. Therefore the Sacraments produced by such a person would be forever in doubt.

The theologically correct response to “The Body of Christ” would be “Maybe?” at best.

One might be absolved from your sins by confessing to such a person, one might not be, the Church could not say for certain.

And it is only Certitude the Church may offer the faithful.

So really, the question must, by definition, be in the reverse. How can someone prove, beyond doubt, that a woman could recieve Holy Orders?

We know from both Scripture and Traditional that men are Ontologically capable of recieving the mark of priesthood on their souls.

Are women so Ontologically figured as well.

Why would it be any different that the Church declaring that men may now bear children? The Church has no more control of the Ontologcal design of being human as they do the Biological design.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Self defined ‘devotion’ is just that, self-defined. I can ‘claim’ to be the most devoted Catholic on the planet but if I ignore one, some, many or all of Church teachings, my claim is bogus no matter how intently I might ‘feel’ it to be true, or how I appear to others.

Roma locuta est; causa finita.

From this woman who grew up with the whole catterwauling of ‘equality’–no matter how one slices baloney, it’s baloney. Valid matter is what matters, not political correctness, not false ‘equality’, not power, not ‘fairness’, not ‘democracy’.

Just as offering pizza and beer at the consecration does not result in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, offering a woman for ordination to the priesthood–even if ‘lots of devout Catholics’ feel this is good, will not result in an ordained priest.

But you see, (and I do understand and I am not personally castigating people here), too many people have become ‘infected’ with the disease of modernism/relativism. In a climate where we have been conditioned to think that the only god is political correctness, and the only sin to ‘deprive someone of a right’, where abortion on demand is seen as a woman’s right to choose, sin is no longer ‘sin’ but merely a life style choice, and tolerance is the mantra (except of course for tolerance of a religion, a Pope, or a people who insist that there really is an absolute right and wrong and an absolute one true faith), certainly it ‘appears’ that women, in order to be ‘equal’ to men, must ‘do’ anything or everything a man does. Our roles as man and woman have been so blurred and blasted that instead of seeing men and women as distinctly different and complementary to each other, each playing a role which could indeed embrace an ‘equal’ job but was done so not for the sake of the ‘job’ but for the sake of whatever ‘family’ was involved. . .IOW, a man and a woman could both be bankers, but they were not bankers necessarily to be ‘bankers’, but were husband and wife, or if unmarried just a simple man or a woman, who happened to have a JOB as a banker.

Today, we define ourselves, not as a man who is a banker, or a woman who is an architect, but as “banker” or “architect”. We are told that this means we are equal. What it means is that we are faceless, interchangeable cogs, able to function not as a couple, but as solo individuals, not as people who need other people, but as rugged individualists who need nobody. . .God least of all.

 

[M-Dent]

So it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with the Pope’s statement – but when they do disagree what what he said must be held definitively by all the faithful, they do forfeit their claim to be “devout Catholics,” now don’t they?

Depending on the “intent” (pride would be grave) an individual may in fact risk there own salvation.

1850 Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.

CCC

 

[Kristopher]

… one other thing that also troubles me is the entire ‘process’ of sainthood declaration by the pope…3 miracles ect.ect. Do i need to accept this catholic teaching considering …

A saint as I understand it is simply one who has entered heaven directly, that is to say, one who, though entering directly, bypasses Purgatory. This sainthood is one differentiated from the sainthood conferred upon people, thought to exemplify some characteristic that humanly is made possible by God’s grace, no matter the circumstances involved.

Am I a leader, though I hold no office, or title? Absolutely, no one else will render an account of all my sins before God on the day of my own particular judgement–I am the authority of my own life. No one need confer upon me a title, or require me to set-up an office.

The same is true for sainthood. If you enter heaven, then you will either reside in Purgatory, or not. The Catholic Church’s requirements for classifying the life a person lived as “blessed”, or “beatified”, or “canonized” is nothing requisite for sainthood. You simply must neither go to Hell, nor to Purgatory.