Women's Ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyler_Smedley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
undefined
It will never happen. The church is the bride of Christ. The Priest stand in the place of Christ and therefore no woman can be a priest. You can just imagine what that would represent.
 
40.png
Maggie:
When the Church is able to give men the ability to bear children :eek: , She will be able to give women the ability to become priests :rolleyes: . Why is it that people cannot accept that if God gave us different physical capacities, He also gave us different spiritual capacities :confused:? This doesn’t make us better, worse, lesser, greater, or anything but God’s children 🙂 . But we ARE different. God made us different. The Church continues to uphold that difference, not out of chauvinism, malice, spite, injustice, or any other discriminatory reason, but rather because through discernment of the Holy Spirit, the conclusion has been such to mandate that it is True.
Click to expand...
thank you for that common sense 👍
 
40.png
JimG:
I agree, women’s ordination cannot happen, pretty much for the reason that Maggie stated, and the fact that the pope has settled the issue. Women cannot become Fathers, and men cannot become Mothers.

One way to look at it is this: A priest acts in persona Christi, in effect allowing Christ to use his person, which includes his body, to act in the world, especially in celebrating the Eucharist. A woman priest would in effect force Christ to change his gender.
Click to expand...
right on 😃
 
Just a suggestion - if one wants to have women priestesses then maybe one should join the Anglican church
There seems to be more protestants in the Catholic Church than in protestant ones
Anglicans are already having there own divisions over this subject - plus many others
 
Well, of course you all have valid arguments but you are missing THE most important reason that women can NOT become ordained priests in the Catholic church:

CONFESSION…It would NEVER work. We can’t keep anything to ourselves.😉

God Bless,

7
 
40.png
Fathero9:
I would like to back to Tyler’s question from several days ago. How do we change their minds? I know someone that is a recent convert to the Church (3 years) that is having a crisis of faith over this issue. She was a Methodist minister before joining the Church, so the change was drastic. How do you help someone get through this? Citing facts and refering them to websites that cite the same facts doesn’t really help. She probably knows what the Church says in this regard better than most. I am praying for her. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Steve
Click to expand...
To be honest, it might just be a matter of waiting. The demands of popular culture are fickle – ever changing. The Church is solid. Sooner of later popular culture will re-align with the Church…
 
DVIN CKS:
What exactly does in persona Christi mean? “As a representative of Christ”? “As a representation”? “An image”? “An icon”? Does the priest at the altar and elsewhere truly act in persona Christi, or in persona ecclesiae (in the person of the church), or both: in persona Christi et ecclesiae? So, what does this all have to do with maleness?

The church speaks of the necessity for a “natural resemblance” between Christ and the priest. This strikes me as a bit vague or euphemistic. Does a chubby, bald, blue-eyed, red-faced, weak-willed, and irritable seventy-year old man display more of such a “natural resemblance” than a fit, dark-haired, brown-eyed, olive-skinned, strong minded, eloquent, and compassionate woman of thirty-five? Isn’t “natural resemblance” just a euphemistic way of saying “possessing a penis”?
Click to expand...
First off, Persona Christi means person of Christ, so when the priest is preforming consecration or absolution, they are acting as the Person of Christ on Earth. And yes you are right that Priests are male and Christ took a male body. To preform the sacraments you need to be male. We have learned from the Popes teaching on the Theology of the Body that Males are designed outward, in a position to give grace, while women are designed inward, in a position to recieve grece. Through this our bodies we can catch a glimpse of the difference in spirtiualites that men and women hold. Like I said before different sex different vocations.

Christ also started the Priesthood, all of whom were male, if Christ wanted female priests he would have had them there at the last supper.
 
If the argument is to hold that Jesus selected the 12 apostles based on their maleness, it should also be noted that all the men he chose were circumcised Palestinian Jews. Yet no one reads some unalterable significance about priestly leadership into that. On the contrary, wasn’t the nascent Christian movement soon to extend its renewed Israel to uncircumcised gentiles and gentile leadership?

Jesus’ choice of men for these positions of leadership simply reflected the cultural setting in which he was acting.

Which takes a higher priority for priests…acting in the name of Christ (in persona Christi) or acting in the name of the Church (in persona ecclesiae)??? If a priest is acting in the name of Christ then the spousal imagery would be that of bridegroom, right? If a priest is acting in the name of the Church then the spousal imagery would be that of the bride. I believe the priest acts in both capacities…therefore, taking on BOTH spousal images of bride and bridegroom. So, why can’t women likewise take the role of the symbolic bridegroom, Christ?

Personally, I’m less and less able to reconcile this whole “male only” priesthood with the Church’s consistent teachings on the equality of men and women and on the calling of all the baptized to full, active participation in the church.
 
Dear DVIN CKS,

You said earlier that this has been taught infallibly by the Church. Right. So, what difference does it make whether or not the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” on this issue. How much more infallible can the teaching get?

Also, remember that, as others have said, equality doesn’t equal sameness. An image of the Church is the Body of Christ and as St. Paul said, there are many parts to a body but that doesn’t make one more important or fully a part of the body than any other.

Circumcision, or lack thereof, does not determine maleness.

Regarding cultural acceptability and Jesus choosing men: I suspect that if a guy (in this case, the Son of God made man) is going to be executed by crucifixion and have that be the centerpiece of His human life, He wouldn’t really care about the cultural acceptability of His actions. Obviously, He didn’t.

If you are “less and less able” to reconcile these teachings of the Church, what was it that made you able to do it in the first place? What has changed for you?
 
DVIN CKS:
Jesus’ choice of men for these positions of leadership simply reflected the cultural setting in which he was acting.

.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely not true. Jesus is God.
Do you think God cares about petty human cultural norms?

Priests do not act as the Church, the Church is the Bride of Christ.
As a woman I cannot act in personae christi, but in cooperation wirth God I can bring new life to the world. Life is complementary, not competitive.!
I am fullly equal to any man in the eyes of God.
 
Br. Dan:
You said earlier that this has been taught infallibly by the Church. Right. So, what difference does it make whether or not the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” on this issue. How much more infallible can the teaching get?

If you are “less and less able” to reconcile these teachings of the Church, what was it that made you able to do it in the first place? What has changed for you?
Click to expand...
Unless and until the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” on this issue it will never be put soundly to rest. If the Pope feels this is a non isuue and doesn’t want to discuss it anymore then why doesn’t he just come out with the ex cathedra decree that will end the discussion once and for all?? My guess is he can’t because the Holy Spirit won’t allow it. All he can do is try and tie the hands of his successor. As I see it the Pope has done the Church a disservice by forbidding discussion on this matter any further. To forbid discussion of a church practice is a virtual admission that it cannot withstand scrutiny.

Why does having women in the priesthood freak so many people out?? Women deacons – or deaconesses – are found in the New Testament and functioned into the fourth century in the Western church and even longer in the East. Their ordination rites were quite parallel to those of male deacons, who have been acknowledged as members of the clergy. The precedent for ordaining women deacons to a position in the clergy like that of today’s permanent deacons seems more than ample, if the church had the will.

No one doubts why, throughout church history, women have not been judged eligible for ordination. They were considered constitutionally inferior to men, either ritually impure or morally and psychologically weak. Those reasons are not sustainable today, and the church has admitted as much.
 
40.png
Hananiah:
I disagree. The Byzantine rite currently has married priests, and the Roman rite did for hundreds of years. This is simply a matter of Church discipline; it could change at any time (whether this would be a prudent decision is up for debate). Women priests, on the other hand, are not up for debate. The Pope has closed the issue infallibly. It is an issue of doctrine, not discipline, and hence can never change.
Click to expand...
Yea i agree but I think that married priests will come (if they do) most certainly before women as priests. Furthermore, marriage of priests will probably be seen as a recuriting issue.
 
Dear DVIN CKS,

Some people will always talk about (i.e., dissent from) this issue even if the Pope were to actually sit in the chair of St. Peter and say whatever it is you think he should say to put the issue “soundly to rest.” Infallibility is infallibility and if there are people who don’t accept the teaching now, a further, redundant statement will not make any difference. You know that.

Regarding the notion of the Pope “forbidding discussion,” see what I said in an earlier post. To summarize, it’s bogus. We’re proving my point even as we speak, literally.

Either there was ordination of women as deacons or not. You seem to say that, on the one hand, it certainly happened and, on the other, the church has, “throughout history,” judged women ineligible for ordination…

Finally, it’s hard to tell over the internet but i don’t see/hear anyone “freaking out.” Granted, I’m successfully putting off school work but I, for one, am a long way from freaking out. 🙂
 
DVIN CKS:
Unless and until the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” on this issue it will never be put soundly to rest. If the Pope feels this is a non isuue and doesn’t want to discuss it anymore then why doesn’t he just come out with the ex cathedra decree that will end the discussion once and for all??
Click to expand...
“… and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Sheep follow their shepherd.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
Br. Dan…I’m just thinking that this issue is like others where the practice has been the ‘status quo’ and therefore not in need of a formal decree. I’m all for supporting sacred Tradition (as this most certainly is), but obviously not everything that the church has done over the long stretch of its history (i.e. condoning slavery) can be considered to have been guided by the Holy Spirit.

I just remember reading that the only time ex cathedra proclomations are necessary are when doctrines have been called into question. Wouldn’t this be an example of that? This doctrine has certainly been called into question hasn’t it?

Seems to me that you are trying to suggest that since male-only ordination to the priesthood has been the tradition of the Church that it cannot be challenged. Saying mass in Latin is an example of something that was practiced and Catholics grew accustomed to and never expected it to ever be altered. It was Tradition!!

When I use the term “freaking out”, I mean that it seems whenever anyone mentions altering any form of Church tradition – like saying mass in Latin, the priest’s back to the congregation, etc…that people get nervous.
Br. Dan:
Regarding the notion of the Pope “forbidding discussion,” see what I said in an earlier post. To summarize, it’s bogus. We’re proving my point even as we speak, literally.

Either there was ordination of women as deacons or not. You seem to say that, on the one hand, it certainly happened and, on the other, the church has, “throughout history,” judged women ineligible for ordination…
Click to expand...
“Forbidding discussion” at the Vatican level – not friend to friend. Everyone is always going to have opinions.

Regarding women’s ordination as deacons…I’m aware that their exact role and the nature of their ordination is surrounded by historical debate, however their rites did exist.

The Church has judged women ineligible for ordination as priests. Sorry, I should have clarified. Some theologians think allowing women to be deacons would be a compromise to not allowing them to be ordained as priests. As deacons they would not be able to consecrate the eucharist or hear confessions. This would quiet the *in persona Christi * arguments.
 
As a young guy in the early '70’s, I could have accepted women priests. But that wasn’t based on in-depth knowledge of scripture or Church Tradition.

Nope. It was based more on Americanism and Constitutional Equality.

For the most part, we aren’t going to change the minds of dissidents pushing this and other non-Catholic agendas. Rather, we’ll eventually have to kick them out of the Church. Their mission seems to be to turn the Holy Catholic Church into Protestantism in general and the Episcopal Church in particular.

Why don’t they just leave for the Episcopal Church?
 
Dear DVIN CKS,

The interesting thing is that the only time “ex cathedra” was blatantly used was…the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. And that only happened after all the bishops (maybe not literally all but…) and many people asked the Pope to do it. I don’t think anyone would argue that there was turmoil in the Church before the Pope put his proverbial foot down and ended debate on those two teachings.

I think the teaching can and should be challenged. At the same time, I also think it will not change and cannot change. I think there is also plenty of “challenging” going on even at the Vatican since, as i think you said before, it takes challenging critiques to make the explanation of a doctrine better. I agree with that wholeheartedly and think the hierarchy does, too.

The deacon question is not one i feel qualified to address.
 
DVIN CKS:
Unless and until the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” on this issue it will never be put soundly to rest. If the Pope feels this is a non isuue and doesn’t want to discuss it anymore then why doesn’t he just come out with the ex cathedra decree that will end the discussion once and for all?? My guess is he can’t because the Holy Spirit won’t allow it. All he can do is try and tie the hands of his successor. As I see it the Pope has done the Church a disservice by forbidding discussion on this matter any further. To forbid discussion of a church practice is a virtual admission that it cannot withstand scrutiny.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, to say that the Holy Spirit would be quieted when He wished to speak is blasphemy. If the Holy Spirit wished this to change all of us together couldn’t keep the Pope silent. To disobey God by inaction is as grave a sin as to disobey by acting wrongly. To be infallible the Pope must not only teach that which is correct but must refrain from teaching that which is incorrect with regard to faith and morals. I believe that to say that the Pope is intentionally refraining from teaching that which is actually correct is heresy. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
DVIN CKS I did not intend to come across so harshly in my previous post. Please accept my apologies. My intention was to clarify the point that implicit in your argument is that the Pope had the power to silence the Holy Spirit. That implicit belief is part of what makes protestants think us un-Christian in our beliefs. Nothing can silence the Holy Spirit. Not the Pope, not the Bishops all united in some political stance, not all the laity. It is the promise given us by Christ. Please ignore (and hopefully forgive) the uncharitable tone of my previous post but consider the point that it makes. God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top