women's ordination

[vern_humphrey]

The pope has not spoken to this ex cathedra, there for it is not dogma and can be falible. Just because it has been tradition, does not mean it is right.

God is not an elected official. We cannot vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe.

John Paul the Great said the Church does not have the power to ordain women. The letter in which he said it was actually written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

The issue is settled.

 

[sinningcatholic]

RE: VERN Humphrey post==please stay with the arguement.

Please don’t give up on the dialog. I know this is settled. YOU know this is settled. But many Catholics women are hurt via a poor understanding of the solid evidence. Their thoughts and feeling need to be vented then healed. YOU do a great job. This issue is settled. The people are not. OUr work continues. love, maureen.

vern humphrey
Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2004
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 8,847

Re: women’s ordination

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayne100
The pope has not spoken to this ex cathedra, there for it is not dogma and can be falible. Just because it has been tradition, does not mean it is right.

God is not an elected official. We cannot vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe.

John Paul the Great said the Church does not have the power to ordain women. The letter in which he said it was actually written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

The issue is settled.

 

[rayne100]

God is not an elected official. We cannot vote Him out of office if we don’t like the way He runs His universe.

John Paul the Great said the Church does not have the power to ordain women. The letter in which he said it was actually written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.

The issue is settled.

The issue is not settled, and I am not a feminist. The Pope is infalible on only matters that he speak ex cathedra. That has only happened 7 times in our history and unless otherwise proven, he has not spoken on this issue ex cathedra. His belief that women cannot become priests is only his interpretation, however it is not infalible.
The Bible does not specifically state that women cannot be priests. Interpretations are just that interpretations.
It is assumed that since all of the apostles were men, that only men could be ordained, however the cultural context is that a woman at that time would never have been allowed to live if she dared to be so bold.
This is coming from a time when women and children were not even counted as people.

 

[Stu]

Sounds settled to me.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION
TO MEN ALONE

…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.
Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

 

[Stu]

It is assumed that since all of the apostles were men, that only men could be ordained, however the cultural context is that a woman at that time would never have been allowed to live if she dared to be so bold.
This is coming from a time when women and children were not even counted as people.

So you think God would be limited by men and their conventions?

 

[rayne100]

So you think God would be limited by men and their conventions?

No, I didn’t say that. I’m simply stating that this was the culture at hand at the time that Jesus walked among us and it may be an explanation as to why men where chosen at the time.

 

[rayne100]

Sounds settled to me.

This document does not contain all of the requirements to be considered an infalible church doctrine.
It is still his opinion although eloquently stated.

 

[Stu]

This document does not contain all of the requirements to be considered an infalible church doctrine.
It is still his opinion although eloquently stated.

That is arguable. At the very least, it has set the groundwork for such a proclamation in the future when needed.

 

[Stu]

No, I didn’t say that. I’m simply stating that this was the culture at hand at the time that Jesus walked among us and it may be an explanation as to why men where chosen at the time.

And if Christ had wanted it to happen, He most certainly could have overcome the cultural limitations and made it happen. It certainly wouldn’t have been anymore ground-breaking than what He did proclaim. Therefore we are left with the fact that He did not choose priestesses as such.

 

[Eddy]

But back to no 1 of my earlier post. The ‘if Christ had wanted it to happen he would have made it happen’. Why, then, did he not call anyone who had a physical disability? Or who was of different descent? Galillee was certainly multi-cultural enough at the time. Of course Christ operated within cultural limitations. He chose, for example to largely limit his ministry to the children of Israel. This does not mean that Paul broke from his intentions when he worked among the gentiles. Gentiles could be called, and could be disciples and apostles, even though they had not been among Jesus’ chosen 12.

It’s not just about troublesome Feminists. It’s about people believing that maybe, just maybe God has been misinterpreted through the ages - Threse of Lisuex did. Did that make her less committed to God?

 

[sinningcatholic]

Has the Holy Spirit been snoozing for 2000+ years? Or is there a genuine order to things some disagree with?

But back to no 1 of my earlier post. The ‘if Christ had wanted it to happen he would have made it happen’. Why, then, did he not call anyone who had a physical disability? Or who was of different descent? Galillee was certainly multi-cultural enough at the time. Of course Christ operated within cultural limitations. He chose, for example to largely limit his ministry to the children of Israel. This does not mean that Paul broke from his intentions when he worked among the gentiles. Gentiles could be called, and could be disciples and apostles, even though they had not been among Jesus’ chosen 12.

It’s not just about troublesome Feminists. It’s about people believing that maybe, just maybe God has been misinterpreted through the ages - Threse of Lisuex did. Did that make her less committed to God?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The issue is not settled, and I am not a feminist. The Pope is infalible on only matters that he speak ex cathedra. That has only happened 7 times in our history and unless otherwise proven, he has not spoken on this issue ex cathedra. His belief that women cannot become priests is only his interpretation, however it is not infalible.
The Bible does not specifically state that women cannot be priests. Interpretations are just that interpretations.
It is assumed that since all of the apostles were men, that only men could be ordained, however the cultural context is that a woman at that time would never have been allowed to live if she dared to be so bold.
This is coming from a time when women and children were not even counted as people.

The issue is not settled. And the earth is not round, the sky is not blue, and the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

rayne100;1838064:

No, I didn’t say that. I’m simply stating that this was the culture at hand at the time that Jesus walked among us and it may be an explanation as to why men where chosen at the time.

And if Christ had wanted it to happen, He most certainly could have overcome the cultural limitations and made it happen. It certainly wouldn’t have been anymore ground-breaking than what He did proclaim. Therefore we are left with the fact that He did not choose priestesses as such.

I have to agree with Stu here.

I find it funny that those who are for the ordination of priestesses continue with the line that Jesus did not do this when he was on earth due to the culture at the time when Jesus ignored that same culture when he healed on the sabbath, when he allowed his disciples to gather food on the sabbath, when he ate with sinners and even stayed in there homes, when he stopped the people from stoneing the adulterer, and many other instances where he violated the cultural norms of that day.

Seems some people just see what they wish to see.

 

[Love4Nature]

I know that the Church has already spoken on the issue regarding women’s ordination. I was told there were ontological and gerontalogical reasons why. Like fore example ordinatio sacerdotalis for example says that women cannot be priests. Right? The twelve apostles were all men right? Ok. Is it on the basis of gender that women can’t be priests? Is it because of difference in biological parts? My sister asked me this and I didn’t know how to answer that. I’m looking for reasons besides what sacred tradition and the bible say. I would really appreciate your guy’s help. You guys have been so good to me on this forum. And it’s a miracle that I came here. God bless.

Nick

Ordination of a women priest has long been addressed by the Church. Pope John Paul II when asked by the a journalist on one of his vist to the US about his stand on the ordination issues, Pope John Paull II stated, the Church does not have the power to do so as the authroity comes from the Lord Himself.

One does not have to a priest to be holy or a saint. If the question is about equality; every person is made in the image of God himself, and we are called to a vocation to serve him. This come in a form of a married person (male + female), a teacher, homemaker, a lawyer, scientist, priest, sister, brother, and the list goes on.

If the question is about a storage of Priest, the good Lord would provide. If the Catholic Church is the only “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” as recited all the time, He will provide for all its needs. He will allow for expressions of oppinions, new theologies as seen after Vatican II Council.

The Key Question that every Catholic should take time to consider is that: Is the Catholic Church actually protecting the “Teaching” of our Lord? We are called to witness in Faith and Deeds.

matt

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is a thread around here somewhere on a woman who became a pastor. It seems she started as a Catholic, was a Sister, a Bishop’s assistant, then became an Episcopalian, was ordained in the Episcopal church and is now a pastor.

I haven’t done a lot of research here, but it seems I’ve read similar stories before, or women leaving the Catholic Church to become priests or ministers in Protestant churches. In other words, they become formal heretics.

Now think about it. Suppose these women had been ordained in the Catholic Church. What do you think they would do the next time they have a quarrel with Catholic doctrine? Why, they’d leave the Church and take some of their flock with them if they could.

The people who shout loudest for ordaining women are exactly the sort of people who should not be ordained – regardless of their sex.

 

[Love4Nature]

To be a priest, nun, brother or sister is a calling to vocation of religious life. The alter for the celebrating mass is holy. i.e. where the “Bread and Wine” is transformed into the “Body and Blood” of our risen Lord.

Someone tell me, where on earth before reformation by Martin Luther and his new theology doctrine on “Faith Alone” where women take a lead in such offerings?

 

[Eddy]

What seems to be ignored is that there are lots of women working within the Catholic church who have a strong sense of calling to Priesthood. That they don’t post openly here, and that they don’t answer questions like Fergal’s is not because they don’t have a strong argument, but because it hurts. It’s painful. To love someone, and to have them deny, or refuse to acknowledge, or to openly despise or reject something that’s integral to who you are. You’re hardly going to expose that in a place where, with all due respect, the overriding atmosphere is not always one of love, concern, gentleness or respect (regardless of what Peter wrote in his letters about giving your reasons with gentleness and respect). They’re there, I know many, but when they get greeted with such hostitlity when they seek to express themselves, they quickly learn to pour their hearts out only to God, and to wise and gentle spiritual mentors. Why, if they hated the Church, would so many choose to stay, despite the pain? Why would the risk such vitriol and mockery, if they didn’t believe what they feel has come from God. Maybe you believe they’re wrong, but please don’t insult them by claiming they don’t earnestly love God or the church.

I’ll get back to you on the historical references. I have them, but I don’t have access to the books right now.

And I say, again, that Jesus chose to operate within some historical/cultural restrictions (remember, Jesus worked in Jewish tradition, not in Roman tradition, even though he was in contact with it), but that did not prevent later disciples operating beyond those restrictions. How do we decide which ones were to be altered, and which were not?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What seems to be ignored is that there are lots of women working within the Catholic church who have a strong sense of calling to Priesthood. That they don’t post openly here, and that they don’t answer questions like Fergal’s is not because they don’t have a strong argument, but because it hurts. It’s painful. To love someone, and to have them deny, or refuse to acknowledge, or to openly despise or reject something that’s integral to who you are. You’re hardly going to expose that in a place where, with all due respect, the overriding atmosphere is not always one of love, concern, gentleness or respect (regardless of what Peter wrote in his letters about giving your reasons with gentleness and respect). They’re there, I know many, but when they get greeted with such hostitlity when they seek to express themselves, they quickly learn to pour their hearts out only to God, and to wise and gentle spiritual mentors. Why, if they hated the Church, would so many choose to stay, despite the pain? Why would the risk such vitriol and mockery, if they didn’t believe what they feel has come from God. Maybe you believe they’re wrong, but please don’t insult them by claiming they don’t earnestly love God or the church.

A feeling for something does not mean that that something is deserved.

Many men feel that they are (or should be) women yet God made them a male. Many feel that they should be making more money than they do yet stealing that money is still wrong.

And I say, again, that Jesus chose to operate within some historical/cultural restrictions (remember, Jesus worked in Jewish tradition, not in Roman tradition, even though he was in contact with it), but that did not prevent later disciples operating beyond those restrictions. How do we decide which ones were to be altered, and which were not?

I see that you still ignore the fact that Jesus chose to operate outside of some historical/cultural restrictions while honoring others. Maybe that means something.

 

[contramundum7]

But back to no 1 of my earlier post. The ‘if Christ had wanted it to happen he would have made it happen’. Why, then, did he not call anyone who had a physical disability? Or who was of different descent? Galillee was certainly multi-cultural enough at the time. Of course Christ operated within cultural limitations. He chose, for example to largely limit his ministry to the children of Israel. This does not mean that Paul broke from his intentions when he worked among the gentiles. Gentiles could be called, and could be disciples and apostles, even though they had not been among Jesus’ chosen 12.

It’s not just about troublesome Feminists. It’s about people believing that maybe, just maybe God has been misinterpreted through the ages - Threse of Lisuex did. Did that make her less committed to God?

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
for one thing, i’ve never read any posts that were hateful as you say…

for another thing, Jesus didn’t appoint female apostles because he didn’t want to. Jesus was a revolutionary (as it were). He spoke his mind & didn’t care who liked it and who didn’t which is why he was crucified, more or less… If he had wanted women to be apostles, he would have said so, either publicly or to his 12 in private. If he had chosen females to be part of the 12, he may have been crucified then & there, because of customs of the day… But he could have gotten around all that… The fact is, he didn’t…

Why can’t women be happy being women? It is human nature to always try to be something we’re not (kind of the Catholic way…meaning Catholics sometimes try to be angels when they know they are not and never will be in this world… but whatever… ). Personally, i love being a woman - i love the whole idea of pregnancy & motherhood (too bad it will probably never happen to me… but whatever…). The only thing i don’t like about being a woman is that society these days doesn’t appreciate motherhood (fully)… Our values are terribly scewed…