Women's ordination

[CB_Catholic]

Priests are living icons of Christ the Bridegroom.

This is the argument that clinched it for me when I was seeking the answer.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Why is this not allowed in the catholic church? …

Because the Pope said so in an infallible teaching that was to be held by all the faithful.

Why would non-Catholics even care what Catholic procedures are? …

Hi Sir Knight,

Your sense of curiousity is not very inspiring. Don’t you care why the Pope rules as he does? I’m sure non-Catholics do care, and we need to be prepared with intelligent answers.

“Because the Pope said so” will never cut it for non-Catholics, and we look like fools (even though we’re not) trying to live the Christian life.

I like this thread, and the “giving” and “receiving” explanation was something new that I learned. I hope you learned something new too.

 

[Eileen_T]

I think it was Scott Hahn who described the priesthood as a spiritual fatherhood.

 

[Ambrose]

This is cut and paste from a past thread on the topic and is my $ .02 on the matter.

I’ll take a run at this. As much as anything the issue has to do with the way God made nature.

We know that God is love. And the way He wired us is that love craves unity, this is how we get life - the unity of man and woman. The tradition of identifying the Church with woman goes deep into the old testament. God is bridegroom, his people are the bride. Heaven is spoken of as a heavenly marriage banquet, and of course Ephesian chapter 5 says it all and while I won’t quote all the Bible passages, believe me, they’re there.

When a Priest consecrates the Eucharist he’s does it ‘Persona Christi’ - in the person of Christ. He’s offering up sacrifice (himself) for his bride the Church. It’s a union, like the union of a man and woman. Thats how we get new life - the Eucharist. It takes the union of a male, the priest in the person of Christ “pouring” out himself for his Church, all of us, to make the Eucharist. It’s the way God made us !!!

The minute a woman tries to consecrate bread and wine, it ***HAS ***to become a symbol since a woman to woman union **CANNOT produce new life. It’s about nature and the way God made the world. **Think of it as woman+man, Christ+Church = NEW LIFE, Human life, Divine life.

Now we can change it for the sake of political correctness or because some other churches have woman ministers, but the minute we do, this thing stops being the Roman Catholic Church and I don’t want any part of it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Your sense of curiousity is not very inspiring. Don’t you care why the Pope rules as he does?

No. I have the assurance of the Son of God that his ruling is correct. That should be good enough for ANYBODY.

I’m sure non-Catholics do care, and we need to be prepared with intelligent answers.

And this topic has been brought up and answered numerous times on these forums. A use of the ‘search’ feature will show where.

“Because the Pope said so” will never cut it for non-Catholics, and we look like fools (even though we’re not) trying to live the Christian life.

How about "because the Pope said it and we have Christ’s assurance that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven?

I like this thread, and the “giving” and “receiving” explanation was something new that I learned. I hope you learned something new too.

No. As I said, all of this has been covered before and in much more detail.

 

[Petergee]

No. I have the assurance of the Son of God that his ruling is correct. That should be good enough for ANYBODY.

And this topic has been brought up and answered numerous times on these forums. A use of the ‘search’ feature will show where.

How about "because the Pope said it and we have Christ’s assurance that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven?

No. As I said, all of this has been covered before and in much more detail.

Fine, then give the OP a link to these previous threads. No-one is disputing the Pope’s authority here. We are just talking about the most prudent and effective way to convince a non-Catholic, and to strengthen the faith of wavering Catholics (and that’s all of us at one time or another, I’m sure even you have moments of doubt where you need a little extra support for your faith).

I don’t think Christ asks us to simply present the bald truths of the faith and tell non-Catholics they can take it or leave it. He expects us to make an effort to connect with people at whatever stage on their spiritual journey they are “to be all things to all men”, to explain the truths of the faith in a way they can understand and access.

And most importantly, everybody, Catholic and non-Catholic, needs to understand and be shown that ours is not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith. To many people who have grown up with a protestant or secular mindset, excluding women from the priesthood seems unreasonable. We need to show them that it is entirely in accord with reason.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Fine, then give the OP a link to these previous threads. No-one is disputing the Pope’s authority here. We are just talking about the most prudent and effective way to convince a non-Catholic, and to strengthen the faith of wavering Catholics (and that’s all of us at one time or another, I’m sure even you have moments of doubt where you need a little extra support for your faith).

The OP makes no mention of convincing a non-Catholic of this point.

I don’t think Christ asks us to simply present the bald truths of the faith and tell non-Catholics they can take it or leave it. He expects us to make an effort to connect with people at whatever stage on their spiritual journey they are “to be all things to all men”, to explain the truths of the faith in a way they can understand and access.

Doesn’t the bible instruct us to obey our church leaders because they have authority over us?

 

[DianJo]

This is cut and paste from a past thread on the topic and is my $ .02 on the matter.

I’ll take a run at this. As much as anything the issue has to do with the way God made nature.

We know that God is love. And the way He wired us is that love craves unity, this is how we get life - the unity of man and woman. The tradition of identifying the Church with woman goes deep into the old testament. God is bridegroom, his people are the bride. Heaven is spoken of as a heavenly marriage banquet, and of course Ephesian chapter 5 says it all and while I won’t quote all the Bible passages, believe me, they’re there.

When a Priest consecrates the Eucharist he’s does it ‘Persona Christi’ - in the person of Christ. He’s offering up sacrifice (himself) for his bride the Church. It’s a union, like the union of a man and woman. Thats how we get new life - the Eucharist. It takes the union of a male, the priest in the person of Christ “pouring” out himself for his Church, all of us, to make the Eucharist. It’s the way God made us !!!

The minute a woman tries to consecrate bread and wine, it ***HAS ***to become a symbol since a woman to woman union **CANNOT produce new life. It’s about nature and the way God made the world. **Think of it as woman+man, Christ+Church = NEW LIFE, Human life, Divine life.

Now we can change it for the sake of political correctness or because some other churches have woman ministers, but the minute we do, this thing stops being the Roman Catholic Church and I don’t want any part of it.

I “highlighted” the portion of your answer to say that you bet me to the punch!

In the OT, God’s always refers to the relationship between Himself and His people in “marriage speak.” He is always the faithful spouse and Israel is the “harlot,” or the unfaithful wife. Just read Hosea.

The relationship, even now, is still referred to in these terms - Christ is the bride*groom *and the Church in the *bride. *Also look at the Holy Family - father, mother and child is a reflection of the Trinity - the love between the Father and the Son manifests itself in the Holy Spirit. The same love between husband and wife manifests itself in the creation of a child - a product of that unconditional love. That’s why marriage is a sacrament.

To have anything in the way of a woman as priest smacks of same sex union and that is totally contrary to what God created. There cannot EVER be a woman priest - the Church does not have the power to change that as stated clearly by JPII.

 

[Petergee]

The OP makes no mention of convincing a non-Catholic of this point.

She said

a friend of mine asked me this today and I wasn’t able to answer her.

I take it that the friend is either a non-Catholic or a wavering Catholic.

Doesn’t the bible instruct us to obey our church leaders because they have authority over us?

Yes, and our first Pope told us: “Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”

You make me wonder why you bother taking part in a discussion forum. By the logic you have used on this thread, you should not discuss any aspect of catholic doctrine but just say, “All you need to know is in the Catechism and in the documents produced by the Pope and bishops, read them and I have nothing more to add or explain.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

She said I take it that the friend is either a non-Catholic or a wavering Catholic.

That is an assumption on your part. It might very well be corrected but nowhere is it stated.

Yes, and our first Pope told us: “Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”

I Peter 3:15 … It is well known to me and I quote it many times myself.

You make me wonder why you bother taking part in a discussion forum. By the logic you have used on this thread, you should not discuss any aspect of catholic doctrine but just say, “All you need to know is in the Catechism and in the documents produced by the Pope and bishops, read them and I have nothing more to add or explain.”

Because for this particular topic the BEST answer is that it was infallibly stated so by the Pope. Any other answer can be argued. I’ve seen it. Just do a search on this topic and you’ll see every other reply challenged EXCEPT that it was infallibly stated so by the Pope. There is no challenge to that reply. There can be no challenge to that reply.

 

[LittleDeb]

Because for this particular topic the BEST answer is that it was infallibly stated so by the Pope. Any other answer can be argued. I’ve seen it. Just do a search on this topic and you’ll see every other reply challenged EXCEPT that it was infallibly stated so by the Pope. There is no challenge to that reply. There can be no challenge to that reply.

Actually this version is the one I used to receive the most challenges on. In discussions it comes up as “your pope.” The argument below with the modifications I was planning to present is the one that gets the “no challenge” answer. In this argument we are discussing “our God” and “our nature” not just what many separated Christians and non-Christians view as “just a guy in Rome.” “Rome has spoken the case is closed” used to work, but further divisions in Christianity lead to less respect. We are often discussing this topic with lapsed Catholics, dissenting Catholics, or a split of a split of a split of a Protestant sect Evangelical. They have little to no respect for what the Pope says.

In the OT, God’s always refers to the relationship between Himself and His people in “marriage speak.” He is always the faithful spouse and Israel is the “harlot,” or the unfaithful wife. Just read Hosea.

The relationship, even now, is still referred to in these terms - Christ is the bride*groom *and the Church in the *bride. *Also look at the Holy Family - father, mother and child is a reflection of the Trinity - the love between the Father and the Son manifests itself in the Holy Spirit. The same love between husband and wife manifests itself in the creation of a child - a product of that unconditional love. That’s why marriage is a sacrament.

This is always a very good place to lead “Bible only” Christians to read, but they will still put their own spin on it. Without the deep understanding of sexual symbolism they still believe that some things are just “stuck in patriarchal speech.”

They will agree that it is using marriage as an analogy, but they will turn it to, “Well it is just as easy to read it as bride and groom, rather than groom and bride.” Many honestly believe that God flipped a coin to incarnate as a male. That is why I have so much respect for Peter Kreeft’s argument. He gets them out of their “Bible only” mentality by using the actual nature of God as his argument. By pointing out that God is masculine and we are all feminine takes the wind out of the sails of the “if God is masculine then males are gods” argument that is so prevalent in the women’s ordination conflict.

He shows that across cultures the sun is almost always masculine and the moon feminine. The earth feminine and the heavens masculine. He says we cannot be projecting patriarchal speech onto God if nearly every culture has discovered the same thing independently. As we as Catholics can attest, using anything “sola,” be it Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterium “alone” will lead to error.

I totally agree that this Scripture is a great place to begin discussion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Actually this version is the one I used to receive the most challenges on. In discussions it comes up as “your pope.” The argument below with the modifications I was planning to present is the one that gets the “no challenge” answer. In this argument we are discussing “our God” and “our nature” not just what many separated Christians and non-Christians view as “just a guy in Rome.” “Rome has spoken the case is closed” used to work, but further divisions in Christianity lead to less respect. We are often discussing this topic with lapsed Catholics, dissenting Catholics, or a split of a split of a split of a Protestant sect Evangelical. They have little to no respect for what the Pope says.

Maybe this isn’t coming out right but I’ll ask again, if a person isn’t Catholic, what does it matter what “the guy in rome” says? And if they are Catholic, then they are required to obey the teachings of the Pope.

 

[LittleDeb]

Maybe this isn’t coming out right but I’ll ask again, if a person isn’t Catholic, what does it matter what “the guy in rome” says? And if they are Catholic, then they are required to obey the teachings of the Pope.

Ah! Now I see where you are coming from!

I guess I tend more towards what my engineer sister calls, “congruent arguments.” My discussions are often framed around the same foundation no matter to whom I am speaking. I will tailor them to the specific person when needed. In my time in apologetics I have found that congruent arguments work well. I have linked Kreeft’s argument for a male only priesthood to people I am speaking with about the negative effects of contraception on marriage. Since a big part of misunderstanding the give and receive of marriage is at the root of the contraception mentality, I have found that many people who struggle with one issue struggle with both.

Theology of the Body has had such a huge impact on me because I discovered that nearly all of my problems with the Church were based on my fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God and my own femininity. Discovering more deeply what it means to be imaged in God, both male and female, opened the doors to understanding contraception, same-sex unions, women’s ordination and everything else. It led me from being a dissenting Catholic who didn’t care if I “obeyed the Pope” to a devout Catholic who repents from sin rather than dwelling in it, and finally thoroughly obeys the Pope!

I hope I am now understanding you POV.

 

[DianJo]

Actually this version is the one I used to receive the most challenges on. In discussions it comes up as “your pope.” The argument below with the modifications I was planning to present is the one that gets the “no challenge” answer. In this argument we are discussing “our God” and “our nature” not just what many separated Christians and non-Christians view as “just a guy in Rome.” “Rome has spoken the case is closed” used to work, but further divisions in Christianity lead to less respect. We are often discussing this topic with lapsed Catholics, dissenting Catholics, or a split of a split of a split of a Protestant sect Evangelical. They have little to no respect for what the Pope says.
This is always a very good place to lead “Bible only” Christians to read, but they will still put their own spin on it. Without the deep understanding of sexual symbolism they still believe that some things are just “stuck in patriarchal speech.”

They will agree that it is using marriage as an analogy, but they will turn it to, “Well it is just as easy to read it as bride and groom, rather than groom and bride.” Many honestly believe that God flipped a coin to incarnate as a male. That is why I have so much respect for Peter Kreeft’s argument. He gets them out of their “Bible only” mentality by using the actual nature of God as his argument. By pointing out that God is masculine and we are all feminine takes the wind out of the sails of the “if God is masculine then males are gods” argument that is so prevalent in the women’s ordination conflict.

He shows that across cultures the sun is almost always masculine and the moon feminine. The earth feminine and the heavens masculine. He says we cannot be projecting patriarchal speech onto God if nearly every culture has discovered the same thing independently. As we as Catholics can attest, using anything “sola,” be it Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterium “alone” will lead to error.

I totally agree that this Scripture is a great place to begin discussion.

Deb,
I completely agree with your point. I hadn’t thought of that. I just assumed that most people, whether Catholic or Non-Catholic, understood the “marriage speak” and the male /female aspect. But, you’re right, non-Cahtolics more so, have probably not encountered that explanation in their protestant theology.

Thanks, I’ll remember that!

Oh - is there a link to Peter Kreeft’s agrument online you are speaking of?

Thanks again!

 

[Sir_Knight]

You make me wonder why you bother taking part in a discussion forum. By the logic you have used on this thread, you should not discuss any aspect of catholic doctrine but just say, “All you need to know is in the Catechism and in the documents produced by the Pope and bishops, read them and I have nothing more to add or explain.”

To further illustrate my point, please go to this thread.

I kindly ask you to please read the entire thread starting with the very first post. You will note that for over 200 posts every argument has been employed defending the Catholic position. You will notice that around post 206, after having exhausted all other forms of arguments, the focus is now on the fact that it is so because the church says so. None of the other arguments were effective.

I see this happen over & over.

Why not employ the “church infallibility” argument from the start since that is where we eventually end up anyway when other arguments aren’t accepted anywyay?

 

[LittleDeb]

Deb,
I completely agree with your point. I hadn’t thought of that. I just assumed that most people, whether Catholic or Non-Catholic, understood the “marriage speak” and the male /female aspect. But, you’re right, non-Cahtolics more so, have probably not encountered that explanation in their protestant theology.

Thanks, I’ll remember that!

Oh - is there a link to Peter Kreeft’s agrument online you are speaking of?

Thanks again!

Yep. It got a little lost upthread so here it is again.

I have found Peter Kreeft’s talk, peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm to be extremely helpful especially in dealing with very intelligent people. Kreeft is what he calls, “an academic.”

It took me awhile to be willing to listen to his stuff because I was intimidated by his education level. I consider myself intelligent but have never desired earning a Ph.D. He really is pretty funny and doesn’t speak over people’s heads. This write-up of a portion of the talk, peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm is from his book, Women and the Priesthood, coauthored by an amazing woman, Alice Von Hildebrand. I haven’t read it yet because I am still not sure I want to think that deeply.

Off-topic note here: I find his talk on Ecumenism to be the best I have ever heard. I feel very comfortable recommending it to anyone I encounter. He shows the best side of basically every belief on earth. He shows how unity is possible because of the kernels of Truth present in every belief system. He shows that the ONE who can bring about unity is Jesus because He is the best Ecumenist who has ever walked the earth.

Back on topic–One of his female colleagues at Boston College (“Catholic” college) is one of the biggest supporters of women’s ordination. I think her name is Mary Daley. They debate it with regular frequency. He has extensively researched this topic.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

When I was a young girl (several decades ago!) I asked a priest visiting our school why girls couldn’t be ordained. His reply was that women were not present at the Last Supper when the sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted and that this was a clear indication from Christ that only men could receive that sacrament. I reminded him that the Eucharist was primarily instituted at that same male gathering and asked why was it that women could receive Holy Communion but not Holy Orders. I never got an answer.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Because Jesus said that His Body & Blood were given for all and not just for all present.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Because Jesus said that His Body & Blood were given for all and not just for all present.

Actually the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has pointed out that “for all” is not a literal translation of the words that Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 report that Jesus used at the Last Supper and of the words used in the Latin text of the Roman Mass.

But let’s not go there

 

[LittleDeb]

When I was a young girl (several decades ago!) I asked a priest visiting our school why girls couldn’t be ordained. His reply was that women were not present at the Last Supper when the sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted and that this was a clear indication from Christ that only men could receive that sacrament. I reminded him that the Eucharist was primarily instituted at that same male gathering and asked why was it that women could receive Holy Communion but not Holy Orders. I never got an answer.

Welcome to the forums! Well at least you know that you belong to the Universal Church. Those fallible people were giving the same lame answers in Ireland that they were giving here in the U.S… I think some of the answers are currently less lame even when given by the fallible, but they are just soooo long.

The short answers to our questions are really just too short. 2000 years and billions upon billions of Catholics have still not been able to contain any real answer “in a nutshell.” Infallible declarations are the shortest I think that are humanly possible. I love being Catholic actually for this reason. There is no end to the discussion. We can always seek a deeper understanding.

Again, welcome! Looking forward to more discussion.