Author Topic: Women priests? (Read 1852 times)

e987 · « **on:** August 04, 2015, 04:04:07 AM »

Catholics, do you (personally) believe priesthood is reserved for men alone? Why/why not?

poche · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2015, 04:49:41 AM »

I think Pope St John Paul II explained it well in this docuмent;

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2015, 05:12:53 AM »

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2015, 05:22:19 AM »

Quote from: e987

Catholics, do you (personally) believe priesthood is reserved for men alone? Why/why not?

you're really asking this

why

anyone with a modicuм of theological sense knows that women can't be priests - conservative protestants included

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2015, 05:48:54 AM »

Why is he asking this? He's not a Catholic and is apparently curious about what Catholics believe.

I say he is not Catholic based on how he phrased the question. First of all, he specifically addressed "Catholics". Then he asked about our "personal" beliefs as if a Catholic's personal belief could differ from the doctrine taught by the Church.

A Catholic would have asked why the Church teaches that the priesthood is reserved to men alone rather than ask if we personally believe that. By definition, a Catholic who publicly and pertinaciously doubts the doctrine that the priesthood can only be conferred upon men has defected from the faith and is no longer even Catholic.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2015, 07:14:40 AM »

In addition to 1 Corinthians 14:34, there are three essentials necessary for a valid ordination to the priesthood (which is a Sacrament of Holy Orders): proper form, matter and intention. Only a man can qualify as the proper matter, hence, if a woman went through the "ordination" process with proper form and intention, she would still not be a real priest because this Holy Order was instituted by Christ upon men exclusively, and the Rites, codified by the Church, is to be conferred upon men exclusively. This can never change lest there be anathema.

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2015, 01:27:42 AM »

From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

In hte original Latin it says;

Can. 1024 — Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus.

The key words in Latin are valide and vir. The word vir means that only men are capable of recieving the sacrament of Ordination and the word valide means that it is a question of validity. This means that even if a woman were to go through te motions with a validly ordained bishop to appear to recieve the sacrament it would not be real because she would be icapable of recieving the sacrament.

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** August 12, 2015, 10:55:56 PM »

Another point of reference is that the Church is called the Bride of Christ. In order to be a bride you must be a woman. No man can be a bride. Because the churchis seen as the bride. Christ is the groom and the Church is his bride. In order to be a true visible representative of Christ requires that the representative be a male. Therefore the Catholic priesthood is reserved exclusively to men.

MrYeZe · « **Reply #8 on:** August 12, 2015, 11:48:44 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

But dast sexist. Seriously though, while Corinthians 14:34 is not a blanket statement about women being absolutely silent in Church, as Paul later says that praying and prophesying by women is okay, but I think it's pretty clear when it comes to its intention of 'no female priests'. I don't see why we should interpret it as anything but just to placate disgusting atheists and feminist whores.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2015, 01:12:33 AM »

During Mass, the Priest represents Jesus Christ.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2015, 01:20:28 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

During Mass, the Priest represents Jesus Christ.

That is why priests cannot be women. The Church is the bride of Christ. Therefore the priest, who represents Christ, cannot be a woman.

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2015, 06:42:19 AM »

This is, perhaps, a little off topic, but I think it is an interesting issue concerning the idea of women priests.

I've heard proponents of women's ordination say that the only reason the "early Church" did not ordain women was because of cultural restraints; that it would have run too far against the culture for it to be accepted. But this really is not true. Virtually the only religion at the time of Christ that absolutely did NOT have women priests were the Jєωs. Priestesses have always been part and parcel of nearly all pagan religions (I qualify my statement only because I don't have knowledge of all pagan religions though I know of no pagan religion in history that does not have some form of priesthood for women).

Priestesses in that time period would not have been counter-cultural. In fact, Christianity probably could have made great inroads much faster throughout the world had they ordained women. Yet, even when the rulers of the Church were no longer Jєωs and the Church no longer centered in Jerusalem, the Church remained counter-cultural and refused to ordain women rather than bow to the cultures around the world and accept priestesses.

The Conciliar sect will begin to ordain women. It is only a matter of time. I find it telling that the reason Bergoglio stated for not entertaining the idea was that it was too "clericalist" for women to demand ordination. I don't think he has a fundamental objection to the idea, he just wants to save women from placing "too much" emphasis on the priesthood.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2015, 11:59:59 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

This is, perhaps, a little off topic, but I think it is an interesting issue concerning the idea of women priests.

I've heard proponents of women's ordination say that the only reason the "early Church" did not ordain women was because of cultural restraints; that it would have run too far against the culture for it to be accepted. But this really is not true. Virtually the only religion at the time of Christ that absolutely did NOT have women priests were the Jєωs. Priestesses have always been part and parcel of nearly all pagan religions (I qualify my statement only because I don't have knowledge of all pagan religions though I know of no pagan religion in history that does not have some form of priesthood for women).

Priestesses in that time period would not have been counter-cultural. In fact, Christianity probably could have made great inroads much faster throughout the world had they ordained women. Yet, even when the rulers of the Church were no longer Jєωs and the Church no longer centered in Jerusalem, the Church remained counter-cultural and refused to ordain women rather than bow to the cultures around the world and accept priestesses.

The Conciliar sect will begin to ordain women. It is only a matter of time. I find it telling that the reason Bergoglio stated for not entertaining the idea was that it was too "clericalist" for women to demand ordination. I don't think he has a fundamental objection to the idea, he just wants to save women from placing "too much" emphasis on the priesthood.

No you are mistaken. The "Counciliar sect" as you call it will not begn to ordain women. It does not have teh authority. And an important difference which should be noted is that whatever problems are had with the SSPX, the SSPX ordinations are recognized as valid while every so called ordination of a woman which has occured has been referred to as invalid.
In 1994, Pope John Paul promulgated Sacerdotio Ordinatalis which clarifies the situation;

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2015, 07:11:21 AM »

No, poche, I am not "mistaken". History will one day prove me wrong or will prove you wrong, but neither of us is "mistaken".

Women are already acting as un-ordained deacons in some places. I need not provide examples as examples have been spotlighted here on CathInfo often enough that anyone who denies it is doing so in bad faith.

The only question is: When with the Conciliar sect formalize what they are doing with the ceremonial rite? I'm not sure, but you say it will never do so. In any event, we are both looking at the same developments in Conciliarism and we both see different paths ahead. Just as we are seeing more and more Conciliarists speak positively of the concept of communion for the divorced and remarried, for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ unions, and for other evils, we (or at least I) have seen Conciliarists speak positively of the concept of women's ordination. At least one cardinal (or perhaps only a bishop, but I think it was a cardinal), I don't remember who it was, was shown to be open to the idea here on this forum. They truly are "evolving".

Remember that the objectionable moral statements on divorce and remarriage and on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity failed to gain the 2/3 vote to be included in the final docuмent but did receive a majority vote. Remember also that Bergoglio ordered the statements to be included in the docuмent in spite of their failure to receive the required number of votes. We will see what happens in October for the second half of the synod. Unless the "conservatives" are able to mount a real defense, the Conciliar sect will definitely show its cards. Women's ordination, I think, are the next big step, unless full inter-communion with the Lutherans takes precedence.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2015, 07:20:42 AM »

There was a time when Catholics said the Pope would never pray with Jєωs and heretics.

And here we are!