The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionGroup rallies for women's ordination
"People have been fired from Catholic institutions for bring up the issue"
Mar. 27, 2009
Women's ordination supporters gather outside Vatican Embassy in Washington, DC on March 25, 2009.
WASHINGTON -- Despite decades of fighting for women's ordination in the Roman Catholic Church, a Catholic women's advocacy group still hopes the Vatican will reverse its opposition to the inclusion of female clergy members.
"People have been fired who work at Catholic institutions because they even bring up the issue (of women's ordination)," said Aisha Taylor, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference.
A small band of protestors organized by Taylor's group held a small vigil March 25 outside the Vatican embassy here to support the ordination of women as priests, deacons, and bishops.
The organization, which began in 1975, is trying to raise awareness around the prohibition against women priests. The Washington vigil was one of 12 held around the world in addition to regular weekly prayer services.
Leaders say their goal is to break the longstanding silence and fear around women's ordination that began in 1994 when Pope John Paul II closed the topic's discussion by issuing an official decree.
"We're calling for the Vatican to open the discussion on women's ordination and to do what's necessary to create true equality for women in the church," said Taylor.
Church officials say they cannot ordain women as priests because Jesus chose only men as his apostles. Supporters, meanwhile, point to a 1976 decision by the Pontifical Biblical Commission that seemed to conclude there was no reason to prohibit women's ordination; conservatives say that's a misreading of the commission's findings.
"I hope that the Vatican just hears our call that women are hurting and that Jesus included women in his ministry years ago. It's time for the Vatican to follow Jesus' example," said Erin Saiz Hanna, assistant director of the Women's Ordination Conference.
Hanna said everyone is made in God's image and that it's unjust that women aren't included in leadership roles.
"I don't think it's sinful and I pray the pope doesn't think it's sinful," she said. "Women are answering their call to God, and not to the pope."
The ressurection of Jesus
The ressurection of Jesus changed everything. And Jesus's first act after the ressurection was to appear and tell Mary to go and tell the others that he has risen. If that is not making a women an apostle, I don't know what is.
This isn't a logical
This isn't a logical conclusion. Pious tradition hold that Jesus appeared privately to his mother before anyone else. Following this line of argument, only mothers should be priests... Interestingly, all mothers, daughter, fathers, sons are already priests-the priesthood of all the faithful. However, the Sacrament of Holy Orders (known formally as the Priesthood) is bestowed in its fullness on Bishops only. The presbyteroi (Priests) are the Bishop's helpers, have a sharing in his Sacradotal Priesthood as distict from the minor holy order of Deacons that assist and who must be silent during the high priestly prayers during the sacrifice. Only Priests can confect the Eucharist and can only(i.e. legitimately)-along with the Bishop say the high priestly doxology (i.e. ..Through Him with Him...etc). Thus both Bishop and Priest perform the bloodless Sacrifice of the Victim in the actual person of Christ (in persona Christi. This is extent that of the love that Christ has forst, for his Father and for his bride (his Church)-the mysterious sacrifice of himself-Victim. Grace and peace with prayers always...Signed a small "p" priest...in Christ...
Your position is not about
Your position is not about logic because it just gives an explnation as to how the church has established its tradition. It does not show me that their original premis was correct.
I do agree with one part of
I do agree with one part of your argument. Maybe mothers should only aloud to be priests.
The reason for an all male
The reason for an all male priesthood is stamped right in our bodies as male and female. The priest, like all Catholic vocations, are called to love as Christ loved (free, total, fruitful, and faithful). The Church is the bride of Christ, in much the same way the Parish is the bride of the Parish Priest. So a female priest would in essence be married to her bride - the parish - a love that CAN NOT be fruitful, CAN NOT be loving as Christ loved. That does not dimish the role that women can play in the Church. In the same way that men can not be mothers, women can not be priests. This isn't a sexist statement - this is a matter of who we are as male and female.
For those who question this issue I would strongly urge you to understand the Church's teachings instead of rallying for change. Don't look at the laundry list of do's and don'ts look at the reasons behind them. A good place to start would be the "Theology of the Body" by Pope John Paul II, or many of the other books on this topic written by various Catholic men and women.
Dear "Anonymous": So,by your
Dear "Anonymous": So,by your reasoning the "bridegroom" would by married to the groom, an homosexual union? Is that what is "stamped right in our bodies..."? The parish is not the "...bride of the Parish Priest". That is weird.
I don't want to make fun of your statement but to urge you to think, just think and let the God of creation, the creator of your intelligence lead you, just a bit....
The parish is certainly not
The parish is certainly not the bride of the priest, but at Mass, the priest sacramentally shows for Jesus Christ, who is the bridge groom of the Church. The parish is a microcosm of the Church, which is the Bride of Christ--again made sacramentally visible at Mass, especially the Consecration and Holy Communion. If you don't have a sacramental understanding of what the ordained priest "images" during Mass, then you just don't get why Women can be grooms and thus a "sacramental" image of Jesus the "Bridegroom." It's not about the ordained priest himself, it's about Jesus the Bridegroom.
Can't tell if you are the
Can't tell if you are the same "anonymous" of my reply, but my question continues. So, the priest "shows (represents?) for Christ, who is the bride groom of the church". Who then is the "Church"? The Father? Where is the "Bride". If the parish, the priest and Christ are the bridegroom then they are for the Bride? The Father is the bride? Yet, as you say, the Church,"which is the Bride of Christ" is also the bridegroom? And where does the "Mystical Body of Christ" enter into all of this - we are bride, groom and bridegroom all in one. Androgynous or what? I am very confused.
So you are saying if we make
So you are saying if we make gay marriage OK then women can be priests? Yeah that sounds like the same issue.
Peace
Anne
Anonymous, your reasoning and
Anonymous, your reasoning and the reasoning of all who hold this position is flawed (and this particular reasoning is absolutely ludicrous). Have you ever wondered why the bible has some books and not others. I did, so I started reading them to see for myself.
I'm not finished yet, but of the dozen plus I have read so far, there is a VERY interesting coincidence - all of them have references to women as apostles and disciples. Several of them have references to Mary are greater that Peter.
So, it would appear, that when the male heirarchy put together the bible, they deliberately left out ALL of the works that referenced anything that would diminish their claim that "only men can be priests".
That means, that one of the core doctrines of the RCC is a LIE. A lie that continues to be perpetrated by the Magisterial Authorities. In order to hide the lie, they claim that these works are heretical, fraudulent. More lies to hide the original lies. Is it any wonder there is such chaos and confusion within the church, given that a core doctrine is a lie? Any wonder that as they stack lie upon lie to cover up their deceit, that the confusion gets worse? Any wonder that Magisterial Authority and corruption are synonymous?
Mary IS greater than
Mary IS greater than Peter...so what's your point???
Mary is the highest creature in creation, that's what the Church teaches...and yet Jesus NEVER made her a priest!
And since Mary Loves her Son and is fully confident in God and her God-given womanhood, she respected that and did not seek acclaim and "foolish recognition" from other "foolish" creatures like us...That's why she's THE woman of virtue, strength and grace...and not some low self-esteem soul seeking applause from others.
Again, What's your point?????
What is stamped on every
What is stamped on every human body, male and female, is personal origin in femininity and masculinity. The fertilization of the egg is a seismic event that sets in motion the synergistic energy of femaleness and maleness together. From head to toe, the essential twoness of personal origin is displayed in every human body. "Let no man separate what God has joined." The Church needs to discover and acknowledge authentic sexuality. Misinformed sexuality is the source of a lot of pious humbug that people accept as gospel.
The human brain, female and male, has two lobes across which the dialog of faith and reason occurs. Neither sex has independent and absolute claim to anything, not faith, not reason. Society needs the dialogic input of females and males together. When either sex thinks it can go it alone it does whacky things, as church history documents. The egalitarian nature of the human person is the real-life basis why females have equal claim on priesthood as do males.
"Faith supposes reason as grace supposes nature," John Courtney Murray, SJ.
Religion like life supposes the joined female/ male synergy, physical and spiritual. Religion needs to get real if cultural schizophrenia would be healed.
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
Why did the gospel writer
Why did the gospel writer include this particular story? No easy answer to that question.
It makes them a disciple, not
It makes them a disciple, not an apostle and it certainly does not make them a "sacramental" icon of Jesus who as the Son of Man is the exclusive High Priest and Bridegroom of the Church. For a woman to want to be the bridegroom goes against natural law.A woman just can't be a "groom" even after a sex change operation. Deacons? that's another story and many would gladly welcome women deacons who then could preach liturgically. But the Church has always had women teaching and proclaiming the faith in religious orders and out. So don't obfuscate the issue. Jesus did not make the woman who first realized the resurrection icons of Himself as the Bridegroom of the Church. He made them icons of the Church, Holy Mother Church!
Actually this is not a major
Actually this is not a major stretch at all. The term apostle comes from the Greek verb apostelo (αποστελω) which means to send out. The women who witnessed the resurrection therefore are apostles in the truest sense of the term because they were the ones sent to tell the other disciples (from the Latin discipuli meaning students) that the resurrection had occurred. Despite the male students receiving the formal commission (the Latin equivalent of apostelo) earlier in the gospels, this one act alone at the point of the resurrection is the way Christ himself admits both women and men to the clerical offices meaning yes, the church is technically free to ordain women to all levels of orders. Rome knows this, they for cultural reasons want to keep it all male, so they cut off debate because they know they're going to loose on this one. It's just a matter of time as per Vatican II, the sensus fidelium or opinion/thought/feeling of the faithful has a say in how the church is governed.
Thank you to the Women's
Thank you to the Women's Ordination Conference for continuing to speak on behalf of the majority of us Catholics who believe that women too are called to ordination. Thank you for standing in support of justice and equality for all.
I take exception to this
I take exception to this statement for a couple of reasons. First, and foremost, it is important to recognize a fundamental truth, one that seems to be overlooked by so many on this board. That truth is that there is NO right to ordination. No one, male or female, has any right to receive any sacrament. Sacraments are gifts given by God freely to those He chooses and administered by His Church. As such, there is absolutely no question of justice or equality that enters into this debate. Who are we to tell God to whom He must give a free gift? When we celebrate a friend's birthday, do we rail against the injustice and inequality of his getting birthday gifts at the party, while we receive none?
God chooses to give certain gifts to certain people. As Paul reminds us in his letter to the Corinthians, to some are given the gift of tongues; to others, prophecy; to others the interpretation of tongues; to others, the gift of teaching, etc. God freely chooses to give gifts as He wills. To CERTAIN men He has chosen to give the gift of the Sacrament of Holy Orders: to some, in the order of deacons; to others, in the order of presbyters or priests; to others in the order of bishops. No priest has a right to be a bishop, just as no deacon has a right to be a priest, just as no layperson has a right to be a deacon, priest or bishop.
Why has God chosen to give this gift to certain men? Undoubtedly because it is part of His divine plan, because priests act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) and just as Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church His bride. Who are we to argue that God's plan is not sufficient? Who are we to dare to tell the Creator of the Universe that He is unfair or unjust? If we view the Church as a merely human institution, then I grant you that ordination of men only is unjust. But, if we view the Church properly, we find that ordination of men only, while something we not fully understand, is an integral part of God's Divine Plan as revealed in Christ Jesus.
On a separate note, I want to point out that the majority of Catholics throughout the world do not believe that women should be ordained. Since John Paul II issued his definitive statement (to be held by ALL the Church's faithful), the issue of women's ordination has become a non-issue in most quarters. I can attest to that first-hand. As a student at a major midwestern Jesuit university from 1993-1997, I know that, prior to the publication of "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" in 1994, there were workshops, lectures and rallies going on at which speakers encouraged individuals to work for the ordination of women. After the statement was issued, those events and speeches quickly ended. People realized that the Church had spoken definitively, that the Church is NOT a democracy and that doctrine is not decided by majority vote, and so they moved on to other issues that required their voice and attention.
I would recommend that the Womens' Ordination Conference consider following the example of these educators and students. Christ, through His Church, has spoken. Time to move on.
Dear Clint, I am sure that
Dear Clint,
I am sure that Christ was no misogynist even if the current Bishop of Rome would like to move on in the practice of this vice!
Peace,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dear Clint Green: I don't
Dear Clint Green: I don't think that anyone is overlooking "That truth is that there is NO right to ordination. No one, male or female, has any right to receive any sacrament." It is merely the contention of many that women are not any "lesser" unworthy than men. Noone is "telling God", they are speaking to the Church authorities who have made a theology out of misogyny.
Again, if as you assert: "...Christ is the bridegroom and the Church His bride". Why are females excluded from representing, "showing for" being the "point person" for the bride? There is a sexual anomoly here, or a homosexual analogy. Given that God created us as sexual creatures and sexuality is the foundation of the analogies, it would only seem fitting that women be integral to the sacramental reality. No? If not change the anlologies, isn't that a condition of "analogy" that it have some basis in created reality? What about the Mystical Body of Christ? If women are substantially not anywhere near the intentional essence where are they relegated to?
Noone is saying that God is unjust, as you contend. The injustice is with the hierarchy and modern tradition of the Church and we fervently wish to see it brought around to God's will.
You write: "On a separate note, I want to point out that the majority of Catholics throughout the world do not believe
that women should be ordained." As I am sure you will agree, the church is not a democracy, thus "majority" argument means nothing. So much for that argument. But, doing the right thing does mean a great deal.
The diminution of public debate, in Catholic institutions of learning, since Ordination Sacerdotalis, is not as you contend because of the rightness of the Church position but rather because it is a condition of being allowed to teach, period.
As long as the hierarchy, fervent followers thereof, and professors of theology who are more concerned with their jobs than the truth fail to move on, the movement for the inclusion of women into the fullness of the sacramental church will continue and indeed grow. The more the "rationale" for women's exclusion is promulgated, the more ridiculious it emerges; the more it is refused, the more ridiculious it emerges. The sad part is that we all lose.
Did they all take a taxi
Did they all take a taxi over? Must have been a snug fit. But dooable. Hope that they requested that Senior's discount... Is there a minimum threshold for members to be qualified as a "Group"? Get serious, there are more important things going on like the persecution of Christians in Darfur...
Hey, brave
Hey, brave "Anonsensicalness", there are no indulgences for bad-taste sarcasm that demeans, among other things, people's ages.
This is news? Slow day today,
This is news? Slow day today, NCR?
This issue is closed and has been closed since '95. It's part of the Deposit of Faith. It will never change.
Why don't you all petition the Church to change Her teaching on idolotry as well? It has the same chance of happening.
No means no. It doesn't mean 'maybe', and it doesn't mean 'ask me later.' It means 'no'.
Here's what then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the then Holy Father JPII's statement on the impossibility of women's ordination:
***********
November 8, 1995
The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.
This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure).
In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed.
The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November.
With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
************************************
HERE BELOW IS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT
************************************
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
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.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
****************
Sheesh, people. Get over it.
Nothing like quoting the
Nothing like quoting the rule-maker in chief about what the rules are and how he and his gender can define the rules.
slavery used to be the law of
slavery used to be the law of the land as well. should we not have protested?
the issue of slavery used to
the issue of slavery used to be a "closed issue" as well. so was women's right to vote. should we not have protested?
Thanks for bringing another
Thanks for bringing another straw man. Can always use another one of those.
BTW, women voting or not voting is not in the Deposit of Faith of the Church of Christ. The issue of women being incapable of being priests is. The Church has not authority to change this, as She has said.
Like I said in a previous post, if you are angry because men are priests and not women, take it up with God the Father, who instituted the Priesthood of the Tribe of Levi for MEN ONLY. Then hurl your rage at His Son, Jesus Christ, who instituted the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
I don't expect to convince you. I don't really care to anyway. The Church will not (and indeed CAN NOT, as She has not the authority to do so) change on this. She will remain long after this Modernist fad has passed into oblivian.
Sorry, Mike in KC, Jesus did
Sorry, Mike in KC,
Jesus did not establish any Sacrament of Holy Orders. There was no ordination at the Last Supper. Jesus did not take holy oil and anoint the Apostles. He did nothing of the sort. He told them that as often as they do this---they do it in memory of him. St. John---doesn't even refer to Jesus changing bread and wine into his body and blood.
Secondly, it can be proved pretty well that women were at the Last Supper. If this was a Passover Meal---women were part of the Passover. Just from the practical point---who do you think decorated the Upper Room, prepared and served the Meal---Peter, James, John or the other Apostles---NO WAY. If you were paying attention to the Liturgical Reading for Palm Sunday, the text reads, that Jesus' disciples asked where were they to prepare for the Meal (Jesus's women disciples). And just because Michaelangelo (and other artists) only show Jesus and the Apostles at a table---there were other tables in the Upper Room---with women (some of the Apostles' wives and their children---and Jesus' Mother---since she was in Jerusalem).
Let's just use some of your logic. If only men (the 12 Apostles) were ordained---only the ordained should be able to receive Communion. Not other men. If only men can receive Communion---how are women able to receive Communion? Only the ones there should have been able to do so---nobody else. But because women were present at the Last Supper---women are able to receive Communion---and women certainly make up the Community that must be present when Jesus is present among us sacramentally.
Also in the Law-Free Gentile Communities of Christians (Paul's Communities), women were the presiders of the Liturgy---no doubt about it.
As far as your last comment---baloney! Jesus did not make any such law---this is a man-made law (and it is in Canon Law, a very human law). Modernist fad, Mike, yeah---the Church at the turn of the 20th Century had priests taking an oath against "Modernism"---because the Vatican (Pope and Curia) did not understand technology, did not understand democracy, were JUST PLAIN FRIGHTENED at the modern world! That oath is no longer taken---and the world has only developed all the more. The Church MUST work with the world that is present in the here and now---not the world that they would like to work with. As long as women do the bulk of the work in the Church (one woman does more than any three men do---and women work longer), this issue is not going away.
There are some theologians
There are some theologians that question whether these documents are ex cathedra because they are not in the regular format of ex cathedra. These documents also didn't come out until 1995.
Also, why are there no women in executive positions within the church, besides those in their own orders and in education?
Due Process is a social
Due Process is a social justice issue that looks well on paper and is said to exist in the Roman Catholic Church but for all practical purposes does not exist as far as rank and file members are concerned whether they are women fired from church positions or priests who support the idea of a female clergy and, God forbid, discuss it. Neither does it exist with those few priests who may have been unjustly accused of the sexual abuse of children.
For many who have left the church and for many who stay,the church has lost its moral compass along with its credibility.
The only ones who don't realize that no one is listening are the bishops!
Good luck with that. No,
Good luck with that.
No, seriously, why aren't these good women (and men, too, it must be said) postulants (sic?) for orders in the Episcopal Church? They'll get a better welcome from their co-religionists.
In other words, why make the Roman Catholic Church into those parts of the Anglican/Episcopal communities who ordain women, partnered gay men, partnered lesbians, the divorced (sometimes several times), etc? Isn't this part of the WOC's larger agenda?
I also attended a prayer
I also attended a prayer service on the 25th and I met one of the women who was at the regional conference in 1975. I love that there are other people out there who are willing to talk about it.
I have always wanted to go into ministry as a career, but I am afraid to because of my views, and outspokenness. I could loose my job at anytime. So instead I am a teacher in NYC. I think we all need to remember that Jesus was a teacher and HE taught us to welcome all and to love and serve each other.
Peace,
Anne
Thank you J!!! What's more
Thank you J!!! What's more is that the order of those to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection was used in the Early Church as proof of authority and power. Unfortunately however, many of these formulas, including Paul's as listed in 1 Corinthians, excluded the names of the women to whom Jesus appeared. Sadly this pattern of ignoring Jesus' sharing of his ministry with both women and men has continued for 2000 years.
Jesus also chose married
Jesus also chose married Jews. What would happen to the priesthood if we followed that to the letter?
Which is easier to obtain
Which is easier to obtain from the Curial gonads these days: PERMISSION or FORGIVENESS? Neither methinks.
Something I read a while back
Something I read a while back aroused my curiosity. I went to the works that were excluded from the bible and read them. I found an interesing coincidence: almost all of them had references to women as disciples, some of them even showing that Mary Magdalene was in greater favor with Jesus than was Peter.
Interesting how these were left out when the catholic church put together the book we call the bible today. Interesting how so many of the Magisterial Authorities will go to great effort to discount and demonize the validity of these works.
What does that point out to me? Once again, we have been deceived by those who are supposed to be providing us with our spiritual nurture. It tells me that our leadership is not about leading us to salvation, but about protecting their personal power bases. Just more evidence of the corruption that has become the core of the Roman Catholic Church.
Dear DGF, Are those "other"
Dear DGF,
Are those "other" books part of YOUR Bible now?
If they are normative for you, are you advocating that they should become normative for all of us?
Are you saying that we should change the canon?
Just making sure of what exactly you mean...
It's easy now, the trick is
It's easy now, the trick is to just ignore the Vatican. All the women have to do is just continue to get ordained, build their congregations and seminaries, name some bishops, and get excommunicated. Eventually the Pope will get worried that there is a Catholic splinter group formed and he'll welcome them back with open arms without a single act of contrition required on their part.
Worked for the Pius X Society, didn't it? Piece of cake!
What an absurdity. The
What an absurdity. The situations are in no way compatible. One was an act of defiance against the authority of the Pope, but a valid act nonetheless. The other is an act of defiance against the Divine Mission and Teaching of the Church, and as such, an act of defiance against the Holy Spirit Who guides and teaches the Church, and the act is not only illicit but also invalid.
I can only assume that, since you are using the name of the great Padre Pio, a saint of great personal wisdom, piety and holiness, you must be aware of this fact and, by writing this comment, highlighting absurdity by being absurd.
Well Clint I think you are
Well Clint I think you are projecting your own absurdity into others! I do believe that the Women's priest movement will continue. They are an Apostolic group who were validly ordained by none other than Catholic Bishops. There is nothing Rome can do about that. In fact Rome needed this to happen because they were acting so child-like.
They were not validly
They were not validly ordained because they are not men. To be ordained a deacon, priest, or bishop in the Roman Catholic Church, one must be a man. This is the Church's unbroken teaching and practice, which Christ Jesus passed down to us through the Apostles and their successors.
There is nothing Apostolic about them, there is nothing valid about their "ordination", and there is nothing Catholic about them, given their complete disregard for the Church's teachings, its discipline and its unity. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16) we were told by Our Lord. And so we do. Their fruits are division of the Church and deception of those naive enough to accept these women's opinions and desires in place of the Church's doctrine and Scripture's teachings. Their fruits are disobedience to the Lord and His Church. Indeed, by their fruits do we know them.
Rome need do nothing about it, since Rome has spoken and their "ordinations" are meaningless anyway.
Dear George, You are wong.
Dear George,
You are wong. The "womanist priest" movement is on it's way out. Most young Catholics DO NOT want 'women priests'...and for you to say otherwise is absurd. Ask any young Catholic that regularly attends Mass and chances are that they will give you an answer that you do not want to hear.
In about 20-30 years...your silly and abusurd movement will have faded away...much like the Cathars and Albingensians of years past!
Christ yesterday, today and forever!
Pope John Paul II officially
Pope John Paul II officially declared what the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have always recognized in their 2,000 year Tradition. The Church does not have power to change the priesthood which Christ instituted. This has nothing to do with the dignity of women as many women are canonized saints and even Doctors of the Church. Mary is the greatest disciple and yet she was not a priest.
I bet this group of 5 women
I bet this group of 5 women got more coverage from this rag than the thousands at the March for Life.
Bridegroom of the Church?
Bridegroom of the Church? Then explain to us all how it is that Espicopal or Anglican priests who are married to flesh and blood women can become a priests in the Catholic Church?
Oh, that's right, we practice polygamy.
ouuhhhh...the Church doesn't have the power to ordain women...ouuuowww...scary..... What a bunch of bologna
It "is not possible" for
It "is not possible" for women to be priests (notice the passive language for which no one takes responsibility). The Church does not have the power to change the priesthood?
The Church taught me that, through Christ, all things are possible and I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Formany years I was opposed
Formany years I was opposed to women priests. Quite simply, I was concerned that ordaining women would throw the RC Church into the same mess as the Episcopal church has been in since 1976. Regardless of how messy it may be for the church, I have seen women priests and ministers who live in persona Christi in ways that many celibate males will never reach! Instead of harsh words for those who favor or oppose, let's pray for a Church that allows each member to live out thier charisms and their Baptismal call to love and serve the Lord as God desires us to do! And, you ultra conservatives would be shocked to know how many bishops at the USCCB meetings admit after a scotch or two that married priests and women priests are in our not too distant future!
Why don't they speak up and
Why don't they speak up and out openly then? It'd speed up the conversation and sort that's going on in Christianity right now. Those that want change should join the Episcopal Church. Those that don't can hasten the long hoped for merger with Eastern Orthodoxy. So by all means, pour another scotch.
Clay feet.
Clay feet.
It seems clear that the
It seems clear that the exclusion of women to full sacramental participation in the church is not a matter of reason, common sense, or even theolgoical validity. It is an irrational expression of absolutism based upon medieval property concepts, centuries old misogyny masked as exegisis, and hammer-fisted defense of patriarchy. By defining the necessity of belief, under pain of excumminication, the church has painted itself into a corner that only humility can save them from.
I have two grand daughters
I have two grand daughters and one grandson. all of whom were baptized as Catholic. How is it, that my two grand daughters can only experince the grace of SIX sacraments while my grandson could receive all SEVEN. I don't think this is what Jesus would have taught!
One comment ends saying,
One comment ends saying, "Mary is the greatest disciple and yet she was not a priest". She may very well have been the greatest disciple. But first and foremost, she is the Mother of God, who by her affirmative response to God's call (vocation) became the first human to make present in our world the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. She also became the first to share the Good News with God's family as she rushed to help her cousin Elizabeth.
Another comment says, “It makes them a disciple, not an apostle and it certainly does not make them a "sacramental" icon of Jesus who as the Son of Man is the exclusive High Priest and Bridegroom of the Church”. Elizabeth is the first person to proclaim the Good News, "Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled."(Lk. 1:26-56) Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of James were the first to hear the mystery of our faith proclaimed: "I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified" (Christ has died)… "He has risen from the dead" (Christ is risen)… "he is going ahead of you to Galilee; that is where you will see him" (Christ will come again). They were also the first to be sent as apostles of the Good News, "'Go quickly and tell his disciples'… Filled with awe and great joy the women came quickly away from the tomb and ran to tell the disciples". (Matt. 28:1-8)
The comment “signed a small ’p’ priest” reminds us that “sacramental priesthood” developed over the years. In all of the Gospels, the commissioning of the “sacramental icons” comes after the Resurrection is announced by the women. Our hierarchy evolved as we grew from “followers of The Way” to “catholics” to “Roman Catholics”.
Whatever culture, tradition and custom may say about our current priestly praxis, we cannot ignore the historic role of priest and prophet that the women of the New Covenant fulfilled. And we cannot presume or concede that our faith has reached perfection or that we have seen God’s complete manifestation and full revelation. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but ours is a living faith that is evolving, not changing. Who knows what the morrow brings? But for God’s family, it will always be unity in diversity, and in all things charity.
One comment ends saying,
One comment ends saying, "Mary is the greatest disciple and yet she was not a priest". She may very well have been the greatest disciple. But first and foremost, she is the Mother of God, who by her affirmative response to God's call (vocation) became the first human to make present in our world the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. She also became the first to share the Good News with God's family as she rushed to help her cousin Elizabeth.
Another comment says, “It makes them a disciple, not an apostle and it certainly does not make them a "sacramental" icon of Jesus who as the Son of Man is the exclusive High Priest and Bridegroom of the Church”. Elizabeth is the first person to proclaim the Good News, "Yes, blessed is she who believed that the promise made her by the Lord would be fulfilled." (Lk. 1:26-56) Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of James were the first to hear the mystery of our faith proclaimed: "I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified" (Christ has died)… "He has risen from the dead" (Christ is risen)… "he is going ahead of you to Galilee; that is where you will see him" (Christ will come again). They were also the first to be sent as apostles of the Good News, "'Go quickly and tell his disciples"… Filled with awe and great joy the women came quickly away from the tomb and ran to tell the disciples. (Matt. 28:1-8)
The comment “signed a small ’p’ priest” reminds us that “sacramental priesthood” developed over the years. In all of the Gospels, the commissioning of the “sacramental" icons comes after the Resurrection is announced by the women. Our hierarchy evolved as we grew from “followers of The Way” to “catholics” to “Roman Catholics”.
Whatever culture, tradition and custom may say about our current priestly praxis, we cannot ignore the historic role of priest and prophet that the women of the New Covenant fulfilled. And we cannot presume or concede that our faith has reached perfection or that we have seen God’s complete manifestation and full revelation. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but ours is a living faith that is evolving, not changing. Who knows what the morrow brings? But for God’s family, it will always be unity in diversity, and in all things charity.
Nothing is impossible in
Nothing is impossible in Jesus Christ, so sorry for the Vatican, they are WRONG in their perception of what priesthood is, and more, they have NO idea of what is a woman. They know NOTHING about womanhood.
This is the truth:
Jesus choose the Apostles He choose because He wanted to recreate the symbolism of a new Israel, NOT to exclude women from priesthood forever.
Virgin Mary was regarded as high priest by the Fathers of the Church, because it was in her women when the first ever Eucharist came to life - Jesus himself, and because she is immaculate - just as her Son. This tradition lived more than 1,000 years in the Church before being forbidden by the Holy Office - because of their fears of women priests.
There's plenty evidence of women serving as deacons, priests and bishops in the Early Church. The Vatican denies this evidence.
Women are image of God as men. Women were saved by the sacrifice of Jesus. We are not inferior to men, not impure, not full of sin, as the medieval theologians said - and they put such reasons against women's ordination.
The "tradition" of not ordaining women as priests is based in prejudice, ignorance, hate against women, introduction of pagan philosophy and many more things that are not Christian. Non-ordination of women is really anti-catholic.
The Pope and the Magisterium must realize that they are wrong about women priests. They should study more, meet women called to priesthood and began the process to derrogate anti-women documents, stop excommunicating people and re-take the task begun in the 70's on women priesthood. This must be done if we want to do the things the way Jesus wants.
You cannot make a lie a truth just because you have a title. The truth is the truth no matter who says it. You will never make people believe that the earth is flat or that the sky is yellow just because you're the Pope. The truth is that the Church HAS the authority for ordaining women.
Lets say, for conversation's
Lets say, for conversation's sake, there were women in Orders in the ancient Church. Why were they admitted to Orders and by who? What need of the community was being addressed? Were they ministering in and for a community we might recognize as being in historic, ministerial and theological continuity with what today we call the Roman (Western) and/or Byzantine/Orthodox (Eastern) Churches?
Is the suppression of women in Orders in the past a function of mere patriarchy? Lets be careful not to anachronistically apply patriarchy in its modern definition to behavior in antiquity.
Perhaps there is a relationship, maybe not a necessary relationship, but a relationship nonetheless, between those offshoots of the Church in which the Church doesn't recognize itself - schismatic groups which deny some essential dogma and/or doctrine - and a wider view of Orders. Now its claimed that because (supposedly) women weren't included in the early Ecumenical Councils, the decisions and teachings of those councils were and are somehow deficient. But that assumes women weren't active participants at those councils, and I'm not sure anyone knows just how active people of all manners and sorts were and weren't involved in those councils.
Additionally, there is a modern, scholarly bias towards what I'll inclusion and particularity to the extent, say that unless I, as a 250-pound, 47-year old, white, male, heterosexual, involuntarily infertile librarian who hails from California, Missouri and Nebraska "do" theology, that the whole of theology is somehow incomplete. I don't buy it. That's like saying because I wasn't involved with the creation of, say, arithmetic, that I don't buy the results. "1 + 1 does not equal 2 - I was not consulted!"
There is a big IF and THEN in this whole discussion.
* IF you buy the Roman Catholic Church's understanding of (among other things) God, Jesus, Church, theology, philosophy, the sacraments and ministry, THEN you'll likely buy the Roman Catholic Church's reasoning about only recognizing a call to ordained ministry in the Church's name and in Christ's Person to men.
* Conversely, IF you don't THEN you won't.
* So, IF people have some other than Roman Catholic understanding of (among other things), one or more of the following: God, Jesus, Church, theology, philosophy and ministry, THEN you may have a wider, other-than-Roman-Catholic reason to recognize a call to ordained ministry in the Church's name and in Christ's Person (or, as some assert, "in persona ecclesia," (sorry, I'm not a Latinist)) to qualified people, regardless of biological sex, gender identification, sexual orientation, marital status, whatever.
That's fine, but lets have some truth in advertising. Please don't call it Roman Catholic. And please also explain what, how and why folks who advocate WO (women's ordination) pick and choose among every aspect of Christian life, faith and teaching. Some they like, others they don't. Why? What some call reforming the Church is actually starting something new. It happens all the time, which is why we have, I don't know, 20,000 or 30,000 Christian denominations today, with old ones dying and new ones forming all the time.
As I've posted before, the WO folks would do themselves and everyone else a favor if they rolled the dice and picked anyone of a number of Old Catholic offshoots, the ELCA, or the Episcopal Church to join. Then we can see where the Holy Spirit is REALLY at work over, say, 50, 100 or a thousand years. Again, for conversation's sake, this has been tried before - tried and found wanting, which is why we don't do it anymore.
Mark Andrews, Are you saying
Mark Andrews,
Are you saying that Roman Catholics are the ONLY Catholics on is earth? They are not. You confused Byzantine Catholics with Orthodox Christians. And to say that women were barred from attending from attending councils---the answer is YES!
The theology that you 'buy' into was tainted with the Greek concept of two layers of existence. Material vs. Spiritual---unfortunately the Greeks placed Women into the material layer of existence and men into the spiritual realm of existence. Our theologians 'bought' into this and as time went along, women were pushed into an even lower level. Priests were no longer permitted to be married, because of the writings of some theologians like (St) Peter Damian who condemned married priests. Peter Damian actually called women "bitches, sows, sinful bundles of flesh, who infest the hands of the priests who touch the Holy Eucharist."
The development of theology is as much an activity of humans and their development as everything else in our world. Our understanding of our world, our Church, and everything else is evolving as well. Your hope that only the "orthodox" (whatever that means) Catholics will remain, while the liberal people join other Christian communities---is a violation of Jesus' Eucharistic prayer, "That all may be one...." And guess what? The Holy Spirit (and those working with Her) will bring about a union of all people (and they won't all look like so-called "orthodox" Catholics).
1. I'm thinking of Byzantine
1. I'm thinking of Byzantine more as a style of worship - a rite within its larger, parent culture of Byzantium and the Eastern Roman Empire. In this respect Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians can be seen as ritually the same or similar but ecclesially (sic) separate from each other. That schism was formalized in 1054, but the cultural, political and theological drift between the East and West had been going on a long time by 1054.
2. I'm not Manichean dualist or a Greek philosophical dualist. It'd be interesting to see what the relationship is between one, the other, or both of these dualisms and socially-sanctioned same-sex behavior in ancient Greece and Rome, but I digress. Speculating, I bet there was more at work in the development of the Roman Catholic theology of orders than Damian's misogyny.
3. Jesus prayer to the Father for unity is best interpreted in light of Paul's "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." More than One Faith is being proclaimed and they can't all be right. Liberal Catholics in the U.S. are more like their co-religionists in the mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S. Honestly, can you think of any significant doctrinal, dogmatic, ecclesiological or organizational difference between, say, the church advocated by many self-described Roman Catholic reformers and the ELCA or The Episcopal Church? Deferring to your progressive expertise, what on earth is lacking in the ELCA and/or The Episcopal Church what would keep you out of them.
I know people hope the Roman Catholic Church will change. I don't think it will, if the RCC is to remain true to its own long-standing self-understanding. I know you and many others disagree. If the RCC does change, I'm outta here. If the RCC doesn't change, what will you do?
We will see what the Holy Spirit is leading people to do in due course. The bigger question is whether faith forms culture or culture forms faith. I believe the orthodox position is that faith forms culture. My understanding of progressive Christianities and reformed catholicisms is that, for them, culture forms faith. I think acquiesance (sic) to cultural change is Bad Juju; not all cultural change is a product of the Holy Spirit. Are we correctly reading the signs of the times? That remains to be seen.
There one thing that God
There one thing that God cannot do is deny Himself...
"The Church does not have
"The Church does not have power to change the priesthood which Christ instituted."
That is so mind numbing and weird that it borders on insane.
I'll ask the question again: if the nature of the all male, celibate Priesthood is so unalterably ordained by God, why does the Church ordain MARRIED Ministers from other faiths?
Come on you arm chair Theologians, I dare you to try and answer it.
All male priesthood is
All male priesthood is unalterable (that means can never be changed) and is recognized by all Catholic and Orthodox Rites. Celibate priesthood is a discipline, and one that is only practiced in the Roman Catholic rite, not the Eastern Catholic rites or the Orthodox rites. Because celibacy is only a discipline, it could be changed by the pope tomorrow. That is why exceptions can be made for men who were ministers of other faiths to be ordained.
Rome has spoken, end of
Rome has spoken, end of story. NO Catholic may even entertain the idea that women may be priests, ever. It will NEVER happen. Get over it.
Want to belong to a church that ordains women? Try the Episcopal Church. If you are a Catholic, then obey Catholic teaching, or GET OUT!
Warren Mass, your message is
Warren Mass, your message is so compelling and honorable in it's Christianity. "GET OUT" is your final answer?
OK, the 70% of us Catholic Americans who think the Church should consider women's ordination will do what you command and just "GET OUT."
Let's see, that's roughly 300,000 x .30 = 90,000 left in your "Real" Catholic Church. And in that population you'll have 60% recent immigrants living well below the poverty line. So, if you're really lucky you'll have 90,000 x .40 = 36,000 contributing members.
Well, At least you'll have enough priests to go around. Oops, turns out that over 50% of American priests believe we should consider married and/or women priests. Shoot, that doesn't look so hot either.
Are you going to hold a bake sale?
Dear Warren Mass: I think
Dear Warren Mass: I think Padre Pio asked a reasonable question,politely. You didn't address the question, you just shouted an irrelevancy - "GET OUT".
The "discipline" of a
The "discipline" of a celibate ordained clergy in the Latin Western tradition was imposed -not in a cloud of smoke, or from a burning bush- by MEN in ROME in order to prevent the legal transfer of church goods and property to a priest's children -legitimate or illegitimate. Of course, that was back in the good ole days when priests were MAKING babies, not.......
The truth is that there's not
The truth is that there's not enough inertia behind the women's ordination movement because there are simply not that many women who are interested in becoming priests. If it had more ummph behind it, there would be more discssion
Isn't testosterone simply an
Isn't testosterone simply an accident of nature????
Maybe - lets ask our Dads.
Maybe - lets ask our Dads.
We are all created in God's
We are all created in God's image. We are equal and we are all equally capable of serving God and being christlike. The only reason women cannot be priests is that we have a male dominated church. If you disagree you are just making rationalizations for your own discomfort with the idea. We need to do a major revamping of the priesthood to allow women to enter the priesthood and to allow priests to be married. I would also like to put out the idea that if the priesthood all the way up to the vatican was not all men and we had female bishops and cardinals, we would be less likely to have mass- coverups of sex-abuse. Women and men with families would be more likely to advocate on the side of children than on the side of their fellow priests. Christ's message of love and justice is not in keeping with excluding women from the priesthood.
It is funny how so many
It is funny how so many people here think that the "gospels" that were rejected are somehow legitimate. The only indication of any women being ordained to anything at all was one deaconess in the early part of the first century who only preached. Why is it that some women feel that their holiness depends on doing the same thing as men. Those women should be thankful, that the Church respects them as being different instead of trying to white wash Yahweh's creation.
The Church is not democratic on Dogma and never has been. Thus it is Apostolic in its progression (TB2G). The Apostles were men, and they were the 12. Women were disciples and that is all.
Remember that all people are called to holiness and that there is no reason to try to force the Church to suit your unbiblical illogical demands to change tradition.
Just ask this excellent theologian: http://hancaquam.blogspot.com
-Dani
Arguments over the gospels,
Arguments over the gospels, who is commissioned, what the Lord meant and desired, etc. can - and maybe should - go on without much being resolved. For me I just watch. I don't know who is correct and who is not. I do know the Lord said "whatever you bind...." and so if we accept women ordained so will the Lord.
As I watch I see....arguments for ordination because 80% of persons working for the Church are women. Since the allowance of girls serving at the altar the altar is over-run with girls. If one counts the various "ministers" on the altar across the nation on any given Sunday I bet we will find the vast majority are women. My fear......allow the ordination of women and it will become a predominately female enterprise. And that's OK. But my brothers will slowly recede away...and that is not OK.
Post new comment