Women Priests Rebuttle

[the_rev]

I am trying to prove to my pastor that Women will never become priests. Below you will find two emails, the one I wrote him, and the response I received.
[quote]
Father David,
>
> I was researching this topic, (would it be possible to write a paper on it
> for my confirmation project.)
>
> So here is the information I have compiled why women will never become
> priests.
>
> First it is theologically impossible, even JP2 said that.
>
> 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
>
> (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)
>
> New Point:
>
> Pope Benedict XVI, happily reigning, issued a commentary on Ordinatio
> Sacerdotalis during his time as prefect for the Congregation of the
Doctrine
> of the Faith:
>
>
> The publication of the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
> Faith to a dubium regarding the reason for which the teaching contained in
> the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is to be considered definitive
> tenenda seems the appropriate moment to offer certain reflections.
>
> The ecclesiological significance of this Apostolic Letter was underscored
> even by its date of publication, for it was on that day, May 22, 1994,
that
> the Church celebrated the Solemnity of Pentecost. Its importance, however,
> could be discovered above all in the concluding words of the Letter: "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" (n. 4).
>
> The Pope's intervention was necessary not simply to reiterate the validity
> of a discipline observed in the Church from the beginning, but to confirm
a
> doctrine "preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church
> and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents," which
> "pertains to the Church's divine consitution itself" (n. 4). In this way,
> the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching that priestly
> ordination is to be reserved solely to men could not be considered "open
to
> debate" and neither could one attribute to the decision of the Church "a
> merely disciplinary force"
>
>
> New Point:
>
> Pope Paul VI's "Inter Insigniores", is where he lays out the case against
> female ordination in some detail. John Paul II simply meant to put the
> matter to rest, whereas Paul VI expounded on its doctrinal foundations.
>
> [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM[/url]
>
>
> These are the key points I have gathered thus far, I plan on continuing
this
> research.
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Eddie
[/quote]

His response[quote]
Eddie,

    I think that you should start by asking the question more accurately?
How about, "Why the leadership of the Catholic Church at the present
believes that women will never become priests?" or "The Reasons why women
priests may or may not happen."  I think that it is important to be
objective when researching something and look at all of the sides so as to
really understand the situaiton.

    First, I would say nothing is theologically impossible.  It all depends
on the theology that one is using.  There are churches who use theology to
justify ordaining women.  I think that the church would not say that
theologically it is not possible but that our tradition argues against it.
That is a different matter altogether.

    The church would tend to site scriptural evidence that Jesus did not
have women apostles.  It would also site evidence that women were never
ordained to the priesthood or bishopric.  Jesus never wanted women as
priests or bishops and therefore, there never have been any and never will
be any.

    The other side which I think that it would be important for you to
research would say that we really do not know what Jesus really wanted
because we do not have anything that directly states his views.  The
scriptures were written much later and influenced by the male dominate
culture that had already influenced the church.  Women were probably much
more influential in the early church than seems to be the case in the
scriptures.  Mary Magdalene for one was extremely significant as the apostle
to the apostles having been the first one to witness the resurrection.  The
early church probably had a greater role for women than we realize as well
but it was not recorded.  There is evidence of early women deacons.  A
deacon helped adults out of the baptismal waters.  Since they were nude when
they left the water, the person or deacon helping out of the water had to be
of the same gender as the person leaving the water.  After Vatican II,
deacons were defined as ordination which makes things complicated.  I think
that you need to research this more.  this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    It is interresting to read that they said that it was not possible.
Compare the First Vatican Council and the second some time.  Many things
said to be anathema in the first Vatican Council were allowed in the second.
Amazing how they can make such radical changed in just 100 years.  We were
supposed to read the bible literally.  Pope John Paul II does not agree with
that at all any more.  How can that be?  Interesting.  Talk to you later.
Best wishes and prayers.
[/quote]

If you could help me rebuttle this, that'd be great!

[Aloysius]

First off, ask him what exactly he thinks contradicts the first vatican council. Inform him that the council fathers did not believe Vatican II contradicted Vatican I nor even Trent (It began by reaffirming all that Trent taught.)

This is ultimately a question of whether the Catholic Church is anything special in the realm of Christian Churches (it ought to be considered the One True Christian Church) and secondly whether the Church is infallible.

So you're going to have to tackle infallibility. Big one. Read Vatican I and II, if you think you see anything that contrdicts post it here. If not, inform him you see absolutely no contradiction and that he is probably misinterpretting Vatican II. JPI and BXVI were very instrumental in the formulation of that council and likely understand it better than he would.

[phatcatholic]

<sigh> a priest wrote this to you? <sigh>

[quote]Eddie,

    I think that you should start by asking the question more accurately?
How about, "Why the leadership of the Catholic Church at the present
believes that women will never become priests?" or "The Reasons why women
priests may or may not happen."  I think that it is important to be
objective when researching something and look at all of the sides so as to
really understand the situaiton.[/quote]
this shows an inherent resistance to the authority of the church. the pope has spoken definitively on the matter. female ordination simply cannot happen. it is not w/in the power of the papacy--not just of JPII but of the papacy itself--to ordain women. thus, it doesn't matter what the "leadership of the Church" believes "at present." this implies that it could somehow change in the future. it can't. you can research the other side w/ the intention of better understanding the matter, but not w/ the intention of refuting the Church. surely you know what happens when people try to do that....

[quote]First, I would say nothing is theologically impossible.  It all depends
on the theology that one is using.  There are churches who use theology to
justify ordaining women.  I think that the church would not say that
theologically it is not possible but that our tradition argues against it.
That is a different matter altogether.[/quote]
wrong. there are indeed theological impossibilities. the Church can NEVER contradict her theology. so, if something has been definitively declared as Truth, then the Church can at no time declare a contradictory statement as True. if that were to ever be an option, then we wouldn't have truth. we would have the ever-changing tides of relativism that our beloved B16 has spoken against. female ordination is a theological impossibility. it is an anomily, a misnomer, sort of like a pregnant man. it can't happen.

[quote]The church would tend to site scriptural evidence that Jesus did not
have women apostles.  It would also site evidence that women were never
ordained to the priesthood or bishopric.  Jesus never wanted women as
priests or bishops and therefore, there never have been any and never will
be any.

    The other side which I think that it would be important for you to
research would say that we really do not know what Jesus really wanted
because we do not have anything that directly states his views.[/quote]
wrong. scripture tells us that Jesus went into the mountains and prayed to the Father about the apostles that he would undertake. when he came back down he invited 12 men. period. we can only assume from this that it was the will of the Father, and consequently the will of Jesus Christ, that his authority only be passed on to men.

[quote]The scriptures were written much later and influenced by the male dominate
culture that had already influenced the church.[/quote]
i'm sorry, but i hear this argument all the time and i consider it to be rather lame. how could we possibly see Jesus as a puppet who aquiesced to the "male-dominated culture" when he was quite simply the most counter-cultural figure of his time. he didn't do what the culture demanded. he did the will of the Father. if that happens to agree w/ the culture, it is only coincidental. it is not [i][b]because of [/b][/i]the culture. Jesus ate w/ sinners, conversed w/ Samaritans (who were considered "half-Jews"), touched lepers and prostitutes, and resisted the High Priests to their very face. we can only see from this that every action was deliberate and that he was not afraid to go against the popular sentiment of the day. yes, he lived in a male-dominated society, but he chose 12 men b/c that was the will of the Father.

also, this idea that the writers of the NT had some agenda, or were influenced by their culture to write in a dominance for man and to diminish the role of women--in my opinion this diminishes the role of the Holy Spirit. they wrote what they wrote, and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it. i think that, in second-guessing Scripture and saying, "well, it would have been written this way were it not for the culture of the day", he again shows his own tendency to resist authority. at the end of the day, they wrote what they wrote b/c that's what the Holy Spirit impressed upon them. as such, we must accept it.

[quote]Women were probably much more influential in the early church than seems to be the case in the scriptures.  Mary Magdalene for one was extremely significant as the apostle to the apostles having been the first one to witness the resurrection.  The early church probably had a greater role for women than we realize as well but it was not recorded.  There is evidence of early women deacons.  A deacon helped adults out of the baptismal waters.  Since they were nude when they left the water, the person or deacon helping out of the water had to be of the same gender as the person leaving the water.  After Vatican II,
deacons were defined as ordination which makes things complicated.  I think that you need to research this more.  this is just the tip of the iceberg.[/quote]
fine, maybe it wasn't recorded, but i think it dangerous to assume that this was b/c of some agenda on the part of the Church. as far as Mary Magdalene is concerned, i think i could probably go the rest of my life w/o hearing her name again. she has become synonymous w/ the feminist agenda, which really grates on me. anyway, one would have to cite extra-biblical sources in order to substantiate the claim that she held some significant or authoritative position in the early church. these sources are helpful to an extent, but it is much safer to base doctrine on what we know to be infallible.......and these claims simply can't be made based on what scripture says or by the teaching of the Church.

also, women being deacons does not substantiate their "right" to be a priest. for one, priesthood is not a "right." its not something anyone deserves, not even a man. but anyway, female deacons lived a life in service to the men who did have authority in the Church. their served the apostles and their successors. this is what women are called to today. instead of seeing these deacons as validation for his resistance to Church teaching, he should see them as examples of what women are called to do.

as for VII, i'm not really sure what he's referring to....

[quote]It is interresting to read that they said that it was not possible.
Compare the First Vatican Council and the second some time.  Many things
said to be anathema in the first Vatican Council were allowed in the second.
Amazing how they can make such radical changed in just 100 years.  We were
supposed to read the bible literally.  Pope John Paul II does not agree with
that at all any more.  How can that be?  Interesting.  Talk to you later.
Best wishes and prayers.[/quote]
really? the Church contradicted herself? show me. have him prove it. as for how we read the bible, for one this is not a matter of faith or morals, so the Church is allowed to espouse one form of interpretation over another. that said, i don't think the Church has ever forbidden that we read the bible literally. if anything, she has emphasized the other modes of interpretation along w/ the literal one. actually, it was my understanding that the Church has always seen the literal interpretation as the primary or foundational one, and that we should always look at what a passage literally says before we expound on its symbolic meaning. in [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=31689"][b]this thread[/b][/url] i collected articles that outline the Church's stance on biblical interpretation throughout the years. that may be helpful to you.

keep us posted on your progress w/ this. make sure you pray before you write to him. i think that is important.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

something else real quick....

it is important that, while you disagree w/ him, you maintain respect of his position as a priest. take the "one-down" approach, where you approach things b/c you want to understand. instead of saying, "such and such is wrong b/c of what this document says" you would say, "but what about this document? doesn't it say that such and such is wrong?" this way you are implicitly saying to him, "i bring this to the table b/c i am trying to understand, and i see you as an authority figure that can help me w/ this." this will allow you to politely disagree w/ him while at the same time respecting his position as a priest.

i hope that helps....

[cmotherofpirl]

Eddie,

I think that you should start by asking the question more accurately?
How about, "Why the leadership of the Catholic Church at the present
believes that women will never become priests?
[color=red] This implies that is not a magisterial teaching or it is changable It is magisterial and not changeable [/color]


" or "The Reasons why women
priests may or may not happen." I think that it is important to be
objective when researching something and look at all of the sides so as to
really understand the situaiton.
[color=red] The Church has objectively stated magisterially it ain't gonna happen There are NOT two sides in this debate [/color]

First, I would say nothing is theologically impossible.
[color=red] wrong. A doctrine defined by the Church cannot be arbitrarily changed in the future to please society. Doctrine develops it does not evolve. [/color]

It all depends on the theology that one is using.
[color=red] We stick to catholic theology, and there is only one. There are different emphasises or schools of thought, but only one theology [/color]

There are churches who use theology to justify ordaining women.
[color=red] So what??. What other ecclesial communities do in error does not effect the teaching of the Catholic Church. There are groups that ordain active homosexuals to bishops too, should we copy them? [/color]

I think that the church would not say that theologically it is not possible but that our tradition argues against it.
[color=red] The Church HAS said it is theologically impossible already. [/color]


That is a different matter altogether.

The church would tend to site scriptural evidence that Jesus did not
have women apostles. It would also site evidence that women were never
ordained to the priesthood or bishopric. Jesus never wanted women as
priests or bishops and therefore, there never have been any and never will
be any.
[color=red] He got this right [/color]

The other side [color=red] there is no other side [/color] which I think that it would be important for you to research would say that we really do not know what Jesus really wanted because we do not have anything that directly states his views.
[color=red] We have the unbroken tradition of the Church on this topic, Jesus ordained only men. To imply the the God-man bowed to cultural presasure and ordain only women is to imply that God is not Almighty or that Jesus wasn't fully God. It also implies his human nature was in charge. Jesus is one whole person, but with two natures, the divine always in charge. [/color]

The scriptures were written much later and influenced by the male dominate
culture that had already influenced the church.
[color=red] The claim Scriptures were not written til much later is to claim the time frame leads to error reduces the scripture to memoirs and legends and not facts and denies the control of the Holy Spirit. And to further claim that male culture unduly influences the church again negates the Holy Spirit and the influence of Mary. If Jesus wanted to ordain women He would have, after all how hard would that be after raising the dead and casting out demons? [/color]


Women were probably much more influential in the early church than seems to be the case in the scriptures.
Mary Magdalene for one was extremely significant as the apostle
to the apostles having been the first one to witness the resurrection.
[color=red] She pales in conparison to the Great Mother of God. Martha and Mary were also great friends of Jesus and he didn't ordain them either. Hes been dabbling in feminist theology. Nowhere is Mary Magdelene made out out to be so special in Scriptures. [/color]


The early church probably had a greater role for women than we realize as well
but it was not recorded. There is evidence of early women deacons. A
deacon helped adults out of the baptismal waters. Since they were nude when
they left the water, the person or deacon helping out of the water had to be
of the same gender as the person leaving the water.
[color=red] Women have never been validly ordained in the church. Helping women get dressed and taking card of widows and orphans is not an ordained ministry [/color]

After Vatican II,
deacons were defined as ordination which makes things complicated. I think
that you need to research this more. this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is interesting to read that they said that it was not possible.
Compare the First Vatican Council and the second some time. Many things
said to be anathema in the first Vatican Council were allowed in the second.
[color=red] Prove it. Dogma stays the same, doctrines develop, only disciplines can be changed. [/color]

Amazing how they can make such radical changed in just 100 years. We were
supposed to read the bible literally.
[color=red] We still are. The first sense of the bible is ALWAYS literal. [/color]

Pope John Paul II does not agree with that at all any more.
[color=red] Please cite complete references for this statement.[/color]

How can that be? Interesting. Talk to you later.
Best wishes and prayers.


He means well but he has been listening to popular theologians instead of sticking with actual Church teachings. Alwasy approach him with respect even when he is wrong theologically.
He is still a consecrated man of God.

Edited April 23, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[the_rev]

You see what I have to put up! Liberal Priest, liberal views!

he doesn't support my interst in the Legion either, because they are "conservative"

In one of my meetings with Fr. David he said, "Maybe one day we will convert you to liberalism."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='the_rev' date='Apr 23 2005, 10:36 AM'] You see what I have to put up! Liberal Priest, liberal views!

he doesn't support my interst in the Legion either, because they are "conservative"

In one of my meetings with Fr. David he said, "Maybe one day we will convert you to liberalism."

[/quote]
Maybe you can convert him to faithful.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='the_rev' date='Apr 23 2005, 08:36 AM'] In one of my meetings with Fr. David he said, "Maybe one day we will convert you to liberalism." [/quote]
he really said that!?!? wow.........

[journeyman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 23 2005, 07:56 AM'] <snip>


The early church probably had a greater role for women than we realize as well
but it was not recorded. There is evidence of early women deacons. A
deacon helped adults out of the baptismal waters. Since they were nude when
they left the water, the person or deacon helping out of the water had to be
of the same gender as the person leaving the water.
[color=red] Women have never been validly ordained in the church. Helping women get dressed and taking card of widows and orphans is not an ordained ministry [/color]

After Vatican II,
deacons were defined as ordination which makes things complicated. I think
that you need to research this more. this is just the tip of the iceberg.

<snip> [/quote]
When the permanent diaconate was restored after Vatican II, it was precisely to provide services for the "widows and orphans"

Ad Pascendum (8/15/72)

The deacon is at the disposal of the bishop in order that he may serve the whole people of God and take care of the sick and the poor; he is correctly and rightly called "one who shows love for orphans, for the devout and for the widowed, one who is fervent in spirit, one who shows love for what is good."

There are also sacramental duties and the hierarchy made this an ordained position - but that appears to me to be a matter of "discipline" and not of dogma or doctrine, and the subject of continuing study.


Ministeria Quaedam (8/15/72)

Nevertheless, since the minor orders have not always been the same and many functions connected with them, as at present, have also been exercised by the laity, it seems fitting to reexamine this practice and to adapt it to contemporary needs. What is obsolete in these offices will thus be removed and what is useful retained; also anything new that is needed will be introduced and at the same time the requirements for candidates for holy orders will be established.

and the document went on to "institute" the "ministries" of reader and acolyte (formerly minor orders, still required of candidates for ordination, but now open to the laity)

There is a lot in the documents, and I haven't read and analyzed and digested them fully. It does seem clear that the (permanent - as opposed to transitional) Deacon is the Bishop's representative (or agent) - so the movement in this area, if there is any, will have to come from the bishops . . . who are not likely to assert their collegial equality with the Bishop of Rome

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Apr 23 2005, 01:43 PM'] There is a lot in the documents, and I haven't read and analyzed and digested them fully. It does seem clear that the (permanent - as opposed to transitional) Deacon is the Bishop's representative (or agent) - so the movement in this area, if there is any, will have to come from the bishops . . . who are not likely to assert their collegial equality with the Bishop of Rome [/quote]
here are some more documents on this subject:

[b]The Role of Deacons[/b]
--[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm"]Deacons[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=381"]Directory for the Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=297"]Deacon Has Many Pastoral Functions[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=298"]Deacons Are Called to Life of Holiness[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=299"]Deacons Are Configured to Christ the Servant[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=296"]Deacons Serve the Kingdom of God[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5316"]National Study on the Diaconate[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=789"]Restoring the Permanent Diaconate (Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem)[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3439"]Women Deacons: At What Price?[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/AROSEBY.TXT"]A Rose By Any Other Name: Ordination of Women to the Diaconate[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WOMENDEA.htm"]Women Deacons: Are They Possible?[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/DEACYEST.htm"]Deacons Yesterday and Today[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/DEACON1.TXT"]Quiz About Deacons[/url]

[Cure of Ars]

Here is something that you might want to show the priest that you are talking to. This is written by C.S. Lewis an Anglican.

[quote]Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this is, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity. Common sense, disregarding the discomfort, or even the horror, which the idea of turning all our theological language into the feminine gender arouses in most Christians, will ask 'Why not? Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?

But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable: or, if tolerable, it is an argument not in favour of Christian priestesses but against Christianity. It is also surely based on a shallow view of imagery. Without drawing upon religion, we know from our poetical experience that image and apprehension cleave closer together than common sense is here prepared to admit: that a child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child. And as image and apprehension are in an organic unity, so, for a Christian, are human body and human soul.

The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life. To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant. We are, within that context treating both as neuters. As the State grows more like a hive or an anthill it needs an increasing number of workers who can be treated as neuters. This may be inevitable for our secular life. But in our Christian life we must return to reality. There we are not homogeneous units, but different and complementary organs of a mystical body. Lady Nunbumhoime has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle.(8) I do not remember the text in scripture nor the Fathers, nor Hooker, nor the Prayer Book which asserts it; but that is not here my point. The point is that unless 'equal' means 'interchangeable', equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable (like counters or identical machines) is among humans, a legal fiction. It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.

This is what common sense will call 'mystical'. Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church in cement which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it - as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can lie justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith, Natural Religion.[/quote]

[url="http://huey.cc/dunstan/PriestessesintheChurch.HTM"]http://huey.cc/dunstan/PriestessesintheChurch.HTM[/url]