I disagree with this priest 's prediction. During our conversation, I referred to pope john Paul ll’s definitive statement that the Church can never change its stance. The priest claimed that such statement was open for debate in the future as the pope’s statement was not infallible. I have had many conversations with this priest in the past and for the record, he’s very liberal when it comes to many Church teachings. So its highly likely he’s also wrong in his assessment about the likelihood of women being ordained
A priest recently told me that its his belief that women will be eventually ordained into the priesthood
He’s right: Blessed Pope John Paul II was not speaking infallibly as Pope - he was citing established Church doctrine, and that will never change.
Especially in the past 50 years, the Church has been attacked over a slew of issues, yet we remain fervently committed to the Truth, so I’m not concerned about the Church’s stance. I’m more concerned that this type of thinking will lead fellow Christians astray…
In my opinion the problem lies in many Catholic leaders who tend to bend their will to what people would prefer or what is more desirable in the worlds eyes… So there’s a definite possibility just because many people who have no understanding and shouldn’t hold a stance in the church at all have suggested woman priests and unfortunately some leaders may find themselves swaying to suit what the people want :snowing:
On the other hand I do think that the pope and higher authorities in the church will have the last say
Men and women were created by God as equal in dignity and worth, yet different with different roles, gifts and qualities. Male priesthood is a church tradition but not a law of God or required specifically by Jesus in the New Testament. Even if a past or current Pope decided absolutely that there will never be female priests, just as in the case of Gallileo being excommunicated for the “heresy” of believing the world wasn’t flat, a later Pope, if faced with more advanced understanding could certainly opt to allow for female priesthood. Do I think it will ever happen. Not really. Does that bother me in any way or make me feel cheated since I am female? Absolutely not. If it ever happened, I would accept it–but to me, it’s just not that big a deal. I feel loved, honored and respected in our faith–and I don’t have to see women ordained to feel that way. There are far too many really vital issues for me to be concerned with than to feel deprived that I can’t become a priest.!
Being liberal is not necessarily heretical…
This is not a matter of mere tradition or discipline; it is in fact out of the realm of authority of the Church to choose female ordination. This is what JPII stated, “the Church has no authority to ordain women”. It is in fact set into truth by Jesus’ actions, there were women in His ministry and in His presence in all of these events spoken about in Scripture, and none were ordained by Him or given the role of Apostle or leader in the ministerial sense. Jesus chose men for a reason; He is a man not a neutral gender. A tradition would have been something that started after the Church was born basically, this is no tradition. It is something the Church has stated to be outside of “binding and loosening”, outside of Peter’s control and set forth by Jesus Himself.
Also, to compare this in any way shape or form to the Galileo situation is just a simple case of apples and oranges. Although apples and oranges are more closely related that the subjects of the comparison you make.
Actually: the wording of the statements left some confusion over the infallibility of this matter. The US bishops submitted a “Dubium” (Question) to the vatican directly querying the dogmatic nature of this teaching.
The response came back that the statement (That the hierarchy of the church on earth does not have the authority to change the rules on granting Holy Orders to women), has been clearly defined by an act of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the church, and it is required that all the faithful to give this their definitive assent.
i.e. this is an infallible statement. made by the infallible authority of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. When the pope re-stated this teaching he did so infallibly not because he was developing a new Dogma, but because he was simply re-stating an already infallible matter of theology.
Women are not biologically capable of receiving valid Holy Orders - any more than men are biologically capable of carrying a child in their wombs.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
The Church has not ordained women.
The Church is not ordaining women.
The Church will not ordain women.
The Church cannot ordain women.
Thank you for clarifying - I should have been more clear that the Holy Father was not ‘creating’ new dogma infallibly, but rather confirming what is already an infallible matter. Ultimately, I was hoping to express that the belief was infallible was not because Blessed Pope John Paul II declared it so, but because the Church has already affirmed that.
For 1,900 years, or thereabouts, women and men had no problem with the male priesthood. It’s just the last couple of generations that a small number of women, and a smaller number of men, have made a lot of noise about equality of the sexes, and the “fairness” of ordaining women as priests, while within the secular culture we see the increasing blurring of any distinction between male and female, and all the problems that accompany that. This isn’t about some grand enlightenment, or recognition that Jesus Christ would have had women apostles, but he didn’t know any better because those were different times. This is the evil one, the spirit of the age, the Zeitgeist, trying to pull down the structure of our Catholic Church. It’s happened before and it will happen again, but the gates of hell will not prevail.
“IT IS NOT THE STRONGEST OF THE SPECIES THAT SURTVIVES, NOR THE MOST INTELLIGENT THAT SURVIVES. IT IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE.” —Change or perish!!!
I prefer “And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.”
Truth doesn’t change.
Looks like the Pope, with a definitive act, proclaimed a doctrine of faith.
Note, however, this was not defined as a dogma to be “believed” (de fide) properly so called, but as a one to be definitively "held (sententia definitive tenenda)–this is, intrinsically connected to the divine constitution of the Church, but not necessarily formally revealed. The Church also teaches these infallibly (the First Vatican Council uses the phrase “to be held” in its definition of papal infallibility):
I think we know who wins between these two.
Yes, I think we all tend to disagree with heresy.
In this case it is!