Altar Boys and the Priesthood
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    For most of us, it's not a very important distinction: the doctrine is correct and is a permanent part of the Church's teaching.


    I agree. I am just noting that a pope has reinforced the infallibility of that doctrine and required all to believe it as part of his teaching authority and office. At the practical level, the Church can not ordain women as priests - or priestesses, if you prefer. It couldn't ordain them before JP II either.

    There was an interesting case in my area some years ago, where the daughter of a prominent Catholic family felt God's call to ordination. Since the wicked patriarchal Church couldn't find it in its heart to follow God's call to her, she left us and became an Episcopalian. The Episcopal church has become the last refuge for the misunderstood, misguided, and genuine misfits of the world, it seems. That is sad, since they were once better than that.
  • Personally, I very much like the titles cantrix and choirmistress as regards my work. But I've also known many women who insist on being called by male titles. Call me an old school feminist, but I don't understand how we women can celebrate our womanhood and then turn around and reject titles that reflect said womanhood. What's the point? It seems like an oblique insult to women to reject feminine titles. Why not embrace the distinction? Perhaps we can chalk a lot of it up to a general dumbing down of our language.

    The shoe being on the other foot... and men trying to be like women... I was at the Mac makeup counter at Macy's yesterday, and deftly avoided being helped by a nice, very tall person wearing gads of makeup, a wig and loose clothing, who clearly had a male voice. As a voice teacher it really unsettled me, and I knew I couldn't go along with it and interact with the man as if he were a woman. And I didn't want to explain anything to my two boys who were with me. Plenty of confusion to go around in our times, I guess.
  • Thanks, Chonak, for moving the comments to the appropriate thread.

    As long as I've drifted here, I will say for the record that I'm not a fan of girl servers. At the same time, I hope to raise young men who aren't scared off by girls in their shared activities. Where girls are allowed to be servers (which I think is a mistake though I acknowledge it is allowed) the boys would be missing the point to treat the honor of serving at the altar as some kind of boys club. Same with male scholas who treat their service like a men's club. That's unhealthy and most unchivalrous, IMO.

    It sems to me that there are more obvious factors for the decline in vocations to the priesthood, namely shrinking family size in the west. Getting rid of girl servers, which is also allowable, won't solve that problem. Catholic families, individual Catholics, need to be more generous to better serve God and His Church.
    Thanked by 2Kathy CHGiffen
  • For me , without wishing to stick my head to far above the parapet, I think it is time for us to move beyond the 'no women priests because Jesus did not do it' explanation. Just as St John Paul enriched immeasurably our ability to talk about the 'no sex outside marriage' as much more than just 'because God says no' (I mean all that theology of the body stuff) I believe there is the potential for a much fuller understanding of why women are not called to the priesthood.
    Is it not perfectly reasonable to ask why Jesus did not ordain women? For me, that pushes me to think more deeply about things like (not a comprehensive or ranked list) just thoughts)
    The importance of the person being a body as well as a soul - contra the current fashion of thinking of us as thinking beings owning a body, which might or might not match up to what 'we' think of ourselves.
    Humanity as an organic whole - the nuptial imagery in Revelation is about the whole people of god as the Bride of Christ, not just me in my individual relationship with Christ, Therefore the meaning of humanity can be distributed out among individual humans, or groups of humans. So human males can signify one thing and human females another. (that bit is confused in how I wrote it sorry)
    I am okay with the idea that men and women are different, have different roles, different callings.
    I am okay with the idea that God made me a women, and so did not call me to biological fatherhood.
    I think my spiritual gifts build on nature. so I am okay with the idea that I am called to spiritual motherhood not spiritual fatherhood.
    I am okay with the idea that the father, in his natural role in the family as head of the household has a natural role of priesthood for his own family.
    Following from that the ministerial priesthood is founded on the natural priesthood of males - it is an extension from the natural to spiritual fatherhood.
    I am okay with the idea that my baptismal priesthood is expressed through spiritual motherhood, what mother does not suffer and offer sacrifices for her children?
    I am not okay with local priests acting as dictators - and rather than following the teachings of the church whether doctrinal or disciplinary, setting up their own will and preferences, to the exclusion of the gifts of others, both lay men and women.
    I don't see the local difficulties created by poorly trained though often good intentioned clerics as a reason to throw away the deeper aspects of faith, especially as our culture is in the process of disappearing down the rabbit hole of gender ideology.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    My reading of OS accords with the CDF's, in their declaration that the teaching is in fact infallible.
    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

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    I think there was some hair-splitting going on in this thread. The fact and any consequent end result is that the Catholic Church can not ordain women to the priesthood. That really is all there is to it.
  • but there is so much more to it - and all good!
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    I don't disagree, but do tell, and have told the women I know who desire ordination that the Episcopal church is the place for them to be. That serves two purposes.

    1. They will be happier in a place where they are "affirmed."
    2. Catholic parishes will be happier with the flakes and nuts sent elsewhere.

    They could become Lutherans or Methodists, I suppose. It's just not as classy. LOL. As they say, Anglicanism - playing dress-up and make-believe since 1563.
    Thanked by 2Ben Yanke TCJ
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    CharlesW I urge you to rethink your last post and edit it.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    It's not an original. It's a caption from a picture with the former AB of Canterbury with an assortment of priestesses and other clergy. Former AB, the "bearded wonder" as ship-of-fools labeled him. Not the current AB who kind of looks like Yoda. The picture was sent to me and I have no idea where it originated. Pretty much the truth, these days, although I think the Anglicans actually stood for more sound doctrine at one time in their history.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,354
    Of all the arguments for the all-male priesthood, I find the grammatical one the least convincing.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    No one has to argue for the all-male priesthood. It is a position from apostolic tradition held by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Those who can not accept it need to go elsewhere. Perhaps they will be happier there. I wish them all the best as they sail into the sunset. May they find peace.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    ? Is someone advocating schism?
  • ? Is someone advocating schism?


    Only as much as our Emeritus Pope did; he talked about how maybe we were heading for a time of a "smaller, purer" Church, which is really code for "If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out."
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    Did he advocate it? I thought he foretold it-- which is much different.
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • I could be not remembering properly, but I thought that he had made statements that seemed to indicate it was his wish - or at least that he viewed it as a positive development.

    At any rate, what is your response to people who want women's ordination and have NO INTEREST in being told why their position is wrong?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,084
    PGA

    I don't think B16 advocated it, but a number of his erstwhile fans did in one form or another, and volubly.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    The grammatical argument is actually interesting since advocates of the ordination of women claim that Christ was following the cultural standards of his time, but as Charles mentions, they seem to be aware of their contradictory predicament (what a fascinating insight!). But that was not the case, as has been mentioned. The Old Testament priests were all men, and God directed it be so. The same is true of the Apostles and their successors. God defined the culture of Israel, which was to be the proper worship of him alone, in the manner he prescribed and not like the pagans. If also considering that God is beginning to reveal the Father and the Son through the priesthood to be fulfilled in Christ this limitation makes sense.

    My parish uses adult men on Saturday nights, school boys for the Ordinary Form, and a mix for the Extraordinary Form. We have no shortages on Sundays, and I have usually been able to get a healthy number of eager kids to serve special liturgies. In fact a huge number made their 1st Holy Communion within the past two years, so they startes serving. In fact, some familes have 3 or more boys serving just right now, with some having already gone off to college. For us at the OF Mass, the problem was the last two years of middle school and the first of high school. After that, the guys really step up, and I am quite proud of them. The older ones do the Sunday sacristan duties, assign positions, etc. One vocation to the Franciscans of the Immaculate so far. I think we will have more. And even if we don’t, they will be solid married men.

    The other parish with regular vocations also has only male servers.

    Also, I would quit by high school if I had to serve with girls. Why? Because the relationship bounds change in high school, and flirting in a sacristy… *shudders* Unless I must, once the cassock goes on, I don’t even talk to women to say hello (or most people, actually, once we leave the sacristy) because it is super-distracting.
  • I'm not sure I advocate it in the "Fox-News-style, Fr. Z rhetoric" way - but - as I said, there are people who have no interest in understanding the nuances of Church teaching, they just plainly don't like it and want it to change, and won't be happy unless it does.

    I see no other real option for them than "If you don't like it, leave."
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I can understand BHCordova's frustration.
    Having just blown through a perusal of 71 comments, not one brought up the number of fairly recent articles and letters from clerics, including bishops, and laity that express the sincere value of examining and perhaps altering the discipline of the celibate male priesthood. This subject has also been addressed here (ie. multi-tiered or liturgical priesthood for married males with extenuating circumstances, primarily fiscal, being articulated and dispensed. This is the real issue that should be on the table, not the gender of altar servers.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    It's not on our table. We have had married priests since the beginning. That celibacy thing only holds true for monastics in the east, since all bishops must be celibate. The west could change that discipline for priests anytime it chooses. No doctrines involved, no anathemas needed, and no mea culpas required.

    Was it married priests in 19th-century Russia? Yes, it was. Many of them. Is not outrage.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,084
    Except that, in practical terms, it would be a far greater upheaval than ordaining celibate women. (I am only talking practical issues, not theology.) The Western model of diocesan parochial priests is premised on the availability of celibate men who can be freely moved around by their bishops as needed, and who are available to offer Mass seven days a week most weeks of the year, and who do not have professional or familial obligations that prevent them from being available to administer other sacraments as needed - and who do not have families that need supporting.

    And there are those who do see doctrinal issues implicated.

    It's not quite as simple as all that.

    YMMV.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    True, Liam. Priests would have to be assigned for longer time periods. The biggie is that the diocese would have to pay them a living wage. We musicians have heard of that concept of living wage before, but it's like the enchanted elven isles that exist somewhere beyond comprehension.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    The Eastern Catholic churches recently had the married priest option validated officially/ universally. The Anglican Ordinariate ordains married men. Latin/Roman rite--I don't foresee it happening. I could be wrong.

    Still, the important question for us as a forum is to determine whether, at the ordination of married womyn, it's okay to sing English hymns or stick to the propers, and if propers, whether to use Solesmes rhythms or not, and if yes, then how to interpret a quilisma. (Completely kidding.)
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    While moving priests is not new (it in fact is in face related to medieval developments in the requirements for who must say the Divine Office), the current way of doing things with the term limits and sudden transfers is new. It probably is not a good thing for the parish in the long-term. Changes can be made slowly and then ended by his successor, who might undo everything the previous pastor did. Unfortunately, good continuity seems to be the exception.

    The Ordinariates can only ordain married men if they are converts serving as married Anglican clergy. Men coming from the Ordinariates will have to be celibate, and I already know of celibate Ordinariate clergy who swam the Tiber and were ordained.

    That being said, in some ways I feel less confident about celibacy's staying power. If any discipline changes, this will be it. But that's still a very small chance, in my book.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,354
    If any discipline changes, this will be it.


    Because all the other disciplines have been done away with...
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Jahaza
  • When I was young... 2nd/3rd grade age, I always said I wanted to be a Priest. I would "play" Mass at home with my brother, setting up chairs as pews and everything, and even reading from the Bible. I was even an "alter boy" at one time for a couple years in the 3rd/4th grade.

    The desire seemed to fall away, and by high school, even fell away from the Church some (though I went to Mass periodically yet... my faith wasn't super strong). It became strong again maybe 5 years ago due to one of my good friends at the time... then fell away some until maybe a year or two ago... to which I am back entrenching myself in Parish life and trying to involve myself in any way that I can.

    I am married at this time, so I could never become a Priest. Though I have discussed becoming a Deacon down the road with my wife (though I am many years away from that even being possible). If the Latin Rite ever allowed it, would I consider becoming a Priest? A possibility. I feel strongly about the traditions of the Church, the beauty of the Mass, serving others the best I can. If it never would happen... I am going to do what I can to involve myself in volunteering where I can in the Church with my God given talents.
    Thanked by 2Kathy bonniebede
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,120
    the important question for us as a forum is to determine whether, at the ordination of married womyn, it's okay to sing English hymns or stick to the propers, and if propers, whether to use Solesmes rhythms or not, and if yes, then how to interpret a quilisma. (Completely kidding.)

    Only after we've established that the Pope is Catholic, and come up with a palatable monosyllabic substitute for "gig".

    Lat night I left this tab open. This morning I overheard my wife muttering: "What universe... Oh."
    Thanked by 2Kathy bonniebede
  • If the Latin Rite ever allowed it, would I consider becoming a Priest?


    My answer to this isn't "no."

    It's "HELL no."
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    The Eastern Catholic churches recently had the married priest option validated officially/ universally. The Anglican Ordinariate ordains married men. Latin/Roman rite--I don't foresee it happening. I could be wrong.

    Still, the important question for us as a forum is to determine whether, at the ordination of married womyn, it's okay to sing English hymns or stick to the propers, and if propers, whether to use Solesmes rhythms or not, and if yes, then how to interpret a quilisma. (Completely kidding.)


    The Ukrainians have ordained married men all along and didn't much care what Rome had to say about it. Their church is large so if they couldn't ordain someone in this country, they would do it in another.

    WOMYN??? See below.


    Council of Carthage, 257 AD: “One must neither
    pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever
    shall communicate with those who are cut off from
    the communion of the Church, whether clergy or
    layman, let him be excommunicated.”
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    KIDDING. Just goofing off.

    And possibly suggesting that we are probably better at kirchemusik than at canon law.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,193
    This morning I overheard my wife muttering: "What universe... Oh."

    My new favorite forum moment.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,384
    About half a century ago, I encountered the then intriguing essay by C.S. Lewis Priestesses in the Church?, written in his unique style that show a deep perception of what is true and what is not, as well as what is mere speculation. It helps to have read Pride and Prejudice, although it isn't entirely necessary. If you aren't acquainted with it, it is well worth reading.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 827
    @ francis


    welcome to our forum!!! where are you also a moderator?



    Since I've been on the forum for almost a year now, little late to be welcoming me. Are you really asking what forum I'm a moderator on, or is that more of your 'biting' wit? I can never tell if anyone on this forum is joking or serious.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
    you mentioned in another post that you were also a moderator on another forum.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 827
    I am a moderator and co-administrator on The Trombone Forum
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
    Interesting. Do you allow trumpeters?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,120
    more of your 'biting' baiting wit?
    Fixed.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
    Richard:

    Thank you for your baiting 'biting' remark.

    Baiting or biting, it all gets you thinking and wondering, yes?

    Nothing is more deplorable than a Catholic that can't think or reason for himself, abandons all conscience, and just follows a herd of pigs (hopefully not off a cliff).
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
  • The Anglican Ordinariate ordains married men

    Lest there be any question about it, we ordain former Anglican priests who are already married and wish to become Catholic priests, and are approved and undergo a rigourous sacerdotal catechesis. These are rather strict parameters. No other married men are or will be ordained. Any postulant for holy orders in the Ordinariate must be celibate.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,333
    Is that rule in writing anywhere, MJO? I wonder because the founding documents have provisions allowing the Ordinary to petition the Pope to grant exceptions to the normal rule of celibacy (Angl. coet. VI § 2; Complementary norms Art. 6). But of course the Ordinary is not obliged to make such petitions for anyone.
  • So, they say, he did or didn't do this or that because he was limited, bound, formed by the culture of his time. Here are some things that a person bound by that culture would be sure to avoid -

    I and the Father are one - a blatant equation of himself and God, an outright claim of divinity.

    Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more - a bald presumption of the authority to forgive sins, which only God can do: another assertion of divinity. Pure blasphemy.

    Passing the time of day with an outcast Samarian woman and claiming to dispense the water of eternal life - he wasn't taught such presumptuous claims to extraordinary powers in synagogue!

    Healing people on the Sabbath - working on the Sabbath - this is something that any devout Jew of his time wouldn't want to be caught doing. Not only doing what God alone can do, but doing it on the very day which is sacred to God. An affront of the highest order!

    Cleansing the temple of money changers - this took a real arrogation of self-generated authority. He didn't just cleanse the temple: he claimed that it was his very own father's house! (In case you didn't notice, this means he believed himself to be the Son of God - an extravagant and eccentric claim for any Jew of any period!)

    If you have seen me, you have seen the Father - (and he really meant it: to behold him was the same as beholding God himself!)) more delusions, more blasphemy - or, maybe was he simply stating the Truth? At any rate, these are not the words of one bound by his culture.

    Socialising with publicans and sinners - not recommended for any Jew of good repute

    Before Abraham was, I am - how bold can one get in yet again asserting divinity? Only God is 'I am'. Unrestrained blasphemy!

    He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live... have everlasting life - gracious! Claiming that he himself can dispense life itself, which only God can give. More arrogant blasphemy and delusion.

    Eat my flesh and drink my blood - these are the words of one who would be taken to be an atoning sacrifice (the flesh of sacrificial victims was, in fact, consumed) - more blasphemy.

    One could go on -
    These are not the words and acts of anyone bound by Jewish culture of Jesus' time. These are the brave acts of one sent from above who was crucified precisely for blasphemy and flaunting what was not culturally acceptable. This tired and lame argument needs to be buried. It simply does not hold water. It is written that he omitted nothing that the Father willed.
    Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
  • Chonak -
    I don't know if or where it is in black and white. This is the arrangement as I have always understood it from the inception of John Paul's Pastoral Provision in 1984. If there were any changes under Benedict with regard to the ordinariate I have not heard of them. I'll certainly look into this. You raise a very interesting point.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,528
    Nothing is more deplorable than a Catholic that can't think or reason for himself, abandons all conscience, and just follows a herd of pigs (hopefully not off a cliff).


    Conscience? Sin? Doctrine? Where did you come up with this stuff? Didn't you know that sinning is good for You?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1na68zwbOs
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
    It's an old religion I dug up.

    Here's a website I built a few years ago. Again, it is an old religion so you might not be familiar with it.

    http://www.thesevencapitalsins.com
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 827
    Interesting. Do you allow trumpeters?


    Well, I believe we do have a few trumpeters on the forum.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 827
    Franics,

    Wonderful website! Thanks for building it and for giving us the link!
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,872
    YW bhcordova.

    As long as people tromp out the things like the above video (sinning is good for you), I am determined to raise the banner on what has been left to "anitquity", even in the face of being eschewed as a clanging cymbal.

    I built that site years ago and dedicated it to my children. I send them the link once in a while to remind them.