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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

? 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."

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?

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 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.

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.

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.)

If any discipline changes, this will be it.

Because all the other disciplines have been done away with...

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."

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.”

This morning I overheard my wife muttering: "What universe... Oh."

My new favorite forum moment.

@ 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.

I am a moderator and co-administrator on The Trombone Forum

more of your 'biting' baiting wit?

Fixed.

INSERT:

A great article on why we must think and keep our conscience in tact!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/01/editorial-doctrine-can-never-be.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

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.

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.

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

Franics,

Wonderful website! Thanks for building it and for giving us the link!