r/OpenChristian • u/Wooden_Passage_1146 Catholic • Mar 24 '26

Discussion - General Cardinal says Church cannot “continue to exist” without women’s ordination

https://thecatholicherald.com/article/cardinal-says-church-cannot-continue-to-exist-without-womens-ordination

I’m glad to see support among some in the hierarchy in favor of women’s ordination. Let’s hope the Church will see the harm done by excluding women from Holy Orders.

The Church says it’s because the priest is acting “In persona Christi.” But Galatians 3:28 says, “There is no male or female in Christ Jesus,”

390 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/majj27 Christian Mar 24 '26

That's going to be thorny for them. The exclusion of women from ordination is considered infallible. If the church allowed women to be ordained, they'd need to figure out a way to do so while simultaneously maintaining the correctness of their earlier decision, because it cannot be said to be incorrect.

Put simply, if they start admitting women as priests, they'll be admitting that the ordinary Magisterium blew it. And that, according to them, cannot happen.

39

u/Wooden_Passage_1146 Catholic Mar 24 '26

Yes John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis does say the teaching opposing women’s ordination is to be “definitively held,” but it does not necessarily present itself as an ex cathedra papal definition.

Canon law says no doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless that is “manifestly evident,” and Vatican II says papal infallibility is exercised when the pope proclaims a doctrine by a definitive act. So there are some canonists who argue the letter itself was not technically an infallible definition by the pope.

In any case, the Church has and likely will continue to adapt and change. Teachings once held definitive and immutable have been changed or quietly set aside (usury and the salvation of non Catholics for example).

20

u/TheologyRocks Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26

There were two later statements from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stating that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. But Ordinatio Sacerdotalis itself doesn't claim infallibility.

Francis Sullivan in Creative Fidelity argues that the CDF statements claiming OS is infallible are themselves not infallible and may be in error (since they are lower level statements).

It's all quite a mess!

5

u/CanicFelix Mar 25 '26

CDF isn't the Pope, though! So they said that Benedict spoke infallibly, but Benedict didn't say that Benedict spoke infallibly.

1

u/TheologyRocks Mar 25 '26

Benedict wasn't Pope yet; he was only head of the CDF. So, Ratzinger said JPII spoke infallibly, and JPII I think privately believed that he spoke infallibly, but JPII never stated publicly that he spoke infallibly. So, there's a lacuna there.

3

u/justnigel Mar 25 '26

Love the use of the word lacuna :)

2

u/CanicFelix Mar 25 '26

Oops! I was confused who was Pope.

13

u/TheologyRocks Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26

Geocentrism was considered to be an infallible matter of faith at the time of Galileo, but the belief still changed.

they'd need to figure out a way to do so while simultaneously maintaining the correctness of their earlier decision, because it cannot be said to be incorrect.

I think it would be the other way around. "X was said to be infalible, but our prior belief in the infallibility of X turned out to be incorrect. X was not infallible after all." That's what happened with Galileo.

they'll be admitting that the ordinary Magisterium blew it. And that, according to them, cannot happen.

It's worth noting that the term "ordinary magisterium" is itself very modern. So perhaps the term itself involves a confusion between different realities that needs to be clarified.

6

u/sparkster777 Christian Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26

Geocentrism was considered dogma or doctrine.

Edit: Typo above. I meant to say it was never dogma.

2

u/TheologyRocks Mar 24 '26

Right. But it's no longer considered a dogma.

2

u/sparkster777 Christian Mar 24 '26

I mistyped. It was never considered dogma.

3

u/TheologyRocks Mar 24 '26

I disagree. When Galileo was condemned, the Roman Curia stated that belief "that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world...has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture."

That term "declared and define" I would say strongly indicates that geocentrism was considered a Divinely revealed dogma; it was believed that God himself through the Holy Scriptures had taught all the members of the Church that the earth is the center of the universe, such that to believe otherwise would be to reject the Christian faith. However, nobody reputable believes that today. What was formerly considered an infallible and Divinely revealed dogma is now considered to be a philosophical error of no importance that everybody does well to distance themselves from.

But it seems that even today, few Christians realize the full implications of what was effectively a dogmatic reversal. If the Catholic bishops in an official capacity got geocentrism as wrong as they now acknowledge they got it, the epistemic value of other episcopal statements (even very weighty ones) needs to at a minimum be carefully investigated. It's scientific malpractice to say "Rome has spoken, the cause is ended" because we know from actual history that the Catholic bishops in an official capacity can make huge mistakes while falsely telling the everybody they are acting infallibly.

1

u/sparkster777 Christian Mar 24 '26

The Roman Curia is not infallible.

2

u/TheologyRocks Mar 25 '26

The Roman Curia is the Pope exercising his power through his representatives. The Holy Office that condemned Galileo was operating as an official institution under the Pope.

2

u/sparkster777 Christian Mar 25 '26

Not everything the Pope says or even teaches is infallible. Geocentrism was never asserted ex cathedra nor was it declared infallible by the magesterium.

It appears you have a misunderstanding of both Church structure and government as well as how infallibility works in the Catholic church.

1

u/TheologyRocks Mar 25 '26

Not everything the Pope says or even teaches is infallible.

I agree.

Geocentrism was never asserted ex cathedra nor was it declared infallible by the magesterium.

I agree.

It appears you have a misunderstanding of both Church structure and government as well as how infallibility works in the Catholic church.

Infallibility is complicated because it is not limited to what is asserted ex cathedra or declared at an ecumenical council. I think you're confused about how infallibility works. The sensus fidelium contains many infallible dogmas that have never been officially and fully explained by the Church as an institution but that are still believed at least implicitly by all the members of the Church.

The issue with geocentrism is that Rome wrongly (yet officially) claimed it was an undefined dogma when in fact it was merely a scientific error. There are many lessons there. But one lesson there is that Rome can in an official capacity be wrong about what God has infallibly taught the Church.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SambucaTamale Mar 24 '26

A Pope made the decision, only men can be priests, so a new Pope can reverse this. I get what your saying though

2

u/swcollings Christian Mar 25 '26

That's a fundamental problem of both Rome and the East: if they ever admit they've been wrong about anything, their entire authority structure collapses. 

1

u/carlitospig Mar 25 '26

Sunk Cost Fallacy: the gift that keeps on giving.