Women Priests

[Lena]

[quote name='infinitelord1' post='1426691' date='Nov 29 2007, 05:38 AM']i agree with the whole man and fatherhood aspect of priesthood. Its important that someone strong in faith sets example for others. Just to look at it from a social aspect...its not too often when a large group of people "look up" to a woman. Im not saying this is bad or good...i just think that its a role play. Men are generally leaders, set standards, and provide a sense of security. Women are generally more nurturing, caring, and compassionate. To have an audience looking up to someone who represents nurture, care, and compassion is not a bad thing but definately throws a twist on the role play aspect of society. Yes I do believe that men were created to play a certain role and women as well.[/quote]

Actually, what you said isn't completely true. Whether you agree with their politics or not, Condoleezza Rice I bet has great leadership qualities. Nancy Pelosi. Sandra Day O'Connor. Ruth Ginsburg. Jennifer Granholm. Queen Elizabeth. Pratibha Patil. Margaret Thatcher. Those are political, but looking outside of that you can find lots more. These aren't aberrations.

[Lena]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1426862' date='Nov 29 2007, 05:39 PM']What exactly does "capable" mean?
As to the issue - the Church will never be "capable" of ordaining women, the dissenters can break and create their own church or join a community that already broke with the Church and conforms to their wishes..[/quote]

In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

That seems like a far-fetched position, in my opinion.

You could easily say that about any doctrine. "Well - right now the Church accepts the Trinity, but who knows the future" .. we know the Church's 2000 year history and Sacred Tradition. Why even consider such a hypothetical based on basically nothing, when we have past and present reality staring at us?

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 05:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I have no problem with female leadership or female presidents, prime ministers, queens, or anything else. It's just that theologically, it is impossible for women to be ordain a priest in the Catholic or Orthodox Church. I don't understand why the Baptists won't let women be pastors - in fact I find their stance to be theologically incorrect, since pastorship has nothing to do with priesthood.

Edited November 29, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[Lena]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1426869' date='Nov 29 2007, 05:53 PM']That seems like a far-fetched position, in my opinion.

You could easily say that about any doctrine. "Well - right now the Church accepts the Trinity, but who knows the future" .. we know the Church's 2000 year history and Sacred Tradition. Why even consider such a hypothetical based on basically nothing, when we have past and present reality staring at us?[/quote]

It's not based on nothing because it comes from [i]something[/i].
Do we not base the majority of our lives on questions of what might occur in the future? Why do I continue to study in college? To pass the class and get a job IN THE FUTURE. But, wait, what if I die tomorrow?

Why search for cures for cancer if past and present reality is staring at us? Why fight for illegal abortion when the present reality of legal abortion is staring at us? Why think about the future at all? Why do we continue to teach our young children about Catholicism if they might become atheists?

I don't think anything is far-fetched. Centuries ago, did we think we'd land on the moon? Did our ancestors ever imagine the partial breakdown of gender inequality? They didn't even know about it, because it wasn't formulated thought yet and it was ingrained in their society to think the way they did. Slavery was accepted as natural, and Africans were considered inferior in every way--how has that changed? Because people brought about change, knowing change is possible.

So, maybe I'm seeing the Church as a part of culture and you're seeing it as a separate entity. Maybe it's a mix, right? I don't know. But things are always changing---did anyone think that Latin would no longer be the language of the Mass? English is spoken now in Mass, is that progress or change or what? Depends on who you ask.

I'm getting off topic, but it's the kind of subject that [i]does[/i] get off topic because there are no easy answers.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426875' date='Nov 29 2007, 06:13 PM']It's not based on nothing because it comes from [i]something[/i].
Do we not base the majority of our lives on questions of what might occur in the future? Why do I continue to study in college? To pass the class and get a job IN THE FUTURE. But, wait, what if I die tomorrow?[/quote]

I think it's obvious that Studying leads to passing class leads to graduation.
2000 yrs of Sacred Tradition + Scriptures = no women priests = no women priests = no women priests.

[quote]Why search for cures for cancer if past and present reality is staring at us?[/quote]
Your analogy makes no sense. Cancer researchers use scientific methods and techniques that are learned from past experience, they don't say "hey, who knows what the future holds so lets trying making a cure out of water - which has never shown any promise."

[quote]Why fight for illegal abortion when the present reality of legal abortion is staring at us?[/quote]Again, this example has nothing whatsoever to do with the initial. The legality of abortion is can change based on political climate. Church doctrine cannot and should not.

[quote]Why think about the future at all? Why do we continue to teach our young children about Catholicism if they might become atheists?[/quote]Do you believe Catholicism or Christianity in general is a popularity contest? That anything goes as long as a you can get a majority to agree (or at least not complain)?

[quote]I don't think anything is far-fetched.[/quote]
So let's start praying like the Muslims or Buddhists - since its "possible" that the Church may one day say "oops, that Muhammed dude was right all along" or "you know the Buddhist's were right, no god.."

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote]Centuries ago, did we think we'd land on the moon?[/quote]
What does scientific progress have to do with immutable faith? God doesn't change no matter if we discover how to travel to another galaxy or another dimension or turn water into wine.

[quote]Did our ancestors ever imagine the partial breakdown of gender inequality?[/quote]Some of them initiated it - Jesus for example. [quote]They didn't even know about it, because it wasn't formulated thought yet and it was ingrained in their society to think the way they did.[/quote]How so? Jesus ate with tax collects and sinners, he broke cultural mores by speaking to those on the outskirts - you're telling me that ordaining a woman was the one societal barrier He couldn't overcome? [quote]Slavery was accepted as natural, and Africans were considered inferior in every way--how has that changed?[/quote]Institutional slavery was not accepted as natural until fairly recently. That was an imperialist colonialist construct, which eventually made it's way into the American system and became accepted as normal. Africans weren't considered inferior by most people, only the colonialists and slave traders treated Africans that way. In the OT, the Jews lived in Africa and even took African women as wives. There are also African Jews.

[quote]So, maybe I'm seeing the Church as a part of culture and you're seeing it as a separate entity. Maybe it's a mix, right? I don't know. But things are always changing---did anyone think that Latin would no longer be the language of the Mass? English is spoken now in Mass, is that progress or change or what? Depends on who you ask.[/quote]The language is not doctrine, never was. The Church has no ability to ordain women to the priesthood, never will.

[quote]I'm getting off topic, but it's the kind of subject that [i]does[/i] get off topic because there are no easy answers.[/quote]
You are conflating completely different things, as if there were a comparison - societal advances and scientific growth do not equal changing of unchanging Truths.

[Lena]

That's great. I'd argue some of your points but that'd lead me further onto "conflating completely different things" and I do want to stay somewhat on topic. However, for the record, I was placing slavery in a certain context of the Antebellum South. I should have made that more clear, but really it was only to show that it's important to go beyond the present and past realities and that, once again, social change occurs every day and is necessary. What we conceive now will be different from what people conceive in the future--which was the purpose of my "conflating completely different things."

[quote]You are conflating completely different things, as if there were a comparison - societal advances and scientific growth do not equal changing of unchanging Truths.[/quote]

Maybe that's where we disagree then. I don't see this issue as an unchanging truth.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Lena

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

So, back to my question, do you think it's "possible" that the Church may one day say "oops, Muhammed had it right" and say Christ isn't God?

[quote name='Lena' post='1426905' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:07 PM']That's great. I'd argue some of your points but that'd lead me further onto "conflating completely different things" and I do want to stay somewhat on topic. However, for the record, I was placing slavery in a certain context of the Antebellum South. I should have made that more clear, but really it was only to show that it's important to go beyond the present and past realities and that, once again, social change occurs every day and is necessary. What we conceive now will be different from what people conceive in the future--which was the purpose of my "conflating completely different things."[/quote]

[Lena]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1426907' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:14 PM']So, back to my question, do you think it's "possible" that the Church may one day say "oops, Muhammed had it right" and say Christ isn't God?[/quote]

I know next to nothing about Muhammad, and I'm sorry if that sounds like a cop-out but I really don't. That Christ is God is an integral part of my faith.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

The Church, the Apostles, Tradition state that it is immutable Truth that God is Trinity. They also state that it is immutable Truth that the Church has no authority to ordain women priest or bishop. If you can claim the latter is "possible" to change, why not the former? I assume you have had no contact with Christ without the mediation of the Church, so if you can claim the Church is wrong about this - even when the Church clearly claims otherwise; who knows what else the Church is wrong about?

[quote name='Lena' post='1426929' date='Nov 29 2007, 08:05 PM']I know next to nothing about Muhammad, and I'm sorry if that sounds like a cop-out but I really don't. That Christ is God is an integral part of my faith.[/quote]

Edited November 30, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[mortify]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 06:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]

Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going[b] against [/b]their culture when they solely ordained men. The reason is a male only priesthood extends back to Judaism and these Christians were more concerned about living as God wants them to as oppose to what their culture stipulates (we ought to do the same.)


God bless

Edited November 30, 2007 by mortify

[Maggyie]

[quote]Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going against their culture when they solely ordained men.[/quote]

Very true!

[Lena]

[quote name='mortify' post='1427040' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:12 PM']Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going[b] against [/b]their culture when they solely ordained men. The reason is a male only priesthood extends back to Judaism and these Christians were more concerned about living as God wants them to as oppose to what their culture stipulates (we ought to do the same.)
God bless[/quote]

Did they? That's interesting....I actually would like to study more about the early origins of Christianity. Like [i]early[/i] early. I think sometimes I question things too much anyway. It'd probably be easier not to.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 06:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]
With all due respect, your opinion is nonsense, and does not show a Catholic understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, and heir to the Keys of Peter, but rather a misunderstanding of the Church as merely a human social institution that changes doctrine with the whims of the world.

That women cannot be priests is not just a social convention, but Church dogma.

The Church has never had any trouble opposing the social conventions of the world when they are unjust or wrong. (Most of the world today has no problem with contraception, fornication, or divorce-and-remarriage, for instance, yet the Church continues to declare these things mortal sins, unpopular as such teachings might be.)
Catholic teaching often goes against the grain of the world.

The Church has kept Her dogmatic teachings through countless social changes in the world.
Believe me, if the all-male priesthood were simply a social convention dictated by the mores of society, there would have been women priests a long time ago.

[Lena]

nonsense? If only it could be dismissed as easily as that, there wouldn't [i]be [/i] an issue.