Women Priests

[Deb]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1428078' date='Dec 2 2007, 04:44 AM']But you are forgetting the understanding that we are assuming to pursue the same Truth about GOD and I have the revelation to offer that GOD is not Catholic.
[font="Arial Black"]
Do Tell?[/font]

CARRDERO: One doesn’t have to be Catholic to care about all humans who encourage belief systems. I can continue to respect people’s beliefs but there is nothing I can really do with one’s faith.

Faith.......2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs [/font]
For a Catholic, we don't really separate belief from faith.

CARRDERO: Faith is neither trust or Truth. It has been known to lead to Untruth, misunderstanding, ambandonment, betrayal, discouragement, disappointment and embarrassment. This is [b][i]part[/i][/b] of the nature of faith which in practice and actuality, never required my assistance.
Actually the pronouns that are mostly utilized in member’s posts are “we” and “us”.

Actually, faith saved my life and my belief has brought me much grace from God. I believe that Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church and I believe that the church doctrine is in keeping with the wishes of my Lord so therefore, I trust them when they state that only men can be ordained Priests. I believe that to be the truth. Therefore, trust, belief and faith are inseparable to one who is a true Catholic.

CARRDERO: It is about humanness and the philosophy of kindness. One’s faith or religion is no excuse to segregate anyone because then one misses the opportunity of understanding and discovering the things that we do have in common.

That last response makes no sense to me. Segregate?? If anyone wants to be Catholic, they can. If they choose not to follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, they can go elsewhere. That is a personal choice. In my opinion, those who argue so much for women to be Priests are those who are looking for a reason to toss aside their Catholic faith and rationalize why they are no longer a practicing Catholic. There are so many excuses people use besides the women/Priest issue as they try to placate their own guilt for turning away from their faith or should I say, their belief. I know. I used to be one of them.[/quote]

Edited December 16, 2007 by Deb

[Norseman82]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1434844' date='Dec 16 2007, 05:31 AM']Jesus may have told the apostles but they may not have agreed or even had a reason to write it down. Jesus never had the opportunity to proof read and edit his own words (what with Him being dead for 30 years). Jesus may have not existed in the capacity in which the Biblical authors presented Him.[/quote]

Correction - what with Him being Dead [b]and resurrected[/b] for 30 years. Ultimately, God is still held to be the Author of Sacred Scripture, whatever tools He used (whether it be direcft visions while they were writing).


[quote name='carrdero' post='1434844' date='Dec 16 2007, 05:31 AM']If he wanted to ordain male priests he would have started with the Sacred Father Joseph.[/quote]

This one is the easiet point...it is agreed among most Christians that Joseph was probably dead by the time Jesus started His public ministry.


[quote name='carrdero' post='1434844' date='Dec 16 2007, 05:31 AM']Third, you seem to be under the impression that everything written in the Bible is True.[/quote]

Yes, materially it is. That (and God's ultimate authorship) are the predecessor rules when discussing how to interpret something in the Bible; if one cannot agree to that, there can be no fruitful discussion of faith and morals from a Christian perspective.

[carrdero]

[quote]Deb writes: Actually, faith saved my life and my belief has brought me much grace from God. I believe that Jesus is the head of the Catholic Church and I believe that the church doctrine is in keeping with the wishes of my Lord so therefore, I trust them when they state that only men can be ordained Priests. I believe that to be the truth. Therefore, trust, belief and faith are inseparable to one who is a true Catholic.[/quote]

One’s expression of faith does nothing to convince me of any Truth or Untruth that the practitioner possesses nor does it impress upon me the importance of one’s beliefs (compared to mine). Faith only teaches me how eager one is to believe or how anxious and/or desparate one hopes their beliefs to be True. I will still have to contend (in the face of faithfulness) that there is still an underlying ugliness about a belief from an organization unable and unaccepting to the prospect and worth of ordaining women as priests.

Edited December 16, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Norseman82 wites: Correction - what with Him being Dead and resurrected for 30 years.[/quote]
That’s not a correction, that is merely a faithful assumption.

[quote]Norseman82 wites: Ultimately, God is still held to be the Author of Sacred Scripture, whatever tools He used (whether it be direcft visions while they were writing).[/quote]
GOD is accountable for no such inscriptions.

[quote]Norseman82 wites: This one is the easiet point...it is [color="#FF0000"]agreed[/color] among most Christians that Joseph was probably dead by the time Jesus started His public ministry.[/quote]

From Wikipedia:
Joseph, husband of Mary and Jesus' father, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood. No mention, however, is made of Joseph during the ministry of Jesus. John's account of Jesus commending Mary into the care of the beloved disciple during his crucifixion (John 19:25–27) [color="#FF0000"]suggests[/color] that Joseph had died by that time.[16]

[color="#FF0000"]We can agree or suggest all we want but let us at least be honest in the Truth that we "just do not know".[/color]
[quote]Norseman82 wites: Yes, materially it is. That (and God's ultimate authorship) are the predecessor rules when discussing how to interpret something in the Bible; if one cannot agree to that, there can be no fruitful discussion of faith and morals from a Christian perspective.[/quote]

Since no one can really claim or prove divine authorship from a Supreme BEIng and since fruitful discussions of faith will most likely breed more unreasonable, unmovable examples of faith, I for one suggest we focus on the woman of today and start offering the real reasons for why a woman is unqualified to be in the same service as male priests rather than just proclaiming that a “book” tells one that it is so.

Edited December 16, 2007 by carrdero

[elizabeth_jane]

What about the basic idea that men and women are created differently? We have different gifts. God, who created us, knows that. (Well, OK, duh) You cannot swap us in and out.
tradition tell us that the priest is acting [i]in persona christi[/i]--in the person of Christ (I think I've got my Latin right).Jesus was male. Priests, acting in his place, are male. This isn't some updated Opera company where we can switch gender roles.

Also re: Jesus making Joseph a priest. For the purposes of this discussion, wouldn't it be more applicable to talk about making Mary a priest? Obviously, he didn't. Mary's role in the Church is important and clearly defined. But she wasn't a priest. She wasn't an apostle. And if anyone was going to claim rank or right to have special dibs, it would be her.

But she didn't.

[carrdero]

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: What about the basic idea that men and women are created differently? We have different gifts.[/quote]
Other then the biological reasoning that a woman can give birth to babies (which may or may not be a necessary requirement for priesthood), it is these different and special gifts that I am offering women to bring to their ministry. If you could be more specific as to what “gifts” you are suggesting without pandering to common stereotypes, I would be willing to consider them.

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: God, who created us, knows that. (Well, OK, duh) You cannot swap us in and out.
tradition tell us that the priest is acting in persona christi--in the person of Christ (I think I've got my Latin right).Jesus was male.[/quote]

GOD does not adhere to human tradition. If one is going to examine the reason for the creation of man and woman one must also recognize the potential, possibility and purpose that each individual possesses and no organized religion has been successful in deciphering this.

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: Also re: Jesus making Joseph a priest. For the purposes of this discussion, wouldn't it be more applicable to talk about making Mary a priest?[/quote]

Not if I can take out two faithful misunderstandings at the same time. The argument here is that Jesus never said or did it because it wasn’t recorded in the scriptures. There are 29 years of Jesus’ life unaccounted for in the bible, which stands to reason that the author’s were very selective in what they wanted their followers to know and what they did not want them to know. I suspect, in the primitive understanding about women during this era that the author’s did not see women as their equals. That is their short-sightedness not a prejudice, tradtion or vision to be carried over into our current perspective and understanding.

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: She wasn't an apostle. And if anyone was going to claim rank or right to have special dibs, it would be her.[/quote]

What if she didn’t want or desire to be a priest or even agree to her son's belief system?

Edited December 16, 2007 by carrdero

[elizabeth_jane]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1434954' date='Dec 16 2007, 04:05 PM']Other then the biological reasoning that a woman can give birth to babies (which may or may not be a necessary requirement for priesthood), it is these different and special gifts that I am offering women to bring to their ministry. If you could be more specific as to what “gifts” you are suggesting without pandering to common stereotypes, I would be willing to consider them.[/quote]
We could start w/ JPII's letter on Women--[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]"The Dignity of Women"[/url], for starters.

[quote]GOD does not adhere to human tradition. If one is going to examine the reason for the creation of man and woman one must also recognize the potential, possibility and purpose that each individual possesses and no organized religion has been successful in deciphering this.[/quote]
So, if God institutes the tradition, it's still something we can't use? Where does all this fear and loathing of tradition come from? It is not condemned in the Bible. But I digress.

[quote]The argument here is that Jesus never said or did it because it wasn’t recorded in the scriptures. There is 29 years of Jesus’ life unaccounted for in the bible, which stands to reason that the author’s were very selective in what they wanted their followers to know and what they did not want them to know.[/quote]
While it's true the gospels were written for different audiences, I highly doubt they were written with the "spin" you seem to be implying. The Gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Also from JPII:
[quote]It is universally admitted - even by people with a critical attitude towards the Christian message - that in the eyes of his contemporaries Christ became a promotor of women's true dignity and of the vocation corresponding to this dignity. At times this caused wonder, surprise, often to the point of scandal: "They marvelled that he was talking with a woman" (Jn 4:27), because this behaviour differed from that of his contemporaries. Even Christ's own disciples "marvelled". The Pharisee to whose house the sinful woman went to anoint Jesus' feet with perfumed oil "said to himself, 'If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner'" (Lk 7:39). Even greater dismay, or even "holy indignation", must have filled the self-satisfied hearers of Christ's words: "the tax collectors and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you" (Mt 21:31).[/quote]
Note those Biblical references...

[quote]I suspect, in the primitive understanding about women during this era that the author’s did not see women as their equals. That is their short-sightedness not a prejudice, tradtion or vision to be carried over into our current perspective and understanding.[/quote]

Jesus had several women as His disciples--Martha, Mary, His Mother, Mary Magdalene, etc. They are mentioned throughout the New Testament. The idea that the authors had something against women and therefore ignored them isn't applicable if you've read the N.T. Women are involved in his ministry, but [i]not in the same way as the Apostles. [/i]

[quote]What if she didn’t want or desire to be a priest or even agree to her sons belief system?[/quote]
The idea of Mary not supporting her son's belief system is totally out in left field.

Edited December 16, 2007 by elizabeth_jane

[carrdero]

[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: Jesus had several women as His disciples--Martha, Mary, His Mother, Mary Magdalene, etc. They are mentioned throughout the New Testament.[/quote]
But the in-depth details of the relationships that Jesus encouraged with these women are not discussed.
[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes: The idea that the authors had something against women and therefore ignored them isn't applicable if you've read the N.T.[/quote]I have enough idea to know that they weren’t considered their equals.
[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes:Women are involved in his ministry, but not in the same way as the Apostles[/quote]
This does nothing to absolve our ancestor’s views on women as "weaker vessels" or support our current understanding of women.
[quote]Elizabeth_Jane writes:The idea of Mary not supporting her son's belief system is totally out in left field.[/quote]
LOL. If one has ever read the Bible, the leaps of faith required to get to any field can stretch anyone's credibility.

Edited December 16, 2007 by carrdero

[elizabeth_jane]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1434972' date='Dec 16 2007, 04:34 PM']But the in-depth details of the relationships that Jesus encouraged with these women are not discussed.[/quote]
Probably because that wasn't the point of the Gospels! It's not "Jesus and How He Dealt With Women." The fact that he had ANY relationship with them at all is enough. Read the JPII link I put in the other post. He's got a whole section on Jesus and the Women.

[quote]I have enough idea to know that they weren’t considered their equals.[/quote]
Which is the point--see above. Jesus treated them differently. But they were NOT the same as the Apostles.

[quote]This does nothing to absolve our ancestor’s views on women as "weaker vessels" or support our current understanding of women.[/quote]
Again, read the JPII document.

[quote]LOL. If one has ever read the Bible, the leaps of faith required to get to any field can stretch anyone's credibility.[/quote]
It's actually almost offensive to say that Mary didn't support her Son's mission. "Do whatever He tells you?" Hello????
And Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, anyway.

[Deb]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1434918' date='Dec 16 2007, 02:00 PM']One’s expression of faith does nothing to convince me of any Truth or Untruth that the practitioner possesses nor does it impress upon me the importance of one’s beliefs (compared to mine). Faith only teaches me how eager one is to believe or how anxious and/or desparate one hopes their beliefs to be True. I will still have to contend (in the face of faithfulness) that there is still an underlying ugliness about a belief from an organization unable and unaccepting to the prospect and worth of ordaining women as priests.[/quote]


You don't seem to get it. Women not being ordained Priests has nothing to do with their worth. You can argue until the sun falls from the sky and you still won't be able to come up with any valid argument that would undo the doctrine of the sacrament of ordination because you cannot comprehend where it comes from. It is like explaining color to a blind man.

As for faith............Maybe I wasn't as detailed as I could have been. I don't just believe, I don't just have faith that my beliefs are true, I know they are. I pray that some day God reveals himself to you, in all his glory, and then you too will know that the WORD is the TRUTH.

[carrdero]

[quote]Deb writes: You don't seem to get it. Women not being ordained Priests has nothing to do with their worth. You can argue until the sun falls from the sky and you still won't be able to come up with any valid argument that would undo the doctrine of the sacrament of ordination because you cannot comprehend where it comes from. It is like explaining color to a blind man.[/quote]

Then if worth is not an issue and a religion has no desire to recognize and appreciate this worth, then how about purpose? I think it is a bit bold and presumptious for religions to delegate (relegate?) women to certain vocations/positions if in their hearts the feel they can make a difference in their service to others and their relationship to GOD doing and BEing the same vocation as a male. Does your religion believe that women should just “align their hearts” and completely confrom to standard tradition and doctrine? What of their desires? What of their beliefs? What of their potential? A religion should tell a woman that what they desire, what they purposed, what they are capable of, what they feel, what they dream is not a possibility based on what gender they are? That's absurd.

There is no understanding of a woman’s place until she tells you where she wants to be.


[quote]Deb writes: As for faith............Maybe I wasn't as detailed as I could have been. I don't just believe, I don't just have faith that my beliefs are true, I know they are.[/quote]

If you are still practicing faith and if you have to believe your beliefs to be True, then you don’t have to go into any more detail with me. I already understand how much you want them to be True.

[quote]Deb writes: I pray that some day God reveals himself to you, in all his glory.[/quote]

If GOD ever does reveal Himself, I do not think that GOD will express Himself to me as gloriously as He has been explained to you.

Edited December 17, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='elizabeth_jane' post='1434974' date='Dec 16 2007, 04:43 PM']Probably because that wasn't the point of the Gospels! It's not "Jesus and How He Dealt With Women." The fact that he had ANY relationship with them at all is enough. Read the JPII link I put in the other post. He's got a whole section on Jesus and the Women.
Which is the point--see above. Jesus treated them differently. But they were NOT the same as the Apostles.
Again, read the JPII document.
It's actually almost offensive to say that Mary didn't support her Son's mission. "Do whatever He tells you?" Hello????
And Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura, anyway.[/quote]
I have read the article and as I have previously mentioned, pious superstitious mystery is not a viable argument to encourage and support prejudice.

Edited December 17, 2007 by carrdero

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Women were not considered "equal to the Apostles"?

Funny, that the uninformed pad their debates with points they know nothing about. How does one debate an opponent who has no knowledge of the facts, yet presumes a conclusion? One cannot. It is simply a mud-swinging session, with one side trying to clean up the mess.

St. Mary Magdalene has been given the honour of "Equal to the Apostles" since she is whom Christ appeared to first, and she told the Apostles the Good News! She is truly "equal to the Apostles", but she is not an Apostle, i.e. not a priest.

Why should Catholics care what secularists and uninformed non-Catholics think? They don't care about our reasons or our theology, only about getting things their way, and when they destroy us on their warpath to do so, they will move onto the next victim, leaving the rubble behind. Secularism drags everyone and everything down to the lowest common denominator, Christ lifts all up to Himself. Why would anyone with the knowledge of Christ want anything less!

Edited December 17, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Yet, self-title experts with secularist feminism motives are enough to reject a wholesale system of belief?

The so-called "pious superstition" is what you and others want some of these women to have leadership positions in, why would someone who rejects the whole system want ANYONE to lead it, let alone one segment of society - the true agenda is not getting women into the priesthood - it is destroying the priesthood itself so that it will in turn collapse what these types feel is just "pious superstition".

Minimizing and denigrating other people's beliefs does not strengthen your argument, it just emphasizes that you have no real points of contention.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1435168' date='Dec 17 2007, 05:26 AM']I have read the article and as I have previously mentioned, pious superstitious mystery is not a viable argument to encourage and support prejudice.[/quote]

[carrdero]

[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: Why should Catholics care what secularists and uninformed non-Catholics think?[/quote]
Doesn’t matter who is offering the idea, whether you are Catholic or any other denomination you are going to have to confront the possibility that the belief is either True or Untrue. Hoping it is True does not make the belief so.
[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: They don't care about our reasons or our theology, only about getting things their way, and when they destroy us on their warpath to do so, they will move onto the next victim, leaving the rubble behind.[/quote]
Do you think claiming oneself as a victim of faith will garner sympathy or absolve this shame?
[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: Secularism drags everyone and everything down to the lowest common denominator, Christ lifts all up to Himself. Why would anyone with the knowledge of Christ want anything less![/quote]
Because knowledge is not Truth. No one should accept anything less than Truth. Knowledge is understanding but it can also lead to misunderstanding. I haven’t been offered many facts in this debate, just a lot of mystery and misunderstanding.

[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: Yet, self-title experts with secularist feminism motives are enough to reject a wholesale system of belief?[/quote]
It is just one part of a belief and it is being faithfully practiced and disguised at the expense of disgracing a whole gender. What you are basically expressing is, that if the Truth be known that women priests are an eligible and welcomed addition to the priesthood and that everything you learned about the headship of Christ in incorrect, you would prefer to live with this incorrection rather than accept the Truth. This is unreasonable and this is not how beliefs are accosted.

What, do you really expect that the ordaining of women priests will bring this whole house of cards down around the ears of the church? Even if you were to ordain women to the priesthood, you still would be required to practice faith and wouldn’t be any closer to the Truth or Untruth about any of the other doctrines and principles. If the women priests work out, maybe it would help the organization in re-examining other beliefs that could have been misunderstood and misinterpreted. It’s a win-win situation.

[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: The so-called "pious superstition" is what you and others want some of these women to have leadership positions in, why would someone who rejects the whole system want ANYONE to lead it, let alone one segment of society - the true agenda is not getting women into the priesthood - it is destroying the priesthood itself so that it will in turn collapse what these types feel is just "pious superstition".[/quote]

The word you left out was “mystery”. This was the terminology used in the link to the letter. It is not my terminology. When something is a mystery, it means that it is not fully understood. When something is not understood, that implies that there is some knowledge one is ignorant of. When someone is devoted to a mystery, this is not a reason to preserve ignorance or to act out with fear by implying extreme prejudice. It is an opportunity to gather more knowledge and understanding and to put the belief to the test and reason and compare it to the current knowledge and understanding that one observes today. I do not think many organizations have taken this approach, do you?

[quote]PopeClememt1 writes: Minimizing and denigrating other people's beliefs does not strengthen your argument, it just emphasizes that you have no real points of contention.[/quote]
Neither is it fair or productive to the argument when one exalts their beliefs over another through faith, time and tradition. You have the same thing I do; beliefs. The only exception is that I want mine resolved and concluded, I am not interested in storing or preserving them in the basement in jars mislabeled "Truth".

Edited December 17, 2007 by carrdero