Women Priests

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1428074' date='Dec 2 2007, 04:47 AM']You don’t know for sure, you [b][i]believe [/i][/b]that the Holy Spirit protects the church from pronouncing anything false. This “order of protection” from the “Holy Spirit” also extends to the 33,000 other different organized religious institutions and everyone of them cannot be pronounced True or Untrue especially from any other organization’s understanding.[/quote]

What do you know for sure?

The Holy Spirit's protection of the Church from error only extends as far as the physical bounds of the Catholic Church. Logically speaking, it's impossible that all Christians have been protected from all error. There are too many contradictory beliefs. Still, Protestants share the Christian faith and fellowship of the Holy Spirit, but they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church's authority and are left on their own to decide what is right or wrong.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1428074' date='Dec 2 2007, 04:47 AM']….but I think that you are throwing out the baby Jesus with the Holy bath water. There is nothing else that you can think of that the Catholic Church is worthy of except introducing and imposing primitive doctrine and faith? Is the church so afraid to be exposed as wrong or incorrect by not ordaining woman that they are willing to continue to hide behind faith at the dishonor of supporting the thinking that women are the “weaker vessel”? Is this the real reason?[/quote]

For one, nobody is saying that women are a "weaker vessel." Where do you find that Scripture or Tradition? A woman humbly submitted to God's calling, crushed Satan's head, brought God into the world, raised him, walked with him to Calvary, watched him die, saw him live again, and ascend into heaven. She is our greatest saint. If anything, men are the weaker vessel, so it kinda makes sense that God chooses us to be his priests. God almost always chooses the weakest and least capable to do his work.

Second, who's to say that there's anything inherently wrong with "primitive" doctrine and faith? Because something is old, it's trash? Everything we have comes from whatever came before us, so to toss it all out is like saying where we came from is worthless. A depressing thought, I must say.

Third, you underestimate the immeasurable value of doctrine and faith as these are how we know the love of God.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1428074' date='Dec 2 2007, 04:47 AM']I think that you may be misunderstanding the possibility that there may be no divinity, sacredness, holiness or grace about GOD. The heart of this debate is a human one. One that cannot be defined as male or female. When a women stands at the alter and is conducting a service it is not her breasts, her womb or her femininity that we should be paying attention to but what this person can offer and provide to the congregation. I don’t care whether this woman is a practicing Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah Witness, she is a human BEing first and foremost.[/quote]

Yet you admit there are differences between men and women in speaking of "her breasts, her womb, or her femininity." Being human simply isn't enough to physically offer sacrifice to God. Why is it that both Adam and Eve sinned, and although Eve sinned first, we inherit original sin through Adam? Adam (and through him, all men) are the firstborn of creation. Though the woman's sin offends God, she is created to be man's companion and helper (as God was Israel's help, so it's not a "lesser" position). Therefore, it is man's sin that brings the greater offense to God. God called a woman to obedience to counter Eve's disobedience and became incarnate as a man to defeat the root of original sin in Adam.

At least that's how I see it. Bottom line is, since I know you'll reject any argument from Scripture, the priesthood is a matter of faith and matters of faith are not obedient to the world's rules. It's not about sexual equality, so once again, that argument isn't holding water. The reasons are rooted in our belief about how God designed men and women as equal, but distinct in purpose. This is something that should be acceptable to a world that preaches tolerance for varying beliefs and practices. Why isn't that tolerance also extended to the Church's belief about the sacrament of ordination?

Edited December 4, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1428543' date='Dec 3 2007, 09:03 AM']Perhaps if the church would ban celebrating the mass [i]versus populum[/i] and equally disgusting and damaging innovations as altar girls, reception on the hand, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, this understanding would shift back... but that's another topic altogether.[/quote]

And we have to understand that these changes will take time... much longer than it took for these developments to occur in the first place. If the Church simply bans something without a good understanding among laypeople of the reasons behind it, there will be more disobedience and anger that will only make matters worse. If we truly trust that God is guiding the Church through the bishops, then we'll trust that whatever decisions they make concerning the faith are ultimately for the greater good (or at least that God is sovereign over them anyway).

[whiskeyrunner]

Sure most of you have heard this before. Just thought I'd mention it anyways. If the Church is the bride and Christ is the Bridegroom and the Priest is to act "in persona Christi" then the role of the Priest is symbolic of the role of Christ to His Church. The Priest is the "acting" bridegroom here on earth. If the Priest were a woman then it would be somewhat of a homosexual union which the Church, and scripture, have always maintained is intrinsically disordered. For whatever reason when people hear that perception they may not agree with it but somewhat warm up to the notion that the Church is not just a sexist organization. In the end I guess ultimately women Priests would mean a compromise on scripture and an opening to whatever else we want to rationalize out of the Bible. Maybe that's the sought after prize? Or maybe a democratic church that has no rule book. But then what's the point of being Christian? Let's just start our own religion. (speaking for the people who want women priests, pro choice doctrines, etc).

[carrdero]

[quote]Louisville writes: What do you know for sure?[/quote]
Certainly nothing that is deserving enough for me to pretend or hope that I know for sure.

[quote]Louisville writes: For one, nobody is saying that women are a "weaker vessel." Where do you find that Scripture or Tradition?[/quote]

[color="#000080"][b][i]1Peter 3:17 [/i][/b]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[/color]

It seems that somewhere else in the Bible Peter also has a problem with women wearing pant suits.

[quote]Louisville writes: Second, who's to say that there's anything inherently wrong with "primitive" doctrine and faith? Because something is old, it's trash?[/quote]
Something that is old is antique and I am sure that whatever value that people put on such primitive faith and doctrine is personal and would likely be difficult to convince or transfer to another person. If one would just lift their head and look around them, one will see that there are plethora of other current beliefs to encourage, reason compare and conclude.

[quote]Louisville writes: Third, you underestimate the immeasurable value of doctrine and faith as these are how we know the love of God.[/quote]
So one can only know and love God from the unknowable primitive scrawlings and heresay of people that no one has never met? How can one conceptulize a deity that continues to keep one always at faith's reach? It appears that you may be misunderstanding the concept of depression.

[quote]Louisville writes: Yet you admit there are differences between men and women in speaking of "her breasts, her womb, or her femininity."[/quote]

I also admit that these differences are irrelevant to the vocation of a priest.

[quote]Louisville writes: Bottom line is, since I know you'll reject any argument from Scripture, the priesthood is a matter of faith and matters of faith are not obedient to the world's rules.[/quote]

It is not the belief that I am rejecting it is the faith that you apply to the belief.
If I ask you the question “why can’t women become ordained as priests” at 41 years of age I expect a reason more sound from someone than
“Because”
and if I inquire further by asking “is there any reason why women cannot do the same service as a male priest?” I would expect a more practical answer than “It is a matter of faith, you’ll just have to take my word for it.”

[quote]Louisville writes: It's not about sexual equality,[/quote]

And it is not about the faithful, primitive superstitions of a bygone era.
[quote]Louisville writes: so once again, that argument isn't holding water.[/quote]
Why not? I have the bucket. Why are you suggesting the impractical hopelessness of going back in time to get the water?

Edited December 4, 2007 by carrdero

[Winchester]

Cardy,
We have a different world view. Your arguments are based upon your own notions. All your doing is explaining why you think the Church is mistaken. You're arguments, from a Catholic viewpoint aren't valid. You are spinning your wheels.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM']Certainly nothing that is deserving enough for me to pretend or hope that I know for sure.[/quote]

Yep, we're all just pretenders here. Nothing better to do with our time.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM'][color="#000080"][b][i]1Peter 3:17 [/i][/b]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[/color][/quote]

I'll give you that, but then we have to ask what Paul meant by referring to women as the weaker vessel. It doesn't mean they are mentally weaker. I'm not so sure that it shouldn't even be considered a compliment or honor. Was Moses not asked to go before Pharaoh in spite of his stutter? Was David not picked to be king of Israel, though he was the least "qualified" of his brothers?

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM']Something that is old is antique and I am sure that whatever value that people put on such primitive faith and doctrine is personal and would likely be difficult to convince or transfer to another person. If one would just lift their head and look around them, one will see that there are plethora of other current beliefs to encourage, reason compare and conclude.[/quote]

Do you really think any of those "current" beliefs are new? There have always been a plethora of gods, beliefs, and superstitions available to humanity. Because human nature is wired to search for some kind of belief, nothing is fundamentally different today than in 5000 B.C.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM']So one can only know and love God from the unknowable primitive scrawlings and heresay of people that no one has never met? How can one conceptulize a deity that continues to keep one always at faith's reach?[/quote]

Of course not. I can read and talk to people who are living today. But nobody I talk to is going to present me with something that I can't also find in history. Sure, Mormonsim, for example, only dates back a couple hundred years, but the basic idea that this religious leader has been invested by God with the Truth is a story we see in many faiths. Most notable among them is Islam.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM']It is not the belief that I am rejecting it is the faith that you apply to the belief.
If I ask you the question “why can’t women become ordained as priests” at 41 years of age I expect a reason more sound from someone than
“Because”
and if I inquire further by asking “is there any reason why women cannot do the same service as a male priest?” I would expect a more practical answer than “It is a matter of faith, you’ll just have to take my word for it.”[/quote]

I've given you reasons along with a reference to a whole book you can read on this topic, if it interests or bothers you that much.

Bottom line is, Catholics believe that gender is both physical and spiritual. Therefore, males and females serve different roles in family, society, and Church. One manifestation of that is the restriction of ordination to males only and marriage to one male and one female. We also believe in the equality of both genders. This appears contradictory on the surface, but that's merely because society has a superficial understanding of equality.

[quote name='carrdero' post='1429156' date='Dec 4 2007, 04:41 AM']Why not? I have the bucket. Why are you suggesting the impractical hopelessness of going back in time to get the water?[/quote]

Is there anything inherently wrong with believing in an ancient religion?

For that matter, show me something that is genuinely unique to our time in history.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1430151' date='Dec 5 2007, 03:02 PM']Cardy,
We have a different world view. Your arguments are based upon your own notions. All your doing is explaining why you think the Church is mistaken. You're arguments, from a Catholic viewpoint aren't valid. You are spinning your wheels.[/quote]

Exactly. Also what about other religions? Isn't this in issue in Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism? Why is it everybody is always talking about the Catholic church and ignoring these others?

[prose]

[color="#000080"][b][i]1Peter 3:17 [/i][/b]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[/color]

Okay, It doesn't say the wife is the weaker vessel. It says to treat her as though she is a weaker vessel. As in be careful with her, do not harm her, not as in she is less of a person or weaker.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='prose' post='1430817' date='Dec 7 2007, 04:42 PM'][color="#000080"][b][i]1Peter 3:17 [/i][/b]Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[/color]

Okay, It doesn't say the wife is the weaker vessel. It says to treat her as though she is a weaker vessel. As in be careful with her, do not harm her, not as in she is less of a person or weaker.[/quote]
I think we all know women are fragile.

jk

Technically, the English word "as" can carry the power of a simile or a poetic expression of a reality, so it could be taken either way. However, the Latin uses a word indicating a simile. I'm not interested enough to look up the Greek.

Anyway, I think there could be a bit of Peter saying, "treat them gently, don't break them." I would think that this is particularly a reference to physical strength. Think about it...in ancient times, women were not much higher than slaves, even wives. A man might beat his wife in order to keep her disciplined. Christianity would change this, keeping a husband as the head of the family and ultimately responsible for the spiritual good of his wife, yes, but not giving him the authority to abuse her. I think St. Peter is telling husbands to treat their wives with dignity, realizing that they have weaker bodies (which is generally true), i.e. vessels, and, while they must lead their wives to greater holiness (not that it's supposed to be one-way), they must do so with love, not with dominance.

It definitely has nothing to do with a wife's being less of a person, though, or weaker in dignity or anything like that.

God bless,

Micah

[Era Might]

Lay men and women both share in the Priesthood of Christ:

[quote]The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood." By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light." Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

--CCC #1268[/quote]
The ministerial Priesthood is reserved to men alone, but through baptism women truly become part of "a royal priesthood." It is important that the laity take their priesthood seriously and live it out.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1430791' date='Dec 7 2007, 04:33 PM']Exactly. Also what about other religions? Isn't this in issue in Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism? Why is it everybody is always talking about the Catholic church and ignoring these others?[/quote]
[quote]carrdero reiterates from post #26: I don’t care whether this woman is a practicing Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah Witness, she is a human BEing first and foremost.[/quote]
You have my premission to add these other organizations to my list.

[Deb]

Whoa PopeClement......Your post by Fr. Jay Scott Newman was awesome. I loved it! Great explanation.

You can probably tell by my name that I am female. I have always been a "radical" feminist and I have to say that the only time I have ever thought it would have been great to have been born a man would be to able to be a Priest. What an incredible gift from God. To give your life in service, to celebrate the mass has to be an awesome responsibility, sacrifice and joyous thing. But, I know the Priesthood is for men and I am fine with that. It is not a big deal to me at all. Unfortunately, I am too late in life coming to my relationship with God and too old to be a nun. So, I shall serve however I can and just be happy that I am a child of God.

When I think of the Priests that I know and view them as Persona Christi, I really can't see them as women anymore than I can see Christ as a woman. The "Jesus" hugs just wouldn't be the same.

[the 13th papist]

there is an amazing explination of this in "The Ratzinger Report" REad it. For Serious. It boils down to all this womens liberation and equality stuff is skewing societies belief about what exactly is a womans role in society. The movement is not liberating her from bondage, but liberating her from herself, her identity. Society is fooling women into believing that they want to be like men,; they masculizing the feminine. The greatest injustice is being done to women themselves.

The fact that women aren't priests is a small "t" tradition and could change, but not any time in the foreseeable future.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='the 13th papist' post='1433841' date='Dec 13 2007, 06:59 PM']The fact that women aren't priests is a small "t" tradition and could change, but not any time in the foreseeable future.[/quote]

I don't think that's the case. JPII stated that the Church's stance on female ordination could never be overturned. Are you sure you aren't thinking about married priests? Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, so that could be changed.

[the 13th papist]

[quote name='prose' post='1427821' date='Dec 1 2007, 03:25 PM']So.... Just to be clear I understand, because of everyone supporting female priesthood, only carrdero bothered to give me an answer.

The idea is that women are being (or so they say) spiritually called to be priests (priestesses??) is being squashed by the Church as a human invention, and therefore they are being denied the "right" to live out what their true calling is?[/quote]

the Church is not a human invention. It is a structure willed by God to communicate the fruits of salvation.