A priest recently told me that its his belief that women will be eventually ordained into the priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaskoman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TexCatholic4JMJ said:
Just what I said, at Mass Jesus (the priest in his stead) offers Himself to the Father in
the sacrifice that takes place.
And because it’s the only place where this occurs, it’s not “logical” to take it anywhere
else.
As for preaching to the choir, all of us would do well to read about the Sacrifice of the Mass
and maybe it would be clearer to all, as “the choir” would really understand the role of the
priest and be able to explain to the non-choir members.
Click to expand...
I don’t see much explaining on this thread, mostly a lot of indignation that the topic should even be discussed - so I do acknowledge your efforts. I went to the USCCB page on women’s ordination and the totality of the argument made perfect sense to me, and especially the part about what authority God gave, because ultimately everything should be about God’s will.The ‘becoming Jesus’ explanation, sounds like, “Jesus was a man, so only men can do what He did/only men can become Him.” I can’t think of one of my non-Catholic relatives (some of whom have gravitated to women -led Churches, but none of whom properly appreciate the meaning of the Mass), to whom this argument might be the least bit persuasive.
 
I respect your opinion Lapey–that since Jesus didn’t choose a woman as one of the 12 that the Church was also bound not to do so–and I have heard this argument before. It may well be true that Jesus chose only men for a reason–or it may have just been the culture of the time and I don’t pretend an opinion. I am aware of what JP2 proclaimed also, and I respect it. My comparison with the Gallileo heresy issue was meant as simply a comparison of something that a pope believed was dogma in his time but that evolved and changed. Again, I agree that no women will be accepted into the priesthood any time soon. I don’t particularly feel that they should be. I am only saying that if I were alive when a future pope approved such a thing it wouldn’t scandalize me and I wouldn’t leave the church over it.
 
seekerz said:
I don’t see much explaining on this thread, mostly a lot of indignation that the topic should even be discussed - so I do acknowledge your efforts. I went to the USCCB page on women’s ordination and the totality of the argument made perfect sense to me, and especially the part about what authority God gave, because ultimately everything should be about God’s will.The ‘becoming Jesus’ explanation, sounds like, “Jesus was a man, so only men can do what He did/only men can become Him.” I can’t think of one of my non-Catholic relatives (some of whom have gravitated to women -led Churches, but none of whom properly appreciate the meaning of the Mass), to whom this argument might be the least bit persuasive.
Click to expand...
It would be unrealistic for Jesus to have chosen to be a man if He had been born into a matriarchal society…
 
blaskoman said:
I disagree with this priest 's prediction. During our conversation, I referred to pope john Paul ll’s definitive statement that the Church can never change its stance. The priest claimed that such statement was open for debate in the future as the pope’s statement was not infallible. I have had many conversations with this priest in the past and for the record, he’s very liberal when it comes to many Church teachings. So its highly likely he’s also wrong in his assessment about the likelihood of women being ordained
Click to expand...
Is he old?
 
Moonbug said:
There are no women in the Church today (hierarchy–the guys with the POWER) have it all… The priesthood, as we have it today, was derived from the Greek Church, who developed it from Paul’s Letter to the Hebrews. Paul didn’t write it. It is believed to have been written in Alexandra and was one of the first Christian documents written. But no one knows it’s origin. The grammar, style, and syntax is comparable to no other Christian writer. Written in Greek, it is considered the most polished of all the sacred writings. There has been much controversy about it. Some say it is worthy of being in the Cannon, some say not. It was the last document admitted to the Cannon around 400 A.D.
Click to expand...
My friend,
You are heading down a slippery slope. In this thread, you have quoted Darwin, rejected the magisterium, ignored the Popes, and now are rejecting Hebrews as Sacred Canon Scripture!

Why are you even Catholic?
 
seekerz said:
I don’t see much explaining on this thread, mostly a lot of indignation that the topic should even be discussed - so I do acknowledge your efforts. I went to the USCCB page on women’s ordination and the totality of the argument made perfect sense to me, and especially the part about what authority God gave, because ultimately everything should be about God’s will.The ‘becoming Jesus’ explanation, sounds like, “Jesus was a man, so only men can do what He did/only men can become Him.” I can’t think of one of my non-Catholic relatives (some of whom have gravitated to women -led Churches, but none of whom properly appreciate the meaning of the Mass), to whom this argument might be the least bit persuasive.
Click to expand...
If you read the op’s question, it is asking if it might be true, what a priest told him. That women will become ordained priests in the future. It wasn’t asking why cant women become priests. The logical response is to provide definitive answers from the Church on the matter.
 
seekerz said:
What does men conceiving children have to do with women being ordained? Seriously, your ‘righteous indignation’ would be better spent addressing the questions raised in my post (as a different poster did) than by attacking me…but whatever makes your day.

I do note with interest that your beef seems to be with what women can do vs what men can do, instead of where it should be: with what God gives the Church authority to do…
Click to expand...
This is a lame argument, I have absolutely no beef with women and you have nothing but accusation to shut me up.

If you can understand the truth you will see that ordaining a woman to sacred orders is as possible as a man having a baby. It is not possible, the Church has spoken that it has no authority to do this. My “righteous indignation” is speaking truth and you cannot handle not having an argument. You make no points that haven’t been refuted time and time again here. It gets old repeating the same thing over and over again. I vow to show this same passion every time this topic is raised by Catholics who decide they make the possibilities and not God and His Church. Are you ready for that?
 
Ohana said:
Whoa up here. Doctrine can indeed evolve. Dogma cannot.

While I am way more to the center than some here, I don’t think we will see women priests and I am not at all sure we should. I would like to see an order of deaconesses as ordained women. Many of our nuns/sisters are fulfilling some of the functions of such an order already. I think it would give them more recognized legitimacy in their ministries.
Click to expand...
Women have never been ordained into Holy Orders as deaconesses. This will not and cannot happen. There is no need for this, as you state, women already serve in many very important and leadership type roles. But Holy orders is reserved to baptized men and the Church has no authority to ordain women.
 
seekerz said:
Debate is a discussion that looks at both sides; one does not have to reject or accept either side to raise points for or against. All it does is illuminate the issue, which this thread - despite the best efforts of the speech police - has managed to do for me. I debated in Catholic school, so obviously debate does not mean throwing away the truth - it simply means examining its meaning so you can establish personal belief rather than simply checking a box. Nowhere was I taught that there are matters not open to rational debate. Debate does not equal opposition or rejection or acceptance. It simply is one process by which people assimilate a topic.

I have seen people of faith debate the existence of God! Can this be instructive to people who doubt or reject Him? Absolutely. So why should I get my knickers in a twist over female ordination - unless maybe out of fear…?

Why would one come on a discussion board simply to tell people to shut up? :confused:
Click to expand...
I never told you to shut up. I did say that obstinately rejecting truth promulgated by Mother Church is heresy. But I didn’t say shut up.
 
seekerz said:
I prefer the USCCB’s multi-part explanation, thank you very much. If I logically extend that statement," Jesus was a man", I can do nothing Jesus did because I am not, similarly, a man. Aren’t we all called to be Christ in our daily lives, does “whatsoever you do…unto me” apply only to poor/downtrodden men? I find that explanation rather perplexing.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel like you or other women have to be able to be priests to be in important roles in the Church? I can’t be a priest either as I am married; however, that could be changed, that is a discipline. Your situation cannot be changed, women cannot be ordained.
 
seekerz said:
And why not? It seems to me, if we’re going to argue that women’s ordination is wrong, our arguments need to make sense. Unless of course we plan on preaching only to the choir.
Click to expand...
This is where you misunderstand, ordination of women is not wrong as you simply put it here; it is impossible.
 
seekerz said:
I don’t see much explaining on this thread, mostly a lot of indignation that the topic should even be discussed - so I do acknowledge your efforts. I went to the USCCB page on women’s ordination and the totality of the argument made perfect sense to me, and especially the part about what authority God gave, because ultimately everything should be about God’s will.The ‘becoming Jesus’ explanation, sounds like, “Jesus was a man, so only men can do what He did/only men can become Him.” I can’t think of one of my non-Catholic relatives (some of whom have gravitated to women -led Churches, but none of whom properly appreciate the meaning of the Mass), to whom this argument might be the least bit persuasive.
Click to expand...
It cannot be discussed in a way that you want to discuss it. You stated it can change, God can change it. This is in direct disagreement and conflict with JP II, the entire life of the Church and writings and historical facts. The fact that you keep stating I and others are indignant on the subject is evidence that you will not accept truth nor discuss truth. You want to be able to form truth. I cannot join that, I identify myself here as I am, clergy. I cannot and will not entertain heresy, that is not healthy for clergy members.😃
 
Starrsmother said:
I respect your opinion Lapey–that since Jesus didn’t choose a woman as one of the 12 that the Church was also bound not to do so–and I have heard this argument before. It may well be true that Jesus chose only men for a reason–or it may have just been the culture of the time and I don’t pretend an opinion. I am aware of what JP2 proclaimed also, and I respect it. My comparison with the Gallileo heresy issue was meant as simply a comparison of something that a pope believed was dogma in his time but that evolved and changed. Again, I agree that no women will be accepted into the priesthood any time soon. I don’t particularly feel that they should be. I am only saying that if I were alive when a future pope approved such a thing it wouldn’t scandalize me and I wouldn’t leave the church over it.
Click to expand...
That was never declared a dogma, if it were it would still stand. As it has been pointed out, doctrine can and indeed does evolve; not change but evolve, dogma does not change. truth is truth, it cannot change.

A future pope cannot change dogma.
 
tonyrey said:
It would be unrealistic for Jesus to have chosen to be a man if He had been born into a matriarchal society…
Click to expand...
Why? The Father is portrayed as a male father figure, Jesus is the male Son. Mary the Mother of God, how could Joseph conceive Mary in his womb? This is just plain weird:rolleyes::cool::eek:…
 
tonyrey said:
It is certainly weird to believe God is a male!
Click to expand...
God is neither male or female. But He is masculine. We are all (the Church) feminine in regard to God. He is male in regard to human likeness. Representing His priesthood of the rest of the body requires a male. Our general priesthood, which is the partaking of His divine life and offering acceptable work and sacrifice to God the Father, is for man and woman.

BTW,…there is no such thing as a woman priest. She would be a priestess.
 
I’m not 100% sure that I buy that God is either masculine or feminine in relation to anyone or anything. Jesus is obviously masculine–but God in 3 persons is a spirit.We think of some things as a feminine noun and others as a masculine presence because our language is derived from the latin or romance languages.In Spanish or French, just to name two, all nouns are assigned a masculine or feminine identity. Thus, a ship is usually deemed feminine though it doesn’t have a vagina and some other nouns are considered masculine. God has a parental relationship with His church and His people which was first described in the Old Testament, in an ancient and and patriarchal society. Since He is an authoritative figure, He is deemed masculine. This still doesn’t mean that I believe or hope for female ordination, just for the record–that is NOT my point at all. It’s just that thinking of God as a male, sexual Being and deciding that for that reason alone, women can never be allowed to be deacons or priests is a stretch. God as a male is man’s idea–not necessarily God’s. Just sayin…
 
Starrsmother said:
I’m not 100% sure that I buy that God is either masculine or feminine in relation to anyone or anything. Jesus is obviously masculine–but God in 3 persons is a spirit.We think of some things as a feminine noun and others as a masculine presence because our language is derived from the latin or romance languages.In Spanish or French, just to name two, all nouns are assigned a masculine or feminine identity. Thus, a ship is usually deemed feminine though it doesn’t have a vagina and some other nouns are considered masculine. God has a parental relationship with His church and His people which was first described in the Old Testament, in an ancient and and patriarchal society. Since He is an authoritative figure, He is deemed masculine. This still doesn’t mean that I believe or hope for female ordination, just for the record–that is NOT my point at all. It’s just that thinking of God as a male, sexual Being and deciding that for that reason alone, women can never be allowed to be deacons or priests is a stretch. God as a male is man’s idea–not necessarily God’s. Just sayin…
Click to expand...
I dont claim to know all the reasons that only man is fit to be an ordained priest of the faithfull.

But God is masculine because He is first, He is the creator, He does not receive anything but everything proceeds from Him. That is why He only receives His son Jesus. We must receive the Spirit of His Son in order to be His children. A boat is considered feminine because it receives passengers. The Ark of the Covenant is Mary…the Ark of Noah is like the Church. God Himself is not a mother to His children,…we who receive Him and foster our brothers and sisters in the faith are God’s mother to His children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top