Are you offended/disturbed by female clergy in Protestantism?

[PRmerger]

Catholics here are saying Protestant clergy are not ordained. That they are lay.

But the lay are not to baptize except in instances of grave danger to another’s life.

Yet Catholics accept the many Baptisms celebrated by these Protestant so called “non ordained” “lay” folks even when in most cases life was not in danger.

So either they are ordained performing many accepted Baptisms.

Or they are lay performing too many Baptisms but which are still accepted.

If suddenly laity began baptizing all of these people for who death was not imminent, would that be fine?

So since they are performing more Baptisms than laity should, that leaves the option that they are ordained ministers of Baptism.

Ah. I see.

Lay baptisms for Catholics are extraordinary because we already have an ordinary means of the sacrament–through the ordained clergy.

Non-Catholic folks don’t have the ordained clergy so their lay clergy is their ordinary means for the sacrament.

If they had a valid ordained sacerdotal ministry, then their lay baptisms ought to be as rare as ours.

Sadly, they do not have a valid priesthood.

 

[ChadS]

Catholics here are saying Protestant clergy are not ordained. That they are lay.

But the lay are not to baptize except in instances of grave danger to another’s life.

Yet Catholics accept the many Baptisms celebrated by these Protestant so called “non ordained” “lay” folks even when in most cases life was not in danger.

So either they are ordained performing many accepted Baptisms.

Or they are lay performing too many Baptisms but which are still accepted.

If suddenly laity began baptizing all of these people for who death was not imminent, would that be fine?

So since they are performing more Baptisms than laity should, that leaves the option that they are ordained ministers of Baptism.

I’m a Catholic that thinks that Protestant clergy are ordained. They just aren’t ordained in the way Catholics understand it, however that does nothing to lessen their importance and role within their own churches. In my experience when I was a Methodist all of our pastors had to get a MDiv degree before they could be ordained. These were very intelligent and highly educated people leading our churches. When I converted I had to provide proof I was baptized, my baptismal certificate with the pastor’s and witnesses’ signatures was plenty for them and proof enough. They never said that it was only a lay baptism by somebody pretending to be ordained and to be honest this is the only time I’ve ever heard that line of reasoning.

I think it was “Domine Iesus” released a few years ago that said we have to recognize that the Holy Spirit does work through the Protestant denominations in many ways. Many people have been comforted by and through the word these ministers have done. No, they aren’t ordained the way Catholics understand it and even among Protestants I don’t think many have reciprocal ordination agreements. Protestants don’t even claim to be ordanined the way Catholics are, nor do they claim any of privlieges or responsibilities of being a Catholic clergy, so why should we make it a point to then deny their ordination.

ChadS

 

[PRmerger]

I’m a Catholic that thinks that Protestant clergy are ordained. They just aren’t ordained in the way Catholics understand it, however that does nothing to lessen their importance and role within their own churches. In my experience when I was a Methodist all of our pastors had to get a MDiv degree before they could be ordained. These were very intelligent and highly educated people leading our churches. When I converted I had to provide proof I was baptized, my baptismal certificate with the pastor’s and witnesses’ signatures was plenty for them and proof enough. They never said that it was only a lay baptism by somebody pretending to be ordained and to be honest this is the only time I’ve ever heard that line of reasoning.

I think it was “Domine Iesus” released a few years ago that said we have to recognize that the Holy Spirit does work through the Protestant denominations in many ways. Many people have been comforted by and through the word these ministers have done. No, they aren’t ordained the way Catholics understand it and even among Protestants I don’t think many have reciprocal ordination agreements. Protestants don’t even claim to be ordanined the way Catholics are, nor do they claim any of privlieges or responsibilities of being a Catholic clergy, so why should we make it a point to then deny their ordination.

ChadS

You are conflating 2 separate issues:

-does the HS work through Protestant denominations? SURE does! Certainly the HS is present in their congregations. Are their preachers educated and erudite? Indeed.

-do Protestant denominations have a valid priesthood? No. The rituals they use to consecrate their preachers do not confect any ontological change in them. It is a man-made office. As to that: I don’t have any problem with a woman performing a man’s job in the Protestant church. Their ministry is a job. Not who they are.

 

[PLAT]

You guys remember this?
youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w



Indeed, there is no such thing as “equal” rights. Protestants may fall into modernism, which makes it clear that men and women are equal. There are not. They have equal importance for sure, but it is disgraceful when one side attempts to fulfil the other role.

Jesus appointed the twelve apostles, who were are male. He could have selected women like his mother Mary, Mary’s sister, etc. But he didn’t. Some people may argue that there were male-dominant societies in the Greek and Roman civilisations. So what? What about things happened in the five books of Moses. Noah was male. Abraham was male. Moses was male. Issac was male. Jacob was male. (bore yourselves with (Ecclesiastes 3:1-7) if you will) In one of the previous posts, it described correctly that somehow “priesthood” is seen as a right nowadays. It is not a right for both sexes.

religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl.htm
This is a website that comes out by Googling, in which it suggests that “it may be just a matter of time before almost all denominations will remove their gender barrier, and finally match the rest of society.” Who is to go against the teachings of his Holiness, John Paul II on priesthood, who emphasises that it is doctrinal?

And, most importantly:
Why do women feel undermined when they cannot enter priesthood? Women perform a role that men can never do. Mothers! Pregnancy! Feeding! Children do spent more times with mothers in normal circumstances. That’s what we Cathoics honour the Virgin Mary for. Why is she regarded as the most holy of all saints? Because she is mother of Jesus, Son of God. She gave the property of human flesh to Jesus (well, yes, God ultimately, but why not a men?). She has the duty of protecting Jesus as a baby and a child. Women, look at these privilages and you will see why men and women are equally superior.

As for the “talented women” issue, priesthood does not call for the best people in the world - that would be survival of the fittest. Clearly there were more devout monothiests than the apostles initially at Jesus’ times. Being ordained (Deacon, Priest, Bishop) means having responsibilities in performing sacraments and devoutions. It would be useful to for the person to be an erudite, but this is originally a protestant idea as they reject the sacraments.

Lastly, I will end with a joke I saw somewhere. On a father’s day, when the priest asked the fathers to line up for the blessing, a woman did. She was advised to stay on the pew. Then she protests, “I have brought my sons up for the past many years, how could you not call me the head of the family and father?”. It went without saying that the priest sympathised with her and gave the blessing.

 

[benidict]

Glorthac,

I asked some questions in my post above that should be simple for a Catholic to answer. Here’s your chance to share your perspective with me.

Please don’t assume that I haven’t done any research.

Peace,
Anna

I can vouch for you there Anna. You are very intelligent. Peace and prayers for you!

 

[MissMarlene]

I wasn’t sure where to put this topic but it seemed to fit here I guess.

Anyway, I was walking through the shopping mall recently and saw a woman wearing a Roman collar and walking with a Bible and I remembered that my local Anglican church has a female Vicar (think thats what they call her, maybe Reverend). I must admit, I was taken aback and felt… odd. It made me feel odd because, well, the Priesthood is what it is and a woman attempting to fill that role is unnatural. I don’t know if that makes sense.

This is besides those female clergy who are openly lesbian and have partners. I remember watching an American show with 2 female vicars who were married lesbians and one shot of them had them up on the altar with bread and wine and it gave me the chills.

It gives you the chills because its not part of your tradition.
Around where I live we have byzantine priests who are married and have many kids and alot of Roman Catholics, when they arrive here, feel very odd until they get used to it, and they realise that these men are fully priests and as full of their vocation and the Holy Spirit as celibate priests are.

But we know the topic about women pastors is something else. First I beg you differ between open lesbians and women who practice their pastoral vocation to the best of their conscience and ability and who try to live in accordance with the Bible within their tradition.

I am Catholic but I grew up in the Lutheran Church and has also experience with Pentacostalism. I’ve met women there, to whom God has given great gifts of healing, prophesy and preaching.
A woman cannot be a priest, but she can be a protestant pastor according to protestant theology, which makes sense within its own system. Its an interpretation of Scripture in this area, where they utilize some scripture passages, with which the Catholic Church is not concerned. One of them is: “In the end times, I will pour out My Spirit over ALL flesh”.
And women were standing at the first Alter/the Cross of Jesus, and Mary of Magdala went as the first to proclaim the resurrection to the Apostles.

The protestants don’t have the hierarchal thinking and ordination teaching that we have as Catholics, because they interpret the Bible in a different way. In my oppinion you ought to respect their ministers greatly, even if you don’t agree with protestant interpretation.

Lastly I want to mention that I have met very conservative protestant women who had received a call to become pastors in the Lutheran church. One of them received that call while she had a near death experience in the 60s where she met the living Christ. She said in her testimony: “I received the blessing for my future service as a pastor”…
I have met this woman and believe her…
… I think that God’s ways are simply wider and more mysterious than what we can fathom.

Peace to you… whoever is still reading.

 

[benidict]

You guys remember this?
youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w



Indeed, there is no such thing as “equal” rights. Protestants may fall into modernism, which makes it clear that men and women are equal. There are not. They have equal importance for sure, but it is disgraceful when one side attempts to fulfil the other role.

Jesus appointed the twelve apostles, who were are male. He could have selected women like his mother Mary, Mary’s sister, etc. But he didn’t. Some people may argue that there were male-dominant societies in the Greek and Roman civilisations. So what? What about things happened in the five books of Moses. Noah was male. Abraham was male. Moses was male. Issac was male. Jacob was male. (bore yourselves with (Ecclesiastes 3:1-7) if you will) In one of the previous posts, it described correctly that somehow “priesthood” is seen as a right nowadays. It is not a right for both sexes.

religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl.htm
This is a website that comes out by Googling, in which it suggests that “it may be just a matter of time before almost all denominations will remove their gender barrier, and finally match the rest of society.” Who is to go against the teachings of his Holiness, John Paul II on priesthood, who emphasises that it is doctrinal?

And, most importantly:
Why do women feel undermined when they cannot enter priesthood? Women perform a role that men can never do. Mothers! Pregnancy! Feeding! Children do spent more times with mothers in normal circumstances. That’s what we Cathoics honour the Virgin Mary for. Why is she regarded as the most holy of all saints? Because she is mother of Jesus, Son of God. She gave the property of human flesh to Jesus (well, yes, God ultimately, but why not a men?). She has the duty of protecting Jesus as a baby and a child. Women, look at these privilages and you will see why men and women are equally superior.

As for the “talented women” issue, priesthood does not call for the best people in the world - that would be survival of the fittest. Clearly there were more devout monothiests than the apostles initially at Jesus’ times. Being ordained (Deacon, Priest, Bishop) means having responsibilities in performing sacraments and devoutions. It would be useful to for the person to be an erudite, but this is originally a protestant idea as they reject the sacraments.

Lastly, I will end with a joke I saw somewhere. On a father’s day, when the priest asked the fathers to line up for the blessing, a woman did. She was advised to stay on the pew. Then she protests, “I have brought my sons up for the past many years, how could you not call me the head of the family and father?”. It went without saying that the priest sympathised with her and gave the blessing.

I will be happy to let women into the priesthood…just as soon as men can start having babies. after all, we are all equal…right? not that i want any. women are much better equipped for this than us guys. and we could not tolerate the pain associated with it. my point is, we may be equal in Gods eyes, but he has given us differing roles. female priest go against the natural order of things, just as men having children would. and all the liberals out there can save the seahorse argument. we are in no way related to them…Peace

 

[Alex2008]

My apologies,

My friend did include orthodox priests in his mention of auras!

 

[Irish_Polock]

**Hope for some helpful responses.

Peace,
Anna**

The clergy do not wear a head covering while they are at prayer during the Mass.

On the issue of if women should veil themselves or not, most of the objections raised by modern Catholic to having women wear Veils are based on the idea that the new code of canon law issued in 1983 does not reiterate the specific mandate that appeared in the 1917 code of Canon Law, and therefore there is no longer any obligation for them. The 1917 code stated:

Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

The modern Catholic will argue that, Canon 6 of the new 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, and therefore, any commands given in the 1917 code are not applicable after 1983. Cannon 6 states:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.

Although, the fact is that the 1983 code goes out of its way to accommodate the 1917 code. For example, canon 20 states:

20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

21 In a case of doubt,(e.g. head coverings for women) the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Code of Canon Law 20,21)

It seems then, far from disavowing itself from the 1917 code, if the 1983 code is silent on an issue (e.g., as it is with head coverings), it requires that we not presume a previous law was revoked, and, in fact, the 1983 code says it “must be related to” and “must be harmonized with” the 1917 code. Although on a legal basis the 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, it is clear that the 1983 code imposes a legal stipulation on itself in the way it relates to the 1917 code, a stipulation which requires it to address the 1917 code so that the final decision on a given issue will be in harmony with, not opposed to, the 1917 code. This would be especially applicable in regards to a traditional practice that stretched uninterrupted for over nineteen hundred years and did so because of the original mandate in Holy Writ.

For further information please use this site.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well some of the attitudes that Paul shows in Corinthians reflect the view of women that people in the Hellenistic world had at that time, which were not pretty IMO. If you look at my arguments against women’s ordination, I rarely cite Paul. I don’t view things through that lens. The head coverings, the segregation, the no women as lectors, all that stuff, that was the set of cultural norms for the time.

I look at women’s ordination from the vantage point of the sacerdotal ministry of Christ sacrificing Himself on the altar through the priest who stands in persona christi, a father for his flock, not a mother. I look at the theology of the priesthood and what is accomplishes and it is a male essence that is encapsulates, not a female, motherly one. I also look at what choices Jesus made as the Master who installed the apostles, no women involved. And I look holistically at the overall traditions from the Fathers until today.

Things like women wearing head coverings, sitting on the other side of the Church, not being allowed to speak, all that nonsense was a cultural set of biases that those contemporaries of Paul had. We don’t need to carry such attitudes today but we must maintain the integrity of the sacrificial priesthood. That’s my angle.

It’s sad because many (not you, I know!) draw a conclusion that anyone who passionately (like me) is opposed to W.O. must be anti-woman. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I were a chauvenist, I’d say so. I’m a straight shooter. I have a wife, a daughter, and a mom whom I all love and think have more common sense and ingenuity than me! My wife is far brighter, more level-headed, reasonable, common sense, and intuitive as well as talented than me! Women are not worth half a man or any of that insanity, they’re not inferior or less valuable. It boils down to destined roles God gives us and I think ontologically motherhood and fatherhood are ingrained in our being.

Gurney,
This is a good argument and reminds me of the APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

Link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

As for the head coverings for women and not being allowed to speak in Church, etc.; It seems like we pick and choose which of those “traditions” we want to honor and which we do not. I found this to be the case in the Baptist Church. If they agreed with Scripture, Scripture meant what it said. If they didn’t agree with Scripture, it was symbolic, allegorical, or a tradition of the day that does not apply to us. There was a whole lot of finagling going on in the interpretation of Scripture. This is where the Catholic Church and the safeguarding of Tradition becomes very appealing to me.

[Anglicanism also claims Tradition, but the much needed safeguards are not working for the Anglican Communion. This leads us to the topic of one of the other threads: How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong. I won’t derail this thread for that topic.]

Back to Catholic customs and Paul’s writing, I do remember visiting the Catholic Church when I was a young girl. My Aunt (Southern Baptist) married a Catholic (huge deal back then-but it worked and they are still married) and sometimes my sister and I went to Mass with them. We always had to wear a head covering. Of course that didn’t seem all that strange, since many Southern Baptist women wore hats to church back then (boy, I sound old.)

Anyway the link to JOHN PAUL II is worth reviewing, and for those who are not Catholic, it is worth reading. Of course, I’ve always been a big fan of JPII.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I can vouch for you there Anna. You are very intelligent. Peace and prayers for you!

Thanks benidict. shaw:

 

[Anna_Scott]

The clergy do not wear a head covering while they are at prayer during the Mass.

On the issue of if women should veil themselves or not, most of the objections raised by modern Catholic to having women wear Veils are based on the idea that the new code of canon law issued in 1983 does not reiterate the specific mandate that appeared in the 1917 code of Canon Law, and therefore there is no longer any obligation for them. The 1917 code stated:

Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

The modern Catholic will argue that, Canon 6 of the new 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, and therefore, any commands given in the 1917 code are not applicable after 1983. Cannon 6 states:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.

Although, the fact is that the 1983 code goes out of its way to accommodate the 1917 code. For example, canon 20 states:

20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

21 In a case of doubt,(e.g. head coverings for women) the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Code of Canon Law 20,21)

It seems then, far from disavowing itself from the 1917 code, if the 1983 code is silent on an issue (e.g., as it is with head coverings), it requires that we not presume a previous law was revoked, and, in fact, the 1983 code says it “must be related to” and “must be harmonized with” the 1917 code. Although on a legal basis the 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, it is clear that the 1983 code imposes a legal stipulation on itself in the way it relates to the 1917 code, a stipulation which requires it to address the 1917 code so that the final decision on a given issue will be in harmony with, not opposed to, the 1917 code. This would be especially applicable in regards to a traditional practice that stretched uninterrupted for over nineteen hundred years and did so because of the original mandate in Holy Writ.

For further information please use this site.

Irish,

I really appreciate your taking the time to post this information and link. I’ll check it out.

Thank you so much,
Anna

 

[benidict]

Thanks benidict. shaw:

No problem my dear Sister!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with what you say about the papacy and “safe-guarding” the truth. If we all read the Bible, trust me, all of us will have not only different views of it, but we’ll keep what we like and discard the rest. Picking and choosing is human nature. And it’s the nature of Protestantism, especially Anglicanism, that drove me batty! It seems like no two Anglicans can agree on these things sometimes. Even ACNA is doomed because of women’s ordination despite ACNA being so cohesive on so many things! Take the Immaculate Conception. St. Bernard and even the great St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t feel Mary was immaculate. And yet the Magisterium came to the determination that she WAS and IS immaculate. Protestants like to point out, “ha! Even Aquinas didn’t buy this lame bill of goods about Mary!” but they don’t realize that the magisterium is HOLISTIC. It takes truths from all and applies them to official teaching. Aquinas wasn’t infallible nor was Augustine, who taught things like babies who are not baptized who die at birth go to hell?! The pope’s role is to take the truth, cut off the boloney and teach the holistic truths of dogma that comes from so many places. This is why I’ve decided to try hard to be Catholic (only time will tell if I can!) because it is the ultimate force against chaos. Anglicanism, as you said, claims tradition but they, having no magisterium, end up in chaotic theology because of this.

Gurney,
This is a good argument and reminds me of the APOSTOLIC LETTER
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

Link: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

As for the head coverings for women and not being allowed to speak in Church, etc.; It seems like we pick and choose which of those “traditions” we want to honor and which we do not. I found this to be the case in the Baptist Church. If they agreed with Scripture, Scripture meant what it said. If they didn’t agree with Scripture, it was symbolic, allegorical, or a tradition of the day that does not apply to us. There was a whole lot of finagling going on in the interpretation of Scripture. This is where the Catholic Church and the safeguarding of Tradition becomes very appealing to me.

[Anglicanism also claims Tradition, but the much needed safeguards are not working for the Anglican Communion. This leads us to the topic of one of the other threads: How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong. I won’t derail this thread for that topic.]

Back to Catholic customs and Paul’s writing, I do remember visiting the Catholic Church when I was a young girl. My Aunt (Southern Baptist) married a Catholic (huge deal back then-but it worked and they are still married) and sometimes my sister and I went to Mass with them. We always had to wear a head covering. Of course that didn’t seem all that strange, since many Southern Baptist women wore hats to church back then (boy, I sound old.)

Anyway the link to JOHN PAUL II is worth reviewing, and for those who are not Catholic, it is worth reading. Of course, I’ve always been a big fan of JPII.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree with what you say about the papacy and “safe-guarding” the truth. If we all read the Bible, trust me, all of us will have not only different views of it, but we’ll keep what we like and discard the rest. Picking and choosing is human nature. And it’s the nature of Protestantism, especially Anglicanism, that drove me batty! It seems like no two Anglicans can agree on these things sometimes. Even ACNA is doomed because of women’s ordination despite ACNA being so cohesive on so many things! Take the Immaculate Conception. St. Bernard and even the great St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t feel Mary was immaculate. And yet the Magisterium came to the determination that she WAS and IS immaculate. Protestants like to point out, “ha! Even Aquinas didn’t buy this lame bill of goods about Mary!” but they don’t realize that the magisterium is HOLISTIC. It takes truths from all and applies them to official teaching. Aquinas wasn’t infallible nor was Augustine, who taught things like babies who are not baptized who die at birth go to hell?! The pope’s role is to take the truth, cut off the boloney and teach the holistic truths of dogma that comes from so many places. This is why I’ve decided to try hard to be Catholic (only time will tell if I can!) because it is the ultimate force against chaos. Anglicanism, as you said, claims tradition but they, having no magisterium, end up in chaotic theology because of this.

You know, gurney, you really do sound “Catholic.” I think it might take this time.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

The clergy do not wear a head covering while they are at prayer during the Mass.

On the issue of if women should veil themselves or not, most of the objections raised by modern Catholic to having women wear Veils are based on the idea that the new code of canon law issued in 1983 does not reiterate the specific mandate that appeared in the 1917 code of Canon Law, and therefore there is no longer any obligation for them. The 1917 code stated:

Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

The modern Catholic will argue that, Canon 6 of the new 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, and therefore, any commands given in the 1917 code are not applicable after 1983. Cannon 6 states:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.

Although, the fact is that the 1983 code goes out of its way to accommodate the 1917 code. For example, canon 20 states:

20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

21 In a case of doubt,(e.g. head coverings for women) the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them. (Code of Canon Law 20,21)

It seems then, far from disavowing itself from the 1917 code, if the 1983 code is silent on an issue (e.g., as it is with head coverings), it requires that we not presume a previous law was revoked, and, in fact, the 1983 code says it “must be related to” and “must be harmonized with” the 1917 code. Although on a legal basis the 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, it is clear that the 1983 code imposes a legal stipulation on itself in the way it relates to the 1917 code, a stipulation which requires it to address the 1917 code so that the final decision on a given issue will be in harmony with, not opposed to, the 1917 code. This would be especially applicable in regards to a traditional practice that stretched uninterrupted for over nineteen hundred years and did so because of the original mandate in Holy Writ.

For further information please use this site.

Irish_Polock,

I checked out the link. This is a very interesting article. I bookmarked it to read again later. I encourage others to check it out, also.

I think I wore a lace chapel cap, as a young girl.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[benedictus2]

** I believe that ordaining women is fine**

. Jesus came in a patriarchal age, evident from much in the Old Testament, but Christ tried to give women a higher status in society. It always surprises me that Catholicism seems to dead-set against ordaining women, yet enter just about any Catholic Church and you immediately catch sight of a statue of Mary!
Total rubbish and a non-sequitur.

First, Jesus was not afraid of breaking social taboos of his time. He broke greater social taboos than this one. So no you are deeply wrong. When Jesus chose men only it is not because He was a product of His time. To say so is probably one of the most stupid interpretations of Jesus’s actions. You are actually saying that God somehow was constrained by the society that He has come to save.

You are forgetting that Jesus IS God.

Furthermore, the fact that the Church honors Mary is just proof that she is not against giving honor to women. Jesus honoured her mother and yet, He did not choose her to be one of his apostles.

Sorry but this section of your post is extremely ill thought.

There are a number of women pastors in this community, in at least local Methodist, Episcopal, Baptist and Lutheran churches. Like the men, some have more pastoral skills than others. Some are better preachers than others. Some denominations - like the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists - have been ordaining women since the 1950s. They are one reason these denominations have an adequate number of ministers.

Minister and Priest are totally different things. There are many positions of ministry that women can get into in the Catholic Church. I am in one. But priesthood is not one of those.

The most stupid argument for ordination of women is for empowerment. That shows you that they profoundly misunderstand what the priesthood is all about.

**The Catholic Church should ordain women. **

And there goes Roy5 again dictating what the Chuch should do. The Church is so much more knowledgeable than you and here you have yet again the arrogance to dictate.

Arrogance Roy5. It seems that every time you post that is what comes out. Sheer arrogance.

Read Sarah Butlers book. She was very much pro-priestesses until she did an in-depth study and research.

When you have done that, then your post will be more credible.

And here is also a very important fact. Priestesses were very common then. Pagan religions have priestesses. The only anomaly in this was the Jewish religion and after that the Catholic Church. To have priestesses is to embrace paganism.

I find nothing in scripture that forbids that specifically.

Except the very glaring fact that had Jesus so wanted He could have have chosen women. But He did not.

Catholicism ignores that already as they have women read the scriptures.

Shows again your painful lack of understanding of what priesthood is all about. Priesthood is more than just reading Scriptures.

And as for women bit teaching, consider Mother Angelica along with many, many others.

Again, a profound ignorance of what priesthood is all about.

You see, Mother Angelica does wonderful things for the Church and yet she would be the last one to demand to be a priest.

As a matter of fact, this demand for the priesthood is actually a denigration of the other ministries within the Church. They are basically saying that the kind of stuff that Mother Angelica and all other women do within the Church is NOT GOOD ENOUGH SO LET ME BE A PRIEST!

This is the same stupid notion that feminists foster and they are the ones at the forefront of this advocacy. They are the ones who denigrate what is essentially feminine and reinforce what is ultimately masculine.

And Catholicism changed its stance on women coverng their heads as they pray, too,again called for by St. Paul in I Cor. 11:3.

Well duh! Head covering is only a matter of discipline! A male priesthood is a matter of doctrine!

 

[benedictus2]

**Hey JohnnyReb,

I know your response was not addressed to me, but thought this was a good place to enter the discussion.

I honestly haven’t completely decided what I believe about women serving as Priests. I grew up in Southern Baptist Churches and they will not ordain women. Though Anglican, I’ve had no experience with women Priests. There are none at my Parish. **

Hi Ana,

I would recommend reading Sarah Butler’s book

amazon.com/Catholic-Priesthood-Women-Teaching-Church/dp/1595250166#reader_1595250166

She was very pro-priestesses (the womenpriests website still has her article that goes back to before she saw the light) until she started to do research on this topic.

Peace!

Cory.

 

[benedictus2]

Gurney,
I know you are very passionate about your position on women’s ordination. I respect that, and you may very well be right. I just don’t understand why some Scriptures about women stuck and some did not. Can you help with any of my questions in my last post?

Anna

One must differentiate between discipline and doctrine. The all male priesthood falls under doctrine.

 

[benedictus2]

The collections of the sayings of the Desert Fathers actually record about 50 sayings attributed to the Desert Mothers, female ascetics living in desert monastic communities in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria in the 4th and 5th centuries. Despite the relative slim collection of sayings (in comparison to the Desert Fathers, who related the sayings of the Mothers), they were incredibly influential and respected in their time. Amma Syncletica of Alexandria really speaks to me, and in her illumination of Christian faith is the equal of any man. Who can say that these women did not have power just because they were not priests? They put all the “female clergy” of today to shame. The feminist brats parading around in priests’ clothing give real Christian women of faith and substance like the Desert Mothers a bad name.

Brilliant! The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been enriched by women and they did not have to be priests.