C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chicago 'womanpriest' will not be buried in Catholic cemetery
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
The Pope “is just a man” all right, but his office has the charism of infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals.Of course they are considered inferior. They are considered incapable of being a priest, and therefore inferior to men. As no man can personally hear God’s calling to another human being, because each calling is subjective, then there isn’t a man alive who can claim to know God’s calling for another, not even a Pope (who is just a man) It can only be tested over time, but not on an individual’s sex.
Among other things, the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the Bride of Christ.
Christ, the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride chiefly through the Mass and the Sacraments,
The priest takes the place of the Bridegroom…
There`s the MARITAL imagery.
A WOMAN CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE BRIDEGROOM!!! LITURGICAL LESBIANISM!!! FULL STOP!!! Invalid in any case.
“Inferiority” has nothing to do with it, but radical feminism {especially POWER as stated by Tantum Ergo) has EVERYTHING to do with it.
As a Protestant, you have almost no grasp of the nature of the Church.
A true Catholic knows the difference between a priest and a “priestess”, and would want nothing to do with the latter, if dying.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
PS
Claming that Our Lord
Claming that Our Lord
s actions were restricted by the customs of His time doesnt wash: the Pagan religions had priestesses, along with their godesses. Our modern day “womenpriests” have also embraced Paganism. Their rantings are proof of that.
Z
ZDHayden
Guest
I realize that this post has been beaten senseless. However, I have not found anyone from either side present this: is a man inferior to a woman for not being able to bear children? If a woman is made inferior, as you say, by being incapable of being a priest, then so a man must be inferior to a woman for being incapable of childbearing. Others have told of the Pope’s infallibility, so I will not remark on that.Of course they are considered inferior. They are considered incapable of being a priest, and therefore inferior to men. As no man can personally hear God’s calling to another human being, because each calling is subjective, then there isn’t a man alive who can claim to know God’s calling for another, not even a Pope (who is just a man) It can only be tested over time, but not on an individual’s sex.
God bless
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Ya’no there are many Catholics C ] who don’t think it’s a bad idea that catholics c ] of the 'feel good - anything goes" persuasions have self-inflicted and capsized their own raft -The CC is abandoning it’s lambs because of its teaching.
Catholic absolutes - remain - Catholic absolutes. A failure to acknowledge these absolutes - amounts to a failure of being a Catholic.
The Shepard does not endanger the whole flock - it leads the lost lamb back to the flock…The Prodigal Son had to return to the Father…
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
On the subject of marital imagery:The Pope “is just a man” all right, but his office has the charism of infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals.
Among other things, the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the Bride of Christ.
Christ, the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride chiefly through the Mass and the Sacraments,
The priest takes the place of the Bridegroom…
There`s the MARITAL imagery.
A WOMAN CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF THE BRIDEGROOM!!! LITURGICAL LESBIANISM!!! FULL STOP!!! Invalid in any case.
If there is a Bridegroom (priest), must not there also be a Bride? If Jesus is the Bridegroom, represented by the priest, and the Church is the Bride, who represents “her”?
The lay faithful?
Aren’t males part of the lay faithful?
But how CAN this be?! Surely a man is not capable of taking the place of the bride! That’s liturgical, uh, gay-ism! FULL STOP!! The Mass has been invalid for centuries!!
What about when a priest says a private mass with no faithful present? What then? No Bride at all? That’s liturgical masturbation! FULL STOP AGAIN!!
Can we finally put the “bridegroom argument” against women and priesthood to rest? It’s illogical and only obscures matters.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Because the relationship of Christ and the Church is MYSTICAL, the images we use are obviously only incomplete images.On the subject of marital imagery:
If there is a Bridegroom (priest), must not there also be a Bride? If Jesus is the Bridegroom, represented by the priest, and the Church is the Bride, who represents “her”?
The lay faithful?
Aren’t males part of the lay faithful?
But how CAN this be?! Surely a man is not capable of taking the place of the bride! That’s liturgical, uh, gay-ism! FULL STOP!! The Mass has been invalid for centuries!!
What about when a priest says a private mass with no faithful present? What then? No Bride at all? That’s liturgical masturbation! FULL STOP AGAIN!!
Can we finally put the “bridegroom argument” against women and priesthood to rest? It’s illogical and only obscures matters.
The fact is, Christ did NOT ordain women. The Church DOES have the authority to make pronouncements (through the Holy Spirit) regarding what is and what is not valid matter or otherwise sacramentally related. The Church, speaking through the Holy Spirit, has emphatically and categorically determined that GOD’S DECISION is that men can be priests and women cannot. God has a good reason for this, just as He had a good reason to both send Christ as a human MALE (not a female), that the person who was conceived immaculately and bore Christ was a FEMALE (Mary) and not a male, etc. etc.
Either one submits to legitimate authority, knowing that whatever ‘reason’ we might put forward falls short since no one is privy to or even able to fully understand GOD’S REASON. . .or one fights the authority and tries to come up with justification to rebel against Christ and the Church.
As for me and MY household, we will serve the Lord (thank you Joshua), baaa, baaa, I am Christ’s little lamb and not some willful RAM ramming ‘my will’ instead of His.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
Perhaps no one from either side has presented such argument because it does not follow.I realize that this post has been beaten senseless. However, I have not found anyone from either side present this: is a man inferior to a woman for not being able to bear children? If a woman is made inferior, as you say, by being incapable of being a priest, then so a man must be inferior to a woman for being incapable of childbearing. Others have told of the Pope’s infallibility, so I will not remark on that.
Man would only be inferior to woman for not being able to bear children ONLY IF he was incapable of procreating at all. They both have proper, equal, reproductive functions. Hopefully both partners enjoy the procreative act. Both partners contribute 1/2 of the genes for new life. Unfortunately nature has deigned that the female is almost solely responsible for the development of that child during its first 9 mos, the real “labor” of childbirth, and if breastfeeding, a continued burden for sometime thereafter.
The biology of pregnancy and childbirth has nothing to do with priesthood. Let’s put this argument to rest as well.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Again, all of our ‘understandings’ are incomplete because we are not God. God has given us a teaching; we can come up with human reasons which are incomplete at best but which have a thorough basis in reality, in Scripture, in Tradition, and are confirmed through the authoritative teaching of the Church, through the Holy Spirit.Perhaps no one from either side has presented such argument because it does not follow.
Man would only be inferior to woman for not being able to bear children ONLY IF he was incapable of procreating at all. They both have proper, equal, reproductive functions. Hopefully both partners enjoy the procreative act. Both partners contribute 1/2 of the genes for new life. Unfortunately nature has deigned that the female is almost solely responsible for the development of that child during its first 9 mos, the real “labor” of childbirth, and if breastfeeding, a continued burden for sometime thereafter.
The biology of pregnancy and childbirth has nothing to do with priesthood. Let’s put this argument to rest as well.
BTW, CB, I’m a woman myself, and old enough at 53 to have heard all the feminist mutterings and howlings. God knows of course that I do not denigrate the fine feminist groups (Feminists for Life comes to mind) nor do I wish to ‘drag the Church to the Middle Ages’. We live when we live. However, truth that was truth in AD 1200 is still truth today, when it comes to teachings of faith and morals.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
So, what you’re saying is, it’s okay to use incomplete images. If a woman were to say mass, and if she is an incomplete image of Christ (aren’t we all!), that’s OK, because the marital imagery in the mass is MYSTICAL.Because the relationship of Christ and the Church is MYSTICAL, the images we use are obviously only incomplete images.
I’m glad we can agree on this fact. Since this oft-used argument fails, the rest of your post was an appeal to blindly accept authority. No one has said that the Church does not have the authority to make the pronouncements that it does. However, a responsible use of one’s God-given conscience and faculties of reason should question authority on matters of importance.
Uh, bless EWE too?As for me and MY household, we will serve the Lord (thank you Joshua), baaa, baaa, I am Christ’s little lamb and not some willful RAM ramming ‘my will’ instead of His.
C
catharina
Guest
Such pointless vulgarity.On the subject of marital imagery:
If there is a Bridegroom (priest), must not there also be a Bride? If Jesus is the Bridegroom, represented by the priest, and the Church is the Bride, who represents “her”?
The lay faithful?
Aren’t males part of the lay faithful?
But how CAN this be?! Surely a man is not capable of taking the place of the bride! That’s liturgical, uh, gay-ism! FULL STOP!! The Mass has been invalid for centuries!!
What about when a priest says a private mass with no faithful present? What then? No Bride at all? That’s liturgical masturbation! FULL STOP AGAIN!!
Can we finally put the “bridegroom argument” against women and priesthood to rest? It’s illogical and only obscures matters.
Don’t expect to be taken seriously.
C
catharina
Guest
Ditto. As a 64 yr-old woman, I too have heard it all.Again, all of our ‘understandings’ are incomplete because we are not God. God has given us a teaching; we can come up with human reasons which are incomplete at best but which have a thorough basis in reality, in Scripture, in Tradition, and are confirmed through the authoritative teaching of the Church, through the Holy Spirit.
BTW, CB, I’m a woman myself, and old enough at 53 to have heard all the feminist mutterings and howlings. God knows of course that I do not denigrate the fine feminist groups (Feminists for Life comes to mind) nor do I wish to ‘drag the Church to the Middle Ages’. We live when we live. However, truth that was truth in AD 1200 is still truth today, when it comes to teachings of faith and morals.
New trend with today’s ranting females? VULGARITY?
God have mercy.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
It’s really no more vulgar than calling a mass celebrated by a woman “liturgical lesbianism”.Such pointless vulgarity.
Don’t expect to be taken seriously.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, I said nothing of the kind. I said that we can use incomplete images as examples to ILLUSTRATE a teaching, not that we could ‘circumvent’ the teaching.So, what you’re saying is, it’s okay to use incomplete images. If a woman were to say mass, and if she is an incomplete image of Christ (aren’t we all!), that’s OK, because the marital imagery in the mass is MYSTICAL.
I’m glad we can agree on this fact. Since this oft-used argument fails, the rest of your post was an appeal to blindly accept authority. No one has said that the Church does not have the authority to make the pronouncements that it does. However, a responsible use of one’s God-given conscience and faculties of reason should question authority on matters of importance.
Uh, bless EWE too?
Um, where did I say to BLINDLY accept? My friend, I use my God-given reason to examine the teaching, and my God-given reason to fully, freely, and obediently but not BLINDLY to accept God’s authority. Don’t you?
You know, I’ve heard the ‘question authority’ statements for a LONG time. So. . .when do we ‘stop’ the questioning? Ever hear a 3-year old? Why is the sky blue? Because the visible light spectrum reflects that pigment and our eyes identify what we see as blue, well, most of us anyway who aren’t blind, or color blind. . .But why is the sky BLUE? Why not pink? Why can’t it be pink? Who made up the name of the color?
Etc. etc. You could wind up going over and over a bunch of totally irrelevant ‘data’ in ‘questioning’. But at some point, you have to STOP. Because no matter how the child questions, she is not going to be able to magically make the sky pink or to change historical facts by saying that maybe people in the NT ‘meant’ to write that Jesus wasn’t REALLY God and if we ‘question’ enough we’ll find that out.
So, tell me, are you questioning the Trinity too? I mean, IT is a mystery. So surely you’re wondering if God can’t really be a Quartet. I mean, sure the Church has TOLD us God is a Trinity, but after all, we NEED to QUESTION AUTHORITY. . .
If you aren’t questioning the Trinity, then I ‘question’ just exactly why you’re questioning the Church teaching on priesthood. . .
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hmmmm…soooo it’s a matter of importance to promote homosexuality and women priests…? C’monHowever, a responsible use of one’s God-given conscience and faculties of reason should question authority on matters of importance.
C
catharina
Guest
Your point?It’s really no more vulgar than calling a mass celebrated by a woman “liturgical lesbianism”.
Take the low road?
Your credibility: zero.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually, the woman was a practicing lesbian in an active relationship - performing an illicit mass ?]…trying to pass it off as a legitimate Catholic Mass…“liturgical lesbianism”. seems to nail it for meIt’s really no more vulgar than calling a mass celebrated by a woman “liturgical lesbianism”.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
My point: use the same shocking appeal to emotion to stop an oft-repeated illogical argument in its tracks.Your point?
Take the low road?
Your credibility: zero.
Your point?
Ad hominem attacks?
I don’t even need to post your credibility, since you have yet to say anything credible.
C
ChemicalBean
Guest
Kimmie,Actually, the woman was a practicing lesbian in an active relationship - performing an illicit mass ?]…“liturgical lesbianism”. seems to nail it for me
Yes, the woman was a practicing lesbian, but that’s beside the point. My response was to the notion that any woman who would celebrate Mass “in persona Christi” is an image of “liturgical lesbianism” - that somehow the priest cannot be a woman because women can only image brides, and there would be a bride-bride marital relationship somehow in the mass.
C
catharina
Guest
Our Lord, the Body of Christ, The Mass, priests … and your full disrespect.My point: use the same shocking appeal to emotion to stop an oft-repeated illogical argument in its tracks.
Your point?
Ad hominem attacks?
I don’t even need to post your credibility, since you have yet to say anything credible.
Hey, I only quoted you.
My credibility is intact. Yours … ?
You attack the Body of Christ.
I defend the Body of Christ, pointing to your astounding vulgarity.
Very straightforward. Not ad hominem at all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.