Consecrated virgins - why only females?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitnomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Roseeurekacross: Your reposts are irrelevant to mine. I’m not challenging any of your assertions. I agree with them. I just stated that that the Church’s position toward women is discrimination, and it is. I am not arguing that it is not justified.

Your moral superiority posturing is wasted on me.
 
Last edited:
There is such principle but that is not how it works. An example of a “valid, but illicit” situation would be if a validly ordained priest who was laicized continues to administer the sacraments. He is a valid priest who does not have permission to act as he is, the sacrament is valid but illicit.

A fake priest does not and never did have valid holy orders bestowed upon him, thus that sacrament is not valid because it is not possible regardless of what “the people” believe.
 
The long story short is that Jesus only had men at the last supper. This was when He gave the command “Do this in memory of Me”, effectively creating the priesthood.

Why only men? Who knows?
But there it stands.

Rather than arguing on a message board with strangers on the internet, you need to take it up with Jesus.
 
That is according to the Church, so it is a circular argument. One can choose to believe that, but it is not independently verifiable. But religion is not about rules, it is about salvation. Let me postulate a hypothetical that has happened and is happening today:

If a person grows up in a church, takes the sacraments of that church, believes in what that church teaches, follows the rules of that church, does good works, etc., can that person still go to Heaven despite the fact that the priests of that church are not really priests according to the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church clearly says they can go to Heaven. So logically that would mean either their sacraments are valid, for them, or that sacraments are irrelevant to salvation, for them.
 
Last edited:
and you would be wrong in your assessment that its discrimination.

try studying this from a non biased position.
take your blinkers off.
 
quit being condescending and patrionizing

take your blinkers off.
 
You know, we’re getting sidetracked from the original question, which is actually an interesting one.

It might be noteworthy that pagan Rome had female Vestal Virgins, but no males in similar positions.
 
Last edited:
How is it not discrimination? Male = yes. Female = no. Discrimination.

“Blinkers?” Really? LOL
 
Last edited:
glad you asked such an excellent question.

you are attributing a very modern, very secular ideology to an ancient religious institution.

and in doing so , you are attributing no value or very decreased value to womens roles through history, in the Church.

There is no greater saint the Mary. And guess what , Mary is a woman
 
yes blinkers, you cant think past your modern secular ’ what is classed as value or success’ mindset.

you are blinkered by modern secular values
 
Well, there’s the meaning of the word for one.

“virgin” comes from “virtus” (virtue) + “gyn” (gynecology, vagina, etc. have same root) , i.e. a virtuous female
 
Last edited:
You haven’t yet defined what a priest’s job is, and you haven’t yet defined what you believe the Eucharist to be, so we can’t know what you believe until you tell us. 🙂
 
Because it’s none of your darn business unless I choose to make it your business. However, facts are facts.
 
Consecrated virgins can only be females in the same way Priests can only be males. I can also guess it is because of what some may call, “nocturnal emissions”. It’s physically impossible for a male to stay a virgin, at least in that sense.
 
CapitalistCatholic said:
I can also guess it is because of what some may call, “nocturnal emissions”. It’s physically impossible for a male to stay a virgin, at least in that sense.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying a woman who uses tampons isn’t a virgin.

A virgin is someone who hasn’t had sex. That’s all.
 
Last edited:
jfz178 said:
I said theoretically, not practically. There is no requirement that a Pope be a priest. Pope Callixtus III was the last non-priest to become Pope in 1455.
Click to expand...
No. A lay person can be elected Pope, but then becomes ordained as Deacon, Priest, and Bishop.

The Pope must be the Bishop of Rome. He doesn’t theoretically have to be a Deacon, Priest and Bishop at election; but must become a Bishop after being elected.
 
its pretty obvious what your stance is on this.

its not fact, its your opinion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top