Female preists

[sedonaman]

… Any woman who loves her spouse …

This sounds like we are being set up to accept lesbian couples. Otherwise, why didn’t you say “husband” instead?

 

[adrift]

This sounds like we are being set up to accept lesbian couples. Otherwise, why didn’t you say “husband” instead?

Because the Church is referred to as spouse not wife nor husband.

 

[sedonaman]

Because the Church is referred to as spouse not wife nor husband.

The context didn’t sound like you were referring to the Church.

 

[Evan]

The context didn’t sound like you were referring to the Church.

Based on the context I certainly thought “church” was being referred to as spouse.

 

[sllhouette]

This sounds like we are being set up to accept lesbian couples. Otherwise, why didn’t you say “husband” instead?

What? haha. no.

 

[sedonaman]

What? haha. no.

He who controls the language wins.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

:tsktsk:

I’m having trouble grasping why women can’t be preists. I’ve heard it has to do with the role a preist plays, but I still don’t get it. A preist hears confession, conducts mass, does weddings, funerals, etc. What about those things makes it impossible for a woman to do?

Can you grasp the WORD NO- Loyalty to the teachings of the Catholic Church and what she preaches, its not hers to give, its not about " can do" its about “right/wrong. If women want to serve they can be a nun, not all men are called to the Priesthood hence Brothers/monks/ Our Lord was a man and this had nothing to do with male parts but a spiritual thing, are you now suggesting we should say instead of “Our Father” it should be " Our Mother” who are in Heaven, the priest is alter Christus, read your Old Testament, was there any women priests in that - NO- the only women priests were pagan priestesses you know the saying there are horses for courses, if a man wants to have a baby can he - NO Get a grip and dont be so silly, more spiritual reading , more prayer, and obedience to the Church will put the right slant on things. If I said I wanted to be an alligator, well the Lord made me a woman and who am I to tell him otherwise. Are you now saying you know more than the Will of the Lord, you are now telling the Lord what He should do, Be carefull the Devil comes in different guises.:tsktsk:

 

[adrift]

The context didn’t sound like you were referring to the Church.

It wasn’t my statement

And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.

This is the statement that sllhouette was commenting on. The statement said that they would ultimately leave the Church to follow their calling
Silhouette answered this statement with

Any woman who loves her spouse would not leave him. What is sad is that such women do not realize that their calling is to be a mother in the church, not a father somewhere else.

I hope you can now see that Silhouette was referring to the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Because The Catholic Church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain female priests.

We can speculate on the probably many reasons that God chose male priests until the cows came home, but the fact is God did say only men.

How do we know?

We know through Scripture (The Old Testament prefigures the New; the New fulfills the Old).

We know through Sacred Tradition.

And finally, we know through the Holy Spirit by whose power this doctrine has been proclaimed an infallible truth.

The Catholic Church has NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.

Just as it has no authority to confect the Eucharist as milk and cookies, or to ‘marry’ a man and a man, or to ‘hear’ confessions via a cell phone.

The components of a sacrament matter.

God says it. Now it’s up to us to hear it, or to develop ‘itching ears’ and look for the ‘different gospel’ that makes more SENSE to us.

Because of course the idea that God would become man, suffer, die and rise again to save all of us sinners, and the idea that we should return good to those who do evil to us, is SUCH A SENSIBLE DOCTRINE. Naturally every thing we believe should make as much sense. . .

 

[Corki]

I imagine that a female priest is thinking about serving God, and would like to serve God in the church they were brought up in…but if they cannot serve God there, they know that God is elsewhere, too…that God is everywhere, we are told.

Again, proving the value of the Church’s position. Anyone can serve God - everyone should serve God. A person doesn’t serve God any* better *as a priest. The language of vocations often talks about having a servant’s heart. Having a “me and Jesus” mentality, while not bad in itself, is not compatible with the priesthood.

God IS everywhere but the Church and the Sacraments are not.

 

[Evan]

But my next question is: who decided that a woman cannot act “In Persona Christi”?
Jesus himself didn’t say it.

Jesus said it indirectly.

He said to his apostles: I give you authority
He said to his apostles: Do this in memory of me

He had many holy women following him. He called the apostles to have the sacerdotal authority. Not Mary (his mum), not Mary (from Magdela), not Mary (Lasarus’ sister), not Martha (his other sister).

So of 12 men and 4 women, he chose 12 men and 0 women. A decision of which the Church has no authority to change. If the Church finds in the future that women are called to the priesthood, they still cannot be priests; all the Church could do at that point is try to discern why women are being called when they cannot respond. Perhaps the Church could create an order of virgins (O yeah, it did that, they are called sisters).

 

[adrift]

I imagine a female priest would just be called a priest.
In the same way a female doctor is doctor; lawyer is lawyer, etc, etc…

There is no feminine distinction of doctor, lawyer no doctoress no lawyeress etc, etc, etc but there is priest and priestess.

So my question remains.

But my next question is: who decided that a woman cannot act “In Persona Christi”?
Jesus himself didn’t say it.

Jesus taught the Apostles for three years. You could not possibly be able to state with such certainty what Jesus said to them. You really can’t even point to the New Testament scripture or the Old to support this statement. An old saying comes to mind, actions speaks louder than words. What Jesus did cannot be dismissed.

John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

 

[mdcpensive1]

You know what? Of all the reasons I’ve heard here on CAF all year about why Jesus may have not picked any female apostle, that is the only one (among my brilliant list, of course!) that makes logical sense to me and rings true-like.
I *hope *that that is one of the reasons.

Maybe I can give some other reasons. From what I have experienced, when women are not given the reasons why something is what it is, then they tend to feel left out and discriminated against. They would have a right to feel that way if the priesthood was a “JOB”. But it is not a job but an office as described in Isaiah 22. Even some men do not have a “right” to the position of priest.
Most of scripture is about covenant, and in the form of marital covenant mostly. God saw Israel as his bride when He said they were being prostitutes when worshiping other gods. Jesus sees the fulfillment of Israel as His Church, His new bride. The marital covenant means that there is a male and female component. Christ is the head of the Church, His bride. A female priest would not fulfill the concept of a marriage. The priests then act in His image in His Church. Imagery and continuity is all over the scriptures.

I believe it is in 1st Kings that says a priest was walking by and was asked to be a “priest and a father” to the family. This shows in the old testament that fatherhood and priesthood were interconnected.
Also, all the sacraments were made by Christ here on earth. The sacrament of orders was also. If you see the ordinary magesterium of the Church, then you will know that for many centuries women were not priests. So if God wanted them to be priests, they would have been priests and not waited for twenty centuries.
John Paul II made it final in his 1994 enciclical Ordinatio Sacredotalis.
mdcpensive1

 

[livingwordunity]

Because the Church is referred to as spouse not wife nor husband.

The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32) and uses the word “wife” in reference to the Church.

 

[adrift]

The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23-32) and uses the word “wife” in reference to the Church.

24As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for hert 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,u 27that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.v 28So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, 30because we are members of his body.w

31“For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother

and be joined to his wife,

I am not saying that the symbolism of marriage isn’t being used to show the relationship of Jesus to the Church. There was a question of why to use spouse instead of husband. Using spouse is acceptable and does not imply a homosexual union.

The Church is not called wife. Marriage is used as a symbolism of the relationship between Jesus and the Church. The Church is never explicitly called “the bride of Christ” in the New Testament. Although it is definitely implies as in Rev:19 and 21.

 

[Nita]

…And that calling often ultimately leads them to leave the Catholic church so they can follow their calling elsewhere.

The very fact that they would leave the Church because they disagreed with one of her teachings is already an indication of weak faith in the Church and in the promises Our Lord made concerning His Church. We do not need Catholic priests weak in the Catholic faith.
It shows a pride that says “I know better than the Church”. We do not need such prideful priests.
It shows a rebellious spirit that led them to reject the Church. We do not need rebellious priests.

 

[Nita]

…They took away their own authority from themselves!
Perhaps they painted themselves into a corner?

You obviously don’t believe that Our Lord is the one who exercises final control over His Church – that He would intervene to prevent something erroneous or contrary to His will from being permanently and infallibly decreed by His Church.

Catholics don’t believe in infallibility because they have trust in the personal powers of the Pope and bishops – they believe it because they have trust in an all powerful God who promised that what His Church bound on earth would be in conformity to what He has bound in heaven. He’ll see to it; He has the power to ensure that is what happens.

“On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; …”

 

[adrift]

That night at the passover dinner, when Jeshua broke break and offered wine and said those words, he only made the exchange with men.
If we were to use the same interpretation method and logic you are using above, then we could also deduce that Jesus only meant* for men* to receive the Eucharist.

He didn’t specifically say only men could receive it…and he didn’t specifically say women could…but as per his actions, to use your logic, he is indirectly saying that only men can receive the Eucharist.

What were the actions of the Apostles. They continued only appointing men but all received the Eucharist.

From what I’ve read in history books on the religion, the Church higher-ups who made the rules and decisions several centuries after Jesus died are the ones who decided that Jesus’ actions meant only men can be ordained.…and then, they decided that they wouldn’t allow themselves to change their decision.
They took away their own authority from themselves!
Perhaps they painted themselves into a corner?

If what you state is true, than you should be able to point to a time when there were women being ordained. That isn’t the case women were not ordained to the priesthood so your statement that the rules were made several centuries after Jesus died is false.

What you can’t produce is any scripture that says women should be ordained. That this was God’s plan is obvious in Scripture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What were the actions of the Apostles. They continued only appointing men but all received the Eucharist.

If what you state is true, than you should be able to point to a time when there were women being ordained. That isn’t the case women were not ordained to the priesthood so your statement that the rules were made several centuries after Jesus died is false.

What you can’t produce is any scripture that says women should be ordained. That this was God’s plan is obvious in Scripture.

Exactly.

I just love the ‘several centuries after Jesus’ when these ‘rules’ were supposedly’ made up’ comments.

One wonders how, if ‘critical thinking’ has supposedly been the benchmark for education in the U.S. for the last 2 decades and more, so many of those who were so educated appear either not to utilize those skills, or to ignore them. . .

 

[Professor_Bunky]

I’m repeating myself but we are comparing apples and oranges. There are already any number of denominations accepting female ‘priests.’

Yet you keep demanding the Catholic church do likewise?

Along with those demands inevitably comes demands for ABC, same-sex ‘marriage,’ and abortions. The reply is the same. You already have a smorgasbord of denominations that celebrate such ‘progress.’

It’s maybe a poor analogy but you’re saying ‘I want my house to be a ranch AND a colonial. And I want to live on the beach AND bedrock.’ The answer is simple. Move to the house of sand.