Two problems with what you put here:Of course, 2000 years ago, males only fulfilled these roles. It was due to the times.
It’s not inaccurate that many societies would not listen to women, and that travel would be more dangerous for an unaccompanied woman than for a lone man. Certainly He did know that moderns would want female priests, but in order to be effective He operated within the confines of the times.Of course, 2000 years ago, males only fulfilled these roles. It was due to the times.
This passage also revealed his disdain for sexual acts in general, hence his praise for friendship over romantic love between couples.If one should ask why it was necessary that a helper be made for man, the answer that seems most probable is that it was for the procreation of children, just as the earth is a helper for the seed in the production of a plant from the union of the two. This purpose was declared in the original creation of the world: “Male and female he made them. And God blessed them and said, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.’ ” This reason for creation and union of male and female, as well as this blessing, was not abrogated after the sin and punishment of man. It is by virtue of this blessing that the earth is now filled with human beings who subdue it. Although it was after the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise that they came together in sexual intercourse and begot children, according to Scripture, nevertheless I do not see what could have prohibited them from honorable nuptial union and “the bed undefiled” even in paradise. God could have granted them this if they had lived in a faithful and just manner in obedient and holy service to him, so that without the tumultuous ardor of passion and without any labor and pain of childbirth, offspring would be born from their seed. In this case, the purpose would not be to have children succeeding parents who die. Rather those who had begotten children would remain in the prime of life and would maintain their physical strength from the tree of life that had been planted in paradise. Those who would be born would develop to the same state and eventually, when the determined number would be complete, if all live just and obedient lives, there would be a transformation. Thus without any death their natural bodies would receive a new quality since they obeyed every command of the spirit that ruled them. With the spirit alone vivifying them, without any help from corporeal nourishment, they would be called spiritual bodies. This could have been if the transgression of God’s command had not merited the punishment of death.
I get frustrated when lay people an sometimes clergy conflate married priests and female priests into the same general conversation. To me they are entirely different conversations.Basically this - there is a priest in our diocese who very regularly talks about how one day there might be married priests or female priests.
While I hear what you are saying about the priests now who are not married, others have different experiences. I’m far more comfortable with Deacons personally. This is perhaps because I would likely never equate a priest with a father figure and more likely look at him as a peer. This is easier to do this with Deacons.I like things the way they are.
I have not see his quote on that, so I cannot comment.I believe St Clement was the one that said women should feel shame for being women.
Ok but here we started talking about how the Bible supposedly made women inferior, however I have given plenty of quotes where the opposite is being said.You would think so. But I know men in certain cultures here love and respect their mothers and sisters, but they still hold beliefs like the superiority of males, that women should not do certain things etc
I’m not saying that the Bible made women inferior. I was pointing out what earlier Christians believed. Remember, we interpret certain verses a lot differently than them, and we live in a different culture where people naturally grow up believing that women should have rightsOk but here we started talking about how the Bible supposedly made women inferior, however I have given plenty of quotes where the opposite is being said.
The Bible cannot contradict itself, the Catholic Church doctrine holds men and woman as equals in dignity although biologically different. If some verses in the Bible seem to suggest otherwise it is we who are not knowing what the proper meaning is, not that the Bible is wrong.Either way, I don’t think the presence of positive verses is a good rebuttal to the negative verses. Rather, one would need to address the negative verses and justify that they aren’t actually negative.
To play the devil’s advocate, why didn’t God condemn slavery head on then? Isn’t the response usually that his Truth was slowly being revealed, rather than an immediate revelation of everything?It would have been extremely easy for ‘humans’ to come to the conclusion that God, in opening up salvation to the gentiles, also would ‘allow’ women priests. After all, God ‘allowed’ all foods to be ‘clean’, He ‘allowed’ salvation to all people. . . so by your reasoning, IF the priesthood had entailed a ‘service’ only, opening it ‘up’ would have been easy peasy.
I don’t find the argument that the Catholic Church has been protected from error to be very convincing. Whenever any errors are pointed out, the answer is usually something like, “Those things weren’t done by the Church, but only by bad or misguided people in the church.”If your argument is going to be that Christ could have told them to ordain women, but they decided against it, that argument is going nowhere fast. As Catholics, we believe and profess that the apostles and the church are protected from such catastrophic error by the Holy Spirit.
You have nothing but conjecture to back up this statement. On the other hand, we have Jesus Christ and his apostles to support a male only priesthood.Certainly He did know that moderns would want female priests, but in order to be effective He operated within the confines of the times.
But you’re not saying anything new here tbh.The Bible cannot contradict itself, the Catholic Church doctrine holds men and woman as equals in dignity although biologically different. If some verses in the Bible seem to suggest otherwise it is we who are not knowing what the proper meaning is, not that the Bible is wrong.
That is why the Catechism exists along with the Catholic Church doctrine and other important theological documents and Councils, those are the things that really matter. Picking up verses from the Bible that go against those is nonsense.One would need to explain what those verses mean instead of brushing it off as misinterpretations.
To be fair, these errors would have to be contradictions in dogma (eg Mary’s virginity, crucifixion etc) for that argument to be valid. Catholics claim that male priesthood is part of that infallible group of teachings.I don’t find the argument that the Catholic Church has been protected from error to be very convincing. Whenever any errors are pointed out, the answer is usually something like, “Those things weren’t done by the Church, but only by bad or misguided people in the church.”
While this is a good point (that the church isn’t some sort of utopia for women, and yes, it was and still is sexist because we have flawed people), this would be a valid argument only if the Church claimed his view was infallible.If the views of someone like St. Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, can’t be considered a good reflection of what the Church taught or believed about women in the 4th or 5th century, whose can? And yet he said that women by themselves are not in the image of God, only men are in the image of God
A little more than conjecture, I would say, because we do know that travel was dangerous in those days (that’s why they tended to travel in caravans) and that a lone woman is usually easier prey for a criminal than a lone man. Thus, a male would be a better choice for an itinerant apostle than a woman. Also, Jesus and His apostles were all Jewish and (mostly) working class, but we evidently don’t consider these qualities important enough to require them of priests. So why is gender so much more important?Certainly He did know that moderns would want female priests, but in order to be effective He operated within the confines of the times.
I don’t know where this conversation is going/went. I responded to your opinion that early Christians were not sexist with some proof, and now the conversation is about the actual verses. Which is out of point, but I brought up that these Christians and the culture of that time interpreted it through their cultural lens.That is why the Catechism exists along with the Catholic Church doctrine and other important theological documents and Councils, those are the things that really matter. Picking up verses from the Bible that go against those is nonsense.
So really, when we are talking about current issues, we have to be aware that the Church has not given official ‘ruling’ on everything.If something seems contradictory in the Bible, the only way to be sure is go and check what the Catholic Church teaches about it.
I know but it has already declared equal dignity in both men and women. So it is very straightforward issue.BTW, the Church does not have infallible interpretations of all verses
I know, but they have given on the major important issues as they should.So really, when we are talking about current issues, we have to be aware that the Church has not given official ‘ruling’ on everything.
And early Church leaders would have had to see women as being as intelligent as men, which they didn’t. And Christianity came out of Judaism which was part of a very patriarchal culture.I think that the only way that there could have been women priests in the Catholic Church would be if the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman. In that case, female priesthood would have been mandatory and men could never become priests. But that is not how it occurred.