Female priests and patriarchy

[Thorolfr]

My skin would crawl if I had to be next to women who wear a priests collar and are so called ordained in some denomination. I feel ill just looking at women dressed up as priest.

Sorry this makes you so uncomfortable. Seeing a woman bishop with a mitre and crozier would probably be even worse for you.

 

[SerraSemper]

I don’t think I would equate nuns and sisters to brothers and monks (I assume that’s the equivalency you’re talking about). Nuns and sisters are spouses of Christ. While that aspect is more pronounced with nuns, I think, than sisters, it is nonetheless a part of their vocations. Brothers and monks, on the other hand, are not considered spouses of the Church. The only vocation for that is the priesthood.

Actually, this isn’t quite correct. Consecrated virgins are properly spouses of Christ and complimentary to bishops and brothers/monks/nuns/sisters are “followers of Christ”.

 

[SerraSemper]

That’s unfortunate. There have been mitred abbesses and certainly Carthusian nuns wear the maniple and stole…

 

[Divine3]

The uncomfortable feeling comes from the tragic experience of being next to a lie perceived as a truth. I would also feel very sorry that the woman believes she is really ordained. I would just pray in my heart for her salvation. She would never even know how uncomfortable I would be. Unless she asked me what I thought about women who think they are ordained.

 

[Episcopalian]

My skin would crawl if I had to be next to women who wear a priests collar and are so called ordained in some denomination. I feel ill just looking at women dressed up as priest.

That’s quite the reaction! It’s just clothes, when you really think about it.

Any sort of special connection or relationship a priest (male or female) has with God is completely transcendental and invisible.

Even further still, there’s probably thousands of people on Earth called to be priests and they don’t even know it yet! Who knows? It could be the plainclothes person sitting next to you at Mass, or even a felon currently in prison or something.

Having such a negative reaction to something you visibly see, pardon the pun: “blinds” you to understanding the reality of anyone’s special and unique relationship with our Lord.

The fact of the matter is: collar or no collar, trained or untrained, male or female, a priest is a priest.

 

[edwest211]

That is not the Catholic understanding. To agitate for women priests in the Catholic Church is a waste of time.

The adversarial title of this thread is the very obvious men versus women. Setting it up this way is false and only creates adversaries.

 

[Divine3]

Truth sets you free. And the reaction goes far beyond feelings. In my baptism in the Catholic church I am priest, prophet and a Kingly person. This is because of my baptism and if people would truly live out the promises of their sacramental baptism we would not even seek to be ordained a priest, if we are a woman that is. If all people treated others in the reality of priest, prophet and kingship we would have a beautiful life and world.

 

[Divine3]

Too bad you don’t know how to attack ideas instead of people

 

[Divine3]

That was pretty cool. But you don’t earn priesthood.

 

[John10]

The best answer to this is because Christ Himself did not instruct the Church to do so. Saint Paul the Second clearly stated this.

It is also inferred from the fact that Christ choose only male Apostles. This does not mean woman are inferior, it is simply understanding different roles carried out by each gender within the Catholic Church.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Why is it impossible to ordain women priests? I have never heard a satisfying answer (though I trust and merely want to understand the church’s teaching).

Because the priest acts in persona Christi and the Church is the bride of Christ.

 

[Fauken]

How and who did I attack?

 

[Brendan]

Why must there be precedent for doing something?

Because the precident demonstrates that Christ gave that particular power\authority to the Apostles.

The Apostles could only pass on the authority they were given. They could not simply take a power that Christ did not entrust to them.

There is zero evidence that Christ gave the Apostles authority to ordain women. Zero, None. Without that authority, the Pope can no more make up a power to ordain women than he could to change the moon into cheese.

Is it within the power of God to change the moon to cheese? Certainly. Is there any evidence that he gave that particular power to the Pope. Nope. Thus the pope could do neither ordain women nor change the moon into cheese.

 

[Thorolfr]

This does not mean woman are inferior, it is simply understanding different roles carried out by each gender within the Catholic Church.

A lot of Christian men before the modern period did believe that women were inferior in many ways. Thomas Aquinas certainly believed that women are intellectually inferior to men.

To begin to understand his position, we must ask why Aquinas thinks women intellectually inferior in the first place. Scripture is likely his first guide. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:10 that “man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man.” This passage echoes Genesis 2:18,19: “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will give him a helpmate.” Aquinas reasons from these scriptural passages that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Other passages indicate more clearly that the intelligence is the seat of woman’s divinely ordained inferiority. When in 1 Corinthians 11:3 St. Paul says that “man is the head of woman,” and in Ephesians 5:22 that “a husband is the head of his wife,” Aquinas takes it as evident that if men are meant to rule, it can only be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

What Aquinas Really Said About Women | Marie I. George

In several passages in the Summa Theologiae and elsewhere, Thomas Aquinas asserts that the . . . .

www.firstthings.com

 

[John10]

A lot of Christian men before the modern period did believe that women were inferior in many ways

I would find that very hard to believe, after all Christians both early and today have a great amount of reverence and respect for Mary, the Mother of God. Not to mention the fact that the first witness of Christ resurrection were indeed women.

 

[Thorolfr]

And then there’s this:

In reply to the question of whether the female should be subject to the male, Aquinas asserts that females are inherently subordinate to males and that this “subjection existed even before sin.” Female subordination, for Aquinas, is not a result of the fall, but part of the created order. Such female subordination, he argues, is actually “for their own benefit and good.” (This sounds eerily familiar.)

Following Aristotelian logic, Thomas adds that without female subordination, “good order would have been lacking in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates." (ST q.92, a.1, Obj. 2).

Thomas Aquinas on Women

by Frank A. James I have long been something of a fan of Aquinas. For many years I have told my students that Protestants have not given Aquinas his due. However, when it comes to his view of women…

carolyncustisjames.com

 

[Divine3]

O very sorry–sincere regrets-- I sent this to the wrong person and now I can’t find the spot or person who spoke attacking all priests as if they are all abusers. Sincere apologies.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

A lot of Christian men before the modern period did believe that women were inferior in many ways

I would find that very hard to believe, after all Christians both early and today have a great amount of reverence and respect for Mary, the Mother of God. Not to mention the fact that the first witness of Christ resurrection were indeed women.

I said, “inferior in many ways” (not all ways), and the intellect was apparently one of those ways.

 

[graciew]

You would benefit a lot sitting down with a priest and having a conversation… or several.It is like we cannot always “ put “ you into the mind of the Church. Which is a beautiful thing, nothing to run away from…

 

[steph03]

Ultimately it comes down to permission. I don’t believe the Church has the permission to do this, anymore than they would have permission to all of a sudden say that tbe gospel of Matthew is no longer considered Scripture but that we could add the gospel of Thomas instead.