female priests

[ricko]

If it was as important as you think, it would have been recorded.
Misogynist is a Greek word in origin and considerably pre-dates christianity. It hardly qualifies as a trendy political notion
**Why does he parade around in outfits that would put Liberace to shame???

Did Jesus spread the word dressed in such a manner??/**QUOTE]

Such comments as above are not welcomed here. Debate is ok. Insults is a no. Keep it civil and Christian please.

 

[Gnosis]

This is the problem. People keep declaring that their metaphors and symbolism based on biology equate to metasphyical realities. Then they pick and choose which aspects of the biology have metaphysical implications and which don’t and they ignore the implications of their symbols as metaphysics beyond the scope of what they are trying to prove. Example:

THE ARGUMENT ABOVE: God created the world ex-nihilo, therefore he can not be Mother because the world did not come out of God as though he gave birth to it.

God created the universe ex nihilo - “from nothing” - and since He is not nothing, it means He didn’t nurture it within Himself; He created it outside Himself. In this way, God shows us that although He can nurture and love and console us as a mother might, He is not to be confused as being female. The entire dynamic between God and His creation is that of a Father.

This analogy obviously works against the ex-nihilo position. If God is not Mother because he didnt nurture the universe in himself (a womb) but rather, is Father, then the entire world is “his sperm” and would actually be composed of his very essence.

If you are arguing that Jesus is the sperm that seeds the world (the womb) with life, then we would have to assume the entire world was dead before Christ, which would not work in co-operation of the idea of Adam and Eve and a pre-fall state of grace.

If you want to take the position that the world is “the womb” that God created and characterize the world as metaphysically female, then it does not make sense to say that God would have created the world to be both male and female.

There’s a reason we say symbols point to something, and thats because they are not objective statements of fact, but rather literary devices used to express an idea. When we start demanding symbols are the reality in and of themselves, you arrive at a whole slew of problems.

Finally, no one has shown how, metaphsyically, a woman can not work in the person of Christ because of a difference in gender. People keep stating it and declaring it a “mystery”, but no one is really giving an actual argument. I just keep seeing “genders are different” and “this is way its always been”.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

What I am pointing out is the inconsistency of your metaphors. It is said a priest must be male because the Church is the Bride. Okay, I will accept that momentarily. We have now characterized the Church as female.

The Church is female in spirit.

Gnosis:

The apparent consequences of the Church being female is an all male priest hood serving it.

But this is refering to the flesh.

See how you’re mixing Spirit and flesh here?

If the metaphor of the Church as female is to be consistently applied, however, it would render males incapable, on account of their gender, to be part of the “Bride”.

Since you seem to be mixing up aspects of the spirit and the flesh, I won’t even bother to mention that early church often refered to themselves, both male and female, as being pregnant with Christ.

ooops. I already said that, didn’t I?

Gnosis:

Secondly, it has not been explained how the fundamental difference between the genders exlcludes women from the priesthood.

Actually, in regards to the flesh, it has been explained to you.

The question of the spirit makes it much more complicated when one examines the aspects of God.

Gnosis:

The fundamental difference between genders did not preclude a male Jesus from becoming the sin offering on Calvary. It is obvious that, in atonement, Christ transcended boundaries and represened all genders before God in more than symbollic way, but literally took their place. If Christ can literally take a woman’s place before God, why can she not work in the person of Christ on the altar?

I guess this would be a bad time to mentioned that God too is sometimes described using feminine characteristics?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Would you consider this an aspect of the flesh or the spirit?

And if it’s an aspect of the flesh, then which kind of flesh?

And if it’s an aspect of the spirit, then which kind of spirit?

Is it safe to assume that you are also familiar with the Sophia wisdom (seems that way to me).

If so, I would also direct your attention to select passages from Proverbs 8…
Proverbs 8:

Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?

On the heights along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; beside the gates leading into the city, at the entrances, she cries aloud:

Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her.

"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.

I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it. Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.

For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD. But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death."

Would it surprise you that many Christians, including myself, perceive this passage to be refering to Jesus?

If so, why do you think Jesus is refered to in feminine terms here?

 

[Gnosis]

I am not confusing the spirit and the flesh, I am attempting to respond to your metaphors and analogies which consistently state that the gender of a person has spiritual consequences.

If a man is male in biology but female in the spirit (being part of the Church) then why can a woman not act in the person of Christ, that is, be female in the flesh but work in the person of Christ, who is male.

I won’t even bother to mention that early church often refered to themselves, both male and female, as being pregnant with Christ.

I would agree, that we can refer to the Church in both male and female terms and that we can refer to God in both terms.

Yet you fail to demonstrate how the biological differences prevent women from being capable of working in the person of Christ.

 

[Eden]

As much as i love hearing interprestations from the Bible, with respect it dosn’t asnwer my question. I seek to know how this religion gives hope and purpose to its followers. Not how the followers memorise a book and use it to argue every single point they have to make.

If you are interested in knowing how the Catholic faith gives hope and purpose to its followers, then start a thread asking that question. You determined to make this thread about “female priests”.

Back to the point acknowledgement that males and females are different is obviouse. BUT why disallow female priests, yes since they are different they will forfill the role differently but what is it about males that makes them so much better at the role than females?

I’m sure this has already been addressed. But as a female Catholic, I have to ask, why is this of concern to you as a non-Catholic?

btw agrueing that it is somehow gods will is not an arguement that would appeal to an agnostic such as myself.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but as an agnostic, you don’t have any weight of authority behind your opinions about the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly chose only men for the priesthood. Given the fact that the pagan religions had priests and priestesses at the time that Christ lived, it would not have been unusual for Him to have chosen to ordain both women and men to the priesthood, but He didn’t. For whatever reason, Jesus chose only to ordain men to the priesthood. The Christian religions that ordain women have rejected the model for the priesthood given to us by Christ in favor of a pagan model. The question should not be, “Why does the Catholic Church not allow women to be priests?” It should be, “Why have some Christian religions reverted to a pagan model of the priesthood?”

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I am not confusing the spirit and the flesh, I am attempting to respond to your metaphors and analogies which consistently state that the gender of a person has spiritual consequences.

Well…it does in Catholic theology. I’m not sure what else to tell you.

If you don’t beleive it, then there’s not much point in discussing the distinctions that Catholicism makes in regards to these issues.

Gnosis:

If a man is male in biology but female in the spirit (being part of the Church) then why can a woman not act in the person of Christ, that is, be female in the flesh but work in the person of Christ, who is male.

Because the relationship between man’s flesh and woman’s flesh mystically embodies Christ’s Spiritual relationship to the church’s spirit.

**Man’s flesh is to women’s flesh… **

…just as…

…God’s spirit is to humankind’s spirit.

Think about it. This is a pretty simple answer Gnosis. The formula is very clear in my opinion.

If you don’t believe this, then there’s nothing we can really do to convince you otherwise.

Gnosis:

I would agree, that we can refer to the Church in both male and female terms and that we can refer to God in both terms.

I can assure you that if you do not accept the Catholic faith’s belief in the the physical relationship between men’s flesh and women’s flesh manifesting the relationsip between God’s Spirit and humankind’s spirit, then you definitely will not get what I am trying to explain to you when I refer to God himself using feminine metaphors.

Gnosis:

Yet you fail to demonstrate how the biological differences prevent women from being capable of working in the person of Christ.

The only reason we fail to demonstrate this is because you don’t accept the traditional roles that the church believes men and women are called by God to do.

If you don’t believe this, then we can’t convince you of this. You are thinking along the lines of the more modern aspects of egalitarian thinking, something which the Church has pretty much rejected on the whole.

The church doesn’t do this to ‘suppress women’ and ‘keep men in power’. The Church does this because she believes that societies tends to break down when these biological roles are not assumed.

And society is breaking down specifically because the gender roles are being broken down-- rapidly.

Again, if you don’t believe this, then we can’t convince you of this. You have to be able to accept something in order to believe it.

 

[East_Anglican]

All members of the Church are priests. The difference here is ordained and being able to confer Sacramanents and say Mass.

As it is Christ who ordains and in him is niether male or female, I think it is fine thaty women can be ordained to confer Sacramanents and say Mass.

As all the promises in Christ are there’s equally as much as it is to men, then what’s the problem?

 

[AlegreFe]

As it is Christ who ordains and in him is niether male or female, I think it is fine thaty women can be ordained to confer Sacramanents and say Mass.

As all the promises in Christ are there’s equally as much as it is to men, then what’s the problem?

A woman cannot be espoused to the Church as the Church is the Bride of Christ. That is why Catholics call the Church “Holy Mother Church” and when we refer to the Church we sometimes refer to the Church as “she” or “her teachings” and so on.

If a woman was to be a Priest then it would be a lesbian relationship and we all know that two lesbians coming together cannot give life. The Priest gives life to us as children of God when he preaches the Word of God and gives us Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

 

[East_Anglican]

A woman cannot be espoused to the Church as the Church is the Bride of Christ. That is why Catholics call the Church “Holy Mother Church” and when we refer to the Church we sometimes refer to the Church as “she” or “her teachings” and so on.

If a woman was to be a Priest then it would be a lesbian relationship and we all know that two lesbians coming together cannot give life. The Priest gives life to us as children of God when he preaches the Word of God and gives us Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

We are all in The Church and we are all The Bride and Christ is our Husband.

To say that a woman being married to the church is lesbian is to say a man married to Christ is gay.

We are the bride of Christ.

 

[AlegreFe]

We are all in The Church and we are all The Bride and Christ is our Husband.

To say that a woman being married to the church is lesbian is to say a man married to Christ is gay.

We are the bride of Christ.

Oh come on… you know very well what I mean.

I know very well that since we are part of the body of Christ that we are all part of the church and therefore the Bride of Christ.

As a Catholic, the Book of Revelations tells me that at the end God wants to espouse all of us (well not only in the end but now), and that is why when we are at Mass, we are in Heaven and we are all the Bride of Christ.

In the Catholic Church it is said that Priests are espoused to the Church and Nuns/Sisters are espoused to Jesus Christ. Keep in mind however, that Priests and Nuns are not stupid as they all know very well that we are all the Bride of Christ.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

I wondered what the reasoning behind it was, and if I’m honest the arguments don’t hold water for me. 2000 years ago women were nothing more than the property of men and thus were very unlikely to even be considered for the church.

I doubt that I could become a Catholic, I’m too sceptical by nature and rarely accept things just because I’m told to

I didn’t become Catholic to accept what I was told like a good boy. I got a LOT of that on the Protestant side of the house. The “rules” of the priesthood are traditional. Tradition in and of itself is neither wrong or right, it just is. I wholehartedly disagree women aren’t priests because the of Levitical law. Christ fulfilled ALL of it, making us no longer subject to it as Christians.

I think the issue is being incorrectly framed. By today’s standards, the church is old fashioned (statement of fact). By standards of the 1st century AD, the church was quite radical. The roles opened up for women in the Christian church were UNHEARD OF at that time. Co-equality in marriage…another WOAH! Women could even participate in church!

The Catholic church is not the exclusive home of male only pastors. The church I went to also believed in male only pastors/apostles. Most denominations do not ordain women.

For arguments sake, are there any good female pastors that come to mind? In the town I grew up, the 1st Lutheran church ordained a woman as senior pastor. She didn’t have what it took to lead the church. The church became VERY feel good and lax. She let an openly practicing homosexual minister in the chruch because he was also the lead anchor on the 10 o’clock news. That’s the only one I ever knew first hand. I don’t consider that an indictment of ALL women in the church, just an example what can go wrong.

If women treated as second class Christians and disallowed from being a part of the Church as it was once, I would be right with you demanding reform. But women do play very important and different roles we males are not properly equipped to do. The same holds true for women. Why we can’t just accept our gender differences and use them for the betterment of all escapes me.

 

[Jennifer123]

Yet you fail to demonstrate how the biological differences prevent women from being capable of working in the person of Christ.

Emphasis mine. In the person, indeed. Jesus was a male. How can that be any less clear? You can’t ignore His humanity in order to make a “metaphysical” point.

 

[rice]

If you look back at the very original post i made, this thread was to address the arguement of male preists being as natural as female child bearers.

However all ive heard have been arguements that male priests is part of the religion. A tradition held on the basis that christ was male.

so im guessing you all agree with me that such an arguement is invalid.

is there any other reason why there are only male priests ?

 

[buffalo]

womenpriests.org/theology/macy.asp

there is the historical conclusion that at least some medievals, including bishops and popes, considered deaconesses and abbesses to be as ordained as any other cleric, given the definition of ordinatio used during these early centuries. As late as the twelfth century, there were still scholars who considered women to be sacramentally ordained.

despite continued opposition to that role by some church officials, these women routinely took on liturgical roles later reserved to the male presbyterate and diaconate. The answer to the historical question whether in fact Christians ever considered women as ordained clergy appears to be yes; women were considered to have been ordained at least in some ecclesiastical circles for over half of Christian history

There are “scholars” now that think the same thing. However, they have no authority in the Church. The Magisterium does.

 

[rcwhiteh]

Gnosis, pay attention:

I am not confusing the spirit and the flesh, I am attempting to respond to your metaphors and analogies which consistently state that the gender of a person has spiritual consequences.

If a man is male in biology but female in the spirit (being part of the Church) then why can a woman not act in the person of Christ, that is, be female in the flesh but work in the person of Christ, who is male.

… you fail to demonstrate how the biological differences prevent women from being capable of working in the person of Christ.

Previously, I stated:

Jesus did not call any women to be disciples, neither did He send them out into the world, swords tucked under their cloaks, to spread the Gospel. We don’t know why; indeed, we’ll never know why this side of Eternity.

We ***do ***know this: the Catholic Church is called to follow Christ’s example - even if it hurts. What He did, She may do; and what He did not do, She may not do. He forgave sins; so may She. He loved His persecutors; so must She. He did not ordain women; neither may She.

The Catholic Church believes that She has no authority to ordain women; Pope John Paul II (of blessed memory) formally declared this belief and made it binding on all the Faithful. Roma locutus est; causa finite est.

It is not a question of biology; it is a question of following the example of the Founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ.

Is it possible for a woman to possess the faith, the will to serve, or the devotion to make a fine priest? Yes, I believe so.

Can a woman correctly teach the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith? Well, we have plenty of female religious educators; there have to be a few.

Can a woman be ordained to the Sacrificial Priesthood of the Catholic Church? No, because the Church has no implicit or explicit authority as spoken or demonstrated by Her Founder.

Maybe you don’t like the idea that we follow His example; I suppose that means you don’t like our stand on forgiveness or charity, too, since we are doing what He told us and showed us to do.

This is the Universal Church; part of our life is the reflection of the male/female dynamic of the universe. We don’t change the way we act or the things we believe for the convenience of conforming to some human egalitarian ideal.

 

[Melchior]

just recently read a thread replied by an Apologist argueing that male only priests is as natural as female only child bearers.

seemingly a valid arguement but females are biologically build so that they alone may bear children. Im not sure God build males so that they are perfectly suited to be priests.

Considering there is no scientific evidence of sort and what evidence we do have sents the message that males would be worse priests with them being more aggresive.

It is not a matter of science. It is a matter of roles. Men and women are equal in a complenetarian way, not an egalitarian way. A woman can be every bit as theologically knowledgable as a man but that does not make it her role to be a head of a church.

Perhaps a better example would be this. A woman can raise children very well. But a woman can never be a father.

As for a theological reason it is a command from scripture:

1 Timothy 2: 12-15

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This is in the context of Church services. St. Paul makes his appeal to the created order as a reason. There seems to be an indication here of women being more easily deceived when they assume a role that is not theirs. Eve undermined her husband and the results were bad indeed.

Beyond that we need not understand all the details it is enough to know that Men and women are different, physically, emotionally ans psychologically. We are equal made in God’s image, but are roles reflect different aspects of the image of God.

Beyond that Priest represent Christ was was a man. God chose to be Incarnated as a man and he chose His representatives to be men. There is something inherent in the need for masculinity in the role of priest. Something a woman can never naturally be - masculine. Unfortunately, today there are far to many priests that are not masculine at all - in fatc very feminine. It is no wonder boys don’t aspire to the priesthood like the used too. Not enough “men” in the priesthood these days.

 

[Melchior]

If you look back at the very original post i made, this thread was to address the arguement of male preists being as natural as female child bearers.

However all ive heard have been arguements that male priests is part of the religion. A tradition held on the basis that christ was male.

so im guessing you all agree with me that such an arguement is invalid.

is there any other reason why there are only male priests ?

Let’s make it real simple. Would you want a woman as a father? I am sure you would not. The Priesthood functions on the same principle as fatherhood. Women cannot be fathers. Men cannot be mothers. It is that simple.

 

[rcwhiteh]

If you look back at the very original post i made, this thread was to address the arguement of male preists being as natural as female child bearers.

However all ive heard have been arguements that male priests is part of the religion. A tradition held on the basis that christ was male.

so im guessing you all agree with me that such an arguement is invalid.

is there any other reason why there are only male priests ?

It’s obvious you didn’t read any of my posts; I’m hurt!

It is not a question of biology; it is a question of following the example of the Founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ.

Is it possible for a woman to possess the faith, the will to serve, or the devotion to make a fine priest? Yes, I believe so.

Can a woman correctly teach the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith? Well, we have plenty of female religious educators; there have to be a few.

Can a woman be ordained to the Sacrificial Priesthood of the Catholic Church? No, because the Church has no implicit or explicit authority as spoken or demonstrated by Her Founder.

I tend to stand by this argument for two reasons: first, it avoids the tedious arguments about one’s sex and their spirit, and second, it conforms to the statement made by Pope John Paul II when he formally declared that the Church had no authority to ordain women and made the belief binding on all Catholics. Again: Roma locutus est; causa finite est (Rome has spoken; the cause is finished).

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… christ was male …

is there any other reason why there are only male priests ?

It’s not so much that He was male, but rather, it is because He is the Groom. A woman can not be a Groom.

Maybe you should focus less on the “male” aspect, and focus more on the “Groom” aspect.

(See my posts again, starting from # 9 above…)

 

[prodigal-sun]

I would say more modestly.

Oh you want modesty do you! Pope John Paul II lived a very modest lifestyle. No belongings except personal items. Slept on a small cot in a sparsely decorated bedroom.

You mistake dressing properly and respectably for ones position in life for being immodest. Modesty comes from the heart and can be veiwed by the actions of both BXVI & JPII.

On the other hand your arrogance and imodesty shines through in your writing.

Peace to you & your family on this Christmas Season.