For "Thinking Catholics" Only

[Franciscan]

This is a misreading. Pagan priestesses had ritual roles and were not leaders. That was the hangup. No one in ancient cultures thought that women were equal to men. Of course it was no part of true religion for women to function as sacred prostitutes or mere symbols either of fertility or virginity or both. These positions did not in fact dignify women, though contemporary neopagan ideology says that they did.

It was inconceivable in ancient culture for a woman to be treated as equal to a man in her capacity for leadership. That adequately explains why none of the Twelve were women. It is no insult to Jesus to say that proclaiming gender equality was not the purpose of His earthly ministry. He didn’t attack slavery either–does that mean that slavery is OK? He didn’t teach people about germs–does that mean that germ theory is wrong or that Jesus didn’t care about people’s health? **He left us to figure a lot of stuff out over time. **One of the things that we have figured out is that women are equal to men. A male-only priesthood makes no sense once that conclusion has been reached, and the contemporary attempts to formulate a non-sexist basis for the male-only priesthood are unconvincing.

Edwin

Who did he leave to ‘figure stuff out’? King Henry the VIII? No, he left the Apostles, and the Apostles, who did they leave? They left the bishops(of Rome and other places). And how do they ‘figure stuff out’? Through the on-going guidance and inspiration of the same Spirit who led them into the truth in Scriptures.

Jesus was not a conformist. So that explanation—"

“It was inconceivable in ancient culture for a woman to be treated as equal to a man in her capacity for leadership. That adequately explains why none of the Twelve were women.”

Is not adequate. At least not for “Thinking Catholics”.

 

[fix]

In the Catholic Church, we believe that an informed conscience is our highest authority…

Is not Christ the highest authority? Can an “informed” conscience contradict Truth and still claim to be correctly formed?

 

[rwoehmke]

Ah yes, for thinking Catholics. The key word here seems to be “thinking.” Without thinking how can anyone understand and give assent to anything the Councils, the Pope, or if you are somewhat polemical what “the Vatican says.” It seems that for some the notion that one thinks equals rejection of what our Church teaches.

There is no denying that some Jesuits have jumped the tracks, but their track record over the time of their existence has been exemplary. Whether one is a doubter or an accepter it seems to me that those following these ten tips would know their faith much better than someone who says, OK, I believe that. A thinker after the process would seem to be in a much stronger position as an evangelist or apologist. Just because one can regurgitate what they read or learned in class does not make them skilled in these roles.

As far as what Chesterton would say, I am sure I don’t know, but to say that he accepted with “blind faith” everything the Church has taught would be a mistake. Chesterton was a thinker. Someone who understood what the Church taught. The Lord deliver me from most of those with a Masters of Theology.

 

[Contarini]

Who did he leave to ‘figure stuff out’? King Henry the VIII? No, he left the Apostles, and the Apostles, who did they leave? They left the bishops(of Rome and other places). And how do they ‘figure stuff out’? Through the on-going guidance and inspiration of the same Spirit who led them into the truth in Scriptures.

No disagreement here. Your reference to Henry VIII betrays the usual complete ignorance of Anglican ecclesiology, but that’s irrelevant.

Jesus was not a conformist.

Jesus did not attack social mores without good reason. You fail to address the examples I gave. Why didn’t Jesus denounce slavery? Why didn’t He teach germ theory (as one atheist writer I once read reasonably asked)?

So that explanation—"

“It was inconceivable in ancient culture for a woman to be treated as equal to a man in her capacity for leadership. That adequately explains why none of the Twelve were women.”

Is not adequate. At least not for “Thinking Catholics”.

Your response is inadequate, because it ignores the substance of my argument.

Edwin

 

[fix]

The way this was presented was typical of post-modernist bilge where half-truths are mixed with bits of truth.

That is very correct.

 

[Franciscan]

No disagreement here. Your reference to Henry VIII betrays the usual complete ignorance of Anglican ecclesiology, but that’s irrelevant.

You’re not disagreeing? If you concede this point then why don’t you accept the way the Apostles and early church Fathers "figured out’ the priesthood?They have defined it as a doctrine in no uncertain terms. For them it’s not a cultural issue it’s a Faith/Salvation issue.

BTW how can you accept Apostolic Succession but reject the RCC?

Jesus did not attack social mores without good reason. You fail to address the examples I gave. Why didn’t Jesus denounce slavery? Why didn’t He teach germ theory (as one atheist writer I once read reasonably asked?

He would have had a good reason to attack the social more of women equality if he really wanted them to be priests**. The Sacrament of Holy Orders would have been important enough in his mind to get it right when He instituted it.

Im noy trying to ignore the subsatnce of your argument. You seem to be equating slavery and the women equality issue. I get what your point is but my point is that Jesus did say something about the priesthood but niothing explicit about slavery. So why are you tying them together?Your response is inadequate, because it ignores the substance of my argument.

Edwin

See bold above.

 

[clmowry]

This is a misreading. Pagan priestesses had ritual roles and were not leaders. That was the hangup. No one in ancient cultures thought that women were equal to men. Of course it was no part of true religion for women to function as sacred prostitutes or mere symbols either of fertility or virginity or both. These positions did not in fact dignify women, though contemporary neopagan ideology says that they did.

It was inconceivable in ancient culture for a woman to be treated as equal to a man in her capacity for leadership. That adequately explains why none of the Twelve were women. It is no insult to Jesus to say that proclaiming gender equality was not the purpose of His earthly ministry. He didn’t attack slavery either–does that mean that slavery is OK? He didn’t teach people about germs–does that mean that germ theory is wrong or that Jesus didn’t care about people’s health? He left us to figure a lot of stuff out over time. One of the things that we have figured out is that women are equal to men. A male-only priesthood makes no sense once that conclusion has been reached, and the contemporary attempts to formulate a non-sexist basis for the male-only priesthood are unconvincing.

Edwin

So the bolded section above would be your argument for why we should not have a male-only priesthood?

Correct?

Chuck

 

[Franciscan]

i love it – so much so that i’m changing my signature to this quote.

 

[chris_molter]

This is a misreading. Pagan priestesses had ritual roles and were not leaders. That was the hangup. No one in ancient cultures thought that women were equal to men. Of course it was no part of true religion for women to function as sacred prostitutes or mere symbols either of fertility or virginity or both. These positions did not in fact dignify women, though contemporary neopagan ideology says that they did.

It was inconceivable in ancient culture for a woman to be treated as equal to a man in her capacity for leadership. That adequately explains why none of the Twelve were women. It is no insult to Jesus to say that proclaiming gender equality was not the purpose of His earthly ministry. He didn’t attack slavery either–does that mean that slavery is OK? He didn’t teach people about germs–does that mean that germ theory is wrong or that Jesus didn’t care about people’s health? He left us to figure a lot of stuff out over time. One of the things that we have figured out is that women are equal to men. A male-only priesthood makes no sense once that conclusion has been reached, and the contemporary attempts to formulate a non-sexist basis for the male-only priesthood are unconvincing.

Edwin

I think the connection between leadership and priesthood is inseparable for proponents of women’s ordination. However, that connection itself seems an oversimplification of what the Priesthood truly is in Catholic theology.

Women are equal to men in what way? In terms of human dignity? Yes. In terms of salvation? Yes. Biologically? No. Ontologically? No. And it is the ontological component that renders the ordination of women to the Priesthood an impossibility.

 

[rwoehmke]

Isn’t the thread more than a little “hijacked”/

 

[Franciscan]

I think the connection between leadership and priesthood is inseparable for proponents of women’s ordination. However, that connection itself seems an oversimplification of what the Priesthood truly is in Catholic theology.

Women are equal to men in what way? In terms of human dignity? Yes. In terms of salvation? Yes. Biologically? No. Ontologically? No. And it is the ontological component that renders the ordination of women to the Priesthood an impossibility.

Well said. This also strikes at the heart of ecclesiology. Many proponents of female priests fail to see the church as anything more than human… “An oppresive patriarchical institution”.

 

[tomarin]

One of the things that we have figured out is that women are equal to men. A male-only priesthood makes no sense once that conclusion has been reached, and the contemporary attempts to formulate a non-sexist basis for the male-only priesthood are unconvincing.

isn’t this the same as saying that the modern world can improve the ancient teachings of the Church?

my understanding was that the priesthood remained male because the priest, in his office as priest, exists as a stand-in for christ himself when he celebrates the sacraments. as god chose to be born male, not female, and as his apostles were all males there is a precedent and a rationale behind a male-only priesthood that is non-negotiable, nomatter what the modern world says.

this doesn’t mean that women are inferior to men in any way (in fact they are superior to them in some respects) or that they have no role to play within the church; but that the priesthood has certain defined characteristics that are fixed in stone and cannot be changed.

 

[Ignatius]

I googled “thinking Catholics” and this is what I found…
The arrogance is mind boggling…
…
Survival Guide for Thinking Catholics: Ten tips from Tom Reese, S.J.

Not all Catholics agree with the Church all the time, and Tom Reese, S.J., will tell you there is no point in denying it. Questioning is not, however, something most Catholics undertake lightly. These disagreements are often born out of conscience, of genuinely believing in the faith while believing equally something that is at odds with the accepted teachings of the Church.

Reese outlined his strategies for Catholics who think, question, doubt, debate, and disagree.

Reese has no authority on which to stand.

 

[sodak]

I’ve thought about it. I’ll stick with the Church!

 

[Franciscan]

does a lack of response imply that the people im aruing with in this thread concede and have no response. atleast say so. thanks

 

[Fundamentalist]

However, before you come into the full presence of the face of God, we will all have come into agreement on his wants of us.

You don’t have to agree on everything, but you should understand it. The use of celibate priests, this will more than likely not change, but is it possible, well, yes it is. It has historical precidence and well as within the different rites of the church, not to mention, some converted pastors.

 

[rwoehmke]

Reese has no authority on which to stand.

So what did he pronounce on authoratively? Are we to concede that Catholics should not think? Is it dangerous? Good grief Charlie Brown!

 

[Franciscan]

However, before you come into the full presence of the face of God, we will all have come into agreement on his wants of us.

You don’t have to agree on everything, but you should understand it. The use of celibate priests, this will more than likely not change, but is it possible, well, yes it is. It has historical precidence and well as within the different rites of the church, not to mention, some converted pastors.

no one on this thread is arguing that celibacy can’t change.

 

[rinnie]

So what did he pronounce on authoratively? Are we to concede that Catholics should not think? Is it dangerous? Good grief Charlie Brown!

No we are not saying that we shouldnt think, we should always think, but we must also pray for the Grace to understand why the Church does what it does. And to know that through that Grace of God we can understand that there is a reason for everything God does, with his Church. And he didnt leave the Church to us, to run as we please. We dont have Authority to run it, God never left that authority to us. But see thats what the problem is, People cant understand the Grace you get through the Church and Gods blessings if you dont accept them. And if you want to run the Church your way or my way it wont be Gods Church anymore it will be your church. The RCC is not my Church to run as i please its Gods Church to run as he pleases. And that is why people leave the Church every day and make their own, they dont want to follow who God left in charge, they think they can do a better Job. Well they cant. Thats why people dont understand why we love and obey our Church. Because God told us to. Its thats simple, that easy. Maybe too easy for people to understand.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a quote from Cardinal Newman (a great thinking Catholic, himself) that sums up the kind of thinking Catholic that I aspire to be:

“Trust the Church of God implicitly even when your natural judgment would take a different course from hers and would induce you to question her prudence or correctness. Recollect what a hard task she has; how she is sure to be criticized and spoken against, whatever she does; recollect how much she needs your loyal and tender devotion; recollect, too, how long is the experience gained in 1800 years; and what a right she has to claim your assent to principles which have had so extended and triumphant a trial. Thank her that she has kept the faith safe for so many generations and do your part in helping her to transmit it to generations after you.”

I get choked up every time I read this quote.