A
Another_Andrew
Guest
But that was a different baptism altogether–a non-sacramental baptism of repentance as opposed to a sacramental entry into the Mystical Body of Christ, which purifies our souls in a very real way.
- Status
A
Auntie_A
Guest
What I say is that female leaders in the entire world are still an exception to the rule. Some men and women might follow a woman but most men and women follow male leadership without question. Mary and Mary magdalen were exceptional, as were many of the female disciples and saints, but the men held the political power then, and even now.
If the Church were ever to change on this issue it would take a great change amongst most people to allow a woman to lead. I would have no problem with such a change but I understand that many would have difficulty.
And the Church has never claimed to be swift to change with the times…I’m glad. Times change, truths are eternal.
If the Church were ever to change on this issue it would take a great change amongst most people to allow a woman to lead. I would have no problem with such a change but I understand that many would have difficulty.
And the Church has never claimed to be swift to change with the times…I’m glad. Times change, truths are eternal.
A
Auntie_A
Guest
Jesus was not in repentance although John practiced baptism for repentance. That is why John said he was unfit to baptize Jesus. Jesus words to “fulfill all righteousness” indicate cooperation with an orthodoxy, an established ritual, and he condoned this as a worthy holy ritual or sacrament.
A
Another_Andrew
Guest
True, though my point was more that neither Jesus nor any other part of the New Testament indicates that anyone could baptize (as far as I can remember). I thought it roughly analogous to Jesus not appointing women as apostles.
P
Petaro
Guest
Infallible or not, it is an order to obedience to the whole Church including Fr. Francis A. Sullivan, The issue is closed even to theologians.
J
JerryZ
Guest
Actually John’s baptism is precisely the reason the Church allows, NO, recognizes that anyone can perform it.
John was NOT one of the twelve. True he was a Prophet however his ministery was not directly connected to the preaching and teaching Jesus was imparting to His Apostles. When Jesus commanded His 12 to go out and Baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (the Sacramental Baptism) they heard that people were doing it apart from them possibly John’s followers, so they sent envoys to find out HOW these other people were Baptizing. When they found out that the formula being used was the correct one they had to decide wether it was valid or not.
Baptism is a Sacrament that speaks of community. By it, the Baptized enters into the family of GOD. The Baptizer uses his mouth to utter the word but the action is taken by the Trinity. It is also why the Church recognizes Baptism by desire as also valid. If a person wanted to be Baptized but no one was there to utter the words for him. He dies unable to receive it, GOD in His mercy grants that person his/her wish.
C
cena
Guest
What about women called to be sister, nuns, etc.? They don’t have two vocations at once. In the Eastern Church married men can become priests.Hey Andrew,
This is just a mix of my own thoughts and things I can loosely recall; I might be completely off on all of it, but:
I think this is a much smaller deal than feminists and people for equality like to make it. Anyone can be a wonderful person, a great Christian, and an exemplary follower of Christ without ever being ordained. A good example of this is the vast number of female saints. Saint Mary, the greatest created human being ever, was a woman. (If you identify this as a false dilemma, you’re missing the point.)
However, I believe men-only-priests isn’t something God revealed to us, it’s something we decided. I.e. It could change if we decided to change it.
I think the Church’s reasoning went something along the lines of: women tend to be better caretakers of children, and thus are better suited for the vocation of marriage, which is just as holy and just as Christian as ordination. If Mary was the perfect woman, note that she was nothing if not a mother. Not to put any fellow men down, but I think the woman is the more important figure in the sacrament of marriage than the man, even if the man is the family leader. Men tend to be more philosophical and more zealous in their work, and thus are better suited to the vocation of ordination, aka doctors/ministers to God’s (adult) people. If Jesus was the perfect man, note that He was nothing if not a minister. (Please don’t be a SA and take this literally–you know what I mean.)
The Church also (I think) reasoned that being truly dedicated to two life-vocations at once would be difficult to impossible. Thus, even if we decided to start women priesthood too, I think there would would be some rule, like that of men priests, stating they could not also be married. Now this seems contrary to the main purpose of womanhood, thus, only men are ordained.
But, as your debater said, some women do make good leaders, or fulfill the fatherly role well. So maybe someday we, the Church, really will decide to allow women’s ordination.
My main point is: selectivity in ordination is pretty much up to us. And: discrimination in this and in many other things isn’t necessarily hateful or unfair; it can be a good thing.
-Greg
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is there any example of a woman baptizing in the New Testament?
A
ahs
Guest
I’m 15 minutes into Peter Kreeft’s talk. It’s well worth it so far.
Here’s a very important point: atheists can’t logically argue for women priests and still remain atheist. Their position that an all-male priesthood is unfair, unjust, unequal, begs the question…“based on what objective moral standard?”. They don’t believe in objective moral standards because that necessarily leads to the reality of God. So, their argument is logically invalid from the start. You might remind them of that while you dialog with them. Unless they are willing to admit an objective moral standard, all they can do is argue their opinion vs. your equally valid and correct opinion.
Jesus broke cultural norms simply by talking to women and treating them as they should have been “from the beginning”. Jesus didn’t bow down to culture. He worked against every aspect of “culture” that was contrary to God’s Design. God, not man, designed the Priesthood. And this was not a new creation of Christ’s. The Priesthood was established by God since the time the Levites were called Levites. God designed it, and the Church claims no authority to change what God instituted.
Here’s a very important point: atheists can’t logically argue for women priests and still remain atheist. Their position that an all-male priesthood is unfair, unjust, unequal, begs the question…“based on what objective moral standard?”. They don’t believe in objective moral standards because that necessarily leads to the reality of God. So, their argument is logically invalid from the start. You might remind them of that while you dialog with them. Unless they are willing to admit an objective moral standard, all they can do is argue their opinion vs. your equally valid and correct opinion.
That’s the point I am making, though. It really IS based on “feelings”. A woman “meets every requirement…except she’s a woman…” based on what? By what authority does anyone claim she meets Priestly “qualifications”? It will boil down to “feelings” or some claim to private revelation. Again, God instituted the Priesthood, not the Church. The Church claims no authority to change what God established. And why isn’t her “womanhood” a significant factor here? Was male/female and accident by God, or an intentional and good difference that matters? And, again to the atheist, based on what objective moral standard should a woman be seen as “equal” to a man?
Why did God allow His Son to be crucified? Why do ANY of us carry hard burdens? Why is their plight more important than ours? What makes someone think that God has laid this burden upon them? Why isn’t it just as likely that their fallen human nature is tempted by evil desires which are contrary to God’s Will? Why don’t these women take this urge to change what God established and use that energy to serve God in other ways that don’t reject God’s institution of the Priesthood? Are they really trying to serve God, or serve themselves?
What is the Priesthood that the Sisterhood is not? Is this a power-grab on the part of wanton women? Again, are they wanting to serve God and His people? Or are they only out to serve themselves?
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Your comment is unsubstantiated personal opinion based on the liberal doctrine of feminism.
But if you believed Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church, fully alive and present with us today, which Catholics DO believe, then you would be SHOCKED if Jesus did NOT have full awareness of exactly what his Virginal Bride, The Church, His Body, does and teaches. In fact, it is His Spirit, the Holy Ghost, which leads the Church in her teaching and doctrines.
A
ahs
Guest
Well, He IS alive today. And I think rather that He is “shocked to discover” that some ecclesial communities think they have the authority to change what God instituted [an all-male Priesthood]. But that’s just my opinion. For the Church’s part, the Church claims no authority to change what God instituted.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
One priest’s opinion does not come close to settling the issue.
Listen to Kreeft’s talk.
At least get a sense of why the practice exists and what is represented BEFORE deciding that the Church is wrong. How can you possibly know it is wrong when you don’t know or haven’t considered why it might be the correct practice, even if it is a practice?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
All of the above is based upon your impressions gleaned by a clearly skewed view of history, the role of Mary Magdelene and the intentions of Jesus. One that appears to be more about YOUR agenda than remotely resembling what could reasonably be taken from the historical narrative or understood as the mission of Jesus or the content of his teachings.
It may be your “pet” theory, but to anyone familiar with the Gospels, the early Church, the teachings of Jesus, the importance of the Holy Spirit in guiding Tradition, and a host of other relevant factors, your thesis bears NO resemblance to reality.
You, too, could benefit from a more balanced perspective and a clearer overview of the Christian message. As such, your cheap binoculars make insignificant features appear to take up the entire field of view. Not only that, but the feminist filter you are using blocks you from perceiving aspects of the narrative that you have no idea even exist owing to those filters.
Yes, I know, your modern liberal feminism is causing you to bristle at this very moment.
A
ahs
Guest
Yes! I just finished it and it was very enlightening. I had not considered a great deal of what he discusses. I actually took notes.
I may write an article on the topic, now that I have a better understanding of it. Maybe after the new year.In Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, God is masculine. He is so by nature, not just because we recognize Him and call Him such. Christ is a reflection of God the Father. So, Christ came to us as a male. Priests are a reflection of Christ…so they are male. This, by God’s Authority, not that of the Church. The Church claims no right to usurp God’s design of the Priesthood.
That was one of several point made in the video.
Another is the supposed “feminism”. In a great twist of irony, those proposing the female priesthood on the basis of dignity or importance are, themselves, saying that there is something undignified in being a woman. And what about the 99% of men who are also not Priests? Are they less dignified because of that? No, and neither are women who are not Priests…for the same exact reason.
The video talk gets much deeper than the little I mentioned above. I HIGHLY recommend it!
R
robertkchacon
Guest
No,it was not for cultural reasons of that day. Christ broke down all kinds of cultural barriers of that day, including providing more respect for women. Christ came to establish a Church among other things. He gave us all kinds of iconoclastic models while He was here. Why would he hold to a male dominated clergy if it was just for cultural reasons when he broke nearly every other cultural norm?! It makes no sense.
To me, its very simple. Christ gave us the model of a an all male priesthood in His Apostles. The early Church upheld that tradition. Despite what the historical revisionists say, women clerics were an aberration, and NOT the norm! If Christ wanted to make the point that women were to be included in all aspects of ministry as he showed that there were NO cultural barriers in other areas, he would have given us the model. He didnt. Men and women are different. The priesthood is NOT a job! Its a vocation in the body of Christ. As such , we are called to the vocation as Christ established it , not as we wish it! We dont know Christs reason for selecting an all male leadership. Perhaps he wanted women to focus on a higher spirituality and not have to be burdened with the sometimes mundane nature of running a parish. Who knows?
But to ignore that men and women are different is to ignore and reject the gift of each gender. Perhaps to God having a female priest is like having a man give birth! He gave two very different roles to men and women in our procreative natures. Is it really that hard to grasp that perhaps in our spiritual natures, there are also distinct roles unique to each sex? Hardly, in my opinion. I think much Catholic opposition to male only clergy is simply an inability to take a stand against the culture.
The culture wants to eliminate very real differences between men and women. In some areas this is very good! But we should not let what is good for the secular world mean that is MUST and necessarily be appropriate for the Kingdom of God! God created the human sexes differently. He could have just made us asexual and split in two like a single cell organism. But he made us two very different beings. To insist that we are completely the same except for our sex related physiological characteristics is absurd! Those differences affect our psychology, and perhaps our spirituality as well.
If Christ came to earth today and said he wanted women in the priesthood, I wouldnt blink! But , it is those who support women ordination who must provide the evidence that Christ would want female clergy when He modelled something completely different for Church clergy than what he taught in all other cultural norms! He did allow women leaders in some areas. But that actually proves He preferred a male clergy. Why would have women like Mary Magdalene and Priscilla and Aquila as clear leaders, and yet never select women as Apostles?? And , then why would the Church then select a man to replace Judas Iscariot? The Apostles clearly received a message that the Apostles were to be men! Perhaps they got it wrong. But if they got that so wrong, how do we trust them for anything else? NO! We accept the Tradition of the Early Church, not the norms of modern culture. Im sorry, but I trust the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers much more than I do Gloria Steinem and Camille Paglia , the Huffington Post and even the Methodists, Anglicans and on and on! The burden of proof lies with those in favor of women ordination. And to this point , I have seen no theology that undermines Church Tradition. All I ever see is the modern complaints about equality! Having the same vocation ,ie. the priesthood does NOT make men and women equal in the eyes of God.
A
Another_Andrew
Guest
I don’t have time to reply to anyone, even where I disagree with them, but I’d like to thanks you all for the arguments you’ve given. They should be very helpful in explaining my beliefs to others. I don’t expect to convince anyone by them, but at least I can be sure that the Church’s teaching here makes sense.
E
estesbob
Guest
Jesus is alive today -he is found in the Church he founded , the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. If Jesus wanted female priests it would be so. He most certainly would not have let his church be in error for 2,000 years.
C
CarolNoel
Guest
Well said:thumbsup:
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Today, women are allowed to baptize without wearing headcovering, in spite of what is mandated in Scripture. The baptism is valid even though the woman did not wear a headcovering, as long as she observes the rules for valid Baptism. Are there any examples of women baptizing without headcovering either in the New Testament or in the early Church? Isn’t Baptism a Sacrament of the Church which women are allowed to perform without wearing headcovering, even though we do not see this in the early days of the Catholic Church?
- Status