I believe in not ordaining women, because the Church says it formally-put

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foolishmortal

Guest
Still, the argument that Jesus did not happen to choose women as apostles, for being women and not men, doesn’t seem to close the book. Some point out OT clerical leaders of Judaism being priests, as chosen by God; not priestesses. Maybe Jesus only picked men, because women couldn’t rough the harsh environment on foot might be a better explanation (though it wouldn’t explain why not today) or something Biblical and/or typological. I don’t think Jesus was going to expose his mother to the elements or to getting executed and he had his apostles by the time Mary Magdalene spent any time with him, but I can’t know his kind of thinking, because it’s God’s mind. Does anyone have a better explanation for why we don’t have female clerics?

Anyway, the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to put the teaching as infallible doctrine, so I believe women cannot be ordained, but one is the Queen of Heaven and all in it (a rank no male creature of God’s ever had or will have), St. Philemona is super-powerful as an intercessor for us with God, St. Joan of Arc led troops into battle, and some were doctors of the Church. I don’t get all the bellyachin’ about women not being priests when the Church made them the most privileged creatures of God in heaven–the Blessed Virgin Mary outranking even the angels!)
 
There are three reasons for ordaining women as priests, one psychological, one sociological and one utilitarian (useful). Psychological, women can better empathize with other people; sociological, women have entered into all professions and excel in it too so why not the priesthood; and utilitarian you can increase the number of people applying for the priesthood.

The problem with these three reasons is that you can use it for any thing even for homosexuals. That is what the Anglicans have just found out.😦
 
Ordination isn’t a right. It’s a gift.

It’s hard to grasp, but it’s a natural reason. Women can’t be priests for the same reasons men can’t have babies. We are created seperately for different reasons. Different abilities. Men have the ability to be priests, women have the ability to have children, it’s just how we are made.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105fea4.asp

Bascially if God wanted women to be with Jesus while he was here they would have gone no matter what. God would have made them strong enough for the journey.

Jesus was all knowing, he picked who he picked because they were the right ones for the job. He didn’t choose as you or I would based on physical attributes pertaining to the journey.
 
If women can’t be priests, Jesus would have not picked them, because they were women. I just understand that women can focus on more things at once. I also think most vote Democrat, the Democrats that vote for abortion and such, as they have less resistance to emotions than men (at least in ways that could complicate their holding to difficult Church teachings). Despite modern times, when rationalism became really a cover for living according to the flesh, men are naturally more wired to hold to rational reasoning than emotional kind.

Some think women did follow along, kind of like groupies, and one may have been Peter’s wife. I don’t know, but the religious life is about leaving wife, parents and/or family to serve God and serving God in the capacity of a cleric really needs to be an all-day work or to get away from those being obstacles to your salvation (well, I don’t know if kids can leave the area of parents who are hostile to God unless it’s a boarding school or something). Did the Church ever refute that notion of women, including wives of married apostles, following along, if it’s wrong?
 
Priests are ontologically configured to Christ at their ordination. That means, configured in their very being. As Christ was male, it is impossible for a woman to be ontologically configured to Him. Period, end of discussion. This configuration of the man to Christ enables him to act in persona Christe - in the person of Christ. This gift allows Christ to act thru him in carrying out his ministry - consecrating the bread and wine, forgiving sins, etc.

Anyone who attempts to carry out these ministries not in persona Christe - as a woman cannot be - is committing the gravest of sins.
 
For me, it’s completely obvious that Jesus had absolutely no taboos about his relationships with women. When you think of Martha and Mary, the woman at the well, the hemmorhaging woman (who made him ritually unclean by touching him, by the way, but He cared not a jot).

He was way ahead of His time and as far as I can see would’ve had no problems with having women priests, women Apostles, women whatevers, if He had wanted them.

And of ALL women, Mary His mother would absolutely have been given the supreme honour of the priesthood if it were possible to give it to women - He was bound by the commandments to honour her, after all. But He chose not to. That must’ve been for a reason. That reason must be that we’re not meant to be priests, simple as that.
 
I also think most vote Democrat, the Democrats that vote for abortion and such, as they have less resistance to emotions than men (at least in ways that could complicate their holding to difficult Church teachings). Despite modern times, when rationalism became really a cover for living according to the flesh, men are naturally more wired to hold to rational reasoning than emotional kind.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I’m going to choose to laugh at this rather than be offended, but I have no idea how you are linking women to Democrats, abortion, non-rational reasoning and the inability to hold to Church teachings.

Please.
 
Ok. Mea culpa. It was a sort of freudian slip. Not all Republicans are pro-life and any men can vote with their pocketbooks or secondary sex characteristics in their mind, but the candidates often cater to conservatives in social matters, even if just throwing them a bone. Most all college guys are thinking effeminately and thus, don’t think wisely anymore. It’s true that women are more attuned to their emotions and a misinformed conscience could get them misled by those who teach that abortion is for the sake of the mother or baby or that we must save the planet.

Men might not be attuned enough to their feelings and might try for power over things or people, but are more likely to be leaders, as it is natural to them. The man is the woman’s glory and the man as head of the family, I think, developed from ontology. Men need the woman to be moreso than he, the heart of the household. Women need a wise guardian like St. Joseph, and not wimps, grown-up children or playboys, as husbands or society crumbles.

There are level-headed and caring women in charge of things and thinking rationally, but the freedom to follow that in society went to too many of their heads with their civil rights, who weren’t. They started becoming more like a King Herod the Great in power-desiring (birth control and office hold) than a St. Joseph, and Mary’s became less a model to them. Even George Carlin, way back when I watched his stuff, was concerned about women taking on the worst behaviors of men with these liberties. If their woman’s pride is loosed by society, man has lost his moorings and society crumbles. Women can turn men’s heads for better or worse. Guys always will rule over things ultimately and usually make fools of power-hungry women in office. At best, they’re no more powerful. In the home, the woman can humble a man, though going too far might effeminise him. Women have a lot of power in nations as the home is their castle. They know it through and through and can set people against others. They can use intuition to make powerplays.

It’s a counterparts thing.
 
LilyM said:
For me, it’s completely obvious that Jesus had absolutely no taboos about his relationships with women. When you think of Martha and Mary, the woman at the well, the hemmorhaging woman (who made him ritually unclean by touching him, by the way, but He cared not a jot).

He was way ahead of His time and as far as I can see would’ve had no problems with having women priests, women Apostles, women whatevers, if He had wanted them.

And of ALL women, Mary His mother would absolutely have been given the supreme honour of the priesthood if it were possible to give it to women - He was bound by the commandments to honour her, after all. But He chose not to. That must’ve been for a reason. That reason must be that we’re not meant to be priests, simple as that.
Click to expand...
👍 Great post. My wife really struggles with this (its a barrier to her with the Church). I’ve been talking with her about Mary - how, while God has not chosen to make woman priests, the most important and most blessed and most honored “person” (other than Christ) in the Church is Mary.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Does anyone have a better explanation for why we don’t have female clerics?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The reasons are ones that are not worldly reasons, and undo the blurring of gender roles, their purposes and fulfillments. To find them you can seek amidst the things the world and Feminist movement most promote and reject regarding gender – and look to and understand that the truth is in the exact opposite of what they say. Exact opposite, deeply within.

… Here’s an example of something opposite.

Or this.

Women will only find their fulfillment in things different than men, but complementary.

Our God is a God of hierarchy and different roles, of leadership and service, not sameness and equality of authority and roles. There is beauty in leadership and in service, and in rules and limits as well as freedoms. Our God teaches people to find fulfillment in the opposite of what the world values.
 
I used to kind of feel like “no women priests” was a bit iffy in the justice department, but then I came up with a way of thinking about it that makes sense to me…

Biologically and by definition, women already have something that men can never have, and that’s the sacred ability to bear children. This doesn’t mean that ALL women have to be wives and mothers, nor does it mean that men cannot have an important role in parenthood, but motherhood is a very special role that only women can have.

Similarly, men should be able to have an ability that women can never have, and according to us that’s the sacred ability to serve as a priest and administer the sacraments. This doesn’t mean that ALL men have to be priests, nor does it mean that women cannot have an important role in ministry, but priesthood is a very special role that only men can have.

So it’s not a statement against the worth of womankind, it actually brings about equality! 🙂

… At least that’s how I like to think of it. Just my two cents.
 
Before I became a Catholic I went through a spell where I wanted to be a minister. But had to realize that I wasn’t called to that. It was all self-centered ego stuff. I wanted to stand out, be a leader. I think these women may have the same motive. And I said may. This isn’t to say that I know what those motives are.

It’s said to see this happen. But our world is basically falling apart. We need to be more careful and pray more. Things will only get worse.
 
Sorry I ranted. It was probably a wounded inner-child move (I was not abused, but I’m at least half-melancholic, with some of the phlegmatic, and absorbed negativity and naturally filtered out more positive moments), but I let myself go for it, so mea culpa X3. I know there are many decent and modest women, because I’ve met some and they are on Catholic radio and tv. I wanted to say in that rent that, if women may be out of place, so are men these days and that, naturally, there are many men too, who can struggle more with their emotions than others (not just violence to feel big, but also being influenced by forces that effeminise them), though some that would be more leader-like are not, these latter decades being as they have been, just as, with the same Masonic influence, many women verbally abuse men and defile themselves as a power move. I do understand that abused people given freedom to be free of abuse, don’t really know how to moderate the freedom (like how Europeans left Africa; nice it happened, but mass psychology just wasn’t studied then or it was in its infancy, though you’d think it had been tried before) and people turn on their own and make serious social other errors [S. Korea’s divorce rate skyrocketed after they were finally totally free to govern themselves and it didn’t help that the developed world had the errors of Russia in its maturity (which is mankind in its immaturity) by then]. All in the West had not long before felt free of the Church and its teachings, at least cognitively (subconsciously, I think people still feel guilt and that messes with their self-perceived sense of modern reason and drives them crazy.
I hope this sounded charitable. My attempts at charity can sound like Jack Nicholson’s in “As Good as it Gets”.
 
equality
Click to expand...
Why is it unfair if God creates one sex with different or more opportunities than another?

Is it unfair to a fish that God created frogs?

Is it unfair to a child whom God takes away young, that God created someone else to live to adulthood?
 
🙂 In answer to your question I have a problem with it for these reasons In GEN 1:27 man and woman were made equal up until Eve sinned Gen:3:16 Then Adam became active authority over Eve because God cursed her.But as far as salvation we are equal Galations:3:28 states: there is neither Jew nor Greek,slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.Where did Queens come from?There are 188 names of woman in the bible.Prophets,JudgesEx:15:20 Judges:4:4 Kings:22:14 Luke:2:36 Many woman went with the decipals on their journeys they had money and influence.Thyatira,who Paul taught had wealth and gave a home to Paul and his companions. Phebe was a deaconess at the church of Cenchrena Joanna in Luke :8:3 24:10 ministered to Jesus.At least woman wont have to take the blame for the mess this world is in right now,it’s like Darwins theory,monkeys still dont work nor do they pay taxes to much that is given Much more is expected.:rolleyes: Nancy
 
GEN 1:27
Click to expand...
Actually, no, when Eve was created it is clear she had different roles even before the Fall. 🙂

And I think the deaconess issue has been discussed before, was a different role than a male deacon, and not a matter of holy orders – called reading into what you want to see when people seize upon that. Need to be honest with oneself.

Part of Catholic Tradition is acknowledging that the ways of the saints are ours, not the ways of the world and change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top