Dear brothers and Sisters,
Me again, below is part 2 of my refute.
Peace SG
**I’m sorry you were not better catechized before you became a Catholic Did you not ask this question regarding women priests during your RCIA classes? One has to publicly profess to believe in everything the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches in order to become a Catholic. That means accepting her teaching regarding women priests.
I did RCIA twice before joining it and had some of the best teachers on hand might I also add. The church asks us to accept the teaching, it does not say we have to agree with all of it. As a Catholic, I do not pretend to agree with everything the church teaches. I agree with everything found in the apostles and the Nicene Creed as well as many other points such as the theology surrounding the Eucharist. I was told when I was discerning that I didn’t have to agree with everything. This area is one I don’t agree with because of my background. I respect the priesthood. I am lucky to have an amazing priest at my church, plus there are some amazing other ones in my area, who I have a lot of respect for. They are extremely talented and God following men that my area is lucky to have. I don’t repute that.
I’ve met and know many talented women who I believe the church under uses because it doesn’t have a lot of ministerial positions for women that allow all of their talents to be used fully. If women can do the liturgy of the word, plus other things both on a lay and religious level they can certainly can be given some sort of ministerial position that is outside the present tradition. It would be wonderful if they would be allowed to become priests. The church is full of tradition, giving them that sacred name will be difficult for other to accept. I think that women should have a greater role inside the church. Kids are basically taught that if they are a girl they can be a mother, a nun or can do some other lay ministry which isn’t defined nor is it available at all dioceses. If they are boys, they can became all that plus priests. This is unequal and it’s something I don’t agree with.
They used grape juice instead of wine but that didn’t make it the Eucharist. Grape juice isn’t wine and women aren’t men. One is suitable for the sacrament and one isn’t. Holy Orders is a male only sacrament instituted by Christ.
I understand your comparison but at the same time, both wine and grape juice have the same first ingredient which is called: grapes. After their harvest they become two different ailments: juice and wine. Because the original substance in both cases is the same, I would like to know why is it that women regardless if they are religious or lay can give out the ailments during communion, visit the sick, provide spiritual direction yet we also see priests do this. Women can do all sorts of things inside the church on a lay level or as one person mentioned some nuns are allowed to hear confessions, why can’t women be allowed or at least be given a ministerial position where they will be allowed to do some of the priestly duties. People complain about having a priest shortage perhaps if a position was created for women who could take on some of their duties, at least some of the pressures would be removed. This position currently does not exist.
The question is not whether women are as capable of men in priestly capacity. Obviously, they are capable.
Thank you for stating that.
My opinion is that a female priesthood would add absolutely no benefit for the Church. If women would only do what men have done in the Church all along, what’s worth breaking the old tradition of a male priesthood? Yes, there were female deaconnesses and clergy up until a millenia ago; but even back then the clergy was predominantly male, and church leadership has always been male. The Apostles were all men; I don’t for second believe that Christ selected only men because of societal constaints – you don’t have to read even the entire Gospel to see how he regarded societal constraints.
My question is: if in the third to fifth century women were allowed to be deacons, why fifteen hundred years later, women are not allowed to be that when history clearly states it was so. Plus the Bible does mention other women who Jesus knew. He sat with them. He taught them. He also respected his culture.
Tradition has its place but there are also times when it has to be broken for example look at the Woman’s suffrage movement. It began in the USA states in 1848 and through hard work, suffering, sacrifice, Congress passed the law in 1918. This law was ratified in 1920, known today as the Nineteen Amendment which prohibited state and federal agencies from gender-based restrictions on voting. In Canada it began in 1878, with the nation giving the first right to women who were related to the militia in 1917. From 1916 to 1925, slowly each province minus Quebec in 1940 and the territories in 1951 gave women the vote. Both Nations have forever benefited because women vote and are active inside both countries governing structures. If nations across the world have benefited by breaking tradition and giving women the right to vote, certainly tradition can also be broken to at least give women greater ministerial opportunities to use their gifts to expand Christ’s message.**
