Ordaining women priests. What say you?

[Link0126]

“In the late '70s she got married, had two kids and was working as an assistant at a law firm in Rochester, N.Y.”

Haha. Not only is she a woman, she’s also married! So lame.

 

[belorg]

If a validly elected pope were to come along in the future and proclaim ex cathedra that a Dogma is wrong or some women priests are ok, then that day would be the death of Christianity.

So, all the popes in the past who condoned the brutal execution at the stake of people who did not agree with their teaching, who held slaves, slept with every availble woman, had children etc. were right?

Did the fact that people realized how many mistakes were made by the church and uts leaders mean the death of Chrsitianity.

Honestly, if it did, then good riddens, because it would mean people (even Catholics) finally managed to think for themselves and refuse to let someone else run thier lives.

This blind obedience is what has lead to the death and suffering of countless people.

And do you actually think it is not blasphemy to treat a human being as if he were God himself?
A woman who has a vocation is called by God Himself. Who are you, or who is the pope to question this?

 

[TrueLight]

I think there is a slight confusion here. I think it is partly because we are talking about a situation which by faith we believe will never take place.

/*
Btw, if anyone is interested in whether the church has declared any ruling on this matter infallibly, the following might be useful:-

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT
***/ **

Someone commented earlier in this thread or another thread why certain things have to be declared as dogma and that creates no wiggle room. I concur.

For example, from the document you linked to:

Invoking the word “infallible” in the letter, explained Father Augustine
DeNoia, a theological advisor to the US Bishops, means that “to teach the
contrary is equivalent to leading consciences into error.”

Why?

Why must it be set in stone so that is the Church comes to a different understanding later on, it would mean the Church has erred?" Why all or nothing?

Now is this an ex-Cathedra statement or dogma? These terms confuse me.

So this question might as well be rephrased as "What would you do if God changed his mind tomorrow?"

Then I think the answer becomes much clearer.

If God changed his mind tomorrow, what could I do? My hands are too short to box with God.

 

[belorg]

Ever noticed how lately there have been a host (pun intended) of people coming on to rant and rail about their gluten allergies (which are real and nothing to make fun of, and I am NOT doing so), and to DEMAND that the Church give them ‘gluten-free’ hosts even though, by definition, a gluten FREE host would NOT contain the wheat that is REQUIRED for said host to be valid matter?

It’s not a coincidence. The idea is that if the Church will compromise over valid matter on ONE thing, it will be forced to compromise on all others.

Hosts made without wheat. Women ordained as ‘priests’. "Same sex’ marriages. Each one in and of itself aims to change the nature of the particular sacrament into accepting something that is NOT valid matter.

You mean that your omnipotent God cannot manage to transubstantiate a gluten-free host? Did Jesus hand round wheat cookies to his apostles at the last supper? If not, then why not use the same kind of bread Jesus used? And did they drink red wine or white wine, and does it take one specific variety of grapes for wine to turn into the holy blood?

 

[belorg]

No, that will not happen because it is impossible for women to be ordained as priests. It cannot and will not ever be.

Lots of things that people thought could not and would not ever be are true today.
Catholics do not burn protestants or even atheists anymore nowadays. Who would have thought that was possible a few hundred years ago?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Lots of things that people thought could not and would not ever be are true today. …

That may be true, but the Church cannot and will not ordain women as priests because it is not possible.

"…The question why women can’t be ordained priests is often confused with the issue of equality. The Holy Father has made it clear that men and women (as far as their sex is concerned) are equal before God (e.g., Mulieris Dignitatem 6). But equality isn’t identity. Men and women have different though complementary functions. Priesthood is a male function, for the reason that a priest is an icon of Christ, and Christ is male. The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church. For this reason, marriage is a “mystery” or sacrament of the Church (Eph 5:32).

St. Paul develops this theme in his parallel between a local church and the family. A “bishop” (or “overseer,” which applied to both bishops and priests in NT times) is expected to keep his own family in order, “for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim 3:5) Male headship in the family is an axiom of both Scripture and Tradition, and if the Church is the Household of God, and Christ is Head of the Church, then His headship in the Church can be represented only by men. "…

Excerpt in blue from:

Priesthood - Reserved to Men
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

 

[FCEGM]

You may rest assured that there will be a day when women will b ordained as priests. The Catholic faith has a tendency to run behind on the facts a bit.
Of course men can’t naturally bear children, but there is nothing a male priest can do naturally that a women cannot.
I’m sure if tomorrow the pope says it’s OK fro women to become priests, most of you are, all of a sudden, going to change your mind. Why is thta. Have you lolst the ability to think for yourselves? . . .

Ah, yes, this old saw again. I’m sorry, but your ignorance of this subject illustrates that “thinking for yourself” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

it was done in a church of christ church building???

 

[Rascalking]

Ah, yes, this old saw again. I’m sorry, but your ignorance of this subject illustrates that “thinking for yourself” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

I think they were just trying to make a point that perhaps the rest of us haven’t thought of.

And there is nothing wrong with “thinking for yourself”, and making your own opinions.

 

[FCEGM]

I think they were just trying to make a point that perhaps the rest of us haven’t thought of.

And there is nothing wrong with “thinking for yourself”, and making your own opinions.

I didn’t see any new thoughts on the subject, just comments based on disdainful ignorance of the Church’s teaching. I wasn’t questioning the goodness of “thinking for onesself”, only a particular application of the practice.

But in that regard, discovering truth does not require one to be original or inventive, but receptive to reality. To learn from the knowledge of others is called wise, especially for the young who in their pride refuse to consider the truths others have discovered before them. Some prefer to linger in this adolescent stage of “independent thinking” rather than to proceed to openness to the Truth the Church presents.

There is a demand for reckless originality of thought, and a sparkling plausibility of argument. . .a demand for crude theory and unsound philosophy, rather than none at all. It is a sort of repetition of the ‘Quid nove?’ of the aeropagus, and it must have an answer, John Cardinal Newman.

 

[Rascalking]

But in that regard, discovering truth does not require one to be original or inventive, but receptive to reality. To learn from the knowledge of others is called wise, especially for the young who in their pride refuse to consider the truths others have discovered before them. Some prefer to linger in this adolescent stage of “independent thinking” rather than to proceed to openness to the Truth the Church presents.

That’s deep. Pardon me while I take a cigarette break.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Ever noticed how lately there have been a host (pun intended) of people coming on to rant and rail about their gluten allergies (which are real and nothing to make fun of, and I am NOT doing so), and to DEMAND that the Church give them ‘gluten-free’ hosts even though, by definition, a gluten FREE host would NOT contain the wheat that is REQUIRED for said host to be valid matter?

It’s not a coincidence. The idea is that if the Church will compromise over valid matter on ONE thing, it will be forced to compromise on all others.

Hosts made without wheat. Women ordained as ‘priests’. "Same sex’ marriages. Each one in and of itself aims to change the nature of the particular sacrament into accepting something that is NOT valid matter.

This is exactly what these demanders are after, and such things may indeed take place during the last days when the Church will be attacked from the inside.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Lots of things that people thought could not and would not ever be are true today.
Catholics do not burn protestants or even atheists anymore nowadays. Who would have thought that was possible a few hundred years ago?

Where do you get this stuff? Wikipedia?

Funny how you mention ‘YOUR God.’ He is everyone’s, or no one’s;.

If he is no one’s then what are you worried about?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Jesus established the Church.

He, as God, could have chosen women to be Apostles. But He didn’t. He chose men.

Jesus had many followers who were women … and who had high prestige among His followers. I mean, who were the ones who were the first to discover the Resurrection! Women!

So Jesus could have chosen some women as Apostles. And as God and with the full authority of God, He could have pulled it off, regardless of the customs of the times.

He could have done a LOT of things differently … He could have set up two parallel Churches … one for men and one for women.

But He didn’t do that.

Knowing the future, He could have set up some kind of structure … a modified Islamic / Koranic religion, which came about six hundred years later … and short circuited the situation we have to deal with today.

But He didn’t do that, either.

He could have established an on-going miracle like the multiplication of the loaves and fishes … free food for everyone. But He didn’t do that. But He could have. Would have been easy. Or every fish you catch has a gold piece in its mouth. Could have done that, but He didn’t.

I don’t mean to sound flip, but He spent a lot of time in bars … and He was severely criticized for it. He could have established the Eucharist at his favorite tavern. In Biblical Archeology, there was a recent article about the central role of beer in society for 10,000 years. He could have incorporated beer … a very common food … [fermented grain & water] … into the Sacrament. But He didn’t.

All of the things that He did do were very deliberately done.

And looking back, they were done carefully.

And what Jesus did was also pre-figured in the Old Testament.

Just look at the wording of John 6: 20-70 … very careful wording.

There are a lot of things that Jesus could have done, but He didn’t.

And since He is God, He could have included women and ordained them, but He, knowing everything, and knowing our future, deliberately only chose men.

So, there ya go.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

belorg

**And do you actually think it is not blasphemy to treat a human being as if he were God himself?
A woman who has a vocation is called by God Himself. Who are you, or who is the pope to question this? **

And who are you, an atheist, to pontificate in such matters?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

belorg

**You mean that your omnipotent God cannot manage to transubstantiate a gluten-free host? Did Jesus hand round wheat cookies to his apostles at the last supper? If not, then why not use the same kind of bread Jesus used? And did they drink red wine or white wine, and does it take one specific variety of grapes for wine to turn into the holy blood? **

And who are you, an atheist, to pontificate in these matters?

Are you just here to bash the Catholic Church. That is not allowed, for your information. Read the rules!!!

 

[joanofarc2008]

I want to make this clear:

In persono Christi - Latin phrase meaning acting literally in place of Christ on the altar - Christ is speaking the words of the absolution, or consecrating the Eucharist

In personation of Christ (as you put it) - a complete mockery of the faith that has no place on these forums as it implies that what a priest does is mere play acting

 

[ddarko]

Someone commented earlier in this thread or another thread why certain things have to be declared as dogma and that creates no wiggle room. I concur.

Well certain things have to be declared infallibly because the faithful are not clear on the issue. In the case of Women priests, many at the time of pronouncement, including well known theologians were thinking it was valid to have women priests.

This is one such time that the church decides to make a pronouncement under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to settle the matter once and for all. After it is settled, one gives full assent of the faith.

Why?

Why must it be set in stone so that is the Church comes to a different understanding later on, it would mean the Church has erred?" Why all or nothing?

Perhaps you are looking at it the wrong way. It is set in stone so that the faithful might know the truth of the matter. If the church was simply guessing, then what you say is indeed correct. With every single infallible pronouncement, the church is increasing the probability that it is going to end up erring. But this is not a best guess type of deal.

God guides the church to keep its faithful from going astray and provides everything necessary. If the church cannot offer guidance to the faithful on what is right and wrong when it comes to a certain matter, what use is the church?

Now is this an ex-Cathedra statement or dogma? These terms confuse me.

It is an infallible statement. Ex-cathedra and Dogma merely describe how something is infallible. In the case of women priests, it is infallible since it is a pronouncement made using the infallible teaching authority of the ordinary magisterium.

If God changed his mind tomorrow, what could I do? My hands are too short to box with God.

Actually no, there are more grave implications if this were to ever happen. If God changed his mind the next day, the implication of it for the faith are huge. It means that we cannot have FAITH in God anymore and have no reason to do so. We have no reason to trust his promises, revelation or guidance because he might decide tomorrow to change the truth value of all he has revealed and all promises he has made.

Therefore from a Christian’s perspective, that question is meaningless or an impossibility. A Christian holds from FAITH that God will always keep his promises and will not change the truth.

As applying to this women priests case, once the truth has been declared, it can no longer change.

God Bless

 

[TrueLight]

Ddarko, As usual, I appreciate your patient and clear way of laying it out.

Therefore from a Christian’s perspective, that question is meaningless or an impossibility. A Christian holds from FAITH that God will always keep his promises and will not change the truth.

I could go more into that, but I’ll save that for another time.

 

[ddarko]

Ddarko, As usual, I appreciate your patient and clear way of laying it out.

Glad if I could help

I could go more into that, but I’ll save that for another time.

Send me a PM or let me know if you open a thread on this and I will join in

God Bless