Ordaining women priests. What say you?

[joanofarc2008]

Freedom = divorce? I think this is a good and bad example although I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. Here you have an example of free will. By offering free will we have to choose to do the right things (however not in all cases is divorce sinful but that is a discussion for another thread) and in return choose to show our love for God making that love more valuable.

However this is different with Sacraments. By defiling the Sacramental nature of the Priesthood we defile the Sacramental nature of the Eucharist. Actually in this case there is no consecration because there is no priest. So therefore the source and summit of our spiritual life - the Real Presence of Christ in the Body and Blood ceases to exist at mass and this is the difference. This is why those in charge must draw this line.

 

[FCEGM]

The ordination of a priest is a sacrament…correct? In this sacrament the ordained Priest makes his vows and becomes in fact… the “receptive” as well “incubative”

The ordination only… allows the Priest to give birth to God in man through the sacraments . Your logic un-questionably supports the absolute opposite of given platform…this is very surprising.

Why should this be surprising? The ordained priest can only do this because he has been configured as another Christ, specifically Christ as High Priest. The Church, the Bride receives from the Groom in the person of the priest.

If anything the construction of thought to desired order , demands a female Priest.:thumbsup

Well, certainly a false construction for a desired outcome is what is behind the demand for priestesses.

By virtue of the fact that Jesus referred to God as “Father” it would be certain that gender male
is specifically implied. Since male is specific in gender we must conclude that “completion” of the Trinity would imply female by virtue of specific appreciation in gender. Thus the notion holding the Holy Spirit to be female would certainly be rational allowing for all balance in perfection… . .[etc.]

Only a misreading of Scripture and basic theology would bring one to think that God has gender, whether the Father or the Holy Spirit.

As well, God chose only one to represent in Jesus, which ONLY implies a Oneness
in sole focus to his most loving word. We cannot infer a preference in gender by virtue of choice male…we can only assert focus in oneness. This idea that God preferred a male Jesus is illogical by virtue of the single choice. A presumptive …no question.

Of course we can infer the “preference” of God in the Incarnation because it is a fact. The promoters of priestesses conveniently overlook that Adam is the exclusive head of the human family with particular responsibilities (Gen. 2:15) beyond that of his mate. It is from Adam’s sin that Our Lord as the New Adam comes to redeem us. Adam’s choice to join his wife in sin broke the final link in the Covenant between humanity and God. The Son of God mirrors the type of Adam; as the New Adam, He is the priest of the New Covenant.

Catholic Christianity is a historical faith rooted in the truth, and that Truth is Jesus Christ. Feminists, otoh, do not follow the Truth, but create fairytales to promote their own agendas. For them, symbols are not very real but may be altered according to present popular sentiment or their own wonts. But for God symbols are the chief means of causing grace through the Sacraments by His free choice. And if we relate one choice of His (12 men) back to an earlier choice of His (man and woman in Creation) we must suppose a non-contradiction, so that the Incarnation reveals something important about creation of Mankind (otherwise God is arbitrary and not wise). And while we have no evidence of absolute agreement or proof in terms of science or philosophy, we do see a fittingness between the two orders of Creation and Redemption, with Creation leading to Redemption.

Why couldn’t the ancient Church have priestesses when every other religion in the world had them? The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchal as the Jews and Christians were. What this all boils down to is a two-fold denial of something intrinsic to the Catholic Covenant such that either:

1. The Church should discard its Bridegroom-Bride theology (given to us by Christ Himself), or …
2. It should redefine what a “Bridegroom” is, allowing both male and female to play this role (after all, lesbians do it) and thus eliminate all natural distinction between male and female in the human race - that is, to accept “maleness” and “femaleness” as something incidental to the human person (an “accident”), and not as a dimension of nature itself.

And where does all this lead? Well, not only does it undermine the very historicity of Jesus, Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.

What’s more, to go in the direction that the feminists wish us to go must necessitate a total rejection of Genesis 2 & 3 as anything more than an imperfect “parable,” since we must draw no distinction between the sin of Eve and that of Adam; and by no means regard Adam as an exclusive head of the human family with particular responsibilities (contra Gen 2:15) beyond those of his mate. And, with all this being the case, then Jesus does not come (as a man) to atone for the sin of Adam especially (despite what St. Paul has to say), but rather He comes to atone for some general, unspecified sin of Adam and Eve (humanity) collectively, since Adam’s choice to join his wife in sin (thereby breaking the final link in the Covenant between humanity and God) has no special significance. Therefore, Jesus did not have to be a man to mirror the type of Adam (again, despite St. Paul), but could have as easily had been a woman, being only incidentally a man (an “accident” to His ultra-sexual human nature).

continued. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

He isn’t if he has reasons to believe it. He is if he never questions anything about whatever teaching. That happens to be the definition of blind obedience.

Oh, I’ll agree. The problem is that even when people state that they have researched thoroughly, and they have decided that the Church’s teachings are true, they’re still accused of blind obedience. For example, I’m going to tell you that I’m 54, with a BA, that I have spent many years in reading and researching Catholic history and teachings, read through the Bible, the ECFs, apologists from St. Thomas to G.K. Chesterton, read through various encyclicals, bulls, the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. and I have determined, using reason and the intelligence God gave me, that I agree 100% with the teachings of the Church which are given for her people to believe.

Now, am I obeying ‘blindly’ or am I obeying FULLY?

Because, even if they are wrong on that particular issue, that is what they are doing.
You aren’t saying that truth doesn’t matter, right?

If I were the Pope and told you it was George Elliot, and you would just repeat that in a classroom, you wouldn’t be using your reason and intellect, would you?

It’s the other way around. It’s far more likely to be the MSN, or Amnesty International, or Greenpeace, or the Democratic/Republican Party, telling me that it’s George Elliott and that it was the wicked Catholic Church which has perpetrated the ‘lie’ of it being written by Jane Austen, and unless I wanted to face a suit from the ACLU or lose my job, I’d darn well better tell my class it’s George Elliott. And I’d be told that denying “the Church” was REALLY using my intellect and reason.

If it IS the truth, then it isn’t any different. But you would still have to find out for yourself that it is the truth and not just accept something just like that.

And again I ask, why is it that you would assume that people who say that they agree with the Church haven’t found out for themselves?

 

[FCEGM]

Further, if Jesus did not need to be a man so as to atone for the exclusive sin of Adam, and repair the broken unity between man and God caused by the exclusive sin of Adam, then Mary cannot possibly be the New Eve (as all those male chauvinist Church fathers called her) because this would imply that the first Eve was not wholly culpable for her sin - that her sin did not directly plunge humanity as a whole into sin - and so God could not possibly have preserved another woman (an antitype: Mary) from sin because of this “victimization” of Eve and the mercy accorded to that victimization of the serpent upon His final and greatest creation (the woman).

So, Catholicism’s 2,000-year old understanding of Jesus as the New Adam and Mary as the New Eve must fly completely out the window; and with it the Immaculate Conception and even the sinlessness of Jesus Himself. For without them being the New Adam and New Eve, their sinlessness is completely meaninglessness. Ah! Unless, of course, our feminist sisters wish to rescue us from this by proposing that Jesus and Mary are New Adam and New Eve interchangeably! Yes, that would work just fine! So, Jesus is not only the New Adam, but He is also the New Eve, the Mother of us all. And, if this is the case, then Jesus and His Church are interchangeable as well! Yes, both Jesus and the Church are our Mother! And, if that’s the case, then we the Church are also Christ! And since Christ is God, then the Church is God! Thus, each of us are Gods, and the serpent was RIGHT in Genesis 3:5! Alleluia! If we had only listened to him from the start! But, wait! That is what we did, isn’t it? And here we are in a sinful and confused world - the perfect setting for a feminist religion.

Faith is only to accept the message not social implications assumed out of the Devine Will to assert focus in becoming human. Choosing “One” demands a gender choice. Mans perception in Gods Will to be preferred in Gender is entirely a human interception and imposition of prejudice on God

It’s neither illogical no presumptive since that is the fact of the Incarnation as addressed above.

The insistence in the material medium being man discussed on your part is mans insistence
as clearly tutored above . God chose One. That does not mean God chose Male. The insistence is rationally prejudice on your part.

Sorry, but you cannot get past the fact that Jesus is Male, thus the obvious choice of God to become Incarnate as Male. You are attempting a hyper-spirituality as if matter doesn’t matter, particularly the “Matter” of the Incarnate Son.

I grew up with 8 brothers and sisters. My Father had to choose “one” for executor of the will.
My Father chose a male brother. If the brother was indefinitely un-available due to an over seas work responcibility…are you telling me with your above logic that without question one of the females would not be chosen to administer the responsibilities? Sometimes examples help people who have trouble seeing prejudice. God has no prejudice…my goodness

You are attempting to place human parameters on God, as if what is applicable in human society must necessarily be applicable in the Divine Communion of the Godhead.

I sincerely believe you owe me a serious apology for the tone, manner and intentional smear in my understandings

There was no smear of your understandings, but a simple analysis of your erroneous approach to the clear teaching of the Church regarding the male-only priesthood.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

belorg

Yes, since one pope has declared it, now the church is stuck forever and, even if everybody came to realize that this is wrong, they will never be able to change it because one fallible man is considered infallible.

So now who is infallible? You?

 

[Elizium23]

I would like to point out that the person being ordained is not the matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

With regard to the former, the received opinion maintains that the imposition of hands is the sole matter.

Laying on of hands is the matter for this sacrament. It is incorrect to say that a woman is “invalid matter”, or that a man is “valid matter”, because the person is not matter.

The article linked, philvaz.com/apologetics/a51.htm, has the correct argument and does not mention “matter” at all.

 

[Corki]

I’m going to re-assert my very noble and important viewpoint which is clear, obvious and
holds man in…“servitude to God”

Representing humility, it is in our humility which God can reach us:thumbsup:

I’m seeing a real disconnect between these two statements.

 

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by FurtherSuntime
I’m going to re-assert my very noble and important viewpoint which is clear, obvious and
holds man in…“servitude to God”

Representing humility, it is in our humility which God can reach us

I’m seeing a real disconnect between these two statements.

Ha ha!

 

[Robertanthony]

Catholics should never have a discussion on dogmas with an atheist who is opposed to dogmas, we just don’t have a common ground for a fruitful exchange. That said, belorg had a good point (not relevant to this thread though) when he mentionned that Jesus never condemned slavery yet I’d think the Catholic Church is opposed to it? On a natural level, women (not men) are the ones giving life, on a spiritual level, only men can be priests. I don’t have a problem with either of these statements and since JP II’s declaration on women ordination is irrevocable, why even bother discussing it? We take orders from God, atheists tend to not believe in God, enough said.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Catholics should never have a discussion on dogmas with an atheist who is opposed to dogmas, we just don’t have a common ground for a fruitful exchange. That said, belorg had a good point (not relevant to this thread though) when he mentionned that Jesus never condemned slavery yet I’d think the Catholic Church is opposed to it? On a natural level, women (not men) are the ones giving life, on a spiritual level, only men can be priests. I don’t have a problem with either of these statements and since JP II’s declaration on women ordination is irrevocable, why even bother discussing it? We take orders from God, atheists tend to not believe in God, enough said.

Well, we’re not a Sola Scriptura Church. Who SAID “Jesus never condemned slavery”? Just because we don’t find a KJV where Christ (in words in red ) never sayeth, “And behold, there shall be no more chattel slavery”.

Um, in the Old Testament, didn’t God the Father send a bunch of plagues on the Egyptians for holding His people as slaves?

Didn’t St. Paul, while sending back Onesimus the slave to his master, tell that master “to receive Onesimus as a brother?”

Didn’t the Holy Spirit several times speak through the Church, well before the rest of the world got on board, about how chattel slavery was wrong?

Isn’t the Holy Spirit God as much as Jesus and the Father? So then yes, Jesus --and the Father–and the Spirit–AND the Church Christ gave us to ‘bind and loose’–have all condemned chattel slavery.

 

[TrueLight]

Women are invalid matter for priestly ordination, per John Paul II’s declaration.
Therefore, those women are not priests.

I know you posted a link to the “invalid matter” but I can’t find it. Was the post deleted? Can you repost?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Further, if Jesus did not need to be a man so as to atone for the exclusive sin of Adam, and repair the broken unity between man and God caused by the exclusive sin of Adam, then Mary cannot possibly be the New Eve (as all those male chauvinist Church fathers called her) because this would imply that the first Eve was not wholly culpable for her sin - that her sin did not directly plunge humanity as a whole into sin - and so God could not possibly have preserved another woman (an antitype: Mary) from sin because of this “victimization” of Eve and the mercy accorded to that victimization of the serpent upon His final and greatest creation (the woman).

Further Suntime says:

Since you failed to address my thoughts I will address your newly found thinking…

Firstly, the head of the family unit is not husband or wife , it is common sense, as common sense not only applies reason but is the fundamental in Spirituality-Christianity-Truth. Please address issues as they appear. You are objecting to this explained reality.

As you know I am for continuing with male priests , however the reasons for this are causing our dis-agreement. A dis-agreement which must favor my viewpoint if The Catholic Church is to appear in servitude to God.

You discuss items such as maleness and femaleness suggesting women priests would reflect an incidental towards peculiar gender.

Question:…And who exactly would be the recipient of this assumption, God…? Obviously not. Therefore this point emerges out of social fear equiped with human insecurities. As well , we can see that the thought itself gives rise to potentiality in social railroads.
It is entirely off topic :thumbsup
:
The continued dialog dwells on the implication of a women priest relative to the risen Christ suggesting that Christ either no longer possess male nature. Sacastically purporting an ultra sexual. Jesus

Later you apprise the subject matter in the non-known gender of God himself…Obviously with this acknowledgment a given in “text” is logically& rightfully “conceded”. Conceded in the essence of gender in God as well The Trinity… to be a diminished non vital regard.

The overall principals underlying my arguments prior to this entry are left un-touched by yourself. Instead a mass of individual"impressions and broad sweeping suggestions of consequence are offered. The virility of my argument stands. Stands strong. As well I will refresh your memory with your ill remark to my post…it is as follows…( which as expressed is un-acceptable, please retract with due humble regard… at once)

“Your topsy-turvy view represents why so many even in the Church can’t understand the nature of the Church and thus the nature of the Sacraments and the proper matter through which they are to be celebrated.”

Further Suntime continuing,

The issue requires direct absolute & concrete reason , of which I highlighted last post. It is in servitude to God only, which directs man to represent with male.

Please take time to reply to my posts with sound logic . Otherwise I will remove myself from this topic.

 

[Robertanthony]

FCEGM;7997643:

Further, if Jesus did not need to be a man so as to atone for the exclusive sin of Adam, and repair the broken unity between man and God caused by the exclusive sin of Adam, then Mary cannot possibly be the New Eve (as all those male chauvinist Church fathers called her) because this would imply that the first Eve was not wholly culpable for her sin - that her sin did not directly plunge humanity as a whole into sin - and so God could not possibly have preserved another woman (an antitype: Mary) from sin because of this “victimization” of Eve and the mercy accorded to that victimization of the serpent upon His final and greatest creation (the woman).

Further Suntime says:

Since you failed to address my thoughts I will address your newly found thinking…

Firstly, the head of the family unit is not husband or wife , it is common sense, as common sense not only applies reason but is the fundamental in Spirituality-Christianity-Truth. Please address issues as they appear. You are objecting to this explained reality.

As you know I am for continuing with male priests , however the reasons for this are causing our dis-agreement. A dis-agreement which must favor my viewpoint if The Catholic Church is to appear in servitude to God.

You discuss items such as maleness and femaleness suggesting women priests would reflect an incidental towards peculiar gender.

Question:…And who exactly would be the recipient of this assumption, God…? Obviously not. Therefore this point emerges out of social fear equiped with human insecurities. As well , we can see that the thought itself gives rise to potentiality in social railroads.
It is entirely off topic :thumbsup
:
The continued dialog dwells on the implication of a women priest relative to the risen Christ suggesting that Christ either no longer possess male nature. Sacastically purporting an ultra sexual. Jesus

Later you apprise the subject matter in the non-known gender of God himself…Obviously with this acknowledgment a given in “text” is logically& rightfully “conceded”. Conceded in the essence of gender in God as well The Trinity… to be a diminished non vital regard.

The overall principals underlying my arguments prior to this entry are left un-touched by yourself. Instead a mass of individual"impressions and broad sweeping suggestions of consequence are offered. The virility of my argument stands. Stands strong. As well I will refresh your memory with your ill remark to my post…it is as follows…( which as expressed is un-acceptable, please retract with due humble regard… at once)

“Your topsy-turvy view represents why so many even in the Church can’t understand the nature of the Church and thus the nature of the Sacraments and the proper matter through which they are to be celebrated.”

Further Suntime continuing,

The issue requires direct absolute & concrete reason , of which I highlighted last post. It is in servitude to God only, which directs man to represent with male.

Please take time to reply to my posts with sound logic . Otherwise I will remove myself from this topic.

Children, the pope said it will never happen. Women only can be mothers, men only can be priests. FurtherSuntime, I don’t know where you’re getting at with Jesus being “ultra sexual”, there seems to be a lot of confusion in your post.

 

[Corki]

Please take time to reply to my posts with sound logic . Otherwise I will remove myself from this topic.

Please take a few minutes to learn how to use the quote feature. It is very difficult to understand the points you are trying to make.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

FurtherSuntime;7998385:

Children, the pope said it will never happen. Women only can be mothers, men only can be priests. FurtherSuntime, I don’t know where you’re getting at with Jesus being “ultra sexual”, there seems to be a lot of confusion in your post.

If you don’t mind it was the poster I was referring to with Jesus being “ultra sexual” I was criticizing his non-sense and sarcasm…they are not my words thankyou very much:thumbsup:

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Please take a few minutes to learn how to use the quote feature. It is very difficult to understand the points you are trying to make.

thankyou but I don’t need to chop up peoples comments in order to reply. As well some are too long…thankyou very much

 

[FurtherSuntime]

FurtherSuntime;7998385:

Children, the pope said it will never happen. Women only can be mothers, men only can be priests. FurtherSuntime, I don’t know where you’re getting at with Jesus being “ultra sexual”, there seems to be a lot of confusion in your post.

Usually a person would follow a dialog before reading it and then saying…oh I can’t understand this. No question, no feedback…simply ill-will in attempts to frustrate.
Add to it mis quoting myself in order to critisize .
I’m outta this one. Too many attention issues

 

[adrift]

vsedriver;7996184:

That’s not the point. The point is that, since there have been bad popes, they can issue infallible teaching that Catholics must follow, no matter what. that means that in the future, one of those ‘bad popes’ issues as an infallible teaching that catholics must kill all unbelievers, you are obligated to do so.
.

Hypothetical points are meaningless. State facts such as a Pope that issued an infallible degree that was against faith or morals. You won’t be able to because it has not happened. You can suppose this and that all you want but it is fantasy not truth.

You follow one human beings command as if it were Gods. Yet you admit that that human being is fallible. How can a fallible human being issue infallible teachings?

The protection of the Holy Spirit.

If Chrsit had said that women could not become priests, you would have a point. If he didn’t, you are just speculating.
And if the church has no authority to do anything that Christ hasn’t done, the Church would not have had the authority to react gainst slavery e;g.
Thank goodness they felt they had the authority to do that.

Christ did say this. Jesus is God He established the priesthood. It was established beginning with the Jews. God did not appoint Miriam a very capable leader but her brother. Jesus did not ordain any man. If you think you have to state something to be true you are wrong. Jesus made is intent clear by who He chose. He also made it clear that the Keys to bind and loose, a way of saying authority, was given to Peter and his successors.
Your comparison fails because it isn’t that the Church does not have authority to do anything Christ hasn’t done is false. We have no authority to contradict what Jesus has done. He established a male priesthood. We have no authority to say differently. Just like we have no authority to dissolve a marriage.

IOW there is something that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (choose women), so the Church cannot do it.
TYhere is somethig that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (condemn slavery), so the Church cannot do it.
Perfectly logic, so it seerms, but pretty obviously fallacious too.

Your right your statement is fallacious

 

[Robertanthony]

Usually a person would follow a dialog before reading it and then saying…oh I can’t understand this. No question, no feedback…simply ill-will in attempts to frustrate.
Add to it mis quoting myself in order to critisize .
I’m outta this one. Too many attention issues

I think we both struggle in our ability to quote. You misquoted me, I misquoted you. But my point remains: I think your post lacked clarity. That is all. No ill-will, no attempt to frustrate. God’s blessings.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

IOW there is something that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (choose women), so the Church cannot do it.
TYhere is somethig that Christ (as far as we know) did not do (condemn slavery), so the Church cannot do it.
Perfectly logic, so it seerms, but pretty obviously fallacious too.

Are you simply venting, or do you imagine you are convincing people with these ‘arguments’ lacking in both substance and rigor and based on falsehoods?