Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[AngryAtheist8]

It’s called the “Sin of Adam” not the “Sin of Adam & Eve.” Adam betrayed his office and Adam brought sin and death into the world after he at of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil. Only males can atone for the “Sin of Adam” and did so from the first with Cain and Abel offering sacrifice. A male priesthood is carrying the sin guilt, the opprobrium of Original Sin. Let’s not get into the European model of seeing a priest as part of the privileged elite. A priest is a servant, and Peter is the “Servant of Servants.” Women are not resposible for atoning for the “Sin of Adam.” Woman, and through her, her Seed, were given a separate grant of power: war against Lucifer and his seed. Everybody has a job. Let’s get crackin’

But that’s the thing.
Oftentimes in Europe (and this is still the case in much of Latin America) the priesthood WAS a privileged elite.

 

[triumphguy]

AA8 - I don’t agree with your worldview, but I appreciate how you maintain your point of view in a civil manner.

 

[opus101]

The priest acts “in persona Christi”. Christ was a man, and the priest represents Him, and acts “in His person”.

This does not mean that women are less important, as the present Pope and also John Paul II have told us, the best thing is to be a saint - and the Virgin Mary is the prime example of this.

To be a saint is the most important thing - whatever role we play in the body of Christ.

 

[opus101]

Congratulations, that’s one of the most ethnocentric things I have heard all month:thumbsup:

No its NOT like the Pope banning men from having babies.
Women have always had babies.
But Catholicism (and therefore the Catholic priesthood) is about 2 thousand years old at most. Moreover other religions have had female priests, so we know its possible.

There were no female priests in Judaism.

 

[opus101]

Because.

It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul.

A priest is someone who offers sacrifice. In the Catholic Church, the priest acts “in persona Christi”, in the person of Christ. Christ was a man, both human and divine.

If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?

“Preaching” is not an activity solely for the priesthood. A priest offers the holy sacrifice of the Mass and administers the Sacraments. The faith has been handed on primarily through women (mothers, teachers, religious sisters, single laywomen) who have evangelized and taught the Faith handed down to us through the Apostles. A desire to “help preach” does not signify a vocation to the priesthood.

We are all called to evangelize. We are not all called to the priesthood.

 

[PRmerger]

As I said before, I think that everyone would be happier and better off if these women and their supporters simply left the Church:shrug:

But this would be the exact wrong paradigm for any lover of Jesus to follow.

Any seeker of Truth who’s a Christian will, of course, want to follow the Church that Christ established.

And this seeker will endeavor to conform her views to Christ’s, not find a church that conforms to her own views.

For that would be the essence of creating a god in her own image, no?

 

[CatholicGOPer]

But that’s the thing.
Oftentimes in Europe (and this is still the case in much of Latin America) the priesthood WAS a privileged elite.

“Privileged” is hardly the word one could use to describe a Catholic priest.
Tired, overworked, underpaid, lambasted in the press perhaps, but not privileged.

 

[curlycool89]

But this would be the exact wrong paradigm for any lover of Jesus to follow.

Any seeker of Truth who’s a Christian will, of course, want to follow the Church that Christ established.

And this seeker will endeavor to conform her views to Christ’s, not find a church that conforms to her own views.

For that would be the essence of creating a god in her own image, no?

Exactly. It’s called the “Church of Stroking My Ego”.

My favourite GK Chesterton quote is “We don’t need a Church that is right when we are right, we need a Church that is right when we are wrong”. We follow Christ in order to conform our lives to holiness and to strip away anything that in keeping us from following Christ, not to make ourselves feel better about what we believe.

The Church is right because She possesses the fullness of Truth, not because it’s popular or to make us feel better.

“Privileged” is hardly the word one could use to describe a Catholic priest.
Tired, overworked, underpaid, lambasted in the press perhaps, but not privileged.

I remember Fr. Tom Rosica (CEO of Salt+Light) saying at Rise Up “The hours are long, the pay is terrible, but the benefits are out of this world”, as in “not of this world”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There were no female priests in Judaism.

So what?
The Jews have never been particularly powerful or influential (relatively speaking).
Judaism has never been the norm in history (except for Israel and a few other exceptions).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But this would be the exact wrong paradigm for any lover of Jesus to follow.

Any seeker of Truth who’s a Christian will, of course, want to follow the Church that Christ established.

And this seeker will endeavor to conform her views to Christ’s, not find a church that conforms to her own views.

For that would be the essence of creating a god in her own image, no?

I hope you realize that to outsiders, that’s what it appears that Christians in general and Catholics in particular have already done:shrug:

 

[PRmerger]

I hope you realize that to outsiders, that’s what it appears that Christians in general and Catholics in particular have already done:shrug:

Perhaps.

But that is a different animal than the one you’re holding up right now: here you’re proposing that Christians who want to disagree with the Church would be happier if they left the Church. In this proposition you’re presupposing that you’re in agreement with the existence of a Christian God, no?

As I said before, I think that everyone would be happier and better off if these women and their supporters simply left the Church:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Perhaps.

But that is a different animal than the one you’re holding up right now: here you’re proposing that Christians who want to disagree with the Church would be happier if they left the Church. In this proposition you’re presupposing that you’re in agreement with the existence of a Christian God, no?

Nope.
I am an outsider as far as Catholicism is concerned.
It appears (to me) that the priests created the Christian God in their own image.
Just as the ancient Jews created their (warlike) God in their own image.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope.
I am an outsider as far as Catholicism is concerned.
It appears (to me) that the priests created the Christian God in their own image.
Just as the ancient Jews created their (warlike) God in their own image.

Then please 'splain your comment, given that we all know and accept your atheistic paradigm, regarding why you are proposing (as an atheist) that “these women and their supporters” leave the Church.

It would seem more reasonable for you to say, “I am an atheist and I believe that these women and their supporters should not follow any church that proclaims a belief in a God who became man and established a church.”

 

[PRmerger]

It appears (to me) that the priests created the Christian God in their own image.

Do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that they should be celibate? Is that something they made up to stroke their own ego?

And do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that divorce and re-marriage is a sin? Is that something they also made up to stroke their own ego?

 

[coachkfan1]

Long live Benedict XVI and may his successor be of like mind and heart!

 

[Lokabrenna]

There were no female priests in Judaism.

Unless I’m mistaken, AngryAtheist8 was most likely referring to Pagan cultures which certainly did have female priests. In fact, the earliest named author was Enheduanna, who was a priestess of the god Nanna in Sumer. She lived circa 2285-2250 BCE.

 

[heaintheavy]

I can’t imagine this is even debated by people. I feel that is the end result of poor spiritual education on the part of the community of the church, in regards to the different roles of men and woman. A woman cant’ be a priest anymore then what a man can have a baby.

Why do some people keep using the “men can’t have a baby” argument in this debate?
It just makes no sense to me.
Being a priest has nothing to do with one’s sex organs and what one’s sex organs can or cannot do, does it?
When one is a priest, one’s sex organs are not involved in the duties.
A priest’s sex organs don’t play a role in confession, or delivering sacraments, or giving last rites, or baptizing a baby. A priest isn’t supposed to have sex, or try to make babies.

Yes, you need a vagina to give birth to a baby.
But why would having a vagina instead of a penis preclude a person from doing the priest duties?
There is no logical link here.

The bible calls us all “man”. We are part of “mankind”.
Women are one of the two *types *of “man”.
So if that’s the argument–that we must be “men” to be priests–well, we are men!
Female men!

I still don’t even see where in the bible it says women cannot be priests.
I assume this rule had to originate somewhere?

–The argument that no apostle was a woman doesn’t logically mean Jesus meant no female priests. That’s a major jump to a conclusion.

–The bit about women not talking in church…well, we know not to pay heed to that one.

–Someone here said that women were not at the last supper, and that that was another indication that Jesus meant women cannot be priests.
That’s another jump in logic.
I just went through the gospels and read each line about the last supper. There is no line that says women were not there. There may have been many women there! Just because they are not quoted, does not mean they were not there.
And* even* if they weren’t there…how does one take that piece of information to mean Jesus didn’t want women to be priests? The leap in logic is…vast!

Jesus had female followers who preached. Which means they were “preachers”.

If Jesus didn’t specifically say women cannot be priests, which it looks like he didn’t, I am so very, *very *curious to know at what point did someone decide this and who exactly it was and why?

Does anyone know?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Then please 'splain your comment, given that we all know and accept your atheistic paradigm, regarding why you are proposing (as an atheist) that “these women and their supporters” leave the Church.

It would seem more reasonable for you to say, "I am an atheist and I believe that these women and their supporters should not follow any church that proclaims a belief in a God who became man and established a church."

How would that conflict with the idea that the women would be happier if they left the Church?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that they should be celibate? Is that something they made up to stroke their own ego?

And do you think these priests created a Christian God in their own image who proclaims that divorce and re-marriage is a sin? Is that something they also made up to stroke their own ego?

Sure:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Unless I’m mistaken, AngryAtheist8 was most likely referring to Pagan cultures which certainly did have female priests. In fact, the earliest named author was Enheduanna, who was a priestess of the god Nanna in Sumer. She lived circa 2285-2250 BCE.

Yes.