Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarcoPolo said:
In his response to the Austrian group, his first in public, Pope Benedict noted that, in its “call to disobedience”, it had challenged "definitive decisions of the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) such as the question of women’s ordination …"Story at Irish Times.

Full transcript of Pope Benedict XVI’s April 5, 2012 homily can be read here.
Click to expand...
I read about this earlier. It’s awesome that the Holy Father would use such a public occasion of solemn importance to deliver a stunning rebuke to those renegade priests, identifying them explicitly as models of how priests shouldn’t behave.

I hope once he’s done with the SSPX, he turns his attention toward those “Call to Disobedience” priests – preferably with an army of newly-reconciled traditionalists at his back!
 
Is it possible to ban something that has never been allowed?
 
Splagchnizomai said:
Is it possible to ban something that has never been allowed?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t get too hung up on semantics from that headline. It just means a reaffirmation on the teaching that it is not possible for a woman to be ordained.
 
That was my thought too Splagchnizomai. It seems that the reporter/editor is trying to make it sounds like there could be women priests if those old white men would let there be.
 
Why won’t these renegades just give up? They’re like little children. “Why can’t we have women priests? PLEASE? PRETTY PLEASE? I really want women priests!” “No, son. We cannot have women priests. Ever. End of subject.” “But, WHY? WHY? WHY can’t we have women priests? We really, really, really, really want women priests! We do! We really do!” “No! Now I’ve told you already. We’re never going to have women priests. Now if you keep bringing this up after I’ve told you a thousand times, I’m going to have to discipline you and send you to your room!”
 
It’s like saying the Pope banned men from having babies.
A man cannot possibly be pregnant, and a woman cannot possibly be a priest
 
A couple days ago, there was a protest after Palm Sunday Mass in my city regarding this. It seems to have been part of a bigger movement.

I always have trouble answering this question (why can’t women be priests), so I’ll have to study it…I know it’s been asked here probably many times.

God bless,
Bryan
 
Scoobyshme said:
Why won’t these renegades just give up? They’re like little children. “Why can’t we have women priests? PLEASE? PRETTY PLEASE? I really want women priests!” “No, son. We cannot have women priests. Ever. End of subject.” “But, WHY? WHY? WHY can’t we have women priests? We really, really, really, really want women priests! We do! We really do!” “No! Now I’ve told you already. We’re never going to have women priests. Now if you keep bringing this up after I’ve told you a thousand times, I’m going to have to discipline you and send you to your room!”
Click to expand...
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
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?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
 
heaintheavy said:
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
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?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a rule. It is a doctrine. As such, it is unchangeable by the Church. The Church has “received” its doctrines from Jesus Christ, Son of God, and does not claim the right to correct Him.

Those “rules” to which you refer that can be changed are referred to in the Church as matters of discipline. They can be changed. An example of this is the celibate priesthood. That’s not a doctrine. It is a discipline, and if the Church ever felt it was necessary to change it, then it could be changed.
 
If Jesus wanted female priests he would have appointed a woman to be one of His twelve.

He didn’t.

End of story.
 
heaintheavy said:
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
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?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
Click to expand...
The teaching is all about obedience to the will of Christ. He did not want women priests- period. That’s why the Church says she has no authority to ordain them- the authority comes from Christ and goes where he wants, not where anyone else thinks it should.

As you pointed out, Christ had many women followers. In fact, many of them were much more loyal to him and faithful at the dark hour unlike the men who deserted, denied and betrayed him. Yet he made none of these holy women priests. None were invited to the last supper where the priest-hood was instituted (the priesthood is all about the Eucharist- A sacrifice. It’s the body and blood of Christ offered to the Father for us, and then to us as food). Not even the Holiest person in Catholicism after Christ (His Mother) was there.

Any one who insists on women priests is telling the CC (Catholic Church) that Christ did not know what he was doing, and neither did his Apostles. Seeing as the CC looks to Christ as her very Lord and God, Master, King and Savior- That notion simply will not fly with her. We do what Christ wanted and wants, not what our modern values suggest is “fair” and equal, not what we think will make women “happy” and feel equal. The Church is a kingdom- A theocratic one. She is all about following the will of One man alone- Christ. If a person doesn’t like it, they should seek membership in someone else’s territory. The CC is Christ’s domain.
 
heaintheavy said:
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Click to expand...
A woman cannot be the bridegroom in the nuptial event of the Eucharistic sacrifice. It’s a metaphysical impossibility for a woman to perform that sacramental sign because a woman cannot be a bridegroom. Nor is it possible for a woman sacramentally represent Christ in this way, who was incarnate as a male. It’s impossible. Has nothing to do with being “rigid.”
 
heaintheavy said:
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
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?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
Click to expand...
Mary Magdalene was not a Priest, she was not one of the Apostles. Mary Magdalene was a disciple, a follower of Jesus.

Jesus could of chosen a woman or women to be an apostle, a Priest, nearly all of the Pagan religions in Jesus’ time had Priestesses. It would of been normal in the day to choose a woman to be a Priestesses, Jesus could of chosen his mother Mary, or Mary Magdalene, but he did not.

The Church is the Bride of Christ, only a man can be the Bridegroom, a woman can not be the Bridegroom.
 
Scoobyshme said:
This isn’t a rule. It is a doctrine. As such, it is unchangeable by the Church. The Church has “received” its doctrines from Jesus Christ, Son of God, and does not claim the right to correct Him.

Those “rules” to which you refer that can be changed are referred to in the Church as matters of discipline. They can be changed. An example of this is the celibate priesthood. That’s not a doctrine. It is a discipline, and if the Church ever felt it was necessary to change it, then it could be changed.
Click to expand...
But how is this doctrine received by Jeshua if he never said it?

It was interpreted this way by mortal men of another era, culture, and context nearly 2000 years ago. Today, and for a long time now, many people look at Jesus’ words and actions and don’t see this interpretation at all–not at all.
 
nickybr38 said:
If Jesus wanted female priests he would have appointed a woman to be one of His twelve.

He didn’t.

End of story.
Click to expand...
But that is such a weak argument for this, though.
Jesus never picked, say, a doctor to be one of twelve. Does that mean a doctor cannot become a priest? He didn’t pick an albino…or someone over 7 feet…or maybe none of them had red hair. Does that mean they cannot be priests today?
It was harder for women to move around in those days because they were always pregnant. At the time, it just might be that he looked out into the group and had to pick those who could move around easily in harsh conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top