Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[Vladd]

Ok, but can’t it be her soul ? I mean that’s 3rd world! This is 2012 here and the only reason women were considered less is because they couldn’t do as much labour or fight as well , right? I hope the god of the bible is more opened minded than a 3rd world country. I wouldn’t think he would condem a woman from having the same status as a priest , do you?

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.

huh the priest acts in the Christ person? All priest? That’s their job? Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Why? Because they owned property? So did many orders or nuns - run by abbesses and mother superiors who managed everything in the same way men did.

Because they ran businesses such as schools and hospitals and so were out in the community helping? Again, so did nuns. More so than priests, probably.

Because they were teachers and theologians and movers and shakers? As stated above, so were people like St Catherine of Siena and St Teresa of Avila.

Because they advised people including bishops and Popes on matters spiritual and practical? Again, St Hildegard of Bingen as well as St Catherine and St Teresa and others did so very openly.

 

[Vladd]

Why? Because they owned property? So did many orders or nuns - run by abbesses and mother superiors who managed everything in the same way men did.

Because they ran businesses such as schools and hospitals and so were out in the community helping? Again, so did nuns. More so than priests, probably.

Because they were teachers and theologians and movers and shakers? As stated above, so were people like St Catherine of Siena and St Teresa of Avila.

Because they advised people including bishops and Popes on matters spiritual and practical? Again, St Hildegard of Bingen as well as St Catherine and St Teresa and others did so very openly.

As they do today and would do more if given the chance . Not in Islamic countries of course . I rest my case. One question here: does one have to stand behind the popes decision to be a catholic?

 

[Vladd]

This is very Catholic of you to say, Vladd!

Right. And when a mother throws a ball with her child, even if she’s doing the very same job as a father, when she’s doing it she’s ontologically, at her essence, doing this as a mother, and not as a father.

I hope you have time to read the article I cited in the hyperlink. Please take the time to do so. Thanks.

When a mother throws a ball with her child?? Did Mary throw a ball with Jesus? What’s that have to do with raising a kid ? I know it’s not to be taken literal , but that’s no reason why a mother can’t raise a boy to be a man. I think Mary did a good job at it.

 

[LilyM]

As they do today and would do more if given the chance . Not in Islamic countries of course . I rest my case. One question here: does one have to stand behind the popes decision to be a catholic?

To be a Catholic in good standing one needs to stand by all the Church’s teachings.

This was not something the Pope, on his own, decided in the manner a tax official might decide how much tax you have to pay.

This is something believed and taught consistently for 2000 years that he re-affirmed is all.

 

[Lochias]

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

Forgive me, but only to outsiders who are woefully, painfully uneducated about the subject at hand.

 

[Lochias]

huh the priest acts in the Christ person? All priest? That’s their job? Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that.

Indeed. It’s amazing what reading some basic books on the subject of the Catholic Faith would do for many. Catholicism For Dummies is a great starting point, and many folks on here speak of it glowingly.

 

[heaintheavy]

It appears that you are operating under the misapprehension that all God’s teachings must be found in the Bible.

Where does this belief of yours come from?

It comes from the logic that the Christian religion is based on the one who came along and founded it, Jesus of Nazareth, and what he said and did.
That makes sense, doesn’t it?

If the rules or doctrines are not based on what he said, then…they are just made up? With mortal men (but no women) guessing?

 

[heaintheavy]

That’s because you view the priesthood as simply a profession. Not with the ontological eyes of the Catholic Church.

The priesthood is NOT a job. At the moment of ordination, the universe is changed forever! What existed 30 seconds prior to this ordination exists no more. There is a change to his very essence–ontologically–at his soul.

No, I understand that it is meant to be a calling (though many priests do, indeed, go into it as a job). But I see that women are “called” to it, too.

 

[heaintheavy]

Yes. It originated in the Church established by Jesus Christ. And whatever she binds on earth, heaven binds as well.

Yes. I’ve never found this argument very compelling.

'zactly. And it is thanks to the Church that we know whether that this is a disciplinary matter and not a doctrinal one.

Right. Who cooked the lamb?

Sure, women can preach.

But a preacher is not a priest. Not even close. This shows a very diminished understanding about the nature of the priesthood.

I was waitin’, all excited, for you to answer the big finale question!

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?

You commented on all the others! Can you answer the last one, puh-leeze, and thanks!

 

[heaintheavy]

Short answer: because women can’t be fathers.

Long answer: here.

Okay, I read the long answer. And it still doesn’t answer the question, or make sense to me.

Why would women not being able to be fathers–a person who deposits sperm is how it is defined in that post, I think?-- still preclude them from being a priest?
Male priests don’t make use of their sperm.
Jesus didn’t make use of his sperm.

And why can’t “a sublime, profound change occur” to a female person as well as a male person?

Still not understanding this logic, PR.

 

[LilyM]

Okay, I read the long answer. And it still doesn’t answer the question, or make sense to me.

Why would women not being able to be fathers–a person who deposits sperm is how it is defined in that post, I think?-- still preclude them from being a priest?
Male priests don’t make use of their sperm.
Jesus didn’t make use of his sperm.

And why can’t “a sublime, profound change occur” to a female person as well as a male person?

Still not understanding this logic, PR.

If you can’t understand, then you’ll also never be able to understand why women cannot also donate sperm, why men can never have menstrual periods, why 2 + 2 cannot equal 328, or why the sun will never rise in the east nor the moon set in the west.

And who says Jesus did not make use of his maleness? He could easily have chosen to be intersexed if gender did not matter, or else to appoint female apostles to teach us that it
doesn’t matter. He had the choices. He chose to be male, and moreover chose that all His apostles be male. And all their successors for 1900 years! He was certainly capable of making His wishes known if He wanted female priests.

Are having sex and fathering children (sorry, not even these, just producing sperm) truly the be-all and end-all of what it means to be male? What a sad, limited view of gender you have if you cannot see that males are much more than females with a few bodily
differences (sorry, just one) and vice versa.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry, that first para sounds a bit snarky. I apologise. Let’s see if I can rephrase a bit better.

Jesus at the last supper chose to attach significance to the bread and the wine, and commanded His apostles to use them in communion services. There were other things there that He could equally easily have chosen - lamb was part of the meal, and I’d imagine water was too. These could have been used instead.

So, no one who views a communion meal thinks ‘obviously it is a plot by the Church, since there is nothing inherently inferior or unsuitable about lamb or water. I will stand up and scream and shout until everyone is using lamb in their communion services at least as often as they use bread, and water as often as wine.’

No, they can see the logic that since Jesus used bread and wine, and we follow Him, we do the same.’

Likewise with the Cross. Not that Jesus chose to be crucified, nor that there is anything inherently ‘better’ about it than about other weapons of death - knives, poison or whatnot. Nonetheless, because He WAS crucified rather than stabbed or poisoned, we employ the cross as the appropriate symbol of our faith. If He had indeed been stabbed or poisoned, we might be using the image of a knife or a vial of poison as the symbol of our faith.

See what I mean? The employment of males as priests has all sorts of resonances, among those are some that are admittedly purely symbolic. They cannot be dismissed merely for that reason - symbols are extremely important!

It would be somewhat ridiculous, would it not, to suddenly take a vote and say ‘hey guys, let’s use lamb and water/cookies and milk/doritos and coke instead - it’s all food and drink, right?’ Or ‘hey, let’s start sticking huge models of knives and guns on top of our churches, they’re all instruments of death like the cross, right?’

 

[Brendan]

Why though ? Why can’t a woman be a priest? To me that’s a lot like Islam.

Because God is fair and just.

In Cathlolic terms, a human person is a union of body and soul ( Corpre and Animus Unis). It is not a Soul occuping a body, like Plato once suggested, but what defines the human person is a soul in union with the body. Neither is complete without the other, neither is greater than the other in terms of our human ‘completeness’

We also see in God that His greatest desire is for us to spend Eternity with Him. In other words, to have Saints in Heaven with Him.

Since the human person has two realities, the biological and the ontological, we see the sexual experience in both.

The woman brings forth the biological, or more specifically, has the greater role in bringing forth the biological aspect of humanity. The priest enhances the ontological. Both operating together are what produce a saint.

We see that reality in the biological sense, where the man and the woman together, but with the woman’s uniqure biology, bring forth physical life.

In the Sacraments, we see the man, with his unique ontology, bring forth spirtual life. Since the body is the Form of the Soul (thanks to St. Thomas Aquinas), we know that the souls of each person are not only unique, but the souls of men and women differ as well.

Now a Platonist, who views the spirtual elements of humanity to be greater than the biological, would therefore hold that the priest has the greater role in making a saint. Not so with a Catholic. As I mentioned, we are not Platonic dualists. We are Ontologicaly Unitists.

Nor are we Protestants, who view the priesthood as a simply a presider role, who who simply leads a congregation. In our priesthood, the priest brings forth the Sacrament of the Eucharist, an ontological reality that requires a soul that is changed and configured for exactly that purpose, as in the same way, a woman’s body is both changed and configured to bring for biological life

We therefore see God dividing the role of the participation of His creation of new Saints to be equally and fairly divided between the sexes. And equality and fairness is a good think, right

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s see here, it lasted 350 years so what would your guess be?

As my question concerned how many were killed by Catholics, (and, as you know, Protestants killed many during their own Inquisition), the answer is:** not very many.**

Now, in contrast, millions died during a similar period (let’s take your number of 350 years) during paganistic battles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm

I only brought it up because it ticks me off for the pope to say a woman can’t have any power in the church . That’s what that means in a more blunt sense.

Power? Do you think being a priest is about power? I doubt that you’ve ever spoken to your local parish priest about how much power he has. I bet he can’t even get 25% of his parish to follow 1 thing he has proposed in a homily of late.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not trying to be catholic or any other form of religious term . I’m looking for the best way of life , if it’s through religion so be it, if not …

How 'bout looking for truth? One can believe in some sort of fantasy and it may provide him the “best way of life”, but is that really what you want, Vladd?

 

[PRmerger]

Now, can she be married again or is that a sin?

Not if she’s already married.

Just curious–is it your belief, in your pagan view, that a man can take 3 or 4 wives (or as many as he wishes)?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok, but can’t it be her soul ?

No, it can’t. Ordination requires the proper matter. Just as all sacraments do. One cannot baptize with dirt. The proper matter is water. One cannot confect the Eucharist with oreos and Pepsi. The proper matter is bread and wine.

I mean that’s 3rd world! This is 2012 here and the only reason women were considered less is because they couldn’t do as much labour or fight as well , right?

I guess so.

I hope the god of the bible is more opened minded than a 3rd world country.

I would hope so!

I wouldn’t think he would condem a woman from having the same status as a priest , do you?

Women do have the same “status” as priest: children of God. Beloved of Jesus. Receiver of His graces. Disciples of Christ. Servants of God.

After all god could of just as well sent a woman and if this woman would of had a fraction of his soul then she could of took all the sins on the cross for ( man- kind) on her as well. Just happened to send a man since back then a woman would of been made fun of even more than Jesus was because of ignorant minds.

Okay.

Funny ( man- kind) hasnt progressed much I see.

You wouldn’t want to see what the world would be like if paganism had not been superceded by Christianity!

 

[Marybeloved]

Sorry, that first para sounds a bit snarky. I apologise. Let’s see if I can rephrase a bit better.

Jesus at the last supper chose to attach significance to the bread and the wine, and commanded His apostles to use them in communion services. There were other things there that He could equally easily have chosen - lamb was part of the meal, and I’d imagine water was too. These could have been used instead.

So, no one who views a communion meal thinks ‘obviously it is a plot by the Church, since there is nothing inherently inferior or unsuitable about lamb or water. I will stand up and scream and shout until everyone is using lamb in their communion services at least as often as they use bread, and water as often as wine.’

No, they can see the logic that since Jesus used bread and wine, and we follow Him, we do the same.’

Likewise with the Cross. Not that Jesus chose to be crucified, nor that there is anything inherently ‘better’ about it than about other weapons of death - knives, poison or whatnot. Nonetheless, because He WAS crucified rather than stabbed or poisoned, we employ the cross as the appropriate symbol of our faith. If He had indeed been stabbed or poisoned, we might be using the image of a knife or a vial of poison as the symbol of our faith.

See what I mean? The employment of males as priests has all sorts of resonances, among those are some that are admittedly purely symbolic. They cannot be dismissed merely for that reason - symbols are extremely important!

It would be somewhat ridiculous, would it not, to suddenly take a vote and say ‘hey guys, let’s use lamb and water/cookies and milk/doritos and coke instead - it’s all food and drink, right?’ Or ‘hey, let’s start sticking huge models of knives and guns on top of our churches, they’re all instruments of death like the cross, right?’

Perfect, perfect Post.

 

[PRmerger]

When a mother throws a ball with her child?? Did Mary throw a ball with Jesus? What’s that have to do with raising a kid ?

It shows that when a woman who has children does a particular activity, it is ALWAYS–each and every time–done as a mother. Not as a father.

Thus, even if a woman were to give a homily, counsel couples before marriage, hear a penitent’s confession, she is doing it as a “mother”. And what is required for the priesthood is a “father.”

I know it’s not to be taken literal , but that’s no reason why a mother can’t raise a boy to be a man. I think Mary did a good job at it.

Indeed.

And, as I’m curious, based on what data do you say that Mary did a “good job” at raising Jesus?