Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[heaintheavy]

Can you cite some sources for this, heaintheavy?
Just as some women feel called to marry a particular man, but it turns out that they were simply misled by their emotions.
Feeling called to do something does not necessarily imply that this calling is correct.

Sources? Do you mean for men who go into priesthood looking at is as a job?

I don’t think there are polls done on this sort of thing (are there?)…but I personally know one priest who went into it because his parents pushed him to…and another who went into it with an “ambitious” viewpoint…and yet another priest who went into it and had a secret lover and children and stole money during his twenty years as a priest. So in those three cases, for example, they weren’t going into it with the proper calling, I’d say?

 

[saveusfromhell]

Not sure I understand your first question…
But I can comment on the second part. How do you define sacred tradition?
Tradition is a way of doing something that is passed down through generations…but that doesn’t always mean it is the best way to do something. Two thousand years ago, it was tradition to crucify people if they were found guilty of a crime. We realize now there are more humane ways to punish a criminal.
There are many traditions in religion that are no longer followed because we re-look at them and know more now, after the passage of time, and can make wiser choices.
We have to be brave enough to change something that is not working, do we not?
So if a tradition is not working, we can’t just stick to it because we are used to it or have sentimental feelings toward it or because our parents did it…if there is a better, more logical, smarter way, to do something.
You don’t agree?

tradition small t capital T

 

[saveusfromhell]

Sources? Do you mean for men who go into priesthood looking at is as a job?

I don’t think there are polls done on this sort of thing (are there?)…but I personally know one priest who went into it because his parents pushed him to…and another who went into it with an “ambitious” viewpoint…and yet another priest who went into it and had a secret lover and children and stole money during his twenty years as a priest. So in those three cases, for example, they weren’t going into it with the proper calling, I’d say?

these are irrelevant on a forum as it’s just hearsay sorry.

 

[heaintheavy]

Since there have NEVER been women priests in Christianity, this question is a bit puzzling.

I just cannot see how to communicate my question more clearly and how to get a specific answer on this.

Somewhere along the way, someone decided women can’t be priests, right?
Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else in those first decades or hundreds of years must have said it somewhere and made the law or rule or doctrine.

From what I’ve read, women acted as “priests” in homes for years in early Christianity. Women today, too, feel called to priesthood, as is evidenced by the many Catholic women who express this.
Someone must have said at some point along the way that “this is not allowed.”

But who, when, and why?

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure I understand your first question…

You have a belief that’s not found in Scripture.

Yet you object to Catholics doing the same.

Why the double standard?

That’s my question.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you define sacred tradition?

God’s Word that has been orally preserved through the Holy Spirit and handed on through His Church.

Tradition is a way of doing something that is passed down through generations…but that doesn’t always mean it is the best way to do something

.

Indeed. But here you are talking about “custom”, or “tradition”, which is to be distinguished from Sacred Tradition.

 

[heaintheavy]

Why is this disucssion contuing? Fact: There will NEVER be a woman priest. It is not possible. The Pope himself does not have the authority to allow this. Also it is not natrual. The concept of a woman priest is like a man getting pregnant. It is not possible.

But how are you, logically, equating these two examples?
Men cannot physically have babies.
Women can, physically, be priests!
There is no vagina or penis or semen or giving birth to a baby involved in being a priest, is there?

 

[PRmerger]

Sources? Do you mean for men who go into priesthood looking at is as a job?

I don’t think there are polls done on this sort of thing (are there?)…but I personally know one priest who went into it because his parents pushed him to…and another who went into it with an “ambitious” viewpoint…and yet another priest who went into it and had a secret lover and children and stole money during his twenty years as a priest. So in those three cases, for example, they weren’t going into it with the proper calling, I’d say?

Oh, well, then, if your position is that men sometimes are ordained without the proper calling, then I doubt there’s anyone here who will disagree with that.

 

[PRmerger]

I just cannot see how to communicate my question more clearly and how to get a specific answer on this.

Somewhere along the way, someone decided women can’t be priests, right?
Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else in those first decades or hundreds of years must have said it somewhere and made the law or rule or doctrine.

From what I’ve read, women acted as “priests” in homes for years in early Christianity. Women today, too, feel called to priesthood, as is evidenced by the many Catholic women who express this.
Someone must have said at some point along the way that “this is not allowed.”

But who, when, and why?

It’s *never *been allowed.

So it’s like my children saying, “When was the decision made that we couldn’t just skip school whenever we felt like it? Who decided that, and when?”

 

[Lokabrenna]

They need to propagate feminist dogma.

Well I am a feminist, but honestly I don’t care about who the church wants to ordain or why, my tradition has absolutely no problem with women serving as priestesses, I just sought to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding in a previous post. shrug

 

[saveusfromhell]

I just cannot see how to communicate my question more clearly and how to get a specific answer on this.

Somewhere along the way, someone decided women can’t be priests, right?
Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else in those first decades or hundreds of years must have said it somewhere and made the law or rule or doctrine.

From what I’ve read, women acted as “priests” in homes for years in early Christianity. Women today, too, feel called to priesthood, as is evidenced by the many Catholic women who express this.
Someone must have said at some point along the way that “this is not allowed.”

But who, when, and why?

Christans or judaism, thus typology, tradition and scripture. why did Jesus not make the BVM one of the 12. Jesus was never afraid of contraversy so why didn’t he make his beloved mother one of the 12.
that is the who, the when although i don’t know the why

 

[heaintheavy]

Ok, lets try this. I’m going to be frank and a little graphic, but I’m tired and should be doing homework so whatever (also: I may ramble a bit).

You need to understand that it’s not just about actions, but what a person could do. In Catholic speak, what they are ordered towards doing (what they could normally do).

It does not matter whether or not they use them, but that they could use them. A man who is a priest could if he chose to go out and have sex and father a child because he has that ability to give sperm. It does not matter whether or not he does or not (emphasis on the not preferably), he could do it. A man is ordered towards doing this, whether he does or doesn’t is irrelevant.

I understand that you are saying that in the religion, a man is “ordered” to be a sexual being that could, if needed, perform a task specific to those gender organs.

But I still don’t understand…why everyone keeps saying that only someone ordered to be a father can be a priest?
The actual role of being a priest–what a priest does–has no physical gender specific need or task. It is a spiritual job that is far beyond the physical body of the person, isn’t it?

Where would the need or ruling for a specific gender come from?

 

[heaintheavy]

To misquote a famous lesbian/feminist militant statement:

“The Church needs women priests like a fish needs a bicycle.”

)

That’s Gloria Steinem.
She’s NOT gay.

The quote is: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

 

[PRmerger]

The actual role of being a priest–what a priest** does**–has no physical gender specific need or task. It is a spiritual job that is far beyond the physical body of the person, isn’t it?

This is absolutely true, heaintheavy.

And it shows an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

It’s not about what he does.

It’s about who he is.

For, as you correctly point out, a woman can do all of the “roles” that a priest does–counselor, homilist, parish manager, perhaps with even more charity and wisdom.

However, the priesthood is not about what he does.

 

[Irishgal49]

Is it possible to ban something that has never been allowed?

Amen! Whatever the intentions --deliberately disobeying the Church and (so-called) “ordaining” women to these offices is out and out rebellion. It’s sending a message that if you disagree with something, do whatever the heck you want and thumb your nose at the Church.

Lorrie

 

[Irishgal49]

I understand that you are saying that in the religion, a man is “ordered” to be a sexual being that could, if needed, perform a task specific to those gender organs.

But I still don’t understand…why everyone keeps saying that only someone ordered to be a father can be a priest?
The actual role of being a priest–what a priest does–has no physical gender specific need or task. It is a spiritual job that is far beyond the physical body of the person, isn’t it?

Where would the need or ruling for a specific gender come from?

Jesus…He never let convention stop Him, if He truly wanted women ordained He would have ordained them, regardless of what society thought. He set the precedent when He ordained only men and they are named. HE alone established the Tradition so the Church is correct in saying it has no authority to confer holy orders on women. They didn’t say no…they said they do not have the authority. There’s a HUGE difference in those two statements. We must follow the Church the way Jesus, Himself established it.

Lorrie

 

[PRmerger]

I just cannot see how to communicate my question more clearly and how to get a specific answer on this.

Somewhere along the way, someone decided women can’t be priests, right?
Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else in those first decades or hundreds of years must have said it somewhere and made the law or rule or doctrine.

From what I’ve read, women acted as “priests” in homes for years in early Christianity. Women today, too, feel called to priesthood, as is evidenced by the many Catholic women who express this.
Someone must have said at some point along the way that “this is not allowed.”

But who, when, and why?

A parallel to this would be for you to ask: When did the Church demand that marriage be only between a man and a woman? Who decided that, when and why?

The answer to that would be: um…it’s always been that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[heaintheavy]

It’s *never *been allowed.
So it’s like my children saying, “When was the decision made that we couldn’t just skip school whenever we felt like it? Who decided that, and when?”

That’s not an apt analogy because the truth is, they can skip school whenever they want! They may get in trouble, but they can surely do it! No one is stopping them.
And there is a written school code written by the Board of Education that will say if a student misses a certain number of classes, they can’t pass their grade because they will not have learned enough.
There are no secrets to this answer. It makes sense. It is explained. The student has free will to go to class or not.

So all I am asking is…if it’s NEVER been allowed…WHY has it never been allowed?
What is or was the thought process in this decision?

Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else made the rule.

If I had to answer why with my own common sense and taking into consideration the context of the era, I’d imagine it was because women couldn’t get around as easily (being pregnant, having periods) and weren’t taken as seriously (so who is gonna listen to them?) and didn’t have positions of teaching then, etc, etc. So I imagine it was a practical decision.

But none of this is true today.
So why would this rule/doctrine not be revised?

Unless there is some other reason? But I keep asking and no one is answering the simplest question: Why does one have to have a male body in order to be a priest?
Someone?
Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller?

 

[saveusfromhell]

From what I’ve read, women acted as “priests” in homes for years in early Christianity. Women today, too, feel called to priesthood, as is evidenced by the many Catholic women who express this

that doesn’t make it true that women acted as priests it’s more hearsay unless you provide proof

 

[saveusfromhell]

That’s not an apt analogy because the truth is, they can skip school whenever they want! They may get in trouble, but they can surely do it! No one is stopping them.
And there is a written school code written by the Board of Education that will say if a student misses a certain number of classes, they can’t pass their grade because they will not have learned enough.
There are no secrets to this answer. It makes sense. It is explained. The student has free will to go to class or not.

So all I am asking is…if it’s NEVER been allowed…WHY has it never been allowed?
What is or was the thought process in this decision?

Jesus didn’t say it, so someone else made the rule.

If I had to answer why with my own common sense and taking into consideration the context of the era, I’d imagine it was because women couldn’t get around as easily (being pregnant, having periods) and weren’t taken as seriously (so who is gonna listen to them?) and didn’t have positions of teaching then, etc, etc. So I imagine it was a practical decision.

But none of this is true today.
So why would this rule/doctrine not be revised?

Unless there is some other reason? But I keep asking and no one is answering the simplest question: Why does one have to have a male body in order to be a priest?
Someone?
Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller?

you don’t understand tradition, (capital T). Jesus did not make his mother a priest, jews did not make women priests,so it’s not in scripture. catholic church therefore can not make a woman a priest unless it is found in scripture or tradition and the magisterium has made it an irrevocable teaching it now can never be changed. These are the 3 legs of the stool that all teachings of the church come under.
the male body part idea is a silly thread that is being discussed elsewhere.