Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[heaintheavy]

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

We covered this one earlier on in the debate.
You are saying that just because Jesus picked only men as apostles, that meant that he meant that for the rest of eternity, men can only be priests?

Again, why this leap in logic?
Who deduced this?

If his apostles were only of a certain age range…would that mean older men could not become priests ever?

Someone had to interpret it this way, decipher his actions as meaning this.
Who was it?

If I was reading the bible as a blank slate and read about the apostles,it never would have occurred to me that his actions here would mean that he was telling people that for the rest of humankind, only men could be priests.
It would make more sense to say…both men and women followed him and preached…so both men and women can be priests.

I must ask you…is this what the entire doctrine is based on? Because of those twelve men?
There may have been many, varied reasons why he chose only men for those three years that have nothing to do with the eventual doctrine that was established.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I think perhaps heaintheavy is referring to women deacons? In the NT there is mention of women being deacons.

But never priests.

Never. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

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.

No, heaintheavy. I can assure you that they absolutely can not skip school. Not if they’re living in this house.

No one is stopping them? Excuse me? What do you think DH and I are? No one?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

It has to do, heaintheavy, with the nature of the priesthood. Ontologically, at its very essence, the priesthood is about fatherhood. It reflects the* fatherhood* of God, the *Person *of Jesus.

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

The Church, which speaks for Jesus, (see Luke 10:16) said it.

 

[saveusfromhell]

I think perhaps heaintheavy is referring to women deacons? In the NT there is mention of women being deacons.

But never priests.

Never. :nope:

irishgal has a thread refering to women deacons,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=664184

 

[PRmerger]

If I was reading the bible as a blank slate and read about the apostles,it never would have occurred to me that his actions here would mean that he was telling people that for the rest of humankind, only men could be priests.

Fair enough.

But one ought not read the Bible as a “blank slate”. Why would you want to do that?

It would make more sense to say…both men and women followed him and preached…so both men and women can be priests.

Actually, what logically follows is “both men and women followed him and preached…so both men and women can be preachers.”

A priest is not a preacher.

 

[saveusfromhell]

a blank slate, sola scripture, in the wrong forum site to think that holds water as a reason why there should be women priests

 

[heaintheavy]

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.

Yes. But.
Women were also not allowed to be many things two thousand years ago.
Do we find women in the bible as doctors and landowners and carpenters and fishermen and politicians and bankers?
I don’t think so (but do correct me if I’m wrong, would love to be wrong on this).
Yet the church allows them to do these things today.

So just because we don’t find women doing certain things then, it shouldn’t and doesn’t mean they cannot do them* now*.

Just because Mary wasn’t a priest…an entire gender should be shut out?

Maybe she wasn’t a priest for many reasons…she had other work to do and an entire family to take care of…maybe she didn’t like to talk in public…maybe she was shy (she stays in the sidelines for much of the bible)…maybe she had sore feet…there could be zillions of reasons. Maybe she didn’t want to be a priest.

The point is…if he never said women can’t be priests, we don’t know that that is what he was thinking.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Yes. But.
Women were also not allowed to be many things two thousand years ago.
Do we find women in the bible as doctors and landowners and carpenters and fishermen and politicians and bankers?
I don’t think so (but do correct me if I’m wrong, would love to be wrong on this).
Yet the church allows them to do these things today.

So just because we don’t find women doing certain things then, it shouldn’t and doesn’t mean they cannot do them* now*.

Just because Mary wasn’t a priest…an entire gender should be shut out?

Maybe she wasn’t a priest for many reasons…she had other work to do and an entire family to take care of…maybe she didn’t like to talk in public…maybe she was shy (she stays in the sidelines for much of the bible)…maybe she had sore feet…there could be zillions of reasons. Maybe she didn’t want to be a priest.

The point is…if he never said women can’t be priests, we don’t know that that is what he was thinking.

on the carpenters or bankers your mixing up tradition with a capital T with tradition with small t
maybe i’m not being clear enough, typology in the bible is old testament reflected in new testament. or nt reflected in new etc. so the jews did not have women priests or it’s equivelant, so it’s not in scripture. Jesus did not have women discples as one of the 12 even though many women followed him. we point to Mary because Jesus and the church holds BVM so highly. as i said on the other thread, so much so that we have to explain that she is not regarded as God by catholics. yet even the BVM was not made a priest.the apostles held her in high esteem we know this from sacred tradition but not a priest.
as i said for catholics to believe something they have to find it in sacred tradition or in scripture thirdly the magestrium. but the last pope part of the magestrium has made it a dogma of the faith. so it can never be changed. ever.

 

[curlycool89]

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?

sigh We’ve been over this already heaintheavy.

Male = maleness = giving the Sacraments to others. Like Jesus, who was a man, and who gives graces to us.

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?

The physical part of a priest (preaching, reading from a book, etc) is irrelevant. Men or women can lead lay liturgies or communion services (that is licit by the way).

You’ve got to look at what they’ve metaphysically got to do, which is offer the sacraments. When the priest during the Mass says “This is my body”, he speaks in persona Christi and the bread becomes the actual Body of Christ. When he says in confession “I absolve you from your sins”, your sins are forgiven in the name of Christ and the Church. He receives the ability (power if you will, but that’s a bad description) by virtue of his ordination.

But, in order to have those words have an effect, the priest must be one who shares in the intrinsic nature of Christ as someone who is an “initiator” or “gift-giver”, which is something given to males (as seen in the sexual act). Females do not share this intrinsic nature. They are like humankind in relation to God: women can bring life only after the gift given by a man (sperm) just like humans can only help others after we’ve been given graces by God, just like we only love God because He loved us first.

Like PRmerger also said, being a priest is not about what the priest does. It’s about who he is. A vocation is a calling to be someone, it’s not the same as being called to do something like an occupation (engineer, or teacher, or doctor).

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s Gloria Steinem.
She’s NOT gay.

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

I know the quote. I grew up hearing it.



I’m not sure about Gloria, but the quote was adopted by lesbians and feminists, especially separatist lesbians. That’s what I meant.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We covered this one earlier on in the debate.
You are saying that just because Jesus picked only men as apostles, that meant that he meant that for the rest of eternity, men can only be priests?

Again, why this leap in logic?
Who deduced this?

If his apostles were only of a certain age range…would that mean older men could not become priests ever?

Someone had to interpret it this way, decipher his actions as meaning this.
Who was it?

If I was reading the bible as a blank slate and read about the apostles,it never would have occurred to me that his actions here would mean that he was telling people that for the rest of humankind, only men could be priests.
It would make more sense to say…both men and women followed him and preached…so both men and women can be priests.

I must ask you…is this what the entire doctrine is based on? Because of those twelve men?
There may have been many, varied reasons why he chose only men for those three years that have nothing to do with the eventual doctrine that was established.

Arrogant much? You are seriously trying to second-guess Jesus?

:dts:

 

[Kithrus]

Yes. But.
Women were also not allowed to be many things two thousand years ago.
Do we find women in the bible as doctors and landowners and carpenters and fishermen and politicians and bankers?
I don’t think so (but do correct me if I’m wrong, would love to be wrong on this).
Yet the church allows them to do these things today.

So just because we don’t find women doing certain things then, it shouldn’t and doesn’t mean they cannot do them* now*.

Just because Mary wasn’t a priest…an entire gender should be shut out?

Maybe she wasn’t a priest for many reasons…she had other work to do and an entire family to take care of…maybe she didn’t like to talk in public…maybe she was shy (she stays in the sidelines for much of the bible)…maybe she had sore feet…there could be zillions of reasons. Maybe she didn’t want to be a priest.

The point is…if he never said women can’t be priests, we don’t know that that is what he was thinking.

Maybe you need to address the question in your mind as to why your pushing this issue. Are you demanding ladies as priests because you see this as an equality thing or something else?

This is merely an issue of structure not equality. The traditions and the church with the guidance of the holy spirit made the call. It is not our place to reverse it

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Really? So the Church looked for things to support what they already believed?

You’re talking about the Church which was based on a God who became incarnate, suffered, died and rose from the dead to save sinful people–not just the good ones.

NONE of these concepts jibed with what people ‘already believed’. All these concepts and more were absolutely outside the norm of matching ‘beliefs’, whether in pagan religions or even in Judaism as the Jews understood it.

But you say (without any kind of evidence to support your statement) that the Church–a persecuted group even by the Jews they considered themselves to be ‘coheirs’–in the midst of suffering and dying for Christ, latched onto teaching only the kind of ‘beliefs’ that matched what they believed.

Sorry it just doesn’t sound plausible to me.

No more implausible than an all-powerful God having to sacrifice himself (Jesus) to Himself. To balance the scales on the system he created.

Moreover, the priesthood as we know it did not even exist when the Church was created. So of course that’s not what I am saying.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

can someone explain to me why pagan’s and atheists want women priests

I don’t.
I think these would-be women priests would be better off just leaving the Catholic Church:shrug:

 

[saveusfromhell]

then why spend time arguing for it, bored:shrug:
surely if you want to debate the existence of God i can understand contributing on this forum but women priests just seems strange.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

then why spend time arguing for it, bored:shrug:
surely if you want to debate the existence of God i can understand contributing on this forum but women priests just seems strange.

Some people just like to argue for the sake of it.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. But.
Women were also not allowed to be many things two thousand years ago.
Do we find women in the bible as doctors and landowners and carpenters and fishermen and politicians and bankers?
I don’t think so (but do correct me if I’m wrong, would love to be wrong on this).
Yet the church allows them to do these things today.

Again, this shows an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.

That’s perhaps how Protestants view their ministers/preachers.

But it’s certainly not applicable to the priesthood.

 

[PRmerger]

Just because Mary wasn’t a priest…an entire gender should be shut out?

I think, heaintheavy, it would be best, before you pursue any more discussion on this, that you inform yourself a bit better about the Catholic Church’s teaching.

It is well laid out here:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

and here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html

Then, perhaps, after reading, your questions may be a bit different and more informed, and we can discuss.

 

[LilyM]

Again, this shows an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

Ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.

That’s perhaps how Protestants view their ministers/preachers.

But it’s certainly not applicable to the priesthood.

Exactly. In the Old Testament we see that God chose a particular group - the tribe of Israel - to be beneficiaries of His particular protection. Why? Not because the Israelites in general were superior in any way, although He had a fondness for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

We also see that He chose a particular group (Aaron and his descendants) to fulfil particular priestly roles. Why? We don’t really know. I don’t think there was anything special about either Aaron or his descendants that.is revealed in scripture as particularly fitting them for the priesthood. Nonetheless, we know, because scripture reveals, that this group WAS reserved to the priesthood.