Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[saveusfromhell]

But nobody looks at those other cultures as models worth emulating or as societies we should study to determine proper moral behavior.
The ancient Israelites were a fairly vicious, xenophobic, and misogynistic bunch.
We should not idealize them.

ive heard that charge levelled on the Americans regularly in Europe by the media over the last number of years, maybe not the misogynistic part, but certainly the rest, does that make it so? by the way your still here trying to support the notion of women priests ?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

ive heard that charge levelled on the Americans regularly in Europe by the media over the last number of years, maybe not the misogynistic part, but certainly the rest, does that make it so? by the way your still here trying to support the notion of women priests ?

No.
I think everyone (including the would-be female priests themselves) would be happier if the women just left the Church.

 

[saveusfromhell]

No.
I think everyone (including the would-be female priests themselves) would be happier if the women just left the Church.

no certainly not, maybe you might want to see people leave the faith not me.

 

[nickybr38]

No.
I think everyone (including the would-be female priests themselves) would be happier if the women just left the Church.

Of course. Anytime something doesn’t agree with your emotions and desires, you should just abandon it and seek something that more properly suits your worldview. This is definitely how you should approach life, religion, politics, relationships, and anything of import… sarcasm

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course. Anytime something doesn’t agree with your emotions and desires, you should just abandon it and seek something that more properly suits your worldview. This is definitely how you should approach life, religion, politics, relationships, and anything of import… sarcasm

This is not a minor issue.
Even the Church itself admit this.

Would it really be better for these women to stay in a church that they believe regards them as inferior (and thus bars them from the priesthood)?
What about their influence on other members?
Is that positive?

 

[nickybr38]

This is not a minor issue.
Even the Church itself admit this.

Would it really be better for these women to stay in a church that they believe regards them as inferior (and thus bars them from the priesthood)?
What about their influence on other members?
Is that positive?

I strongly suggest these women look more deeply into their beliefs before they leave. If they truly believe this Church was founded by God they will set aside their pride and their ego and embrace their faith.

As to their ‘influence’ on other members… we are a community. We are not isolated. There are influences from inside and out. This can’t be escaped from and we shouldn’t be so sheltered that one woman who feels she should be a priest will be that big of a negative influence.

 

[saveusfromhell]

This is not a minor issue.
Even the Church itself admit this.

Would it really be better for these women to stay in a church that they believe regards them as inferior (and thus bars them from the priesthood)?
What about their influence on other members?
Is that positive?

no you say inferior. we believe in life after death. prime e.g. blessed virgin Mary, was she subservient to Joseph? was she a priest?
yet she is held by the church in higher regard than angels or any other saint. does it look down on the BVM? did she not call herself lowly and a handmaid. to serve is better than to be served, first will be last. 80 years here infinity on the other side. what does it matter if you don’t get to be a priest. i would like to be one but i’m married and it’s not possible. i accept that.
Jesus was not born in herod’s home the king but in a stable. he washed the feet of the apostles a lowly thing to do. when people say I am being discriminated by the church they have missed the point.

 

[LilyM]

Thinking that your gender was so special and awesome that God chose to take on its form (instead of the other obvious choice)

So much more special and awesome? Or so much more in need of divine help because they were so much LESS awesome maybe?

 

[PRmerger]

I have honestly always had trouble taking the Virgin Mary seriously as the ideal woman.

What is her defining characteristic?
Not courage, hope, intelligence, willpower, discipline, or fortitude.
Simply devotion to God.

A devotion that was never tested the way it was in the case of the Christian martyrs.
Moreover she was only honored after she died/was assumed into heaven.

Frankly I think my own mother was far more admirable than the Virgin Mary as she’s usually depicted (of course I’m biased ).

You could even argue that Marian devotions lowered the status of women. By promoting as the ideal (woman) someone who always meekly conceded to masculine authority:shrug:

From this post, Angry, I assume that you were once a fundamentalist Christian, and never a well-catechized Catholic before leaving Christendom for atheism?

For this demonstrates all of the arguments that Fundamentalists throw at Catholics but lacks a well-formed Mariology.

Please see here here and here for the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary. If you search, you’ll find all of these words attached to Mary: courage, hope, intelligence, willpower, discipline, or fortitude (list taken from your earlier post.)

 

[PRmerger]

Would it really be better for these women to stay in a church that they believe regards them as inferior (and thus bars them from the priesthood)?
What about their influence on other members?
Is that positive?

What would be better is for all of us to conform ourselves to Truth, not find a place that massages and assuages what we find palatable.

That, of course, would be a ridiculous paradigm and a road to chaos and despair.

 

[heaintheavy]

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 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).

Well, now.
That is the FIRST time in all these years I have ever heard someone explain it where it actually makes sense!

I mean…I don’t* agree* with the logic of it, of course…we could look as women as “gift givers” because we grow and deliver babies to the world, we give milk, we nurture and feed (so the giving of the wine and bread makes even more sense)…I still would disagree that Jesus would say a woman can’t “become” the body of Christ, since it is more a spiritual than a physical…and he welcomed women in everything else…and more.

But!
At least I now understand the church’s thinking process.
The others weren’t as clear and detailed as you to get the point across. The “it’s who you are, not what you do” was still too vague.
So thanks, CC!

 

[heaintheavy]

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

:dts:

No!
I’m worried about the mortal, flawed, and perhaps not perceptive ones who may have been the ones who interpreted his actions!

 

[heaintheavy]

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

No, no…
I just cannot see the logic behind it and no one has explained it clearly…until CurlyC.
He/She explained it well.
(I don’t agree, but still…she/he explained the thought process behind it).

 

[heaintheavy]

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

I don’t think atheists want women priests.
What would atheists want women priests for,if they don’t believe in God?
That doesn’t make sense at all…

Is there some sort of atheists-for-women-priests group?
Not sure why you think this?
Please, to explain?

 

[heaintheavy]

They need to propagate feminist dogma.

I don’t think atheists want women priests.
What would atheists want women priests for,if they don’t believe in God?
That doesn’t make sense at all…

Is there some sort of atheists-for-women-priests group?
Not sure why you think this?
Please, to explain?

 

[heaintheavy]

What I don’t understand is heaintheavy claiming Jesus “never said no to women priests.”

Excuse me? How do you ‘deduce’ that?

Because"And lo the Lord Jesus sayeth, 'no women priests",isn’t found in 'the bible?"

Would you care to point out to me the Scripture which says," and all that the Lord Jesus said and taught to His disciples, which containeth ALL truth forever and there is no truth that will not be revealed otherwise, is to be found within the covers of the Holy Bible, and only there?"

Since Scripture itself teaches that not everything the Lord spoke and taught is contained in Scripture, and since Scripture teaches of a Holy Spirit who will guide to all truth (um, if somebody has to be guided to something, it isn’t already THERE and known to them, by definition), and since Scripture itself points out the apostles already (in acts) doing something on their own under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (which is appointing another apostle in Judas’s place. Jesus NEVER SAID, “oh guys, I like the number 12, go appoint somebody now that Judas is gone, ok?” But the apostles appointed somebody because they had AUTHORITY to make that kind of decision.

And since Scripture also tells us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of Truth, and Jesus told His disciples to found a CHURCH (not ‘a lot of churches’ but ONE TRUE CHURCH), and we know that the apostles (the 12 including the ONE WHO WAS NOT PERSONALLY APPOINTED BY JESUS) had authority to MAKE DECISIONS. . . BINDING DECISIONS (see Scripture Matthew 18 regarding ‘bind and loose’), and they chose not only to keep on appointing people to positions of AUTHORITY by THEIR authority, it makes sense that not only through the first 350 years of Christianity (which was WITHOUT THE BIBLE AS WE KNOW IT) and thereafter that the apostles in their CHURCH by their authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit would be able to be guided to all truth, then and now.

That you might not LIKE this truth, heaintheavy, doesn’t mean you can walk away and claim ‘Jesus never taught this’. First, you have absolutely no evidence that He didn’t teach it (as Scripture doesn’t contain all teaching) and second, since Jesus established a Church with AUTHORITY and claimed Himself to be ONE with THAT CHURCH, then that Church DOES teach what Jesus teaches.

Oy.
All I was saying is…many of the rules derive from what Jesus said, yes?
And if Jesus didn’t say it, then it had to come from someone or somewhere else, right?
…a group of “early fathers” or apostles or the men in those councils in 3-400 AD…someone or a group had to decide or interpret that Jesus would not have wanted women to become priests, right?
(I assume, if they thought he did want it, they would allow it).

So all I was asking was…if Jesus didn’t say it, who then decided it and why?

CC explained some of the why.
Tho no one has yet to explain the when and the who part.
I’m just glad someone was able to give the thinking behind it.

It’s got nothing to do with me liking it or not.
This is a very important topic to many–both men and women–and many people out there are confused as to why women cannot be priests.
More people should be able to explain it.

Whenever I’ve asked this question, the main answer I’ve been given is “there were only men apostles”…or Paul’s bit about “women can’t speak in church…” etc.
None of those made sense.

But CC’s explanation at least makes sense in the way the religion is set up! It matches with other beliefs.

So while I don’t agree with it or like it…at least CC did explain it in a way that I could see why a Catholic person wouldn’t have a problem agreeing to it.
But I have to wonder if a lot of other Catholics actually don’t know the info CC explained?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m glad that you seem to accept the teaching as explained to you by CurlyCool, heaintheavy. That’s something at least.

Now if we could only get you to understand that just because you do not see the words, “I the Lord say no women priests” in the Bible, that doesn’t mean Jesus never spoke on the topic****, and that the Catholic Church doesn’t make up rules on faith and morals, but always relies on the guidance of the Holy Spirit (who like Jesus is God), and not ‘from mere men alone’, we’d all rest easier.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Oy.
All I was saying is…many of the rules derive from what Jesus said, yes?
And if Jesus didn’t say it, then it had to come from someone or somewhere else, right?
…a group of “early fathers” or apostles or the men in those councils in 3-400 AD…someone or a group had to decide or interpret that Jesus would not have wanted women to become priests, right?
(I assume, if they thought he did want it, they would allow it).

So all I was asking was…if Jesus didn’t say it, who then decided it and why?

CC explained some of the why.
Tho no one has yet to explain the when and the who part.
I’m just glad someone was able to give the thinking behind it.

It’s got nothing to do with me liking it or not.
This is a very important topic to many–both men and women–and many people out there are confused as to why women cannot be priests.
More people should be able to explain it.

Whenever I’ve asked this question, the main answer I’ve been given is “there were only men apostles”…or Paul’s bit about “women can’t speak in church…” etc.
None of those made sense.

But CC’s explanation at least makes sense in the way the religion is set up! It matches with other beliefs.

So while I don’t agree with it or like it…at least CC did explain it in a way that I could see why a Catholic person wouldn’t have a problem agreeing to it.
But I have to wonder if a lot of other Catholics actually don’t know the info CC explained?

it’s hard to hear when you refuse to listen

 

[saveusfromhell]

I don’t think atheists want women priests.
What would atheists want women priests for,if they don’t believe in God?
That doesn’t make sense at all…

Is there some sort of atheists-for-women-priests group?
Not sure why you think this?
Please, to explain?

well it certainly seems like there is a large group of non catholics who want women priests. search any thread on women priests if your not sure why we think this.

Now if we could only get you to understand

i think heaintheavy is unwilling to accept rather than not being able to understand.

 

[LilyM]

Oy.
All I was saying is…many of the rules derive from what Jesus said, yes?
And if Jesus didn’t say it, then it had to come from someone or somewhere else, right?
…a group of “early fathers” or apostles or the men in those councils in 3-400 AD…someone or a group had to decide or interpret that Jesus would not have wanted women to become priests, right?
(I assume, if they thought he did want it, they would allow it).

So all I was asking was…if Jesus didn’t say it, who then decided it and why?

CC explained some of the why.
Tho no one has yet to explain the when and the who part.
I’m just glad someone was able to give the thinking behind it.

It’s got nothing to do with me liking it or not.
This is a very important topic to many–both men and women–and many people out there
are confused as to why women cannot be priests.
More people should be able to explain it.

Whenever I’ve asked this question, the main answer I’ve been given is “there were only men apostles”…or Paul’s bit about “women can’t speak in church…” etc.
None of those made sense.

But CC’s explanation at least makes sense in the way the religion is set up! It matches with other beliefs.

So while I don’t agree with it or like it…at least CC did explain it in a way that I could see why a Catholic person wouldn’t have a problem agreeing to it.
But I have to wonder if a lot of other Catholics actually don’t know the info CC explained?

I daresay they don’t really know. But then a lot of Catholics - a lot of people - don’t really care that priests are male and only male, so it makes sense that they might not seek the reasoning.

On another point, rules derive from what Jesus DID and DIDN’T DO as well as what He SAID and DIDN’T SAY.

Eg - at the Last Supper He did certain things (employed bread and wine in the sacrament) and did not do others (did not use lamb and water/doritos and coke/cookies and milk). So
in our Eucharist we are bound by what He did and did not do. Like Him we do use bread and wine, like Him we do not use doritos and coke or any alternative.

Jesus was crucified on a cross rather than stabbed or poisoned, so like Him we employ the Cross as a symbol of our faith, rather than a knife or a bottle of poison.

Jesus (pointedly IMHO) employed only males in the priesthood, and given the way they are portrayed in scripture quite obviously not out of any sense that they were in any way better or more holy than the women. So we do as He did.