Something that confuddles me about the nature of the priesthood

[Liberalsaved]

And it can be summed up like this.

It is well-known that Jesus included several women in his closest followers. It is also known that those who wrote these stories down were highly biased, being almost exclusively male. Even those who were women were influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority. As a result, it’s likely the women in his group were full further apostles with the same importance, no more or no less (so this isn’t a Da Vinci Code thing) as the men.

So, given Jesus’s own acceptance of women into his closest inner circle, exactly what is the problem of other biblical people and especially the modern Church, which ought to know better, with women being in the clergy. It seems there is no better authority as to how a Christian should behave than Jesus. And yet the Church position doggedly contradicts his acceptance of women as equals to men. They could have even been greater, as the Bible tells of how the women waited faithfully for him to rise while the men almost exclusively gave up hope until they actually saw him again.

It makes no sense. It is completely irreconcilable with the Church’s ancient view on women.

 

[Mike_Dye]

This is gonna be fun!

 

[Liberalsaved]

Mike Dye:

This is gonna be fun!

:yup:

I expect so. Let’s just hope I don’t get any "So you’re saying"s…

 

[computerguy]

Seems to me like you’d get some better responses in the Moral Theology forum, but hey, I really don’t know…

 

[JimG]

Many women were among his closest followers, but none were apostles. None were among the twelve.

(Shouldn’t this be in the Apologetics Forum?)

 

[Liberalsaved]

JimG:

Many women were among his closest followers, but none were apostles. None were among the twelve.

So say the male writers of about 80 A.D. You see where the trust issues arise?

And even if true, it remains they had the same access to and involvement with him and only the name was altered.

 

[RichSpidizzy]

It is also known that those who wrote these stories down were highly biased, being almost exclusively male.

Do you have any evidence that those who wrote “these stories” are biased besides the fact that they are male, or is your premise here just based on the fact that they are men, therefore they must be biased?

And by the way, I was always under the impression that those that wrote “these stories” (sorry, I just can’t get over you refering to the books of the Holy Bible as “these stories”, as if they were just another piece of fiction) were inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit. Either you deny inspiration of Scripture, or you don’t think the Holy Spirit did a very effective job inspiring the author to write everything deemed valuble and important.

 

[Liberalsaved]

RichSpidizzy:

Do you have any evidence that those who wrote “these stories” are biased besides the fact that they are male, or is your premise here just based on the fact that they are men, therefore they must be biased?

And by the way, I was always under the impression that those that wrote “these stories” (sorry, I just can’t get over you refering to the books of the Holy Bible as “these stories”, as if they were just another piece of fiction) were inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit. Either you deny inspiration of Scripture, or you don’t think the Holy Spirit did a very effective job inspiring the author to write everything deemed valuble and important.

1. All people then understood males as being superior to be the natural order because of the social climate, and it would not have been “biased” to them.
2. I don’t think man can be trusted to filter out his own perceptions, so you are partially correct. Even in this instance, nothing in Jesus’s direct teachings denies the acceptance of women as equals.

And all lives are stories, no matter who tells them.

 

[JimG]

So when the gospel writers give lists of the Twelve, they might have lied about it? If there is a “trust issue”, then you have no basis for believing Christianity at all. But I don’t know of any historical evidence that would point to women apostles.

 

[Genesis315]

Liberalsaved:

So say the male writers of about 80 A.D. You see where the trust issues arise?

Yes, but see, if you’re questioning the reality of the Scriptures and Tradtion, then you have bigger issues to deal with–like is anything at all we know about Jesus true? We believe what we have received.

If Jesus wanted there to be female priests, there would have been some. Especially in Greek culture where priestesses were perfectly acceptable, they still only had men act as priests.

 

[Liberalsaved]

JimG:

So when the gospel writers give lists of the Twelve, they might have lied about it? If there is a “trust issue”, then you have no basis for believing Christianity at all. But I don’t know of any historical evidence that would point to women apostles.

Apostles seems to me to be a word. All I see are followers of Jesus.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Genesis315:

Yes, but see, if you’re questioning the reality of the Scriptures and Tradtion, then you have bigger issues to deal with–like is anything at all we know about Jesus true? We believe what we have received.

If Jesus wanted there to be female priests, there would have been some. Especially in Greek culture where priestesses were perfectly acceptable, they still only had men act as priests.

Evidence exists of Jesus being real. There is an damn near iron clad case for a 1st century teacher named Jesus, though his actual name would not have been that. I forget what his name would have translated as in Aramaic.

And in Greece, the oracle was the isngle most important holy figure, far more important than any priests.

 

[Jennifer123]

It’s my understanding that you need to start at the beginning, namely why God wishes to reveal Himself and be referred to as “Father”. He instituted the Eucharist with his priests acting “in persona Christi” - in the person of Christ Himself. That is in no way possible if women are priests, hence why women will not now or ever be women. THe Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women. See information about the “Marriage Feast of the Lamb”, which is the Mass. I hoped I helped but maybe you should search the Apologetics forum!

For an interesting article about God as Father, see:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/Jul-Aug99/God2.html

It’s not a patriarchical conspiracy, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

So why aren’t there women priests? Because Jesus said so in His actions and teachings, plain as that.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Jennifer123:

It’s my understanding that you need to start at the beginning, namely why God wishes to reveal Himself and be referred to as “Father”. He instituted the Eucharist with his priests acting “in persona Christi” - in the person of Christ Himself. That is in no way possible if women are priests, hence why women will not now or ever be women. THe Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women. See information about the “Marriage Feast of the Lamb”, which is the Mass. I hoped I helped but maybe you should search the Apologetics forum!

For an interesting article about God as Father, see:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/Jul-Aug99/God2.html

It’s not a patriarchical conspiracy, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

So why aren’t there women priests? Because Jesus said so in His actions and teachings, plain as that.

Hmmm. I would debate whether Jesus said that with his actions, for reasons stated above, and say maybe it’s time for a change. But I appreciate the well-worded argument that at no time argued the use of the word apostle.

 

[Jennifer123]

Liberalsaved:

Hmmm. I would debate whether Jesus said that with his actions, for reasons stated above, and say maybe it’s time for a change. But I appreciate the well-worded argument that at no time argued the use of the word apostle.

Well, IMHO whether there were apostles is another issue for maybe another thread?

But as for changing for the times, God is constant, never changing, in the past, present of future. There may indeed have been doctines pronounced since the days past Jesus’s death and resurrection, but that’s the Church job, to take what is already taught, the public revelation that is His teachings, and educate us more deeply about these meanings. The Church never makes doctrine from “invented” ideas or notions, what I mean is, the issue behind a doctrine is always present in the Gospel, but it’s the Church’s authority that pronounces it more deeply.

There are plenty of women in the Church history and hierarchy, for example, St. Catherine of Sienna or St. Therese, who are doctors of the Church. Not to mention the other saints, missionaries, and religious. These women are endeared with the same gifts as men which help the Church’s commission to effectively preach the gospel, such as administration, evangelization, faith, etc.

But you shouldn’t confuse these gifts with the priestly office, which above all these other things, is to provide the Sacrifice of the Mass, to consecrate the Eucharist, which no woman can do for reasons I mentioned above and also found in the link.

Hope I make sense here, I am strictly amateur!!!

 

[Potato1]

Liberalsaved:

Hmmm. I would debate whether Jesus said that with his actions, for reasons stated above, and say maybe it’s time for a change. But I appreciate the well-worded argument that at no time argued the use of the word apostle.

Allowing female priests, or debating what Jesus said is just plain ignorant of what the Church is. this is not a campaign issue or a debate class. This is not up for a vote on what each age and generation thinks. (What a mess the 60s would have been ) This is the highest form of Church authority. It is Christ’s plan and his Church that he set up. I don’t think he was biased or influenced in any way nor do I think that sexism so overshadowed the Bible that Gods Word was manipulated into something that suited one gender over another. It just was. If that doesn’t fit into one’s comfort zone or perception of what is just or right (because I am sure we know better than God) then maybe one’s perception needs to change and not God’s institution. There are various degrees to which the Church can hold its teachings some can change to fit the society (stem cell research, science, even the view on the Death penalty and some cannot. Those things that cannot change cannot do so because they are an intrical part of who we are and who God is. The male ordination is imprtant on many levels i.e. what the eucharist is and who gives it to us, and Fact, simply implying that subterfuge or predjudice was used is not sufficient to change Church teaching. Facts, preferably from God, will do. When one doesn’t like the Chuch or think that the Church should change twords his or her worldview I gues one could start a new Church as that seems to be the way to go.

P.S. would someone smarter (or maybe just more ambitious) than me please find out where we get the term Apostle and if it is biblical in nature. Also the twelve were named and I think twelve was a symbolic number here, like maybe Jesus did it on purpose (Imagine that)

 

[asquared]

Liberalsaved:

And it can be summed up like this.

It is well-known that Jesus included several women in his closest followers. It is also known that those who wrote these stories down were highly biased, being almost exclusively male. Even those who were women were influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority. .

there is no influence that the writers of sacred scripture were biased. Since they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, their writings are protected from error with regard to the words and actions of Jesus, so they cannot by definition be handing on a biased or distorted view of His message.

There is ample evidence that many of Jesus’ followers and supporters included women, including his own Mother. None of them was chosen as an apostle – nor were any of the dozens of other men who also followed Jesus, only those 12 men. The women were not “discriminated against”, neither were the men who were not called to that specific vocation, as the first bishops and leaders of the Church. the other followers, men and women alike, were each called to their own vocation, and the NT even describes some of those vocations: deacon, service, providing meetings places, caring for daily needs such as meals, clothing etc. for Jesus and the apostles.

Jesus chose only 12 men to be apostles, he is not and cannot be biased or have any wrong motive, cannot be oppressive of women or anyone else, because he cannot sin in any way. Therefore Jesus established a male-only priesthood and hierarchy. Since he cannot err, neither can the Church in following his directive.

 

[daniellet]

Are you male, Liberal?

Liberalsaved:

Even those who were women were influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority\QUOTE]

So, if I am a woman, and don’t believe I should serve in the same roles as men, then I am just a dumb woman influenced by the fictional idea of male superiority? It seem you are the one not giving us ladies much credit.

Liberalsaved:

It is completely irreconcilable with the Church’s ancient view on women.

Perhap’s you don’t understand the Church’s ancient view on women. Why aren’t you here asking why men aren’t allowed to be mothers? I think the argument could be made that motherhood is perhaps the noblest calling as far as roles are concerned. A minor figure in Catholocism, Mary, comes to mind. Your viewpoint exhibits a great deal of sexism in that you believe the male roles are the superior roles, to which women should aspire.

Just a mother,
Danielle

 

[urbana]

Liberalsaved:

It is also known that those who wrote these stories down were highly biased, being almost exclusively male.

Supposition. (And insulting! This argues that by virtue of being men, they cannot be trusted.)
Ls:

As a result, it’s likely the women in his group were full further apostles with the same importance,

Likely is much too strong a word. I could live with possible, but only barely. There is too much evidence to the contrary.
Ls:

So, given Jesus’s own acceptance of women into his closest inner circle,

(given the priestly sense that you’ve imposed) You’re back to stating your own personal interpretation, as fact, not opinion.
Ls:

what is the problem of …] the modern Church, which ought to know better, with women being in the clergy.

The Church does know better… than to try to alter what Jesus taught in order to correspond to what current society thinks he should have taught.
Ls:

And yet the Church position doggedly contradicts his acceptance of women as equals to men.

Where does the Church say that women are not the equals of men? Neither the Church, nor Jesus, pretend that women are the same as men. There are some roles to which women are called to which men cannot be: nun, pregnancy, mother. There are also some roles to which men are called to which women cannot be: monk, priest, father. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that because women cannot be priests, they are not treated as equal. In a marriage, the woman is the only one who can bear children, and also has some unique capabilities in terms of raising them (at least for the first few months). Therefore, should we be arguing that man is not the equal of woman in marriage? Of course not… it’s just that while man is the equal of woman and vice versa, the two are not equivalent or interchangeable.
Ls:

They could have even been greater,

In some ways woman was greater. After all, examine the role of Mary! However, eligibility for the priesthood is not based upon greatness. Would you have chosen Saul to become an apostle born out of time? He certainly wasn’t the greatest of individuals prior to his conversion!
Ls:

It makes no sense. It is completely irreconcilable with the Church’s ancient view on women.

Your whole argument is based around opinions that you have stated as facts, and mistaken understandings of what equality means. Men and women are equals, but that does not mean that the average indivdual can bench press the same amount, have the same role in the process of bringing new individuals into the world, or have the same roles in the Church. Men and women are not interchangeable! So equality with men does not demand that women be called to the priesthood.

Does reading between the lines of the Bible demand female priests?

1. The Magisterium has said that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, and that women have not, and cannot be priests.
2. You are assuming that the authors of the Bible would not record Jesus’s teaching as he gave them. The changes required go farther than just a little bit of bias, but would constitute factual changes in the Bible. Perhaps there could have been women at the Last Supper, and they just weren’t mentioned due to bias. However, at the commissioning of the twelve, if there were women, their exclusion from the Gospel could not be other than intentional. Similarly, exclusion from Acts of the Apostles could not be other than systematic, as the Apostles are named, including the choosing of a replacement for Judas, and there actions followed. If women were equally involved, not listing them would have required altering numbers and avoiding mentioning many miracles. Nor can you argue that Jesus called women to be Apostles who were accepted as such, but then denied acceptance after His death. In that case, the men could not help but know that they were perverting Jesus’s plan! Do you seriously believe that they would be willing to be martyred for the Faith, but at the same time intentionally distort it? That’s ignoring the inspired nature of the Bible, as well. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit was also subject to Bias? Nor can you argue that Jesus wanted women as Apostles, but couldn’t because of society. Look how many times Jesus broke custom, or spoke harsh teachings! How many times was He willing to compromise his message?

You cannot argue for women as priests without undermining the whole foundation of Christianity! You must undermine Sacred Tradition. You then get your choice of Jesus compromising his values, or the Bible not being inspired and the Apostles being willing to die for the Faith but being unwilling to accept it in its entirety.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Amen.