C
Cristiano
Guest
You are correct I was extremely approximate with my language trying to be fast to make a point. Sorry about that.
- Status
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
The purpose of the Bible was not to detail Peter’s life either, was it? And yet in the Gospels we see and hear Peter doing and saying a lot of things and frequently on center stage. Jesus was with Peter for 3 1/2 years, He was with Mary for about 30 years and yet she is cloaked in almost total silence and rarely seen. She has three major dogmas focused on her: perpetually virgin, immaculate conception and assumption. How many dogmas focus on Peter? The point being that as important as Mary is to the Church, if she had been more seen and heard it would have been reflected in the Bible, just a Peter’s words and actions were. Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that what the Bible says about Mary is truly reflective of how she lived her life, modestly, quietly, and unobtrusively and we as women should follow her example.
Do you know what Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) said was one reason there should not be woman priests in an interview he gave? It is because we have exploited women enough.
E
edwest2
Guest
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (Paperback)
by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Author), Vittorio Messori (Author)
F
FAB
Guest
said:
P
pickguard1
Guest
No problem, I didn’t realize I was posting in a different thread until probably four or five posts into this one. And yes, the first post in this thread is a continuation of the previous one. Here is the link to that one if anyone wants to start it from scratch.
.
There are only one and a half pages of posts to it, so it’s not that much further back. And after reading through it, I did only say "Holy Orders, without the clarifcation of the surrounding context, so the fact that the debate over the diaconte started is (to a certain degree) understandable, given the wording of my first post.
F
FAB
Guest
It means I have no desire to return to a pre-vatican II type of Church with it’s restrictions, or the TLM. I believe that the council was needed to bring the Church into the 20th century and to let it become a spirtual leader and voice for all people of the world. Most people focus on the the changes in the mass, but the reforms of the church touched every aspect of the Church and it’s teaching. I call myself a Vatican II Catholic because I fully embrace the changes and teachings that came from it.
Peace,
FAB
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
I think the word deaconess is unfortunate. I can see the a real possibility of somone permitting a “handmaid of the Lord” patterned after Mary in service to the Church. I think the Church is trying to not put out specific negative language against a deaconess since it might stand in the way of reunification with the Orthodox who do use these in some circumstances.
What is at stake here are two concepts:
But the church building and altar etc. are also consecrated to the Lord as are all people choosing to live in a consecrated religious life (both laity and monastic). One is giving a special entitlement to God through consecrated life – and one in so doing is also held to a much higher standard of conduct and expectation as well. In fact, anyone called to special service to the Lord is essentially required to enroll oneself in a consecrated lifestyle rather than just being a regular lay member.
Anyone know if musical directors and CCD teachers receive a special consecration when they are installed?
What I was thinking is it might be possible to accommodate a role of “deaconess” in the mass itself (a super alter-server?) through the existing provisions of Canon Law (573-746) as well as Consecrated Life in cannons 603-604. Consecrated persons such as hermits, virgins, widows and widowers have long been a tradition in the Catholic Church. There is of course a special vow required for chastity, poverty and obedience to the Christian Gospel and ecclesial authorities but some some variations modeled after different rules of order. But it would be potentially possible to have a deaconess be installed under a model of consecrated life according to cannon law but not convey any ordinational rites. Such a position could be given a certain rank of “service” with specifically consecrated roles in service to The Church and overseen by an ordained member (Bishop, Priest or Deacon). I see it as not much different than a religious sister though.
Just ideas…
James
What is at stake here are two concepts:
- Consecration in service to the Lord and
- Spiritual endowment with ecclesial authorities and powers
But the church building and altar etc. are also consecrated to the Lord as are all people choosing to live in a consecrated religious life (both laity and monastic). One is giving a special entitlement to God through consecrated life – and one in so doing is also held to a much higher standard of conduct and expectation as well. In fact, anyone called to special service to the Lord is essentially required to enroll oneself in a consecrated lifestyle rather than just being a regular lay member.
Anyone know if musical directors and CCD teachers receive a special consecration when they are installed?
What I was thinking is it might be possible to accommodate a role of “deaconess” in the mass itself (a super alter-server?) through the existing provisions of Canon Law (573-746) as well as Consecrated Life in cannons 603-604. Consecrated persons such as hermits, virgins, widows and widowers have long been a tradition in the Catholic Church. There is of course a special vow required for chastity, poverty and obedience to the Christian Gospel and ecclesial authorities but some some variations modeled after different rules of order. But it would be potentially possible to have a deaconess be installed under a model of consecrated life according to cannon law but not convey any ordinational rites. Such a position could be given a certain rank of “service” with specifically consecrated roles in service to The Church and overseen by an ordained member (Bishop, Priest or Deacon). I see it as not much different than a religious sister though.
Just ideas…
James
P
pickguard1
Guest
FAB, thanks for the clarification on the Vatican II statement.
"Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man’s salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy. "
A: If you follow faithfully the Church’s teachings you ARE orthodox.
B. One of the teachings of the Church is that women cannot receive Holy Orders.
(I will apologize here, since I believe I also previously have used the term “matter” in reference to women and the sacrament, when in fact “recipient” would be the correct term.)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
"Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man’s salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy. "
A: If you follow faithfully the Church’s teachings you ARE orthodox.
B. One of the teachings of the Church is that women cannot receive Holy Orders.
(I will apologize here, since I believe I also previously have used the term “matter” in reference to women and the sacrament, when in fact “recipient” would be the correct term.)
M
mreiter72
Guest
This thread has made it clear exactly why women should be ordained. The very question has brought up jokes, references to women as invalid, and happily slammed the door on the possibility of anything changing. It has brought out people in favor not only of continuing to deny ordination to women, but to keep them entirely silent. And this is what God, who is love and mercy, wants, you say? Or is it what man, who exhibits very little love or mercy on a daily basis, wants?
Did Jesus Christ ever once say that women could not be ordained as priests? In Jesus’ time, discrimination was so severe that even talking to a woman in public, which Jesus did all the time, was considered radical.
If the doctrine were not based on discrimination, which it is, but love, then the comments we would see on this thread would be very different. The reason women are and were kept out of the priesthood is clear: men did not and do not want women in the priesthood. It’s just that uncomplicated. Not Jesus, not God: men. And obviously some women feel the same way. They may base it on perceived inferiority, but rather I suspect it is more about keeping a tight grip on power, which men have a tendency to do whenever they are able, privileging themselves at the expense of what or whomever is not like them. I would feel differently if the comments on this thread were filled with love and respect for women, but explained their exclusion from ordination in some practical, but understandable, way. That is not what I see here. I see a lot of people cleaving to the discrimination while refusing to call it discrimination because, essentially, “God said.”
As a female inquirer, I was prepared to accept that women are not ordained, trusting that perhaps there is some explanation for it that is not based on a notion that women are inferior, unholy or unworthy. But if you people are typical representatives of the Catholic church, then I was wrong. Apparently, if I become Catholic, this is what I can expect: a congregation of people who view me chiefly as an unholy afterthought who should keep my trap shut.
How do you reconcile this with a loving God, or a savior who tried tirelessly to hammer concepts of love and justice into the heads of his followers, and who lived fully in the spirit rather than the letter of the law? You cannot put down groups of people to elevate yourselves and masquerade this as God’s will, because if God is not about justice and equality and love, and certainly if Christ is not about such things, then what are they about? And if you are not about these things, then what are you about?
Did Jesus Christ ever once say that women could not be ordained as priests? In Jesus’ time, discrimination was so severe that even talking to a woman in public, which Jesus did all the time, was considered radical.
If the doctrine were not based on discrimination, which it is, but love, then the comments we would see on this thread would be very different. The reason women are and were kept out of the priesthood is clear: men did not and do not want women in the priesthood. It’s just that uncomplicated. Not Jesus, not God: men. And obviously some women feel the same way. They may base it on perceived inferiority, but rather I suspect it is more about keeping a tight grip on power, which men have a tendency to do whenever they are able, privileging themselves at the expense of what or whomever is not like them. I would feel differently if the comments on this thread were filled with love and respect for women, but explained their exclusion from ordination in some practical, but understandable, way. That is not what I see here. I see a lot of people cleaving to the discrimination while refusing to call it discrimination because, essentially, “God said.”
As a female inquirer, I was prepared to accept that women are not ordained, trusting that perhaps there is some explanation for it that is not based on a notion that women are inferior, unholy or unworthy. But if you people are typical representatives of the Catholic church, then I was wrong. Apparently, if I become Catholic, this is what I can expect: a congregation of people who view me chiefly as an unholy afterthought who should keep my trap shut.
How do you reconcile this with a loving God, or a savior who tried tirelessly to hammer concepts of love and justice into the heads of his followers, and who lived fully in the spirit rather than the letter of the law? You cannot put down groups of people to elevate yourselves and masquerade this as God’s will, because if God is not about justice and equality and love, and certainly if Christ is not about such things, then what are they about? And if you are not about these things, then what are you about?
M
mlchance
Guest
There is nothing in Church teaching that says women cannot be ordained because they are “inferior, unholy or unworthy.”
– Mark L. Chance.
P
pickguard1
Guest
I think you’re over reacting a bit to the previous injection of humor into the thread. I am certain everyone on this thread has the highest value of women and their calling to live as God wants. References to women being “invalid” have no derogatory intent. It is simply using technical language to address what is, or is not, possible. In its usage here, a man is an “invalid” recipient of Holy Orders, too, if he isn’t baptized - so no slight is indended in the usage of this word.
Please cite where you feel anyone has implied women should be entirely silent.
There is no doubt that Jesus’ interactions with women (especially sinful ones) was viewed scandalous for His time. However, lack of specific Biblical quotations isn’t grounds for dismissal of the tradition. If we only had the words of Jesus in the Bible to go on, there would be a lot of things that would be “permitted” under this logic. (The first Christians would have been in double trouble since a compiled Bible didn’t exist for several centuries.) This is why He called His Apostles to “teach all nations”. So it isn’t just a matter of “What did Jesus say?”, but “What has the Church that Jesus founded to teach in His name always taught?”
Again, Christ was a rebel in certian respects - no doubt. However, while His love, justice and mercy are infinite, we can’t superimpose our human understandings of these terms on Him. There are many mysteries that will be revealed to us at the Last Judgement, of which the full nature of His love, mercy and justice, are but a few. Until then, we must follow His Church, since he DID say, “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” Luke 10:16.
There is no women bashing here, just a frank attempt to discuss the teaching of the Churhc and udnerstand its origins. I sincerely hope that your entrance into the Church is not hindered by a misperception that women are viewed as inferior to men.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Why?
Validity or lack of is a reality (e.g. males are not valid gender for pregnancy and labor). The door has always been shut to the possibility of women ordination, it is not done now by people that enjoy doing so.
I did not see anyone here posting the statement that women should be silent. Love is to do what is right, not simply make someone feel good about themselves.
Jesus did not explicitly forbid a lot of things but that does not imply that he allowed them. Do you think that Jesus was afraid of saying that women should be apostles because of the conventions of the time? He died claiming that he was God and that was quite against the conventions of the time.
With this statement you are loosing any credibility. Please provide proof of your statement! What you are presenting is just some propaganda.
What difference does it make that you are a female or not? Does that give you more authority to decide if something is right or not? I think that you are the one discriminating about sexes in terms of superiority.
I did not see any statement saying that women are inferior, unholy or unworthy. You are correct saying that they are unworthy of the priesthood but the same holds true for men. Nobody is worthy, we cannot earn graces from God.
Is this a “you are lower than I am!” rant?
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
Mary was not inferior, nor unholy, nor unworthy. There is no higher grace than to be called to follow our Lady’s example. If she was not a priest, no other woman could be.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
No one on this thread ever implied that women should be entirely silent. So I will do it now.
1 Corinthians 14:33-35
33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
M
mreiter72
Guest
Thanks, Marsha: I was referring to your comments. You are abolsutely right, that is exactly what the Bible says.
And it is a wonderful tradition to uphold – as lovely as stoning.
Regarding Jesus not explicitly saying yay or nay on the issue, well, there you go. He seemed unnaturally predisposed to equality, and could just as well have said, if he had been so inclined, “You should never under any circimstances ordain women in my church.” But he didn’t. So anything else in man’s interpretation.
Regarding why I think your comments are reason enough that women should be ordained, it is entirely because of the sorts of conversations the mere question of female orindation inspires. They often seem, to me, to have an underlying lack of respect for my gender and a bizarre eagerness to uphold any tradition that silences us. However, I understand that many of you don’t, at least officially, see it that way. As far as invalid – wow, that’s a bad word for it, but you’re right, I did not understand the usage.
Cristiano, that was not propaganda, those were my opinions, and you’re right: they are not officially credible, so you can take them or leave them. But that’s what I think.
And obviously it makes a lot of difference whether or not I am female, especially when I am considering joining a church. I am interested in exactly how this church is going to regard me if I am a member. You might feel the same way if you were considering joining a religion that barred you from ordination because of something out of your control, like race or gender. You would probably at least want to understand the reason for that before you joined. Because if the reason were inherently discriminatory, based on your supposed inferiority, or something equally demeaning, you might think twice before joining. I could not possibly know how you would actually feel, but you *might *feel that way, if it were you. At any rate, that’s how I feel. And the tone of this thread has made me feel as if the reason is inherently discriminatory for all the wrong reasons. I still suspect that it is. But there is always the possibility that I am overreacting to it, yes.
As far as a “lower than I am rant”…No, you’re right, we’re all on the same page there. That was just a little heated righteous indignation on my part: I respectfully retract the self-righteousness, and I apologize for it, hope you will forgive the indignation, but stand by the question.
And it is a wonderful tradition to uphold – as lovely as stoning.
Regarding Jesus not explicitly saying yay or nay on the issue, well, there you go. He seemed unnaturally predisposed to equality, and could just as well have said, if he had been so inclined, “You should never under any circimstances ordain women in my church.” But he didn’t. So anything else in man’s interpretation.
Regarding why I think your comments are reason enough that women should be ordained, it is entirely because of the sorts of conversations the mere question of female orindation inspires. They often seem, to me, to have an underlying lack of respect for my gender and a bizarre eagerness to uphold any tradition that silences us. However, I understand that many of you don’t, at least officially, see it that way. As far as invalid – wow, that’s a bad word for it, but you’re right, I did not understand the usage.
Cristiano, that was not propaganda, those were my opinions, and you’re right: they are not officially credible, so you can take them or leave them. But that’s what I think.
And obviously it makes a lot of difference whether or not I am female, especially when I am considering joining a church. I am interested in exactly how this church is going to regard me if I am a member. You might feel the same way if you were considering joining a religion that barred you from ordination because of something out of your control, like race or gender. You would probably at least want to understand the reason for that before you joined. Because if the reason were inherently discriminatory, based on your supposed inferiority, or something equally demeaning, you might think twice before joining. I could not possibly know how you would actually feel, but you *might *feel that way, if it were you. At any rate, that’s how I feel. And the tone of this thread has made me feel as if the reason is inherently discriminatory for all the wrong reasons. I still suspect that it is. But there is always the possibility that I am overreacting to it, yes.
As far as a “lower than I am rant”…No, you’re right, we’re all on the same page there. That was just a little heated righteous indignation on my part: I respectfully retract the self-righteousness, and I apologize for it, hope you will forgive the indignation, but stand by the question.
C
cassini
Guest
Come on now, are you really expecting us to believe your conversion to Catholicism depended on our answers to your post? Now that JPII has made it a dogma of the Catholic faith, no matter what anyone says THERE WILL BE NO WOMEN PRIESTS. I have given you the rerasons for this but you prefer to ignore them. So what did you expect us to say. This is not a forum for heretics but for believing Catholics. There are dozens of rules we do not like either but we abide by the teachings and norms to remain Catholic. And what is this ‘power’ illusion of yours. What power do priests have these days? And if it is a case that you really were thinking of converting to Catholicism, well now you know what it means to be a Catholic. But remember this, your being drawn towards Catholicism is not of your doing, it is God calling, for the Catholic faith is a gift from God. But now it is your free will that takes over. If I read the above correctly you have found an excuse to reject Him. Not a good idea.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Mreiter - the bolded part is what I’d like to comment on.
First of all God calls all men and women to the Catholic Church - He & The Church HIGHLY regards YOU!
The Church is the fullness of truth & essential to your attaining to eternal beatitude with God. It is also the best means to gain the maximum amount of grace you can acquire as a created being by which to gain the highest glory & honor that God has called us ALL to receive. God wants us to ALL to be ALL we may be.
The Catholic Church is a massive spiritual treasury of grace with so many sacraments and so many devotionals – not to mention the Church itself is a sacrament. In the Catholic Church one can gain more grace than one could gain in a lifetime of prayer by participating in sacred mass while in a state of repentant grace and receiving the Holy Eucharist worthley and while in a proper interior disposition to receive that grace. I am not kidding. NOTHING on the planet comes close to the grace one can gain through the Catholic Mass save the initial baptism all Christians receive (if properly administered). The problem is that all people, men and women EQUALLY, are exposed to proclivity to sin after baptism. In fact a newly baptised is “targeted” as an enemy of Satan and we will be attacked - many times over our lives. Most, if not all of us will fall into serious sin again. This is where the Church excels - since we have sacramental confession that can restore us to original baptismal grace after we repent. Outside of sacramental confession one’s ONLY recourse is to perfectly repent with perfect contrition (the only option for a Protestant) but perfect contrition is absolutely impossible without God’s grace to help us. Sacramental confession only requires imperfect contrition - fear of hell vs. perfect sorrow for offending God. Thus one can have confidence of being in a state of grace after sacramental confession if one is sincere in their desire to “get right with God” and repents but falls short of perfect contrition.
OK - that was all about explaining that your choice of Church is extremely important and you really have no choice but to come to the Catholic Church - the other “faith communities” are highly deficient and lacking most all the sacraments. This should NOT be a decision based on secular idealism relating to gender wars. Those gender attitudes most women today have are unnatural and were socially engineered into most woman as a result of Satan desiring to divide God’s image on earth (male and female) against itself. He is succeeding with a large percentage of the population - and most are oblivious to it. But this REAL spiritual warfare that you are getting caught up with. Satan does not want you in the Catholic Church since he knows it will be harder to corrupt you and hold you down if you convert.
All that said - Mary, a female, is the HIGHEST spiritual created being in all the universe. No male will ever attain to Mary’s spiritual stature. She is “blessed among all women” and if not for Christ being divine-human and being male she would no doubt have been titled blessed among all humans. She is “full of grace” and the single human soul who has the highest capacity of grace that humanity can ever hope to attain to (God is infinite and can not be contained by a finite human soul). So, the Catholic Church is anything but sexist in its theology. The Church has declared the revelation that Mary, a female, alone has the highest stature in the Church and in the entirety of Creation - even higher than the angelic beings! We can’t humanly comprehend Mary’s spiritual powers — yet she is not divine.
Also, you might want to google around and discover that it was The Catholic Church that did the most ever in history to advance women’s causes and the first ever to recognize the EQUAL dignity of all persons independent of gender. This was unheard of in society until Catholics make this cannon law and a part of our official teachings. What The Church also properly recognizes is that God created us with unique and highly complimentary roles that are normatively intended to be paired male-with-female. It is because of original sin that men have a proclivity for desiring to dominate women and women have a proclivity for rebelling against the female roles. This tendency can be overcome though and The Church has given us a level playing field in its Catechism and makes it unlawful and sinful to abuse the charity and dignity due each human being.
Now that you know that God calls you to become Catholic you also need to know that He does not call somone into His Kingdom and to Jesus’ Church to go against His norms. God is not calling you to be a priest nor to rebel against His Divine Ordinances. One MUST be called to the priesthood - its not just a career option or an equal employment opportunity - these are socially transient secular ideas. No, the priesthood is a very special and narrow calling and not very many men are actually called to it and can accept it’s disciplines and personal sacrifices. We do not call ourselves - God calls and He only calls those who are qualified. God has revealed to the Catholic Church that He desires a male priesthood and The Church has further discerned that it is to be only unmarried or single men who have the charisms and the disciplines to be able to serve and not break their vows. That said, while being an incredible honor to be called by God to be His priest it is actually a higher level of expectation and our priests because of that calling have unbelievable burdens and higher expectations - in some manner priests have a lot more at risk supernaturally due to their responsibilities to God.
That said ALL male or females can elect to consecrate themselves to God as a Lay 3rd order secular religious or join a religious order and take the vows (poverty, celebacy, obedience etc. as req. for their order/status). These all can & do attain to saintly levels - and we have MANY female saints from this avenue and walk. But this too requires a special calling.
So you should not in anyway feel held back by your gender in the Catholic Church. ANYONE can attain to the highest levels of sainthood if one avails themselves of all the grace available through Jesus’ Church and develops the proper interior disposition through God’s good graces.
Sorry to be so long. My recommendation - just go for it - you are not going to believe how deeply you can go into Catholic spiritual maturation. There is more depth to the Church than you can imagine.
James
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
If you are seriously considering conversion to the Church, you surely understand the role that Mary plays in the Church.
She is Mother of God, Theotokos - the God bearer, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, the only human to ever have been assumed body and soul into heaven, the Immaculate Conception, the Co-Redemptorix, Queen of Heaven and earth, and the only sinless human to have ever lived.
As women we are called to emulate her. You don’t get any more respect than that. Priests don’t get that kind of respect. The Pope himself doesn’t get that kind of respect and he is Christ’s vicar on earth.
Isn’t that enough for you?
- Status