R
rcwitness
Guest
Well we know of 70 more…
Luke 10
After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.
Last edited:
The Church teaches that women cannot be priests because of the example set by Jesus in selecting the apostles. So why are women allowed communion?
- Status
Luke 10
After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.
S
simpleas
Guest
Because it could suggest that God does not recognise females to be as worthy as males to preform the Sacraments of his church.
F
Fauken
Guest
Neither are worthy. That would imply that men deserve the ability. They don’t, and neither do we.
Last edited:
S
simpleas
Guest
There is no evidence that Jesus did not appoint some women, nor was he recorded as having taught that only men were to carry out ministry until he comes again.
I don’t think woman are unworthy, but from some of the history I have read concerning how men and woman should have their roles, I can see how the church has grown in it’s understanding.
No because it’s biologically impossible.
S
simpleas
Guest
Yet it is only men that become ministerial priests.
F
Fauken
Guest
And only women who become mothers and consecrated virgins.
S
simpleas
Guest
Mothers and consecrated virgins do not administer the Sacraments.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
You’re right. There is no evidence that he did not. However, there is no evidence that he did but there IS evidence that he called the twelve apostles (all men).
Would it have been biologically impossible? Could God have preserved both a man and a woman at their conceptions to be free from original sin and sent an angel to announce to them they were called to be the parents of Christ, who would take on his human flesh from them?
But an important difference is that the lamb they ate at that meal would have been sacrificed at the temple by male priests. Christ was the lamb at the Last Supper.
F
Fauken
Guest
No, but are men lesser for not being able to give birth? Is their celebacy lesser in the eyes of God than a woman’s?
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Nowhere in Scripture will we find the statement “And Jesus never appointed women to be his priests.”
Not do we find the statement: “And Jesus never, during His time in the world, went to Rome to talk with the Emperor.”
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Well, they can administer baptism and marriage but the others…so what?
S
simpleas
Guest
Yes this priest just talks about gender role.
S
simpleas
Guest
I never know what to say when asked a question like this, but no men are not lesser for not being able to give birth because they always participate in the creation of new life.
S
simpleas
Guest
God can do whatever he wishes
But I think the whole story needs to make some kind of sense from the fall to the birth of Jesus as the new Adam.
S
simpleas
Guest
Yes that’s been pointed out, baptism in only un-usual circumstance. If then why not as part of the ministerial priesthood too?
Is there something that happens in a un-usual circumstance that allows a woman or lay man for that matter to be able to baptise a person that doesn’t exist for the lay woman or man who are not ordained?
Is there something that happens in a un-usual circumstance that allows a woman or lay man for that matter to be able to baptise a person that doesn’t exist for the lay woman or man who are not ordained?
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Well, he talks about fatherhood and motherhood which is something much more theologically profound than mere gender roles.
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Well, not always. Christ being the exeception.
What about male virgins? Is a man’s virginity inferior to a woman’s virginity?
What about male virgins? Is a man’s virginity inferior to a woman’s virginity?
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Baptism can be performed by lay persons not so much even in unusual situations but certainly by necessity. The ordinary minister is a bishop or priest. There is a whole Rite of Baptism that the Church follows that involves the reading of the Gospel, a short homily, a prayer of exorcism, anointing with oil, a blessing for the mother, father and assembly etc. There is also the issue of proper record keeping so that the baptized can receive the other sacraments of initiation.
What would be the purpose of having lay persons baptize when there isn’t a necessity? If a bishop or priest can do it as part of their duties to the faithful in ordinary circumstances what would be the reason to bring in lay persons to do it?
Last edited:
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Immediate danger of death, and the desire of the endangered person (if past the age of reason) to be baptized.
S
simpleas
Guest
He talks about men as fathers and priests, something that doesn’t happen in our religion (except in converts) this was a Jewish practise in Jesus’ day, though I do not know much about it.
In any case one need only read parts of The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas to get an idea of why the teaching of the ministerial priesthood is reserved for men only.
Article 1. Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?
Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Supplement:32:2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5039.htm
Last edited:
- Status