The ordination of women as priests

[Montalo]

to steal a quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding

Gus Portokalos: You know, the root of the word Miller is a Greek word. Miller come from the Greek word “milo,” which is mean “apple,” so there you go. As many of you know, our name, Portokalos, is come from the Greek word “portokali,” which mean “orange.” So, okay? Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit.

we are all children of God, but we are different and have different purposes in life

Just like you wouldnt use an orange to make an apple pie, a woman should not be a priest.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I ask again…why do you ask? It doesn’t matter and can not and will not be changed…that is all you need to know…the rest is illrelevant. And the only reason it keeps coming up, is because we live in a modernistic, liberal, relativist society

I ask again: What about the female persona, gender, body, soul makes her unable to receive holy orders?

Interestingly, Pope JP2 said the Church has no authority, but he did not say that women could not receive holy orders if conferred.

I have the impression that arguments against women’s ordination are very thin, and therfore, are repeated more and more vociferously. I heard a certain Fr. Corapi state very firmly that it couldn’t happen, as though he were trying to end an uncomfortable conversation by using the force of his personality.

Was JP2’s statement above ex cathedra?

Is the Church more afraid of inconsistencies with previous supposedly “infallible” statements than it is willing to tackle the uncomfortable imperatives of theology?

I ask these questions as someone who is otherwise interested in the possiblity of being Catholic, but I don’t think I can check my reasoning at the door.

 

[CradleCath]

Nothing our Lord Jesus Christ did was specific for that time and that space. He teached a teaching that is for ever, until His second arrival will be. He showed the Way which is for ever.

Excellent answer. God is Timeless, He lives in all Time & in none. Temporal terms, fads & fashion have no application to Him.

It is the teaching we learned from God (before learning from our Church), it is the teaching Adam and Eve received directly, that men and women, while equals in right and dignity, are not equals neither in their nature, nor in their ministry. Human nature does not change, neither does the divine teaching.

 

[michaeldaniels]

The Trinity has existed from the beginning…and there is evidence of the Most Holy Trinity from the very beginning of time as explained in Genesis…the only thing that has changed is man’s understanding of the Trinity.

As far as my discernment, I have said nothing that is in opposition to The Holy See…I am in full communion. Granted, I am nostalgic…and I prefer a lot of the older ways to the new…I even prefer the TLM…but none of that is anti-Vatican II…since none of it was ever abrogated…and it certainly doesn’t make me a schismatic. So what is the problem with someone discerning the priesthood that thinks like me? Is it because I am a threat to the modernists and the liberals? There are a lot of young men in Seminary right now that think like I do…The pendelum has swung way to the left in the last 40 or so years in the Church…when these young priest become the Bishops and the Cardinals…there will be a lot of changes for the better to bring us back to center where we belong.

And finally, regarding the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, how does it go against Vatican II? It is the most accurate translation from the Latin there is…the language is a little outdated, but it is still WITHOUT ERROR…and in my opinion the most accurate and reliable translation of the Latin that exist…Yet again I ask…what is your real problem with me and my views, because I am perfectly in line with the Bible, with Jesus, The Church, The Pope, The Magisterium, etc…I have spoken nothing wrong or that is not an accepted or official teaching of the Church…if that is the case, why do you feel the need to attack what I say and question my discernment to the Priesthood???

Well that does certainly explain were your theology comes from. The Problem with the interpetation, is at the time Genisis was written, there was no concept of the Trinity, it was only addressing the writter’s understanding of the creation of the world. We look for God’s message of salvation. He created the world for man and women.
I’m not trying to be harsh or insulting to you, but you are asking any one who comes to this site to pray for your discernment. I am all for more preist, but I perfer ones rooted in Vatican II. From the web site for Douay-Rheims, that doen’t seem to be the case. I have not supported women to be ordained as priest, but I do strive to understand the reasoning of those who raise the question. Just saying you must be obediant as I indicated, isn’t enough for most modern women. They are not trying to be disobediant to God, but they do want to find an understanding of and behind the teaching.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

I ask again: What about the female persona, gender, body, soul makes her unable to receive holy orders?

Interestingly, Pope JP2 said the Church has no authority, but he did not say that women could not receive holy orders if conferred.

I have the impression that arguments against women’s ordination are very thin, and therfore, are repeated more and more vociferously. I heard a certain Fr. Corapi state very firmly that it couldn’t happen, as though he were trying to end an uncomfortable conversation by using the force of his personality.

Was JP2’s statement above ex cathedra?

Is the Church more afraid of inconsistencies with previous supposedly “infallible” statements than it is willing to tackle the uncomfortable imperatives of theology?

I ask these questions as someone who is otherwise interested in the possiblity of being Catholic, but I don’t think I can check my reasoning at the door.

Your questions are certainly important, and it is why this is an issue for the Church. JPII was very eliquant is his reasoning, well worth reading and perhaps can answer the Church’s resoning for not ordaining women, it wasn’t a statement that would be considered ex catherdra, as I think you are refering, but is holds the teaching of the Church and as such we are called to obey it. The basis is very rooted in tradition. Jesus choose 12 men as his apostles. It is felt that this was the example he set and throughout the history of the Church it has been followed.
The question is a very modern one. Society norms, up to the last 50 years was that men ruled. As doors have been broken down in all other parts of society, it is only natural that he question would arrise with the Church.
We also need to remeber that we are light years ahead of other countries when it comes to women’s rights. As a universal church, any consideration of any church teaching has to take this into account. It might have possitive effects in the United States, but very detrimental effect in other places.
We understand that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I trust that any change if it ever happens will come through that means.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

The Trinity has existed from the beginning…and there is evidence of the Most Holy Trinity from the very beginning of time as explained in Genesis…the only thing that has changed is man’s understanding of the Trinity.

As far as my discernment, I have said nothing that is in opposition to The Holy See…I am in full communion. Granted, I am nostalgic…and I prefer a lot of the older ways to the new…I even prefer the TLM…but none of that is anti-Vatican II…since none of it was ever abrogated…and it certainly doesn’t make me a schismatic. So what is the problem with someone discerning the priesthood that thinks like me? Is it because I am a threat to the modernists and the liberals? There are a lot of young men in Seminary right now that think like I do…The pendelum has swung way to the left in the last 40 or so years in the Church…when these young priest become the Bishops and the Cardinals…there will be a lot of changes for the better to bring us back to center where we belong.

And finally, regarding the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible, how does it go against Vatican II? It is the most accurate translation from the Latin there is…the language is a little outdated, but it is still WITHOUT ERROR…and in my opinion the most accurate and reliable translation of the Latin that exist…Yet again I ask…what is your real problem with me and my views, because I am perfectly in line with the Bible, with Jesus, The Church, The Pope, The Magisterium, etc…I have spoken nothing wrong or that is not an accepted or official teaching of the Church…if that is the case, why do you feel the need to attack what I say and question my discernment to the Priesthood???

I have said nothing aginst the teaching of the church either, but I am not nostalgic for the old ways. There were many many problems and ways of the Church that most of us who are post Vatican II understand and have desire for them to return including the TLM. I am also in full communion with the Church. I just don’t want a person as a priest who is going into it with an agenda, in your words, to bring the Church back to the center were we belong.
It is understood thast the we are a pilgram Church, we are not static in time or history.

As far as Douay-Rheims it may be the most accurate Latin, but not the most accaurate translation. From the example you gave and from the examples on the web site, the interpetation comes from a very traditional background. By the way, the New American Bible is the accepted translation for the Church in the United States, of course you already knew that.

My point on Genisis was that we may find a trinitarian form in it, but the original writers wonld not had the same understanding. When understanding the bible as you should know, the souce, and history, both hold important roles.

To ask were you come from on issues is not ment to be a personal attack. It should be part of your dicernment. Are you desires yours, or are they God’s. Only your own prayer can lead you to that answer.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FCEGM]

Your questions are certainly important, and it is why this is an issue for the Church. JPII was very eliquant is his reasoning, well worth reading and perhaps can answer the Church’s resoning for not ordaining women, it wasn’t a statement that would be considered ex catherdra, as I think you are refering, but is holds the teaching of the Church and as such we are called to obey it. The basis is very rooted in tradition. Jesus choose 12 men as his apostles. It is felt that this was the example he set and throughout the history of the Church it has been followed.
The question is a very modern one. Society norms, up to the last 50 years was that men ruled. As doors have been broken down in all other parts of society, it is only natural that he question would arrise with the Church.
We also need to remeber that we are light years ahead of other countries when it comes to women’s rights. As a universal church, any consideration of any church teaching has to take this into account. It might have possitive effects in the United States, but very detrimental effect in other places.
We understand that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I trust that any change if it ever happens will come through that means.

Far better to know that this is the firm teaching of the Church, as this article addresses:

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MALEPRIE.TXT

Further, it is not just the Lord’s choosing of only men that gives the example, but first and foremost His Incarnation that gives us the reason. This article speaks to that:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm

An excerpt:

. . .God chose twelve men to symbolize Christ as High Priest (vis-a-vis both God and the Church) as Head of the Body and as Groom to the Bride. (See especially Ephesians 5 toward the end of the chapter on the Great Mystery and spousal symbolism.) Women can not symbolize the Head (the Man Jesus Christ) to the Body, nor the Groom (the same Man Jesus Christ) to the Bride (the Church).

I wish to point out that not even any man can symbolize this. Only those chosen by the Church and ordained through apostolic succession. So going back to the example of the Eucharist, should a community of Catholics lack an ordained man (it happened in both Japan and Korea for hundreds of years, as well as in much of England and Scandinavia during the same period), they could not have a layman, or ordained deacon even, celebrate the Mass with any supernatural effect. Reason: supernatural causes alone bring supernatural effects and God has chosen to bring about the supernatural effect of extending the Priesthood of His Incarnate Son only through the symbolism He choose for Christ as Head to Body and Groom to Bride through the laying on of hands upon men by the Twelve and their successors.

Just as it is not by the natural properties of water or the human symbolism of Baptism (the Jews had a baptism of repentance) that the supernatural effects of Sacramental Baptism occur, neither is it by the natural qualifications of any human being, male or female, as such that any supernatural effects of Priesthood take place. That is why it is not by the natural qualifications of a woman functioning in the role of a priest (preaching, ministering, etc.) that there would by any supernatural effects. Only the men the Church accepts as living symbols of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Head to the Body of the Church, and Groom to the Church as His Bride through sacramental Ordination by Apostolic Succession have the supernatural causality.

It is obvious that a woman can not symbolize being Christ the Groom (inescapably male); neither also the supernatural Headship (i.e., as reference point and absolute origin – rather than superiority - like the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit in the Trinity). So it is not a put-down of the natural or attained abilities of a woman who could function in the activities of the office as well - or in some cases (preaching) better – than a man or particular men from a social point of view. It is the lack of symbolism in being a woman of the specific Man Jesus Christ Who as a man is Priest, Head to the Body, Groom to the Bride, Son to the Father, Father of the World to Come. The woman can of course symbolize the Body and the Bride of Christ and she does, and Mary is the Woman and the symbol of the Church in its highest. . .

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

But…your ordination wouldn’t mean anything…it wouldn’t be valid…you still couldn’t Consecrate The Most Blessed Sacrament…just like all the Episcopalians…none of them can do it either…and you would be leaving behind the fullness of truth…ALL the sacraments…why would you even consider or think about that when you know your ordination would be a sham anyway? I am just trying to figure that out

Basically, because there are times that I want it -that- badly. I’m not really sure why, just that it’s practically an obsession…I’d add more, give some intellectual argument, but I’m having a rather difficult time putting my thoughts into words…explaining myself…

Thought I ought to throw in…

One of my close friends is an Episcopalian priest, and I see nothing different in him than in any of my Catholic priests. They both love God and do everything they can to serve and worship him. If God is all loving and good, would he really abandon and reject others (spiritually, as in ability to consecrate the Eucharist) on the basis of which particular ‘club’ they are a member of?

michaeldaniels, you might want to take a step back for a moment. Your posts are coming off as heated and angry…and doesn’t God teach us patience? Relax, nothing anyone says on here really matters, except when it personally offends you, and wouldn’t it look better, be more priestly even, to take things calmly and peacefully?

I wont argue women’s ordination. It’s something I dream of occasinally, being a priest. And something I’d love to do beyond all reason. But the Chuch has very obviously put its foot down for the moment. I’m sad because I know its a dream I’ll never get to live, but there’s no point in arguing with the brick wall I’ve come up against.

 

[michaeldaniels]

God forbid we hold fast to traditions…I guess you think the Baltimore Catechism is inferior as well? And you are not correct…the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate/direct translation from the Latin…and yes I know we use the NAB today, but that is only because people don’t understand classical English as well as they should and they have to change the translation to fit into todays way of speaking so people can understand…The use of the DR has never been forbidden, so why must I use something else if I am able to comprehed what is being said in it? What is wrong with an error free translation from God…which is what the Douay Rheims is…but granted more traditional…it is still error free. The NAB is also error free, but translated in a more modern form of English…not as accurate when it comes to a literal translation, but still error free. I don’t have a problem with the NAB, because I still recognize that the Holy Spririt prevents it from being error free…therefore, if we have established that both the DR and the NAB are error free, what is the problem with the more classical form of English and literal translation you find in the DR? Can you please explain that…and explain why you have to seem to have a problem with anything traditional…even though what you attack is upheld and supported by The Church…why is it that you all get a pass for blatantly thumbing your nose at The Church and the Magisterium, but when the SSPX question one little thing they are schismatics and should be avoided like the plague…the double standard is appalling.

As far as Douay-Rheims it may be the most accurate Latin, but not the most accaurate translation. From the example you gave and from the examples on the web site, the interpetation comes from a very traditional background.

 

[michaeldaniels]

1)I’m sorry, but I do get a little heated when people try turn their will into God’s Will…like He must conform or else!!! YOu know what I am saying…it isn’t up to us why God does the things he does…it is up to us to ACCEPT His Will…regardless if we agree or not. I just get upset, because all these “what if” questions or “why” questions do not matter…somethings cant change. So I am sorry if I come off heated sometimes
2)I am sure your friend is a very pius, God Fearing Man, an a good shepherd to his Church…however, it doesn’t change the point there are huge differences between him and Catholic priests…He is not validly ordained, as per the Teachings of The Church which you belong…I should not have to expound on this point further. The Catechism and other sources can explain this…but I will have to say, it is not because we are in a “club” or anything like that…God created ONE, TRUE, CHURCH…if there is ONLY 1, then there is only 1…not 33,000…therefore the only one, true Church, can have the fullness of truth…therefore only a validly ordained CAtholic priest can Consecrate The Eucharist
3)Why not become a Nun? Or pursue some other type of ministry, vocation, or life of service in The Church?

Basically, because there are times that I want it -that- badly. I’m not really sure why, just that it’s practically an obsession…I’d add more, give some intellectual argument, but I’m having a rather difficult time putting my thoughts into words…explaining myself…

Thought I ought to throw in…

One of my close friends is an Episcopalian priest, and I see nothing different in him than in any of my Catholic priests. They both love God and do everything they can to serve and worship him. If God is all loving and good, would he really abandon and reject others (spiritually, as in ability to consecrate the Eucharist) on the basis of which particular ‘club’ they are a member of?

michaeldaniels, you might want to take a step back for a moment. Your posts are coming off as heated and angry…and doesn’t God teach us patience? Relax, nothing anyone says on here really matters, except when it personally offends you, and wouldn’t it look better, be more priestly even, to take things calmly and peacefully?

I wont argue women’s ordination. It’s something I dream of occasinally, being a priest. And something I’d love to do beyond all reason. But the Chuch has very obviously put its foot down for the moment. I’m sad because I know its a dream I’ll never get to live, but there’s no point in arguing with the brick wall I’ve come up against.

 

[Montalo]

1)I’m sorry, but I do get a little heated when people try turn their will into God’s Will…like He must conform or else!!! YOu know what I am saying…it isn’t up to us why God does the things he does…it is up to us to ACCEPT His Will…regardless if we agree or not. I just get upset, because all these “what if” questions or “why” questions do not matter…somethings cant change. So I am sorry if I come off heated sometimes
2)I am sure your friend is a very pius, God Fearing Man, an a good shepherd to his Church…however, it doesn’t change the point there are huge differences between him and Catholic priests…He is not validly ordained, as per the Teachings of The Church which you belong…I should not have to expound on this point further. The Catechism and other sources can explain this…but I will have to say, it is not because we are in a “club” or anything like that…God created ONE, TRUE, CHURCH…if there is ONLY 1, then there is only 1…not 33,000…therefore the only one, true Church, can have the fullness of truth…therefore only a validly ordained CAtholic priest can Consecrate The Eucharist
3)Why not become a Nun? Or pursue some other type of ministry, vocation, or life of service in The Church?

The Orthodox priest may also consecrate the Eucharist

 

[michaeldaniels]

Yes of course…I am sorry I ommitted that, even though I am fully aware and it was intended to be implied…I failed to use the best wording, which should have been Validly ordained priest in a Church with Valid Apostolic Succession, which the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have…I promise it was not intended as a slight…I think about us all as one big family

The Orthodox priest may also consecrate the Eucharist

 

[FCEGM]

. . .I wont argue women’s ordination. It’s something I dream of occasinally, being a priest. And something I’d love to do beyond all reason. But the Chuch has very obviously put its foot down for the moment. I’m sad because I know its a dream I’ll never get to live, but there’s no point in arguing with the brick wall I’ve come up against.

Well, you see, GW, that’s just the point: it’s not “for the moment”, rather it’s for now until the Lord comes. So it’s not something that a Catholic should accept by just grinning and bearing it, but, rather, by embracing the teaching as coming from Christ Himself through His Church. Then, any sadness (or anger) will be dispelled because one sees that this is God’s will for His Church and that one’s desires must be ordered to that Will, not His to one’s own.

Consider that those who agitate for or simply wish for a different teaching are implying that the Vicars of Christ through the ages have erred and that their successor, John Paul II, because of his insistence that the Church cannot ordain women (or allow contraception, abortion, etc., etc., - pick the complaint), were somehow stuck in a long-ago faded theology that now requires some new revelation by the Holy Spirit to bring the Church into the 21st century (or 22nd, or 23rd, etc., etc.). They are also implying that they, and not the Vicar of Christ, have a better insight into what “God’s plans” are.

The late Holy Father on several occasions gave a couple of reasons why the priesthood of Christ is not an option for women, the main ones being that the priest acts in persona Christe, but also, that had women been chosen for that sacrament, Christ would have chosen His Holy Mother.

Now why don’t some find those reasons fitting?? There must be something missing or skewed in their considering this as a believer for them not to get it. IOW, they can’t think theologically very well. Probably because they have this attitude that if the arguments don’t make sense to them, they can’t be valid. Such an attitude is a failure to admit their limitations. A humble mind would say, “Gee, the Pope gave us a couple of leads on why the Tradition can not be reversed; maybe I should follow those leads and reflect on how they fit with ordination”.

 

[stuart12]

Could you point out to me where this statement is backed up by either the Bible, the teachings of the Church Fathers, or any Ecumenical Council of the Church?

It seems that a great deal of what our Lord did was specific to time and place. He curred the sick, especially during his Galilean ministry, he turned water into wine one time that we have recorded, he spoke in Synagogues at specific times. His words to Pilate were for then and there.

To the subject of the ordination of women, what about the female person or being makes her body and soul incapable of receiving holy orders? I have an open mind on this.

Jesus Christ was (and still is) God. It is blasphemy to say that the one true God was blined was prejudice and sexism. All He did was according to the eternal will of His Father. Plus, before He appointed the Apostles, He spent the night in prayer to His Heavenly Father.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Jesus Christ was (and still is) God. It is blasphemy to say that the one true God was blined was prejudice and sexism. All He did was according to the eternal will of His Father. Plus, before He appointed the Apostles, He spent the night in prayer to His Heavenly Father.

I never said, nor would I ever say that our Lord and Saviour is prejudiced or sexist. Nothing you have stated answers where in scripture, in tradition, or in the ecumenical councils of the Church it is decreed that the female person cannot receive holy orders.

This is another example of thin arguments to disguise the fact that the answers are poor. Statements like the above, suggest that I am blasphemous for asking the question, and that I am defaming our Jesus Christ. It’s kind of like the lawyers’ adage that when the facts are with you, you argue facts, when the law is with you, you argue law, and when both are against you, you pound the table.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Nothing you have stated answers where in scripture, in tradition, or in the ecumenical councils of the Church it is decreed that the female person cannot receive holy orders.

I’m sorry, did you miss “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” (1994). . .it really made it pretty darn clear that the Church has no authority to ordain the ‘female person.’

 

[stuart12]

It doesn’t matter whether a female would be a ‘better priest’ that many men. The priesthood is a gift, it does not depend on the person’s righteous (although those who are called are called to great holiness), but on the mercy of God. Who hear would that chosen that inept and fickle Peter to lead Christ’s Church?

At Mass, a priest (no matter how holy or learned) can not consecrate a donut. This is not valid matter. It would be much better (and tastier) to have donuts at Mass, but God in His wisdom wants bread to be used. Therefore we must submit to His will.

Those who support female ordination lack a great deal of humility. If our Lord wanted females as priests, He would have chosen His Blessed Mother.

 

[stuart12]

I never said, nor would I ever say that our Lord and Saviour is prejudiced or sexist. Nothing you have stated answers where in scripture, in tradition, or in the ecumenical councils of the Church it is decreed that the female person cannot receive holy orders.

This is another example of thin arguments to disguise the fact that the answers are poor. Statements like the above, suggest that I am blasphemous for asking the question, and that I am defaming our Jesus Christ. It’s kind of like the lawyers’ adage that when the facts are with you, you argue facts, when the law is with you, you argue law, and when both are against you, you pound the table.

It seems that you are pounding the table as the outmoded, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal middle ages are infecting our enlightened modern age of great peace and fairness.

The fact that women can not receive holy orders is and has always been an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. And if you don’t believe that His Holiness using His authority as the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church binds this fact upon the faithful. This should close the discussion.

Saint Paul said that a woman can not have authority over men and that they should keep silent in church.

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 of the First Council of Nicea [A.D. 325]).

“For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

 

[FAB]

God forbid we hold fast to traditions…I guess you think the Baltimore Catechism is inferior as well?

 

[Guardian_Wolf]

1)I’m sorry, but I do get a little heated when people try turn their will into God’s Will…like He must conform or else!!! YOu know what I am saying…it isn’t up to us why God does the things he does…it is up to us to ACCEPT His Will…regardless if we agree or not. I just get upset, because all these “what if” questions or “why” questions do not matter…somethings cant change. So I am sorry if I come off heated sometimes
2)I am sure your friend is a very pius, God Fearing Man, an a good shepherd to his Church…however, it doesn’t change the point there are huge differences between him and Catholic priests…He is not validly ordained, as per the Teachings of The Church which you belong…I should not have to expound on this point further. The Catechism and other sources can explain this…but I will have to say, it is not because we are in a “club” or anything like that…God created ONE, TRUE, CHURCH…if there is ONLY 1, then there is only 1…not 33,000…therefore the only one, true Church, can have the fullness of truth…therefore only a validly ordained CAtholic priest can Consecrate The Eucharist
3)Why not become a Nun? Or pursue some other type of ministry, vocation, or life of service in The Church?

1.) No need to apologize to me, I myself have gotten rather frustrated in discussion, but since it ‘looks bad’ and in cases can hurt your argument, I figured I’d let you know. ^^

2.) In response to being validly ordained, what if he was “taught everything he knows” by a Catholic (I think it was a bishop, not sure though)? Not trying to argue the one Church thing, just generally curious.

3.) I don’t think I’d enjoy being a Nun. From what I’ve read/heard, it just doesn’t sound like the thing for me. What other types of ministry/vocation/life of service in the Chuch could I pursue? ^^ I’m technically a revert, so there’s somethings I’ve forgotten, and some things I’m just not familiar with.