The ordination of women as priests

[peary1]

Women are all over the altar on Sunday mornings. Most extraordinary ministers are women. They distribute communion and wine. And they STILL complain about not receiving orders? Sheesh…

 

[Rence]

Women are all over the altar on Sunday mornings. Most extraordinary ministers are women. They distribute communion and wine. And they STILL complain about not receiving orders? Sheesh…

MY POINT EXACTLY!!! Thank you

I didn’t complain once. I accept the teaching. I follow the teaching. I just don’t agree with them, because I don’t understand the reasons behind it. However, I do NOT complain about it. I just pray about it. That’s my point exactly.

 

[Mokosh]

I do NOT agree with the ordination of women as priests.
But I must explain why. Because there is not anything about church at all here.

Really, at time when Jesus lived it was impossible to give any information to people from women. They could not accept it at all, just because it from woman. Sadly, but in modern world we have the same problem often.

So about women as priests -
I think it is not such good idea, because man and woman have different task in this world.
Really, how you can imagine a pregnant priest?
In my opinion, woman, who does not want to be a mother is strange. Of course, I do not mean the cases if she cannot have a child! Women cannot refuse the responsibility to look after children.

The men can refuse this responsibility (of course it is not good!) and even if they have children, there is still the different way to take care about!
So in my opinion, women do not need to be priests, because they must have time for the maternity task.

Really, I would like to have a right to be a priest or to get a proper excuse why woman cannot be a priest (not just - it is because Jesus was a man and all apostles were men too).

 

[Rence]

I do NOT agree with the ordination of women as priests.
But I must explain why. Because there is not anything about church at all here.
Really, at time when Jesus lived it was impossible to give any information to people from women. They could not accept it at all, just because it from woman. Sadly, but in modern world we have the same problem often.

I agree with you on that point. I made that point in an above thread while going through an article someone asked me to read.

So about women as priests -
I think it is not such good idea, because man and woman have different task in this world.
Really, how you can imagine a pregnant priest?

**Well, now, priests aren’t married under normal circumstances. So say for argument’s sake, the Pope theoretically would allow it, they wouldn’t be married, and therefore not pregnant. **

In my opinion, woman, who does not want to be a mother is strange. Of course, I do not mean the cases if she cannot have a child! Women cannot refuse the responsibility to look after children.

**I agree that most women want to have children, but remember, nuns don’t have children. So it can’t be that strange. **

The men can refuse this responsibility (of course it is not good!) and even if they have children, there is still the different way to take care about!
So in my opinion, women do not need to be priests, because they must have time for the maternity task.

Ok, I understand where you’re coming from and I respect your opinion. I just think differently than you do But I understand you!

Really, I would like to have a right to be a priest or to get a proper excuse why woman cannot be a priest (not just - it is because Jesus was a man and all apostles were men too).

**Yes, I don’t understand that reason either. But we’ll just have to pray on that because it’s not allowed by the Church. The Pope knows that some women want to be priests, so we don’t need to be bugging him about it. And of course if you’re one of those women who wants to be a priest, just petition him like you would anything else and let him pray on it, as he always does. If God want’s it to change, it will. If God doesn’t want it to change, it won’t. **

 

[ac_claire]

He said that women are not allowed to be priests, which of course I acknowledged from the very very beginning. He said he doesn’t even discuss it with people. He said I am not sinning by not understanding it, or that I think it might change in the future. He said that I follow the rules of the Church and that I was doing nothing wrong by praying about it. He said to stop listening to folks online and just practice the faith.

Ok, this is somewhat comforting. Was a little worried before, based on your first post about it. Thanks for clarifying.

As to the part about you all not knowing what you were talking about. Well, that must be true, since what you told me was false. And I totally believe and trust him. He has more credibility than a few people on an online forum. I’m sure you can understand that.

What exactly have I told you that is false? I’ve only repeated what the Church teaches. And in reply to your post #193, I haven’t tried in any way to “beat you into submission” and have no illusions of having authority over you. And what has been “confrontational” or “hatreful”??? Can’t argue with “a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed”, except that I haven’t seen anyone try turn you away from the Church here in word or deed. I’ve seen the opposite.

Seriously, I don’t know why this is getting all personal lol. And I don’t know how I can convince you otherwise. I could just as well say you are hateful and dismissive because of how you’ve responded to me in this thread, when here I thought I was being very clear and tactful. But I’m not gonna do that because it’s not personal. Just because I don’t like or agree with what someone is telling me, doesn’t mean it’s hateful.

 

[Rence]

Ok, this is somewhat comforting. Was a little worried before, based on your first post about it. Thanks for clarifying.

**Anytime **

What exactly have I told you that is false?
I’ve only repeated what the Church teaches. And in reply to your post #193, I haven’t tried in any way to “beat you into submission” and have no illusions of having authority over you. And what has been “confrontational” or “hatreful”??? Can’t argue with “a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed”, except that I haven’t seen anyone try turn you away from the Church here in word or deed.

You haven’t? I’m sorry, I think you may have missed a few posts. Perhaps you should review the last few pages.

Seriously, I don’t know why this is getting all personal lol. And I don’t know how I can convince you otherwise. I could just as well say you are hateful and dismissive because of how you’ve responded to me in this thread, when here I thought I was being very clear and tactful. But I’m not gonna do that because it’s not personal. Just because I don’t like or agree with what someone is telling me, doesn’t mean it’s hateful.

**I think you need to reread some posts. I think you either missed a few or dismissed them. Perhaps I feel like the posts are hateful because that’s how they’re coming across. Not all of them. They go back and forth. But the more polite ones don’t erase the rude ones.

If you’re going to reply to my post, please don’t follow the same ol ac_claire pattern of reasking me the same question over and over and over, despite the fact that I don’t change my answers. Just reread the ones I’ve already posted. And read the ones written in reply to me. Thanks

I don’t want to be rude and just ignore replys to my posts, but it’s getting really annoying to repeat the same things over and over again. Aren’t you tired of asking the same things over and over? Something tells me that you’re not reading them anyway…otherwise you wouldn’t be cycling like this. Honestly, I’ve answered everything you’ve asked, and each time I do, you not only twist what I say, but you ask the questions again.

And you never ever have to agree with me. I’ve never tried to change anyone’s mind here. I just reserve the right to have my own. Is that so bad? It’s a big world. We’re not all going to agree.

**

 

[peary1]

Basically, because there are times that I want it -that- badly. I’m not really sure why, just that it’s practically an obsession…

That’s not good…

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?

Wow, what kind of theology is that? It goes right to the heart of the matter on the very nature of the priesthood. The Episopal church (Anglican) rejects the Church’s understanding of the priesthood, and they also reject the Mass as a sacrifice. Thus, they do not have altars, but ‘tables’. The episcopal church does not have valid orders, so they cannot be passed down to their ministers. And they do not have a valid priesthood, which is why they have ‘ministers’. It’s not a matter that God is all loving and good, but whether or not He estabablished a Church or not…not many. They are not all valid. Only one is. And He does not interfere with one’s free will to choose. It isn’t that he rejects others because he DID say that where two or more are gathered in His Name, there He is in their midst. And I believe that. But that isn’t the same as having the Eucharist Who is someone the protestant churches do not, unfotunately, have. They have great devotion to Jesus, and follow Him according to what they understand in Scriptures, but it is not the same as ‘having’ Him body, blood, soul, and Divinity.

I wont argue women’s ordination. It’s something I dream of occasinally, being a priest.

I’m a male, and it’s something I’ve dreamed of all my life, but it never happened.

 

[ac_claire]

I think you need to reread some posts. I think you either missed a few or dismissed them. Perhaps I feel like the posts are hateful because that’s how they’re coming across. Not all of them. They go back and forth. But the more polite ones don’t erase the rude ones.

I’ve closely followed this thread. I still don’t see the hatefulness. I definitely understand that you don’t like what a lot of them have to say. I don’t like a *whole lot *of what you’ve had to say, but I don’t think you’re rude or confrontational because of it.

If you’re going to reply to my post, please don’t follow the same ol ac_claire pattern of reasking me the same question over and over and over, despite the fact that I don’t change my answers. Just reread the ones I’ve already posted. And read the ones written in reply to me. Thanks

I don’t want to be rude and just ignore replys to my posts, but it’s getting really annoying to repeat the same things over and over again. Aren’t you tired of asking the same things over and over? Something tells me that you’re not reading them anyway…otherwise you wouldn’t be cycling like this. Honestly, I’ve answered everything you’ve asked, and each time I do, you not only twist what I say, but you ask the questions again.

And you never ever have to agree with me. I’ve never tried to change anyone’s mind here. I just reserve the right to have my own. Is that so bad? It’s a big world. We’re not all going to agree.

I’ve most definitely read everything you’ve written in response to me. Let me try to explain this. If a person asks a question, and the answer they receive either doesn’t make sense or presents some major contradictions, then frequently the asker will try to get the answer-er to clarify or explain. The seeking clarification is known as a follow-up question in rhetorical circles. It’s not a repeat of the same original question.

In fact, my basic question still hasn’t been answered…and instead we’re wrestling with a straw man about question and answer tenchnique.

The irony is that you’re the one who’s gone on for pages now about all the abuse, rudeness, hatefulness, etc. that you’ve received so far. Yet…your posts are riddled with personally-directed ineuendos and insults. I can count 2 or 3 towards me in this last post alone. I’m not offended by it, mind you. Just appreciating the irony.

 

[ac_claire]

I think you need to reread some posts. I think you either missed a few or dismissed them. Perhaps I feel like the posts are hateful because that’s how they’re coming across. Not all of them. They go back and forth. But the more polite ones don’t erase the rude ones.

I’ve closely followed this thread. I still don’t see the hatefulness. I definitely understand that you don’t like what a lot of them have to say. I don’t like a *whole lot *of what you’ve had to say, but I don’t think you’re rude or confrontational because of it.

If you’re going to reply to my post, please don’t follow the same ol ac_claire pattern of reasking me the same question over and over and over, despite the fact that I don’t change my answers. Just reread the ones I’ve already posted. And read the ones written in reply to me. Thanks

I don’t want to be rude and just ignore replys to my posts, but it’s getting really annoying to repeat the same things over and over again. Aren’t you tired of asking the same things over and over? Something tells me that you’re not reading them anyway…otherwise you wouldn’t be cycling like this. Honestly, I’ve answered everything you’ve asked, and each time I do, you not only twist what I say, but you ask the questions again.

And you never ever have to agree with me. I’ve never tried to change anyone’s mind here. I just reserve the right to have my own. Is that so bad? It’s a big world. We’re not all going to agree.

I’ve most definitely read everything you’ve written in response to me. Let me try to explain this. If a person asks a question, and the answer they receive either doesn’t make sense or presents some major contradictions, then frequently the asker will try to get the answer-er to clarify or explain. The seeking clarification is known as a follow-up question in rhetorical circles. It’s not a repeat of the same original question.

In fact, my basic question still hasn’t been answered…and instead we’re wrestling with a straw man about question and answer tenchnique.

The irony is that you’re the one who’s gone on for pages now about all the abuse, rudeness, hatefulness, etc. that you’ve received so far. Yet…your posts are riddled with insulting presumptions and assumptions about the people who you’re dialoguing with. I can count 2 or 3 towards me in this last post alone. I’m not offended by it, mind you. Just appreciating the irony.

 

[Rence]

In fact, my basic question still hasn’t been answered…and instead we’re wrestling with a straw man about question and answer tenchnique.

Alright, I’ll bite: what question do you have that has still not been answered?

 

[SunnaB16]

I’m not, I’m pretty happy about it myself

Let’s do it again:
I finally had a chance to call my priest this morning and give him the details about this thread. He told me that I was absolutely not sinning by disagreeing and/or not understanding this teaching. And that I was doing nothing wrong by praying, because praying to God is never wrong.
Praying that a dogma of the Church will change, and expressing the fact that youre doing that ****is DISSENT, and youre publicly stating it.

He said that the reason why some of you said I was sinnning and not a Catholic anymore is because you are ultra ultra conservative Catholics and a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed. He told me to stop listening to you all because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It`s the pot calling the kettle black - a DISSIDENT priest.

So you all can say whatever you want, my original thoughts on the matter were reinforced by my priest and that’s what I’m going by.
I’ll still take the time to read the encylicals and writings on the matter, but in the end, I either understand it or I wont.
Your understanding versus the Church`s understanding! How proud can you be?

Thank you for your responses to my posts. I know some of you meant well

He said: I was not sinning by disagreeing and/or no understanding this teaching.
He said I was doing nothing wrong by praying.
**Nothing wrong with not understanding, but plenty wrong with the others. **

He said the reason why some of you said I was sinning and not a Cathlolic anymore is because you are ultra ultra conservative
And, hes ultra ultra liberal, and leading people into spiritual danger.** ( now, I took him to mean, and since I was there having a conversation with him): the ultra ultra conservative people on this forum stick to the very traditional view that we can't hold our own opininons and/or have trouble understanding teachings without risking hellfire and damnation...or worse). Which is true, is it not? Was this not the whole point of trying to convince me that I was so wrong and you were so right? **Youre wrong because youre denying the Churchs inerrancy re Faith and Morals.

He said a true Catholic would never turn anyone away from the Church in word or deed. I think that’s true too.
The only problem is: he`s not a true Catholic.

As to the part about you all not knowing what you were talking about. Well, that must be true, since what you told me was false. And I totally believe and trust him. He has more credibility than a few people on an online forum. I’m sure you can understand that.
**A priest who gives the “advice” that he gave you has no credibility. What would Pope Benedict, the current successor of Saint Peter, say to him if the two of them were to argue this **face to face? Even more: what will our Lord say to a dissenting priest? If you freely choose to trust a priest who is so blatantly a dissenter, youre on thin ice. At least those of us who accept the Churchs teachings can walk away with clear consciences. We tried.

You and Eris are promoting PROTESTANTISM.
And youre letting PRIDE rule you. You trust this priest because he says what you want to hear. Its safer to trust the Spirit guided Church with Her 2,000 years of Wisdom, and all of the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.

.

 

[SunnaB16]

Do note (while possibly not during this time, not sure…) St. Jeanne d’Arc was tried by the Church and burned at the stake for being a heretic.

I’m pretty sure -that- was a mistake.

That was done for political reasons, though.
Saint Jeanne was condemned by a currupt bishop.
A corrupt bishop is not the same as the Pope united with his loyal bishops.

 

[Rence]

You and Eris are promoting PROTESTANTISM.
And youre letting PRIDE rule you. You trust this priest because he says what you want to hear. Its safer to trust the Spirit guided Church with Her 2,000 years of Wisdom, and all of the other gifts of the Holy Spirit.
.

I thought it was forbidden to criticize a Catholic priest? And here you go publicly too. Go you!!!

Honestly, what would I do without you here to save me from myself? Thanks so much for enlightening me and showing me the way

 

[michaeldaniels]

To a statement you made earlier in another post #203…you said if the pope allowed it, they couldn’t be married and therefore would not get pregnant…I think this is a naive statement. We have priest that have molested and rape little boys…is it a far stretch to think a “female priest” would never, ever have a moment of weakness and engage in consensual sex? Wake up.

Also, when a priest is wrong and gives someone bad advice or participates in formal heresy, then you are obligated not to follow them and sometimes a public condemnation is necessary in order that others who are not aware they are teaching heresies does not get led down the road to perdition.

Your “holier than though” attitude and disdain against those who are simply trying to help you is bothersome…you have such arrogance, yet you understand your own faith so very little. You should apologize to some of the people on this thread. I will be praying for you. God Bless

I thought it was forbidden to criticize a Catholic priest? And here you go publicly too. Go you!!!

Honestly, what would I do without you here to save me from myself? Thanks so much for enlightening me and showing me the way

 

[Mokosh]

Rence:
Ok, so we must just wait for
But it still a question there - why women do not aloud to be priests?
Where from came this point? I am just studying religions (just for my understanding) it why I am here. So I am really sorry if I ask silly questions, But it is really important for me understand WHY women do not aloud to be priests in some churches.

 

[Mokosh]

Rence:
Ok, so we must just wait for
But it still a question there - why women do not aloud to be priests?
Where from came this point? I am just studying religions (just for my understanding) it why I am here. So I am really sorry if I ask silly questions, But it is really important for me understand WHY women do not aloud to be priests in some churches.

 

[sanfico]

My girlfriend had a good opinion on this topic. She said that maybe the reason why the catholic church doesn’t allow the ordination of women priests is the fact that men would look up to a woman in a different way than a woman to a man. In other words a woman priest would be more of a distraction on the altar than a man. Because it’s more likely that a man would look at a woman as an object of desire than woman would. Sorry, this is really complicated to explain and I’m not sure I’m making sense out of this.
I mean this is just a theory I’m not saying it is the reason but could be a plausible one.

 

[Rence]

To a statement you made earlier in another post #203…you said if the pope allowed it, they couldn’t be married and therefore would not get pregnant…I think this is a naive statement. We have priest that have molested and rape little boys…is it a far stretch to think a “female priest” would never, ever have a moment of weakness and engage in consensual sex? Wake up.

I think neither man nor women is above falling to moments of weakness and engage in any kind of sex that they’re not supposed to. However, priests are called to live by a better standard due to their role in society. Though we are all called to that standard.
So if you please, explain why you think my thoughts are naive? When a Catholic priest falls to temptation, and commits acts of evil, he is supposed to be removed from his station by the Church and put in counseling provided by the diocese. His opportunity to ever work with children should be revoked. So, if a women falls to sin, should not the same be done? I’m not sure how it’s less acceptable for a women to fall into temptation, considering it’s not acceptable by man or woman. Evil people wear many hats.

Also, when a priest is wrong and gives someone bad advice or participates in formal heresy, then you are obligated not to follow them and sometimes a public condemnation is necessary in order that others who are not aware they are teaching heresies does not get led down the road to perdition.

**I was taught that it is not our responsibility as lay people to judge priests and criticize them and most definitely not condemn them. I believe you’re supposed to reserve judgement and criticism and report him to his superiors. I realize you can’t do that because I haven’t given enough information. But that doesn’t negate the fact that criticizing and badmouthing a priest is still sinful and evil. You all are not authorized to condemn him. **

 

[Rence]

Your “holier than though” attitude and disdain against those who are simply trying to help you is bothersome…you have such arrogance, yet you understand your own faith so very little. You should apologize to some of the people on this thread. I will be praying for you. God Bless

First of all, let me say that this last thread of your is the first reply of yours to me that has not been in distain, and has not been rude (though you still like taking shots at me, and that’s okay, it’s not as bad as your previous replies to me, so I’ll take it), and looks like you’re actually trying to communicate with me instead of insult and ridicule me, and I appreciate that very much. I hope it doesn’t revert again. So, thank you. I pray that God will soften your heart so that we can continue to have interactions on this forum in a productive way without hostility and anger. And thank you for saying you will be praying for me. I appreciate that more than anything, because despite what you think of me, one thing I can firmly attest to is the power of prayer.

BUT — Do you even realize that you and SunnyB attacked me from the beginning and therefore you both set the standard for this thread for me? do you realize that one minute you’re saying that you have a responsibility to teach the Truth, but all you taught me was how good you are at ridicule, sarcasm, name calling, false accustations and you know, that comes off as quite arrogant, whether you realize it or not. So please don’t lay all the responsibility of the tension on this thread completely on me. You did your part too. The fact is, you didn’t like what I said. And that’s okay. I don’t mind in the least. But I do mind that you couldn’t make your point without being so hostile.

The fact of the matter is, many Catholics have problems with teachings of the Church and spend years working though them. If they’re serious about it, they work with others, read a lot, pray a lot, and spend time reflecting a lot. I have not closed my mind to any of them, however I struggle with some. To single me out because of my views is unfair and unwarranted.

However, your claim that “those who are simply trying to help you” is a false one. Clearly there appear to be a few who are trying to help me by having me sort out my thoughts and feelings, and by providing literature for me to read. But clearly, some have no interest at all in “helping” me, but rather take shots at me. Can you please tell me in a civil manner without blowing your cork how your posts, #87, #88, #89 and #93 were posted to “simply try to help you”? Because they were saturated with sarcasm, ridicule and insults, which of COURSE were not received well by me at all and immediately put me on the defensive. And that was only in my first two posts ever on this thread.

AND, to add insult to injury, one member told me that there were no such insultive posts made to me riddled with abuse, rudeness, hatefulness and that I was taking it to a personal level, completely ignoring the fact that it is indeed very personal when someone specifically insults YOU. So that’s just silliness. I have no clue why someone would do that. Denying the posts didn’t happen when they’re right there in front of you on your screen is just silly. And if you’ll notice, I didn’t even address it in my response. It just seemed worthless to do so.

So, I’m sorry if people think I acted arrogantly and “holier than though”. The fact of the matter is I was poorly received from the beginning, and perhaps I came off as such due to that that fact. I’m not sure how you expect someone to react to being called called a heretic, accused of teaching heresies when I don’t teach anything, told to keep quiet because apparently I don’t deserve an opinion or thought of my own, told I am not Catholic by those who have no business doing so, claiming that I have no interest in the truth when in fact, the reason why I am here is to learn. The claim that if I have problems with the teachings on the priesthood then I should have problems with the rest of the teachings of the Church is ridiculous and outlandish plain and simple. Why wouldn’t I have a problem understanding other teachings? How are the two related? I’ve been “screamed at” with all caps. And terrible and unchristian things were said about my priest, which is not the place of anyone on this forum to say. How is that not arrogant? How is that not “holier than thou”? What makes you all “better” or “more Christian” than I am?

Maybe we should all try to treat others like we want to be treated? I’ll do it if you all do it.

 

[Rence]

My girlfriend had a good opinion on this topic. She said that maybe the reason why the catholic church doesn’t allow the ordination of women priests is the fact that men would look up to a woman in a different way than a woman to a man. In other words a woman priest would be more of a distraction on the altar than a man. Because it’s more likely that a man would look at a woman as an object of desire than woman would. Sorry, this is really complicated to explain and I’m not sure I’m making sense out of this.
I mean this is just a theory I’m not saying it is the reason but could be a plausible one.

Yes that could be, but then if they would include that in their reasons, they may have to admit (whether true or not) that men have no self control But Yes, I can understand that point. Course, they can always make her look like a nun with veiled hair, no make up, vestments surely cover up a body. But that’s a point I hadn’t considered.