The ordination of women as priests

[SunnaB16]

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.
Have you ever thought how frustrating it is to come across a fellow Catholic who calls into question a Dogma of the Church? You say that you accept it, but then you say that you pray that it will be changed, and that you advise like-minded people to do the same. So, in a quiet way, youre helping to spread dissent. God is immutable, and so is His Truth. How would you feel if someone said that he accepts the Immaculate Conception teaching because the Church says so, but that he wishes it would be reversed, and hes praying for that, and is advising others to do the same?

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.
Youre the only Catholic on this thread whos hoping for change. (Please correct me if wrong…too many posts to go back over… youre the most "vocal" Catholic, in any case.) Guardian wolf is upset, but she knows it cant be changed! i`m sorry for having given her a dig earlier on, but at the time, i took her to be a bloke. Serves me right for not taking in her earlier post. (“guardian wolverine” would have made it clearer.)

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.
We were trying to present the Truth, AS TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH, but you seem to have totally discounted it. By the way, did you read Joanna Bogles article? Thats literature!

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,
Advising others to pray for a reversal of the Churchs teaching on this ordination "issue" isnt healthy.

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.
You gave no clue as to the priests identity. Apart from that: in my own case, im a continent away.

How is that not arrogant? How is that not “holier than thou”? What makes you all “better” or “more Christian” than I am?
Truth is Truth, and Error is Error. There`s no getting away from it.
To place yourself as a judge of the Spirit-guided Church with Her 2,000 years of Wisdom is more than a bit breathtaking.

Maybe we should all try to treat others like we want to be treated? I’ll do it if you all do it.
AMEN But, some of us feel as though were bashing our heads against a brick wall. Youve been given theological reasons against priestesses, but you choose to discount them …
There are are other threads, as well … gives you the horrors!

 

[SunnaB16]

PS
Edit time ran out! Some of us are too slow witted.

Already covered by various posters, but:
“…theological reasons against priestesses…”
One reason: the marital union between Christ and His Bride, the Church.
The whole thing stems from the very inner Life of God.
Christ the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride through the priest. A woman CANNOT “image” the Bridegroom. As mentioned earlier, a relationship between a “priestess” and the Bride would be “liturgical lesbianism”.

Inner Life of the Trinity >>> Christ and His Bride, the Church >>> Marital relations/family life

 

[Rence]

Have you ever thought how frustrating it is to come across a fellow Catholic who calls into question a Dogma of the Church? You say that you accept it, but then you say that you pray that it will be changed, and that you advise like-minded people to do the same.
So, in a quiet way, you`re helping to spread dissent.

**Well that’s just crazy, not even reasonable. Yes, OF COURSE I advise like-minded people to pray about it. Since when is praying now forbidden? Aren’t you supposed to pray about things you don’t understand, or are otherwise in conflict with? How is praying and telling people to pray about things their in conflict with spreading dissent? Where does it say ANYWHERE that praying is quietly dissent? **

God is immutable, and so is His Truth. How would you feel if someone said that he accepts the Immaculate Conception teaching because the Church says so, but that he wishes it would be reversed, and he`s praying for that, and is advising others to do the same?

I would ask them if they wanted to see the evidence and present it to them. Then I’d offer to go over it with them. And then if they were still unconvinced, I absolutely would tell them to pray on it…since it would be useless trying to argue with them about it. You can’t MAKE someone believe something they don’t believe. If the person said they would pray for a reversal of that dogma, I’d say, “go ahead”, God’s not going to have it turned around if he doesn’t want it to be turned around I would not be threatened by that person. I believe the Immaculate Conception to be true, and if someone prays that one day it will be changed, I’d say, "keep praying ". Praying to God will NOT, I repeat NOT, make things true become untrue, or vise versa. If you believe that, then you IMOHO don’t believe in God. Being rude and enforcing what I believe on someone isn’t going to make them believe.

Youre the only Catholic on this thread whos hoping for change. (Please correct me if wrong…too many posts to go back over… you`re the most “vocal” Catholic, in any case.)

Yes, I’m the only one who risked saying they wish there was a change and kept defending my right to wish and hope, that’s for sure. I’m certainly not the only one though. And yes, I’ve been pretty vocal. But you know what, I have to tell you: if you would have ignored me, or just said, “well you know I think you’re wrong, so you just keep praying”, you probably wouldn’t have heard from me again. But I kept being asked questions and challenged, I felt that I would be viewed as not standing by my belief if I just didn’t respond. I gave my opinion, and it was harshly challenged. I still have the right to my opinion. This is still a public forum. There is no initiation prerequisite. And I certainly made no indication at all whatsoever that I wanted to change anyone’s mind.

We were trying to present the Truth, AS TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH, but you seem to have totally discounted it. By the way, did you read Joanna Bogles article? Thats literature!
**Not yet, I’m still working on the encyclicals. I have it saved on my HD. I don’t remember you posting anything but insults. But you should know that I had to LEAVE my parish church and go to another one because I couldn’t stomach my own parish’s pastor publicly defying the Cardinal: the parish priest in question was FOR women priests (and I thought it was WRONG to go up against your cardinal like that), he put women up on the altar as much as he could, he was pro-choice, he had women folk dancers in pagan handmaid-looking dresses and bare feet dancing in the aisles with flowers in their hair (um, very strange), and half nekkid women on the altar, talk about tamborines and guitars ON the altar. And I don’t know how he did it, but he somehow searched out Priests who left the priesthood to get married and invited them back to celebrate Mass on the altar. The Cardinal threatened to excommunicate them all, and instead of obeying him, he put the decision in the hands of the ex-priest, who prudently decided not to do it. He changes the Mass anyway he wishes. The cardinal threatened to remove him several times but the liberals in the parish LOVED him. yes, I know what is taught by the Church. So I have a problem with a particular teaching. So what? It’ll either come to me or it won’t but I certainly do not cause dissent. I certainly had my opportunity to do just that. Instead I pray. Instead I chose to be in the minority. And you have the audacity to criticize me for it. That’s one of the craziest things I’ve ever heard of. **

Advising others to pray for a reversal of the Churchs teaching on this ordination "issue" isnt healthy.
**why not? I think it’s the best thing they SHOULD do, instead of rally with a fallen priest that apparently the Cardinal is afraid of, for example. **

Truth is Truth, and Error is Error. There`s no getting away from it.
To place yourself as a judge of the Spirit-guided Church with Her 2,000 years of Wisdom is more than a bit breathtaking.
**I’m sorry you regard it as such. But I need to figure it out for myself. **

But, some of us feel as though were bashing our heads against a brick wall. Youve been given theological reasons against priestesses, but you choose to discount them …There are are other threads, as well … gives you the horrors!

**I’m sorry but honestly I don’t understand how they prove what they say they prove. It’s not that I discount them. Maybe you are bashing your head against a brick wall. Maybe you should give it to God? **

 

[Rence]

If you Google “catholic women priests”, theres an excellent article by Joanna Bogle titled "Women Priests - No Chance". Looks as if it was in "This Rock" magazine. Sorry: still dont know how to provide links.
Our Lords washing of the Apostles feet was part of their "initiation" into the Priesthood. Apparently, it was done to the Jewish priests, as well. The washing of the feet symbolized something deeper: it politely symbolized the washing of that which is between the feet, between the knees, ie the male genitals which symbolise FATHERHOOD. A woman cant “image” that. Thats also a good reason for not washing womens feet on Holy Thursday Night.

The Church is the Bride of Christ: Christ is the Bridegroom. The Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride. A woman cant "image" that. "Liturgical Lesbianism" is a term used by one speaker to describe a "priestesss" relationship with the Bride.

This is something I never heard of until I read it here. Where did this come from? is this part of the article by Ms. Bogle? or in addition to Ms. Bogle?

And then, please, why are women included in the washing of the feet in today’s celebration on Holy Thursday? I would think that if the above was true, this also, could only have male-participation?

 

[SunnaB16]

PPS! This can`t keep up!
Slow wits combined with lousy memory.

Rence
As a 55yo, i can tell you that i didnt fully trust all of the Churchs teachings re Faith and Morals until my late 30s. Sawn-off catechesis was one problem. But once the balance tilted to being in the Churchs favour, there was an unexpected and overwhelming feeling of relief and security. Here in this everchanging and skewed world was this Rock of total stability, resisting the winds of change. So, youre not alone with your questioning, but PLEASE take some notice of us old campaigners who`ve been through it all, and wasted so much time and energy doubting. Stick with Pope Benedict and his predecessors, and the loyal bishops.

One dogma i rejected: Our Lady`s perpetual virginity!!! (Cringe Cringe) It was never properly explained, and sounded like a bit of nice pious mush.

A public Confession…

PPPS!
The last lines of each verse of a hymn sung for the Popes intensions, addressed to our Lord: "The Holy Father shielding, His enemies oerthrow.
May Peters Faith unyielding, The path to Heavn foreshow."

PPPPS!!!
Where did YOU spring from!!!
Givvus time to absorb your latest…
And feed the sick cat…

 

[Eddie_Mac]

But I have to say, I personally would love … as well as women being ordained.

Fr. Corapi said that if we ever see this then we need to run away because it will not be the Church Christ founded.

I also said I would be very happy if women were ordained.

Why wait? They are everywhere. Just not Catholic. No Holy Orders. Not ordained. Never will. Never happen. Pray until you are blue in the face. Make all the deals you want. Useless prayer.

Instead, when people say they would like or wouldn’t mind women priests, I just encourage them to pray.

Let’s see, pray for something that you know will never happen, that is counter to Dogma. Odd. Very odd.

Are you telling me you completely totally accept everything handed down to you by the Church? There’s nothing you doubt or don’t agree with? They say it, you believe it, that’s it? I’m not asking you if you obey or disobey the teachings. I’m asking you agree with every single thing?

Yes. I have not always, but I do now. It is called forming your conscience. It happens oever time, hopefully. The thing is you have to be OPEN to the HOLY SPIRIT. You have a problem with that concept.

Apparently I was given the gift of understanding of the Eucharist and Blessed Mother. There apparently can be no other reason.

If you understand the Eucharist and the Blessed Mother then not ordaining women should be a slam dunk. Me thinks you do not know what you understand about either the Eucharist or The Blessed Mother. Volumes have been written about both. I learn someting new about the Eucharist nearly every week at adoration. If you understood the Blessed Mother you would know that she is totally submissive to the Will of God. Your understanding of this fact would mean that you should understand the no women ordination issue.

So according to this article, in the early Church some women were ordained. Which means that there were those in the CC who ordained them because they felt it was acceptable.

Nope. Never happened. You see, someone could go through the motions, say the words, anoint the hands etc. but the sacrament would not take. The elements would not be there. An essential element of HO is that the one ordained MUST BE MALE.

I finally had a chance to call my priest this morning and give him the details about this thread. He told me to stop listening to you all because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Then why are you here? To heretically convert us ultra ultra hard core traditionalists?

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.

Again, praying for heresy. Odd.

And then, please, why are women included in the washing of the feet in today’s celebration on Holy Thursday? I would think that if the above was true, this also, could only have male-participation?

Actually, women are not supposed to participate in the washing of the feet during Holy Thursday services. Male only, but I suppose those priests you use to justify your position are okay with ignoring that rule too.

Eddie Mac

 

[cecilia97]

First off, let me say that I DO NOT under any circumstances agree with the ordination of women as priests. Not at all. However, I do have a sister my age who thinks that the Church’s not allowing women to become priests is unfair and sexist. She doesn’t understand why this shouldn’t be allowed when a woman could be “just as good or even better” as a man at being a priest. I think her problem with this stems from the fact that, even though the apostles were obviously all men, this could be seen as just something that made sense at the particular period in history when Christ lived rather than a specific regulation. I’m not really sure what to say to her about that, so help please. Thank you for your time.

The historical argument doesn’t hold water for me because God could have chosen any time to send His Son to us. If Jesus had wanted/needed female apostles, He could have shown up later.

It’s not about who can do the job best. It’s about God getting to choose the way His Church does things. Even if a woman would make the best preacher, teacher, and pastor in the world, the Church does not have the power to ordain her, because she is a woman. And as much as our society likes to pretend that doesn’t make any difference, it does. Men can’t have babies, women can’t be priests.

I tell friends (with a little tongue in cheek) that women have more important things to do anyway…like raising the next generation of priests, teaching them, feeding them, being examples of purity for them. You know, little unfair and sexist things like that.

I don’t want to be the same as a man. I want to be a WOMAN.

I notice some women saying they wish they could be priests, or that they could serve the Church, or that they wish they could serve the Church without being shut up behind convent walls. Women CAN serve the Church! Are we saying that the ONLY people who serve God are priests? What about all the men who are NOT priests? Aren’t they serving in some capacity? Don’t laypeople and nuns serve? And to assume that all sisters are cloistered in convents is just plain wrong. They teach, they do charity work, they pray, they counsel, and they administrate in dioceses around the country. Lots of people call a nun their BOSS.

Didn’t these ladies serve?:

Mother Theresa of Calcutta
Teresa of Avila
Catherine of Siena
Therese of Lisieux

If we say that their contributions are not important because they were not priests, then we (women) are the ones being sexist and narrow-minded.

 

[Rence]

PPS! This can`t keep up!
Slow wits combined with lousy memory.

cute

Rence
As a 55yo, i can tell you that i didnt fully trust all of the Churchs teachings re Faith and Morals until my late 30s. Sawn-off catechesis was one problem. But once the balance tilted to being in the Churchs favour, there was an unexpected and overwhelming feeling of relief and security. Here in this everchanging and skewed world was this Rock of total stability, resisting the winds of change. So, youre not alone with your questioning, but PLEASE take some notice of us old campaigners who`ve been through it all, and wasted so much time and energy doubting. Stick with Pope Benedict and his predecessors, and the loyal bishops.

How did you get past the sawn-off catechesis? How did you come to sort it out?Where did you learn your catechesis if what you were exposed to was sawn-off?

One dogma i rejected: Our Lady`s perpetual virginity!!! (Cringe Cringe) It was never properly explained, and sounded like a bit of nice pious mush.

Why did you reject it? what was hard for you to understand? What finally made sense to you?

A public Confession…

PPPS!
The last lines of each verse of a hymn sung for the Popes intensions, addressed to our Lord: "The Holy Father shielding, His enemies oerthrow.
May Peters Faith unyielding, The path to Heavn foreshow."

PPPPS!!!
Where did YOU spring from!!!
Givvus time to absorb your latest…
And feed the sick cat…

Ok, I got the first one. But I didn’t get the last one, what does it mean?

 

[SunnaB16]

Rence
Sorry: i forgot that you`re a relative latecomer to this thread.

The washing of the feet part isnt included in Joanna Bogles article. Its something i heard on an audio tape a fair while back. Dont even remember the title of the tape. If we could get hold of an orthodox Jew, itd be the go. As evidence for saying it, the speaker said that when our Lord attempted to wash Peters feet, Peter said: "Lord, do you wash my feet?
Jesus answered him, **What I am doing you do not know now, ** **but afterward you will understand.**
Peter said to Him, You shall never wash my feet.
Jesus answered him, **If I do not wash you, you have no part in Me**." John 13: 6-8 RSV. ie no part in the Priesthood.
That`s the only info i can give you on that.

At the end of that bit that you quoted, (was it?) i mentioned something about not washing womens feet on Holy Thursday night. Its something that the radical feminists have been involved in, and some people have been hoodwinked.

ill admit that we havent been given good reasons in sermons or other generally available sources. Dont ask why its been like this … i just dont know. As you implied, its: “Shut up, and just accept it!”
Let`s hope that “The Church” does a better job of informing everyone on this. Joanna Bogle makes an appropriate comment about going deeper, and extracting more insights…

PS NO! Not again!
There were priestesses early on, but they were Gnostics - ie heretics.

 

[SunnaB16]

Rence
The trigger to getting past the sawn-off catechesis came from an external source. A then recent convert lent me some Scott Hahn audio tapes. Scott recommended Karl Keatings "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" (among other books), Karls book recommended others … the Critical Mass was passed, and the nuclear reaction just went on.
i was 39yo when Scott`s tapes were borrowed, and knew almost nothing about the Faith, and thought there was almost nothing else left to know. i had no idea of the depth of the Church and Her teachings.

The doctrine of our Ladys perpetual virginity just seemed silly! Its too far in the past, now, so i cant really give you a straight answer apart from the nice fanciful pious mushy idea bit. It makes me shudder to think about it. It was the combination of Scotts tapes and Karls book that buried that rejection, and tipped the scales in the Churchs favour. Their explanations of the Church`s teachings in so many areas were convincing. Remember that Scott was rabidly anti-Catholic, and was dead against “Mary Worship” and anything else “Popish”, but he broke through to the Truth. The testimony of somebody like that, and that of his wife, of course, has to mean something. And Scott DID NOT want to become a Catholic!

You have to give folks like Scott credit: they dont badmouth their former denominations. They admit that they are full of Godly people who have a burning love of Scripture, and desire the truth, but also, that these denominations contain error. Anti-Catholics, especially the exes, badmouth the Church, and resort to lies.

Once the scales tipped, all other Faith and Morals problems fell away. The thing became sort of a treasure hunt. At the time, i wouldn`t even have thought in terms of Faith and Morals. Thank God for that convert.

Dirty washing on public display.

A bit longwinded…

 

[CradleCath]

=Rence;6233689]

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.

We are not authorized to condemn or judge anyone, that’s God’s job. However, we have a DUTY to warn others about a priest who speaks against Church doctrine.

The Church also has a DUTY to follow Christ’s example as well as His Words. Since He did not call one woman to be “fisher’s of men”, we can’t either. I am a Catholic woman & I realize that He cared deeply for women (think Martha & Mary, Mary Magdaline, the woman at the well & the woman being stoned to death that He saved.) Scripture is filled with parables about women & Christ’s friendship with us.

Surely you can agree the Christ was not a male chauvinist, so tell me why YOU think that he didn’t include one woman in His band of Apostles. And please don’t use the tired, old argument that “it was the times”. Christ is timeless, He lives in every moment…past, present & future. Do you think that maybe He has another purpose for women?

 

[Rence]

CradleCath:
Surely you can agree the Christ was not a male chauvinist, so tell me why YOU think that he didn’t include one woman in His band of Apostles. And please don’t use the tired, old argument that “it was the times”. Christ is timeless, He lives in every moment…past, present & future. Do you think that maybe He has another purpose for women?

I believe He didn’t choose a woman because it would have been inappropriate for women intermingling with men at that time. It would cause the woman to be regarded as a harlot, not a ‘woman of god’. In addition, no one would have listened to her as women were less than chattle. As such, they didn’t belong to themselves, they belonged to their families and husbands. Even in the old testament, men did as they pleased with women. Even Lot offered his two sisters to a crowd of thugs to use and abuse so that he could protect strangers. While the Church was young, any attempt of a woman to try an be involved in a priestly type of way would have been rejected and stamped out. Perhaps it’s an old arguement because it makes sense to so many people. I mean, when I look at the whole picture right away I notice that the men had a hard enough time! Look at all they went though. The time wasn’t right for women. They couldn’t have stood a chance in a man’s world.

I’m sorry that you cannot respect my thoughts or opinions, but I do respect yours. And as I am entitled to my opinions and thoughts, so are you. I’m sure you came to your thoughts and beliefs with a lot of reflection and prayer. And as I’ve said many many times in various posts on this thread: while I don’t understand or agree with the teaching, I still follow it, an that’s all that matters to me right now. As I try to learn more about my religion, I’m sure I’m going to encounter things that I will understand and will not understand, just like everyone else. And that is between God and me

But if I have questions, I’ll surely ask! And I mean it! This site is a great resource and I appreciate when people share their struggles in faith with me. It truly gives me something to chew on.

And yes, I think he has many jobs for women. I don’t think any of my posts implied that he didn’t.

 

[Rence]

[Rence
The trigger to getting past the sawn-off catechesis came from an external source. A then recent convert lent me some Scott Hahn audio tapes. Scott recommended Karl Keatings "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" (among other books), Karls book recommended others … the Critical Mass was passed, and the nuclear reaction just went on.
i was 39yo when Scott`s tapes were borrowed, and knew almost nothing about the Faith, and thought there was almost nothing else left to know. i had no idea of the depth of the Church and Her teachings.

**Well, I can’t get a hold of any tapes without knowing anything about them. But if you think of them, PM me. I have “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, it just arrived a couple days ago. I did flip though it but I haven’t read it yet. I’m reading though Mulieris Dignitatem right now.

I do have to admit that before I came to this board, I didn’t realize how little I did know about the Church and its teachings. I’ve learned a lot since I’ve been here. Also, being here made me remember that although I attended Catholic schools all my life, I didn’t get much of an education in high school on the Church. The high school I went to was run by ultra ultra ultra liberal women and the only thing I remember about Theology class was arguing with them all the time Believe it or not, I used to be very very very conservative. So you can imagine how I clashed with them over many dogmas as well as teachings. I even ‘told on’ one of them to a conservative priest while in confession, and I don’t know exactly what he did, but she was asked to leave at the end of that year. Anyhow, I’m also taking an online catechism class, so I’ll be doing that along with finishing up school this semester

The doctrine of our Ladys perpetual virginity just seemed silly! Its too far in the past, now, so i cant really give you a straight answer apart from the nice fanciful pious mushy idea bit. It makes me shudder to think about it. It was the combination of Scotts tapes and Karls book that buried that rejection, and tipped the scales in the Churchs favour. Their explanations of the Church`s teachings in so many areas were convincing. Remember that Scott was rabidly anti-Catholic, and was dead against “Mary Worship” and anything else “Popish”, but he broke through to the Truth. The testimony of somebody like that, and that of his wife, of course, has to mean something. And Scott DID NOT want to become a Catholic!

**I really appreciate you taking the time to share that experience with me. I’m just going to keep reading and praying and learning, and I expect that things will eventually fall into place. **

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Nope. I said I don’t believe it, that I’m not convinced. Therefore it is neither truth nor lie, but merely something I don’t understand, or accept.

You know I have patiently answered everyones questions on top of questions, you all not being satifsifed with my answers and reasking the same questions, twisting my answers and asking the same questions again. But here, I have one for you. Please all of you answer it:

Why is it so important that I believe what YOU are saying?

Surely you can agree the Christ was not a male chauvinist, so tell me why YOU think that he didn’t include one woman in His band of Apostles. And please don’t use the tired, old argument that “it was the times”. Christ is timeless, He lives in every moment…past, present & future. Do you think that maybe He has another purpose for women?

I believe He didn’t choose a woman because it would have been inappropriate for women intermingling with men at that time. It would cause the woman to be regarded as a harlot, not a ‘woman of god’. In addition, no one would have listened to her as women were less than chattle. As such, they didn’t belong to themselves, they belonged to their families and husbands. Even in the old testament, men did as they pleased with women. Even Lot offered his two sisters to a crowd of thugs to use and abuse so that he could protect strangers. While the Church was young, any attempt of a woman to try an be involved in a priestly type of way would have been rejected and stamped out. Perhaps it’s an old arguement because it makes sense to so many people. I mean, when I look at the whole picture right away I notice that the men had a hard enough time! Look at all they went though. The time wasn’t right for women. They couldn’t have stood a chance in a man’s world.

I’m sorry that you cannot respect my thoughts or opinions, but I do respect yours. And as I am entitled to my opinions and thoughts, so are you. I’m sure you came to your thoughts and beliefs with a lot of reflection and prayer. And as I’ve said many many times in various posts on this thread: while I don’t understand or agree with the teaching, I still follow it, an that’s all that matters to me right now. As I try to learn more about my religion, I’m sure I’m going to encounter things that I will understand and will not understand, just like everyone else. And that is between God and me

But if I have questions, I’ll surely ask! And I mean it! This site is a great resource and I appreciate when people share their struggles in faith with me. It truly gives me something to chew on.

And yes, I think he has many jobs for women. I don’t think any of my posts implied that he didn’t.

I only have two things to say in this, since you have been beaten over the head pretty hard here.

First, Thanks for having so much patience in dealing with some relatively uncharitable posts toward you. We should all have that much patience and forgiveness.

Second, the reason everyone is so emphatic that you have to accept this is this thread by Michelle Arnold, here is her response:

I think the key is that you said “some of what is being taught makes sense to me and some does not.” There is a difference between a lack of understanding and a lack of belief. If you can honestly say, “I do not understand everything the Catholic Church teaches, but I will place my faith in the Church and seek to improve my understanding,” then you can in good conscience become a Catholic, even if you still have difficulty understanding all that the Church teaches. Only if you deliberately reject something the Church requires all Catholics to believe as a matter of faith would you not be able to become a Catholic. If you are uncertain as to whether something you’ve heard is Catholic teaching is something you must accept as a matter of faith, I recommend that you discuss the issue with the pastor of the parish or with a Catholic whose knowledge of the faith you trust.

I dont see you as rejecting anything, but I do see you right on the borderline there.

Here is the Catechism on this topic (pay special attention to the underlined):

It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of "the law of Christ."72 From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the “way.” From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle. (CCC 2030)

The moral life is spiritual worship. We “present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” within the Body of Christ that we form and in communion with the offering of his Eucharist. In the liturgy and the celebration of the sacraments, prayer and teaching are conjoined with the grace of Christ to enlighten and nourish Christian activity. As does the whole of the Christian life, the moral life finds its source and summit in the Eucharistic sacrifice. (CCC 2031)

The bashing and aggression, as uncharitable as it may be at times is out of love (hopefully) and a sincere desire to be with you in Gods Kingdom (which is not to imply that I doubt your entrance into Heaven, just that we all desire that for everyone and part of assurance is believing all the Church holds as truth, which must inevitably come from God)

FSC

 

[SonofMonica]

“In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.” --Pope Benedict XVI, Address to English Bishops, February 1, 2010

 

[Brendan]

I believe He didn’t choose a woman because it would have been inappropriate for women intermingling with men at that time. It would cause the woman to be regarded as a harlot, not a ‘woman of god’. In addition, no one would have listened to her as women were less than chattle. .

He associated with a Samaritan woman at the well, even though it was against all norms of society at the time. The Samaritans as a people were considered less than chattle.

But guess what, He spoke to her, told her the Good News. She went to the people of the village listened to her. But Christ never ordained her.

We also have the example of the early Popes, several were Greek, not Hebrew. Greek culture had priestesses, it was common place in their temples.

Yet none ordained women to the Catholic priesthood.

And did Peter and John consider Mary Magdalene to be chattle and not listen to her when she told of the Resurrection?

One of the messages of Christ was to be counter cultural, to move above societal conventions. But you really think that this was too much of societal convention for his Apostles to overcome? That there really was a ministry that Christ could not empower His followers to accomplish?

If you really believe that, you are worshipping a different Christ that the Church does.

 

[Brendan]

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.

But is there anything wrong with simply bringing facts to his superior? Bringing facts to the bishop is not the laity judging the person, but simply bearing witness.

If what you say is true, the witness being borne in not a false one, so there would be nothing to fear, correct?

Why would anyone seek to hide what one Catholic says about the Faith from their Bishop? If what was said was Truth and Light, then the Bishop can rejoice in the holy knowledge being taught to his flock. If what is taught is error, would not the bishop be glad of the chance to correct, so that his flock might know what is True?

We are people of the Light, our actions should withstand the Light. To hide one’s action in Darkness is not the way of the people of Christ.

 

[Rence]

I only have two things to say in this, since you have been beaten over the head pretty hard here. First, Thanks for having so much patience in dealing with some relatively uncharitable posts toward you. We should all have that much patience and forgiveness.

Thank you for saying that, I appreciate the acknowledgement

Second, the reason everyone is so emphatic that you have to accept this is this thread by Michelle Arnold, here is her response: I think the key is that you said “some of what is being taught makes sense to me and some does not.” There is a difference between a lack of understanding and a lack of belief. If you can honestly say, “I do not understand everything the Catholic Church teaches, but I will place my faith in the Church and seek to improve my understanding,” then you can in good conscience become a Catholic, even if you still have difficulty understanding all that the Church teaches. Only if you deliberately reject something the Church requires all Catholics to believe as a matter of faith would you not be able to become a Catholic. If you are uncertain as to whether something you’ve heard is Catholic teaching is something you must accept as a matter of faith, I recommend that you discuss the issue with the pastor of the parish or with a Catholic whose knowledge of the faith you trust.

**I have discussed this matter with many, including different priests and nuns and they all say the same thing. They all say that women will never be ordained. Some have said that they understand why I would want them to be ordained, but that they won’t be. And they all say that there is nothing wrong with disagreeing, only that you follow the teachings. And this has been over the years, not just today or yesterday. **

I dont see you as rejecting anything, but I do see you right on the borderline there.

**Yeah, I am, I know that.

Thank you again for your kind reply and for pointing out those quotes to me **

 

[Rence]

He associated with a Samaritan woman at the well, even though it was against all norms of society at the time. The Samaritans as a people were considered less than chattle. But guess what, He spoke to her, told her the Good News. She went to the people of the village listened to her. But Christ never ordained her.

**Women were expected to serve men water out of wells, and their animals too. There are many examples in the Bible of women serving men water out of wells. The men also spoke with the women at the wells, and they listened to the the men. There are also examples of the women at the wells going back to their families or the town and telling them things that happened at the well. The fact that Jesus took the oppportunity to teach just means that both women and men were saved. There is nothing there to indicate that he should have or would have called her to spread the word. Hey, I never said God didn’t love women. I couldn’t be Catholic if I thought that We all have our roles, and I understand that. Again, I just don’t get with what is pointed out to me, why that can’t include the priesthood. But I’m glad women have an active role in what’s available to them. We need women to nurture the Church

However, I’m glad you brought up the subject of Christ and ordination or priests. I’ve always thought that Christ ordained the Apostles as the first “priests” as we know them today, around the same time of the Last Supper, the handing of the keys to Peter, and all the other things we know about Scripture and their relationship to the priesthood. However I recently read some claims that priest never ordained anyone, that ordination of priests happened like a century later. What does the Church teach about that? I think they were acting in the function of priests from the beginning, especially in the Eucharist, not to mention that they were on the run and targeted as leaders. I think their ordination was straight out of the Bible in black and white…am I reading too much into the readings or am I correct? I keep forgetting to ask **

We also have the example of the early Popes, several were Greek, not Hebrew. Greek culture had priestesses, it was common place in their temples.

**But we are not pagans Those were pagan priestesses and the Greek and Roman “gods” had a very sexual nature. The Jews never allowed women to be priests and for many things, we follow in our Jewish brethren’s footstaps. The one thing I remember about talking about this with my grandmother years ago is she would say, “we are not pagans, so women can’t be priestesses”. Apparently no one ever thought to come back with, “but Gramma, they want to be priestess of God, not of pagan gods”, and she never replied with anything, but it was obvious to me that one of the reasons why they were rejected was the correlation to the pagan priestess. And even in the way liberal Church that I left as a young teenager, the pastor allowed women to dance in the aisles as part of the Mass, and their dresses, flowers in their hair and bare feet indeed reminded me of pagan priestesses.

But that was a very good point, thank you
**

And did Peter and John consider Mary Magdalene to be chattle and not listen to her when she told of the Resurrection?
**Mary Magdalene was part of their inner circle, so of course they listened to her. They also had the gift of faith, and were prepared by Christ before His death. They didn’t understand it at the time, but the pieces fell together for them. I would think in our culture that it would be odd for Mary to have not taught about Jesus and his teachings, especially to kids, but I don’t know enough about that culture to know if she actually did that. Does anyone? I’m sure it’s come up… **

One of the messages of Christ was to be counter cultural, to move above societal conventions. But you really think that this was too much of societal convention for his Apostles to overcome? That there really was a ministry that Christ could not empower His followers to accomplish? If you really believe that, you are worshipping a different Christ that the Church does.

I definitely think I have lived my live counter cultural, that’s for sure. Some people think that chastity is downright abnormal and weird. However, I think some societal conventions were not going to be overcome at that time period. Again, men had a hard enough time. But believe me I do worship the very same Christ that the Church does, I’m just stupid enough to actually admit aloud that I don’t get or don’t accept some things

 

[CradleCath]

=Rence;6240414

I’m sorry that you cannot respect my thoughts or opinions, but I do respect yours. And as I am entitled to my opinions and thoughts, so are you. I’m sure you came to your thoughts and beliefs with a lot of reflection and prayer. And as I’ve said many many times in various posts on this thread: while I don’t understand or agree with the teaching, I still follow it, an that’s all that matters to me right now. As I try to learn more about my religion, I’m sure I’m going to encounter things that I will understand and will not understand, just like everyone else. And that is between God and me

But if I have questions, I’ll surely ask! And I mean it! This site is a great resource and I appreciate when people share their struggles in faith with me. It truly gives me something to chew on.

And yes, I think he has many jobs for women. I don’t think any of my posts implied that he didn’t.

Have you ever heard a lecture, read about, personally known any of the women who are pushing for ordination of women. Women like the lesbian partners Diane Neu & Mary Hunt. They do not stop at women’s ordination…few liberals do. They embrace homosexual marriage & abortion & a weak Liturgy & tend to dislike & disrespect our Pope.
Some of their thoughts:

[SIGN]womenpriests.org/wow/hunt.asp

Another major change since the early 1970s is the increasingly conservative kyriarchal institutional church represented by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger under both species, as it were. In his first papacy, as I have come to think of it, he was the theological heavy hand as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.** He established a tripartite approach to most issues: claiming that there is but one truth, grounding arguments in natural law, and then insisting that his views become public policy. This is clear in the Vatican position on abortion where fetal life trumps a woman’s life;** where such matters are considered part of natural law, not a woman’s right and responsibility to handle her own reproductive choices; and where governments worldwide are lobbied to codify anti-abortion views according to Roman dictate. Likewise on same-sex marriage: heterosexual marriage is trumpeted as part of the divine plan; any other sexual activity defies natural law; countries should therefore outlaw same-sex marriage. Tell that to Canada which has legalized same-sex marriage, Joseph. **
Now under the other species, as it were, he is Pope Benedict XVI, with the massive media-driven power of the papacy as backup. He has expressed a theo-political preference for a smaller, more homogenously conservative, some might say leaner/meaner, church.** He has shown a willingness to sacrifice the catholicity of the church. In this papacy, I predict that women’s ordination will either remain in the “don’t talk about it” zone, or be “settled definitively” one more time for the road. The “best case” scenario, which would please those who want to get ordained, for reasons that I consider mistaken, would be the creation of deaconesses. With all due respect to those who wish to be deaconess, in my view, this would amount to a ladies’ auxiliary around the edges of the clergy with women once again doing the unpaid housework of the hierarchy. [/SIGN]Another site:
trosch.org/for/7j05/followup.htm

People who define others by what they DO, instead of how & why they do it, have always turned me off. As an 8th grader, I dusted the big, high altar one Sat. a month. (Others did it on the Sats. that remained in the month). I have been a full-time Mom & a business owner…still I consider that Sat. duty sacred & I consider my vocation as a FULL TIME Mother challenging & critically important. These women feel that they can only be equal to men by doing what men do & being “equal” is very crucial to them.

BTW.I learned something following Vatican II. It’s important to **dig deeply **into, not only teachings of the Church about the issue that troubles one, but also the faithfulness & theories of people who are campaigning for your issue…a “better, more modern” Church…a more “politically correct” Church.