Those in favor of women's ordination state your case

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Philip P:
I agree, I’d like to see more reasons advanced than “because the Vatican said so.” That’s a statement, not an argument.

The (reasoned) argument against women’s ordination seems to turn on some concept of an essential difference between women and men, which qualifies men but not women. After all, there have been a great many changes over the last 2000 years - the Church of today is not the same as that of 70AD, or of 300AD. Simply saying “Scripture and Tradition” doesn’t address this, as it fails to explain why gender must be explicity justified by this standard, but other changes don’t.

Again, I’m not arguing for women’s ordination. I’m arguing for a better argument against it, because the current ones are very unconvincing.
Do you not realize that your statement "After all, there have been a great many changes over the last 2000 years" this is the exact reason for the caos we have in this world today. People refuse to accept the HolySpirit’s commandments and Laws set forth to Moses, which he in turn passed them on to the people. Too many people feel that they can do better then the Lord. This is very sad, but true. Women need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and accept God’s will with loving humility, as Mary did when she was informed of her pregnancy.** http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif**
 
40.png
gelsbern:
There HAS been female deacons (deaconesses) and it can be proven with scripture, however their role which was to minister to women in certain sacraments (baptism was once done in the nude, annointing of the sick was done over the entire body) they were not actually ordained. They were there to protect the priests from potential scandal. Their role today would be equivalent to what is now a nun. Deaconesses, never disappeared, just just changed what they were called.

There was a good discussion of this on the Catholic Answers radio show a couple weeks ago. I wish I could remember what day.
Only priests can confer the sacrament of anointing of the sick so even if there had been female deacons, this would not have been part of their ministry.

Anointing of the sick seems to be the most misunderstood sacrament on these boards. I’ve heard comments implying that laypersons can confer it! This sacrament involves a complete remission of sin, it’s not just a matter of rubbing oils over a person’s body. If laypeople can do that then they should start hearing confessions as well.
 
40.png
RonWI:
Still waiting for an answer, if anyone has one.
Well spoken, my friend. I do hope many read that passage in the Bible. God bless and Peace to you and all who readhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
40.png
RonWI:
Still waiting for an answer, if anyone has one.
We were just trying not to embarrass you 😉

That quote is clearly not applicable since women can and do speak in Church. At least they do in the Catholic Church that I know.
(not to mention the it begs the question of who unmarried women are supposed to ask their questions of…or are they all supposed to be quiet and married)

The Bible is full of prohibitions that no longer apply especially if interpreted literally.

Randomly whipping them out rather than have a healthy debate doesn’t really serve a purpose.
 
Catholic Dude:
Yes they should on 7 grounds:

1)By being Baptized we share in the same common bond to Christ. As Catholics we are called to the priesthood of all believers.

2)One big factor is the Last Supper. The truth about the Eucharist is that all are called to the table, both men and women receive Communion.
The Church does not deny the priesthood of all believers, but this is different than the priesthood shared by those men who are the heirs to the Apostles.
Catholic Dude:
3)The longstanding bias against women is starting to be proved wrong. Women can and do become doctors, lawyers, theologians, etc. Many own their own company and are just as successful as men…
No one said they cannot do what you just mentioned.
Catholic Dude:
4)Women have always played a role in the Church. A nun is simply a priest without the ordination, at the same time both nuns and priests are called to serve. Why not extend those benefits to women? .

5)The Church honors Mary the Mother of our Lord. Many other women like Mary Magdalene have proved to be some of the most solid desciples, and Jesus verified this. One way was by appearing to Mary Magdalene after rising from the Dead.
Women have always played a huge role in the Church that is true, but Christ did not choose them as Apostles, therefore neither can the Church.
Catholic Dude:
6)With all this priest shortage scares going around, allowing a small number of women would relieve some of the strain guaranteed. Its like having a good resource waiting to be tapped into and yet going through life missing the opportunity to use it to its full potential.
This has not helped either the Anglicans or the Lutherians. Actually since they allowed women’s ordination they have shunk and so have vocations.
Catholic Dude:
7)It all comes down to a love for God. Should someone ignore the calling of God? Most of this stuff against women priest is not that there shouldnt be, but that women are unable. Does this bother anyone? In otherwords it is not condemned as an evil thing, but as something that someone doesnt want because they see women as inferrior. The fact that so many women have become Saints, from StMary Magdalene to St Catherene, to St Terese of Lisieux, to St Faustina, hopefully a St Teresa of Calcutta. Does God love them any less? Does He seclude them from doing His will? Those women are Saints, proclaimed by the Bride of Christ! Notice the word “Bride”.
This is the heart of the matter. If not ordaining women is against their dignity now, it has always been against their dignity. What this means is that Christ not ordaining women was a slap in their face from the Son of God.

If Christ acted in this way it would make him a pragmatist, that He would put the dignity of women aside in order to gain converts. This in light of the fact that Christ violated other cultural norms left and right.

If not ordaining women is wrong then Christ was the first violator. Very dangerous territory indeed.
Catholic Dude:
As Christians, and most of all as Catholics let us rise and show the world.
Yes, let’s show the world that Christ is to be obeyed.

Peace
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Lector is an office that only a male may hold. Only males may be blessed for the minor offices.
This is a matter of ecclesiastical law that can be changed at any time.

In any event, my point was that women readers can and do speak in Church, in accordance with the Magisterium.
 
40.png
atsheeran:
Only priests can confer the sacrament of anointing of the sick so even if there had been female deacons, this would not have been part of their ministry.

Anointing of the sick seems to be the most misunderstood sacrament on these boards. I’ve heard comments implying that laypersons can confer it! This sacrament involves a complete remission of sin, it’s not just a matter of rubbing oils over a person’s body. If laypeople can do that then they should start hearing confessions as well.
The anointing part (the rubbing on of the oils) is just one of the matter of the sacrament, the priest would still have been present, but it would have not been conducive for reasons of modesty for the priest to be the one applying the oils all over a female body.

I also resent the idea that you somehow think I am making this up and thereby questioning my veracity. Since you won’t take a deacon’s word for it, here’s a lay source:

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
Functions of Deaconesses
There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particyular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind. The universal prevelance of baptism by immersion and the annointing of the whole body which preceded it , rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
The anointing part (the rubbing on of the oils) is just one of the matter of the sacrament, the priest would still have been present, but it would have not been conducive for reasons of modesty for the priest to be the one applying the oils all over a female body.

I also resent the idea that you somehow think I am making this up and thereby questioning my veracity. Since you won’t take a deacon’s word for it, here’s a lay source:

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
Are you a deacon in the Catholic Church? Does our Church recognize your ordination?

Peace
 
40.png
ByzCath:
No, a deaconess was to assist in the ministering to women, mainly during the baptism and annointing.
Hrmm, was that the role Phoebe whom St. Paul spoke about in scripture? I think not. As deacons at that time were not an order, they were servants to minister the good of the church to the poor. At that time, deacons and deaconesses has the EXACT SAME ROLE. It was later as the church developed further that the roles changed. It’s in scripture look it up.
I’ll help you out by giving you the appropriate verses.

Acts 6:1-6

Romans 16:1-2

Not much time had passed between Acts and Romans and the role of deacons and deaconesses were the same role.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Are you a deacon in the Catholic Church? Does our Church recognize your ordination?

Peace
It sure does, it’s very valid. Just not licit.

But that’s a moot point, people are arguing just to argue, they think that just because someone is not in union with Rome, that they cannot possibly know church history and must be making things up or twisting the truth.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
This is a matter of ecclesiastical law that can be changed at any time.

In any event, my point was that women readers can and do speak in Church, in accordance with the Magisterium.
That does not make it right just because they do speak within the Church. It is even mentioned in the book of Revolations that The Holy Spirit has unsettled issues with the 7 Churches. All the Churches have each of their downfalls. If we contiue to change God’s Law just to satisfy your personal needs and all others that disobey His Laws, then why does one bother going to Church at all. You would not be going there to praise God, you would be going there to praise yourself, for making your own laws. In hand you would be basicly condemning the Holy Spirit for making, what you see as, a bad decision. I do not write this to sound mean, but to be direct on one of many points.
 
40.png
littleitaly:
That does not make it right just because they do speak within the Church. It is even mentioned in the book of Revolations that The Holy Spirit has unsettled issues with the 7 Churches. All the Churches have each of their downfalls. If we contiue to change God’s Law just to satisfy your personal needs and all others that disobey His Laws, then why does one bother going to Church at all. You would not be going there to praise God, you would be going there to praise yourself, for making your own laws. In hand you would be basicly condemning the Holy Spirit for making, what you see as, a bad decision. I do not write this to sound mean, but to be direct on one of many points.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has determined that women reading in Church does not violate the word of God. Anyone who disagrees with this is basically a Protestant. You might as well argue that the Catholic Church is wrong to call priests “Father” in violation of Holy Scripture.

Sorry to be blunt, but I agree with you that it is important to be direct on this essential matter.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has determined that women reading in Church does not violate the word of God. Anyone who disagrees with this is basically a Protestant. You might as well argue that the Catholic Church is wrong to call priests “Father” in violation of Holy Scripture.

Sorry to be blunt, but I agree with you that it is important to be direct on this essential matter.
Actually I think this is something where Catholics can disagree.

I do disagree with you on this, as I am not away of an Magisterial document that makes this a dogma of the Church.

The fact that the Church still reserves the office of Lector to men seems to also disagree with your statement.

There are many places within the Church were faithful Catholics can disagree.

On this issue I could care less, but it is fine for people to be on both sides as long as they are obedient.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has determined that women reading in Church does not violate the word of God. Anyone who disagrees with this is basically a Protestant. You might as well argue that the Catholic Church is wrong to call priests “Father” in violation of Holy Scripture.

Sorry to be blunt, but I agree with you that it is important to be direct on this essential matter.
In fact, yes, they are wrong for calling the priests father. This does not force me to leave a religion that i’ve been batized in 42 years ago. It is just another example that the Catholic Church, itself, is not perfect in doing what the Bible has taught us. The Magisterium has its flaws as well as any other person or people that tend to go astray from what the bible teaches us word for word. It does not take a person to be a protestant to see this problem that exists in all the Churches as I had mentioned in the post. Peace to you
 
Whether the issue is of women in the Church or priests being called fathers, I strongly believe that within each and every one of our hearts out there, we know that the trueth is spoken through Scriptures. No man, or woman, will be able to make changes to what God and His son, Jesus had given us through these Scriptures. It is all in black and white. There are other discrepencies that the Catholic Church lives on that I disagree with, but for now, knowing that it would upset many, I will not bring the issues up. In time, Christ will come to show all the truth, once again. Beware, for it will be the day of judgement. Peace to all who read
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Originally Posted by Catholic Dude
*Yes they should on 7 grounds:

1)By being Baptized we share in the same common bond to Christ. As Catholics we are called to the priesthood of all believers.

2)One big factor is the Last Supper. The truth about the Eucharist is that all are called to the table, both men and women receive Communion.*

The Church does not deny the priesthood of all believers, but this is different than the priesthood shared by those men who are the heirs to the Apostles.
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **Catholic Dude**
			* 3)The longstanding bias against women is starting to be proved wrong. Women can and do become doctors, lawyers, theologians, etc. Many own their own company and are just as successful as men..*
No one said they cannot do what you just mentioned.
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **Catholic Dude**
			* 4)Women have always played a role in the Church. A nun is simply a priest without the ordination, at the same time both nuns and priests are called to serve. Why not extend those benefits to women? .
5)The Church honors Mary the Mother of our Lord. Many other women like Mary Magdalene have proved to be some of the most solid desciples, and Jesus verified this. One way was by appearing to Mary Magdalene after rising from the Dead. *

Women have always played a huge role in the Church that is true, but Christ did not choose them as Apostles, therefore neither can the Church.
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **Catholic Dude**
			* 6)With all this priest shortage scares going around, allowing a small number of women would relieve some of the strain guaranteed. Its like having a good resource waiting to be tapped into and yet going through life missing the opportunity to use it to its full potential.*
This has not helped either the Anglicans or the Lutherians. Actually since they allowed women’s ordination they have shunk and so have vocations.
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **Catholic Dude**
			* 7)It all comes down to a love for God. Should someone ignore the calling of God? Most of this stuff against women priest is not that there shouldnt be, but that women are unable. Does this bother anyone? In otherwords it is not condemned as an evil thing, but as something that someone doesnt want because they see women as inferrior. The fact that so many women have become Saints, from StMary Magdalene to St Catherene, to St Terese of Lisieux, to St Faustina, hopefully a St Teresa of Calcutta. Does God love them any less? Does He seclude them from doing His will? Those women are Saints, proclaimed by the Bride of Christ! Notice the word "Bride".*
This is the heart of the matter. If not ordaining women is against their dignity now, it has always been against their dignity. What this means is that Christ not ordaining women was a slap in their face from the Son of God.

If Christ acted in this way it would make him a pragmatist, that He would put the dignity of women aside in order to gain converts. This in light of the fact that Christ violated other cultural norms left and right.

If not ordaining women is wrong then Christ was the first violator. Very dangerous territory indeed.
Code:
Quote:
 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by **Catholic Dude**
			*
As Christians, and most of all as Catholics let us rise and show the world.*

Yes, let’s show the world that Christ is to be obeyed.

Peace
Well it looks like there is no fooling you guys…nobody took the bait.
It was post #50 and nobody could come up with an excuses, so I decided to look on Google and see the “best” they had to offer…
I found womenpriests.org/index.asp
It was sad that such a website exists.I basically plagiarized the page and cut and pasted each of the 7 points to see what your reaction would be. I was a joke, all of it. Those 7 points dont hold up, they are all easily refutable.

I am 100% against women becoming priests.
I am 100% against women becoming priests.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
The anointing part (the rubbing on of the oils) is just one of the matter of the sacrament, the priest would still have been present, but it would have not been conducive for reasons of modesty for the priest to be the one applying the oils all over a female body.

I also resent the idea that you somehow think I am making this up and thereby questioning my veracity. Since you won’t take a deacon’s word for it, here’s a lay source:

newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm
The article from New Advent that you cite refers to the anointing with oil preceding baptism, not the anointing of the sick. This anointing with oil, while part of the rite of baptism, is actually not part of the matter of the sacrament. The matter refers to those essential elements necessary for a valid sacrament. A pre-anointing with oil is not necessary for a valid baptism.

As for the anointing of the sick, I do not know much about its ancient celebration. As long as you agree that a priest is the only valid minister of the sacrament, I do not take issue with you.
 
Also in response to gelsbern:

I wasn’t questioning your veracity. I never implied that you were making anything up. I never thought you were lying; just mistaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top