J
John_Higgins
Guest
Merely custom, Dennis. I checked, I found a lay cardinal appointed as recently as the 1700s. I had heard there was one as late as the 1800s, I’m still looking.
John
- Status
John
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
This whole thread has become futile pretty quickly. I thought the original intent (post #1 and #2) was to hypothesize that the Church had not spoken definitively on the issue, in order to see what arguments would be made for allowing women’s ordination. Then, someone suggests a fairly sensible argument (such as the fact that Jesus would have chosen 12 men because of the gender roles of the times and the scriptures do not clearly preclude women from priestly roles) and WHAM, you can’t do that because the Magisterium says you can’t. Well of course, we know that. We know the church is not a democracy and that its hands are tied on this issue. But this was meant, I think, as a forensic exercise. There is no point to this thread if we are not able to play with the idea hypothetically
P
pnewton
Guest
Vox Borealis:
I found it confusing myself as some posters responded as it were a hypothetical situation.
This was not listed as the intent of the initial poster. Furthermore, since the initial poster refered to the Catechism on a later post, I do not believe it was the intent.
I found it confusing myself as some posters responded as it were a hypothetical situation.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Vox Borealis:
If people seek the ordination of women they need to have argumentation of this kind to even get in the door.
Peace
I agree with you, but a proper argumentation within the context of the Catholic Church is one that includes both Scripture and Tradition, and to see if it contradicts either of the two or both together.
If people seek the ordination of women they need to have argumentation of this kind to even get in the door.
Peace
L
littleitaly
Guest
Vox Borealis:
There is unfortunately no room for hypothetic remarks in the world of the Holy Spirit. He does not live in Heavin on what if’s. This world of what if’s is exactly why we have problems in this world today. My reason for this statement is that once a person starts off with hypothetic remarks, they open a door to doubt. Would you like to be the one that brings doubt to the mind of others that could lead them away from the Lord, our God, creator of the Heavin and Earth?
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
I seriously doubt I will bring doubt to minds of people here, all of whom seem pretty convinced and well-versed in their faith. But if there is no room for hypotheticals, I again submit that the thread is essentially futile, since the Church has spoken rather definitively on the issue.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Vox Borealis:
Peace
The thread is not futile if those in favor of the ordination of women provide argumentation from the sources I have previously posted, from Scripture and Tradition, an argument that does not contradict the two or both together.
Peace
L
littleitaly
Guest
Agreed, I find it interesting on the point of views others have on this thread and others as well. This is a good source of expressing ourselves to each other without throwing things.
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
OK, I admit I overstepped in my rhetoric. But I thought that the Church has spoken infallibly on this issue (catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp)), so what argument could be introduced, since any would contradict an infallible teaching? I don’t mean this as a hostile question. It seems to me that only ordination into the diaconate is even remotely possible–is that what we are dicussing?
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Vox Borealis:
What I am saying is that in order for this issue to even get a hearing within the context of the Catholic Church it must appeal to the two sources I stated previously.
If the arguments do not do this they will not even be given a chance, let alone a consideration.
If you want to play the game, you need to know the rules.
Peace
Don’t worry, I did not take it as such.
What I am saying is that in order for this issue to even get a hearing within the context of the Catholic Church it must appeal to the two sources I stated previously.
If the arguments do not do this they will not even be given a chance, let alone a consideration.
If you want to play the game, you need to know the rules.
Peace
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
As Christians, and most of all as Catholics let us rise and show the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
As Christians, and most of all as Catholics let us rise and show the world.
L
littleitaly
Guest
Catholic Dude:
Be very careful on your wording about “…are just as successful as men.” God did not create man so we can be competative in this world. As far as your phrase “It all comes down to a love for God”. That is my point exactly. If women in todays world truly love God, they would stop the nonsense of trying to be equal to man. Again it is not a game of who can do what and how good. Also as I had mentioned before, if God wanted women to be priest, He would have told Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and many others to use their daughters as priests and not their sons. Your remarks are telling God that His past decision on who is to run the Church are completely wrong. Women really should look at the Church in a much more respectable matter and stop looking at it as compotion. Peace to you.
J
jax8686
Guest
God created man to rule the earth for Him, keep it, clean it, etc. God saw man was lonely, so God made woman. (no offence to women) but if you look all the way back to creation, you were created to aid man, and keep him company
as for cardinals being preists, yes, they do not need to be, lay can be elected, as can a layman be elected pope. in the event of a layman being elected pope, he will be ordained deacon, preist, bishop in very rapid succession(usually one ceremony after another, ie. grab one book, set it down, grab the next, etc)
and if women are ever ordained then we can just ignore Matt 16:18, cuz Jesus will have lied…http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif (the gates of hell will prevail b4 we can change dogma)
as for cardinals being preists, yes, they do not need to be, lay can be elected, as can a layman be elected pope. in the event of a layman being elected pope, he will be ordained deacon, preist, bishop in very rapid succession(usually one ceremony after another, ie. grab one book, set it down, grab the next, etc)
and if women are ever ordained then we can just ignore Matt 16:18, cuz Jesus will have lied…http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif (the gates of hell will prevail b4 we can change dogma)
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
I’m poster #2, who proposed we treat the question rhetorically (since the Church has already defined this). My reasoning was that this is an APOLOGETICS forum. If we can’t introduce controversial ideas for discussion HERE then it cannot be possible anywhere!
Not all Catholics respect the Teaching Authority of the Magesterium. Not all will be “put in their place” by JP2 and Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) who formally defined this dogma. And we have “separated brethren” who recognize women ministers. I believed this thread was opened to air discussion of this topic so that both proponents and opponents of women’s “ordination” could probe the arguments. Of course, Truth will prevail.
Interestingly enough, I haven’t seen much reasoned activity in this thread in support of women’s ordination.
P
Philip_P
Guest
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.
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.
R
RonWI
Guest
RonWI said:
Still waiting for an answer, if anyone has one.
G
gelsbern
Guest
In a way, yes and in a way no, originally deacons and deaconesses had the exact same function, that was to minister to the widows. Over time though the male deacon and the term came to mean an order, where as the female term deaconess pretty much stayed what it was originally. But for the most part, I agree with your viewpoint on this.
I should note that I do not support ordination of women. I don’t even support the idea of deaconesses, if a woman wants to live a religious life, she can become a nun. If you don’t think nuns can do anything important in the Church, tell that to Mother Teresa, or Mother Angelica.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The same way that a women can be a reader. The answer is you are interpreting that scripture contrary to the way the Magisterium interprets it. Once you start down that path, you can end up anywhere.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
No, a deaconess was to assist in the ministering to women, mainly during the baptism and annointing.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes a woman can be a reader but she can not be a lector.
Lector is an office that only a male may hold. Only males may be blessed for the minor offices.
- Status