Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[mpartyka]

When is it the husband’s perogitive to make the final call? I don’t go with ‘do what the husband says anyway’ approach. If the husand and wife are at a complete impasse, you cannot say, go with what the husband says, the wife may be making the better decision. I’m not saying she will be, but she might…When a husband and wife have a disagreement, the wife has the intellectual capacity, and the grace in herself, to know if the husbands decison is one that benefits the family in terms of spiritual and emotional development or not. It cannot be said that a man, because of his gender, is better placed to do this. Sometimes he is, sometimes he isn’t. A decision reached through agreement is an easier one to implement, even if neither party gets their way, than one, in a case of disagreement, requires one party to give the other, right or wrong, their way. A decision reached in this manner causes rancour and as I said, the man may be making a bad decision.

Let’s be clear: To have authority doesn’t mean that you will always make the right decisions, nor does it even mean that you are better placed to make the right decisions. To have authority means that you are the one who makes the decisions, and those who are under your authority have the duty of obeying your decisions – whether they are the right decisions or not – unless they have a conflicting obligation to a higher authority.

‘Head’ does not necessarily mean if there is a difference of opinion, what the ‘head’ says stands.

That is exactly what having authority means.

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

Let’s be clear: To have authority doesn’t mean that you will always make the right decisions, nor does it even mean that you are better placed to make the right decisions. To have authority means that you are the one who makes the decisions, and those who are under your authority have the duty of obeying your decisions – whether they are the right decisions or not – unless they have a conflicting obligation to a higher authority.

Well I think the topic is now exhausted and again, we must agree to differ. The scriptures do not teach a woman is duty bound to unquestionably accept a decision that is detremental to the emotional, spiritual or material benefit of the family. This teaching is contrary to scripture and based solely on interpetations of the Pauline letters.

That is exactly what having authority means.

To you, perhaps. I don’t agree.

 

[mpartyka]

The scriptures do not teach a woman is duty bound to unquestionably accept a decision that is detrimental to the emotional, spiritual, or material benefit of the family.

That is correct. “Unquestionably” accept? No. Accept? Yes.

–Mike

 

[minkymurph]

That is correct. “Unquestionably” accept? No. Accept? Yes.

–Mike

Are you saying, ‘yes, the woman can question the decision but in the end, bound by the law of God to do as she is told irrespective of what the decision is, and how that decision affects her, or the family?’

 

[mpartyka]

Are you saying, ‘yes, the woman can question the decision but in the end, bound by the law of God to do as she is told irrespective of what the decision is, and how that decision affects her, or the family?’

Unless that decision conflicts with her obligation to a higher authority, yes.

–Mike

 

[Major_Tom]

Unless that decision conflicts with her obligation to a higher authority, yes.

–Mike

I have daughters, and it would trouble me deeply if they were in a relationship that had kind of outlook of their marriage. Couldn’t disagree more…

 

[minkymurph]

Unless that decision conflicts with her obligation to a higher authority, yes.

–Mike

Interesting analysis of relationships. However, it would certainly keep the woman in her place!:tsktsk:

My husband is currently working in Saudi Arabia. Must ask him to bring me a Burka home so I can demonstrate my submission to him.



Ooops, have to ask hubby’s permission. He may decide he wants me to wear something else and as a woman, I can’t go against him.:bowdown:

 

[Prophesy]

Interesting analysis of relationships. However, it would certainly keep the woman in her place!:tsktsk:

My husband is currently working in Saudi Arabia. Must ask him to bring me a Burka home so I can demonstrate my submission to him.



Ooops, have to ask hubby’s permission. He may decide he wants me to wear something else and as a woman, I can’t go against him.:bowdown:

I think the problem is understanding the word submit. God knows that we men want women to do everything for us, but I know He didn’t send the ‘crown of creation’ to unquestionably wait on us hand and foot. I mean if men were to act so silly I think it’d be compromising our part in that verse which is so often overlooked.

-Prophecy

P.S.
'Lord with this cherry Kool-Aid symbolizing the mixing of your blood and water which the legionary saw when he pierced your side, I bless N. in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. May N. believe in you, Lord, like the legionary believed.

Welcome, N., to the community of faith!

(Giant red pitcher bursts through wall)
OHHHH YEAAAAHH!

 

[minkymurph]

I think the problem is understanding the word submit. God knows that we men want women to do everything for us, but I know He didn’t send the ‘crown of creation’ to unquestionably wait on us hand and foot. I mean if men were to act so silly I think it’d be compromising our part in that verse which is so often overlooked.

Well, I had a thought about that. I hasten to add, it is only a thought. Those in positions of authority in the Church are responsible for the flock. The flock are required to be supportive of those appointed as leaders, but they are not responsible to God for those in positions of authority to the same extent.

Rather than association with the power of decision making, ‘submit’ could simply mean not giving someone necessary greif, I’m sure many a married man would like that interpetation, :extrahappy:

It could imply a supportive role. Certainly, the laity in the past had no power of decision in the Church. Lay members now attend the Synod of bishops and their place in the Church is now portrayed in a more positive light because the Church is older and wiser.

Relationships that reflect the relationship of the Holy Trinity are based on the same principles. Therefore, relationships in marriage and Church should be based on the same principles.

Therefore, is Paul suggesting that a man is responsible to God for his wife, but the wife is not responsible to God for her husband? The wife should therefore ‘submit’ in the sense that she should remember he is responsible to God while she is free of that responsibility, and she should not make his job harder by giving him unecessary greif? You could say the same about the Church. We may not like or get on with a particular priest, but we do not need to make if more difficult to carry out his responsibilities before God. Is this what Paul is driving at rather than where the power of decision lies?

 

[marymary1975]

OK, poor choice of verb selection on my part. I’ll replace with “strong early advocate of”.

That is not correct, Paul was the one who advocated celibacy, not Peter and celibacy wasn’t officially established until the Trent Council as a discipline. BTW Paul was actually appointed by Jesus when Jesus appeared to him in the road to Damascus.

 

[minkymurph]

Well, I had a thought about that. I hasten to add, it is only a thought. Those in positions of authority in the Church are responsible for the flock. The flock are required to be supportive of those appointed as leaders, but they are not responsible to God for those in positions of authority to the same extent.

Rather than association with the power of decision making, ‘submit’ could simply mean not giving someone necessary greif, I’m sure many a married man would like that interpetation, :extrahappy:

It could imply a supportive role. Certainly, the laity in the past had no power of decision in the Church. Lay members now attend the Synod of bishops and their place in the Church is now portrayed in a more positive light because the Church is older and wiser.

Relationships that reflect the relationship of the Holy Trinity are based on the same principles. Therefore, relationships in marriage and Church should be based on the same principles.

Therefore, is Paul suggesting that a man is responsible to God for his wife, but the wife is not responsible to God for her husband? The wife should therefore ‘submit’ in the sense that she should remember he is responsible to God while she is free of that responsibility, and she should not make his job harder by giving him unecessary greif? You could say the same about the Church. We may not like or get on with a particular priest, but we do not need to make if more difficult to carry out his responsibilities before God. Is this what Paul is driving at rather than where the power of decision lies?

Apologies, I meant to use the term ‘unecessary grief’ in this post.

 

[marymary1975]

That is correct. “Unquestionably” accept? No. Accept? Yes.

–Mike

I totally disagree too. The kind of authority that you are putting on the husband sounds like the kind of authority of Louis xiv “I am the state and the law therefore you do what I say because I am the King.” You seem to be implying that the woman has to accept everything that the husband says even if it’s in detriment to her and their family and that doesn’t match with the overall teachings of Jesus. You can’t simply cut off one sentence from the bible and interpret it individually. That is what you are doing with this submission-authority thing. You have to read it according to the overall teaching of Jesus Christ and if you find out that your interpretation is contradicting something that Jesus is telling you somewhere else, then you are wrong.

If you keep on reading Ephesius you will find out that it says"the husband shall love the wife as Christ loved his Church." Have you wondered how Jesus Christ loved his church? Jesus died for his church and he bended down on his knees to wash the feet of his church. Jesus said “I came to SERVE not to be served.” Do you think that Christ would have taken a decision for his church knowing that it was in detriment of his church? Obviously no, therefore the husband cannot take a decision knowing that is detrimental to his family. Did you ever read about Jesus saying to his disciples “you do what I say because I am God and you have to accept what I say”? Never! he sat down with them, he taught them, he had a dialogue with them, he ALWAYS respected their freedom and when they erred he always had loving open arms for them. Jesus having the highest authority was the most humble human in the whole history. Through his example he showed us the RIGHT way to excersice authority which is the opposite to the kind of authority you are saying the husband has. What you are putting on the husband is not authority is “having power over…” and I don’t think Jesus would approve that kind of behavior.

 

[marymary1975]

God may not expect unquestioning obedience, but God does expect obedience, unquestioning or not. If God tells you to do something, feel free to question it all you like – then go do it.

I don’t agree with this either. God gives us freedom of will and he is very respectful of it. He never forces anybody to do anything, he may tell us what is right and wrong but is up to us to obey him or not.

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JimG]

mpartyka;6904923:

God may not expect unquestioning obedience, but God does expect obedience, unquestioning or not. If God tells you to do something, feel free to question it all you like – then go do it.

I don’t agree with this either. God gives us freedom of will and he is very respectful of it. He never forces anybody to do anything, he may tell us what is right and wrong but is up to us to obey him or not.

Certainly God never forces our will; that’s why it is called free. But that does not mean that He therefore expects us to choose evil over good simply because we are capable of doing so.

That sounds rather like the argument the serpent made to Eve in the Garden of Eden: if you make this choice (which God commanded against), then you will become like God, knowing good and evil. But in the end, knowledge of evil just made them less like God, and more inclined to evil. The point of free will is to freely choose the good; not to freely choose the evil just because we can.

But that’s a little off the topic of the thread.

 

[minkymurph]

Certainly God never forces our will; that’s why it is called free. But that does not mean that He therefore expects us to choose evil over good simply because we are capable of doing so.

I don’t think this is what the other poster meant, which was an excellent post.

I would also agree to an extent with what you say. I agree God asks us to choose, or better still embrace, good rather than simply do as we are told. This leads to our fulfillment which is what God wants. Not just obedience. That is why a relationships between individuals that are heavily dependant on obedience are unfullilling. However, we need a little help.

That sounds rather like the argument the serpent made to Eve in the Garden of Eden: if you make this choice (which God commanded against), then you will become like God, knowing good and evil. But in the end, knowledge of evil just made them less like God, inclined to evil. The point of free will is to freely choose the good; not to freely choose the evil just because we can.

The only way we could always choose good over evil is by grace. Such people are saints. We are capable of choosing good over evil, but we also wrestle with the inclination to sin. This can only be overcome by grace.

I would say that God has knowledge of evil. However, God has mastery over evil and the essence of love, has no inclination towards it, we do not. Thinking we do, as in making our own decisions about right and wrong, good and bad, and not needing guidance is what Satan implied and makes us more inclined to it.

But that’s a little off the topic of the thread.

Not entirely. I agree the point of free will is not to choose good over evil just because we can. It is to choose good because we embrace it, and not choose it out of nothing more than blind obedience. Which is why we should not expect blind obedience from others. Expecting blind obedience would include expecting someone to robotically follow what you say when their intellect, spiritual insight, or simple gut instinct tells them otherwise.

We all need guidance. We all need to be told sometimes to wind our neck in and think again. No matter who we are. In order for guidance to be of real benefit, we must consent to it because we believe it to be truth, and not just out of obedience. Obedience is easy to obtain, particuarly if you have the power to obtain it. Trust, respect and being of one mind, one body and one flesh is must harder to acheive.

I believe this is what Christ called us to.

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t think this is what the other poster meant

Not entirely. I agree the point of free will is not to choose good over evil just because we can. It is to choose good because we embrace it, and not choose it out of nothing more than blind obedience. Which is why we should not expect blind obedience from others. Expecting blind obedience would include expecting someone to robotically follow what you say when their intellect, spiritual insight, or simple gut instinct tells them otherwise.

We all need guidance. We all need to be told sometimes to wind our neck in and think again. No matter who we are. In order for guidance to be of real benefit, we must consent to it because we believe it to be truth, and not just out of obedience. Obedience is easy to obtain, particuarly if you have the power to obtain it. Trust, respect and being of one mind, one body and one flesh is must harder to acheive.

I believe this is what Christ called us to.

Wow I couldn’t have written that better! I agree 100% with you and that is exactly what I meant. Maybe I didn’t clarify too much on the second post so thanks for the clarification.

I, also, agree that God expects us to choose him but what he doesn’t expect is blind obedience. There is where the free will comes in. As I told to the poster who said that God expects obedience, a relationship based on blind obedience is a relationship where one person has power over another. Just look at dictators. All dictators have power over people and people have to obey them, however the people that obeys, they are not happy. There is no trust, no respect and more importantly there is no looooove!!! When someone has to obey blindly another person, the one that obeys usually hates the one that has power and at some point the person obeying will try to rebel against the other person. God in his infinitve knowledge KNOWS THAT. God has all the power over us but God is love and he wants us to be happy therefore he sent his son to us to teach us, to show the right kind of authority and to give us the guidance that we need. He knows we should consent because if there is no consent, then we are being forced, and when somebody is being forced to do something, usually that person is not happy at all. That is why he has given us free will even with the knowledge that the majority is going to choose evil (remember that Jesus said that the few are following the path to life). Otherwise, we would be like animals and to me that is what makes the difference between humans and animals.

 

[minkymurph]

Wow I couldn’t have written that better! I agree 100% with you and that is exactly what I meant. Maybe I didn’t clarify too much on the second post so thanks for the clarification.

I, also, agree that God expects us to choose him but what he doesn’t expect is blind obedience. There is where the free will comes in. As I told to the poster who said that God expects obedience, a relationship based on blind obedience is a relationship where one person has power over another. Just look at dictators. All dictators have power over people and people have to obey them, however the people that obeys, they are not happy. There is no trust, no respect and more importantly there is no looooove!!! When someone has to obey blindly another person, the one that obeys usually hates the one that has power and at some point the person obeying will try to rebel against the other person. God in his infinitve knowledge KNOWS THAT. God has all the power over us but God is love and he wants us to be happy therefore he sent his son to us to teach us, to show the right kind of authority and to give us the guidance that we need. He knows we should consent because if there is no consent, then we are being forced, and when somebody is being forced to do something, usually that person is not happy at all. That is why he has given us free will even with the knowledge that the majority is going to choose evil (remember that Jesus said that the few are following the path to life). Otherwise, we would be like animals and to me that is what makes the difference between humans and animals.

I’m flattered by your response. Came to me in a moment of divine inspiration. Of course that does not mean it is inspired!

It is difficult to express the fullness of God’s revelation in our limited human language. And certainly very difficult to express in an internet post. How much more so did Bible writers find it difficult? Which is why I believe the bible should not be read in a literal sense. Rather, it should take us to a dimension beyond the words on the page and beyond human understanding of those words. I believe this was the intension of the authors and why we can say the bible is inspired.

I have worked for good managers and bad managers. I’m sure a lot of other people here have worked for good managers and bad managers. A good manager, in my experience, is not one who expects you to support them if they makes a bad decision. A good manager is one who will listen to you when you are telling them they are making a bad decision and acknowledge you for it. A good manager will tell you you are wrong, but still stand by you if you make a bad decision because they value you. A good manager knows when they need to make a decision, and when to delegate. People will do what a good manager wants out of trust in their leadership, not out of blind obedience. A manager who expects to be supported by their staff when they make a bad decision may be able to get people to do what they want, but they will never have their respect.

If all this can be acheived in the secular world. is it less acheivable in the Church and family?

 

[edwest2]

I’m flattered by your response. Came to me in a moment of divine inspiration. Of course that does not mean it is inspired!

It is difficult to express the fullness of God’s revelation in our limited human language. And certainly very difficult to express in an internet post. How much more so did Bible writers find it difficult? Which is why I believe the bible should not be read in a literal sense. Rather, it should take us to a dimension beyond the words on the page and beyond human understanding of those words. I believe this was the intension of the authors and why we can say the bible is inspired.

I have worked for good managers and bad managers. I’m sure a lot of other people here have worked for good managers and bad managers. A good manager, in my experience, is not one who expects you to support them if they makes a bad decision. A good manager is one who will listen to you when you are telling them they are making a bad decision and acknowledge you for it. A good manager will tell you you are wrong, but still stand by you if you make a bad decision because they value you. A good manager knows when they need to make a decision, and when to delegate. People will do what a good manager wants out of trust in their leadership, not out of blind obedience. A manager who expects to be supported by their staff when they make a bad decision may be able to get people to do what they want, but they will never have their respect.

If all this can be acheived in the secular world. is it less acheivable in the Church and family?

Why do people think for a moment that the Bible was written with difficulty by men?

2 Peter 1:21

“For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

What do we read in Jeremiah 30: 2 ?

“Thus speaketh the Lorg God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken to thee in a book.”

And further, from another source:

The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

God bless,
Ed

 

[minkymurph]

Why do people think for a moment that the Bible was written with difficulty by men?

Because it is difficult to express the deep things of God in our limited human language.

Can our limited human language fully explain the relationship of the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation? It can up to a point, but human language alone can never fully express divine truths. That is why the revealer of the meaning of the words is the Holy Spirit. They cannot be understood in a divine sense simply by reading the words on the page as any other book.