Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Major_Tom]

Yes, a woman can do most things just fine. Being an ‘alter Christus’ is not one of them. Nor, for that matter, is playing the role of Romeo, even though the great Sarah Bernhardt tried to play Hamlet. Likewise men aren’t suited to playing Cleopatra or wearing skirts (sorry for those guys who think they look alright in a kilt - you don’t).

Worked ok for the ancient Greeks!

 

[LilyM]

Worked ok for the ancient Greeks!

Didn’t they mostly go about naked or something?

 

[LilyM]

Interesting. He didn’t appoint Paul, yet that hasn’t stopped people from listening to him!

Yes He did - and the other Apostles recognised it when he met them, and recognised Paul as their co-Apostle.

And yes, God may be sexless (genderless) - Jesus certainly wasn’t. He could’ve been a female or a hermaphrodite.

 

[Major_Tom]

You do not seem to be a person looking to understand, nor do you seem to be open minded seems to me your mind is made up and closed tight and you are just here to try and push a mistaken point of view.

I’ll review the posts for your links. I don’t recall seeing them.

If you think my arguments are weak or unpersuasive, so be it. But realize that, simply posting links may not suffice for us obstinate heretics!

…nor do you seem to be open minded…

I’m smiling! I have an opinion contrary to yours, ergo I’m not open-minded? Of course, since yours is the Church with the only true knowledge, I forgot that the rest of us are obstinate are obtuse!

 

[curlycool89]

Interesting. He didn’t appoint Paul, yet that hasn’t stopped people from listening to him!

Of course, the whole part about Jesus appearing to Paul definitely means that He didn’t appoint him. Oh wait, I got that backwards. Jesus appointed Paul by appearing directly to him.

What’s your beef anyways? You’re not Catholic. To be perfectly frank, but out of our business. We don’t interfere in the administration of yours, why do you feel the need to come in all high and mighty and interfere in ours? Serious question. Do you feel the need to be proven right, to prove your superior mental skills, to make those “evil Catholics” look bad?

And if you really want to throw the question back, remember that you started it.

 

[bibleguy180]

Technically, I started it.

 

[adecelles]

Curious point. What do you think Jesus meant by that eunuch reference? Was he speaking literally or figuratively? I would say figuratively, as no one I know has ever suggested that priests become eunuchs. Again, figurative language at play here…

Paul’s reasoning is accepted as truth, even though it appears to be in direct contrast with Jesus’ actions: Jesus selected a married man as the Rock of his Church.

Jesus (God) does His will, (why are you questioning?) by choosing Peter to be the Rock of his Church, despite the fact that he was married at the time is irrelevant, through the power of the Holy Spirit and a long term perspective, it was revealed to the Church that only men should be ordained, to this day some priest, who have converted to Catholicism from other denominations have been allowed to stay married with a dispensation, (not doing so would disrespect the sacrament marriage)

I am not sure which scripture reference you are referring to when you say Paul’s reasoning, (please site Chapter and verse for clarification, might have missed it) BTW was Paul was not married
The duties and responsibilities of the priesthood do not leave much room for a wife and family, I am sure that Peter’s wife Perpetua, could speak volumes on the subject, tonight before you go to bed why don’t you ask her to reveal some of the truths - blessings

 

[bibleguy180]

Apparently, it was also revealed to the Church that the earth is the center of the universe (sigh) what happens when you stray from the teachings of Christ

 

[curlycool89]

Apparently, it was also revealed to the Church that the earth is the center of the universe (sigh) what happens when you stray from the teachings of Christ

Wow, bringing up the Galileo thing. Very mature, especially since you seem to have no idea what it was about, because you’ve given us the usual “I didn’t feel like doing actual research” version that is plain wrong.

 

[bibleguy180]

I’m just saying I am of the opinion the Church has some very arrogant teachings with no Biblical basis, not allowing women priests is one of them.

 

[Major_Tom]

To depict God or His priest in a female capacity is essentially to say that God is “receptive” and “incubative” rather than a Progenitor, and thus part of Creation, rather than its supernatural Originator. This is the deepest problem with a proposed female priesthood for Christianity.

I’m not suggesting that God should be depicted as a woman. God is beyond sex, so this continued talk of God as a man can be unwittingly deceptive. Yes, God revealed himself to us as a man, but his ultimate essence is beyond that. Whoops! Did it again! See how slippery language is! But (I guess I have to say it) it’s ultimate essence is beyond that.

I think you read too much into the symbolism at play here. A priest/man is not Jesus, yet he represents him just the same. A woman is just as much NOT Jesus as a man is. We’re talking about the degree to which you’re taking the symbolism. For discussion’s sake, I’m suggesting it could be taken a little less rigidly than you’re taking it.

When God becomes Man, He makes everything about that Man revelatory, not only about God but about man. Thus that Man (Who is God) chooses water for baptism, oil for anointing of the sick, bread and wine for the Eucharist, and the Apostles for High Priests, definite men to take his place when He visibly exits; those and only those chosen material beings mediate the graces He wants mediated. We are not free to correct His choices.

Fine, you are not free to correct his choices. In my view, though, the conclusions that are drawn by the church are similar to any other decisions made by an organization: prejudiced by its individuals, influenced by society, and potentially incorrect.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve always felt those to be specious arguments. In the first article of the link you posted, they cite how women can’t have authority over men. Warning bells start going off… but wait. Further, the article says “Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).”. I’ll repeat that: women can’t publicly challenge the teaching of the clergy. This is the logic that buttresses the argument? Tired old patriarchy.

Then the second link discusses the “biology” argument. “Well, men can’t have babies, what makes you think that men and women can do all things equally?” Since when is biology necessary to shepherd God’s children?

It’s very reminiscent of the “seperate but equal” doctrine that was rightly quashed during the civil rights movement; a lame attempt to justify and institutionalize inconsistent treatment.

The Church has no authority to ordain women. This must be definitively held by all the faithful. The Church is not of the world. It was established by Jesus Christ.

Instead, what has infected too many minds is a radical feminist perspective that distorts and deceives. However, what is sometimes presented as fairness is actually an artificial class warfare inspired by radical feminist/Leftist ideology.

The true sheperd, Jesus Christ, exclusively chose His disciples from men. That’s all there is to it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

Apparently, it was also revealed to the Church that the earth is the center of the universe (sigh) what happens when you stray from the teachings of Christ

Actually it was only revealed to the Church, that the universe doesn’t, as Galileo taught that it did, revolve around the sun either

And it was revealed that the Pope was not, as Galileo suggested, a moron (‘Simplicio’ or simpleton) for being undecided on what were, at the time Galileo was publishing, very much rough-and-ready theories of heliocentrism, neither fully tested nor fully proven, that many of the greatest scientists of the time didn’t believe either.

I’m just saying I am of the opinion the Church has some very arrogant teachings with no Biblical basis, not allowing women priests is one of them.

Which begs the question of why you bother remaining a member, even in name only, of a church which is so utterly blinded by arrogance?

 

[Prophesy]

I’m just saying I am of the opinion the Church has some very arrogant teachings with no Biblical basis, not allowing women priests is one of them.

Geocentricity isn’t, wasn’t and will never be a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you’d like to be a ‘Freethinking’ Catholic, I’d encourage more ‘thinking’,

-Prophecy

 

[edwest2]

… Me thinks we’re taking the whole Church is a girl thing a bit to literally…

Haven’t you read the Bible? Jesus refers to Himself as the bridegroom. The Church, His Church, is the bride.

God bless,
Ed

 

[bibleguy180]

Geocentricity isn’t, wasn’t and will never be a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you’d like to be a ‘Freethinking’ Catholic, I’d encourage more ‘thinking’,

-Prophecy

The key word there is “doctrinal”. Funny how all the things the Church has ever done wrong magically aren’t doctrinal

 

[edwest2]

I’d make the argument the differences are merely biological, not “soul deep”

God made them male and female. The Bible describes the differences.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Major_Tom]

Jesus set this up, not men. We don’t claim the authority to correct Jesus. Do you?

I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but Jesus made a married man the rock of his church. Paul wanted celibate priests. Didn’t Paul have the temerity to correct Jesus?

 

[LilyM]

The key word there is “doctrinal”. Funny how all the things the Church has ever done wrong magically aren’t doctrinal

No magic. Jesus gave the Apostles power to bind and loose - what they bind and loose is ratified in heaven. If they don’t intend to bind, then of course there’s no guarantee of heavenly ratification.

And in the cases you mention (geocentrism, or example) they didn’t intend to bind - or at least not bind the things you mistakenly think they did.

 

[bibleguy180]

Actually it was only revealed to the Church, that the universe doesn’t, as Galileo taught that it did, revolve around the sun either

And it was revealed that the Pope was not, as Galileo suggested, a moron (‘Simplicio’ or simpleton) for being undecided on what were, at the time Galileo was publishing, very much rough-and-ready theories of heliocentrism, neither fully tested nor fully proven, that many of the greatest scientists of the time didn’t believe either.

Which begs the question of why you bother remaining a member, even in name only, of a church which is so utterly blinded by arrogance?

Because I haven’t found a better one. I read somewhere (not remembering where) a priest once said, it’s like all the boats leak, you just have to find the least leaky boat.