Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

No Biblical basis? So the Jews had women priests, did they? News to me!

And lest ye bleat, “but look at what was changed in Christianity” --Jesus Himself said that He did not come to change a jot or tittle of the Law (as opposed to little ‘extras’ the Pharisees tacked on). IF ‘male-only priests’ weren’t part of that big “Law” which was NOT to be changed, then how come when Peter got the vision that suddenly we could eat foods previously said ‘unclean’, he didn’t ALSO get a vision of dancing priestesses and “oh by the way, we’re changing to 'male AND female priests, thanks k bye”?

 

[LilyM]

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.

If all the boats are as leaky as you (and this priest) make out, then clearly you’re better off not relying on any boat, and rather swimming or floating on your own.

 

[edwest2]

Major Tom, I pretty much agree with you. Bibleguy, thanks for being a thinker. As long as we try to be guided by God in our thinking, I believe we’ll be ok.

First, let’s give thanks that the Church is not as restrictive as she used to be: women are allowed to approach the altar, we can serve as eucharistic ministers, and read the Word at Mass. In short, we are not silenced.

Here are some thoughts: in Jesus time, women were not allowed to be rabbis. That was in fact one of the distinctions between Judaism and many pagan religions. This had largely to do with the concept of uncleanliness during one’s menstrual cycle. Jesus demonstrated in many ways that he was a good Jew. Appointing women as priests/rabbis may have discredited his position. (Some believe Mary Magdelene was not the same as the unnamed prostitute, and was actually a woman of good standing, as was Mary Martha).

Another facet was the different role women had then, at that time, particularly Jewish women, They were mothers, who stayed home, and helped their husbands. They did not have careers, nor was it considered proper for them to even travel without a proper male escort.

If Jesus came back in this day, what would he say about working women? Would he tell all of us who hold lucrative careers that we should go home to our husbands or mothers and quit being so improper? Would he chastize the men who allowed their women to work?

Jesus showed a lot of respect for women when he walked this Earth. I think if anyone was going to get chastized, it would be anyone who did not pull his/her weight in the family.(examples: The woman who refuses to work when the man is scrambling to earn money for his family, or the man who works all the time and does not contribute to the care of house and children.)

So what would Jesus say about women as priests in this time and place? The point is, we don’t know. The Papacy has tried to explain, but I am in the “weak argument” camp.

Saying that it will never change is a little strong, I think. After all, we now have girls as altar servers, and women as eucharistic ministers, so things do change. All we can do is pray that they always change in a way that reflects Jesus’ love and purpose for us.

The constant cry is change, and for what? The Bible tells us that all scripture comes from God. There is no need for change on this point. None.

In the passage of time, we are told, things change, but not so. What God has established remains. This appears like the incremental ‘change’ desired for other things in society. The wisdom of men is not comparable to God who is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Modernism has been long fought by the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Major_Tom]

First, let’s give thanks that the Church is not as restrictive as she used to be: women are allowed to approach the altar, we can serve as eucharistic ministers, and read the Word at Mass. In short, we are not silenced.

Unfortuneately, not all of your pew-mates have gotten the memo. From post #50:

Jesus only chose men to be apostles as other have stated and the bible teaches that women should remain silent during the mass (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

 

[bibleguy180]

No Biblical basis? So the Jews had women priests, did they? News to me!

And lest ye bleat, “but look at what was changed in Christianity” --Jesus Himself said that He did not come to change a jot or tittle of the Law (as opposed to little ‘extras’ the Pharisees tacked on). IF ‘male-only priests’ weren’t part of that big “Law” which was NOT to be changed, then how come when Peter got the vision that suddenly we could eat foods previously said ‘unclean’, he didn’t ALSO get a vision of dancing priestesses and “oh by the way, we’re changing to 'male AND female priests, thanks k bye”?

Well , I suppose we all have to get together sometime and kill my dad then, he works on Sunday

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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?

So Jesus was married too? Isn’t Jesus the High Priest? Didn’t Jesus say that there would be those who 'made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom"? What do you think Jesus meant there?

And while St. Peter had a mother-in-law, well let’s put it this way. If I were married, my spouse’s mother would be my mother-in-law. And if my spouse died, she would still be my mother-in-law, wouldn’t she? IOW–by tradition, it is commonly supposed that St. Peter was a WIDOWER. No mention of his ever remarrying either. . .

 

[edwest2]

Just a quick point or two:

Only priests are 'Eucharistic Ministers". Women (and men) may be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC). Unfortunately ‘bad translations’ aren’t limited to the liturgy but, thanks be to God, they are being addressed. Please help stamp out the egregiously incorrect use of ‘eucharistic minister’ applied to those who are correctly EMHC’s.

Any priest may (at his discretion) permit–or NOT–girls serving at the altar. Their use is an indult (a permission not to observe the norm which is men/boys serving, usually for an extraordinary reason. For example, in times of war when most men would be ‘at the front’, there might be nothing BUT women available. The practice was not meant to be an indication that women were ‘equal’ (they have always been equal, but male and female roles are not; a man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man), nor an indication that women could get more ‘power’ (service to the Lord is never about power) nor an indication that with this, women were moving ‘closer’ to priesthood (see above, it is not about power). Women cannot be priests any more than men can generate a child in their (nonexistant) wombs!

The Church did not permit various changes in its DISCIPLINES (which in any case are changeable by definition) in order to ‘bring women up from oppression’, but rather from a cultural (pastoral) sense in response to what the bishops felt was a genuine need that could be legitimately met.

But the more one reads from people (not necessarily anyone who has posted here, but rather just general reading on the topic) who obviously feel that this is all about 'getting the POWER" and 'a bit of payback from the years of OPPRESSION" the more one realizes that these disciplines are ripe for being changed ‘back.’ As a woman, I’m sad to say that in many, many cases, we as women haven’t brought ourselves to God to serve Him through having more ‘ways’ given us to serve, but have rather tried to TAKE OVER and grab what we think is power, and demand what we think we should have as rights, not to serve but to BE SERVED, not to give but to TAKE,

Thank you for that very precise and correct answer. Radical feminism is not solution oriented. It is about taking (perceived) power for a group and about struggles for power.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

Oh, so you think Jesus must have lied about building a church and 'the gates of hell would not prevail against it." So when exactly (date and document please) did the Church that we know from Scripture (Matthew 19) Christ personally established develop the 'leak, and get run over by the gates of hell"? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Searching4God]

But Jesus wasn’t exactly surrounded by dozens upon dozens of Americans, or even non-Jews, Americans or non-Jews who were very important to him and to the Apostles, but were pointedly NOT called to be priests or ministers.

Remember, Jesus made a point of breaking social taboos in regard women - His conversation with the woman at the well, for example, His friendship with Martha and Mary, His kindness to the woman in adultery and His allowing Mary to anoint His feet - all were very much frowned upon under Jewish law of the time.

And if worthy women could also be priests - surely His mother and Mary Magdalene were as fit as anyone, gender aside, and surely they WOULD have been called to be priests, if His desire was to have women serve in that capacity. But it wasn’t.

You make great points Lily, that I’m sure will be lost on the reactionaries. There are so many “Christians” out there who are determined to ignore Jesus’ iconoclastic nature, its quite frustrating.

I’m losing faith by the day in the Vatican as they continue to take one step forward, two steps back.

 

[edwest2]

Seems to be a fair amount of gray, actually. When honoring one’s mother and father, is there not a little ambiguity and interpretation? Isn’t there the slightest gray between what constitutues “murder” versus killing in self-defense?

The greatest problem with telling people the truth today is the number of opinions people are given instead. Why accept opinions when you can have the truth?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Major_Tom]

Didn’t they mostly go about naked or something?

Different thread !

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well , I suppose we all have to get together sometime and kill my dad then, he works on Sunday

Wow, what a leap of exaggerated horror, my friend. Just where in Scripture does it tell us to kill people who work on Sunday? (which in ANY case is not the Jewish sabbath, which is Saturday?)

Waiting. . . .

 

[edwest2]

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.

See the following by Pope John Paul II:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[bibleguy180]

Oh, so you think Jesus must have lied about building a church and 'the gates of hell would not prevail against it." So when exactly (date and document please) did the Church that we know from Scripture (Matthew 19) Christ personally established develop the 'leak, and get run over by the gates of hell"? Inquiring minds want to know!

I don’t think the idea of allowing women to be priests comes from hell.

 

[LilyM]

Well , I suppose we all have to get together sometime and kill my dad then, he works on Sunday

The unmerciful punishment of stoning - and the strict enforcement thereof - is one of those ‘little extras’ that were tacked on, as Jesus showed by his merciful treatment of the woman caught in adultery.

Note, however, He didn’t say that she hadn’t sinned, nor did He give her permission to go and keep doing what she had done. Instead He admonished her to go and sin no more.

As for your father - rest assured no-one here can or will judge the state of his soul. For all we know, he may have perfectly legitimate reasons for working on a Sunday.

And there are plenty of them. Maybe he is a doctor or works for a utility company, for example, or needs the extra income to keep food on the table and bills paid, or simply can’t find a job that doesn’t involve Sunday work.

 

[bibleguy180]

Wow, what a leap of exaggerated horror, my friend. Just where in Scripture does it tell us to kill people who work on Sunday? (which in ANY case is not the Jewish sabbath, which is Saturday?)

Waiting. . . .

pretty sure it says that in Leviticus, sorry for your wait, it’s alot against me here

 

[Major_Tom]

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.

I’m a former Catholic, and I enjoy good discussion. That’s the reason I’m here. I know that I’m not going to convince you. If you don’t want discussions with non-Catholics, consider sending an email to the moderators and suggesting that they ban non-Catholics.

If my tone suggests that I’m ‘high-and-mighty’, then please pardon my tone! I get excitable! I am neither high nor mighty. I do not claim to be right on this issue: I would like a vigorous discussion on all the details, so that we all understand it better. I acknowledge that I may be wrong. Would you acknowledge the same?

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think the idea of allowing women to be priests comes from hell.

The idea that the church is merely the least-leaky boat just might be, though.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t think the idea of allowing women to be priests comes from hell.

Well gee. If the idea doesn’t come from God --and it doesn’t–then where else does it come from? Neptune?

It’s not a question of ‘allowing’. Apparently you didnt’ bother to read the posted documentation that was so thoughtfully supplied for you.

The Church **has no authority to ordain women. **

Heck, it’s even in my siggy (signature) and has been for years!

NO. AUTHORITY. TO. ORDAIN. WOMEN.

The Church doesn’t have the POWER to ordain women, because God did not bestow that power upon it. God --GOD Himself! --granted the power to the Church to ordain men. If you want to make a fuss, make the fuss to Him, because it’s absolutely useless making it to the Church when the Church .DOES. NOT. HAVE. THE. AUTHORITY. TO. ORDAIN. WOMEN.

No matter how much you ‘ask, plead, beg, cajole, threaten or demand’. . .it does not have the power to do this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

pretty sure it says that in Leviticus, sorry for your wait, it’s alot against me here

You must have missed it. . .The Christian Lord’s Day (Sunday) is not the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday).

See, that’s part of the Sacred Tradition (oral) that is accepted without question by nonCatholics until they realize it’s Catholic and recoil with horror.

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that Sunday ‘replaces’ Saturday as the Sabbath, nor does it refer to worshipping Christ on the Sabbath, etc. etc.

Oral tradition (from the apostles) makes it clear that the Old Testament Sabbath was the FORESHADOWING of the Christian Lord’s Day. The ‘rules’ for it (like the rules for the Jews of keeping kosher) only applied to those under the old Law. In the NEW COVENANT we still have ‘similar’ laws (we keep ‘holy’ the Lord’s Day, as the Sabbath was kept holy) but NOT with the restrictive Sabbath laws. Remember, Christ told the Jews that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”–He was giving them the clue that as they ‘matured’ in spirituality they were to see worship responsibilities as still grave matter, but to rejoice in them. As He Himself HEALED ON THE SABBATH, THUS 'TECHNICALLY" in the eyes of the Pharisees being guilty of 'WORK", He shows that necessary work is not the same as ‘unnecessary work.’

Doesn’t Jesus Himself tell the Pharisees in Scripture “if a man of you has a sheep or cow that falls into the well on the Sabbath, doesn’t he TAKE IT OUT?”