Why Can't Women Become Priests?

[stillwater]

In which case, by your thesis, the Bible cannot be the Word of God.

So, why worry about it at all? If you think the book is nonsense (and you clearly do), then don’t let what it says bug you – it has no meaningful application in your life.

to me it has no application, but to some Christians they consider it the answer to everything.

that’s why it’s truly important to scrutinize what is bein taught to you and not just accept everythin because you are told to believe so.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

to me it has no application, but to some Christians they consider it the answer to everything.

So?

that’s why it’s truly important to scrutinize what is bein taught to you and not just accept everythin because you are told to believe so.

And of what importance is this to you? Why are you concerned with what others believe?

And who here is being told what to believe? Us? We are the outsiders in this society. The media ridicules us.

Or you? You are obviously secular in your outlook, which means you are following the bigger crowd by far.

So, who exactly is believing whatever they are told to believe?

 

[stillwater]

So?

And of what importance is this to you? Why are you concerned with what others believe?

clearly you are side stepping on the real issue and want to use your ad hominem on me.

isn’t apologetics the same thing? apologists are concerned with what others believe and they try to use apologetics to make them believe what they also believe.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

clearly you are side stepping on the real issue and want to use your ad hominem on me.

isn’t apologetics the same thing? apologists are concerned with what others believe and they try to use apologetics to make them believe what they also believe.

I’m not side-stepping the issue at all. I’m trying to determine why you care what others believe. You need to base your arguments in some sort of logic and reason, and you are failing to do so.

If you don’t believe in the Bible, then you have no need or desire to follow its teachings.

If you do, you do.

Ad-hominem is an inappropriate usage in this case.

Is there anything more to your position than that it bothers you that people disagree with you?

 

[stillwater]

I’m not side-stepping the issue at all. I’m trying to determine why you care what others believe. You need to base your arguments in some sort of logic and reason, and you are failing to do so.

If you don’t believe in the Bible, then you have no need or desire to follow its teachings.

If you do, you do.

Ad-hominem is an inappropriate usage in this case.

Is there anything more to your position than that it bothers you that people disagree with you?

so what is this psycho analysis?

 

[NotWorthy]

i already said my point earlier no need to repeat.

OK, ditto…

of course it will look biased because they are womenpriests. still we cannot ignore the fact that some parts of the bible was prejudiced…and we didn’t call it biased.

I don’t think I questioned whether the bible was biased. I questioned though whether Jesus was biased and the Apostles. There were priestesses around. Jesus would not have broken any social barriers, so you need a better argument …

 

[stillwater]

OK, ditto…

I don’t think I questioned whether the bible was biased. I questioned though whether Jesus was biased and the Apostles. There were priestesses around. Jesus would not have broken any social barriers, so you need a better argument …

yes you didn’t and you were referring to ignoring the fact that the author of the document seem a little biased.

 

[NotWorthy]

yes you didn’t and you were referring to ignoring the fact that the author of the document seem a little biased.

And your point is…

the author of the document is drawing back to a 12th century document to show why Catholics don’t ordain women. I don’t see the connection since Catholics go back to the first century without ordaining women.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

so what is this psycho analysis?

It’s a discussion, hopefully one that involves reason.

But, clearly, you aren’t really ready for that.

If your whole point is that people disagreeing with you makes you upset, then why seek out people who disagree with you? Especially since you can’t really form a cogent or logical argument to advance the discussion.

You think the Bible is non-Divine.

We do.

End of story. End of debate. You will not convince us that it is non-Divine. Most of us came to that conclusion after a lot of soulsearching and reasoning, and for you to challenge that you’d have to put something forward more compelling than the fact that you think the Bible is rubbish because it doesn’t comport to your secular world view.

There’s a whole world out there that agrees with you. They – and you – are the majority. Have you ever considered why it bugs you when – on the temporal level – your world-view has won the popular debate?

 

[stillwater]

It’s a discussion, hopefully one that involves reason.

But, clearly, you aren’t really ready for that.

if there’s someone who’s not ready i guess it’s the people in here. this is an apologetics forum right? what good it will do if you don’t use your apologetic skills without a disagreeing party.

If your whole point is that people disagreeing with you makes you upset, then why seek out people who disagree with you? Especially since you can’t really form a cogent or logical argument to advance the discussion.

You think the Bible is non-Divine.

We do.

End of story. End of debate. You will not convince us that it is non-Divine. Most of us came to that conclusion after a lot of soulsearching and reasoning, and for you to challenge that you’d have to put something forward more compelling than the fact that you think the Bible is rubbish because it doesn’t comport to your secular world view.

There’s a whole world out there that agrees with you. They – and you – are the majority. Have you ever considered why it bugs you when – on the temporal level – your world-view has won the popular debate?

i was pointing out that people’s statements here do not agree, so why would i be convinced to believe? and to whom will i believe?

and who are you referrin to as “majority”?

And your point is…

the author of the document is drawing back to a 12th century document to show why Catholics don’t ordain women. I don’t see the connection since Catholics go back to the first century without ordaining women.

it’s connected. same as studying the bible, you don’t pick the good ones and disregard the bad ones. you dont jump from 1st to the current century. no wonder religion is not advancing.

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

if there’s someone who’s not ready i guess it’s the people in here. this is an apologetics forum right? what good it will do if you don’t use your apologetic skills without a disagreeing party.

But you haven’t used any apologetic skills. You haven’t put forth any well-reasoned arguments. That needs to happen. Why refuse to answer the questions put to you? Because, obviously, you can’t.

Believe it or not, I sympathize with you. You’re not alone in not being able to articulate or understand why you believe what society has drummed into your head. You need to take a little time and think about these issues a bit if you want to engage in a true apologetic discussion.

i was pointing out that people’s statements here do not agree, so why would i be convinced to believe? and to whom will i believe?

No, what you pointed out didn’t happen. People did not disagree. You accused them of such, but your reasoning didn’t hold up to scrutiny. That’s the problem with canned answers in your head – you haven’t really thought them through.

In order to present your point of view in a cogent way, you need to be rational and logical in your arguments.

and who are you referrin to as “majority”?

I speak of western society in general, which is overwhelmingly secular at this point. When you point to others and imply that they only believe what they are told, it’s a fair point to bring to your attention that you are essentially believe what you are told by this society. What is the underpinning of your belief?

 

[NotWorthy]

it’s connected. same as studying the bible, you don’t pick the good ones and disregard the bad ones. you dont jump from 1st to the current century. no wonder religion is not advancing.

But I cetainly wouldn’t look to the 12th century to discover why women aren’t priests, unless there were women priests before then.

 

[stillwater]

But you haven’t used any apologetic skills. You haven’t put forth any well-reasoned arguments. That needs to happen. Why refuse to answer the questions put to you? Because, obviously, you can’t.

because i’m not an apologists. i was talkin bout the people in here.

No, what you pointed out didn’t happen. People did not disagree. You accused them of such, but your reasoning didn’t hold up to scrutiny. That’s the problem with canned answers in your head – you haven’t really thought them through.

well i guess i have to wait for tantum ergo to clear his point. because he clearly stated it IS the word of god. that’s why i mentioned it was the SUPPOSED word of god because some people say, it is NOT in entirety the word of god.

In order to present your point of view in a cogent way, you need to be rational and logical in your arguments.

i believe you did agree to me earlier, unless you are goin to renew your statement?

If you are proceeding from the notion that parts of the Bible aren’t true, then the Bible would in fact be entirely untrue. It either is the Word of God, or it isn’t. It can’t be 50% legitimate.

So, if your position is that the Bible is not Divine in source, your position makes perfect sense, but only under that condition.

i do not see why it was

I speak of western society in general, which is overwhelmingly secular at this point. When you point to others and imply that they only believe what they are told, it’s a fair point to bring to your attention that you are essentially believe what you are told by this society. What is the underpinning of your belief?

sorry i am not part of the western society so i do not belong to their majority. i do not believe in an organized religion because even catholics themselves don’t agree. so who should i believe into? the practices of western catholics may be different from where i came from, so how can i tell i’m believin the right religion? same as…how can i discern in the bible which are the ones are the word of god and which are not.

 

[stillwater]

But I cetainly wouldn’t look to the 12th century to discover why women aren’t priests, unless there were women priests before then.

in an investigation, a detective collects his evidences from a series of events. if the crime is suspected to happen between 1-5 pm, he would certainly gather evidences not only between that time, right?

another point is, society’s views and concepts evolves in time. in the old testament, incest was approved by god but during the modern times, it is considered immoral. if during jesus time, women are unacceptable to become priests, then why are they also unacceptable today?

 

[NotWorthy]

in an investigation, a detective collects his evidences from a series of events. if the crime is suspected to happen between 1-5 pm, he would certainly gather evidences not only between that time, right?

another point is, society’s views and concepts evolves in time. in the old testament, incest was approved by god but during the modern times, it is considered immoral. if during jesus time, women are unacceptable to become priests, then why are they also unacceptable today?

Maybe, just maybe, because incest was the only way to “be fruitful and multiply” during the times of Adam and of Noah? The first time we hear God talk of incest is to forbid it in Deuteronomy.

 

[FCEGM]

if during jesus time, women are unacceptable to become priests, then why are they also unacceptable today?

Because, as in Jesus’ time, they still aren’t males.

 

[thistle]

if during jesus time, women are unacceptable to become priests, then why are they also unacceptable today?

CCC 1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself.** For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.**

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

because i’m not an apologists. i was talkin bout the people in here.

I’m not sure what relevance this has. You are engaging in a discussion, but not making any points that are easy to grasp. If you want apologetics, you need to put something forward that can be grappled with.

well i guess i have to wait for tantum ergo to clear his point. because he clearly stated it IS the word of god. that’s why i mentioned it was the SUPPOSED word of god because some people say, it is NOT in entirety the word of god.

But that is NOT what was said. What was said is that it is the Word of God, but not the ENTIRE word of God. In other words, there are other sources beside the Bible for the Word of God.

i believe you did agree to me earlier, unless you are goin to renew your statement?

Certainly. And you’ve done nothing to further to enhance this point. So far, your only contribution has been that you think that the Bible is not the word of God because you don’t like it’s politics. Fine… it’s been said. What further discussion is needed? What are you seeking here?

sorry i am not part of the western society so i do not belong to their majority. i do not believe in an organized religion because even catholics themselves don’t agree. so who should i believe into? the practices of western catholics may be different from where i came from, so how can i tell i’m believin the right religion? same as…how can i discern in the bible which are the ones are the word of god and which are not.

Believing in no organized religion is positively trendy at this point in time. It is the predominant belief of the secular world. So, clearly, you are at least as culpable of believing whatever you are told as you suggested we are.

And the contradictions of which you are speaking are your own fabrications. Several of us have already told you that the ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God, but that the Word of God is not limited to the Bible.

While it’s true that Catholics can disagree with each other, or even worse, be ignorant or outright of defiant of their supposed faith, it still doesn’t create the problem you suggest it does because Catholicism (unlike every other religion) has a central source and authority. The information is there to be had by all.

In fact, we live a golden age of sorts when it comes to that. Anything you want to find out about Catholicism can be discovered with incredible ease – from the source. So, rather than create an issue of confusion where one doesn’t exist, why not deal with the actual teachings and go from there?

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

deleted

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First, stillwater, I’m a SHE.
Second, there is nothing to clear up. As has been abundantly pointed out, the Bible is indeed the Word of God–the written Word. Christ, of course, is the LIVING Word. (and I DID mention this in my post).

So what is your difficulty? I made no bones about saying that the Word of God (Scripture) was, while profitable, inerrant, and inspired, not the ONLY tool for Christians to use. Since the words God gave us are capable, as ALL language is capable, of being interpreted completely truely, incompletely truely, incompletely falsely, and completely falsely–and you are giving a rather good demonstration of incomplete false interpretation of what we’re telling YOU (though you may not be doing so with full knowledge or with malice)–what God gave us WITH His written Word was the guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide us, through COMPLETELY TRUE interpretation of that word, to help us to follow the LIVING WORD. He gave us–the Church–His Spirit to guide us into completely true interpretation of His word, through the TEACHING AUTHORITY of the MAGESTERIUM. And this is, of course, completely Scriptural, as Jesus told us that He would send the Spirit who would ‘guide us into all truth’; and since we know from PETER that PRIVATE interpretation of Scripture is wrong, then there has to be an “authoritative” interpretation; and since we know that not EVERYTHING that Jesus said or did is contained within the Bible, we know that this interpretation is not limited TO the Bible.