What does womanhood have to do with priest hood?
You are talking about leading. Women are not supposed to lead or so the bible says.
So if you are talking about that, then I understand. Thats not my point though. Iâm saying the church would easily let a woman become a priest. Many people might not listen to her, but she could be one. I donât see why not.
The reason she cant is because women are not supposed to have that type of leadership and you know it.
Interesting. Youâre presuming to judge other postersâand indeed the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Churchâas being chauvinist pigs who âdenyâ woman something to which she is âentitledâ --and you also seem to think that those same piggies have a power to do something which God Himself will not do.
Now you may say that God âcanâ do all things. But you would be incorrect. God âcannotâ do an âimpossibleâ thing. . .for example, the tired old "can God make a rock too heavy for Him to liftâ blather. No, He cannotânot because He is not âomnipotentâ but because He does not arbitrarily establish laws (like physics) merely to âshatterâ them for no reason. (He wonât make âsquare circlesâ either).
Now a person, once dead. . .really and truly dead, beginning to ârotâ if you will days later. . .is not, possibly, going to ârise againâ. . .BUT a person who had once lived is certainly living still in soul even if his body has died. AND we know that all persons, even after death, will one day receive a ânewâ body. Therefore, for God to allow a âdeadâ person to come âback to lifeâ, while it is certainly an act which is âimpossibleâ for man, is not impossible for God, particularly since He is most certainly going to do it for that man (and for all) after death anyway. So miracles like raising people from the dead are not âimpossibilitiesâ for God (who gives us life and death to begin with, and can do it as âmuchâ as He pleases), unlike something like a 'rock too heavy for His âall powerful armsâ to lift, which is something nonsensical.
G. K. Chesterton wrote about this, better than I have, but itâs a reasonable point.
God (and we) CAN do some things because they are âpossibleâ things, and we cannot do other things because they are ânon sensicalâ things.
Now, women priests might âsoundâ like they are âpossibleâ because MEN can be priests so why ânotâ women. But God has already said, âThe Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women.â That lets us know that, like the oh-so tempting sounding âsquare circleâ, squares and circles both being perfectly well known âthingsâ in existence, the idea of women pirests is a SQUARE CIRCLEâsomething that just doesnât work even though theoretically one could speculate that if you have squares and you have circles why CAN"T an all powerful God make something that is both? But it is NON sensical. Not because squares and circles arenât perfectly good useful things or that one is better than another. A square and a circle are NOT the same thing even though they are both plane figures or some such and share a lot of the same characteristics.
