Why women cant be Catholic Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goout said:
That’s an example of a thought that is at the same time true, but in truth not applicable.

It’s an ontological issue, and it’s definitively stated and binding per the Magisterium.

God, through the HS, could do anything, but God has no contradiction.
Click to expand...
But people like to say that God HAS been trying to convince the “old celibate men in Rome” and they just don’t listen.
simpleas said:
No, I’m saying men can be classed as the bride of Christ (the church) which is feminine in relation to God, yet woman can not be thought of as male in order to act in persona Christi.
Click to expand...
“Men” are not “classed”. The members of the One Body (collectively) are the Bride.

There are some people who were born female that think of themselves as male (and vice versa) but they would not be among those chosen by the Church to serve in Holy Orders.
simpleas said:
Yes I tend to think of things in a spiritual sense than in the physical.
Click to expand...
They are not mutually exclusive, and in this case, they are joined. The participation in the priesthood of Christ is a spiritual reality that has ramifications on the physical plane.
simpleas said:
Guess I just don’t understand all the deep theological teachings, which is quite frustrating for me and slightly worrying as I may not know my faith at all.
Click to expand...
Well. all of us could study for a lifetime and still not know all there is to know about our faith. It has been growing for 2000 years, after all! I learn new things here on CAF every day!

This one isn’t that “deep” though.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
The root of pain for most of the women who struggle with this issue is that they are struggling in identifying themselves as female and women, with a God who is spoken of in male terms and a Savior who came to us as a man.
Click to expand...
It is not only women who believe females can represent Christ as ministers, some men also believe this.

Genesis says in the beginning God created man, male and female :

“Let us make mankind in our image"

After the fall, women were to be ruled over by men (not just the husband/wife, any man over any woman)

Jesus came to set us free from original sin, yet the consequences of the original sin still remain in the Baptised.

I do struggle with God being thought of in male terms only, but I do not struggle knowing that Jesus was a man.
Elizabeth3 said:
So when women who feel this pain, read that Christianity teaches they are made in the image of God, that there is “no male nor female” in Christ, and that we are all One in Christ, they turn this pain on what they think is the patriarchal Church and it’s defective male-centric theology, and begin to rethink theology that is more inclusive whether by language or action, to show that femininity does have a place in the God-Head and they can identify themselves as daughters who reflect and image their Father.
Click to expand...
Of course I can’t see a problem with that, and the church is patriarchal??
 
Sugabee43 said:
Please do read @steve-b’s last post quoting St. John Paul II and stop barking.
Click to expand...
If anyone is “barking anything” that wouldn’t appear to be myself. Lets recall your ludicrous view that we know God only wants male priests because Jesus was male:
The fact of the matter is that God decided to come to us here on Earth as a man.
Click to expand...
So I repeat my question. If God wanted both male and female priests how should Jesus have been incarnated?
 
You are still either not understanding, or being deliberately obtuse. It’s more than just Jesus being incarnated as a Man. And that has been discussed on this thread more than once by more than one person. Re-read the entire thread and see if you can figure it out.
 
simpleas said:
After the fall, women were to be ruled over by men (not just the husband/wife, any man over any woman)

Jesus came to set us free from original sin, yet the consequences of the original sin still remain in the Baptised.
Click to expand...
No. The Church hierarchy and the male priesthood are not the remnants of the consequences of original sin. The consequences of original sin were domination, force and possession that reduced service to slavery. We were meant to be freed from that so that we can freely choose to love and to serve and be loved and served.

The male priesthood cannot in any way be compared to the “ruling over” of domination and possession. There may have been and are now individual men of the clergy who may wrongly abuse power but that is a straying from what the priesthood is. Instead, the priesthood and the hierarchy, is a restoration in which to “reign is to serve.” This is true Christianity. It can also be said that “to serve is to reign” because service and love is what makes one “first” in the Kingdom of Heaven and everyone should have the freedom to choose to serve rather than it being a forced servility.

Women are not “ruled over” by men in the Catholic Church. Both men and women are served by the hierarchy to help lead us into all truth about God and ourselves so we can come “to know, love and serve God and be happy with Him forever in Heaven.”
simpleas said:
Of course I can’t see a problem with that, and the church is patriarchal??
Click to expand...
There are many problems with inclusive language the first of which diminishes God to what He does as creator, redeemer and sanctifier, rather than who He is as Father. The second is that to call God Mother or Father/Mother goes against the example given us by Christ in Scripture where he taught us to call God Father. How dare we do any different?
simpleas said:
and the church is patriarchal??
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are questioning here…
 
Last edited:
So what exactly did you mean by your “fact of the matter then”?
The fact of the matter is that God decided to come to us here on Earth as a man.
Click to expand...
 
Sugabee43 said:
The fact of the matter is that God decided to come to us here on Earth as a man.
Click to expand...
I suggest the “fact of the matter” is that its pretty clear what your implicit view was here.
(Only male priests as Jesus was a male).

Wouldn’t it just be easier to just admit you were the one “barking” and move on
… instead of these painful revisionist segways.

I certainly am.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good. I’m weary of having to repeat myself, and refer you to other people’s posts on this thread.
 
Pope John Paul 2 answered the issue. Some people continue to bring it up. They are either ignorant to his answer, ignorant of how Theology works, rebellious, or short one sandwich for a picnic.

In any event, I just look at them, and with the proper tone of voice say "Oh, that is so 1980’s!
 
Elizabeth3 said:
We were meant to be freed from that so that we can freely choose to love and to serve and be loved and served.
Click to expand...
There doesn’t seem to be a freedom for all if one sex is subjected to the other. Women are controlled to a degree within the church, or else they would be included in the hierarchy and a balance would be maintained, recognising both sexes to be in Christ.
Elizabeth3 said:
There are many problems with inclusive language the first of which diminishes God to what He does as creator,
Click to expand...
The creator said in Genesis that we shall make man in our image and likeness, God makes a male and female, equal humans, both in need of each other, God also said to let them be the rulers, only when the fall happens do we hear that one will rule over the other. I did not think including women made in Gods likeness diminished God, Jesus undid the Original sin.

Colossians 3,9-11

“You have put off your old nature with its practices.
You have put on a new nature
which is being renewed in knowledge
in the image of its creator.
In that image there is no room for distinctions
between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
between barbarian and Scythian,
slave and free.
But Christ is all, Christ is in all.”
Elizabeth3 said:
Not sure what you are questioning here
Click to expand...
I wasn’t questioning it, just pointing out that the church is patriarchal.

Last night at Mass the priest told us he would not be celebrating the washing of feet on Maundy thursday because some say women should now be included along with the men. He said it’s symbolic so ony men should participate. Made me think that some traditions just will not be unbroken by some priests, others may be happy to wash the feet of Gods female children too.
 
simpleas said:
There doesn’t seem to be a freedom for all if one sex is subjected to the other. Women are controlled to a degree within the church, or else they would be included in the hierarchy and a balance would be maintained, recognising both sexes to be in Christ.
Click to expand...
I’d hardly call it one sex subjected to the other when the teachings of the Church must be followed by everyone, clergy included.

The Church doesn’t control women and there are many women on boards and councils offering advice and opinion. There are thousands of Catholic ministries headed by women.

Women are free to decide to be members or not.

Women ARE recognized as “being in Christ.” It says so, right in the CCC. So are men who aren’t ordained. Ordination doesn’t give one their “being in Christ.” You’re still making ordination out to be something that tells us a truth about men and women. It’s not. It tells us that Christ was the Son of the Father. He is a man. It takes a man to stand in persona Christi. To not stand “in persona Christi” doesn’t mean a person isn’t a part of the Body of Christ.

More later…
 
Last edited:
When any final decision is made, no woman in the church ever makes it. I’d call that subjection.

Women will not be recognised as images/likeness of God if they are never allowed to be included in holy orders.

No, noone needs to be ordained to be part of the body of Christ.
 
Last edited:
simpleas said:
The creator said in Genesis that we shall make man in our image and likeness, God makes a male and female, equal humans, both in need of each other, God also said to let them be the rulers, only when the fall happens do we hear that one will rule over the other.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You see the clergy as a rule of men over women. In reality, it’s the ordained who shepherd all men and women, and even themselves into all truth.
simpleas said:
I did not think including women made in Gods likeness diminished God, Jesus undid the Original sin.
Click to expand...
One of the ways those who advocate for inclusive language is to replace the words of the sign of the cross “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is to instead say “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier.” It is this change that they call for that reduces the names of the Persons of the Trinity down to what they do and erases who they are in relation to us and to each other. It’s quite utilitarian to want to take away the language that indicates a familial relationship down to naming the Persons just by what they do instead.

If they are trying to be inclusive of women, how does it include women to take away our calling God, Father, which makes us daughters or Son, which makes us sisters, or the Holy Spirit, which us makes us all, (male and female) one with each other? It actually erases the image of us all being family with and in God. God IS a family. Male/Female/Child are more LIKE a family and a shadowed resemblance of the relationships shared among the Three Persons.
simpleas said:
Colossians 3,9-11

“You have put off your old nature with its practices.
You have put on a new nature
which is being renewed in knowledge
in the image of its creator.
In that image there is no room for distinctions
between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
between barbarian and Scythian,
slave and free.
But Christ is all, Christ is in all.”
Click to expand...
You do realize that putting off the “old nature” or “old man” as it is sometimes translated isn’t talking about our human nature as male and female, don’t you? It’s talking about our old sinful nature and with Christ in us through Baptism we are made new in which we reject sin and live as he taught us. It means no matter what your race, status, sex, etc. is, you can have salvation.This is very clear if you read the verses 1-9 preceding this verse. It’s not saying what you are trying to imply it says, which is that our being male and female, no longer has any significance. If this were true, Paul never would have taught about women wearing headcoverings in Mass, or how marriage is an image of Christ and the Church in husband and wife.
 
Last edited:
simpleas said:
Last night at Mass the priest told us he would not be celebrating the washing of feet on Maundy thursday because some say women should now be included along with the men. He said it’s symbolic so ony men should participate. Made me think that some traditions just will not be unbroken by some priests, others may be happy to wash the feet of Gods female children too.
Click to expand...
If it’s symbolic of Christ washing the feet of the Apostles, which it is, why would women have to be included?

Are women too dense that an accurate re-enactment of what actually happened that night would confuse them in that Christ showed the Apostles that as the new leaders of the commission they received, they were to go out with the attitude of servants towards those they lead?

Why would this be offensive to women that those who lead us are made to understand they are there to serve? Peter balked and was appalled at having his feet washed by Christ and yet, we have women today who insist it’s their right? If they aren’t priests, why do they need the lesson that leadership in the Church is to serve? The lack of humility is kind of sickening, really.

It’s one thing if your priest or even Pope Francis decides to include whoever they wish. It can be symbolic in two ways. In the original and historically accurate way or in the way of the priest showing that the priesthood serves all people. It would be humbling to be chosen but to insist on it as a right is the antithesis of Christianity. Your pastor has the right to decide which way he would like this to be presented at Mass. The message is the same either way. The only thing I disagree with him about is not having it at all by being cowed by women who insist on having their feet washed. How arrogant can they be as if it’s some privilege?
 
Last edited:
simpleas said:
When any final decision is made, no woman in the church ever makes it. I’d call that subjection.
Click to expand...
It is subjection but not just of women. When everyone including the clergy themselves abide by the truths that are taught in which the end result is we live forever with God in heaven, it’s not reality that it’s “subjection of women to men.”
simpleas said:
Women will not be recognised as images/likeness of God if they are never allowed to be included in holy orders.
Click to expand...
Read your Catechism. They already are recognized as images/likeness of God. Holy Orders is not where our being made in the image of God comes from. Holy Orders is not about us showing how we image God. It’s about Christ. We aren’t worshiping ourselves at Mass.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
One of the ways those who advocate for inclusive language is to replace the words of the sign of the cross “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is to instead say “In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier.” It is this change that they call for that reduces the names of the Persons of the Trinity down to what they do and erases who they are in relation to us and to each other. It’s quite utilitarian to want to take away the language that indicates a familial relationship down to naming the Persons just by what they do instead.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard of this.
Elizabeth3 said:
If they are trying to be inclusive of women, how does it include women to take away our calling God, Father, which makes us daughters or Son, which makes us sisters, or the Holy Spirit, which us makes us all, (male and female) one with each other? It actually erases the image of us all being family with and in God. God IS a family. Male/Female/Child are more LIKE a family and a shadowed resemblance of the relationships shared among the Three Persons.
Click to expand...
From some of the writings I have read noone is trying to take away calling God father, they are trying to add/include the feminine reality of God as described in the creation account.
Elizabeth3 said:
You do realize that putting off the “old nature” or “old man” as it is sometimes translated isn’t talking about our human nature as male and female, don’t you? It’s talking about our old sinful nature and with Christ in us through Baptism we are made new in which we reject sin and live as he taught us
Click to expand...
Yes I realise this.
Elizabeth3 said:
It’s not saying what you are trying to imply it says, which is that our being male and female, no longer has any significance
Click to expand...
I am not trying to imply that at all, you are misunderstanding what I’m saying…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top