Woman Priesthood debate at school... help

[CaptFun]

So my buddy and I got into this debate with a couple of girls. The points are: (our replies are underneath)

1. Patriarchal society. They insist that the only reason Jesus didn’t appoint female apostles was because of the society of the times/ no one would listen to women.
   → We tried pointing out that Jesus chose apostles that weren’t exactly ideal teachers, being poor, uneducated fishermen and all. We also pointed out that nationality, age, education, occupation, and race were both non-issues in the early church. We brought up Jeremiah and Timothy and how because they were young they were not as likely to be listened to, but they insisted on the patriarchal society. (I tried to explain why the society was patriarchal, which led to a brief discussion of the physics of battle. I know… :banghead High school girls didn’t come up with this on their own. You are dealing with a Church attack crafted by one of their teachers. Your school may have a weed in the field if established dogmas are being attacked, and the attacks taught to high schoolers. You are being patient and trying to answer them - but really then you are participating in the prosecution of the Church by what are supposed to be loyal members.

Patriarchal Society is a political and a class war term. Short answer is: God knows what He is doing we’ll find out why later. Motherhood is a Matriarchy … but that isn’t bad. God ordained that women should be in charge (more than men) of the next generation’s nurturing, care, feeding, and for the most part foundational education. It is not an anti-man plan but ordained for all of our good.

Likewise the Lord has roles for his sons. And the priesthood is one of these.
Women are often leaders elsewhere in the Church and have always been. Holy Orders are set apart … and many men too cannot become priests.

1. When I mentioned that Pope John Paul II officially closed the priesthood to women, one of the two specifically said, “A white, crusty, old man has no right to tell women what they can/ can’t do.” (a paraphrase, but the ‘white, crusty, old man’ part is word for word.) I didn’t make the point that the pope doesn’t make dogma, he just hands it down, (again, :banghead but I doubt it would have changed anything.

No person who dismisses old people or judges people by their race should get through the screening process to be a priest anyway. Nor would they deserve any more respect than the present leaders get - which is less all the time … even in Catholic schools.

1. They insisted that when it is covered in the NT writings by Paul were his own personal opinion. They cited Corinthians. (although it looks a lot more like 1 Tim 2).

Sometimes Paul lets his readers know he is giving his own opinion on a matter - rather than passing on Church tradition already established. So the girls are learning something good and listening. It seems they are being led to radicalism within the Church by the way they have let controversial politics get to the top of their agenda.

You might change the subject to something more fruitful … like proposing that you all volunteer together for some corporal work of mercy (volunteering together as equals) and leave behind the quarrel.

1 Timothy 6:3 Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teaching

A good line for disarming this argument is … a woman can’t be a priest, but she can have a higher office than that in the Church. She can be a saint! The priests and even the Pope are not that yet, so … why take an earthbound service job when you can be ambitious for a heavenly crown?! Say this in a celebrational way – rather than “preachy” though.

Another: “When we’re in heaven, all this is going to seem trite.” Good luck. Hey, maybe they just wanted to talk to you. And the “argument” lets them. - could be …

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So my buddy and I got into this debate with a couple of girls. The points are: (our replies are underneath)

1. Patriarchal society. They insist that the only reason Jesus didn’t appoint female apostles was because of the society of the times/ no one would listen to women.
   → We tried pointing out that Jesus chose apostles that weren’t exactly ideal teachers, being poor, uneducated fishermen and all. We also pointed out that nationality, age, education, occupation, and race were both non-issues in the early church. We brought up Jeremiah and Timothy and how because they were young they were not as likely to be listened to, but they insisted on the patriarchal society. (I tried to explain why the society was patriarchal, which led to a brief discussion of the physics of battle. I know… :banghead
2. When I mentioned that Pope John Paul II officially closed the priesthood to women, one of the two specifically said, “A white, crusty, old man has no right to tell women what they can/ can’t do.” (a paraphrase, but the ‘white, crusty, old man’ part is word for word.) I didn’t make the point that the pope doesn’t make dogma, he just hands it down, (again, :banghead but I doubt it would have changed anything.
3. They insisted that when it is covered in the NT writings by Paul were his own personal opinion. They cited Corinthians. (although it looks a lot more like 1 Tim 2)

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

So in other words their claim is that- Jesus (God) had to use all male apostles because He (being God) was unable to overcome the social norms of the day. So while He (the creator of everything) had the power to raise the dead, heal the sick and the lame, walk on water, create food and wine, cast out demons, and save all mankind, He (still God) couldn’t have female apostles because His work would be defeated due to human created social norms.

Yeah…well either their argument is poorly thought out, or God was just another “old white crusty man” trying to keep womyn (that’s right, we can’t have “men” in “women”) down. I’m thinking it’s the first, but I am white, kinda old, and sometimes crusty.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

In such discussions, it’s important to delineate what the role of a “priest” is, and what makes his position unique. A priest is one who offers a sacrifice - in our case the Eucharist. He literally turns bread and wine into Flesh and Blood. He acts in the person of Christ to forgive sins. The other, non-sacramental roles of the priest - pastoral care and counseling, preaching, evangelization, administrative actions in his parish, etc., are vitally important but could be done by any layman, or laywoman. Deacons may baptize and witness marriage, and in certain extreme circumstances (such as an infant about to die), even a non-Christian (male or female), such as a doctor or nurse, can conduct a valid baptism. Non-Catholic, but Christian, baptisms and marriages are regarded as valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It is the circumstances where a priest acts in the person of Christ - the celebration of the Eucharist and the forgiving of sins - that make the priestly role unique.

Do the girls with whom you were speaking acknowledge the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? (I know you said they were Catholics, but many, sadly, don’t.) If not, they don’t acknowledge a core truth of Catholicism, so the entire role of a Catholic priest, male or female, is a sham in their eyes. There is no point in arguing further, in that case. If the belief is that it is “symbolic,” as many liberal “Catholics” hold, then the great Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor was right - “If it’s ‘symbolic,’ then I say to hell with it.” Why would someone - anyone - want to be part of a falsehood?

If they believe it is NOT symbolic, good for them and good for their souls. But in such an acknowledgement, they also must acknowledge that the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox Church, whose sacraments we regard as also valid) (and who also doesn’t accept priestesses) has the legitimate apostolic authority to conduct the Mass, and through apostolic succession, also has the duty to follow the rules passed down from Christ for the past two millennia. If you accept the authority of the Church to celebrate the Eucharist, you also have to accept the authority of the Church to set, keep, and observe its own rules.

 

[Actaeon]

So my buddy and I got into this debate with a couple of girls. The points are: (our replies are underneath)

1. Patriarchal society. They insist that the only reason Jesus didn’t appoint female apostles was because of the society of the times/ no one would listen to women.
   → We tried pointing out that Jesus chose apostles that weren’t exactly ideal teachers, being poor, uneducated fishermen and all. We also pointed out that nationality, age, education, occupation, and race were both non-issues in the early church. We brought up Jeremiah and Timothy and how because they were young they were not as likely to be listened to, but they insisted on the patriarchal society. (I tried to explain why the society was patriarchal, which led to a brief discussion of the physics of battle. I know… :banghead

A better point to bring up is that if god bent to the will of the depraved sexism of mankind rather than doing what is right, then that “god” is pathetic and unworthy of worship.

Christ, being True God, did NOT bend to societal pressure. He did what was right in appointing an only male group of apostles. The true God does not bend and hem and haw to our wills.

1. When I mentioned that Pope John Paul II officially closed the priesthood to women, one of the two specifically said, “A white, crusty, old man has no right to tell women what they can/ can’t do.” (a paraphrase, but the ‘white, crusty, old man’ part is word for word.) I didn’t make the point that the pope doesn’t make dogma, he just hands it down, (again, :banghead but I doubt it would have changed anything.

Why are they catholic if they don’t believe the pope has the authority to declare dogma?

If they aren’t catholic, then why do they care if the church allows female priests? Shouldn’t women determine on their own if they want to be a member of a church with an all male priesthood?

1. They insisted that when it is covered in the NT writings by Paul were his own personal opinion. They cited Corinthians. (although it looks a lot more like 1 Tim 2)

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

If they don’t believe in the magisterial authority of the church, and they don’t believe in the dogmatic authority of scripture, that only leaves ONE area of doctrinal authority: sacred tradition (which is decidedly for the all male priesthood). If they don’t believe in THAT authority, then why are they Christians at all?

 

[teenphilo1]

Thank you everybody!

Yesterday they emphasized the ‘I do not permit’ part of the verses. This is what they are using to insist that it is only his opinion.

@JuliaMae
I was hoping for more academic (but still free) sources. Those are harder to find.

@CaptFun
Thanks. They have a theologically liberal priest and youth minister, so that would make sense. It also seems that everyone that goes through that youth ministry program seems more liberal. (theologically and politically). I don’t know, but it could just be that part of town in general.

 

[mab23]

I didn’t read the above responses - but once you can easily see and prove that Jesus ordained only men at the last supper when he commanded them to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist “Do this in remembrance of me” you see no women there. that being said Women have a vital role in the Catholic Church thanks to many women and women saints we got Constantine Catholic and Clovis too as well as many many others!

 

[jcrichton]

So my buddy and I got into this debate with a couple of girls. The points are: (our replies are underneath)

1. Patriarchal society. They insist that the only reason Jesus didn’t appoint female apostles was because of the society of the times/ no one would listen to women.
   → We tried pointing out that Jesus chose apostles that weren’t exactly ideal teachers, being poor, uneducated fishermen and all. We also pointed out that nationality, age, education, occupation, and race were both non-issues in the early church. We brought up Jeremiah and Timothy and how because they were young they were not as likely to be listened to, but they insisted on the patriarchal society. (I tried to explain why the society was patriarchal, which led to a brief discussion of the physics of battle. I know… :banghead:#
2. When I mentioned that Pope John Paul II officially closed the priesthood to women, one of the two specifically said, “A white, crusty, old man has no right to tell women what they can/ can’t do.” #a paraphrase, but the ‘white, crusty, old man’ part is word for word.# I didn’t make the point that the pope doesn’t make dogma, he just hands it down, #again, :banghead:# but I doubt it would have changed anything.
3. They insisted that when it is covered in the NT writings by Paul were his own personal opinion. They cited Corinthians. #although it looks a lot more like 1 Tim 2#

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

Hi!

…have you explained that Jesus, being God, is not a respecter of man? Why would God fear being seen in a bad light or being rejected by the creatures He Created?

Check this passage out:

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; 50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ 52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. 59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. 60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ 61 Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you? 62 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before? 63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 ‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the outset who did not believe and who was to betray him. 65 He went on, ‘This is why I told you that no one could come to me except by the gift of the Father.’ 66 After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’ (St. John 6:48-67)

…when Jesus’ followers left (by the hundreds) did He called them back and changed His Teachings?

…since God is Eternal and exists outside of time (the Eternal I AM/I BE) would God not see the changes in society and wait till women were given “the right” to become Priests before the Word Coming in the Flesh if He wanted a “coed” Priesthood?

…suspending reason is the greatest farce ever committed by hollowood and the feminist movement… the dignity of woman does not depend upon her being called “sir” or “the man” or “by being as a man.” The dignity of the woman depends upon her value as a person Created by God, in God’s Image and Likeness…

The genetic code for both sexes have not change, would an Omniscient God not chose to make both sexes exactly the same if His Purpose was simply to Create two physiologically and psychologically equal entities?

Both factors (Creation and Christ’s Incarnation) point to the fact that God was completely aware that He had chosen man over woman to uphold the Priestly Office… did God make a mistake?

…and how do they explain that Yahweh God’s Promise was always centered upon the male child (First Born) and that His Messiah had to be the Son of David? (or would God be afraid of human rejection if He chose to become Incarnated not as a male but as a female?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

When Jesus went to spread the Gospel to the Samaritans, He did so through the l the one person in that town least likely to be listened to by anyone: the woman at the well. She was not only a woman, she was living in sin. The person lowlier than herself would have been a leper, I suppose. Yet, He didn’t say, “Show me the way into town so I can find a man to talk to.” He sent her to spread the word. And people listened and believed.

Having said that, it’s also true that being female and apostles sent out in the way Peter and the others were would have been a hugely dangerous undertaking for women. God chose His time and place to enter the world and they have a point about it being completely impractical to appoint women as apostles.

…so are you saying that the Word could not have become Incarnate in “the new equal world” where male and females are the same or counter sexed? Would that not then be tantamount to a Divine error?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You forget that to the average non-Jewish person of the time, female ‘priestesses’ and religious votaries were the norm. The Jewish people were the exception in having male priests. Had Christ rejected the Old Testament practice or made priesthood --and that is what the apostles were-- open to women, this would not have been dangerous at all in and of itself.

And let’s get real here–the faith was already being persecuted from the get go.

Can you REALLY see the apostles saying, "Yes, we will go out and speak about Jesus. We will tell the world that He is the Christ, died for us, rose from the dead. We will speak the truth that God is ONE. We will challenge the beliefs of all, Jews and Gentiles alike. BUT HEAVENS TO BETSY, we had better not DARE to speak about women as priests! Because THAT would be too much for people and they might get ANGRY with us and put us in DANGER. . .we can’t DARE to risk THAT!

LOL.

:clapping:
…specially when they were already being booted out the Jewish religious culture; how difficult would it have been for the New Covenant to include a new form of Priesthood?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yeah. It’s a Catholic school. My friend and I were planning on talking to Dr. Dre (Drey?), our theology teacher. He has a doctorate in theology, so I think he could have some insight. His name was in the acknowledgements section of our Theology book from last year, so you never know…

(just for the record, that was sarcasm. Of course he will have something good to say.)

…don’t count on it… as sad as it is too many “Catholics” have divorced themselves from the Church and have become pseudo Caths holding on to those things they think are OK while rejecting everything they view as unnecessary/too dogmatic/not applicable to “modern” times…

…as it was mentioned before: Prayer!

Ask the Holy Spirit for Protection and Guidance!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

BTW, can anyone give sources about the pagan priestesses? Please? Thanks.

…here’s an example (which could well mirror most pagan rites):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Public_priesthoods_and_religious_law
The Vestals
A Roman sculpture depicting a Vestal
The Vestals were a public priesthood of six women devoted to the cultivation of Vesta, goddess of the hearth of the Roman state and its vital flame. A girl chosen to be a Vestal achieved unique religious distinction, public status and privileges, and could exercise considerable political influence. Upon entering her office, a Vestal was emancipated from her father’s authority. In archaic Roman society, these priestesses were the only women not required to be under the legal guardianship of a man, instead answering directly to the Pontifex Maximus.[75]

Considering that Christ’s Priesthood calls for the succession through the laying of the hands (the Holy Spirit), cultural priesthood could have never influenced the early Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The Epistles make it quite plain that there were women in leadership positions within the early Church, they simply weren’t priests. This pretty much destroys the argument that the only reason Jesus didn’t was because no one would have listened to them.

I would give them simply this:

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:38-42[/BIBLEDRB]

…interestingly enough, there are several mentions of females assiting Christ and the early Church–women of status and moneys… pretty much a great opportunity to branch out so that they could get power, prestige and money!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Good point. But speaking as a woman I have no problem at all with the Pope telling me or any other woman we can’t become priests. The Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. If the Pope says women aren’t allowed in the priesthood that’s good enough for me.

And the “white, crusty old man” was one of our greatest Popes & a great saint. Hopefully someday these 2 girls will realize that.

Mary

Hi, Mary!

…here’s the huge lie: woman = man!

…all the while females are debased, used, abused, relegated to an object, promoted as psudo man, and still not treated as equal!

The Church Teaches that a woman has the very same value and dignity as man–not if she man’s up but because she was Created in the Image and Likeness of God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I second this.

I mean women priests, man nuns… Eeepp.

…what you mean I can’t be a man nun? …but what about equality!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

So in other words their claim is that- Jesus (God) had to use all male apostles because He (being God) was unable to overcome the social norms of the day. So while He (the creator of everything) had the power to raise the dead, heal the sick and the lame, walk on water, create food and wine, cast out demons, and save all mankind, He (still God) couldn’t have female apostles because His work would be defeated due to human created social norms.

Yeah…well either their argument is poorly thought out, or God was just another “old white crusty man” trying to keep womyn (that’s right, we can’t have “men” in “women”) down. I’m thinking it’s the first, but I am white, kinda old, and sometimes crusty.

…so how these girls know that you did not allow womyn into the priesthood?

:bowdown2::bowdown2::bowdown2:

Maran atha!

Angel