Woman Priesthood debate at school... help

  • Thread starter Thread starter teenphilo1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teenphilo1

Guest
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!
 
teenphilo1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The society of the time also didn’t approve of talking to Samaritans or women (see John 4), sharing meals with sinners (too numerous to list briefly), or Gentiles (again, pretty numerous, although the Centurian (Matthew 8, Luke 7) and the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15) come to mind immediately. The truth is that Jesus had no problem brooking the prevailing injustices of the day. The fact that he didn’t ‘ordain’ women, therefore, speaks more to intent than timidity.
  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.”
Click to expand...
The “white, crusty old man” only repeated the teaching that had already been in effect for 2000 years. It was the Palestinian, Jewish, 33-year-old man who made the rule – and given that he’s the Son of God, he pretty much has the right to make the rules. 😉
  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)
Click to expand...
This is the silliest argument of the lot. Paul’s prohibitions against women teachers and leaders isn’t something that the Church holds up as necessary to follow. If they did, would there be the number of women who teach CCD, read at Mass, and hold parish (and diocesan, and Vatican) adminstrative positions? That argument just doesn’t hold water…
 
teenphilo1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Julia_Mae said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.:rotfl::rotfl:
 
It might help to ask what’s their source for their argument that the Church has authority to ordain anyone at all. If they say “the Bible”, well people for whom the Bible is their only authority reject the authority of any church to ordain priests at all. If they say “the authority of Catholic Tradition” says the Church can ordain priests, then they are conceding that same Magisterium presumably would be trustworthy to decide who can be ordained. The reality is that the basis for their argument is not from Scripture or Tradition, but from the secular culture. (They may not realize that). The media does not believe any sacraments have validity at all, but uses any kind of argument to separate people from the Church.
(Of course prayer is the most effective action).
 
RoseMary131 said:
Are they Catholic girls?
Click to expand...
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.)
 
BTW, can anyone give sources about the pagan priestesses? Please? Thanks.
 
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]
 
The white, crusty old man isn’t telling women what they can’t do. He is reiterating what the Church has always held.

Nobody has any right to the priesthood. A man doesn’t gain ordination just because he wants it.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The white, crusty old man isn’t telling women what they can’t do. He is reiterating what the Church has always held.

Nobody has any right to the priesthood. A man doesn’t gain ordination just because he wants it.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
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
 
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

This is the link for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in which JPII discussed women priests (on a side note, why don’t those in the pro-ordination camp use the term “priestess” instead of women priests? It just sounds weird.). He specifically answers the patriarchal society question in part 3.

Also, if Jesus was so worried about social mores than he wouldn’t have done a lot of things, like speaking to the woman at the well, or eating with tax collectors, or touching the ritually unclean, or speak of “eating his flesh.” I’m pretty sure he wasn’t concerned with what people thought of him…
 
RCinColo60 said:
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
Click to expand...
I second this.

I mean women priests, man nuns… Eeepp.
 
teenphilo1 said:
So my buddy and I got into this debate with a couple of girls. The points are: (our replies are underneath)
  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.
  2. 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!
Click to expand...
Point out too…there a lot of women in the CC who are in leadership positions, they are not just priest.

One of the most influential women of our time was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

One or two of the reformers of the Church were women…Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila.

Some doctors of the Church are women. One of them is St. Therese of Liseux, proclaimed so the crusty old man…JPII…🙂
 
RCinColo60 said:
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
Click to expand...
Amen! 👍
 
teenphilo1 said:
  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!
Click to expand...
please ask the girls how they know which parts of the Divinely Inspired Word of God is personal human opinion and which are God’s?

Also remind them that the priest acts “in persona Christi” as bridegroom to his bride the Church. How does a woman be both bride and bridegroom?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You forget that to the average non-Jewish person of the time, female ‘priestesses’ and religious votaries were the norm.
Click to expand...
Nope, I didn’t. And they were not “the norm” but part of many, but not all, cultures. The Samaritans are an offshoot of the Hebrews and therefore not one that has female priests.
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!
Click to expand...
Your sarcasm aside, the apostles were sent out two at a time with nothing, to travel from town to town and preach. Perhaps you forgot how much banditry there was along those roads and paths. Two women alone in that culture were prime targets for physical assault of all kinds. Two women looking for someone to lodge them would be subject to attack by the householders who would, in that time, have assumed they were not worthy of respect because they were women alone, travelling about looking for free meals and lodging.

Read Ruth for more info.

The issue I addressed was not whether anyone suggested or didn’t that women be “priests.” It was that Jesus would not have appointed women as Apostles. Apostles, BTW, were not priests, in these early times. There were no priests in this early form of the Church. The Apostle became the Bishop, and it’s the Bishop who teaches the Gospel. The priest presides at table and speaks for the Bishop. Ideally.
 
teenphilo1 said:
BTW, can anyone give sources about the pagan priestesses? Please? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Learn to do your own research, then you don’t miss great resources because you only follow other’s suggestions. Google: priestess roman empire for a start
 
vsedriver said:
Also remind them that the priest acts “in persona Christi” as bridegroom to his bride the Church. How does a woman be both bride and bridegroom?
Click to expand...
Ephesians 5:22-33 compares the union of husband and wife to that of Christ and the church.

So what does having a woman acting “in persona Christi” married to her bride the Church say about the sacrament of marriage? Once you rip a ship off its mooring who knows where it will drift next?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top