J
JCismywingman
Guest
Thanks Rolltide for the information! I’ve learnt some thing new with regards to doctrine and discipline 
To 1234, let’s just agree to disagree.
To 1234, let’s just agree to disagree.
- Status
S
Scottgun
Guest
We did notice. This forum is primarily for banging the drum for authentic Catholic teaching–there’s nothing sneaky or even unseemly about that. And as expected, some people come here (even disgruntled Catholics) to hurl brickbats at it so they can skip off and retain “doctrinal purity” to the secular all-is-flux-everything-must-be-equal template. There’s only so much we can do with people who think Church teachings are merely current policy to be changed according to whatever fad blows down the pipe. We do our best, try to overlook the hostility and connect with the person, but we are not going to go into Pilate-What-is-Truth? mode to do it.
D
Dale_M
Guest
hmmm… looking at AMA’s profile, it appears s/he hasn’t been active on CAF since about 30 minutes after s/he posted her message. If so, she didn’t even see my post, which was the first one after hers.
M
m134e5
Guest
I have yet to learn of a woman who wants to be a priest because she loves God’s Church, wants to celebrate the Sacraments, and wants to guide souls through this life and into the next. All of the women I have met/read about who want to be priests are angry, domineering, power-hungry feminists who wouldn’t make good priests even if they could become priests. I have known many humble, reverent, and pious sisters and lay women who understand their role in the Church as it is. They aren’t weak and they don’t think of themselves as second-class citizens. They are strong models of faith and morality, and are among the happiest people I have ever known.
The best priests I know are devout, compassionate men who truly cherishes his bride, the Church. He cares for the faithful entrusted to his care, laying down his life for them- as Jesus did. He is a provider, protector, comforter, and- when necessary- disciplinarian. Not that women can’t do those things at all, but there is something about the father of the household doing those things that makes them different in some way. Men and women are both beautiful creations. They have separate vocations that work together to help build up our world and the Church- and we can’t do without either of them.
The best priests I know are devout, compassionate men who truly cherishes his bride, the Church. He cares for the faithful entrusted to his care, laying down his life for them- as Jesus did. He is a provider, protector, comforter, and- when necessary- disciplinarian. Not that women can’t do those things at all, but there is something about the father of the household doing those things that makes them different in some way. Men and women are both beautiful creations. They have separate vocations that work together to help build up our world and the Church- and we can’t do without either of them.
B
Brendan
Guest
If you believe so, then you are obligated to provide proof that Christ gave the Church the authority of which you speak.
Where and When did He give this authority?
A
ama1234
Guest
I appreciate the replies. Be assured that I have read the answers and truly appreciate the feedback… I think that on the issue of women being priests it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. I feel I have a better understanding of Church doctrine, though I still find myself in disagreement. However, I still would appreciate comments on why nuns do not receive the sacrament of Holy Orders?
S
scylla
Guest
Dedicating your life to Christ does not mean that you have to have Holy Orders. There are men who do the same thing, they are called Brothers…
Here is a link to an article about Brothers
If this is about power, one of the most powerful people in the Church in recent times is actually a woman, Mother Angelica, the most exalted person of humanity is a woman, the Blessed Mother, and everyone of us is here because of the life nurturing womb of a mother.
Welcome to the forums,
God Bless
Scylla
1
1234
Guest
1
1234
Guest
What planet do you live on? What century were you born in?
Your stereotyped attitudes towards women are unrelated to the RCC’s justification of male ordination. If you wish to justify the RCC’s ordination of males only, use the reasons the RCC uses, tradition and its interpretation of the NT. This “I don’t think, I only love.” went out with Victorian England.
A few facts regarding the ‘women versus the head’ thing.
More women than men now graduate from college and all advanced levels, including master’s and PhD levels.
Women now are presidents of Harvard University, Princeton University, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania, among others.
More women enter and graduate from medical school. Yes, GRADUATE from medical school. If you want to avoid an ‘emotional’ woman doctor in the future, you’re going to have trouble finding one.
Women now dominate veterinary medicine to the tune of 75% graduating. If this doesn’t sound very important, remember that vets are responsible for the safety of the nation’s meat supply; go into public health and epidemiology in large numbers; conduct research on animal vaccines and foods. Veterinary doctors perform a lot of the basic research on zoonotic diseases such as West Nile, bird flu, Ebola virus and HIV and AIDS.
Wake up and smell the coffee, buster.
M
Michael1976
Guest
“Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the College of the twelve apostles (the College of Cardinals), and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed in their ministry (apostolic succession). The College of bishops, with whom the priest are united in the priesthood, makes the college of twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice the Lord made himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church #1577).
(Catechism of the Catholic Church #1577).
T
Triciacat
Guest
My church does not ordain women, either. While I, personally, do not wish to enter the ministry, I cannot be so arrogant as to assume that God does not call other women to this greatest of vocations.
Jesus chose male apostles, which would have been in keeping with the cultural norms of the day. 2000 years ago, women apostles would not have been very well-received nor would they have been in any position to travel about and spread the Word of God.
My aunt is an Anglican priest, and an amazing one at that. In my opinion, I don’t think the issue of female priests has anything to do with equality, feminism, or any “rights”, but rather with the assumption that God does not call women to His ministry in a priestly capacity. I find such supposition incredibly disturbing.
Hold on to your hats with this next one: I was speaking recently to a priest who advised me that women in that day were unable to own property, and as the church property itself belonged to the priest, women were so excluded. So, it would appear that sociology played quite an important role in the issue. Any historians out there that can comment?
C
CarmeliteGirl25
Guest
It is best to not question the judgment of the Church. I see something seriously wrong in your statement. The Catholic Church is not man-made. It was founded by Christ–God Himself!
I fail to understand why some Catholics believe that women should be ordained. I am a woman and I don’t believe in ordained priests being women. Jesus was a MAN, and therefore, His representatives should be male. If you want to serve the Church as a woman, you should become a nun/sister or a consecrated virgin. I want to serve the Church as much as I can, so I am becoming a nun (God-willing).
I believe that you should follow your own advice about leaving judgment to God. Christ gave the Keys of Heaven to St. Peter, the first Pope saying: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” St. Peter did not ordain women to the priesthood, therefore, it is not acceptable.
And who says that women are not important in the Church? Please tell me! Jesus’ own mother, Mary, was His first apostle! He had another, as Mary Magdalene. Don’t say the Church is sexist. Jesus believed in equality for women, but they cannot become priests. I agree.
T
Triciacat
Guest
I wish to clarify my own statement above. By law, property could be inherited by women but only if there were no male heirs.
T
Triciacat
Guest
Sheesh, I should stop for the day… I’m falling asleep on myself! :yawn: What I really meant was that although there were women that travelled with Jesus and his apostles (Luke 8:1-3) appointing them apostles would, at the time, have been quite revolutionary.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Just as it is not arrogance to know that God in Christ has revealed the nature of the Eucharist as a participation in His Body and Blood in the One Sacrifice on Calvary (as opposed to variant non-Catholic claims), so it is not arrogance to know that God in Christ established the male-only priesthood, especially when His Church so instructs us. This post in an earlier discussion of the subject might help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=615012&postcount=61
So, you think that the God-Man Who changed water into wine and bread and wine into His Body and Blood would have had difficulty going against the norms of His time? Other cultures of the time were quite familiar with women priestesses, so Our Lord knowing that His Church would leave the confines of Palestine and gain members from such cultures was so confined to His own that He couldn’t go against that grain?
She is an Anglican, but she is not a priest.
It is not a supposition, but an acknowledgment of what is revealed in the fact that Christ Himself did not select women to be priests of the New Covenant and the Church is not free to select in contradiction to Christ’s own choice. These articles may help you:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a51.htm
catholic-legate.com/articles/malepriest.html
There’s no need to “hold on to our hats”, since such claims are nothing new; and I’m afraid the only hat being held on to is the one the priest is speaking through. The early Church had no such concerns since “church property” was next-to-nothing then. Further, it is an error of judgment to think that what obtains in society at large then or now would or should automatically be transferrable to the Church on principle. The Church is a supernatural society established directly by a special positive will of God with a supernatural goal and so supernatural means for that goal, and so for the particulars that lead to that goal specifically the Sacraments (in this instance the Sacrament of Holy Orders); thus the male-only priesthood is not a choice of Christ arising either from a given social order then or from an imagined need within our society now but pertains to the nature of the priesthood itself, i.e., the priesthood symbolizing the Head to the Body, the Groom to the Bride.
T
Triciacat
Guest
Dear F:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Blessings!God in Christ established the male-only priesthood, especially when His Church so instructs us. This post in an earlier discussion of the subject might help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=615012&postcount=61
Thanks for the link.
In Scripture, we read of women who traveled with the Apostles. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, also makes mention of several female servants of the day (Romans 16.) This is important, since he knows that, although they cannot be apostles given the religious laws of the day, he sees fit to acknowledge their contibutions.
So, you think that the God-Man Who changed water into wine and bread and wine into His Body and Blood would have had difficulty going against the norms of His time? Other cultures of the time were quite familiar with women priestesses, so Our Lord knowing that His Church would leave the confines of Palestine and gain members from such cultures was so confined to His own that He couldn’t go against that grain?
Absolutely not, and this is the crux of the matter–He could go against the norms of His time if He so chose. He chose not to (Psalm 135:6). Starting a cultural revolution wasn’t the priority of His days in Israel, given His few short years of teaching.
She is an Anglican, but she is not a priest.
Right. Priestess?
It is not a supposition, but an acknowledgment of what is revealed in the fact that Christ Himself did not select women to be priests of the New Covenant and the Church is not free to select in contradiction to Christ’s own choice.
The fact that Christ chose men in His day does not mean we cannot choose females in ours. He gives no Scriptural instruction on this matter.
There’s no need to “hold on to our hats”, since such claims are nothing new; and I’m afraid the only hat being held on to is the one the priest is speaking through. The early Church had no such concerns since “church property” was next-to-nothing then. The issue of property inheritance is a viable issue.Further, it is an error of judgment to think that what obtains in society at large then or now would or should automatically be transferrable to the Church on principle. The Church is a supernatural society established directly by a special positive will of God with a supernatural goal and so supernatural means for that goal, and so for the particulars that lead to that goal specifically the Sacraments (in this instance the Sacrament of Holy Orders); Jesus Christ established no “Sacrament of Holy Orders” in Scripture. thus the male-only priesthood is not a choice of Christ arising either from a given social order then or from an imagined need within our society now but pertains to the nature of the priesthood itself, i.e., the priesthood symbolizing the Head to the Body, the Groom to the Bride.
T
Triciacat
Guest
Re: Post 36:
Pardonez-moi, my last point was not that we don’t have the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but that the doctrinal specifics surrounding it were not defined by Jesus in Scripture. Regardless, Anglican priests are not recognized by the Catholic church.
Pardonez-moi, my last point was not that we don’t have the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but that the doctrinal specifics surrounding it were not defined by Jesus in Scripture. Regardless, Anglican priests are not recognized by the Catholic church.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Tricia, you seem to be reading into Paul any intimation that he thinks things should be different vis-a-vis women apostles. Such a notion is specifically contradicted by Paul himself in 1 Cor. 14:33-38 as he presents as a “commandment from the Lord” that women must be excluded from officially teaching during the divine service. Women not being Apostles was not because of the religious laws of the day but because of Our Lord’s specific choice. We clearly see from Scripture that Our Lord very often spoke and acted against the religious laws of His day - see the examples of Him not respecting the law in respect to “cleanliness” with the woman with a flow of blood and His encounters with both the woman taken in adultery and the woman at the well.
Then you are implicitly denying that Our Lord’s behavior had no lasting significance in this or any other matter.
Priestess might apply, but not as Christian usage. But why could the ancient Church not have “priestesses,” when every other religion in the world had them? The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchial as the Jews and Christians were.
What this all boils down to is a two-fold denial of something intrinsic to the Catholic Covenant. Either. . .
- The Church should discard its Bridegroom-Bride theology (given to us by Christ Himself), or …
- It should re-define what a “Bridegroom” is, allowing both male and female to play this role (after all, the lesbians do it); and thus eliminate all natural distinction between male and female in the human race, i.e., to accept “maleness” and “femaleness” as something incidental to the human person (an “accident”), and not as a dimension of nature itself.
He did by His own choice (secondly), but, firstly, by His Incarnation as Man of the male sex. Through the ordination of His chosen men, Christ procreates His Church. Christ is the Husband; the Church is the Bride. In the Mass/Divine Liturgy the Union of Husband and Bride is made manifest under the “signs” employed, fruitfully preparing for the consummation now and at the end of time when the veil is fully lifted. When the Bride approaches her Beloved in the Eucharist she says, AMEN! So Be It! This is an Oath, a sacred bond between Persons, Husband and Bride. The Husband is given and the Bride eagerly receives and engages the Groom. The Priest must be male in order to signify the Groom, Who is, after all, Male. The Church (male and female) is attired in the spiritual garments of the Bride received at Baptism, and enters into intimate communion with her Husband. (Read the Song of Songs and tell me that the Groom could just as easily be female!
)Not to be forgotten is that the Church cannot/will not err in matters of faith and morals. The constituting of the priesthood seems to those who seek a way out of the teaching to be just a matter of discipline; but it is a matter of faith and, therefore, inerrantly constituted.
Only if one thinks that the Church is not a supernatural society, but is one that was established by a rather impotent Savior on the mores of a given earlier culture.
F
FCEGM
Guest
The doctrinal specifics were defined by His actions and and by His humanity as a male (the matter of His High Priesthood). The Church is no more free to change THAT than it is to change the matter of bread and wine for the Eucharist or water for Baptism.
T
Triciacat
Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Dear F:
Dear F:
We are instructed in Scripture that we will not be of the same body in eternity (1 Corinthians 15.) Revelation also discusses the “priesthood.” John 15:35 says, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” It is our attributes, not our gender, that Scripture places emphasis upon. Love, compassion, empathy and willingness to serve, to name a few.Tricia, you seem to be reading into Paul any intimation that he thinks things should be different vis-a-vis women apostles.
It would appear he had accurately foreshadowed!
Such a notion is specifically contradicted by Paul himself in 1 Cor. 14:33-38 as he presents as a “commandment from the Lord” that women must be excluded from officially teaching during the divine service.
We need to consider these verses in the proper context concerning the ancient church. For example, attendance for women was optional so if they did attend, it would have been in a social sense as well as a religious one. Naturally, there would have been a strong inclination to visit and chat (same as now!
We clearly see from Scripture that Our Lord very often spoke and acted against the religious laws of His day - see the examples of Him not respecting the law in respect to “cleanliness” with the woman with a flow of blood and His encounters with both the woman taken in adultery and the woman at the well.
Quite the opposite. Jesus clearly and repeatedly upheld the religious and social laws of His day. Agreed, His conversations with certain women were unusual for the time, even as mentioned by the Samaritan woman herself. But, if we study what these conversations were about and note that He was giving religious instruction, we see that they were no different than those He had with men.
Then you are implicitly denying that Our Lord’s behavior had no lasting significance in this or any other matter.
No. You are implying that some of His very normal behaviors given the day MUST be required to have lasting significance.
But why could the ancient Church not have “priestesses,” when every other religion in the world had them?
Because the Jews didn’t have them. All the priests were males. Note that Paul, in his letter to the Romans (16:1,2) says:
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant at the church of Cenchrae; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.”
Phoebe was a servant in Greece. Women would have been more accepted in a religious capacity outside of Israel.
The pagans who had them (e.g. the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, Celts, etc.) were just as patriarchial as the Jews and Christians were.
They were sociologically similar (patriarchal) but religiously dissimilar. While other ancient cultures were pagan, the Jews followed Mosaic law.
What this all boils down to is a two-fold denial of something intrinsic to the Catholic Covenant. Either. . .
And where does all this lead? Well, not only does it undermine the very historicity of Jesus, Who was a man and not a woman; but it also (within the realm of Catholic Christology) implies that the risen and eternal Christ either a) no longer possesses the male human nature He did on earth or b) The human nature that He possesses now is no longer an exclusively male human nature, but is an ultra-sexual human nature that is distinct and different from the male human nature that redeemed us on the Cross. Very scary area, that.
- The Church should discard its Bridegroom-Bride theology (given to us by Christ Himself), or …
- It should re-define what a “Bridegroom” is, allowing both male and female to play this role (after all, the lesbians do it); and thus eliminate all natural distinction between male and female in the human race,
He did by His own choice (secondly), but, firstly, by His Incarnation as Man of the male sex. Through the ordination of His chosen men, Christ procreates His Church. Christ is the Husband; the Church is the Bride. In the Mass/Divine Liturgy the Union of Husband and Bride is made manifest under the “signs” employed, fruitfully preparing for the consummation now and at the end of time when the veil is fully lifted. When the Bride approaches her Beloved in the Eucharist she says, AMEN! So Be It! This is an Oath, a sacred bond between Persons, Husband and Bride. The Husband is given and the Bride eagerly receives and engages the Groom. The Priest must be male in order to signify the Groom, Who is, after all, Male. The Church (male and female) is attired in the spiritual garments of the Bride received at Baptism, and enters into intimate communion with her Husband. (Read the Song of Songs and tell me that the Groom could just as easily be female!
Not to be forgotten is that the Church cannot/will not err in matters of faith and morals. The constituting of the priesthood seems to those who seek a way out of the teaching to be just a matter of discipline; but it is a matter of faith and, therefore, inerrantly constituted.
Only if one thinks that the Church is not a supernatural society, but is one that was established by a rather impotent Savior on the mores of a given earlier culture.
- Status