Women as priests

[SpiritMeadow]

Why not? There were women among the 120 disciples who followed Him. There were four women who followed Him for the full three years. If He had so chosen, He could have ordained those four women along with the 12, and nobody would have thought anything of it - after all, He was the only Rabbi who accepted female disciples, and He was notorious for being a “Mama’s boy” and for talking to Samaritan, Gentile women, prostitutes, and others. Seriously - ordaining them to the priesthood would have been nothing - indeed, it could have been seen as a logical “next step” - yet, He never took that step.
**Well he didn’t exactly ordain anybody did he? We are all Catholics here, its more tradition and so forth that attaches the priesthood label. There are those who argue that many of the women close to Jesus were in effect apostles, but the Gospel writers just were unable to see that, being as we all are, creatures of our time. Obviously you do not agree. We disagree, thats all. **

“Downplaying the ladies?” Not exactly.

Who is the greatest of the Saints, again? (Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth.)

Today is the feast day of St. Teresa of Avila, who lived in those bad old Middle Ages - and never had a male boss during her entire career. When she was a young novice, she reported to her Mother Superior - nobody else. When she became Mother Superior of the Carmelite Order, she worked as an equal with the Bishops - she was never their servant.

I think the Catholic Church is really the only organization on earth that has always recognized the equal dignity of women.

lol…thats a very typical male argument…Look at what you have not at what you don’t have…

 

[mgrfin]

Yesterday. At Mass. A young nun is active in the ministry to deaf Catholics, and at our 9:00 AM Mass is there to sign for them. And she’s a good deal younger than the assistant pastor.

Blessings,

Gerry

I didn’t mean that there were no young nuns. There are a few, just as there are a few young priests.

The exodus from the convent started several years before the exit of priests who wanted to marry.

I remember a nun Superior telling me in 1965 that the exodus was underway, and the Order didn’t understand what was happening. Large numbers of priests didn’t start leaving until a few years later.

Also, women live longer than men, so when their priest counterparts have gone to their eternal reward, the Sisters are still out there and productive.

BTW, my experience is in no way scientific, just my narrow, personal experience.

peace

 

[japhy]

Well he didn’t exactly ordain anybody did he? We are all Catholics here, its more tradition and so forth that attaches the priesthood label. There are those who argue that many of the women close to Jesus were in effect apostles, but the Gospel writers just were unable to see that, being as we all are, creatures of our time. Obviously you do not agree. We disagree, thats all.

Excuse me. That’s the Catholic faith you’re talking about. “We are all Catholics here” and “its more tradition…” sounds to me like you’re saying that we Catholics know the ministerial priesthood wasn’t really instituted by Jesus Christ, that it’s just something we talk about as “tradition”.

If you are denying the ministerial priesthood as instituted by Jesus Christ, you’re simply wrong. This is part of the Sacred Tradition – with a capital T – that the Church professes and believes and teaches as being handed on them by the Apostles. It’s not something we made up.

The Gospel writers wrote what God the Holy Spirit directed them to write, and omitted none of what He commanded them. There were twelve Apostles, and they were all men. Mary didn’t replace Judas, Matthias did. If you don’t trust the Gospels (or their writers) to accurately portray the life of Jesus, why do you believe any of it?

 

[mgrfin]

Quote:
Well he didn’t exactly ordain anybody did he? We are all Catholics here, its more tradition and so forth that attaches the priesthood label. There are those who argue that many of the women close to Jesus were in effect apostles, but the Gospel writers just were unable to see that, being as we all are, creatures of our time. Obviously you do not agree. We disagree, thats all.
Unquote

I don’t know who is responsible for this statement in this tread, but it is obviously heretical.

All the sacraments were instituted by Christ. He ordained his apostles.

Does anyone have any difficulty with that statement about Christ ordaining his apostles?

peace

 

[maryj]

Since I don’t buy into the bride/groom explanation, then your question above is kind of irrelevant.

Concerning your conspiracy theory comment, isn’t what I said true? The Church’s hierarchy is male dominated. Again, if for no other reason, this is why you’ll never see a female priest. No, conspiracy theory, just reality.

Again, I’m not advocating female priests. OTH, I don’t have a huge problem with the concept either, but to be honest, it would take a little getting used too, if it were ever to come about. It won’t.

Yikes!!! You don’t buy into…Scripture. Wow.

 

[master_catholic]

Part I

I’m always quietly amazed at the lengths relgious people will go to try to prove to themselves and to others that their beliefs are scientific, factually accurate, historically relevant, materially demonstrable, and beyond academic dispute.

Well the fact is God is the source of ALL truth. He made the universe with it’s laws in how it behaves and interacts within itself. Truth also doesn’t contradict. Truth is in perfect harmony with God.

So the reason why we are compelled to ofer some form of scientific defense, is to show that the theological/moral truth does not conflict with scientific truth, should either realm be at a crossroads.

What religion are you that factual “proof” forms the bedrock of your faith? If the domain of your religion does not extend beyond what the world can prove, what good is it?

two words: FAITH AND REASON. Our faith isn’t merely mytholigal (myth). Facts matter to us too. We have REASONS to have faith.

Fix’s answer to this conundrum is so much more convincing–the magisterium says so, therefore I believe it. In the realm of the spirit, science provides a light, sure, but faith makes the darkness burn brighter.

Ultimately, the Chruch says so because it is what Jesus wanted, not for some frivilous reason. It’s for the sake of others who can’t understand that the Chruch would make such declarations so that people will be on the same page.

I suppose all this is the negative inheritance of the Enlightenment rearing its ugly head in the church–our religion must be scientifically reasonable.

Only to the degree it needs to in order to defend the teachings of Christ.

But it’s this sort of materialistic impulse which reduces scripture to a history textbook, the gospel to a down home “instruction manual” and leads people to believe that the search for the “historical Jesus” is somehow worthwhile outside purely theoretical or academic circles. In short, the “historical Jesus” is the comfort of the faithless. It lets us say, “I can prove it!” Which is less meaningful, ultimately, than “I can LIVE it!”

The historical Jesus and the biblical Jesus are one and the same (or should). The “historical” Jesus could be used by the faithless if they want to somehow use it to dumb down or disregard clear scriptural/church teachings. But that’s bizare, considering we’re talking about the same person.

We want to live the gospel life to be sure, but we also have to be willing to defend it intellectually against those who challenge it. That’s why we have appologetics after all

This is also the problem with the Da Vinci code theories–it makes a religion out of conjectural history (which, as some have said, is merely “fiction with footnotes”) rather than allows religion to redeem history. The historical Jesus and the Da Vinci code are ultimately children of the same worldview.

Could you clarify by what you mean by the second part of the above paragraph?

The Legends of the Saints, much like the Scriptures (though of course lacking in the authority of scripture) are not history lessons. They are spiritual texts. And they reveal something of the nature of the work of the Spirit in the world.

…I don’t agree with the above statement…

They ARE history. Scripture IS history, heck it’s HIS - story! The Stories of the Saints ARE historical, JUST NOT THE ONE YOU’VE MENTIONED, 'CAUSE IT’S A MYTH. The people mentioned in the bible and in the stories of the saints ARE REAL PEOPLE, THEY EXISTED.

Just because it may not be historically demonstrable, does that mean that the story of Francis and the wolf is untrue, that it reveals only lies and falsehoods? No. Quite the contrary.

The question to ask is, how could it be historically DEBUNKED? It can’t, so it’s open for belief, unlike the myth you’ve meantioned.

If the story of Francis and the wolf is true, then it can be historically defended, even if the evidence is small for either side to argue from. No one hasen’t said yet that it was a myth, and I’d like to hear from the Church on this (that’s what so nice about having an authoritative church that approves/disapproves evidence for saint history, it seddles things for us in that regard ).

 

[master_catholic]

Part II

Do you believe that the Assumption of Our Lady is true because it is historical, or because it is, simply, true?

Both

We have no reason to believe it didn’t happen, and since that what was found was a tomb with only rose pedels in place of the BVM’s body, we can logically conclude, and also in belief, that the BVM went to heaven body & soul. Having both scriptural evidence for the possibility, and a lack of any contrary evidence historically, it very much so must be true.

For those who don’t have understanding that’s when faith plays a very important role.

Who says a myth has to be demonstrably factual in order to be true?

ANY RATIONAL PERSON WOULD THINK THAT, Deo Volente!!!
Isn’t LOGIC one of the gifts that God gave us?!?!

Do you also confuse journalism with art? Does the nightly news carry the same resonance for you as the book of Acts? When you read the instructions on how to operate your blender, are you put in mind of Proverbs, because ultimately they have the same functional use-value to you? Does the fact that I brushed my teeth this morning mean as much or more to you as the truth that the Blessed Virgin is the Eighth Day of Creation? I would hope that the answer to all these questions is “no.”

What the heck does any of this have to do with fact verses myth?!?!?

Because a fact is not as meaningful as truth. And it’s a travesty to confuse the two.

…???

HOW IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?!?!

I’ve grown up knowing the two were in effect the same thing, if you ask me…

I’ll quote what I wrote to manulaman above:Manualman, you used the words “unsubstantiated popular myth” as if tradition is meant to reveal fact as opposed to truth, as if truth cannot be generally known, and as if a myth cannot be an expression of truth. There is, in fact, a difference between a myth, a rumor, a conjecture, and a fabrication. …A symbol … always stands in for and represents a reality which transcends it in order to allow us to interact with or comprehend that reality. So too a myth. A symbol is more real than your breakfast. A myth is more truthful (though not necessarily more factual) than the daily news.

A myth and a fabrication are the same, only one is more of a story, rumor, gossip, the other is an engineered scam to achive some desired effect.

Your real argument involves authority. I think you should take your cue from Gerry and Fix and locate your source of authority with the magisterium, and not with science. You’ll be on surer footing.

my intent with my post (that you quoted from) at the end was to demonstrate parallel logic to show the illogical reasoning in what you said earlier. I in no possible way was meaning to imply somehow that the impossibility of women’s ordination was scientificly based as well as faith based.

If authority is all we have, that’s ammunition for the anti-catholics: “see, they are brainwashed, unthinking, illogical zombies that follow an old man from rome that wears a white cap!”

I may not use science in my arguments for being against women’s ordination, but I WILL USE LOGIC, AS ANYONE SHOULD.

Science, history, literary genre have nothing to do with whether or not the Legends of the Saints are authoritative. I happen to believe that while they are not in themselves authoritative, that they nonetheless reveal to us aspects of our tradition, and insofar as they do that, they carry some authority.

But this myth shows NOTHING about our “tradition” if it ISN’T TRUE, HENCE IT’S A MYTH.

Gerry and Fix would be more likely to agree with me if the magisterium were more explicit. It is not. They don’t agree.

What do you mean excatly by having the magisterium be “more explicit”? Why do you think Gerry and Fix would agree as a result?

Still, I would imagine that they would be hard pressed to deny that the Legends had no value at all–but my argument is that the value they have derives from their relationship to tradition, and that that bears some measure of authority. But then Gerry and Fix are Roman Catholic and I’m Anglo-Catholic: we have differences regarding where we locate authority. So there you are.

The myth will have no credibility in discerning the working of church tradition if it didn’t happen. (It’s called a “MYTH” for a REASON)

Based on where you base your “authority,” Deo Volente, you could be a witch doctor for all we know.

 

[sphilomena]

When was the last time you saw a young nun? The nuns you see are just as old, if not older than their priest counter-parts.

Using nuns was a fill-in. After them, then what?

peace

You are obviously not familiar with all the orders of nuns that are bursting at the seams - Mother Angelica’s nuns, the ones who work with Fr. Groeschel’s ministry, all the orders who have returned to their habits and original charisms, and many others. You have to look in the right places!

 

[mgrfin]

You are obviously not familiar with all the orders of nuns that are bursting at the seams - Mother Angelica’s nuns, the ones who work with Fr. Groeschel’s ministry, all the orders who have returned to their habits and original charisms, and many others. You have to look in the right places!

Happy to hear it. When do they get to Long Beach?

peace

 

[sphilomena]

Happy to hear it. When do they get to Long Beach?

peace

As a matter of fact, even if you were being sarcastic there are some Carmelite nuns not far from you that are in FULL habit, just like they all used to be. They are beautiful!

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Since I don’t buy into the bride/groom explanation, then your question above is kind of irrelevant.

Concerning your conspiracy theory comment, isn’t what I said true? The Church’s hierarchy is male dominated. Again, if for no other reason, this is why you’ll never see a female priest. No, conspiracy theory, just reality.

Again, I’m not advocating female priests. OTH, I don’t have a huge problem with the concept either, but to be honest, it would take a little getting used too, if it were ever to come about. It won’t.

emphasis mine]
Hi mikew262,

Well, there is an other reason. But you choose not to buy into it.

The male dominated theory is only your choice of opinion. I accept and understand your thoughts. I just don’t agree with them. I guess our friendly discussion ends here, because we have nothing more to add. Sincere thanks for your replies; I’ll see you around in other threads.

 

[mgrfin]

As a matter of fact, even if you were being sarcastic there are some Carmelite nuns not far from you that are in FULL habit, just like they all used to be. They are beautiful!

But, are they many?

(BTW, I was not being sarcastic)

peace

 

[mikew262]

What do you mean that Christ is “in his spirit form”? This sounds like you’re a) denying a bodily resurrection, and b) confusing the Persons of the Trinity with the misconception of “modes of God”.

Why is gender irrelevant to God if He created it in the first place? Why is homosexuality called an abomination in the Bible? When we are resurrected, we will neither marry or be given in marriage… but we will still be men and women.

I’m not denying the resurrection, Christ did rise from the dead to fulfill the promise he made and to again show us the power of God. However, do you actually think the body of Jesus is sitting on a cloud somewhere? God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, are one. The are spirit in nature.

God made gender relevant to us, man. It has to be, for reproductive purposes if no other reason. As far as, whether a priest is male or female, no, IMO, it makes no difference to him. Again, IMO doing God’s work knows no gender.

When we join with God in heaven, I believe gender will be meaningless.

 

[mikew262]

When was the last time you saw a young nun? The nuns you see are just as old, if not older than their priest counter-parts.

Using nuns was a fill-in. After them, then what?

peace

Do you watch Mother Angelica? Plenty of young nuns cloistered with her.

 

[mikew262]

emphasis mine]
Hi mikew262,

Well, there is an other reason. But you choose not to buy into it.

The male dominated theory is only your choice of opinion. I accept and understand your thoughts. I just don’t agree with them. I guess our friendly discussion ends here, because we have nothing more to add. Sincere thanks for your replies; I’ll see you around in other threads.

I’ve never said my “male dominated theory” was the only explanation, but it is a possible explanation on why there are no female priests. I could be totally wrong here, but if you look at it logically, it does make some sense.

 

[mikew262]

Yikes!!! You don’t buy into…Scripture. Wow.

IMO, Scripture uses the bride/bridegroom illustration as symbols and/or metaphors to explain, thats all.

 

[japhy]

I’m not denying the resurrection, Christ did rise from the dead to fulfill the promise he made and to again show us the power of God. However, do you actually think the body of Jesus is sitting on a cloud somewhere? God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, are one. The are spirit in nature.

I do believe that Jesus Christ ascended bodily into Heaven. Whether it’s a “cloud” or not is irrelevant. In fact, it’s not just me who believes it, it’s the Catholic Church: that “Christ ascended Body and Soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father” is a de fide dogma of the Church.

If the physical (but supernatural to be sure) body of Jesus Christ is not in Heaven… where is it?

When we join with God in heaven, I believe gender will be meaningless.

The Church Fathers who have written on the topic of the resurrection disagree that gender is simply a characteristic of this life, and will be done away with in the next. I agree with them.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not denying the resurrection, Christ did rise from the dead to fulfill the promise he made and to again show us the power of God. However, do you actually think the body of Jesus is sitting on a cloud somewhere?

Jesus is physically present in Heaven.

Heaven is not up in the sky or on a cloud somewhere - the most believable theory I have heard is that it is an alternate dimension that occupies precisely the same space as ours. Jesus is walking around on the earth, in the sky, and under the earth, in His body, in the Heavenly dimension. So is Mary, and so are those who were resurrected in Jerusalem at the same time as Christ. The reason we can sometimes see angels, and people who are undergoing Purgatory (ghosts), as well as Apparitions of Mary and of Jesus from time to time, is because God, for His own reasons, sometimes causes the Heavenly dimension partially to intersect with ours.

God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, are one. The are spirit in nature.

Actually their nature is Divine - not spiritual. Their form is spiritual. In addition to HIs spiritual form, Jesus also has a physical form - His body, which He received from Mary, His mother. Jesus is physically present in Heaven.

God made gender relevant to us, man. It has to be, for reproductive purposes if no other reason.

Actually, God was not required to make us in two sexes for the purpose of reproduction - He could have caused us to reproduce like single-celled creatures, or like certain plants, that reproduce whenever they are damaged or whenever they consume too much food, rather than through sexual intercourse.

As far as, whether a priest is male or female, no, IMO, it makes no difference to him. Again, IMO doing God’s work knows no gender.

Who are you, to speak for God? I think God has made Himself abundantly clear on this issue.

With regard to the priesthood, God has never chosen female priests - not even in the days of Deborah, when the leaders of Israel were female, except for the priests.

When we join with God in heaven, I believe gender will be meaningless.

We will see when we get there. I believe that we will still be male and female, when we get there, because in their perfection, before they sinned, Adam and Eve were male and female. Eve did not become female after the Fall - she was created in God’s image and likeness, female. (Genesis 1:27)

 

[jmcrae]

lol…thats a very typical male argument…Look at what you have not at what you don’t have…

I’m female, as it turns out.

I’ll tell you a secret: I’ve got more power (defined as, the ability to accomplish my goals in freedom and with the respect of others) as a lay Catholic woman than I ever did as an Elder in a liberal Protestant church.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

IMO, Scripture uses the bride/bridegroom illustration as symbols and/or metaphors to explain, thats all.

The hidden premise here is that, because the literary form is symbolic or metaphorical, there can be no deep connection between the two concepts in the statement. This, I’d add, is a very Protestant premise, predicated on the pseudo-religious academic approach to the faith that was adopted when the first Protestants rejected the teaching authority of the Church, and replaced it with the ruminations of academics. (This led to things like “higher criticism,” and even worse things with the development of the social pseudo-sciences.)

Well, if one wants to adopt that view, one is, of course, free to. But it implicitly rejects a central tenet of the Catholic world view – the Sacramental view of creation. Now in that view, it is indeed significant that Holy Scripture uses the comparison of bride/bridegroom as symbol and metaphore, because it points to a profound similarity between the relationships in the Sacramental domain. (Remember: Protestants chucked out the Sacraments, too, so they became insensitive to this reality.)

Catholics who might see fit to reject the significance of the symbolic and metaphorical passages in Holy Scripture in the Sacramental realm would do well to reflect that, when they do so, they cease to think with the Church. Interestingly, among the severest critics of that approach was C.S. Lewis, an Anglican Ulster Protestant, who, being a highly educated man in the field of literature, saw that approach as being inappropriate from the perspective of literature itself.

Blessings,

Gerry