Women as priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter stina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent points, Frances.

The advocates of women priests try to present themselves as people who are attempting to somehow broaden the scope of the considerations pertinent to the question. In fact, they narrow the scope, and do so to a very marked degree.

They begin with the priesthood itself. The advocates inevitably greatly downplay, or even fully ignore, the Sacramental aspect of the priesthood. It is, to them, defined merely by function – a job, not a vocation. Not being a vocation, thoughts then turn to considerations pertinent to employee rights, and the betterment of the individual, which are simply not pertinent to considerations concerning the priesthood at all.

But perhaps worst of all, once started down that road, the advocates, or certainly their leaders, tend to carry this narrowness over into virtually every aspect of the faith. If one can disregard the sacramental aspect of Holy Orders, then why not the other Sacraments, too? Matrimony is a fairly obvious target, with the concept of divorce being thrust onto the table. And beyond the seven Sacraments, the whole Sacramental view of the universe is chucked. Nothing points to anything beyond itself to something greater. What a bleak, horrible world they would have us inhabit!

There is good news, though. These misguided guides have lost so much that it is getting nothing but harder for them to get a hearing. They are no longer able to pose as brave new pioneers; they are the same-old, same-old whiners and complainers who can only get any attention by attacking the Church which they claim (who do they think they are kidding?) to love. The spectacles that they generate when they gather on boats to mock the Sacrament of Holy Orders get more and more ridiculous, with one commentator describing a recent one as resembling a lesbian hallowe’en party. They have not prevailed. The Church has.

As long as our Holy Mother continues to provide her children with such an incredibly vast vista when showing them what God has created, these narrowers will not prevail. Sadly though, they can do, and have done, much harm to the souls of some of the faithful, and to their own.

By the way, did you know that the audio lecture that is based on your quote from Peter Kreeft (of whom I’m a huge fan) is on line at his web site? It is one of the most concise, comprehensive, and cogent summaries of why (in his words) “only boys can be the daddies.” And, Catholic gentleman that he is, he also includes compelling demonstrations on why a male priesthood is absolutely not a slight to women at all. I’d recommend it to all.

Blessings,

Gerry
Such wisdom and insight. Your mind-reading skills are superb as well. :yawn:

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s deserved. You may not agree with proponents of female priests (I’m not pushing the idea, but I have no big opposition to it either), but it’s very obvious you are talking down to them and trying to show how stupid they are. This may not be intentional on your part, but your feelings and disdain are coming across loud and clear.
 
I love nuns! Especially Carmelites.

Maybe I can send my wife to the nunnery and join the Franciscans;) As much as I feel called to be a priest I don’t see that ever happening. Or maybe I can join the Carmelites and become a nun. Let’s not genderize things now. Can’t have that.

Ever seen Darma and Greg? Funny stuff, but it says it all. That’s where this idea comes from. Hippy stuff in my opinion. Not rooted in vocation but constantly going against the grain. Shock culture. This has nothing to do with “seeking” God’s will, rather it’s self promotion. But people think they are called to be homosexual too.😊 It’s a selfish pursuit to prove women are equal or can do it as good or better as men. Coming froma single parent family has made me more sensative to women being marginalized in society, however, even my mother would have a problem with this and she’s not Catholic. In fact, many Protestants laugh at us over this issue. I’ll never get it:shrug:
 
Such wisdom and insight. Your mind-reading skills are superb as well. :yawn:

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s deserved. You may not agree with proponents of female priests (I’m not pushing the idea, but I have no big opposition to it either), but it’s very obvious you are talking down to them and trying to show how stupid they are. This may not be intentional on your part, but your feelings and disdain are coming across loud and clear.
I defend Gerry Hunter’s comments.

Perhaps they are stupid, mikew262. They are wasting their time going against the rock. I oftentimes feel amused when liberals always hope that the Church will capitulate to their whims. If Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail, then who is anyone to suceed?

Intentional or not, people will be “offended” by any or every defense given towards the truth. “Offending” people may be unavoidable, just by simply disagreeing with them or disproving them.

If you can go either way on the issue of women’s ordination, then why don’t you just argue why the chuch should think that way, rather than just throwing mud which doesn’t offer any logical value to the discussion.

Note: I have been reading the thread, so it’s not like you haven’t done that already. 😉
 
Such wisdom and insight. Your mind-reading skills are superb as well. :yawn:

Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s deserved. You may not agree with proponents of female priests (I’m not pushing the idea, but I have no big opposition to it either), but it’s very obvious you are talking down to them and trying to show how stupid they are. This may not be intentional on your part, but your feelings and disdain are coming across loud and clear.
Quite apart from my “mindreading” skills, yours don’t exist.

Disdain? No. Anyone who advocates for women priests, and says it is the Catholic thing to do, and that they are faithful Catholics for doing so are enemies of the Faith and the Church barely less dangerous than the devil from hell. He is known to be the father of lies. Some of these folks have an advantage over him when it comes to the capacity to deceive, and they have pressed it.

Disdain is far, far too mild a term for what I harbour for enemies such as these of the Faith and the Church. I am willing to show agape love to the enemies of the Faith and the Church, pray for them, and come to their aid should they ever ask or an opportunity presents. But I certainly have no intention of pretending that they are my friends.

Blessings,

Gerry

PS: As for your own ad hominem attack, I note you took exception to none of the content.
 
Guess what, I found a website for the Carmelites in Alhambra, the place I was thinking of. Don’t know how far that is from Long Beach, but I saw them at a conference in Southern Ca one time. Check out the photos and you’ll see the beautiful nuns in their habits.

members.aol.com/teresacarm/
Carmel of St. Teresa, Alhambra, Los Angeles, California, USA
Thank you for the reference. Long Beach is not far from Alhambra. I also am familar with the Order since they had a monastery nearby by home in Brooklyn.

I think you have the wrong idea. I most respectful for this religious order. Their constant prayer and worship is a wonderful work.

The question is regarding religious vocations for the Sisterhood. They have experienced substantial declines in their numbers over the years. I didn’t see anything on the website to disabuse me of my point.

The numbers are far less than what they were in the 60’s and 70’s, and many of those remaining are elderly.

That is not a criticism. It is a point of fact.

peace
 
Quite apart from my “mindreading” skills, yours don’t exist.

Disdain? No. Anyone who advocates for women priests, and says it is the Catholic thing to do, and that they are faithful Catholics for doing so are enemies of the Faith and the Church barely less dangerous than the devil from hell. He is known to be the father of lies. Some of these folks have an advantage over him when it comes to the capacity to deceive, and they have pressed it.

Disdain is far, far too mild a term for what I harbour for enemies such as these of the Faith and the Church. I am willing to show agape love to the enemies of the Faith and the Church, pray for them, and come to their aid should they ever ask or an opportunity presents. But I certainly have no intention of pretending that they are my friends.

Blessings,

Gerry

PS: As for your own ad hominem attack, I note you took exception to none of the content.
Well, I don’t want to get into “peeing” contest with you. However, calling folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine a enemy of the faith and similar to the devil from hell is going overboard IMO. Misguided, maybe, what you said, no I don’t think so. A little too dramatic for me.

I do apologize for coming on a little strong in my previous post, but I get so sick and tired of some posters on this board berating and dissing other folks who may question some Church teaching. If you want to disagree, fine, but everybody should try to leave the condescending attitudes and berating out, including me.
 
Well, I don’t want to get into “peeing” contest with you. However, calling folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine a enemy of the faith and similar to the devil from hell is going overboard IMO. Misguided, maybe, what you said, no I don’t think so. A little too dramatic for me.
“Folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine” from a Church that has a duty to proclaim and explore the Faith, but no power to change it are, if they know what they are doing (and they certainly seem to), attacking the Church in a fundamental and profound way. Protestants are the ones who claim to have the power to change the deposit of the faith, not Catholics. And the male priesthood is an attribute of a Sacrament, not a disciplinary matter. It has been declared to be de fide – of the Faith – and therefore to suggest a change to it is to revolt against, and attack, the Church.

Misguided and overboard my left foot! I would have much more respect for these people if they were honest about presenting themselves as people who are in revolt from the Church than being their loyal children. With the clarity of the declarations on the matter by the Nagisterium, they have no basis for staking out such a dishonest and preposterous position as that of some kind of reformer, or loyal “dissenter.”
I do apologize for coming on a little strong in my previous post, but I get so sick and tired of some posters on this board berating and dissing other folks who may question some Church teaching. If you want to disagree, fine, but everybody should try to leave the condescending attitudes and berating out, including me.
There is only one valid way for a Catholic to “question” a de fide teaching of the Church, and that is in the form, “I do not understand but I do, and will, obey, with the help of God’s grace.” The folks who would change the deposit of the faith do not take anything like that approach. And if they do ridiculous things in the process of their revolt, then one does them no service by going “oooh, aaah” over their antics.

Ever hear of “tough love”?

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry,

I agree completely with you on this. It basically falls down to the issue that I raised in another thread that Catholics have been Protestantized to believe they can make God in the image they are willing to accept instead of looking at themselves and ask the question what can I do to make myself in the image of God.

Fellow Catholics, God is immutable. He will not change for you and he cannot change for you. If you want to pick and choose what you will believe and what you will not out of the list of Dogma then there really is no help for you.

THE CHURCH CANNOT ALLOW WOMEN TO BE PRIESTS PERIOD! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY! IF IT DOES THEN THE CHURCH WILL CEASE TO BE THE CHURCH AND BECOME ANOTHER ECCLEASTICAL COMMUNITY ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE PROTESTANTS.
 
Dr. Peter Kreeft put it most succinctly.

“The issue today is not whether the church will have priestesses. She won’t. The only open issue today is whether the would-be priestesses will have the church. The issue is not theoretical but practical. It is a test of everyone’s loyalty to the church, and therefore to Christ.”

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Dr. Peter Kreeft put it most succinctly.

“The issue today is not whether the church will have priestesses. She won’t. The only open issue today is whether the would-be priestesses will have the church. The issue is not theoretical but practical. It is a test of everyone’s loyalty to the church, and therefore to Christ.”

Blessings,

Gerry
Cool, I like that.
 
“Folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine” from a Church that has a duty to proclaim and explore the Faith, but no power to change it are, if they know what they are doing (and they certainly seem to), attacking the Church in a fundamental and profound way. Protestants are the ones who claim to have the power to change the deposit of the faith, not Catholics. And the male priesthood is an attribute of a Sacrament, not a disciplinary matter. It has been declared to be de fide – of the Faith – and therefore to suggest a change to it is to revolt against, and attack, the Church.

Misguided and overboard my left foot! I would have much more respect for these people if they were honest about presenting themselves as people who are in revolt from the Church than being their loyal children. With the clarity of the declarations on the matter by the Nagisterium, they have no basis for staking out such a dishonest and preposterous position as that of some kind of reformer, or loyal “dissenter.”

There is only one valid way for a Catholic to “question” a de fide teaching of the Church, and that is in the form, “I do not understand but I do, and will, obey, with the help of God’s grace.” The folks who would change the deposit of the faith do not take anything like that approach. And if they do ridiculous things in the process of their revolt, then one does them no service by going “oooh, aaah” over their antics.

Ever hear of “tough love”?

Blessings,

Gerry
Gerry,

I agree completely with you on this. It basically falls down to the issue that I raised in another thread that Catholics have been Protestantized to believe they can make God in the image they are willing to accept instead of looking at themselves and ask the question what can I do to make myself in the image of God.

Fellow Catholics, God is immutable. He will not change for you and he cannot change for you. If you want to pick and choose what you will believe and what you will not out of the list of Dogma then there really is no help for you.

THE CHURCH CANNOT ALLOW WOMEN TO BE PRIESTS PERIOD! IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY! IF IT DOES THEN THE CHURCH WILL CEASE TO BE THE CHURCH AND BECOME ANOTHER ECCLEASTICAL COMMUNITY ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE PROTESTANTS.
I agree with both of you guys. Awsome posts! 👍
 
“Folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine” from a Church that has a duty to proclaim and explore the Faith, but no power to change it are, if they know what they are doing (and they certainly seem to), attacking the Church in a fundamental and profound way. Protestants are the ones who claim to have the power to change the deposit of the faith, not Catholics. And the male priesthood is an attribute of a Sacrament, not a disciplinary matter. It has been declared to be de fide – of the Faith – and therefore to suggest a change to it is to revolt against, and attack, the Church.

Misguided and overboard my left foot! I would have much more respect for these people if they were honest about presenting themselves as people who are in revolt from the Church than being their loyal children. With the clarity of the declarations on the matter by the Nagisterium, they have no basis for staking out such a dishonest and preposterous position as that of some kind of reformer, or loyal “dissenter.”

There is only one valid way for a Catholic to “question” a de fide teaching of the Church, and that is in the form, “I do not understand but I do, and will, obey, with the help of God’s grace.” The folks who would change the deposit of the faith do not take anything like that approach. And if they do ridiculous things in the process of their revolt, then one does them no service by going “oooh, aaah” over their antics.

Ever hear of “tough love”?

Blessings,

Gerry
Well, I don’t agree with your approach. It’s not the way I would handle it, and it’s rather counter-productive IMO. Hostile attitudes never solved anything. No wonder the Church is “leaking” people.

IMO, the vast majority of Catholics do not agree with one doctrine or another. I am one of those. If you don’t see with that, then your head is in the sand. However, guess what, they (and I) still consider themselves Catholics and go to Church, and its not up to you or anybody else to judge them differently. IMO, I see nothing wrong with questioning and if there is too much doctrine you don’t agree with and can’t live with, then let your conscience be your guide and seek God elsewhere.

IMO, there are plenty of non-catholic Christians (and possibly non-Christians) who will get to heaven before many a Catholic and I’m not including you or the other posters who have agreed with you. No doubt, you all are fine God fearing devout Catholics who do your best to follow the Church’s teachings. I applaud you for it. However, to take this non-flexible stern attitude towards fellow Catholics who dare to question one doctrine or another to me is just wrong.

If you try to honestly and respectfully educate somebody on why you think they are in error and they don’t listen, then it becomes an issue between them and God.
 
I’d rather have the Church ‘leak’ people than have it be falsely ‘inflated’, though naturally I would certainly prefer that people have enough faith in God’s love and trust themselves to HIS strength (instead of trying to do it themselves and then failing because they DON’T trust in Him) in the first place.

Sadly, the ‘leakers’ are those who aren’t willing to trust God instead of themselves. We can only pray that there remain enough of the ‘faithful ones who stay’ who will work with God to inspire those ‘leakers’ to come back on ship and TRUST IN HIM.
 
I’d rather have the Church ‘leak’ people than have it be falsely ‘inflated’, though naturally I would certainly prefer that people have enough faith in God’s love and trust themselves to HIS strength (instead of trying to do it themselves and then failing because they DON’T trust in Him) in the first place.

Sadly, the ‘leakers’ are those who aren’t willing to trust God instead of themselves. We can only pray that there remain enough of the ‘faithful ones who stay’ who will work with God to inspire those ‘leakers’ to come back on ship and TRUST IN HIM.
Oh, I don’t think it’s an issue of trusting God, it’s trusting the Church. While I anticipate the response to this, at times I don’t think they are the same. I think history (past and recent) bears that out.
 
Oh, I don’t think it’s an issue of trusting God, it’s trusting the Church. While I anticipate the response to this, at times I don’t think they are the same. I think history (past and recent) bears that out.
Then find a “church” you can trust. One that matches everything you think should be the truth.
 
Well, I don’t agree with your approach. It’s not the way I would handle it, and it’s rather counter-productive IMO. Hostile attitudes never solved anything. No wonder the Church is “leaking” people.
So then, we are to go “Aaawww” when people attack the Church, even after she has taken pains to make her teachings, their basis, and their meanings, clear? If you are looking for hostile attitudes, look no further than the people who are attacking the church.

As for “leaking” people, well, what else is new? That started, effectively, when most of Our Lord’s followers left him when they learned they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. He didn’t soft peddle the matter when people found it hard. Neither should his Church, of which he is the head, when it comes to that, or any other Sacrament, she has been given.
IMO, the vast majority of Catholics do not agree with one doctrine or another. I am one of those. If you don’t see with that, then your head is in the sand. However, guess what, they (and I) still consider themselves Catholics and go to Church, and its not up to you or anybody else to judge them differently. IMO, I see nothing wrong with questioning and if there is too much doctrine you don’t agree with and can’t live with, then let your conscience be your guide and seek God elsewhere.
Since when does truth have anything to do with a majority vote? Some sects may decide matters of faith and morals that way, but the Catholic Church refers to the Deposit of the Faith that she has been given to share and guard. Nor does she hold that the individual conscience determines truth, or what truth it will and will not accept. None of this, not a word, is consonant with Catholic thought and teaching.
IMO, there are plenty of non-catholic Christians (and possibly non-Christians) who will get to heaven before many a Catholic and I’m not including you or the other posters who have agreed with you. No doubt, you all are fine God fearing devout Catholics who do your best to follow the Church’s teachings. I applaud you for it. However, to take this non-flexible stern attitude towards fellow Catholics who dare to question one doctrine or another to me is just wrong.
De fide means “of the faith.” To not accept a de fide doctrine is not to accept the faith. Picking and choosing is not an option. And there is no judgement here. There is, though, discernment, predicated on observing their pronouncements and their actions.
If you try to honestly and respectfully educate somebody on why you think they are in error and they don’t listen, then it becomes an issue between them and God.
No, it becomes an issue between them, and God, and the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. There’s a rumour going around that whether or not someone is a Catholic is a matter between them and God. (Some anti-life politicians in North America, who claim to be Catholic, make this claim.) Do not beleive it; it’s absolute nonsense. The Church has binding and loosing authority, given to her by her founder. She has a say in who is, and who is not, in full communion with her. One cannot approach the Church and say, “I took it up with God, and we decided I’m a Catholic,” and insist that the Church accept this as fiat. She need not, and she will not.

Much of the thought behind the points presented is absolutely foreign to Catholic thought. It cannot be responded to, for that reason, as if it were a matter of a difference of opinion between faithful Catholics, on a matter (and this is important) that is not a de fide doctrine.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Then find a “church” you can trust. One that matches everything you think should be the truth.
I’ll stay Catholic, if thats alright with you. IMO, while the Church has it’s share of problems/issues, it’s probably the closest to what God had in mind.
 
I know this is a pretty general topic, but whenever I’m asked by a Protestant why we don’t let women be priests, I tend to freeze cause I don’t really know. Could someone give me a quick, simple outline of the reasons?
You might tell those who inquire that, for us, the discussion is closed (per Pope JP II). Since the Church has no history of such (no validation for it in Scripture or Tradition), it’s a closed topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top