A
averheyen
Guest
You seem really bitter toward the whole “women can’t be priests” issue. Why is that?
- Status
M
Mintaka
Guest
If Jesus had meant women to be priests, why didn’t he tell his mother Mary to take over leadership of His Passover feast in Jerusalem?
The blessings were always given at the Passover feast by the head of the household, which meant the oldest male of the family that ran the household. So if we’re getting rid of the male thing, the Virgin Mary’s obviously the head of the household. Instead of baking the unleavened bread, she should be breaking it and saying the blessing over the cup.
Oh, wait. That wouldn’t work.
Women were very important in the early Church, just as they are very important in today’s Church. Whether it’s influence or working our fingers to the bone, we’re there! But we’re not priests, and we’ve never been priests.
(Unless you count the heretical sects that did all the weird stuff, like worshipping Mary as God and milk as the most sacred fluid, which led them to be eating bread and cheese for Communion. And yes, there was a pagan Middle Eastern religious reason for all that. Usually is, in the weird heretical sects. The boring heretical sects did other stuff…)
What you want to look into are the canonesses. They rocked! They were lay women who (originally) helped out the deaconesses with good deeds, but also promised to keep the liturgical hours. (Like the male canons did.) They could leave off being canonesses to get married, whenever they wanted.
Originally, some lived at home and others in community together; but they all worshipped together as a community. Anyway, there they were, out doing good deeds. They founded the first hospitals. They taught women to read and sing and gave them liberal educations, throughout the Middle Ages. Canonesses only became conventional-type nuns and sisters in the 19th century.
They were hugely important in the German side of Europe and the Holy Roman Empire, but don’t get much notice in English language histories. Which is annoying, because they did so much!
The blessings were always given at the Passover feast by the head of the household, which meant the oldest male of the family that ran the household. So if we’re getting rid of the male thing, the Virgin Mary’s obviously the head of the household. Instead of baking the unleavened bread, she should be breaking it and saying the blessing over the cup.
Oh, wait. That wouldn’t work.
Women were very important in the early Church, just as they are very important in today’s Church. Whether it’s influence or working our fingers to the bone, we’re there! But we’re not priests, and we’ve never been priests.
(Unless you count the heretical sects that did all the weird stuff, like worshipping Mary as God and milk as the most sacred fluid, which led them to be eating bread and cheese for Communion. And yes, there was a pagan Middle Eastern religious reason for all that. Usually is, in the weird heretical sects. The boring heretical sects did other stuff…)
What you want to look into are the canonesses. They rocked! They were lay women who (originally) helped out the deaconesses with good deeds, but also promised to keep the liturgical hours. (Like the male canons did.) They could leave off being canonesses to get married, whenever they wanted.
Originally, some lived at home and others in community together; but they all worshipped together as a community. Anyway, there they were, out doing good deeds. They founded the first hospitals. They taught women to read and sing and gave them liberal educations, throughout the Middle Ages. Canonesses only became conventional-type nuns and sisters in the 19th century.
They were hugely important in the German side of Europe and the Holy Roman Empire, but don’t get much notice in English language histories. Which is annoying, because they did so much!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Women in the early church.
Why, yes, they were there. Men too.
Women having duties in the church. Why yes they did. Men too.
But. . .women ever having duties as a priest in the Church.
Nope. Didn’t happen.
Because: The Church has no authority to ordain women.
The Church likewise has no authority to consecrate pizza and beer instead of bread and wine.
Why not? Pizza is bread (partly). Beer and wine are both alcoholic beverages.
But: Christ gave us bread and wine at the Last Supper (which is re-presented, not re-sacrificed, in every Mass).
Christ gave us male apostles. This is clear in Scripture and it is clear in Tradition (the ‘oral’ part of the teaching); both are from the Holy Spirit and neither contradicts the other–together they bring fullness.
Please check my sig for the relevant, authentic, “Roma locuta est” from John Paul II who, because of the ‘modernists’ and the Protestant mistake of ‘female priests’, re-iterated the teaching. Note that it is ‘re-iterated’. It is not something that we ‘made up’ to ‘stop things.’ It is, was, and has been a teaching, and understood to be that teaching, and carried out as that teaching, since the time of the apostles.
Why, yes, they were there. Men too.
Women having duties in the church. Why yes they did. Men too.
But. . .women ever having duties as a priest in the Church.
Nope. Didn’t happen.
Because: The Church has no authority to ordain women.
The Church likewise has no authority to consecrate pizza and beer instead of bread and wine.
Why not? Pizza is bread (partly). Beer and wine are both alcoholic beverages.
But: Christ gave us bread and wine at the Last Supper (which is re-presented, not re-sacrificed, in every Mass).
Christ gave us male apostles. This is clear in Scripture and it is clear in Tradition (the ‘oral’ part of the teaching); both are from the Holy Spirit and neither contradicts the other–together they bring fullness.
Please check my sig for the relevant, authentic, “Roma locuta est” from John Paul II who, because of the ‘modernists’ and the Protestant mistake of ‘female priests’, re-iterated the teaching. Note that it is ‘re-iterated’. It is not something that we ‘made up’ to ‘stop things.’ It is, was, and has been a teaching, and understood to be that teaching, and carried out as that teaching, since the time of the apostles.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Then you know something the Vatican doesn’t. There is absolutely no statement in the Last Supper discourse that prohibits women from the priesthood.
YOu know very well what I meant. The church changes its mind on various things in light of new information. You can call it whatever you wish. To ignore facts because it bumps up against something you have held as truth is seldom a wise course. Given Benedict’s strong educational credentials, I am doubtful the Church would argue that such material should be “refuted” without careful and full examination.
Yep he sure did, and the conversation continues as it will no doubt. It is not a severe issue with me, but I decry the idea that one should simply stick one’s head in the sand. Papal pronoucements that they don’t want to deal with any particular issue has not worked yet.
{QUOTE]
Am I misunderstanding your point? Woman are cleary very important in the early Church just as they are now. They can not be preist as defined by Christ in the Bible.
Please show the exact place in the bible wherein Jesus said that women could not be in positions of teaching and preaching. Again, the Vatican has admitted otherwise.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
JPII Is not Jesus. i said Jesus never made any statement in the Gospels rejecting women as preachers. JPII and the magisterium quote from various parts and extrapolate from that that there is no express granting of such right. They then rely on Church tradition to seal the deal.
Someone else said women were held in “too much esteem” to allow them to be priests. Don’t put words in my mouth.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
you raise a strawman argument to deflect the discussion. It’s quite common when there is no actual logical retort. I am not bitter, have no desire to be a priest and actually don’t care about the entire issue much at all. I only decry the willingness to reject out of hand evidence that requires examination. Such head in the sand responses is not simply demeaning to the Church as well as scholarship.
So why have you no argument but ad hominem attack?
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You make no argument at all when you bottom out with “the Church has no authority to ordain priests.” She has the authority to state she won’t and “can’t” so I guess she has the authority to rule on the issue. To say that women never preached in the early church is probably something you have absolutely no evidence to prove with. you can’t do it backwards. The church says thus so therefore it never happened before. That’s about as illogical as argument can get.
It has not been a teaching since the time of the apostles. Since you apparently have no interest in looking at the evidence, I guess you will never know that.
E
estesbob
Guest
Why should the Church allow women to be Priests?
B
bullfrog543
Guest
equality my friend women have such things that are called equal right in a job force it is illegal to segeraget race religion or sex. bsaic discriminitory the church needs to get their noses out of the stone age those prideful people tend to forget what it did to satan
P
PerryJ
Guest
First I still do not see a limitation to woman just a difference in roles.
I disagree that the story of the Last Supper does not show that men are to be priest. If God is all knowing and wanted female priest why did he not have a female present when the defining moment of the Eucharist took place? As he is all knowing would he have not know that if he did not chose a female that the course of history would have created the environment that they would not be chosen later?
The Bible also states in 1 Tim 2: 11-14 that woman can not teach or have authority over a man.
Most improtatnly I will defer to Pope John Paul II and follow his teachings. “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgement that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely discplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my mininstry of confirming the brethen (cf. Luke 22:32) I delcare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordniation on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordination Sacerdotalis 4)
I disagree that the story of the Last Supper does not show that men are to be priest. If God is all knowing and wanted female priest why did he not have a female present when the defining moment of the Eucharist took place? As he is all knowing would he have not know that if he did not chose a female that the course of history would have created the environment that they would not be chosen later?
The Bible also states in 1 Tim 2: 11-14 that woman can not teach or have authority over a man.
Most improtatnly I will defer to Pope John Paul II and follow his teachings. “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgement that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely discplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my mininstry of confirming the brethen (cf. Luke 22:32) I delcare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordniation on women and this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordination Sacerdotalis 4)
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Oh that is harder for me to answer since I have no such inclinations myself, and frankly can’t say I’ve ever spoken directly to any woman who has. But I assume it is because women are similar to men in that some yearn to preach God’s word. They feel that they have something of value to add. They think that the more voices speak the fuller picture we get. because it is fair. Because God is fair. Because it is just, Because God is just. Because men and women are equally made in God’s image, and each reflects God to the same degree. Things like that.
Because there is no biblical prohibition for it. Because we have moved forward from a time when women were second class and held aside under the Pauline philosophy.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
There is no information that women were not present in the room. Jesus, throughout his ministry made it clear that he regarded women in a much different way than was normative or acceptable. It is most arguable that women preached–Mary magdalen was the first to preach the risen Lord. The woman at the well, went and preached to her neighbors that she had met the One. It is certainly not the fault of Jesus that later writers could not grasp the depth of his meaning.
As I have said, Timothy was not Jesus and letters are poor subjects for stating God’s dictates often.
You are of course free to follow JPII on this issue if you wish.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yet nothing you say above explains why the Church should overturn 2,000 years of teachings and tradition to ordain women. Women dont need to be Priests to be equal to men. Women dont need to be Priests to preach the word. You preach God’s word here every day yet are not a Priest.
I think this is an issue that takes up way to much time and effort over somethg that simply is not going to change.
E
estesbob
Guest
I dont beleive we ar free not to.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think that you have mistaken ideas, Spirithound.
What part of “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” are you having trouble comprehending?
What part of “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” are you having trouble comprehending?
A
averheyen
Guest
That had nothing to do with any sort of attack. It was an honest question.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
If you are not persuaded than what more can be said. Some find it more than persuasive. The church I suspect finds it difficult as it always does that it has erred. It may never change. Youre arguments are similar to those given by other men regarding other issues wherein men and women have traditionally been treated unequally. Women don’t generally accept them. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. I don’t know how you can assume that you know what women “don’t need”. No woman can speak for all women on this. Obviously no man needs to be a priest to preach the word, but some do, and they are allowed. Women are nnot.
Given the reasons given by the Church, it is unlikely that much as they may want it to go away, it will not in all likelihood. I too find many other issues of social justice more important than this one.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
perhaps, perhaps not
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
This claim is always leveled by someone at some point. It is a strawman. I have said absolutely nothing that indicates any hostility or anger. I have nothing to be angry about. You raise it to deflect the conversation away from facts to emotions.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is interesting that you bristle (rightly) at the suggestion men are superior to women but embrace fully the idea that we are superior to everyone in the Church that went before us in the last 2,000 years.
- Status