Women in the early church

[averheyen]

And yet, you find yourself here, and talking about it again don’t you?

Ok, this isn’t an issue of ego here.

I made a simple request for someone to refute a claim that I knew, according to the magesterium of the church, and sacred tradition is more than just a little inaccurate.

Thank you to those who have given their two cents, I appriciate it, I got what I needed. I’m not going to sit here and argue with someone’s ego. I’m unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[GailMac]

There is one woman’s model and virtue in the early Church whose excellence far exceeds all our minds can grasp and it would do us well to be “enlightened” by her example and follow her as she followed her Divine Son - Mary, the most holy mother of God.

Could we learn all she offers to those who seek her wisdom? I don’t think so, for we reach far beyond what our human minds can know in this life. Many have been made saints in following her example and she is our mother. I wonder how she would respond to the notion that she needed “liberation” or “enlightenment” to understand her true role in God’s salvivic plan…I really don’t think she would’ve given it a second thought and would have prayed for those so enthralled.

Peace,

Gail

 

[estesbob]

Of course we are more enlightened than any before us. We have the staggering benefit of all of recorded history at our beck and call to use. Every mediocre physicist today stands heads and shoulders above all but the greatest minds of the past. He simply knows more than they could. You try to make this sound superior and it is not. Perhaps you really don’t grasp this. I assumed you were being disingenuous.

take a look Bob, the Churches you speak of in Latin america, Asia and so forth are NOT gaining in Catholicism. They are departing in droves to evangelical protestant churches. So you gain nothing there.

You can claim all day long that the Church cannot chainge the doctrine, but saying so simply doesnt convince. Otherwise as I said, you wouldn’t be bothered talking about it at all.

On one hand you say we have the staggering benefit of all recorded history , on the other hand you say we should ignore it.

Its not i who says the Church cant change the doctrine-its the Church that says so. You have yet to give a reason for allowing female Priests other than your opinion it should be so. Again i ask why should we overtrun 2,000 years of teachings just because one specific culture(a culture that supports infanticide and rampant promiscouity) at one specific point in time differs with it?

 

[PerryJ]

I keep reading that we are more enlightened. Or is it we are now moral relativist? Remember the story of the Tower of Babel. People thought they were so intelligent (enlightened) they thought they could challenge God by building a tower to reach to heaven. Beware of believing one is more enlightened it often leads to self pride and moral relativism.

I find Spirit Meadow not only rejecting John Paul II statement that the Church has no authority over this area. It appears she challenges sacred scripture itself with the statement that Timothy was not Jesus. Timothy is still the inspired word of God and I do not believe it should not be disparaged. She also stated that there could have been woman in the room during the last supper. So this discussion has reached the point that we make things up to support our thoughts. I find no point in discussing a closed subject that the Bible is questioned and even changed to fit ones needs.

Spirit Meadow stated that I could follow John Paul II if I wished. So I chose to follow a Pope and great theologian, the teachings of Catholic Church and the Bible.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

On one hand you say we have the staggering benefit of all recorded history , on the other hand you say we should ignore it.

Its not i who says the Church cant change the doctrine-its the Church that says so. You have yet to give a reason for allowing female Priests other than your opinion it should be so. Again i ask why should we overtrun 2,000 years of teachings just because one specific culture(a culture that supports infanticide and rampant promiscouity) at one specific point in time differs with it?

I have answered you twice now. Either you are not reading or don’t choose to acknowledge it.

 

[estesbob]

I have answered you twice now. Either you are not reading or don’t choose to acknowledge it.

The only answer you give is they should change it because you think they should. Hardly a reason to change a 2,000 year old dioctrine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God is a Trinity. He is 3 divine persons in 1 God.

Of course, we have Unitarian Universalists who preach differently, as well as JWs who do not believe Christ is the Son of God, and we have Muslims who do not accept Christ as other than a prophet, and we have Jews who do not believe in Christ as a Messiah.

Now all the ‘discussions’ from the groups who do not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity do not make the doctrine of the Trinity "Debateable’ according to the Catholic faith, do they?

We have definitive Church teaching that the Trinity is what the Trinity is. . .that is that.

Of course, you can go all over the boards and find all sorts of discussion from Muslims and Jews, and from JWs and from UUs, that denies that doctrine.

It doesn’t mean the doctrine is ‘up for discussion’–even if many disagree. Even if we Catholics still have to come on and say, “No, I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The Trinity is Truth”.

Funny how other equally authoritative doctrines are ‘assumed’ to be ‘changeable’ simply because people come on and say, "I think we should do it’ and other people have to come on and say, “Well, you might think so but Catholic teaching says it cannot be done. . just as Catholic Teaching says the Trinity is Truth, and not Unitarian Universalism, JW, or even Muslim or Jewish belief. . .”

 

[estesbob]

God is a Trinity. He is 3 divine persons in 1 God.

Of course, we have Unitarian Universalists who preach differently, as well as JWs who do not believe Christ is the Son of God, and we have Muslims who do not accept Christ as other than a prophet, and we have Jews who do not believe in Christ as a Messiah.

Now all the ‘discussions’ from the groups who do not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity do not make the doctrine of the Trinity "Debateable’ according to the Catholic faith, do they?

We have definitive Church teaching that the Trinity is what the Trinity is. . .that is that.

Of course, you can go all over the boards and find all sorts of discussion from Muslims and Jews, and from JWs and from UUs, that denies that doctrine.

It doesn’t mean the doctrine is ‘up for discussion’–even if many disagree. Even if we Catholics still have to come on and say, “No, I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The Trinity is Truth”.

Funny how other equally authoritative doctrines are ‘assumed’ to be ‘changeable’ simply because people come on and say, "I think we should do it’ and other people have to come on and say, “Well, you might think so but Catholic teaching says it cannot be done. . just as Catholic Teaching says the Trinity is Truth, and not Unitarian Universalism, JW, or even Muslim or Jewish belief. . .”

n
Exactly. if the Church changed the Doctrine of Female Priests I would leave the Church. If they are wrong about female ordination how do i know they are not wrong about the Resurrection? I am not sure where I would go if it did happen-perhaps just abdandon my faith that their is a God.

 

[DarkNight]

The celibate male priesthood is a matter of tradition.
I have not been able to find any verse in the gospels where Jesus states women are never to be priests. I find it intriguing that many references are to “the disciples” and not specifically to “the apostles”. We do know that Jesus included women among His disciples.
And, most interestingly, the references differ between the 4 gospels.

I don’t believe a woman should be ordained a priest simply because of a sense of “equality.”
I do believe a woman should be ordained if God has called her to this vocation.

It really wouldn’t be our decision - it would be God’s plan.

Why then didn’t Jesus emphatically state that women are also to be ordained?
Why didn’t He make a woman one of “the twelve”?
Possibly 2000 years ago was not the time.
Possibly we had to grow.
Possibly there is need now.

I wouldn’t leave the Catholic church simply because it makes a change to a tradition.
Change doesn’t mean the church was wrong.
Change just might mean that finally the time is right.

Why?
Possibly because there are Catholics around the world (including the US) who have no priest.
No one to provide them access to the Eucharist, to help them move closer to God.

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Dark Night: I am going to post for you the same things which you may have missed earlier on the thread.

The discipline for celibate clergy is a discipline and can be changed.

The ordination of women to the priesthood, however, is an impossibility. Simply put (and by Pope John Paul 2 most recently, in 1994, confirming the teaching), the Church has no authority to ordain women.

This means that there absolutely, positively, can never be a ‘change’ to the teaching, anymore than we could ‘change’ the doctrine of the Trinity to make it the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four instead. It cannot be done.

No Pope has authority to ‘change’ the teaching. No clergy, no layperson. . nobody, has the authority. Since it is from God, and God does not change, God WILL NOT change the teaching, and it is useless for people to come up with putative ‘justifications’ and ‘reasons’ why.

There aren’t enough priests? Perhaps. . .although many areas are experiencing a huge growth, and there never, ever was a doctrine that declared, “The people are ‘entitled’ to have ‘enough priests’.” That there may not be enough in some areas for the people to receive weekly Mass (or even less) is tragic, but it is HARDLY a new situation and the solution is not to make 'invalid make-believe priests" to beef up the numbers, but instead, to pray for those numbers to be increased VALIDLY and with the will of God–not with the will of ‘men’.

Please: Read this. It is absolute. There is no ‘issue’; this is not open for ‘discussion’. In fact, this is not a ‘discussion’ in that you are not presenting "valid option 1’ and I ‘valid option 2’ and we ‘discuss’ which is better.

This is a frank statement of fact where you propose something that is absolutely, totally, dogmatically pronounced to be IMPOSSIBLE as ‘something possible anyway’ and I, in giving you what the CHURCH SAYS, am telling you (with respect) that you are, simply, wrong. . .what you propose can never be. It is not possible.

 

[DarkNight]

“for nothing will be impossible for God.” Luke 1:37
which is why I place my trust only in Him

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[GailMac]

Dear Dark Night - Learning to submit to the authority of the Church for some is a lifetime job. May God bless you abundantly in this regard. Until then you will be at odds with those who already have.

Peace,

Gail