Women in the Priesthood

[tee_eff_em]

Again, permission for married male priests, as there were in the early Church, would solve that problem.

Well, not necessarily – Though of course a priesthood of married men is within the realm of possibility, whereas priestesses are not.

If I may repeat my question to [user]tonyrey[/user]:

It is false to state that it is the only reason why I believe women should be admitted to the priesthood. The main reason is because I believe human sexuality is irrelevant to the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Why do you believe this? Who has taught you this?

tee

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If women were ordained, I would not attend a Catholic church.

If women were ordained, it wouldn’t be a Catholic Church.

It has also to do with matter. You need water to baptise, you can’t use perfume or any other liquid. You need bread made from wheat and wine made from grapes for the Eucharist. You can’t have rice cakes and saki, or barley cakes and beer.

For a valid priesthood you need a man.

 

[dmar198]

there is opposition to the very idea of women priests due to the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many people, especially men.

What a sexist comment – as if men are more prejudiced than women. You are assuming, without proof, that the opposition to priestesses is due to prejudice, now or two-thousand years ago. You have no evidence to support this.

I don’t claim to be infallible but your dogmatic statements suggests that you do.

If I were infallible, I wouldn’t worry about proving this from Scripture or from Church teaching, because I could simply assert it and be done. I quote from these things to prove that the infallible Catholic Church has already decided on the issue. Then, the question is not whether the Church will accept your opinion, but whether the you will accept the Church’s decision.

It is false to state that [a woman’s sanctity and faithfulness] is the only reason why I believe women should be admitted to the priesthood.

You brought them up as evidence that women are called to the priesthood. I can only conclude that you think they are relevant.

I believe human sexuality is irrelevant to the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even if that were true, it would be insufficient reason because priests do not only consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ. They are the representatives of God’s quest for His bride, the Church – as such, priests must represent a bridegroom, and a woman cannot do so.

You are implying that God could not have chosen to come on earth as a women! You are also implying that maleness is a supernatural quality. Do you regard God or the angels as male and female?

We don’t know enough about the angels to decide, but we do know that God has revealed Himself in masculinity and His Church in femininity: the dual-sexuality of mankind is created in the image of God because women are suitable counterparts to men, just as the Church is a suitable counterpart to Christ. This is the explicit teaching of Eph. 5:31-32, and it is the image that Scripture uses most often to represent our relationship to God – it is found symbolized from Genesis to Canticles to Revelation, and it is made explicit by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, St. John and St. Paul. If that is the image that God Himself uses, then it is the image that we must accept – God is a bridegroom in a quest for His bride the Church, and a woman cannot properly represent this quest.

The masculine-feminine complementarity between God and His Church is symbolic not factual.

If God’s masculinity is not based in reality, then our Lord is as much a Goddess as He is a God. But the heresy of this position is obvious.
The factual, explicit teaching of Scripture, is that mankind is made in the image of God in its dual-sexuality – God’s masculinity (and the Church’s correspondent femininity) is therefore factual. To deny it is to deny the reality of why Scripture tells us we are made male and female: it is because this is the proper image of Christ and His Church as counterparts that belong together.

there is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus made any woman worthy to serve Him as a priestess.

The very tone of that statement reveals male condescension.

Certainly not – as I already had said, “Jesus regards no one as worthy of the priesthood until He makes them worthy, not even men.” If the one statement is anti-woman, then the other is anti-human. To take either of them as such is insane.
My point is that you cannot assert that women are worthy of the priesthood because no one is so worthy except Christ. People are ‘called’ to the priesthood and that entails Christ making them worthy by grace – there is evidence that men are called to the priesthood because Scripture says so and the Church ordains them. There is no evidence that women are called to the priesthood because the Church never ordains them and Scripture never says they are called. If that is sexist, then Scripture is sexist. If you believe that, you believe blasphemy.

The Church has not only permitted but authorized women to exercise teaching authority.

Never – “the prohibition [in 1 Tim. 2:12] solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation.” That is the position of the Church as specified by Inter Insignioris, #4.

You are implying that Jesus set out to correct every single Jewish prejudice in His institution of the Church - which is clearly impossible. If you were faced with the prospect of crucifixion, and the persecution and crucifixion of your followers, would you appoint a mixed bunch of men and women as the foundation of your Church?

Jesus set out to correct everything sinful in His institution of the Church. Faced with persecution and death, He insisted that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, though it was considered unlawful and it drove many of His fellow Jews away and has caused untold persecution of the Church. Surely He was not so timid to insist on such things – neither would He have been too timid to treat men and women equally, if it would have involved ordaining them to the priesthood.

The male priesthood conflicted with His teaching only when it was linked with belief in the inferiority of women.

Then you must show that the male priesthood is or has ever been linked with belief in the inferiority of women, you cannot just assume it. The Church has always upheld the equality of men and women and yet has never admitted women to the priesthood – you have either to accept this decision as a Christian, or reject it as a heretic.

God bless!

 

[GodIsGracious]

Does the fact that God has revealed Himself in male terms mean He is male and/or cannot reveal Himself in female terms?
.

I have a question for you.

When Jesus was asked how to pray, He said the “Lord’s Prayer.” I remember reading it in Matthew. I’m new to reading the New Testament and I am only in Matthew right now so I don’t know chapter and verse. But I do remember reading it.

Anyway. He gave us the “Lord’s Prayer.” The first line is: “Our father…”

Wouldn’t you say that this was a clear indication that God prefers to reveal himself as male? That He wants us to refer to Him as “father,” which is clearly a male role.

Next, to say that he “…and/or cannot reveal Himself in female terms?” is trying to post the question, “Can God create a rock He could not pick up?”

You won’t see it this way, that’s fine. But in “traditional” terms, men are to lead and women are to follow. Hence, Chris is the bridegroom and His church is the bride. He wants us to follow him.

That being said, it has already been mentioned that priests stand in as Christ Himself, i.e. they stand in as a bridegroom. We, as the church, the bride, are to follow.

This may seem “patriarchal” (sp?) to you, but God has a greater plan that you are probably not aware of. We cannot always know what He means. But we should, at least, trust that the Holy Spirit is talking to us through the church.

 

[tonyrey]

IAnyway. He gave us the “Lord’s Prayer.” The first line is: “Our father…”

Wouldn’t you say that this was a clear indication that God prefers to reveal himself as male? That He wants us to refer to Him as “father,” which is clearly a male role.

You won’t see it this way, that’s fine. But in “traditional” terms, men are to lead and women are to follow. Hence, Chris is the bridegroom and His church is the bride. He wants us to follow him.

That being said, it has already been mentioned that priests stand in as Christ Himself, i.e. they stand in as a bridegroom. We, as the church, the bride, are to follow.

This may seem “patriarchal” (sp?) to you, but God has a greater plan that you are probably not aware of. We cannot always know what He means. But we should, at least, trust that the Holy Spirit is talking to us through the church.

You are entitled to your opinion but the fact remains if Jesus had been born into a matriarchal society He would have almost certainly referred to God as His Mother in order not to scandalize the people. As it was, many Jews thought he was possessed by a devil…

 

[GodIsGracious]

You are entitled to your opinion but the fact remains if Jesus had been born into a matriarchal society He would have almost certainly referred to God as His Mother in order not to scandalize the people. As it was, many Jews thought he was possessed by a devil…

This isn’t really opinion, but that’s ok. Just so you know, just because someone disagrees with you, it’s not always opinion.

Next: it has been stated time and again that there was already pagan practices with women priestesses going on during Jesus’ time. Why didn’t He pick women to be priestesses? You think it was because it as a male dominated society? If it was so male dominated, why were there women priestesses? I suppose that’s opinion too.

One more thing. I thought that under Jewish law you’re Jewish if your mother was Jewish? (I may have that completely wrong.) So, how is that not matriarchal?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

You are entitled to your opinion but the fact remains if Jesus had been born into a matriarchal society He would have almost certainly referred to God as His Mother in order not to scandalize the people. As it was, many Jews thought he was possessed by a devil…

No, He most certainly would not have.

Your insistence of what Jesus would have done shows a lack of the basic knowledge of His ways.

Jesus cannot change. His ways are far from our ways. The way He instituted His Mercy and Salvation for us is the only way He would or could have done it. He never would have referred to G_D the Father as His Mother because the Blessed Virgin is His Mother. There would not have been a matriarchal society for him to be born into because the world, us, we, are what He created.

Your if…then scenarios are no more plausible than any other strange quirk of circumstances that those who are unhappy with the Church can imagine.

Eddie Mac

 

[GodIsGracious]

He never would have referred to G_D the Father as His Mother because the Blessed Virgin is His Mother.

Good point, Eddie Mac.

That would have then given us a “I have two mothers” model. If that were the case, wouldn’t 1) lesbianism be ok and 2) allowing lesbians to adopt be ok two? Wouldn’t that then go against natural law?

 

[EasterJoy]

As nearly as I can see, the papal encyclical cited in Post #5 covers all of the objections to a male-only priesthood raised in this thread, and does so both elegantly and thoroughly, particularly if the refernces therein are taken into account. I don’t know what there is to be said to someone who refuses to recognize that as a valid and thorough explanation, particularly when the objections that keep coming don’t address exactly what they think to be wrong with the encyclical’s answer to them.

This is my favorite line in the whole encyclical:
"The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints."

 

[EasterJoy]

Good point, Eddie Mac.

That would have then given us a “I have two mothers” model. If that were the case, wouldn’t 1) lesbianism be ok and 2) allowing lesbians to adopt be ok two? Wouldn’t that then go against natural law?

Actually, this is a popular logical fallacy, for the phrase “I have two mothers” cannot possibly mean “I was concieved by natural means, and yet have two biological mothers.”

In other words, having two women in a parenting role does not imply that a sexual relationship between those two women is either legitimate nor necessary to their caretaking roles.

Personally, I think that if two women living together, but avoiding an inappropriate sexual relationship, wanted to adopt kids, and if suitable married parents could not be found to give the child a home, I would have no problem with it. It is bringing a child into any home in which sexual immorality openly takes place, be it homosexual or heterosexual, that I have a problem with. You can argue which is “worse”, but it is splitting straws. Likewise, you can’t fly an inappropriate sexual relationship in under the moral radar with the objection, “But look what great parents they make!” Yeah, great parents, if modelling appropriate morality weren’t a part of parenting, too.

Likewise, a male-only priesthood does not hinge on identifying the First Person of the Trinity with one gender or the other. The Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated as a male and did not choose women among those selected for the priestly role.

After all, let’s recognize this: If Jesus had been incarnated as a woman, yet only ordained males as priests, well, that would have been his perogative, too. There is no way to prove what he would have done, based on incarnational gender, different cultural norms, or any of the rest. He did as he pleased. What would have been was what was.

If he had wanted to knock an Apostle down on the way to Damascus and demand that he ordain a woman as his successor, the Lord was capable of doing it. So let’s give up the if…then he wouldas. Whatever door the Lord wants open will not remain closed. There is scant evidence that this door is one of them, in spite of mighty human efforts being made to knock the Magesterium down.

 

[davidv]

It’s not a question of timidity but realism. The fact that two thousand years later there is opposition to the very idea of women priests demonstrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many people.

Why is this the only reason you can think of for this constant teaching. Could it be that it is the truth?

No one has given a sound reason why women should not be priests.

What is unsound about the documents which describe the Church’s teaching on the matter?

What are the qualities they lack?

Maleness

Why is it they cannot have a vocation to the priesthood?

They lack the required maleness

Many women have a vocation to the contemplative life. Many have been canonised as saints because they have been martyrs for their faith. So it cannot be because they are less holy than men or more prone to temptation or even because they are a source of temptation - as the myth of Eve suggests.

Agreed.

In the Anglican Church there are many women priests who are more respected and more loved for their pastoral care than their male counterparts. So why not in the Catholic Church where there is a desperate shortage of priests?

See above

Nowhere in the New Testament is there any evidence that Jesus regarded women as unworthy of the priesthood.

I think you missed it.

It is absurd to argue that Jesus is God and if He wanted female priests He would have made female priests.

Why?

God is omnipotent but He is not capricious. He knew women were regarded as inferior to men in Jewish society and to appoint women as His apostles would have confused and alienated the people unnecessarily.

Why is it capricious to define different roles for men and women? Nearly everything the apostles taught alienated someone. How is this an argument.

He conformed with the Law - whenever it did not conflict with His teaching - to show He came to fulfil the Law.

It is my understanding that in Jewish law only males could be priests.

It does not follow from the fact that He selected men as His first Apostles that He intended women to be excluded from the priesthood until the end of the world. His law of love is not bound by human notions of legal precedence…

Why not?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Actually, this is a popular logical fallacy, for the phrase “I have two mothers” cannot possibly mean “I was concieved by natural means, and yet have two biological mothers.”

Actually, that is not a logical fallacy. Clearly you’ve thought of a counter argument to the “I have two mothers” quote. Which is a fallacy in and of itself.

If Mary is Jesus’ mother, and He would then address God as “Mother” or “my mother,” he would then have had two mothers. Period. We’re not talking about biological means.

In other words, having two women in a parenting role does not imply that a sexual relationship between those two women is either legitimate nor necessary to their caretaking roles.

Correct. We actually already have that in society. Sometimes an aunt comes to live with the family, sometimes grandmother. They have a caretaker role however they are not “mother,” nor are they addressed as “mother.” (Or “mom,” “mommy,” etc.)

For the sake of argument we allow the possibility of God as “Our Mother.” We could then allow for two mothers in a home (and I mean mothers, not extended family) rather than a mother and a father. This would follow since Jesus had two mothers.

One could then extrapolate, what need would there be for men in the role of family? Simply as inseminators? Or optional figures in the role of family? Or that the way the family looks can either be “2 women and children.” Then why not, “2 men and children?”

The Catholic Church teaches us that the basic family unit is the husband and wife and any children that (may) follow. This whole structure falls apart if you allow God to also possibly be Christs’ mother.

Personally, I think that if two women living together, but avoiding an inappropriate sexual relationship, wanted to adopt kids, and if suitable married parents could not be found to give the child a home, I would have no problem with it.

You may be aware of this, but there is a growing number of women, many of whom are single, that are becoming single mothers voluntarily. Either through artificial insemination or “naturally” by a willing male. I am horrified by this. I can only speak for myself, but I firmly believe that children need both parents in the home. There is sound reasoning for having the basic family unit. Children, IMO, NEED both parents. I can see this in friends and family who had both parents growing up, and I can see it in myself and other families who were missing fathers.

It is bringing a child into any home in which sexual immorality openly takes place, be it homosexual or heterosexual, that I have a problem with. You can argue which is “worse”, but it is splitting straws. Likewise, you can’t fly an inappropriate sexual relationship in under the moral radar with the objection, “But look what great parents they make!” Yeah, great parents, if modelling appropriate morality weren’t a part of parenting, too.

Agreed.

Likewise, a male-only priesthood does not hinge on identifying the First Person of the Trinity with one gender or the other. The Second Person of the Trinity was incarnated as a male and did not choose women among those selected for the priestly role.

This, I know. I think the one other person in this thread arguing for the ordination of women would think that this was “your opinion.”

After all, let’s recognize this: If Jesus had been incarnated as a woman, yet only ordained males as priests, well, that would have been his perogative, too. There is no way to prove what he would have done, based on incarnational gender, different cultural norms, or any of the rest. He did as he pleased. What would have been was what was.

If he had wanted to knock an Apostle down on the way to Damascus and demand that he ordain a woman as his successor, the Lord was capable of doing it. So let’s give up the if…then he wouldas. Whatever door the Lord wants open will not remain closed. There is scant evidence that this door is one of them, in spite of mighty human efforts being made to knock the Magesterium down.

Agreed.

 

[tonyrey]

What a sexist comment – as if men are more prejudiced than women. You are assuming, without proof, that the opposition to priestesses is due to prejudice, now or two-thousand years ago. You have no evidence to support this.

The evidence is that our society is still dominated by men - which amply illustrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many men against women. They have been in power so long they resent having to relinquish it and ensure, amongst other inequalities, that women are often still paid less than men for doing exactly the same work. One has only to read the irrational comments in this thread to realize that opposition to “priestesses” is due to irrational prejudice. Your use of “priestesses” rather than “women priests” reveals your contempt for the very idea that they should be ordained.

I quote from these things to prove that the infallible Catholic Church has already decided on the issue. Then, the question is not whether the Church will accept your opinion, but whether you will accept the Church’s decision.

It is absurd to speak of the “infallible Catholic Church” as if all the pronouncements and decisions by popes, bishops and priests are true. You are forgetting that our ultimate authority is not the Church but our conscience. Or perhaps you reject that teaching.

They are the representatives of God’s quest for His bride, the Church – as such, priests must represent a bridegroom, and a woman cannot do so.

This is one of the most fantastic arguments I have come across!

We don’t know enough about the angels to decide, but we do know that God has revealed Himself in masculinity and His Church in femininity: the dual-sexuality of mankind is created in the image of God because women are suitable counterparts to men, just as the Church is a suitable counterpart to Christ. If God’s masculinity is not based in reality, then our Lord is as much a Goddess as He is a God. But the heresy of this position is obvious.

You are confusing the Son of God incarnate with the Holy Trinity in heaven. Do you really believe sexuality is an attribute of the eternal Deity? That sounds like heresy to me. Do you believe the Father and Holy Spirit are masculine as well?! Surely it is only in His humanity that the Son is masculine…

The factual, explicit teaching of Scripture, is that mankind is made in the image of God in its dual-sexuality – God’s masculinity (and the Church’s corresponding femininity) is therefore factual.

How can you possibly defend the thesis that the Church is feminine? This is a good example of how theological “reasoning” can lead to absurdity. If Jesus had been born into a patriarchal society you would have reached the opposite conclusion - that God is female and the Church is male!

The factual, explicit teaching of Scripture, is that mankind is made in the image of God in its dual-sexuality – God’s masculinity (and the Church’s correspondent femininity) is therefore factual.

I can hardly believe what I am reading. The dual-sexuality of God?!

To deny it is to deny the reality of why Scripture tells us we are made male and female: it is because this is the proper image of Christ and His Church as counterparts that belong together.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The metaphor of the Bride of Christ is based on the creation of male and female by God. Jesus had not been born and the Church did not even exist when man and woman were created.

People are ‘called’ to the priesthood and that entails Christ making them worthy by grace –

You imply that Jesus did not make women worthy by grace because He did not consider them suitable and intended His Church to be dominated by men until the end of time.

There is no evidence that women are called to the priesthood because the Church never ordains them and Scripture never says they are called.

You are deducing from the fact that the Church has not ordained women until now that they have not been, nor are, nor ever will be, called to the priesthood. There are many beliefs and practices in the Catholic Church that cannot be found in Scripture. The beauty of the Church is that it is not a fossilized institution, as some of its critics maintain, but the living Body of Christ that preserves fundamental doctrines and at the same time develops in accordance with changes in society.

The Church has always upheld the equality of men and women and yet has never admitted women to the priesthood – you have either to accept this decision as a Christian, or reject it as a heretic.

Similar accusations were made by the Inquisition against Bruno, Galileo and many others…Does the fact that the Church has not ordained women or married men until now categorically exclude the possibility that it ever will?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

You are forgetting that our ultimate authority is not the Church but our conscience. Or perhaps you reject that teaching.

That is a trypical dodge for Catholic liberals. If my conscience and your conscience disagree, are they both right? Then what use is it to have infallible teachings in the Church? The infallible teachings of the Church are there to unmistakably guide our conscience to the truth. Without that guidance we might as well all be Protestants, starting a new religion every time we turn around because our conscience tells us to.

I believe “conscience” has lied to many men and women many a time. The Church does not lie, though members of it lie all the time … for we are all heirs to the lie of Adam and Eve that “we” can decide what is right or wrong on our own, that “our” judgment of whether it is right or wrong to eat the forbidden apple is the only judgment we have to bother with.

 

[Spirithound]

The evidence is that our society is still dominated by men - which amply illustrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many men against women. They have been in power so long they resent having to relinquish it and ensure, amongst other inequalities, that women are often still paid less than men for doing exactly the same work. One has only to read the irrational comments in this thread to realize that opposition to “priestesses” is due to irrational prejudice. Your use of "

Are you proposing a kind of collective masculine consciousness?

priestesses" rather than “women priests” reveals your contempt for the very idea that they should be ordained.

How so? Priestess is a legitimate word. Is saying “waitress” derogatory also?

It is absurd to speak of the “infallible Catholic Church” as if all the pronouncements and decisions by popes, bishops and priests are true. You are forgetting that our ultimate authority is not the Church but our conscience. Or perhaps you reject that teaching.

No, the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
At any rate, if conscience were the ultimate authority, then you’re still left with the problem that you personally can’t ordain any women, and for the vast, vast, vast majority of bishops, it would contradict their consciences to ordain a woman.

You are confusing the Son of God incarnate with the Holy Trinity in heaven. Do you really believe sexuality is an attribute of the eternal Deity? That sounds like heresy to me. Do you believe the Father and Holy Spirit are masculine as well?! Surely it is only in His humanity that the Son is masculine…
How can you possibly defend the thesis that the Church is feminine? This is a good example of how theological “reasoning” can lead to absurdity. If Jesus had been born into a patriarchal society you would have reached the opposite conclusion - that God is female and the Church is male!

Jesus manifested as a man, and called God the Father. And the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That sounds pretty masculine to me.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Jesus manifested as a man, and called God the Father. And the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. That sounds pretty masculine to me.

No kidding.

And for the record, I am a woman. I also consider myself rather “liberal” too.

However, I don’t feel that women should be ordained as priests, I receive communion by mouth, do not like having EMHCs during communion, and use the word “priestess.”

Whoa.

 

[dmar198]

The evidence [that sexism regulates the Church’s practice] is that our society is still dominated by men - which amply illustrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many men against women. They have been in power so long they resent having to relinquish it and ensure, amongst other inequalities, that women are often still paid less than men for doing exactly the same work. One has only to read the irrational comments in this thread…

Your sexism is multiplying, as is you’re false logic. Honestly, I have to give you credit – at least you take your logic seriously. No one else does.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be your argument: “Sexism is thriving in our society and keeps us from having priestesses. The proof that sexism is thriving is that we don’t have priestesses yet.” And you accuse ME of putting the cart before the horse? Please.

Your use of “priestesses” rather than “women priests” reveals your contempt for the very idea that they should be ordained.

I suppose my use of ‘actresses’ reveals my contempt for women actresses too. I apologize for my proper use of grammar – perhaps we should not only change the Church, but our language too. (We would almost have to, to keep up with the ever-changing world of liberal feminism.)

It is absurd to speak of the “infallible Catholic Church” as if all the pronouncements and decisions by popes, bishops and priests are true.

All of the infallible ones are. And as the Church has specified, the teaching about the male-only priesthood is an infallible one.

You are forgetting that our ultimate authority is not the Church but our conscience.

The conscience is the authority that we must listen to during questions of morality, and even then it must be formed according to the standards set by the Church. But we aren’t talking about how to act – your conscience can’t define for you whether or not Mary was assumed into heaven. For that, you have to trust an authority such as the Church. It’s the same with priestesses – your conscience can’t decide whether women are called to the priesthood because the conscience only tells you how to act, not how to believe.

tonyrey:

dmar198:

They are the representatives of God’s quest for His bride, the Church – as such, priests must represent a bridegroom, and a woman cannot do so.

This is one of the most fantastic arguments I have come across!

Thanks. I thought it was pretty good too. So, why DO you think it’s fantastic?

Do you really believe sexuality is an attribute of the eternal Deity?

No, but I believe masculinity is. God is as masculine as men were created to be, because He created masculinity to represent Him. If that sounds like heresy to you, it’s probably because you’ve never taken into account the fact that Scripture tells us that it is so in the clearest, most direct terms, and it tells us so more than once.

How can you possibly defend the thesis that the Church is feminine?

How about this: “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” (Eph. 5:31-32)

You are putting the cart before the horse. The metaphor of the Bride of Christ is based on the creation of male and female by God.

Not according to Genesis 1:27 – “God created man in his own image, / in the image of God he created him; / male and female he created them.” This teaches that we – as male and female – are created in the image of God, not that God has revealed Himself in the image of man.

Jesus had not been born and the Church did not even exist when man and woman were created.

God created men and women to be His Church, His people, His counterpart, just as a woman is the counterpart of a man. The fact that we have to repeat such basic points of revelation is proof that you are not getting your opinions from the teaching of the Church.

You imply that Jesus did not make women worthy by grace because He did not consider them suitable

No, I am not. If someone had been suitable for the priesthood, then Jesus wouldn’t have needed to make them worthy. My point was that no one was suitable, so Jesus chose certain unworthy people to make them worthy by His grace. (It’s the same process we use today.) Never did He do this for a woman, and never has the Church. Who are you to judge this constant practice?

You are deducing from the fact that the Church has not ordained women until now that they have not been, nor are, nor ever will be, called to the priesthood.

Yeah, it’s called “tradition” and it is normative for the Catholic Church. We cannot break with the constant practice of the Church of Christ without breaking from her Head, which is Christ.

Similar accusations were made by the Inquisition against Bruno, Galileo and many others…

That was an ultimatum, and ultimatums are made against heretics – “stop doing what you are doing or anathema sint.” The pope has taught that the male-only priesthood is “a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,” and therefore he has declared “that 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.” If you refuse to obey, you are a heretic.

Does the fact that the Church has not ordained women or married men until now categorically exclude the possibility that it ever will?

The Church has at some points ordained married men, (and still does, in the Eastern rites,) therefore it may do so (more often) in the future. But the Church has never ordained a woman, and this is a matter of doctrine – therefore she cannot ever do so.

God bless!

 

[GodIsGracious]

The conscience is the authority that we must listen to during questions of morality, and even then it must be formed according to the standards set by the Church. But we aren’t talking about how to act – your conscience can’t define for you whether or not Mary was assumed into heaven. For that, you have to trust an authority such as the Church.

I wanted to highlight this and say that this is a really great distinction. Thank you for saying this.

 

[dmar198]

tonyrey:

The evidence [that sexism regulates the Church’s practice] is that our society is still dominated by men - which amply illustrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many men against women. They have been in power so long they resent having to relinquish it and ensure, amongst other inequalities, that women are often still paid less than men for doing exactly the same work. One has only to read the irrational comments in this thread…

Your sexism is multiplying, as is you’re false logic. Honestly, I have to give you credit – at least you take your logic seriously. No one else does.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be your argument:

“Sexism is thriving in our society and keeps us from having priestesses. The proof that sexism is thriving is that we don’t have priestesses yet.” And you accuse ME of putting the cart before the horse? Please.
​

​

I wanted to correct this paragraph. It should say:

tonyrey:

The evidence [that sexism regulates the Church’s practice] is that our society is still dominated by men - which amply illustrates the deeply ingrained conservatism and prejudice of many men against women. They have been in power so long they resent having to relinquish it and ensure, amongst other inequalities, that women are often still paid less than men for doing exactly the same work. One has only to read the irrational comments in this thread…

If anyone is reading the irrational comments in this thread, they are reading your posts. I mean, honestly, who can possibly argue that the lack of priestesses is due to sexism, and the proof of sexism is the lack of priestesses? Yet you accuse ME of putting the cart before the horse? Please.
Moreover, when I asked you to provide proof that the lack of priestesses is due to sexism, you took the opportunity to decry the entire society rather than answer the question. But I give you credit – at least you take yourself seriously. No one else does.

 

[dmar198]

I wanted to highlight this and say that this is a really great distinction. Thank you for saying this.

No problem.