Women in the Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark_Marilyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone who thinks or wants women to be ordained, all I can say is keep wishing because thats as far as you’ll get. It’s not a question. It’s a fact. Women cannot be ordained. All we can do is just keep on saying NO in a nice manner.
 
40.png
777:
Here’s one more:
  1. The only function for women is house keeping, cooking, and giving birth.
NO FEMALE PRIESTS!! BLOODY 'NUFF SAID!!!
Goodness, are those the only functions I’m allowed? Guess I’m not allowed to pray, go to Mass, perform corporal or spiritual deeds of mercy, drive a car, vote, express my opinion, or even love my neighbor.

Please get off your high horse. Saying things like this only fuels the determination of feminists.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
The bottom line is this: The Church has no reason to deny women the priesthood besides ambiguous, unclear, metaphysical obstacles.
On the contrary. She has categorical, explicit, spiritual truths given to her in the Deposit of the Faith to guard the Sacrament of Holy Orders as she has received it.
40.png
Gnosis:
What is the difference between the female and male soul? No one seems ready to say. They can only assert that there is a difference, based on nothing but “tradition”.
What is the basis for assuming, since there are indeed differences in the physical aspects of the male and female persons, that there are no differences in the souls? And “Tradition” (properly spelled in the Catholic context with a capital T, to distinguish it from mere custom), being a part of the Deposit of the Faith, is far from “nothing.”

Manachean heresy separates the human persion into two distinct parts, the physical and the spiritual, which are very different. The Church, and Christians, do not.
40.png
Gnosis:
Is God a man? Did Christ not die for ALL of humanity? If he could take the place of a woman on the cross, I don’t understand why she can’t represent him on the altar.
Jesus Christ, God the Son, became a human male, and right now brings humanity into the full life of the Holy Trinity, being fully man and fully God.

Given the attributes of the Sacrament of Holy Orders as the Church has received it, it can’t happen. The Church did not invent the Sacraments; she received them from her head and founder. One might ask, “Why can’t men bear children?” How unfair of God to deny them that right in creating humans as male and female, one might opine. God made men and women as he saw fit, and he gave the Church the Sacrament of Holy Orders as he saw fit. The situation of facing that truth is rather like the situation posed by the death of Elvis. One can deal with it, or pretend something different (in the Elvis case, appearances at gas stations, etc.).

In the end, it is a matter of obedience, although disobedience is less difficult than it would be in the case of child bearing.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
Brendan:
M&M,

Why should we accept the theology of a Methodist turned Unitarian. Heck she doesn’t even acknowledge something as critical to our faith as the Eucharist.

If her theology fails on such a basic Catholic point, why should we trust her opionion on other matters.
Right on, Brendan 👍

Among the things that RRR touts as being “Christian” are the notions that:

(1) The Sacraments are just symbols.

(2) Priestly power arises not from ordination but from the community’s collective experience.

(3) The very name of God should be replaced with God/ess.

Why ANY Catholic in their right mind would give more than a moment’s thought (long enough to dismiss it) to her rantings, which deny the Sacraments as the Church has received them, explicitly denies the received characteristics of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and dismisses with disobedience the fact summarized by C.S. Lewis when he pointed out the “God Himself told us how to speak to God” (one wonders what venom she would spew forth if it were pointed out to her that Jesus Christ, when asked how to pray, gave a prayer that began with the words “Our FATHER”), is, and probably will remain, a mystery.

Nothing Catholic about this academic. She does provide a good example, though, why Catholics are indeed blessed by the existence of the Magisterium, to protect the faith from the nonsense that can come out of seminar rooms.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
quote=Gerry Hunter The very name of God should be replaced with God/ess.
[/quote]

There is a movement to make many of the translations gender free, or to refer to the feminine. For example, Our Mother, Who art in heaven, etc., the use of person instead of man, etc. Haven’t there been courses at Catholic colleges in wicca theologiy and wicca type Masses, where the feminine or gender free translations are used?
 
40.png
777:
Here’s one more:
  1. The only function for women is house keeping, cooking, and giving birth.
NO FEMALE PRIESTS!! BLOODY 'NUFF SAID!!!
I see with a statement like that your obviously not running for election. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
stanley123:
There is a movement to make many of the translations gender free, or to refer to the feminine. For example, Our Mother, Who art in heaven, etc., the use of person instead of man, etc. Haven’t there been courses at Catholic colleges in wicca theologiy and wicca type Masses, where the feminine or gender free translations are used?
“Our Mother who art in heaven” is nothing less than blasphemy! Much harm has been done to the Faith by the injudicious use of so-called “inclusive language.” Using words that reflect all are being addressed is one thing. Feminine references to God, which some inclusive language types have tried to smuggle in are disobedient abominations.

As for what’s been taught at Catholic colleges, the question arises, so what? Even the academics in the Vatican universities are not members of the Magisterium by virtue of their position or tenure in the schools. And, there are no such things as “wicca type Masses.” Things with that label attached are also blasphemous (once again) abominations.

But your reference to what goes on in the colleges does serve to remind us that the faithful Magisterium is indeed looking at the inappropriate use of the word “Catholic” by some of these outfits, just as it defends the Sacrament of Holy Orders by making it clear that women priests are not even up for discussion.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry Hunter And said:
See:

http://www.geocities.com/bluetopaz36_2000/Wicca.html

“I am Catholic, and very proud of it, and I am a Reiki Master. I am what SilverRaven Wolf calls a Catholic Wiccan. There is much to me as there is to everyone. I have reached this level because it was the right place to be at this point in my life. Constantly, a connection exists between myself and the world around me, God, Goddess, whatever name one might choose.”

And

See:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2002/feature4.htm

or


http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0303.htm
 
These last couple of posts are a trip. I needed the levity. Next thing will be that someone will try to make the the tin man from the Wizard of Oz some sort of a deity.You can call yourself catholic. You can call yourself Wiccan. You can call yourself Riki Tiki Tavi for all I care. Just don’t try to pee on my leg and call it rain. A wiccan catholic. I got a name for it and it that ain’t rain!
 
40.png
stanley123:
See:

http://www.geocities.com/bluetopaz36_2000/Wicca.html

“I am Catholic, and very proud of it, and I am a Reiki Master. I am what SilverRaven Wolf calls a Catholic Wiccan. There is much to me as there is to everyone. I have reached this level because it was the right place to be at this point in my life. Constantly, a connection exists between myself and the world around me, God, Goddess, whatever name one might choose.”

And

See:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2002/feature4.htm

or


http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0303.htm
I don’t get the point of your reference to these items.

Sure, people throughout the history of the Church – starting with the Gnostics, whose antics led to many points of teaching in the New Testament letters – have labelled something they concocted as being “Christian”, but that doesn’t make it Christian,

It’s interesting where you cut the quote in the link off, because it continues:

“Constantly, a connection exists between myself and the world around me, God, Goddess, whatever name one might choose. In all cases, the Creator is a mass of perfect, loving energy that cannot be duplicated unless we choose, and that is part of everything in existence, including ourselves.”

There is no place in Catholic (or any other expression of) Christianity for the indifference exhibited in the phrase “God, Goddess, whatever name one might choose.” And the concept that “the Creator is a mass of perfect, loving energy that cannot be duplicated unless we choose, and that is part of everything in existence, including ourselves” is a monist, pantheist concept which is not even compatible with theism, let alone Christianity. In that he has a personality, God is a personal being, not some bundle of energy, like the Star Wars force. Denying the personal nature of God, claiming the creator is energy, and calling one’s self a Christian is (among other things) either delusional, nonsensical, mischievous, or some combination thereof.

One is reminded of Noam Chomsky’s example of a sentence that was grammatically correct, but utter nonsense:

“Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.”

He could have just as validly offerred:

“I profess God to be a force, and I am a Christian.”

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
stanley123:
See:
catholicconcerns.com/New-Age.html
unmaskingcatholicism.com/Chapter-13.shtml
Its an antiCatholic site, but there is reference and some info on the (Catholic?) New Age movement from some Catholic sources.
Let me help with the apparent ambiguity expressed by the phrase, “the (Catholic?) New Age movement.” Just as “Catholics For a Free Choice” aren’t Catholic, so too New Age movements are not Catholic, even if some Catholics blunder into them. When they do so, they step away from full communion with the Church, no matter who they are.

As a general, but highly applicable rule, “New Age” = monist pantheism, which is (as I noted elsewhere) intrinsically incompatible with theism, let alone Christianity.

Take meditation, for example. For centuries before Christ, God’s people have meditated. But not the way “Eastern” religions meditate. There is no effort to empty one’s self, to commune with a wholeness, or oneness, or whatever among God’s people. Hebrew and Christian meditation has always had a focus, on God, his law, his Son, and other such things. For example, in Psalm 1, we read:

[1] Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
[2] but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. (emphasis added).

Superficial similarities do not make pagan acts Christian acts, and the fact that pagans and Christians both meditate points to neither similarities in the faiths, or appropriateness of the techniques of the pagan for the Christian.

And when it comes to women priests, considerations from pop psychology, and ceremonies on boats conducted by people who are wearing costumes similar to those of Bishops of the Church, do not make the women anything like priests, or the rites anything like the Sacrament of Holy Orders, any more than sticking the label “Catholic” on New Age paganism makes it any less pagan, or anything close to Catholic.

Blerssings,

Gerry
 
i truly fail to see what is so wrong about refering to God as “Mother” or addressing him as a “her”. If you truly believe that God is genderless, then why is this a problem? How is it ‘blasphemey’?

The arguement that women can bear children but men can not is really of no use here. Men do not have the biological ability to bear a child. You have not demonstrated that a vagina suffuciently obstructs a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. You’ve simply asserted that it does, and that “we should just believe you”.
 
40.png
stanley123:
See:

http://www.geocities.com/bluetopaz36_2000/Wicca.html

“I am Catholic, and very proud of it, and I am a Reiki Master. I am what SilverRaven Wolf calls a Catholic Wiccan. There is much to me as there is to everyone. I have reached this level because it was the right place to be at this point in my life. Constantly, a connection exists between myself and the world around me, God, Goddess, whatever name one might choose.”
Would not a more precise description of a “Catholic Wiccan” be “PAGAN”? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
 
40.png
Gnosis:
i truly fail to see what is so wrong about refering to God as “Mother” or addressing him as a “her”. If you truly believe that God is genderless, then why is this a problem? How is it ‘blasphemey’?

The arguement that women can bear children but men can not is really of no use here. Men do not have the biological ability to bear a child. You have not demonstrated that a vagina suffuciently obstructs a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. You’ve simply asserted that it does, and that “we should just believe you”.
No one is asking you to “Just believe us”. We are telling you that if you assert you are Catholic you MUST embrace the teachings of the Church. It is an infallible teachng of the Church that only men can be Priests. That doctrine can no more be changed than you can give me a womb.

It is sad to see that your disagreement with a fundamental teaching of the Church has become such an impediment to your full particpation in the joy that comes from being a member of the One True Church.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
i truly fail to see what is so wrong about refering to God as “Mother” or addressing him as a “her”. If you truly believe that God is genderless, then why is this a problem? How is it ‘blasphemey’?

The arguement that women can bear children but men can not is really of no use here. Men do not have the biological ability to bear a child. You have not demonstrated that a vagina suffuciently obstructs a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. You’ve simply asserted that it does, and that “we should just believe you”.
I don’t think that anyone is trying to demonstrate anything other than the fact that orthodox Catholics follow Catholic doctrine. Non believers, pagans, atheists, protestants and people who profess to all faiths and yet no faith are not bound by Catholic dogma. I think that you have read some heterodox Catholics post to this thread. You are either Catholic or you are something else. There are many who use the term Catholic and are somwhat less. I find it sad that such catholics (note lower case) only serve to confuse others when they speak as Catholics. Some who have doctrinal issues with the Church have tried to neuter God in a futile attempt to water down tradition and dogma. The Trinity is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That is key to the Catholic faith. It is a bit hard to neuter Father and Son. What would be the purpose of trying? Genitalia is not a point of discussion here. Again, it is just a futile attempt to confuse a Catholic doctrinal point by someone who may have no desire to believe anyway.

You are in my prayers…
 
40.png
estesbob:
It is an infallible teachng of the Church that only men can be Priests. .
How do you know for sure that it is infallible? It is the present authoratative and papal teaching, but I don’t think that all Catholic theologians say it is infallible. For example, not everything that the Pope says is infallible. Also, at our local Church, the priest has come out in favor of women priests. Why would he do so? And in Australia, we have the following (courtesy of Father Ambrose):
  1. **Priests Council’s Synod call for married clergy
**“The number of Australian Catholic priests needs to increase more than 20-fold by reopening the priesthood to married men and possibly women, according to the National Council of Priests.”

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/5.php
  1. **Submission from the Executive of the National Council of Priests of Australia to the World Synod of Bishops XI Ordinary General Assembly (National Council of Priests of Australia) **
"6. Finally, there is abundant material across the world which explores the history and questions why all Catholic Priests have to be male. Is this really by Divine direction? Is it fair and just that open and honest debate about the history and theology of women in Priesthood is restricted so heavily?

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/doc/4ncp.pdf
If this was an infallible decision, then why are the Catholic authorities opening a debate on it?
 
40.png
stanley123:
How do you know for sure that it is infallible? It is the present authoratative and papal teaching, but I don’t think that all Catholic theologians say it is infallible. For example, not everything that the Pope says is infallible. Also, at our local Church, the priest has come out in favor of women priests. Why would he do so? And in Australia, we have the following (courtesy of Father Ambrose):
  1. **Priests Council’s Synod call for married clergy **

****“The number of Australian Catholic priests needs to increase more than 20-fold by reopening the priesthood to married men and possibly women, according to the National Council of Priests.”

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/5.php
  1. **Submission from the Executive of the National Council of Priests of Australia to the World Synod of Bishops XI Ordinary General Assembly (National Council of Priests of Australia) **
"6. Finally, there is abundant material across the world which explores the history and questions why all Catholic Priests have to be male. Is this really by Divine direction? Is it fair and just that open and honest debate about the history and theology of women in Priesthood is restricted so heavily?

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/doc/4ncp.pdf
If this was an infallible decision, then why are the Catholic authorities opening a debate on it?
Both John Paul the Great and B16 have stated that they could not change the doctrine if they wanted to. The Magestrium has spoken.
 
40.png
estesbob:
Both John Paul the Great and B16 have stated that they could not change the doctrine if they wanted to. The Magestrium has spoken.
Indeed they have. S123 puts a lot of stock, it seems, in the reports, briefs, or whatever that come out of meetings of priests and academics. Perhaps it is good to note that neither priests, nor academics by virtue of thier academic standing, exercise the Church’s Magisterium. And unlike, say, some portions of the Anglican Communion, truth has nothing to do with a majority vote in the Catholic Church.

So, the simple answer to the question of whether or not all these priests and academics can be wrong when they favour women priests, is yes they can, and yes, evidently some are.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
stanley123:
How do you know for sure that it is infallible? It is the present authoratative and papal teaching, but I don’t think that all Catholic theologians say it is infallible. For example, not everything that the Pope says is infallible. Also, at our local Church, the priest has come out in favor of women priests. Why would he do so? And in Australia, we have the following (courtesy of Father Ambrose):
  1. **Priests Council’s Synod call for married clergy
    **
“The number of Australian Catholic priests needs to increase more than 20-fold by reopening the priesthood to married men and possibly women, according to the National Council of Priests.”

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/5.php
  1. **Submission from the Executive of the National Council of Priests of Australia to the World Synod of Bishops XI Ordinary General Assembly (National Council of Priests of Australia) **
"6. Finally, there is abundant material across the world which explores the history and questions why all Catholic Priests have to be male. Is this really by Divine direction? Is it fair and just that open and honest debate about the history and theology of women in Priesthood is restricted so heavily?

Full article:
cathnews.com/news/510/doc/4ncp.pdf
If this was an infallible decision, then why are the Catholic authorities opening a debate on it?
Stanley,

How can you ask why are the Catholic authorities opening a debate on it? Aren’t you the same one who referenced the New Age Catholic Wiccan sites? Why ask why? The devil is always at work. Church authorities are often weak. That is why infallible teachings come only from the Pope when he is speaking ex cathedra.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top