Women in the Priesthood

[masterjedi747]

edward_george:

Why change the perfect Church? To say that it needs change is to say that it is imperfect…Again, the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church. There is never a possibility of being wrong.

Just wanted to clear up the fact – and I know you meant it but I’m not sure how clearly it came through – that when you say “the Church is perfect” and “there is never a chance of being wrong” we’re only talking about the infallible doctrines here. To claim that same absolute perfection for any other aspect of the Church can just lead to problems. We have had bad Popes and incorrect theological ideas floating around. But what we’ve never had (and CAN NEVER have) is incorrect doctrine taught by the Church, because it is divinely protected.

Hope that helps avoid confusion later on. I just don’t want to see this thread derailed into pointless off-topic arguments about Gallileo, Church abuses, and disciplinary matters.

 

[stanley123]

Well, they are changing the teaching on limbo, they have changed the teaching on slavery, they appear to be moving toward a change in position on capital punishment, no one believes in the death penalty for heretics anymore, they have shifted about on whether or not the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews today, they have changed their previous black and white policy on whether or not Protestants can receive Holy Communion, they have changed their minds about the necessity of converting the Eastern Orthodox to RC, they have watered down the conditions for annulling the Sacrament of Matrimony, they have introduced the novelty of clown Masses, and a group of priests in Australia are reopening debate on the question of ordaining women.
Maybe the teaching on ordination of women can’t be changed, but they seem to have changed their minds on a whole lot of other things.

 

[masterjedi747]

stanley123:

Well, they are changing the teaching on limbo,

There was no infallible teaching on the issue. Only a theory…a “best guess” by theologians.

stanley123:

they have changed the teaching on slavery,

No, they have not. The Church has always spoken out against slavery.

stanley123:

they appear to be moving toward a change in position on capital punishment,

That it might not be necessary in our modern countries anymore, because we can protect our society from these criminals by other non-lethal means? So what? They might be right.

stanley123:

no one believes in the death penalty for heretics anymore,

That was never a doctrine. Simply the accepted (and arguably unjust/wrong) punishment for heresy in the culture at that time.

stanley123:

they have shifted about on whether or not the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews today,

Explain. The Old Covenant no longer exists. But Jews can still be saved through the Catholic Church, the same way any other unbaptised person in the world can.

stanley123:

they have changed their previous black and white policy on whether or not Protestants can receive Holy Communion,

Explain. Protestants still cannot recieve Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

stanley123:

they have changed their minds about the necessity of converting the Eastern Orthodox to RC,

So what if they have? Still not a doctrinal issue.

stanley123:

they have watered down the conditions for annulling the Sacrament of Matrimony,

You cannot annull a sacrament. An annullment says that the sacrament never happened…that the marriage was not a sacramental marriage.

stanley123:

they have introduced the novelty of clown Masses,

Explain. Are we going to start arguing about Vatican II now? The Pope has the supreme authority to change the form of certain parts of the Mass if deemed appropriate/necessary.

stanley123:

and a group of priests in Australia are reopening debate on the question of ordaining women.

And they’re being incredibly stupid by trying to do so. They can break away from the Church, but they cannot “re-open” the debate within Catholocism…it has been infallibly sealed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

stanley123:

Well, they are changing the teaching on limbo, they have changed the teaching on slavery, they appear to be moving toward a change in position on capital punishment, no one believes in the death penalty for heretics anymore, they have shifted about on whether or not the Old Covenant is salvific for the Jews today, they have changed their previous black and white policy on whether or not Protestants can receive Holy Communion, they have changed their minds about the necessity of converting the Eastern Orthodox to RC, they have watered down the conditions for annulling the Sacrament of Matrimony, they have introduced the novelty of clown Masses, and a group of priests in Australia are reopening debate on the question of ordaining women.
Maybe the teaching on ordination of women can’t be changed, but they seem to have changed their minds on a whole lot of other things.

The examples that you are providing HAVE NEVER been defined as a dogma or taught as your so-called “de fide” teaching by the Magesterium. The matter of female ordination HAS. There in, lies the difference.

Gnosis:

Afraid of change.

The church is guided by the Holy Spirit of God in all truths. Why would it change? To change implies that something was being done incorrectly which would imply that God lead the church astray which is not possible.

 

[LittleDeb]

Gnosis:

If Christ died in the place of both male and female…it seems that both male and female should be able to represent him on the altar. How could Christ have metaphysically saved the souls of females? How can Christ be “within a female” How can a female “be clothed in Christ” if the two are so incompatible?

I have not heard a legitimate argument yet against female ordination. All I hear is “Its Tradition”, “God gave it us, we don’t have the authority to change it”.

Such tactics are used when no legitimate argument stands, so something we “can not argue with” is invoked ie. God says so (we can’t argue with God)

The argument here simply does not stand. It takes two statements and tries to make them seem reciprocal when they aren’t. You state that since Christ died for both males and females that either gender can stand in His place at the altar. There is no logic to that statement. Christ can stand in for each of us in His death on the Cross. None of us, however, can stand in for Him in His death on the Cross. These two statements are not linked in the way you say they are. They are not reciprocal.

By this argument’s logic, anyone whom Christ died for, could stand in for Christ in His priesthood. By following this logic to its absurd conclusion, my 15 month old son could be a priest. Christ died on the Cross for his sins. He didn’t die for the adult version of my son, he died just for him without regard to age. We have no idea if my son will be blessed to grow to adulthood. So Christ died for him as he is right now. By this argument’s logic my son is currently eligible for the priesthood. (Maybe someday but not yet!)

I think the Church is afraid. Afraid of the power of women. Afraid of even indirectly blurring the lines between male and female. Afraid of change. Afraid of possibly being wrong. Afraid of looking stupid.

Afraid of the power of women? If you cannot already see the immense power of women in Christ’s Church, you have soooo missed the boat on what makes for a powerful woman. Many of the powerful people I have met have been women. My great-grandmother could pray a rosary that would bring an athiest to his knees.

 

[Gnosis]

By following this logic to its absurd conclusion, my 15 month old son could be a priest. Christ died on the Cross for his sins. He didn’t die for the adult version of my son, he died just for him without regard to age.

My arguement does imply that anyone can stand and represent Christ on the altar, for if we have all been saved by his atoning death, if he truly took our place, then we can represent him in the Church for he is in us, has purified us, and continues to live through us.

The reason your 15month old son can not be a priest is because of his age. He is not at the mental capacity to run a Church service. That does not mean the potential is not there.

 

[Ruthie]

I have not heard a legitimate argument yet against female ordination. All I hear is “Its Tradition”, “God gave it us, we don’t have the authority to change it”.

I tend to disagree… You have heard plenty of legitimate arguments. What you have not heard is an argument that you will accept.

We cannot be faithful Catholics and pick and choose which parts of Church teaching we will, or will not, obey.

Re-read the story of the Fall. The devil seduces us by telling us that God is holding out on us. Satan always tells us, one way or another, that we can’t trust God.

When I (an RCIA candiudate) find something in doctrine that I disagree with, I pray to be shown the reason for it. So far, God has not let me down once. Either I learn why, or I am given peace with it. I mean that He goves me grace so that I can trustfully accept the doctrine, knowing that some day I will understand it.

Our Mother is a great source for that grace; she understands it completely, as she shows us with her “Fiat.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

Gnosis:

My arguement does imply that anyone can stand and represent Christ on the altar, for if we have all been saved by his atoning death, if he truly took our place, then we can represent him in the Church for he is in us, has purified us, and continues to live through us.

Your mixing apples and oranges. Being saved has nothing to do with who can represent Christ on the altar. Doesn’t scripture tell us that God saved all 12 tribes of Israel from slavery in Egypt?

Yet, scripture tells us that only those from the tribe of Levi were allowed to be priests. Doesn’t mean that God didn’t save the other 11 tribes, does it?

 

[Gnosis]

I am speaking of being saved in the metaphysical sesne. It is argued that women can not represent Christ because there is a metaphysical difference between a woman and Christ. Yet when Christ himself took the place of both male and female on the cross…there seemed to be no such metaphysical barrier.

Women have Christ within them, they too are “clothed in Christ”…but if this “metaphysical” difference really does present them from representing Christ, then how can Paul assert that female believers are “clothed in Christ” ?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Gnosis:

It is argued that women can not represent Christ because there is a metaphysical difference between a woman and Christ. Yet when Christ himself took the place of both male and female on the cross…there seemed to be no such metaphysical barrier.

Jesus is doing the saving. Maybe there is something in the male-ness that allows the save’er to be able to save both male and female but not the other way around. Sort of like a woman can give birth to both a male and a female but a man can not. Maybe a male can save both a male and a female but a female can not.

I don’t know.

Or, maybe that “metaphysical” arguement is incorrect. But what is not incorrect is that the Catholic faith bases it’s doctrine on the teachings of Christ – both Word & Deed. And out of the thousands of followers that He had, not one of them was female. When the Apostles went off to spread the good news and they began to appoint assistances and successors to help them shepard the flock that Christ turned over to them, they also did not pick a single female. That has been the case for nearly 2,000 years and the bible commands us in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 to hold fast to the traditions which are passed down to us.

 

[mlchance]

Gnosis:

I think the Church is afraid. Afraid of the power of women. Afraid of even indirectly blurring the lines between male and female. Afraid of change. Afraid of possibly being wrong. Afraid of looking stupid.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[777]

No female priests @ all. The Church says it’s so. Or else. Bloody 'nuff said.

 

[kev7]

The role of a father is very different then the role of a mother.
The differences between men and women are very sacred to us.

For catholics, Mary is the role model for women and Jesus is the role model for Men. We can learn much from both.

We are most like God when we are perfect mothers and perfect fathers.

A priest is an example of a father. A nun is an example of a mother in the church. There is no reason to asume that one on is of higher level then the other. That is only the worlds point of view. A preist does not consider himself to have any power. In fact most of the popes don’t even want the job. The priest hood is a cross not a rod of rulership.

The problem in the church isn’t that men are the priests. It is that the women in the church are not respected by society. Within the church that is a different story. Look at the works of mother tersa. She didn’t need to be a priest . She only had to be a loving mother.

So there really isn’t a reason (other then a sad power struggle) for women to be preists. There isn’t also a reason for men to be nuns.

It is wrong to ask a woman to become a father and it is wrong to ask a man to become a mother.

Why is everyone so obsessed with deconstructing the natural virtues and qualites of men and women? God mad us different for a reason. So that we could love each other in compliment.

 

[Gnosis]

Its interesting that when the Bible says:

“Thou shalt not covet another man’s wife”
“Thou shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman”

One automtaically assumes that God is also refering to women as well, saying that “Thou shall not covet another woman’s husband” and “Thou shalt not lie with a woman as one lies with a man”

Though these commands are specifically directed to males, we know that God is speaking to females as well because he was dictating to a patriarchial society.

So when we both assert that God is neither male nor female, and Jesus says “Our Father” why does the same system not apply? Why do we not understand that “Our Father” is also “Our Mother” just as we undertsand “Do not covet your neighbours wife” also means “do not covet your neighbours husband” ?

 

[mlchance]

Gnosis:

So when we both assert that God is neither male nor female…

Jesus Christ is God, and he’s a man. The priest stands in persona Christi, not in persona Dei.

The rest of your post is sheer sophistry.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Apples and oranges, gnosis.

Jesus has a Mother and a Father. And He is not only perfectly human, but perfectly God. If the perfect God-Man says, "When you pray, pray ", why is that not GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

If Jesus wanted us to know God as “father-mother”, He would have told us. If He wanted us to know God as “spirit neither male nor female”, He would have told us. But He wanted us to know God as Father. How do we know? HE TOLD US.

 

[kev7]

Tantum ergo:

Apples and oranges, gnosis.

Jesus has a Mother and a Father. And He is not only perfectly human, but perfectly God. If the perfect God-Man says, "When you pray, pray ", why is that not GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

If Jesus wanted us to know God as “father-mother”, He would have told us. If He wanted us to know God as “spirit neither male nor female”, He would have told us. But He wanted us to know God as Father. How do we know? HE TOLD US.

Actually,

III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

 

[kev7]

“…But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God…”

The reason preist are men is because being a priest requires the perfections of a man. Being a nun requires the perfections of being a woman.

With out both acting in the church and expressing their different perfections the church would be incomplete and would fail to be like God.

 

[LittleDeb]

Gnosis:

Its interesting that when the Bible says:

“Thou shalt not covet another man’s wife”
“Thou shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman”

One automtaically assumes that God is also refering to women as well, saying that “Thou shall not covet another woman’s husband” and “Thou shalt not lie with a woman as one lies with a man”

Though these commands are specifically directed to males, we know that God is speaking to females as well because he was dictating to a patriarchial society.

Actually, these were not supposed to apply to women and only have recently. Since it is a little off-topic I will be as brief as possible. But since it might help clarify your misunderstanding I feel it okay to momentarily derail this topic.

Originally this only applied to men. Until recent blurring of the natures men and women, homosexual acts were much more limited in practice to men. This will open a can of worms but I will state it anyway: Men are sexual beings and women are emotional beings. Neither is inherently logical. Logic only happens as we are able to move past our basic instincts.

I really don’t like saying this on these types of fora as I may get flamed by those who disagree, but I will say it any way. Women’s enjoyment of sex is based almost entirely in the emotional attachment. Men’s enjoyment of sex is based on the act of sex itself. This is not cultural or based on a “man’s world.” This is just the nature of men and women.

Women don’t actually covet other women’s husbands. Again, a fairly recent problem makes it seem as though women do covet men. Women covet how another woman might be treated or how much a happiness another woman might get because of her husband. We covet those things about the other husband, but we do not covet the husband, as a man. Men covet the other man’s wife, as a woman. Period. (Another reason I’m Catholic is because of the proper division of those two commandments, goods vs wife.) My obedience to “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” is to make myself unavailable for another man to covet. (ie flirtation or disrespectful talk about my husband.)

When females suffer same sex attraction it is based on disordered companionship desires. While some tend to express it in sexual way, it is not at the center of their relationship as it is with men who act on homosexual tendencies. These two scripture quotes were not meant to apply as they seem to now apply. But, since there are many who would blur the lines between the natures of men and women they seem like they apply in today’s culture.

For those who wish to calmly discuss the true natures of men and women, we can start another thread.

 

[janiegirl]

I do not believe there should be woman Priests, however I do think that sometimes it would be easier to be able confess “woman to woman”