Women in the Priesthood

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Well thought out, open-minded answer. Instead of being sarcastic, why don’t you offer a response with some substance.

A response of substance to what? Pure fantasy? Because that’s what the contention that “there might have been female apostles, but that information was suppressed by the patriarchs” is. There is absolutely no evidence that Christ Jesus had any female apostles. There is absolutely no evidence of any conspiracy to suppress the alleged fact that there were female apostles.

To say…

mikew262:

Again, who is to say he didn’t, and it just wasn’t recorded accurately?

…with regard to Christ Jesus having female apostles is to say something that is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

A response of substance to what? Pure fantasy? Because that’s what the contention that “there might have been female apostles, but that information was suppressed by the patriarchs” is. There is absolutely no evidence that Christ Jesus had any female apostles. There is absolutely no evidence of any conspiracy to suppress the alleged fact that there were female apostles.

To say…

…with regard to Christ Jesus having female apostles is to say something that is absurd.

– Mark L. Chance.

Ok. I see you are not open to discussion at all, so be it.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

mikew262:

Keep in mind many of the undertakings of the church over the past centuries (crusades, Inquisition, etc.) were supposedly undertaken with the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Those weren’t our church’s finest hours.

Neither the crusades nor the inquisition were bad things in themselves. The bad things were the abuses that accompanied them. The Holy Spirit indeed did guide man to those good things. The abuses he added without the Spirit’s guidance. The apology for the crusades, for example, was made for the abuses during them, NOT for the crusades themselves.

mikew262:

Do I believe the Holy Spirit was involved in the writing of the scriptures? Certainly!! However, man is inherently weak (Adam and Eve ring a bell? Peter?) and open to petty jealousies like everybody else. Even Peter and Paul didn’t see eye to eye at times.

Adam and Eve were not in the Magisterium, though Peter and Paul were, as Apostles. But none of them ever taught doctrinal error, even though the latter two had differences in disciplinary (but not doctrinal) matters.

mikew262:

BTW, I’m not demanding any proof here, there is probably none to be given. I’m just thinking out loud and asking for any discussion.

"How do know … " is a plain English call for proof. Perhaps the responses you are getting can be grouped into the categories: The thinking presented is not congruent to thinking with the Church, and discussion among Catholics is fine, as long as we have a topic amenable to Catholic discourse, which denial of the teaching of the Magisterium is not.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[PLAL]

Those who are starting threads such as these obviously have not yet read the Pope’s writings on the “Theology of the Body”. If you are having trouble interpreting the Pope’s writings then please read Christopher West’s book on the “Theology of the Body”.

Christopher West also has a 8-CD set called “Created and Redeemed”. I would urge everyone to listen to these CD’s.

If those on the forums would just read/listen to Christopher West’s materials then AT LEAST 50% OF THE THREADS STARTED UNDER CULTURE OF DEATH & MORAL THEOLOGY WOULD NO LONGER EXIST.

The answers are out there – Just read/listen to the materials. CLICK ON “THEOLOGY OF THE BODY” on my signature line for more information.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

PLAL, I certainly agree that the Theology of the Body is a splendid resource for anything concerning men and women. It sets out the Catholic position (which is today as it has ever been) that there ARE differences between men and women; that the differences are meant to be complimentary and not establish a pecking order; that they are important differences, woven into the fabric of the created human person.

An understanding of that Catholic theology makes it clear that there is no equality issue, or discrimination, or attempts to domination in the fact that the Sacrament of Holy Orders was given for men and not women.

Most of the arguments against the Church’s teachings in this area are founded on secular social science, and that approach is not consonant with what George Weigel calls “The Catholic Difference” in approaching these questions. The Theology of the Body is an excellent source for overcoming this influence, on this and many other questions.

Blessings.

Gerry

 

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Ok. I see you are not open to discussion at all, so be it.

Open to discuss what? It is a historical fact that there were no female apostles. Facts aren’t subject to debate. They are what they are.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

Open to discuss what? It is a historical fact that there were no female apostles. Facts aren’t subject to debate. They are what they are.

– Mark L. Chance.

Since, in a way you are continuing this discussion, I’ll respond.

You are not exactly correct. There was a woman named Junia mentioned in Romans that Paul highly praised as an apostle. Now was Junia actually called by Jesus or did she come a little later? I don’t know. If you do a search in Google for “female apostle”, you’ll find several links that talk about her and several other prominent women in the New Testament. Granted these are not official catholic sites, but they are Christian.

There are some other writings and gospels (Gospel of Mary for instance) that didn’t “make the cut” in the Bible that mention Mary Magdaline (sp?) as very prominent, and on the same level as the original 12. Yes, I know the church considers them as heresy. Hmm…, I wonder why?

Loosen your blinders just a little bit. Again, I just offering some speculation here. I rever our Bible as much as the next catholic, but I also wonder sometimes if anything was ever left out.

 

[mercygate]

mikew262:

Since, in a way you are continuing this discussion, I’ll respond.

You are not exactly correct. There was a woman named Junia mentioned in Romans that Paul highly praised as an apostle.

My Protestant RSV reads: Greet Andronicus andJunias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

This text does not indicate that that Andronicus & Junas *were *Apostles, but that they were known “en tois apostolois.” This accurately reflects the Greek, as the RSV always does.

 

[mlchance]

mercygate:

My Protestant RSV reads: Greet Andronicus andJunias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

This text does not indicate that that Andronicus & Junas *were *Apostles, but that they were known “en tois apostolois.” This accurately reflects the Greek, as the RSV always does.

Hear, hear. Also note that Junia isn’t Junia, but Junias, a man.

Furthermore, dredging up materials such as the so-called Gospel of Mary, which isn’t even Christian, hardly bolsters a position about Christian practice.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Darrel]

I linked this once before in the water cooler but I’ll post it here as well. These are audio files from Peter Kreeft. Number 9 on the list covers women in the Priesthood. I would recommend that everyone listen to this and the others they are excellent.

As for the issue of women and the Church. It is clear that women have been lifted up by the Church just as Christ lifted them. We have many female saints and stand alone in the truth of the blessed mother (queen of heaven). People often simply lack correct information and look at the Church as if it can be compared to a large corporation. The Priesthood is never something that can be compared to a secular job or position. Listen to Kreeft’s lecture on this and it becomes very clear.

peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

-D

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Darrel:

These are audio files from Peter Kreeft. Number 9 on the list covers women in the Priesthood. I would recommend that everyone listen to this and the others they are excellent.

peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

-D

Very good, Darrel. I have these audio files, and they are indeed a superb presentation of the Catholic teaching on this aspect of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[BlindSheep]

LittleDeb:

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.

Wow, and I thought I was a woman! I guess I must be a man. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

 

[mlchance]

LittleDeb:

Women don’t actually covet other women’s husbands.

As a married man, I can assure you that this statement is not always true.

LittleDeb:

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.

A distinction without a difference.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LittleDeb]

BlindSheep:

Wow, and I thought I was a woman! I guess I must be a man. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

When I put that part in I said it would cause some to disagree. I guess you do. It was a condensed version of the nature of men of women.

Men enjoy the act first and foremost for the pleasure of the act, then enjoy the bond of the act on a secondary level.

Women enjoy the bond of the act on an emotional level (first) and enjoy the pleasure of the act on a secondary level.

It was in response to someone stating that a scripture verse applied to both men and women as the same. I was pointing out that while men and women both experience pleasure from the sex act, the WHY and HOW were different since men and women are different in their very nature.

If you would like to pose that women experience the same types of pleasure and are motivated to the sex act for the same reason as men, I would be happy to discuss that on another thread. I will disagree that men and women by their very nature experience pleasure in the marriage act in the same way or for the same reason. Please let me know if you would like to discuss it.

 

[steveandersen]

LittleDeb:

…
Men enjoy the act first and foremost for the pleasure of the act, then enjoy the bond of the act on a secondary level.

Women enjoy the bond of the act on an emotional level (first) and enjoy the pleasure of the act on a secondary level…

Broad generalizations are not usually a good thing…generally speaking

As a man I don’t agree with your first statement and I know some women who would disagree with your second

 

[mikew262]

mlchance:

Hear, hear. Also note that Junia isn’t Junia, but Junias, a man.

Furthermore, dredging up materials such as the so-called Gospel of Mary, which isn’t even Christian, hardly bolsters a position about Christian practice.

– Mark L. Chance.

Depending upon the translation, Junia is a woman. The original greek text does not say Junia was a man; later translations assumed as such.

BTW, the Gospel of Mary is recognized as a early Christian writing.
earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

 

[LittleDeb]

Originally Posted by LittleDeb
Women don’t actually covet other women’s husbands.

As a married man, I can assure you that this statement is not always true.

I still would disagree. They covet your character attributes, not you personally. Again, a fundamental difference on how men and women are different.

Originally Posted by LittleDeb
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.

A distinction without a difference. – Mark L. Chance.

I am not sure what part you are saying is the distinction. These were examples of what attributes a woman might be coveting. When men covet they want all the attributes AND the “package” they are wrapped in. When women covet they want the attributes but not necessarily the “package.”

There are exceptions but on the whole men and women are different in the “whys and hows” based on gender differences.

The content of the quoted post was to show how scripture did not necessarily say “men and women are the same” just because modern interpretations made it appear so.

I will apologize, again, for the thread derailment about 50 posts back but I stand by my statements. My participation in this thread has been based on the fact of women and men being different at their very nature. Many in this thread have said that it is just an obedience to the Church that women are not part of the priesthood. I am stating that there are deeper reasons that people can understand and accept it on a personal level. My (personal) research into this issue (and other related ones) has shown me that unacceptance of the natural roles of women and men is at the heart of the problem for people who reject this teaching on the Priesthood.

 

[LittleDeb]

steveandersen:

Broad generalizations are not usually a good thing…generally speaking

As a man I don’t agree with your first statement and I know some women who would disagree with your second

There are exceptions but I stand by my statements (generally ). Please see my previous post.

 

[mlchance]

mikew262:

Depending upon the translation, Junia is a woman. The original greek text does not say Junia was a man; later translations assumed as such.

Even if that were true, it still demonstrates nothing, since the text doesn’t say Junia/Junius is an apostle.

mikew262:

BTW, the Gospel of Mary is recognized as a early Christian writing.
earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html

No, it isn’t an early Christian writing. It is a Gnostic text, and the Gnostics were not Christians.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[steveandersen]

LittleDeb:

… Please see my previous post.

I’ve seen it