WOMEN ONLY: Your "opinions" on Women Ordination

[JCPhoenix]

CSpaulding said:

"Have any of you wondered why there are no MEN priests in the seminaries all over the world? I believe the answer is staring us all in the face…because HE intends there to be women priests. Until the church listens, there will be few men applying.

Those who think otherwise should ask themselves the question, why there are no priest candidates."

All I can say to you is that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You through these claims around but have nothing to back them up and why is that? Because you cannot back up your pure opinion.

So who is filling the seminaries and being ordained every year? Pieces of chopped liver? Birds? Horses…what?

As far as believing that Christ will make women’s ordination happen? This isn’t Disneyland and believing doesn’t make it so.

---

Lazerlike42 said:

(for the same reason there aren’t a lot of people becomming nuns anymore either - religion just doesn’t draw people anymore, men or women)

Actually, people are flocking to religion…they’re tired of the watered-down secularist ideals being shoved down their throats and they want the GOSPEL truth. They will find it.

As far as teh nuns go…how do you know? Are you discerning? Are you paying attention? Or is is just that the nuns in your own parish dress like you do so you have no idea how many women have actually given their lives to God?

I can assure you that many women are seeking religious vocations…I am one of them. I may learn that I am not ultimately called to that life, but I have learned of many many women from my parish alone in varying degrees of discernment to the religious life. I’m sorry you have not been able to see this yourself…or are you walking around Jesus in circles with your eyes closed like so many others?

Women cannot and will not be ordained. I can’t believe people don’t accept this.

 

[MysticRose]

This is going to be simple from me because I have seen so many of these polls and threads lately, even I am beginning to loose my charitable nature over it…

Women’s Ordination is completely contradictory to everything we are taught in Scriptura and in our Tradition…

Women’s Ordination is and has been declared a closed subject by the Church because they have stated more than once that it is not something that they can change. Nor would they think to change it.

Personally, I find it detestable that just because our CULTURE has said that women should be this and that, that we have abondoned what the Lord has said to begin with. This is just getting plain ridiculous already, there are many ways for a woman to serve the Church should she want to, so therefore the only reason for becoming a Priest is for this false sense of Power that everyone seems to think that comes along with it. That in itself is distressing.

Women are not Men and should not be acting in the same manner as Men. This too, is Biblically laid out. It is also Biblically laid out that in being in subjection it does not take away from our position one iota or make us less than a man whatsoever.

What ill effects has Our Blessed Mother suffered because of the fact that she is a Woman by the way in Heaven? Or is it that because of her subjection and willingness to be in subjection at all times she was rewarded …

By her Special Grace
Pax Christ
Debi

 

[magdalisa]

When I was wrestling with the issues surrounding my conversion to Catholicism, the Lord gave me this message:

"Obedience comes before understanding"

I believe that applies to ALL the teachings of His Church. And I am happy to say that God has been faithful in giving me more than I ever could have imagined whenever I obey Him in the Church…

No, women will never and should never be ordained as Roman Catholic Priests. It would be as absurd as a man having a baby. I rejoice in that!!!

Peace–
magdalisa

 

[severinus]

CSpaulding:

Have any of you wondered why there are no MEN priests in the seminaries all over the world? I believe the answer is staring us all in the face…because HE intends there to be women priests. Until the church listens, there will be few men applying.

I believe completely that this will take place. In my lifetime? Perhaps not. But because I believe it and that Christ will make it happen, there is no need to argue about it.

Those who think otherwise should ask themselves the question, why there are no priest candidates.

Well, the men in seminaries would not be “priests,” but there are, of course,* some* men in seminaries. And some seminaries are doing much better than others in attracting men. Regarding God’s intentions on the subject, have you had a private revelation?

A better question to ask is: Why are there not* more * men in seminaries? How about:

• decreasing interest in religion throughout our society?
• lack of encouraging vocations (my priest has never brought up
  the subject in church)?
• an atmosphere in some seminaries that is not really conducive
  to attracting and keeping many men who are interested?
• the effect of the recent scandals?
• too much emphasis on wordly values?

There are many reasons. I doubt that one of them is God’s wish to have female priests; when God the Son dwelt among us, He did not ordain women.

 

[MysticRose]

because HE intends there to be women priests. Until the church listens, there will be few men applying.

Where is the proof for this to show that this is either Biblical or to show that this is Traditional in standing within the Church?

There is none…

In fact it was condemned what it not by the Apostles, this roile was given to men only… therefore why is it that now we should CONTRADICT Solid Biblical Teaching? How is that anyone could really believe that the Lord would even dare to contradict His own teachings to begin with? Do we not remember that the Bible is the Inerrant, Inspired, Word of God … and if this is believed and we have Faith in this, then we have to believe that the passages that clearly state in the Bible, that the men are to lead the Church not women…

What is ahppening in the Seminaries has no bearing on whether or not the Lord wants women priests or not and that has to be the most illogical argument that I have seen, IMHO.

The problem we face here in the states, because the seminaries oversees do not have the same problems that we do, is that of our culture. It is the attitudes that we are taught, the attitude of I, Me, Mine. It is the attitude of putting self first and not God that runs rampant throughout our society, that we are taught, look at on the TV, read in everything, ect. Anyone thinking of becoming a priest in our society knows that they have to give up alot in order to become one and this is discouraged and in fact in our society it is even scorned…

 

[legeorge]

I used to think that I could do anything men can do, but then I realized what is really important is for there to be WOMEN in the world doing what we do best. Nurturing/loving, communicating, teaching/spirituality, supporting our families and spouses in so many ways. Let men have their man world. Women are important to this world without having the same titles as men. Defend our role in this world instead of trying to say that we can fill the role of men. Sure, we can fill the role of men, sort of, but why? That throws things off balance. That is my view anyhow.

I agree completely. Obviously I also voted no on the women’s ordination question. Why do I only have value if I do the same thing as men? That is what I find demeaning. **Not ** someone calling me waitress (and, yes, I have worked as one!)

Life is so much more peaceful and fulfilling when you let go of your pride and arrogance and embrace the truth of God’s revelation as passed on through His Church. (And this is coming from someone who thought I’d never have children, and now have 4 and want more!)

Ever wonder why all of those feminists on TV look so angry all the time? So bitter, so hateful. No matter how much they get, they still need more. I am glad that I have the right to vote. And I think that if a woman has the same job as a man, she should get equal compensation. I thank the feminist movement for that. But, in their zeal, they have strayed from the original path.

Along the way, they have succeeded in diminishing a woman’s value and alienating men. Which I believe has resulted in the epidemic of homosexuality, single mothers, abortion, and divorce in this country. I know it’s hard to see present day feminists in a clear light. I, too, grew up in the 70s and 80s and was brainwashed from the get-go with all this nonsense. I had no idea how to be a real woman. Now I see that society handed me a lie, and I don’t want my girls to grow up believing the same lies. I hope that I get a handle on my own feminity in time to be a good example to my children. I feel bad for the angry women who can’t open themselves up to being truly feminine.

Of course that is all my own opinion. The teaching of the Church on this issue is rock-solid and non-negotiable. I wish the MSM would stop beating this dead horse. It is just sad. :nope:

 

[prochoicemax]

I am 20 years old I am all for women’s ordination. The church says women cannot be priests because they cannot image the Christ. But the church get’s the image thing wrong in my opinion, image of Christ to me living in his way not his physical.People often forget that Jesus only took the form of the men on this planet and that God the spirit is neither male or female. Here are some scripture to consider:
“All of you are children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All of you who have been baptized in Christ, have clothed yourselves in Christ. Thus there is no longer Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3,27-28.
The official church does not seem to recognize that women are equal in Christ. In 1976, experts of the Pontifical Biblical Commission determined that there were no scriptural reasons preventing women’s ordination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith overturned the commission’s judgement and instead wrote its own statement (Inter Insigniores, 1976) stating that women do not image Jesus who was a man; and therefore only male priests can adequately represent Christ. Hence even the church has gone back and forth between the issue.Christ abolished the priesthood of the Old Testament, removing any difference between the sacred and the profane. He did away with a priesthood founded on the holiness of certain days, places, objects or priestly lineage. No longer was the temple more holy than the market, or the sabbath the most sacred of days, nor the priest a manifestation of the divine. Jesus abolished

these Old Testament distinctions. He disagreed with the Pharisees about continuing his work on the sabbath. Jesus tells us, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath” (Mk 2, 27). When Christ died the Temple curtain, which hid the Holy of Holies, “was torn in two, from top to bottom” (Mk 15,38). The early Christian communities understood the meaning of this. They had no churches or temples. Wherever they gathered as a community they celebrated the Eucharist. However by the fourth century the setting aside of special places of prayer had gradually reappeared .
Likewise, Christ did away with the priesthood as a sacrad tradition. In fact, Old Testament ideas of the priesthood were so foreign to Christ that he never applied the word priest to his followers or himself. He would not have wanted his followers to establish a new sacred group as in Old Testament times. The subsequent growth of a separate clergy class, with its sacred vestments, special status and privileges would have troubled him.

The ordination to the priesthood is a fuller participation in baptism’s sacrificial and prophetic gifts. Christ replaced a priesthood based on the sacred by a priesthood based on grace; a universal priesthood shared by all the baptized. This priesthood is given through the sacrament of baptism, and baptism is the same whether for a man or a woman.

 

[FCEGM]

prochoicemax:

I am 20 years old I am all for women’s ordination. The church says women cannot be priests because they cannot image the Christ. But the church get’s the image thing wrong in my opinion, image of Christ to me living in his way not his physical.People often forget that Jesus only took the form of the men on this planet and that God the spirit is neither male or female. Here are some scripture to consider:
“All of you are children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All of you who have been baptized in Christ, have clothed yourselves in Christ. Thus there is no longer Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3,27-28… . .[etc.]

Yes, the passage from St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians refers to baptism: that Baptism incorporates the individual person, male or female, into the paschal Mystery and into the Body of Christ. Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression – circumcision – was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.

It does not mean that the distinction between male and female established within Creation is obliterated on the natural level (and therefore on the level of natural symbol), but that this distinction does not exclude any man or woman from salvation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, however, is not established for everyone, but only for some, and is for the purpose of bringing to the Bride of Christ, the Church, a continuation of the definite God-Man Jesus’ sacrificial offering, forgiveness of sins, ruling the people, teaching them.

Therefore the quote which refers to Baptism, can not be transferred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and so there is no contradiction, for what is intended for all is by necessity different from what is intended for some.

Further, one can not limit revelation to that which the Lord Jesus specifically said rather than to all that He did and is. And part of Who He is we see constituted in His being Male. He is priest-as-male, male-as-priest. His maleness is not incidental to Him (no person’s gender is simply incidental to who that person is). Suggesting that whether a priest is a man or a woman is a superficial question, implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference with regard to the Incarnation of God, and that implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference as such. But such is a superficial understanding of human nature, the Incarnation, and so the symbolism of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, for the Church considers it a very deep question as part of Divine Revelation.

The Church is teaching with divine authority that the difference between being a man or a woman goes to the heart of the Divinely-revealed Mystery of the Incarnation of God as a Man, or to put it in reverse, that the basic Mystery of the Incarnation is necessarily connected in fact with Our Lord choosing only men to be Apostles since the Twelve and their successors are to be icons or living images of this Man Jesus in being His priests. That distinction is not important for Baptism or Confirmation, but it is for Holy Orders.

I hope you will come to Catholic Faith someday in all matters including the priesthood and, it seems, it’s teaching on life issues.

 

[CindyGia]

I didn’t vote at all because I’m really not sure now. There are quite a few posts here I thought of quoting, especially Heather’s posts. I believe she’s got a few good points in saying that if it is in God’s will some day, then there will be women ordinations.

But I just read something really interesting in a book I took out at the library. The book is titled “Missing Mary” by Charlene Spatnek, and in one chapter she talks about her own personal experience with the Mother of God (not anything mystical - more just spiritual.) She goes on to say in that chapter something about St. Jerome, who translated the Greek Bible to Latin, and how it is presumed that while translating the Bible, it is believed he deleted many passages pertaining to the women who followed Christ actually being His Apostles.

I was quite surprised when I read this. I know something like this is claimed in “The DaVinci Code” but Charlene Spatnek’s book was published in 2000 I believe, before the DaVinci Code was even a thought. I wondered, “could it be true?” It left me very confused and I’d like to do further research on the matter.

I know I’ve read more than a dozen times that Mary, the Mother of God was Jesus’ first Apostle and first disciple. And, if any one of you read “The Dolorous Passion” as claimed by our Blessed Mother Herself, it was the Mother of God Who prayed and sacrificed ceaselessly for the birth of the church, the decent of the Holy Spirit, and for the apostles. I’m not particularly “for” women priests, but if it happens, I’ll accept it. I know for a fact I wouldn’t mind having a female priest to confess my sins to sometimes. Sometimes confessing to a man is a little unnerving for me. Pride yes - but hey, we are all embarrassed by some things. It wouldn’t be so bad having to tell embarrassing sins to a female for once.

p.s. I once had a strange vivid dream of being at mass and there were two women on the alter; one holding up the Sacred Host and the other holding up the Chalice. When after I awoke, I was quite bothered and bewildered by the dream.

 

[FCEGM]

I believe she’s got a few good points in saying that if it is in God’s will some day, then there will be women ordinations.

Cindy, that’s really like saying if God wills it some day abortion will be recognized by the Church as an honorable option. God’s will is already known through the teaching of His Church; it was manifested originally in the Lord’s selection of men only to serve as His sacramental priests and continues to be confirmed by the Magisterial authority of the successors of St. Peter and those bishops in union with him. A Catholic doesn’t wait around for a shoe to drop that never will.

 

[CindyGia]

FCEGM:

Cindy, that’s really like saying if God wills it some day abortion will be recognized by the Church as an honorable option. God’s will is already known through the teaching of His Church; it was manifested originally in the Lord’s selection of men only to serve as His sacramental priests and continues to be confirmed by the Magisterial authority of the successors of St. Peter and those bishops in union with him. A Catholic doesn’t wait around for a shoe to drop that never will.

The Second Vatical Council changed many things as well as remove many things; one of them being de-throning the Blessed Mother and taking away many devotions and prayers that were prayed to honor Her during mass; (Salve Regina). Statues were removed so as “not to confuse our Protestant brethren”.

If the Vatical Council changed so many things to bring the church into progressive modernity - having women ordained as priests could also be a possibility as well. I believe anything is possible because God can do all things. You cannot say for sure that in 100 years from now, there will not be women priests. I believe there will be.

 

[FCEGM]

CindyGia:

The Second Vatical Council changed many things as well as remove many things; one of them being de-throning the Blessed Mother and taking away many devotions and prayers that were prayed to honor Her during mass; (Salve Regina). Statues were removed so as “not to confuse our Protestant brethren”.

If the Vatical Council changed so many things to bring the church into progressive modernity - having women ordained as priests could also be a possibility as well. I believe anything is possible because God can do all things. You cannot say for sure that in 100 years from now, there will not be women priests. I believe there will be.

I’m afraid you have been badly informed as to the Second Vatican Council. What you list here has nothing to do with the content of the Catholic teaching which pertains to Faith and Morals, the sole areas of its spiritual authority - an authority to which we owe obedience. The Second Vatican Council changed nothing of the basic doctrines of the Church. That some dioceses and some priests within some dioceses took great liberties following Vatican II to misread (either ignorantly or maliciously) what they thought was the intent of the Council is true, but that is no exuse for using their mistakes to foster one’s own.

God does not contradict Himself. To entertain the idea that He just might is a great waste of one’s spiritual energy.

I suggest a reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[CindyGia]

FCEGM:

I’m afraid you have been badly informed as to the Second Vatican Council. What you list here has nothing to do with the content of the Catholic teaching which pertains to Faith and Morals, the sole areas of its spiritual authority - an authority to which we owe obedience. The Second Vatican Council changed nothing of the basic doctrines of the Church. That some dioceses and some priests within some dioceses took great liberties following Vatican II to misread (either ignorantly or maliciously) what they thought was the intent of the Council is true, but that is no exuse for using their mistakes to foster one’s own.

God does not contradict Himself. To entertain the idea that He just might is a great waste of one’s spiritual energy.

I suggest a reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Yes, thank you for your suggestions. I think I’ve read it somewhere along the line…

What I am saying is that if God gave us His Mother from His Cross to be Our Mother, and after 2000 years the Bishops at the Second Vatical Council decided that Mary is nothing more than a Nazarene peasant woman who should not receive honor God willed for Her as our co-redemptrix, and if the Bishops of SVII decided to set forth drastic changes regarding the Mother of God -(and from what I’ve been reading in “Missing Mary”, that there are Bishops still trying to do away with the dogma of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception), then if changes were successful in reducing the Queenship of our Blessed Mother, chances are that in the future, other changes will be made as well; i.e., ordained women. Why do I say this? Because the clergy - or the “modern” clergy, seem to be concerned with bringing the church into the new millenium. Many modern clergy, it seems, or so I’ve read, are very concerned as to how the Catholic Church is perceived by our Protestant brethren (and other religions)

Let’s not forget either that Mary, the Mother of God, was our Lord’s first Apostle. That should mean something. And that it was the women who were courageous enough to stand up to the soldiers and who stood at the foot of the Cross. Where were the Apostles? I could really become obnoxious and say that the reason for the negative state the church is in today is ----um, men. But I won’t.

Anyway, I’m not a feminist. But you have to give credit where credit is due. Mary and the women held a high office with Our Lord. It can’t be overlooked. I will say this again - God can do anything He likes. If He wills it - it shall be done. It is not impossible that women be ordained. God loves women!

 

[MariaG]

magdalisa:

When I was wrestling with the issues surrounding my conversion to Catholicism, the Lord gave me this message:

"Obedience comes before understanding"

I believe that applies to ALL the teachings of His Church. And I am happy to say that God has been faithful in giving me more than I ever could have imagined whenever I obey Him in the Church…

What great yet simple words God gave you. I wrote them in my Bible.

Thanks!

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

CindyGia:

The Second Vatical Council changed many things as well as remove many things; one of them being de-throning the Blessed Mother and taking away many devotions and prayers that were prayed to honor Her during mass; (Salve Regina). Statues were removed so as “not to confuse our Protestant brethren”.

If the Vatical Council changed so many things to bring the church into progressive modernity - having women ordained as priests could also be a possibility as well. I believe anything is possible because God can do all things. You cannot say for sure that in 100 years from now, there will not be women priests. I believe there will be.

You have stated some things that Vatican II changed that just are not true. You need to seriously look into what Vatican II did say.

Catechism of The Catholic Church
966: “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord** as Queen over all things**, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death” (LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16). The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians . . .

from CA Library CRI’s Attack on Mary Part V

Catholics believe she is indeed our Queen and that her spiritual royalty flows from and is subordinate to Christ’s kingship.

 

[FCEGM]

MariaG:

You have stated some things that Vatican II changed that just are not true. You need to seriously look into what Vatican II did say.

Catechism of The Catholic Church
966: “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord** as Queen over all things**, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death” (LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16). The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians . . .

Precisely, Maria. One only has to look at the feast days of the Church that specifically commemorate the Blessed Virgin, especially that on September 8th, the Queenship of Mary. If the Second Vatican Council had overthrown the Church’s teaching on Mary and her role in our salvation such feast days would have been suppressed.

 

[CindyGia]

I remember watching not so long ago an episode of “Mother Angelica” on EWTN which originally aired in 1981. The episode title was “The Immaculate Conception” and as Mother Angelica usually did, joked with the audience and asked if it “were still a Holy Day of Obligation” because as she put it, “you know all the changes brought about by the Vatican Twol!” This got a pretty good laugh from the audience. I had no idea what she was talking about basically because I’m a new Catholic, I had no idea such “changes” had been made. But now I can understand what she was referring to. I understand as well that many feast days of “some” saints have been altered to make room for other saints. That’s fine of course, but also didn’t the Vatican do away with some Feast Days of Mary? I’ll do more research on this myself. By the way, does anybody remember the first movement called "Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the People for Mary the Mediatrix)? 6 million Catholics from 155 countries petitioned the Vatican to oppose the Church’s diminution of Mary. And to declare three of Mary’s traditional titles “articles of faith”: Advocate for the people, Mediator of God-the-Son’s and God-the -Father’s divine grace, and Co-Redeemer (not equal to Christ but uniquely with him). The Vox Populi movement included approximately 550 bishops and 42 cardinasl, plus numerous other clergy who privately expressed agreement. From late 1996 through 1997 media around the world picked up the scent of a struggle and ran prominent articles about the petition. According to what I’ve read “It was too tough to call the odds on this fight, (the journalists conceded.) On one side were (then) millions of people and at least initially, the pope, whose Polish devotion to Mary is strong. On the other side stood Cardinals and Bishops within the Vatican, who were joined by a battalion of male theologians and functionaries ostensibly protecting the “progress” of ecumenism. The commission concluded by a unanimous vote that any doctrinal elevation of Mary would be contrary to the direction established by Vatican II and would be distasteful to Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.” Following the commission’s report, the Vox Populi movement was emphatically rebuffed by Vatican operatives. Now this is what I read folks.

Now, I want to get back to my point on why it is not impossible for women to be ordained as priests. Please keep in mind ladies, that in no way am I being rude or sarcastic. Emails cannot justify inflection of tone and many things I’m sure will be perceived as offensive. But I am writing this without prejudice. I’m just putting forth my opinion and thoughts here.

Now -
Over the centuries the church has definitely “evolved”. If you look at all the ecumenical councils, it took centuries for some dogmas and doctrines to be defined. It took up to the year 1861 for the Immaculate Conception to become Church Dogma. More than one thousand eight hundred years to define that dogma. It took the Council of Nicaea in 325 to emphasize the supernatural and fully divine nature of Mary’s pregnancy. It took another 150 years at the Council of Ephesus to define Mary as Mother of God, the Theotokos (God Bearer). It then took another hundred years or so to define Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. I think this was eventually set in 600, right? I could be wrong but I’m taking a wild guess.

Ok, so you’re probably saying “ok, so what! So it took centuries for the Church to define Dogmas” - But here is where I get my (out in left field) “thesis” on the assumption that there may “one day” be ordained women:

With the church evolving over the centuries, we see some major changes within Holy Mother Church. Here’s just a couple: (I have to finish in the next post…)

 

[CindyGia]

Continued –

1. ALTER GIRLS! When in the “old” Latin Rite Mass did you ever fathom seeing “girls” on the alter serving the priests? Never! But here it is - the time in history - girls, with heads uncovered yet, serving.

Here’s another one…

1. Women without head coverings! Now from what I can recollect from the OT, God specifically commanded that women cover their heads when worshipping! This was normal practice within the church for centuries. A woman without a head covering was unthinkable! But all that changed with SVII. The new doctrine being “we are all one body in Christ”. Well, ok, but why wasn’t that thought of 200 or 800 years ago??? What really troubles me about this is, women now think it unimaginable to cover their heads. It’s as if women couldn’t wait to rip that lovely little doily right off their nicely styled hairdos and toss that awful thing straight in the trash! Thank God that’s done with right? Well, what this has done is to deplete piety during the mass which once focused attention on the Glory of God and now focuses the attention on how pretty so and so’s hair looks! The whole point of the Mass is to give Glory to God in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When I first came into the church, oh, the dirty looks I got from women because I covered my head! What rolling of eyes I got! You wouldn’t believe it. I still cover my head to give the glory to God and not to myself, however, I’ve stopped wearing the veil or bandana and started wearing a “thick head band” simply because the disapproval from women was too much for me to bear. People certainly do not appreciate it if you seem just a little “pious” for their liking. What I really feel like saying to these women is; “Well, you know what? Maybe you should consider becoming Protestant if this is too much for ya!”

Another change:

1. Eucharistic ministers administering the Body of Christ to others. Who would’ve ever thought!!! But here we are in history where it is church teaching that women, with heads uncovered, administer the Holy Eucharist to others. Who would’ve guessed it!

4)Priests “facing” the congregation. For hundreds of years priests had their backs to the congregation. But now in the new modern church, this as well is changed.

ok, ok, I’m sure you’re all saying “so what! little changes!” And I could find a dozen other things as well that prove that the church is “evolving” into the new age. This is my point.

Now - here is the reason for all this writing, which I’m really getting tired of doing: I will use the “quote” provided me in the last post from MariaG:

MariaG:

Catechism of The Catholic Church
966: “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord** as Queen over all things**, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death” (LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16). The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians . . .

Precisely! There will be more Ecumenical Councils. I’m positive of that! Even if it takes another hundred years! (Hopefully the world doesn’t end before that time.) And I would bet the farm that in these future Councils, the Blessed Virgin will be the source and example as to reasoning for ordaining women. The Virgin is “Queen of the Apostles”! Mary is the “serene glory of the sun”. She is the verdant, fruitful branch and the source of primeval, pure light; the mediating stem.

The Mother of God, I believe, will be the catalyst and summit for the church to finally ordain women.

The only problem with this is - women hate women. Women are prejudice against their own gender. A woman is another woman’s worst enemy. It will be women themselves who will refuse to attend mass or go to confession because they will view this (just hypothetical keep in mind) new church doctrine as the AntiChrist. You see how most all women on this thread have jumped in to say ‘NO WAY!" Why? Yes, Christ chose all men as His Apostles - but what I’m saying is “THERE WAS NO ONE CLOSER TO GOD THAN MARY - A WOMAN!” Mary, WAS Christs’ FIRST Apostle!
(continued in next post. again too long…sorry)

 

[CindyGia]

continued —

Ok, I’ll step down now and give the floor to all you ravenous Catholic women who will no doubt try to tear me to pieces with all your Catechism and Scripture knowledge to prove my supposed thesis way over the top and ludicrous!

But I just wanted to add one thing here. While all you “holier than thou” Catholics are stampeding me to teach me a thing or two about this Holy Church, try turning around and looking at your own family while at mass. Have you noticed that your teenage daughters are almost naked? Have you noticed that someone in your own clan is receiving the Precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ sacriligiously, and you say nothing about it?

Before you start tearing me to pieces simply because I believe that there one day will be female priest, maybe you should try fixing what’s wrong in your own little circle first.

God Bless you all. I still appreciate you all even though some of you can seem very “prideful”. This site has been a saving grace for me and I thank God for it.

:bowdown2:

 

[Paris_Blues]

I haven’t read all the posts here (it’s impossible) but if we had women priests, that would be, and I REALLY HATE TO SAY THIS, like a “gay” thing so to speak to the Church because male preists are married to the CC so to speak so since the CC is the Mother, why would a woman be “married” to the CC?

Sorry, crazy thought.