G
Giennensis
Guest
Hello
I’m male, but since I’m not the only nor the first male who posts here I think it doesn’t matter… hehehe…
I haven’t read all the posts (there’s a liot of text to be read!), but I’ll give you my opinion. If it’s useful, praise God, if not, praise God too
See, there are two things we need to keep separated: One thing is the ministry of priesthood, which is a Sacrament of service, whose role is very specifical, and other very different thing is to talk about positions of power in the Church. The first is only for men, because it’s a task only for men, very important and special, but which doesn’t imply other ministries are less important… would you dare to decide which members are more important? Women have other tasks as important as the task of a priest. One of them (but not the only) is the task of being mothers, because, if you haven’t noticed yet, is in a family where a child’s vocation can grow or die. I could say in a certain way the mothers are the makers of future priests.
That’s a great job!! Every priest should thank his mother for that!
What about positions of power? See, the task of a priest is very specifical, so every other task can be performed by laics or consecrated (who can of course be either men or women). The administration of a diocese it’s a position of power (you can order and forbid things to other people, even priests if needed) and it could be left to a woman without any problem, because the bishop’s task is to visit the parishes, to preach and to guide spiritually the people.
Doing dofferent things and wourking in a different way doesn’t mean being unjust, men are women are both image of God, but they are different, so they reflect a different aspect of He who they are image of.
Now let’s go with some historical logics… All of you know the Church started as a jewish group, with all the cultural stuff of the jewish socety of its time. But, you also know converted pagans quickly grew in number to the point the jewish christians soon became a minority. That’s the reason of the Council of Jerusalem, where the christians abandoned the prectice of the jewish Law as a requisite for being a christian. That day the Church was no longer a jewish group and became truly universal.
Well… Jews didn’t have priestesses, so it’s normal a jewish group wouldn’t allow them, but the pagan society had them. It would have been a very normal thing to accept christian priestesses for most of them (remember the majority of the Church was formed by former pagans), so, why there’s no recor of women priestesses? Maybe because everybody understood that was not Jesus’ will? It’s very strange a religion that in less than a century and a half was 2/3 women to avoid a very usual practice of having women priests, isn’t it?
Think on this…
(please, forgive my bad english, since it’s not my main language I still need to improve it a lot)
I’m male, but since I’m not the only nor the first male who posts here I think it doesn’t matter… hehehe…
I haven’t read all the posts (there’s a liot of text to be read!), but I’ll give you my opinion. If it’s useful, praise God, if not, praise God too
See, there are two things we need to keep separated: One thing is the ministry of priesthood, which is a Sacrament of service, whose role is very specifical, and other very different thing is to talk about positions of power in the Church. The first is only for men, because it’s a task only for men, very important and special, but which doesn’t imply other ministries are less important… would you dare to decide which members are more important? Women have other tasks as important as the task of a priest. One of them (but not the only) is the task of being mothers, because, if you haven’t noticed yet, is in a family where a child’s vocation can grow or die. I could say in a certain way the mothers are the makers of future priests.
That’s a great job!! Every priest should thank his mother for that!
What about positions of power? See, the task of a priest is very specifical, so every other task can be performed by laics or consecrated (who can of course be either men or women). The administration of a diocese it’s a position of power (you can order and forbid things to other people, even priests if needed) and it could be left to a woman without any problem, because the bishop’s task is to visit the parishes, to preach and to guide spiritually the people.
Doing dofferent things and wourking in a different way doesn’t mean being unjust, men are women are both image of God, but they are different, so they reflect a different aspect of He who they are image of.
Now let’s go with some historical logics… All of you know the Church started as a jewish group, with all the cultural stuff of the jewish socety of its time. But, you also know converted pagans quickly grew in number to the point the jewish christians soon became a minority. That’s the reason of the Council of Jerusalem, where the christians abandoned the prectice of the jewish Law as a requisite for being a christian. That day the Church was no longer a jewish group and became truly universal.
Well… Jews didn’t have priestesses, so it’s normal a jewish group wouldn’t allow them, but the pagan society had them. It would have been a very normal thing to accept christian priestesses for most of them (remember the majority of the Church was formed by former pagans), so, why there’s no recor of women priestesses? Maybe because everybody understood that was not Jesus’ will? It’s very strange a religion that in less than a century and a half was 2/3 women to avoid a very usual practice of having women priests, isn’t it?
Think on this…
(please, forgive my bad english, since it’s not my main language I still need to improve it a lot)
frdave20