S
shawnbm
Guest
I agree with you, Loki(name removed by moderator)–Brendan has said what I could never say, and more to the actual point.
- Status
L
LokisMom
Guest
Good point.
I beg to differ. I think its important to ask questions and learn why the Church teaches what She does, etc…
L
LokisMom
Guest
L
LokisMom
Guest
Thank you!
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Then why the fuss…?
Why are we discussing the prospects of women priests??
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
This doesn’t fly since there were female regents - Queens and Queen mothers - in authority that everyone listened to. There was St. Mary, who everyone honored; St. Mary Magdalene, considered Equal to the Apostles; ordained/consecrated Deaconess who assisted in baptizing women and other non-priestly roles, female prophetesses and more.
L
LokisMom
Guest
When someone is interested in understanding something, they typically ask questions about it.
L
LokisMom
Guest
During Jesus’ time, women weren’t even allowed to be witness in the court of law.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
That’s not entirely accurate. It’s a simplification. Witnesses according to what - Talmud, Roman Law, Ecclesial, Sanhedrin, Temple?
L
LokisMom
Guest
One of the posters above said that women of that time werent allowed to be a witness in the court of law because their testimony was considered worthless… and I know ive heard that before too. But that’s all I know.
E
estesbob
Guest
Interesting isn’t it-the first ones to witness the Resurrection of Jesus were women. If he wanted people to believe shouldn’t he have made sure it was men who discovered it first?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
No
Everyone in that time knew that if you really wanted the news to be spread…you tell Jewish women.
L
LokisMom
Guest
They were the first, but not the only ones to see him.
E
estesbob
Guest
When I was in the seminary this was given as an example of veracity of the Gospels. . If the gospel writers had wanted to make up a story and convince people of the divinity of Jesus they would’ve had men discover he had risen . I think the same goes for women priests-if Jesus had wanted a female priesthood nothing would have stopped him from making this happening. The fact that the western culture of the 21st-century sees this as something desirable should not enter the discussion at all. Church teachings are for all times and all places.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Women priests… why not?
Because as this thread demonstrates, some people would lose their minds and (more importantly) abandon their faith in the institution of the Church because, like children, they are weak and have difficulty processing major change.
The door will open when the time is right. That’s what “The door is closed” means–that there is an opening, but that presently it is blocked. I imagine the time will be right when the hardcore conservatives are finally dead and safely in heaven–twenty years from now or never, it’s hard to tell, since I am not a prophet.
Do we all understand the parable of the 11th hour? About all the faithful workers who were outraged when the Owner of the vineyard made a last minute change?
Anyway, after reading through the whole thread, I have to say, no one was able to clearly answer Loki(name removed by moderator)'s question, which says quite a bit about the real state of the issue.
Because as this thread demonstrates, some people would lose their minds and (more importantly) abandon their faith in the institution of the Church because, like children, they are weak and have difficulty processing major change.
The door will open when the time is right. That’s what “The door is closed” means–that there is an opening, but that presently it is blocked. I imagine the time will be right when the hardcore conservatives are finally dead and safely in heaven–twenty years from now or never, it’s hard to tell, since I am not a prophet.
Do we all understand the parable of the 11th hour? About all the faithful workers who were outraged when the Owner of the vineyard made a last minute change?
Anyway, after reading through the whole thread, I have to say, no one was able to clearly answer Loki(name removed by moderator)'s question, which says quite a bit about the real state of the issue.
E
estesbob
Guest
I think it was clearly answered. I also think some people just didn’t like the answer
L
LokisMom
Guest
But in the end, it doesn’t matter who discovered him. Because other people saw him after the discovery anyway.
M
Melissa
Guest
That is certainly true. It’s been clearly answered with a “no” and not a “not now” or “ask again later” or “maybe”.
J
Jerurussia
Guest
Males alone can atone for the “Sin of Adam.” Adam got his grant of divine power and authority as steward of life before woman was made. Sin and death came into the world because Adam betrayed his office. Males-only offer sacrifice to atone for the “Sin of Adam” from Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel, onward. Christ perfects the Cain sacrifice of fruits of the cursed Earth as the High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek, priest-king of Salem who was given bread and wine by Abraham to offer to God.
Woman & Seed were given a separate grant of divine power and authority to crush Satan’s head, he and his minions, in Genesis 3:15. The Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ fulfill this Woman & Seed office, with “Seed” being a collective term nicely defining the Body of Christ. So males, females, and their offspring all have a divine grant of power and authority, a mission from God.
Portraying a woman as “priestess” would demand a rewording of the Bible to call Original Sin the “Sin of Adam & Eve.” Woman would be up on the altar offering her Seed as a human sacrifice. Oy! Forensically, the Eucharist would not be confected as being outside Adam’s mandate. Yes, a fan can catch a baseball, but that doesn’t make it an automatic out. Woman isn’t to blame for the “Sin of Adam” and has no power and authority to atone for in this regard. Woman & Seed are to crush the “Father of Lies and Murder,” Satan’s descriptive moniker.
Woman & Seed were given a separate grant of divine power and authority to crush Satan’s head, he and his minions, in Genesis 3:15. The Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ fulfill this Woman & Seed office, with “Seed” being a collective term nicely defining the Body of Christ. So males, females, and their offspring all have a divine grant of power and authority, a mission from God.
Portraying a woman as “priestess” would demand a rewording of the Bible to call Original Sin the “Sin of Adam & Eve.” Woman would be up on the altar offering her Seed as a human sacrifice. Oy! Forensically, the Eucharist would not be confected as being outside Adam’s mandate. Yes, a fan can catch a baseball, but that doesn’t make it an automatic out. Woman isn’t to blame for the “Sin of Adam” and has no power and authority to atone for in this regard. Woman & Seed are to crush the “Father of Lies and Murder,” Satan’s descriptive moniker.
I
Iron_Donkey
Guest
Don’t make me break out the Papal Facepalm. Because I will.
Well, given that that parable had nothing to do with last minute changes whatsoever, since the Master had stated from the beginning that the reward for the work would be and that didn’t actually ever change, and that the early workers were in fact outraged not because of some nonexistent change, but rather because th]e Master gave what He agreed to give rather than, as it so happens, changing His mind and doing other than He originally said - it seems like the answer is no.
This tendency among some of the more liberal leaning to try to make everything about change, where change is by default good, and being opposed to any particular change that the he desires is obviously only the result of crippling “fear of change,” is somewhat tiresome and rarely actually makes sense. But with this parable it fails particularly spectacularly, since in fact those who were in the wrong were demanding change and those who weren’t in the wrong were accepting things as they were.
Further, this parable is about conversion and not contradictory changes to dogma. People start doing the same work that others had started doing earlier, to end up getting paid the same. It is not a parable in which Jesus hires a bunch of people to do some sort of work, then later on hires a bunch of other people to undo that work because He decided He didn’t really want that first work done after all.
I have not read through the whole thread, but I can give a few bullet points real fast. Keep in mind that these are only bullet points, and you can expand upon them by searching the forums for -]dead horses near clubs/-] this subject, as well as looking up official documents. This subject has come up once or twice before, and while that of course doesn’t mean that someone who wants to know more should not start discussing it again, it does mean that you shouldn’t assume that all that has ever been said about it has been said here (although it is almost certainly true that all that has been said here about it has been said elsewhere).
But anyway, the bullets:
- We know that it cannot happen because the Church has infallibly said so. This doesn’t say why, of course, but it does say that, and so it should redirect us from seeking to convince others to change their minds to seeking to understand the why for its own sake.
- Jesus appointed only male Apostles. This is significant because:
- Men and women are in fact different. Not interchangeable.
- Jesus incarnated as a man.
- Maleness is associated with being a giver, female with receiver, and so God is male in relation to all of creation (while being neither male nor female in Himself, obviously)
- Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is His bride (related to above above)
- etc, etc, more Christ is not just male by accident or coin flip stuff
- Priests stand in the person of Christ. This is a Big Deal.
- Status