J
JMJ_coder
Guest
And if I recall correctly, Judaism was the only religion in the ancient world that did NOT have priestesses.
- Status
T
TomaszA
Guest
I heard similar. When Christianity spread through the Empire it went counter culture by having a male only priesthood.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
Hi Ralph,
Actually like you and I call our male priest “Father Joe”,or “Joe” and we call our female priest “Mother Anne” or “Anne”.
God Bless!
F
FCEGM
Guest
R
ralphinal
Guest
That part doesn’t phase me so much. It is the whole “women Priest” name. They are priestesses.
You know, historically, priests being called Father is a more recent phenominon.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Wonderboo,
I’m an old feminist from way back, from before I became Christian, let alone Catholic. I was strong in my belief that anatomy should not make a difference in what we are capable of doing.
I have not stopped being a feminist, though my belief about abortion and birth control has changed. So has my view of the priesthood.
I still believe that anatomy should not restrict people from a job they are physically and mentally able to do - except for the priesthood. In fact, I do not believe that a woman, no matter how mentally able, is physically able to be a priest.
God chose to send His son as a man. That Son chose men to be His apostles. He had women among His disciples, as evidenced by the Marys, raising them from servitude. He raised them to equals in justice, as seen in the woman taken in adultery, and the parable of the widow and the judge. (Lk 18:1-8) Jesus was a feminist.
But He was male, and His Apostles were male, and those they laid hands on and created Bishops were male. If He had not meant it to be this way, He’d have had a woman Apostle. I trust Him in this.
The most important thing is that priests serve in persona Christi. When I go to confession, I am not absolved by the priest, but by Christ, who is using the priest’s person. It is not the priest who confects the Eucharist, but Christ using the priest’s person to renew the Last supper. That’s why we say the priest is an icon of Christ.
Christ was a male. The priest cannot be *in persona Christi *without being male. It’s not a sexist power grab; it is the highest form of service a man can do. We women have plenty of ways in which we can minister to people. We just cannot act *in persona Christi.
*
God bless you,
Ruthie
I’m an old feminist from way back, from before I became Christian, let alone Catholic. I was strong in my belief that anatomy should not make a difference in what we are capable of doing.
I have not stopped being a feminist, though my belief about abortion and birth control has changed. So has my view of the priesthood.
I still believe that anatomy should not restrict people from a job they are physically and mentally able to do - except for the priesthood. In fact, I do not believe that a woman, no matter how mentally able, is physically able to be a priest.
God chose to send His son as a man. That Son chose men to be His apostles. He had women among His disciples, as evidenced by the Marys, raising them from servitude. He raised them to equals in justice, as seen in the woman taken in adultery, and the parable of the widow and the judge. (Lk 18:1-8) Jesus was a feminist.
But He was male, and His Apostles were male, and those they laid hands on and created Bishops were male. If He had not meant it to be this way, He’d have had a woman Apostle. I trust Him in this.
The most important thing is that priests serve in persona Christi. When I go to confession, I am not absolved by the priest, but by Christ, who is using the priest’s person. It is not the priest who confects the Eucharist, but Christ using the priest’s person to renew the Last supper. That’s why we say the priest is an icon of Christ.
Christ was a male. The priest cannot be *in persona Christi *without being male. It’s not a sexist power grab; it is the highest form of service a man can do. We women have plenty of ways in which we can minister to people. We just cannot act *in persona Christi.
*
God bless you,
Ruthie
C
cathopologist
Guest
Wonderful response, Ruthie.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Beautifully explained Ruthie!
W
Wonderboo
Guest
Kay so I’ve read everything ya’ll have said and hear me out.
1st: I really want more than a “because X says so” I’m a historian that means I want to know why things happen, there are reasons the church does things, theology comes later but more importantly
2nd: The deacon arg: Why can’t women be deacons? They were in the Church from the start why not anymore. Further, the role of deacons both male and female were the same in the early church, just one dealt with men and one with women, why can’t women kept up the role that has been theirs before?
3rd: Yes, Christ only had male apostles but the bishops flow from the apostles not the priesthood, in fact the priesthood is a later invention, why then can’t women be priests?
4th: Yes, the priest acts in the person of Christ but the priest also must act in the person of the Church, there are lots of women in the Church yes?
1st: I really want more than a “because X says so” I’m a historian that means I want to know why things happen, there are reasons the church does things, theology comes later but more importantly
2nd: The deacon arg: Why can’t women be deacons? They were in the Church from the start why not anymore. Further, the role of deacons both male and female were the same in the early church, just one dealt with men and one with women, why can’t women kept up the role that has been theirs before?
3rd: Yes, Christ only had male apostles but the bishops flow from the apostles not the priesthood, in fact the priesthood is a later invention, why then can’t women be priests?
4th: Yes, the priest acts in the person of Christ but the priest also must act in the person of the Church, there are lots of women in the Church yes?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Dear Wonderboo:Kay so I’ve read everything ya’ll have said and hear me out.
1st: I really want more than a “because X says so” I’m a historian that means I want to know why things happen, there are reasons the church does things, theology comes later but more importantly
2nd: The deacon arg: Why can’t women be deacons? They were in the Church from the start why not anymore. Further, the role of deacons both male and female were the same in the early church, just one dealt with men and one with women, why can’t women kept up the role that has been theirs before?
3rd: Yes, Christ only had male apostles but the bishops flow from the apostles not the priesthood, in fact the priesthood is a later invention, why then can’t women be priests?
4th: Yes, the priest acts in the person of Christ but the priest also must act in the person of the Church, there are lots of women in the Church yes?
As a historian, you must realize that there are some things which happen, in the ‘supernatural realm’ (and God is, of course, supernatural, is He not?) that we are not going to be able to fully explain and/or understand.
It appears to me (a fellow historian, BTW, hello) that you have taken your original question, in which you asked 'why can’t women be priests, explain to me" and are now attempting not only to deny that you have been answered but you’re also attempting to use all your predetermined ideas as ‘backup’ that, see, you haven’t been answered because why this, why this, why this, why not this, etc. etc.
a. You want the ‘real reason’ the Church only ordains men? I have told you. I’ll tell you again. The real reason is that the Holy Spirit has revealed that the Church has no authority to ordain women, then, now or ever. There is no ‘conspiracy’ here, no attempt to dominate or lie or twist or whatever. The Church only ordains men. The Church also only consecrates bread and wine, not potato chips and beer. Perhaps you would like to ask “why” the Church ONLY uses those? There must be a reason. Maybe the Vatican is secretly a wine bootlegging organization and also has a grain cartel. . .otherwise we’d have potato chips and beer because, hey, they’re more democratic and contemporary. Obviously the Church is trying to either cover up that Jesus REALLY used beer and chips, or else the Church is doing it for some other evil reason. Perish the THOUGHT that the Church is simply using what God has revealed is the valid matter for the Eucharist. . .and that’s it. No ‘evil coverups’. No ‘domination’. Just obedience to God.
b. Please, fellow historian, research deacons just a little bit more, and from some more primary sources. You will find that there were indeed differences to the roles of males and females, and in how they were given and how they accepted those roles. Right now, you’re attempting to stretch one fact–there did exist males deacons and female deaconesses covering a certain time period in a certain geographic area–and attempting to make them absolutely equal in function and authority. They were not. So don’t try to pretend that once again the evil empire is ‘covering up’ that women once did ‘more’ and obviously if they aren’t still it’s another coverup or domination on the part of the big bad Church. It isn’t.
c and d. . .Please reread. You’ve gotten a tad confused on who’s on first, what went second, and again, you’re attempting to mix apples and oranges.
Now if you don’t want to accept that ‘God has spoken’, you have free will. But don’t go around saying, “Can you tell me why?”
We have TOLD you why.
What you’re really trying to say in this post I have quoted appears to be “I don’t believe what the Church says, I want women priests, I think they should exist, and since they don’t, I think it’s because the Church made a mistake they need to fix or they’re deliberately denying women and need to be smacked down.”
R
ralphinal
Guest
Historically, there never were any, so what is the reason to do it now?
Baptisms were done by immersion. There were no swimsuits and fabric was not what it is today. Dunking generally mean some level of undress. If you want to start baptising by immersion and nude, perhaps we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, there is no need. Besides, do not forget that the modern deaconate is a step to the priesthood, even if the next step is not taken.
I am not so sure that it is. The Bible describes episcopates, elders, and deacons. The first are Bishops, the last are deacons. What do you recon the middle ones are called today?
Yes, but they are not excluded. Are they excluded in the United States if the president is male? What if you mayor or senators are male? Does that make you persona non grata?4th: Yes, the priest acts in the person of Christ but the priest also must act in the person of the Church, there are lots of women in the Church yes?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That implies that:
- only the ordained priesthood can be icons of Christ
- women are either
- not Christian
- not human
- or both
That defence is insulting to the laity (who are almost all of the Church) & insulting to women; it’s execrable as NT theology.
- or both
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Kay so I’ve read everything ya’ll have said and hear me out.
1st: I really want more than a “because X says so” I’m a historian that means I want to know why things happen, there are reasons the church does things, theology comes later but more importantly
2nd: The deacon arg: Why can’t women be deacons? They were in the Church from the start why not anymore. Further, the role of deacons both male and female were the same in the early church, just one dealt with men and one with women, why can’t women kept up the role that has been theirs before?
3rd: Yes, Christ only had male apostles but the bishops flow from the apostles not the priesthood, in fact the priesthood is a later invention, why then can’t women be priests?
4th: Yes, the priest acts in the person of Christ but the priest also must act in the person of the Church, there are lots of women in the Church yes?
If the argument were valid,it would exclude Gentiles. So the Italian & Polish popes who defended the prohibition in 1976 & later would be no more ordainable than a cow.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Excuse me, but how did it exclude Gentiles? Once the apostles followed Jesus, they were Christians. No longer Jews. Just as a nonChristian today who becomes a baptized Christian is no longer considered to be ‘what he was’ but is considered a Christian. And since we know from St. Peter’s own words in Scripture that salvation had been extended to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. . .ipso facto, the succession passed to Jew OR to Gentile.
Just as a matter of courtesy, though we are in the nonCatholic religions forum, I think it would be a nice gesture when we are talking of distinctive Catholic teachings that posters who reply identify themselves as NONCATHOLIC when they are nonCatholic. . .not all posters, especially newer ones, check a poster’s profile and could often be confused.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Shlom lokh,That implies that:
When an argument from symbolism implies that almost all the Church are sub-human or sub-Christian, something is wrong with the argument
- only the ordained priesthood can be icons of Christ
- women are either
- not Christian
- not human
- or both
That defence is insulting to the laity (who are almost all of the Church) & insulting to women; it’s execrable as NT theology.
That’s not what it implies at all. How did you get that idea from a post that read “The priest is the icon of Christ”? Also, how is the priest NOT the icon of Christ? Granted, we are all called to be like Him, but is not the priest called to be like Him in the fullest sense? This includes being male.
Enlighten us, please as to what type of argumentation would work in explaining to Protestants and others that women are able to be ordained. I am curious to know, unless you are for the “ordination of women” in which case I would not need to hear the argument.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
- Status