C
First, there have always been married priests and unmarried priests so no change there.Forgive me for this question, as I’m sure it’s been around 1000 times. But only today have I gotten interested in discovering the Truth.
FIRST: Is it an official doctrine of the Church that women cannot, not now, not ever, become preists, or is it a tradition that could perhaps change, such as married preists?
SECOND: If so, would that effect the role of family, having it so the wife could be the head? Or does this not have anything to do with whether or not preists can be women?
I ask because a new Church my wife and I recently started, one that is very awesome, some of them, like the pianoist and I believe even the preist, are open to that possibility in the future. I want to make sure we’re not getting involved with heresy.
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I just want to make it known that I do not have any problem with the idea of female preists, a lot of the times I like talking to women about certain things and wouldn’t cast an issue confessing to a preistest or having her rule over me. But if God says “No,” then I am going to listen to Him rather than any man or woman, no matter what!!
Christ founded a Church. There is Sacred Traition, Sacred Scripture, and the magisterium. None of your assertions are consistent with any of them.Jesus said:
No-one knows the day or the hour,
not man,
nor the angels in Heaven
nor the Son of Man,
only the Father.
Mk, 13: 32
de die autem illo
vel hora
nemo scit
neque
angeli in caelo
neque Filius
nisi Pater
But of that day
or hour
no man knoweth,
neither
the angels in heaven,
nor the Son,
but the Father.
Uncertainty is part of this universe. Without uncertainty, the universe could not exist.
That is Scientific Truth.
The Blessed Mother Church does not argue against Scientific Truth.
Jesus, in the Gospel, makes this clear.
Uncertainty can be reduced to vanishingly small measure by using an “averaging filter” such as the Magisterium, but it cannot be eliminated.
If the filter has a systemic bias, the filtered output will be biased. That is mathematical truth.
We know from Paul’s reports that in the early Church, there were female deacons.
We know at Paul struggled, (in vain) to prevent schism between followers of The Way, and the Pharasaics, and to this effect, he spoke against the female deacons preaching in the synogogue, as that would offend the Pharasaics.
There was nothing in Our Lord’s time to prevent a female from being ‘Paterfamilias’, in necessity, as in te case of Mary and Martha, and so being Lord of the Feast. Indeed, it is common among Jews today, for the mother of the house to preside over the Passover meal.
The Last Supper, which we remember in the Eucharist, was such a meal.
Yes, Our Lord, a man, presided over that meal, and so instituted the memorial.
Yes, the president of the Eucharist is acting ‘in vicares Christi’.
However, no-one turned a hair when Condy Rice acted ‘in vicares Bushi’.
Remember, Our Lord came to us ‘in vicares Dei’, but those of us with open minds understand that G_d is without gender, or if you prefer, beyond gender, so the fact that Our Lord was/is male, has no implication upon the gender of G_d.
The male pronoun: ‘He’, is used in preference to ‘She’ or ‘It’, as a respectful preference, as ‘it’ was commonly used of beasts, as ‘She’ recalled the heathen mother goddess of the Philistines.