Women Priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Digitonomy said:
Just to nitpick, I don’t think this is a very strong argument, since Paul wasn’t present at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
Yet St Paul said: I passed to you what i have received from the Lord, that the night He died He took Bread and broke…

God says: women are not to speak in the Church. that is final. if women want to be priests, they can in the pagan world. no one is stopping them.

the devil wants to have his way in the Church just like he did it in the Garden of Eden.

wake up Catholics.
 
Oh and by the way one other thing:

I personally will know Women are meant to be Priests when my husband comes home and tells me he is pregnant and I am the father.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Just FYI, the Catholic Church has no official position on whether early deaconesses received sacramental ordination. There are Catholic theologians and historians on both sides of this issue.
Click to expand...
This is true but the fact is that a deaconess was not just a female deacon, she had a totally different role, one that really no longer exists within the Church today.
 
ByzCath said:
This is true but the fact is that a deaconess was not just a female deacon, she had a totally different role, one that really no longer exists within the Church today.
Click to expand...
Certainly the role no longer exists in the Catholic Church today. However, note that the Greek Orthodox Church still ordains deaconesses today according to the ancient rite.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Certainly the role no longer exists in the Catholic Church today. However, note that the Greek Orthodox Church still ordains deaconesses today according to the ancient rite.
Click to expand...
Only in cloistered convents where they treat the cloister in a stricter manner than the Catholic Church usually does.

Also in very few places this has been done.
 
GeorgeSword said:
I think the simplest argument for those who say that women should be allowed to be priests is this one;
  1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  2. Christ was male.
  3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also be male.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it. And besides, if women were supposed to be priests, why weren’t there any female apostles? Or female presbyters? If God wanted women to be priests, does He have to wait nearly 2,000 years for a group of people to make it happen?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this before, and it makes sense. But I wouldn’t say it is flawless and that there is “no way around it.” Why is Jesus’ masculinity so important? Don’t men and women image Christ? Obviously, they will image Christ in different ways by their nature as male and female. But, why can women not image Christ in a way that is adequate for the practice of the sacraments?

I’m not for female ordination, but I don’t think the arguments put forth by the Church are very convincing. There seems to be a lot of “that’s the way it’s always been” and “Christ only had male apostles,” which are very weak arguments.
 
rusty20 said:
I’ve heard this before, and it makes sense. But I wouldn’t say it is flawless and that there is “no way around it.” Why is Jesus’ masculinity so important? Don’t men and women image Christ? Obviously, they will image Christ in different ways by their nature as male and female. But, why can women not image Christ in a way that is adequate for the practice of the sacraments?
Click to expand...
I’ve got to agree. I have no truck with wymynpriests whatsoever, but as a matter of logic this is just a sorry argument. Consider
  1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  2. Christ spoke Aramaic.
  3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also speak Aramaic.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it.
or
  1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  2. Christ was not black.
  3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also not be black.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it.
So, yeah, sorry to whoever originally posted it, but that argument is incredibly weak, and there’s no real way to get around that.

One thing we should all remember is that the Church doesn’t need convincing arguments. They can be good to have for pastoral and apologetical reasons, but in matters of faith (such as the sacrament of ordination), the magisterium of the Church is the ultimate “because I said so, that’s why.”
 
MarkThompson said:
I’ve got to agree. I have no truck with wymynpriests whatsoever, but as a matter of logic this is just a sorry argument. Consider1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  1. Christ spoke Aramaic.
  2. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also speak Aramaic.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it.or1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  1. Christ was not black.
  2. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also not be black.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it.So, yeah, sorry to whoever originally posted it, but that argument is incredibly weak, and there’s no real way to get around that.

One thing we should all remember is that the Church doesn’t need convincing arguments. They can be good to have for pastoral and apologetical reasons, but in matters of faith (such as the sacrament of ordination), the magisterium of the Church is the ultimate “because I said so, that’s why.”
Click to expand...
Actually the simplest argument is.


  1. *]Priests act in the person of Christ.
    *]Christ ordained Jewish men to his priests/Apostles
    *]In order to act in the person of Christ one must be of Jewish descent

    But that does not work because the original Christianity was just a Jewish sect, when it started to admit Gentiles it needed to change. The key issue is the sex, men where ordained not women. Christ could have but did not ordain women, he had women working high up in the disciples but none of them were Apostles.
 
Among other things, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and the priest takes the place of Christ.
Through the Mass and the Sacraments, the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride. A woman CANNOT take the part of the Bridegroom!
As one speaker stated: “It would be LITURGICAL LESBIANISM.”.

It`s a pernicious lie, kept alive by the radical feminists and misguided Catholics with itchy ears.
 
Among other things: the Church is the Bride of Christ; and the priest takes the place of Christ. Through the Mass and the Sacraments, the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride.

A woman CANNOT take the place of the Bridegroom! As one speaker stated: “It would be LITURGICAL LESBIANISM.”…plus: totally invalid. Maleness is essential.

The “priestess” issue is a pernicious lie, kept alive by the radical feminists, and misguided Catholics with itchy ears.
EasterJoy said:
Well, yes, but…
IMHO, that particular objection is fairly rejected by the other side as irrelevant, and so it is better to avoid it. Women attempting ordination to the priesthood do not call themselves priestesses, because the term priestess implies an office reserved to women alone.
Click to expand...
Using their “reasoning”, were no longer permitted to say: "actress, "authoress" etc. If the women attempting ordination dont like the word “priestess” (or any other “ess” or “rix” word), then that`s all the more reason we should use the word. Metaphorically speaking: They can go to Hell!
 
SunnaB16 said:
Among other things: the Church is the Bride of Christ; and the priest takes the place of Christ. Through the Mass and the Sacraments, the Bridegroom gives Life to His Bride.

A woman CANNOT take the place of the Bridegroom! As one speaker stated: “It would be LITURGICAL LESBIANISM.”…plus: totally invalid. Maleness is essential.

The “priestess” issue is a pernicious lie, kept alive by the radical feminists, and misguided Catholics with itchy ears.

Using their “reasoning”, were no longer permitted to say: "actress, "authoress" etc. If the women attempting ordination dont like the word “priestess” (or any other “ess” or “rix” word), then that`s all the more reason we should use the word. Metaphorically speaking: They can go to Hell!
Click to expand...
That is an excellent point that I had not thought of along with the whole women taking the place of Christ just can’t happen. 👍
 
GeorgeSword said:
I think the simplest argument for those who say that women should be allowed to be priests is this one;
  1. Priests act in the person of Christ.
  2. Christ was male.
  3. In order to act in the person of Christ, the priest must also be male.
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it. And besides, if women were supposed to be priests, why weren’t there any female apostles? Or female presbyters? If God wanted women to be priests, does He have to wait nearly 2,000 years for a group of people to make it happen?
Click to expand...
This is fine so far as it goes, but it really isn’t enough alone if you are trying to make the argument to someone who doubts it. A typical response to this wold be “then why doesn’t a priest have to be Palestinian/have brown hair/be circumcised/like to eat cherries?”

The question still stands - why is sex relevant, when other physical characteristics are not? And if Christ as a man was able to save humanity through his humanity, why is humanity not enough for the priesthood? Why don’t we say only men are saved? What is the difference?

I am not saying there are not good answers, but rarely see them presented, which may be why people find this argument unconvincing.
 
ByzCath said:
Only in cloistered convents where they treat the cloister in a stricter manner than the Catholic Church usually does.

Also in very few places this has been done.
Click to expand...
I think though it does not matter if there was a specific role, or that it no longer exists. If women were ordained deacons at one time in the Church, it shows that it can be done and it is simply not true to say a woman cannot be in ordained ministry of any kind.

And I think, if it does turn out to be the case that it is possible, if not having had this role for so long did not cause certain problems that are now faced by the Church. There is no way to know this of course, but I do wonder.
 
Bluegoat said:
This is fine so far as it goes, but it really isn’t enough alone if you are trying to make the argument to someone who doubts it. A typical response to this wold be “then why doesn’t a priest have to be Palestinian/have brown hair/be circumcised/like to eat cherries?”…
Click to expand...
I did not know that those were the requirements to be a bridegroom? 😃
 
Cristiano said:
I did not know that those were the requirements to be a bridegroom? 😃
Click to expand...
I realize you are joking, but this is of course a kind of metaphor. The Church is not literally a bride, nor Christ a bridegroom - we have no language to describe the real relationship.

If this were literally true, a married priest would be impossible, which isn’t the case. In fact, you could extrapolate to suggest that no Christian should marry.
 
GeorgeSword said:
It’s incredibly simple, but there’s no real way to get around it. And besides, if women were supposed to be priests, why weren’t there any female apostles? Or female presbyters? If God wanted women to be priests, does He have to wait nearly 2,000 years for a group of people to make it happen?
Click to expand...
If God wanted slaves to be able to become priests, why did it take the Catholic Church nearly 2,000 years (until the 1983 code of canon law) to allow this to happen?
 
Bluegoat said:
I realize you are joking, but this is of course a kind of metaphor. The Church is not literally a bride, nor Christ a bridegroom - we have no language to describe the real relationship…
Click to expand...
Honest, I did not make the language up!
Bluegoat said:
…If this were literally true, a married priest would be impossible, which isn’t the case. In fact, you could extrapolate to suggest that no Christian should marry.
Click to expand...
That is why priests cannot get married! While you can go from a part to a whole, you cannot go from the whole to a part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top