Women Priests

[joandarc2008]

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.

Show me in the Bible where it says what color Jesus was. We can assume that he was of Palestinian decent but having been over there I have met full blood Iraqis that were six foot tall red headed white skinned and green eyed. God can do anything.

 

[Bluegoat]

Honest, I did not make the language up!

I wasn’t suggesting you did. It is Biblical, but that does not mean that it is literal in the way you are implying.

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.

No, it isn’t. THere are married priests in the Catholic Church.

Show me in the Bible where it says what color Jesus was. We can assume that he was of Palestinian decent but having been over there I have met full blood Iraqis that were six foot tall red headed white skinned and green eyed. God can do anything.

You have missed the point The question is, why is gender unique in this discussion. It isn’t that difficult a question, but so far no Catholic poster has offered any. Nor have any addressed the difference between humanity being adequate for the salvation of all, but not the priesthood.

Saying Christ is a man is not an argument if you do not also say why that particular characteristic is important, and how it is important.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

No, they were not ordained deacons. They were ordained deaconesses. A big difference.

They had no liturgical function as a deacon does.

Unlike today, the adding of ness on the end of a male title does not mean that they are the same thing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, it isn’t. There are married priests in the Catholic Church.

While there are married priests in the Catholic Church it is important to note that priests cannot marry. A married man may be ordained a priest, but once a man is ordained he may never marry.

 

[Bluegoat]

While there are married priests in the Catholic Church it is important to note that priests cannot marry. A married man may be ordained a priest, but once a man is ordained he may never marry.

Yes, but neither would be the case if the reason was the priest was literally married to the Church. You can’t be married two two people no matter what order you do it in. There is good reason that Christianity tends to have a focus on positive language in its theology, but we musn’t forget that we never speak quite precisely about the things of God with human language, because it is limited and God is not.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For the record, there are many and good ‘reasons’ that the priesthood of the Catholic Church (and of its predecessor, the Jewish priesthood) is all-male.

Likewise for the record, the Church has no authority to ordain women.

That is it, in a nutshell.

The Church doesn’t have the power to change God’s teachings. That’s why the Church does not have the power to make the Trinity into a “Nope, just One Person”, or to confect the Eucharist with grape juice and cake, or to ‘marry’ two men. It doesn’t matter that certain groups, professing themselves Christian, do the above (Unitarians, non-denoms, certain Episcopalians). The Catholic Church has no authority to change what God has decreed is valid matter for a sacrament.

People who argue the matter simply think that the Catholic Church is like those other Christian Churches, who usurp God’s authority and make unauthorized changes.

But even if every human being on the planet were to accept a falsehood as truth, that would not mean that the falsehood would become the truth. The fact that other Christians have accepted certain falsehood like the above examples as truth does not mean that we should join them.

 

[JimG]

Really, there’s not much point in addressing arguments in favor of something that’s just not going to happen, ever.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, but neither would be the case if the reason was the priest was literally married to the Church. You can’t be married two two people no matter what order you do it in. There is good reason that Christianity tends to have a focus on positive language in its theology, but we musn’t forget that we never speak quite precisely about the things of God with human language, because it is limited and God is not.

You are right, priests are not married to the Church. That is not in the theology of the priesthood anywhere that I can find.

It is a pious expression of the laity who do not know any better.

 

[EasterJoy]

Really, there’s not much point in addressing arguments in favor of something that’s just not going to happen, ever.

Actually, I think catechesis on why this isn’t an issue of equal rights or unfair discrimination is very important. The arguments in favor aren’t going to stop in any case, but they won’t lose momentum by being ignored, either.

Apologists do have to address these questions when they are raised. There will be those of good faith who really need to satisfy themselves that this does not fall under a category similar to when some in the Church wrongly sold indulgences or when some blamed the Crucifixion on the Jews and used it as an excuse to be unfair or even violent towards Jews who persisted in Judaism instead of converting. We have had some issues in our history and there is a lot of ignorance about what really has happened over the course of our history, so we cannot expect the faithful to simply assume that nothing is ever done without a good reason.

 

[joandarc2008]

I wasn’t suggesting you did. It is Biblical, but that does not mean that it is literal in the way you are implying.

No, it isn’t. THere are married priests in the Catholic Church.

You have missed the point The question is, why is gender unique in this discussion. It isn’t that difficult a question, but so far no Catholic poster has offered any. Nor have any addressed the difference between humanity being adequate for the salvation of all, but not the priesthood.

Saying Christ is a man is not an argument if you do not also say why that particular characteristic is important, and how it is important.

I don’t miss the point at all - I am saying the whole real physical characteristic that is mentioned over and throughout the life of Christ is that he was male. It does not tell of race, eye color, height etc. Although I am sure He grew between the Nativity and the Wedding Feast.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Actually, I think catechesis on why this isn’t an issue of equal rights or unfair discrimination is very important. The arguments in favor aren’t going to stop in any case, but they won’t lose momentum by being ignored, either.

Apologists do have to address these questions when they are raised. There will be those of good faith who really need to satisfy themselves that this does not fall under a category similar to when some in the Church wrongly sold indulgences or when some blamed the Crucifixion on the Jews and used it as an excuse to be unfair or even violent towards Jews who persisted in Judaism instead of converting. We have had some issues in our history and there is a lot of ignorance about what really has happened over the course of our history, so we cannot expect the faithful to simply assume that nothing is ever done without a good reason.

it seems like Catholics are constantly called to explain themselves, why we believe what we believe and almost demanded to give an account to those who dont believe.
we have been pressured to prove ourselves to the unbeliever.
we have been given in to the pressure of those who claims to have right in the Church.
many wants to claims rights to be something in the Church.
that is how i know how far we are from God. it is not about God, it is all about me and what i want. God no longer is in charge but me., that is the mentality of those who lost their faith and want to impose their opinions in the House of God.

i love this video

youtube.com/watch?v=FP1wFslzs9Q

 

[EasterJoy]

it seems like Catholics are constantly called to explain themselves, why we believe what we believe and almost demanded to give an account to those who dont believe.

Yep. To those to whom much is given, much is expected.

It is a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant or to counsel the doubtful, and we need to step up when that work needs doing. It is all part of the work of a Christian, the work of spreading the Gospel.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t miss the point at all - I am saying the whole real physical characteristic that is mentioned over and throughout the life of Christ is that he was male. It does not tell of race, eye color, height etc. Although I am sure He grew between the Nativity and the Wedding Feast.

I think you are on the right track, but you need to construct it into an argument. I think it should go something like this:

Our sex is an essential part of who we are as individuals. When we finally have our glorified bodies, it is not clear that brown eyes, or blond hair, will be part of that. But we will still be men and women. We see this clearly from the creation account, where it tells us that God made humanity, men and women. This is an essential distinction and characteristic within humanity.

(It should be noted that this is not obvious- many pagans felt that once we died and left our bodies behind, we would have no gender. And even some Christian philosophers suggested that sex differences were a result of the Fall, and that after the Resserection, Christ himself had no gender. The Church rejected this idea though.)

Our experience as humans supports this to sme degree as well. Think about how attached we feel to our identity as men and women. Even things like people who feel they are in the “wrong” body, sex wise. I may say I “feel” like a blond, but I don’t feel I am somehow crippled because I am a brunette, and no one gets excited if I dye my hair. A person with gender identification issues feels very strongly displaced, and people often have strong reactions to a decision for a sex change, positive or negative. All but a few people feel that our sex is an essential part of who we are.

If this is so, than as a man, Christ’s sex is also an essential part of who he is. If the priest is acting in Christ’s place then, one could argue that he must have this essential characteristic intact.

I think that holds water. But it would still remain to explain why Christ can then redeem all of humanity, men and women both. Why is sharing the designation of human enough in that case, but not in the case of the priesthood?

 

[Lutheranteach]

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?

Women have breasts and can nurse babies, therefore my wife should never wake me to feed the baby.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’ve known a few female pastors (even dated one, oh horrors!) and they were all outstanding in every aspect of their “priestly” duties and feel lucky to have had them as pastors in my life

 

[grace_singh]

it has likely been mentioned, but here is the Scripture to clarify who can and can not lead in church, and head local churches :

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach… (1 Timothy 3:1-2)

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. (Titus 1:5-6)

and if anyone says “oh, that’s just Paul” refer them to this passage, to see how St. Peter refers to Paul’s writings :

and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

there you have it- Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture, meaning they are God-breathed, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and useful for teaching and instruction. in other words, to be followed as the Word of God.

which says that within the Church a woman is not to have authority over men, teach, or preside as the head of a local church. “bishop” in this context refers to what we would today call a priest or a pastor, and this role is reserved for men.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think you are on the right track, but you need to construct it into an argument. I think it should go something like this:

Our sex is an essential part of who we are as individuals. When we finally have our glorified bodies, it is not clear that brown eyes, or blond hair, will be part of that. But we will still be men and women. We see this clearly from the creation account, where it tells us that God made humanity, men and women. This is an essential distinction and characteristic within humanity.

(It should be noted that this is not obvious- many pagans felt that once we died and left our bodies behind, we would have no gender. And even some Christian philosophers suggested that sex differences were a result of the Fall, and that after the Resserection, Christ himself had no gender. The Church rejected this idea though.)

Our experience as humans supports this to sme degree as well. Think about how attached we feel to our identity as men and women. Even things like people who feel they are in the “wrong” body, sex wise. I may say I “feel” like a blond, but I don’t feel I am somehow crippled because I am a brunette, and no one gets excited if I dye my hair. A person with gender identification issues feels very strongly displaced, and people often have strong reactions to a decision for a sex change, positive or negative. All but a few people feel that our sex is an essential part of who we are.

If this is so, than as a man, Christ’s sex is also an essential part of who he is. If the priest is acting in Christ’s place then, one could argue that he must have this essential characteristic intact.

I think that holds water. But it would still remain to explain why Christ can then redeem all of humanity, men and women both. Why is sharing the designation of human enough in that case, but not in the case of the priesthood?

Yes, your argument is better constructed but the average heretic/atheist/unbeliever/Protestant has an attention span that is so short that you lost them half way through the second paragraph.

 

[grace_singh]

again it’s not that women can’t do it. i have also known many Godly, intelligent, and well-meaning women pastors.

but the Word of God is clear that this is not their role within the Christian Church. they may mean well and truly believing they are serving God in this capacity, but to rebell against God is to serve yourself, not Him.

times change. ideas change. God’s Word does not change, nor do the commandments therein. if we really want to honor Christ, we should crucify the flesh and do as God has asked, and refrain from doing those things He has asked us not to do.

gender does indeed limit what a person should rightly do as a Christian within the church. it does not limit what people chose to do, but it does limit what one ought to do if one wants to obey God, and not self.

 

[joandarc2008]

Women have breasts and can nurse babies, therefore my wife should never wake me to feed the baby.

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp63/kkuster1/2909542647_ab04c2dc45.jpg

I’ve known a few female pastors (even dated one, oh horrors!) and they were all outstanding in every aspect of their “priestly” duties and feel lucky to have had them as pastors in my life

Yes, but only God could judge if the Sacraments were actually Sacramental - meaning the real presence of Christ - and I am not just speaking of Eucharist here. Yes, I as a female can preach as a lay minister not as someone ordained to do Sacraments in place of Christ for that moment of Transubstantiation.

And by the way for your argument - you can carry a bottle to feed the baby… what would these women wear on the altar in order to be like Christ. It is simply an act of transvestism once removed. The intentions do not change the sin. A woman as a priest is the same as a woman trying to be a man or a man trying to be a woman. The priestly clothes are clothes of men. That is of course unless you would like to see men start coming to Mass in their finest Easter dresses. There is no difference between gender confusion here or in women trying to be priests.

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes, but only God could judge if the Sacraments were actually Sacramental - meaning the real presence of Christ - and I am not just speaking of Eucharist here. Yes, I as a female can preach as a lay minister not as someone ordained to do Sacraments in place of Christ for that moment of Transubstantiation.

And by the way for your argument - you can carry a bottle to feed the baby… These women cannot do the same to make up for their lack of maleness on the altar - to try would simply be an act of transvestitsm. A woman as a priest is the same as a woman trying to be a man or a man trying to be a woman. The priestly clothes are clothes of men. That is of course unless you would like to see men start coming to Mass in their finest Easter dresses. There is no difference between gender confusion here or in women trying to be priests.

 

[wisdomseeker]

again it’s not that women can’t do it. i have also known many Godly, intelligent, and well-meaning women pastors.

but the Word of God is clear that this is not their role within the Christian Church. they may mean well and truly believing they are serving God in this capacity, but to rebell against God is to serve yourself, not Him.

times change. ideas change. God’s Word does not change, nor do the commandments therein. if we really want to honor Christ, we should crucify the flesh and do as God has asked, and refrain from doing those things He has asked us not to do.

gender does indeed limit what a person should rightly do as a Christian within the church. it does not limit what people chose to do, but it does limit what one ought to do if one wants to obey God, and not self.

well said, grace.