"Womenpriest" seeks ordination from MN bishop

[iamrefreshed]

Many of the groups calling for women “ordination” also agree with many of those things you listed.

All the more reason for them to disassociate themselves from the catholic and start their own church. Really, if you don’t like the rules…just leave!

 

[kristie_m]

I get so frustrated with these arguements. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Priesthood isn’t a right, it is a vocation. There are so many other ways that women can serve within the church. And if a woman feels called to the religious life, what’s wrong with becoming a nun?

It’s not about equality…men and women can be equal but still recognize their differences. God did not choose to send a daughter to be born of a virgin male, did He? No, He gave us his SON, born of a virgin woman…a woman who by the very nature of her womanhood was the perfect vessel for bearing our Lord. God knows that both men and women have a place, and that they are NOT the same.

What ever happened to being obedient to the authority that Jesus gave to the church? I may not like every church teaching personally, but I do think that it’s the place of all of us, male and female to humbly submit to her authority.

What these women are doing is just plain dangerous. They’re offering an invalid communion, and causing others to sin.

 

[zue]

If we as the church were to ordain women we would cease to be what we are,apostolic. We would loose our foundation and identity.

 

[mlchance]

There are many good women who would fit in well in a priestly ministry.

Yes, there are. In fact, all baptized Christians share in Christ’s priestly ministry:

**CCC 784 **On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people’s unique, *priestly *vocation: “Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people ‘a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.’ The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are *consecrated *to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood.”

Furthermore, all baptized Christians are called to act in accordance with this universal priestly ministry:

**CCC 1546 **Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

The common priesthood of all the faithful differs essentially from the ministerial priesthood of bishops and priests:

CCC 1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a *means *by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The sacrament of Holy Orders can only be validly received by a man. This is the Church’s constant, infallible teaching whose truth is assured by the Holy Spirit.

Thus, any woman who claims to have a vocation to the ministerial priesthood is mistaken.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[butasforme]

It is interesting that the article argues that our tradition of male-only priesthood is derived from a cultural basis rather than a Christological one. I’m not particularly sure how he could argue that effectively, given the scripture we have.

While Jesus had many female followers, and while the New Testament letters mention many female leaders of the early Church, none of these women assumed the role of priest. Moreover, when it came to appointing apostles to carry on his Tradition in the Church, he appointed 12 men, despite the presence of many devoted female followers. It seems he acted pretty definitively on the matter, and the Tradition bears forth still today.

 

[mlchance]

It is interesting that the article argues that our tradition of male-only priesthood is derived from a cultural basis rather than a Christological one.

That is a common argument made attractive by two key components:

1. It is impossible to actually refute since there is no evidence to support it.
2. If you argue against it, you can easily be painted as just another oppressor of women.

Both components relieve the one advancing the “cultural basis argument” of having to honestly engage the available evidence and address actual Church teaching rather than a caricature of that teaching.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[kristie_m]

The sacrament of Holy Orders can only be validly received by a man. This is the Church’s constant, infallible teaching whose truth is assured by the Holy Spirit.

Thus, any woman who claims to have a vocation to the ministerial priesthood is mistaken.

– Mark L. Chance.

Well said.

 

[Digitonomy]

While Jesus had many female followers, and while the New Testament letters mention many female leaders of the early Church, none of these women assumed the role of priest. Moreover, when it came to appointing apostles to carry on his Tradition in the Church, he appointed 12 men, despite the presence of many devoted female followers. It seems he acted pretty definitively on the matter, and the Tradition bears forth still today.

Your point only goes so far, because the 12 men he picked were also all Palestinian Jews, even though he had followers from other places and other religions. If you throw Paul into the mix it helps, but the apostles are still all from the Eastern Mediterranean. And were the apostles all citizens of Rome by this point? I can’t recall, but you get the point that when someone says 12 men were chosen simply because it was most convenient in that place and time, it’s not a terrible argument. It just happens to be wrong.

 

[peduzzi89]

Can someone quote for me the exact place that says that women cannot become priests? I don’t fully understand why.

 

[mlchance]

Can someone quote for me the exact place that says that women cannot become priests? I don’t fully understand why.

The Catechism is available on-line. It’s searchable, too.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=holy+orders&s=SS

Also, read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[peduzzi89]

Is it in the bible? Or is it just a tradition?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Is it in the bible? Or is it just a tradition?

How about today’s reading from Acts of the Apostles???

Reading 1
Acts 15:7-21

After much debate had taken place,
Peter got up and said to the Apostles and the presbyters,
“My brothers, you are well aware that from early days
God made his choice among you that through my mouth
the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

Note that Peter, when speaking to the Apostles and the presbyters states “My brothers”.

 

[mlchance]

Is it in the bible? Or is it just a tradition?

Yes, and no. It isn’t just “a tradition”; it is Tradition. Read the links provided, please. They fully address the issue both in terms of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[peduzzi89]

Well, until recently (with PC and all that), the male form of a pronoun was almost always used to adress a large group that could contain both - I’d love to know how many times the bible uses the word “mankind” - which is used to refer to all humans, not just men. If you were to take the bible word for word down to the letter, you would become the Westboro Baptist Church. Which is why every other Christian religion allows women to be ministers.

 

[mlchance]

Well, until recently (with PC and all that), the male form of a pronoun was almost always used to adress a large group that could contain both…

That’s true of English, not of Greek, the language of the New Testament. As to the rest of your post, I’m not sure what your point is. Read what the Church has said on this matter. There isn’t a single thing you can think of regarding ordination that the Church hasn’t already thought of and authoritatively addressed.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[peduzzi89]

Ok, first of all, duh - I’m not saying that I have thought of something new - know this is being dealt with by educated people. I’m just trying to understand where it says in the bible, specifically that women cannot be priests. And are you saying that when the bible refers to mankind, it is only talking about men, not women?

 

[Della]

Ok, first of all, duh - I’m not saying that I have thought of something new - know this is being dealt with by educated people. I’m just trying to understand where it says in the bible, specifically that women cannot be priests. And are you saying that when the bible refers to mankind, it is only talking about men, not women?

All the references to ordained persons are to males:

1 Tim. 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;

1Tim.3:1-2 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,

Tit.17] For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,

They are all referred to as male heads of households not as females. The only reference to a “deaconess” refers to a lady who helped other females in the baptismal, which was the only liturgical duty of a “deaconess,” they were not ordained to preach or to confect the Eucharist.

 

[mlchance]

And are you saying that when the bible refers to mankind, it is only talking about men, not women?

Well, have I said that? Obviously not. Rather, I’ve said: Read the Church’s documents about ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Lynn-D]

Well, until recently (with PC and all that), the male form of a pronoun was almost always used to adress a large group that could contain both - I’d love to know how many times the bible uses the word “mankind” - which is used to refer to all humans, not just men. If you were to take the bible word for word down to the letter, you would become the Westboro Baptist Church. Which is why every other Christian religion allows women to be ministers.

The use of ‘brothers’ was specific in regard to males and is not even a pronoun nor open to vague interpretation. If women were to be included it would have used the term ‘sisters’, a specific to females. One is definitely male and the other female. No confusion as far as I can see.

‘Mankind’ was and still is inclusive of man and woman as it is in other writings and not just the bible as is the term ‘humankind’.

Lynn-D

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Is it in the bible? Or is it just a tradition?

Why does the prohibition against priestesses have to be in the Bible in order to be authoritative? I am not saying that it isn’t in the Bible, I am only questioning your inferrance that it must be in the Bible to be binding.

Remember that Tradition pre-dates the Bible. And in fact, it is Tradition that defined the canon. When Jesus ascended into heaven He did not pass out red letter editions of the KJV to the apostles.

However, it is noteworthy (IMHO) that in the Old Testament the True Religion had priests, the pagan religions had priestesses and priests.