women's ordination

[Traditional_Ang]

No, it doesn’t, and this is an important concept here.

“God says so” is not valid reasoning and cannot be the basis of any argument. Yes, you can show where your God orders and commands and claims things, but these are not reasons in themselves. They just mean there must be reasons out there (erm, I guess only supposing your faith is rational).

You may not see this as a problem, but again, this is where I strongly encourage critical thinking.

And don’t get superficial here; this goes way beyond the issue of women’s ordination.

Muslims said that their God commanded them to crash planes into the world trade center. They were completely wrong and immoral. Why? Because they could not justify their actions with logical, secular, rational reasons using humanistic morality.

See the problem yet?

Claiming you have divine backing is not enough. It’s hard to look at your own religion this way, so I’m using examples you will understand. You can’t hold the wtc bombings against the perpetrators unless you recognize that “God says so” is not enough.

It’s 3 in the morning and so I hope this is coming out correctly.

I’ll try to state this more clearly.

If you expect other religious people of the world to be rational in their beliefs and actions, you have to do the same.

Until you can justify all of your beliefs beyond “God says so,” you are in no position to condemn other actions done in God’s name, like the world trade center bombings.

Ian:

It’s completely invalid and unfair to equate what 19 crazies did (crashing planes into buildings to slaughter 3,000 innocents) in the name of a religion when the overwhelming majority of the authorities in that religion and the Holy Book and Traditions of that religion overwhelmingly condemn the obscene action in question to an action which takes no lives and injures no one (except for for some oversized egos) and which is completely consisent with the Scriptures and the Traditions of that religion.

You are comparing Mass Murder in the name of God which is a violation of the 3rd Commandment (using the Name of God to justify Mass Murder) and the 6th Commandment (Murder of the Innocent). and which is condemned by the Holy Q’uran and the Hadiths and all reputable Islamic religious authorities, with the claim by the Catholic Church concerning the decision by our Lord as to who would serve the Church and offer the Sacrifice of Calvery and forgive sins in His name.

This is wrong and morally repugnant. It is the same as comparing a garden variety Russian or German to Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

I see that you’ve checked “No Religion” in that box. Since the Priesthood has to do with How we are served and how God brings us grace in this insane world of ours, might I suggest that you look into the claims of Jesus Christ and of the Catholic Church about who He is and how He bring you to new life in Him and His love.

The Sacred Priesthood is a matter for Catholics and Orthodox to discuss, as we are discussing a series of Mysteries that are to us much like Quantum Physics to the physicists, and the Scripture and Tradition (Church Fathers Early Councils) are to us like their textbooks and their journals are to them.

No one would demand that Quantum Physicists drop their textbooks and journals and conform to his mode of argumentation and then claim that they were like a bunch of mass murderers who perverted and misused the holy books of their religion when they wouldn’t or couldn’t. It would be unthinkable.

I don’t think it’s unfair to demand the same courtesy for Catholic Christians, Esp. when many of us here have friends who are dying at the hands of people who agree with the crazies.

Pax Christi, Michael

 

[CRW]

I know that the Church has already spoken on the issue regarding women’s ordination. I was told there were ontological and gerontalogical reasons why. Like fore example ordinatio sacerdotalis for example says that women cannot be priests. Right? The twelve apostles were all men right? Ok. Is it on the basis of gender that women can’t be priests? Is it because of difference in biological parts? My sister asked me this and I didn’t know how to answer that. I’m looking for reasons besides what sacred tradition and the bible say. I would really appreciate your guy’s help. You guys have been so good to me on this forum. And it’s a miracle that I came here. God bless.

Nick

1 Corinthians 4:1 “Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

 

[scylla]

Ultimately with religion it has to come down to God says so, or there is no basis for morality.

Women are different than men and each has their roles, that is about as basic as we can without God. But without God, then women don’t matter as it is each man for himself and I can just dominate any woman as physically possible and as a man that is quite a few, it would ultimately be the most fulfilling life as domination and reproduction would be the ultimate goal.
Sounds horrible but that is what it is without God says so.

God says so…
Humans should love others and not kill them.

Without any revelation that doesn’t matter, so you do need some sort of basis on which to base your logic on.

What you are asking is to logically explain our faith without its basis. This is like trying to explain math without numbers, it is extremely difficult and always dismissable.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[IanBoyd57]

Ian:

Fergal #10.

I suggest you look at the model of reproduction and childbearing and who does what and when. Next, you may wish to look at how men and women function and physiological studies (size of Corpus Callosum and other brain structures as well as structures of the bodies).

Women are designed to be able to do things that men aren’t and vice versa. The difference is so important that that in Judaism, woman aren’t circumcized, but men are, and children are automatically JEWISH if the mother is, no matter what religion the Father is, unlike most other religions (something to do with Mitochondrial DNA which comes from the mother)

The Church doesn’t have to prove these to say that, in a world that did have Priestesses for many of the gods and goddesses, the Lord decided that only men would represent Him to His bride, the Church, when forgiving sins, and that only men would stand at the alter representing Him offering the Sacrifice He made on Calvery to His Father, and that only men would perform the great Mysteries of the Divine Liturgy where the Congregation is caught up to heaven while the Heavenly Liturgy is brought down to earth.

But, This isn’t about differences or not differences. Those who support the ordination of women to the priesthood have forgotten that the priesthood isn’t a job, it isn’t some prestigous position like a professorship or a CEO or even a Middle Manager. Priest is first and foremost a SERVANT and a CO-SACRIFICE with Christ.

If you look at the lives of St. Padre Pio or St. Maximillian Kolbe, you’ll see they not only served night and day, but sacrificed, St. M. Kolbe to the point of taking the place of a man who was chosen to go into the starvation chamber at Auschwitz. According to the Nazis, he was not all hat unusual. What was diffiernet here was St. Kolbe’s effect on the room and those who were in it which had formerly been a place of horror for all who had were in it.

During the Influenza Pandemic of 1917, often the only people who were taking care of those who were dying of this terrible contagion were celibate, male Catholic priests along with nuns and brothers, who often cared for and comforted mortally ill people regardless of race, religion and ability to pay. Most of them died during the Pandemic, caring for their patients even while sick.

Then there were the Catholic priests who went into “No-Man’s Land” to comfort the dying on both sides during WW I, risking death and severe injury as they did so. Many of them only heard the gratitude of thoe whose passage they ease and possibly their families if they heard about it.

The man who was the Rector at St. Marys when I first started attending in 2003 was one of the first priests to start visiting AIDS patients in the AIDS wards in the Westside of LA in 1983. At that time, even Doctors refused to deal with AIDS patients, because no one knew how contageous the disease was or how you got it (the Virus hadn’t been isolated yet). One of his parishioners was a Physicians Assistant who was treating these patients who saw that NO ONE was dealing with their spiritual needs.

Somehow, this P.A managed to communicate to this priest that the patients needed a PRIEST to talk to, and that it was worth the risk. Many of those patients repented of their sins and confessed or were baptized (some hadn’t been baptized), and some lie in repose behind the altar of St. Mary’s as they await the Resurrection of the Dead.

I personally know an Archbishop who went into a Muslim country to try to save one of the Bishops under his charge when we were afraid the Bishop hd been executed for "Blashemy (Preaching the Gospel and refusing to say the Islamic “Profession of Faith”).

I can’t give you details about how Archbishop Hepworth went in, but I have to say that it ended up being to recover the body of the TAC Bishop of Pakistan. He was Executed for Convertng a Muslim and refusing to say, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet,” in spite of International outrage and letters from world leaders.

How many of the supporters of women’s ordination understand what I’ve described above is part of the deal of becoming a priest, and that a priest “lays down his life” when he’s ordained, and that he’s sometimes asked to ratify the decision in a Death Camp, Gulag, caring for someone with a contageuos disease, in “No Man’s Land” or in an Islamic Country?

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

Are you saying women are incapable of laying down their lives like the male priests did?

When did I claim that male priests were not good?

How was any of that information relevant?

I am a supporter of women’s ordination and I understand all that stuff.

What are you trying to say?

Yes, male priests do good things; yet, would female ones not? Then why explain all that as though it had a point?

 

[IanBoyd57]

Ian:

It’s completely invalid and unfair to equate what 19 crazies did (crashing planes into buildings to slaughter 3,000 innocents) in the name of a religion when the overwhelming majority of the authorities in that religion and the Holy Book and Traditions of that religion overwhelmingly condemn the obscene action in question to an action which takes no lives and injures no one (except for for some oversized egos) and which is completely consisent with the Scriptures and the Traditions of that religion.

You are comparing Mass Murder in the name of God which is a violation of the 3rd Commandment (using the Name of God to justify Mass Murder) and the 6th Commandment (Murder of the Innocent). and which is condemned by the Holy Q’uran and the Hadiths and all reputable Islamic religious authorities, with the claim by the Catholic Church concerning the decision by our Lord as to who would serve the Church and offer the Sacrifice of Calvery and forgive sins in His name.

This is wrong and morally repugnant. It is the same as comparing a garden variety Russian or German to Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler.

I see that you’ve checked “No Religion” in that box. Since the Priesthood has to do with How we are served and how God brings us grace in this insane world of ours, might I suggest that you look into the claims of Jesus Christ and of the Catholic Church about who He is and how He bring you to new life in Him and His love.

The Sacred Priesthood is a matter for Catholics and Orthodox to discuss, as we are discussing a series of Mysteries that are to us much like Quantum Physics to the physicists, and the Scripture and Tradition (Church Fathers Early Councils) are to us like their textbooks and their journals are to them.

No one would demand that Quantum Physicists drop their textbooks and journals and conform to his mode of argumentation and then claim that they were like a bunch of mass murderers who perverted and misused the holy books of their religion when they wouldn’t or couldn’t. It would be unthinkable.

I don’t think it’s unfair to demand the same courtesy for Catholic Christians, Esp. when many of us here have friends who are dying at the hands of people who agree with the crazies.

Pax Christi, Michael

It’s unfair and uncourteous for me to question your faith using rational methods when you would denounce all other faiths using rational methods?

Look, I’m not saying the two things were equal. You would do well to look at the points I was actually making. Big surprise, I guess I was more correct then I thought when I said that people have difficulties seeing their religions from the outside.

I’m asking you to show how only allowing men to become priests is not sexism.

So far, no one has done that in any way.

This is the 21st century.

Tradition doesn’t fly. The traditions themselves may be correct, but here in the rational world, the mere fact that it is a tradition does not prove it is correct.

God tells us not to murder. He says this. Yet, we can know this is correct by looking at humans themselves and saying, “Humans value their own lives and death causes harm to them. Therefore, killing humans is immoral.” The world trade center bombers cannot do the same, even though they believe their God tells them to do so.

That’s the difference.

I’m not comparing this to their terrorism, I’m only giving examples of why you have to have rational reasons for your beliefs.

Please, answer the questions I am asking and follow the points I am making.

If religious tradition is enough to justify something, why were the suicide bombers in the wrong if they believed their God told them to do that?

Again, in case you still somehow missed it, the point is not to compare this to terrorism, it’s to make you realize that you need rational reasons for your doctrines no matter how sure you are that your religion is just right.

 

[scylla]

Are you saying that the Catholic faith is irrational, or do you mean it is irrational from a non-theistic standpoint.

Taken from a standpoint which accepts the basis of the faith it would be rational, as you have to accept a value system to base your evaluation of the faith.
An atheist must do the same in taking the basic tenet of that system which is based on a rejection of existance of God and then forming a value system based off that.
But no-one lives as a true atheist except for maybe some criminals who live a logical atheistic existance.
Even a denial is a basis as an affirmation is.

Examining our value system cannot be from a humanistic\rationalistic standpoint as that would be denying God and placing humans as the ultimate definer of truth which is silly and against any theism as all we can do is accept truth or believe untruth.
(I am not saying that humanism is silly, the examination of faith from a rejection of it is)
It must be examined accepting the basic tenets of the faith as a basis for examination and then examining them to see if they are rational and non-contradictory.

So we have three choices, one a denial of God, two we are God or three there is a God\it isn’t us and one cannot be used to examine another belief as they are contradictory in themselves and will never make sense.

I can “prove” humanism wrong by examining it from a theistic\atheistic standpoint, but that would not be right. The only way to examine it is at least starting from a humanistic point of view then test it.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[InTheWilderness]

No system of ethics or morals can be assured of being of any use to anyone if it begins with the wrong assumptions. It won’t matter how good your logic and reason are is your initial assumptions are wrong.

Reason and logic are tools for analysis. In this way they are much like a computer. However, the output will ultimately be determined as much by the (name removed by moderator)uts as by the tool or process used. After all, a calculator only reaches the correct solution if you (name removed by moderator)ut the correct data.

In my personal opinion, all of the non-religious ethical models actually are attempts to find logical explanations for things that were assumed to be true. However, to be scientific, you can’t just assume your conclusion is correct from the start.

Take any position on some moral or ethical issue. Then build a logical reason to explain why it is true. You will discover it is possible to construct an argument for anything.

As an example, here are my starting assumptions:

Humans are highly evolved biological entities, but are not radically different from similar advanced mammals. We are essentially just animals, not some distinct category.

Life has no real meaning other than that which living things give it. After all, we are the product of random chance.

Human life contains great pain, suffering, loss, hurt, stress, and hardship. Many people seek escape from this by drugs, suicide, entertainment, pleasures of the flesh, etc.

Human population levels are reaching dangerously high levels.

Death can be brought about in a way that causes no pain, suffering, or fear.

What we will seek to prove:
Murder is OK.

How:
By ending the life of another we benefit both that individual and the species. Killing the person in a way that involves no suffering spares them the possibility of a terrible death. We also relieve them of all current and future suffering in their life. Further, the species benefits by relieving overpopulation. Thus the population wide suffering that this individual caused has ended. Also, the suffering this individual caused other specific individuals has ended. It must also be considered that the fact that the person allowed themselves to be in a situation that made it possible to kill them indicates one of two possible things 1) they wanted to die or 2) they were such an inferior specimen that they were unable to survive. In the first case we did them a favor. In the second, we again did the species a favor by culling one of the weak and preventing further spread of their defective genes. Next, we must turn to our near relatives in the animal kingdom. There are other high forms of mammals that kill each other. Some do this to advance their own possibility of mating and passing on strong genes. Others seek to destroy the offspring of others and that in turn eliminates those inferior genes. Still others do so over the recourses necessary to survive. Thus we find in nature that it is apparently natural to kill other members of the same species at times. In addition, since this person was not really uniquely created, had no eternal destiny, and was really just a mathematical fluke, it isn’t like we frustrated the plans of some higher power. Finally, the purpose in life that this individual created for themselves can not be thought of as greater than ours, since we all supply our own equally valid purposes for life. Actually, the fact that this individuals purpose seems to have been a failure, further indicates our superiority and the righteousness of murdering that person.

I should note I just did all of that on the fly with no real fore thought. I am sure I could do better with a bit of research and some planning.

Nothing about the above is at all unreasonable from a purely objective standpoint. If you remove the assumption that murder is wrong, and remove the assumption that your particular ethical model is right, then the above would likely seem perfectly reasonable.

I should note that I think it is entirely unreasonable and quite disgusting. It is example of what happens when reason becomes detached too far from any system of faith. There is a reason why the current Pope talks of the need for faith and reason to work together.

Go read the thread on Hitler and the Nazis for further proof that reason alone does not always seem to produce good results.

Closing comment, the fact that science indicates that any and all theories are subject to revision in the face of new data should discourage the pursuit of a purely scientific ethical system.

 

[fix]

I’m asking you to show how only allowing men to become priests is not sexism.

How do you define sexism? Males and females are equal in dignity, but not the same. We are not simply machines with interchangeable parts.

This is the 21st century.

Absolute moral truth never changes.

Tradition doesn’t fly. The traditions themselves may be correct, but here in the rational world, the mere fact that it is a tradition does not prove it is correct.

Big “T” tradition is not the same as small “t” tradition.

God tells us not to murder. He says this. Yet, we can know this is correct by looking at humans themselves and saying, “Humans value their own lives and death causes harm to them. Therefore, killing humans is immoral.” The world trade center bombers cannot do the same, even though they believe their God tells them to do so.

The truth that shows us murder is wrong comes from outside us, not inside us.

If religious tradition is enough to justify something, why were the suicide bombers in the wrong if they believed their God told them to do that?

Because our conscience does not invent right and wrong. We learn this from truth. Truth is superior to conscience.

Again, in case you still somehow missed it, the point is not to compare this to terrorism, it’s to make you realize that you need rational reasons for your doctrines no matter how sure you are that your religion is just right.

The doctrines are rational. To understand them it helps if one has reason and faith.

…“once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its prime reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth different from the truth of others”. (116)…FIDES ET RATIO

 

[johnnycatholic]

Ian:

There is no reason a woman CAN’T perform the duties of the priest. There are only reasons she shouldn’t. Just as there is no reason i can’t fly a plane into a building and kill people, i shouldn’t.
When God set up humanity, He set it up so that man would be protector, provider, and leader (the head). Woman, because of her role in childbearing, is the heart and her duties lie in nurturing. Does this make her inferior? No. She is fully capable of learning the same things, performing the same duties, etc. However, when you carry life within your body for 9 months and then your body produces the food a baby needs to be nourished for the first few months of life, is it really fair to expect a woman to be out hunting for food or tilling the land when she should be resting (babies are exhausting)?
You can argue that not all women become mothers, which is true. Even in the Catholic Church, many women become nuns and never reproduce. You will note they “toil”. However, the vast majority of women in this world will become mothers. You cannot reconstruct society for the sake of the few or else you will have the stressful society we do now. How many mothers don’t even get to nurture the lives they create because society says motherhood is worthless because there’s no paycheck involved? The women’s movement has ruined life for women who now have to take care of housework, children, and be breadwinners because the women’s movement created the myth of the superwoman who has it all. And a generation of children are now suffering from spiritual hollowness because mommy has, whether she knows it or not, taught them that a job is more important than them. Parents buy their kids things instead of spending time with them.
Now the world is such that many families cannot live without two incomes, and men often abandon their wives or girlfriends and the lives they created with them. I submit, however, that if women cherished the role of the heart instead of agreeing that they were indeed inferior to men (like a job will prove that’s false) then society would not be crumbling at the rate it is now.

 

[Riley259]

Are you saying women are incapable of laying down their lives like the male priests did?

When did I claim that male priests were not good?

How was any of that information relevant?

I am a supporter of women’s ordination and I understand all that stuff.

What are you trying to say?

Yes, male priests do good things; yet, would female ones not? Then why explain all that as though it had a point?

The male priesthood has nothing to do with power or the equal dignity and value of the genders. In Catholicism the priesthood is primarily sacramental and iconographic and not strictly functional as it is in Protestantism.

 

[mikew262]

Let me be very blunt here: For Holy Mother Church to suddenly decide to confer Holy Orders on females would make a lesbian of the Church.

I’m sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I’ve read on this forum in a long time.

 

[contramundum7]

I know that the Church has already spoken on the issue regarding women’s ordination. I was told there were ontological and gerontalogical reasons why. Like fore example ordinatio sacerdotalis for example says that women cannot be priests. Right? The twelve apostles were all men right? Ok. Is it on the basis of gender that women can’t be priests? Is it because of difference in biological parts? My sister asked me this and I didn’t know how to answer that. I’m looking for reasons besides what sacred tradition and the bible say. I would really appreciate your guy’s help. You guys have been so good to me on this forum. And it’s a miracle that I came here. God bless.

Nick

Women cannot be ministerial priests. But that is not unfair or misogynistic because men cannot be mothers.

Frankly, i think that since Eve was deceived & man deliberately disobeyed God, well, i feel that’s one reason… Women r easily deceived. Who would know better than I? I am a woman & have often been deceived… Not that men never r… Anyway, i am just saying my thoughts as they come. Maybe that’s why Jesus had to be a man - to overcome the worst sin of all - disobedience… (from which all other sins come…).

 

[sinningcatholic]

I know that the Church has already spoken on the issue regarding women’s ordination. I was told there were ontological and gerontalogical reasons why. Like fore example ordinatio sacerdotalis for example says that women cannot be priests. Right? The twelve apostles were all men right? Ok. Is it on the basis of gender that women can’t be priests? Is it because of difference in biological parts? My sister asked me this and I didn’t know how to answer that. I’m looking for reasons besides what sacred tradition and the bible say. I would really appreciate your guy’s help. You guys have been so good to me on this forum. And it’s a miracle that I came here. God bless.

Nick

MY MAIN RESPONSE IS MEN ONLY CAN BE PRIESTS…

as a woman, i believe there is a STRONGER and more commited need for women to forsake the sexual aspect of life. They are foresaking MOTHERHOOD, GRANDMOTHERHOOD, HUSBANDS TO HOLD AND TENDERLY LOVE THEM, A BLOOD LINE THAT WILL COMFORT THEM AND SUSTAIN THEM IN THEIR AGING YEARS. THERE IS N O SHORT TERM VIEW of nuns and sisters.

Sister’s and Nuns are iincreasing suddenly more than ever before. It just crossed my mind, Jesus was borne without original sin. Mary, Mother of God was the ONLY other person born without original sin. THE ORIGINAL(Genesis) SIN WAS PRIDE. Wanting to conform to the Church, but change its foundations is a sin of pride. “…Me over the Bible.”

AND YES-----women have a different NOT A LESSER ROLE in the OT and NT. But M/F are NOT the same. l, m…

 

[Fergal]

I’m sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I’ve read on this forum in a long time.

Well under the spousal analogy it makes perfect sense to me. Please enlighten me as to how it is “silly”.?

 

[Ender]

I’m asking you to show how only allowing men to become priests is not sexism.

The Catholic Church’s position on women priests is based on her understanding of Jesus’ intentions in setting up his Church. The arguments for a male only priesthood are clearly presented and easy to understand. Are you arguing that the Church misunderstands Jesus’ intentions?

I somehow don’t think you want this to turn into a debate over biblical interpretation. Rather are you not saying that, if Jesus really intended a male only priesthood, he is a sexist?

Since it’s not clear to me whether you disagree with the Church’s interpretation of the bible (and teachings of the early fathers of the Church) or you believe Jesus is a sexist, perhaps you could state which is your position. If you are claiming that the Church misunderstands the teachings of Christ it would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where she is wrong.

Ender

God tells us not to murder. He says this. Yet, we can know this is correct by looking at humans themselves and saying, “Humans value their own lives and death causes harm to them. Therefore, killing humans is immoral.”

I find this argument indefensible. In fact I don’t believe that one can defend the idea that morality even exists without reference to God. This topic is probably off the point of this thread but you have several times commented that “Because God says so” is not an acceptable answer to the prohibition against women priests. “Because God says so” is the only foundation for morality itself; without that, morality can no more exist for man that it can for animals.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I find this argument indefensible. In fact I don’t believe that one can defend the idea that morality even exists without reference to God. This topic is probably off the point of this thread but you have several times commented that “Because God says so” is not an acceptable answer to the prohibition against women priests. “Because God says so” is the only foundation for morality itself; without that, morality can no more exist for man that it can for animals.

A priest is someone who plays a speical role in worshipping God. So if there are no gods, then it is pretty much meaningless to ask if women can fulfil the role or not. If the god exists, then His opinion on who should be admitted to the priesthood is surely decisive.

 

[mikew262]

Well under the spousal analogy it makes perfect sense to me. Please enlighten me as to how it is “silly”.?

The discussion was centering around the argument for/against female priests and somehow it degenerated to a homosexual relationship between the priest (if female) and the Church.

I believe the OP was looking for concrete reasons on why women cannot be priests. Try to keep the reasons concrete, not abstract.

 

[mikew262]

If you are claiming that the Church misunderstands the teachings of Christ it would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where she is wrong.

Ask a non-catholic Christian, you’ll get all kinds of help on that question.

 

[sinningcatholic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikew262
I’m sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I’ve read on this forum in a long time.

Well under the spousal analogy it makes perfect sense to me. Please enlighten me as to how it is “silly”.?

---

Fergal
Naas
Ireland

“Doce me facere voluntatem tuam, quia Deus meus es tu”
Teach me to do your will, for you are my God!Ps 142:10
Go on Visit my Blog!!

I will visit Fergal Naas Ireland’s blog, per suggestion.

Otherwise, this is the first response I have read in a while to my post. Women cannot be priests.

There is nothing silly about it. Many women are offended by what they perceive as a theological ‘glass ceiling’. If you heartily disagree, ‘silly’ as a foundation is inadequate.

the Spousal ANALOGY is not my own, but a composit of readings hundreds (and in the bible,THOUSANDS ) of years from the Doctors of the Church (WHICH ARE VOLUMOUSLY SUBMITTED BY WOMEN.) As the above poster asks, “what is silly?”

Not agreeing with Truth, makes it NO LESS TRUE. m…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikew262
I’m sorry, but that has to be the silliest thing I’ve read on this forum in a long time.

Well under the spousal analogy it makes perfect sense to me. Please enlighten me as to how it is “silly”.?

---

Fergal
Naas
Ireland

“Doce me facere voluntatem tuam, quia Deus meus es tu”
Teach me to do your will, for you are my God!Ps 142:10
Go on Visit my Blog!!

I will visit Fergal Naas Ireland’s blog, per suggestion.

Otherwise, this is the first response I have read in a while to my post. Women cannot be priests.

There is nothing silly about it. Many women are offended by what they perceive as a theological ‘glass ceiling’. If you heartily disagree, ‘silly’ as a foundation is inadequate.

the Spousal ANALOGY is not my own, but a composit of readings hundreds (and in the bible,THOUSANDS ) of years from the Doctors of the Church (WHICH ARE VOLUMOUSLY SUBMITTED BY WOMEN.) As the above poster asks, “what is silly?”

Not agreeing with Truth, makes it NO LESS TRUE. m…

Pardon me while I tune my bagpipes for a hymn of thanksgiving. If we can waste time debating something that has been definitively settled, then surely all the other problems that confront the Church and society must have been solved.

The Church has no power to ordain women. Period. End of discussion.