Women Priests

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote]Centuries ago, did we think we'd land on the moon?[/quote]
What does scientific progress have to do with immutable faith? God doesn't change no matter if we discover how to travel to another galaxy or another dimension or turn water into wine.

[quote]Did our ancestors ever imagine the partial breakdown of gender inequality?[/quote]Some of them initiated it - Jesus for example. [quote]They didn't even know about it, because it wasn't formulated thought yet and it was ingrained in their society to think the way they did.[/quote]How so? Jesus ate with tax collects and sinners, he broke cultural mores by speaking to those on the outskirts - you're telling me that ordaining a woman was the one societal barrier He couldn't overcome? [quote]Slavery was accepted as natural, and Africans were considered inferior in every way--how has that changed?[/quote]Institutional slavery was not accepted as natural until fairly recently. That was an imperialist colonialist construct, which eventually made it's way into the American system and became accepted as normal. Africans weren't considered inferior by most people, only the colonialists and slave traders treated Africans that way. In the OT, the Jews lived in Africa and even took African women as wives. There are also African Jews.

[quote]So, maybe I'm seeing the Church as a part of culture and you're seeing it as a separate entity. Maybe it's a mix, right? I don't know. But things are always changing---did anyone think that Latin would no longer be the language of the Mass? English is spoken now in Mass, is that progress or change or what? Depends on who you ask.[/quote]The language is not doctrine, never was. The Church has no ability to ordain women to the priesthood, never will.

[quote]I'm getting off topic, but it's the kind of subject that [i]does[/i] get off topic because there are no easy answers.[/quote]
You are conflating completely different things, as if there were a comparison - societal advances and scientific growth do not equal changing of unchanging Truths.

[Lena]

That's great. I'd argue some of your points but that'd lead me further onto "conflating completely different things" and I do want to stay somewhat on topic. However, for the record, I was placing slavery in a certain context of the Antebellum South. I should have made that more clear, but really it was only to show that it's important to go beyond the present and past realities and that, once again, social change occurs every day and is necessary. What we conceive now will be different from what people conceive in the future--which was the purpose of my "conflating completely different things."

[quote]You are conflating completely different things, as if there were a comparison - societal advances and scientific growth do not equal changing of unchanging Truths.[/quote]

Maybe that's where we disagree then. I don't see this issue as an unchanging truth.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Lena

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

So, back to my question, do you think it's "possible" that the Church may one day say "oops, Muhammed had it right" and say Christ isn't God?

[quote name='Lena' post='1426905' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:07 PM']That's great. I'd argue some of your points but that'd lead me further onto "conflating completely different things" and I do want to stay somewhat on topic. However, for the record, I was placing slavery in a certain context of the Antebellum South. I should have made that more clear, but really it was only to show that it's important to go beyond the present and past realities and that, once again, social change occurs every day and is necessary. What we conceive now will be different from what people conceive in the future--which was the purpose of my "conflating completely different things."[/quote]

[Lena]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1426907' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:14 PM']So, back to my question, do you think it's "possible" that the Church may one day say "oops, Muhammed had it right" and say Christ isn't God?[/quote]

I know next to nothing about Muhammad, and I'm sorry if that sounds like a cop-out but I really don't. That Christ is God is an integral part of my faith.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

The Church, the Apostles, Tradition state that it is immutable Truth that God is Trinity. They also state that it is immutable Truth that the Church has no authority to ordain women priest or bishop. If you can claim the latter is "possible" to change, why not the former? I assume you have had no contact with Christ without the mediation of the Church, so if you can claim the Church is wrong about this - even when the Church clearly claims otherwise; who knows what else the Church is wrong about?

[quote name='Lena' post='1426929' date='Nov 29 2007, 08:05 PM']I know next to nothing about Muhammad, and I'm sorry if that sounds like a cop-out but I really don't. That Christ is God is an integral part of my faith.[/quote]

Edited November 30, 2007 by PopeClementI(MorClemis)

[mortify]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 06:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]

Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going[b] against [/b]their culture when they solely ordained men. The reason is a male only priesthood extends back to Judaism and these Christians were more concerned about living as God wants them to as oppose to what their culture stipulates (we ought to do the same.)


God bless

Edited November 30, 2007 by mortify

[Maggyie]

[quote]Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going against their culture when they solely ordained men.[/quote]

Very true!

[Lena]

[quote name='mortify' post='1427040' date='Nov 29 2007, 10:12 PM']Lena, you're forgetting that the gentile world that accepted Christianity had a long tradition of female priestesses. Those early Christian converts were going[b] against [/b]their culture when they solely ordained men. The reason is a male only priesthood extends back to Judaism and these Christians were more concerned about living as God wants them to as oppose to what their culture stipulates (we ought to do the same.)
God bless[/quote]

Did they? That's interesting....I actually would like to study more about the early origins of Christianity. Like [i]early[/i] early. I think sometimes I question things too much anyway. It'd probably be easier not to.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 06:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]
With all due respect, your opinion is nonsense, and does not show a Catholic understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, and heir to the Keys of Peter, but rather a misunderstanding of the Church as merely a human social institution that changes doctrine with the whims of the world.

That women cannot be priests is not just a social convention, but Church dogma.

The Church has never had any trouble opposing the social conventions of the world when they are unjust or wrong. (Most of the world today has no problem with contraception, fornication, or divorce-and-remarriage, for instance, yet the Church continues to declare these things mortal sins, unpopular as such teachings might be.)
Catholic teaching often goes against the grain of the world.

The Church has kept Her dogmatic teachings through countless social changes in the world.
Believe me, if the all-male priesthood were simply a social convention dictated by the mores of society, there would have been women priests a long time ago.

[Lena]

nonsense? If only it could be dismissed as easily as that, there wouldn't [i]be [/i] an issue.

[carrdero]

[quote]Pope Clemens writes: Ridiculous. Do you believe the Scriptures or just consider them metaphorical constructs with no reality or Truth to them?[/quote]
The question was posted assuming that Jesus existed, performed miracles, taught the understanding that he did, died, resurrected and is coming again.

[quote]Prose: Jesus will come back as Jesus (as I understand it), which means, unless he had some sort of sex change in heaven, he can't come back as a girl.[/quote]
I would assume that if Jesus was God, he could come back as any species. I think a lot of emphasis on women being denied the priesthood may have to do with many religious perceptions of God being a male. I believe that GOD does not express a gender.

So the question remains unanswered.

If Jesus' second comeback performance appears in the form of a woman, would you pay her the same respect and consideration that you would when she existed as a man?

She is teaching the same understanding.

She is performing the same miracles.

It’s Jesus, but she’s a woman.

Is this important? Would Jesus coming back as a woman be a reason not to listen or follow or to hold this person in the same reverence that you did when this entity existed as a man?

Anybody want to take a crack at this? Also please include your reasons why or why not.

[carrdero]

[quote]Socrates writes: Catholic teaching often goes against the grain of the world.[/quote]
Not in this case. Prejudice exists and is prevalent among the religious and non-religious alike and it has been supported and encouraged for centuries and is counter-productive to what many religions are trying to teach and promote.

There are a few reasons why prejudice exists. Hate, fear and/or ignorance. There is no evidence and absolutely no reason to determine that organized religions who deny women the status of priesthood hate or abhor their female counterparts. If it is fear, then the reason for fearing women in a position as a priest is unclear and most likely a concern with the authorities who maintain the doctrine and keep these decisions.

Which leaves us with ignorance or the inablility and reason for some to recognize woman as equal to men, especially in this area of serving God. Though ignorance can be the most easiest reason to forgive, the willful continuance of such ignorance (especially in this day and age) does seem to damage a religion’s reputation, cause and purpose.

I suspect that there may be a combination of both ignorance and fear involved in this issue. That is to say, that if a particular religion announced that they were now accepting women into the priesthood, they would also have to provide a reason why and this explanation may bring even more reproach and criticisms upon a religion. People will start wondering what else the organization is misunderstanding. At the expense of elevating women to their proper human equality (this would include their physical, mental and spiritual abilities and attributes) I feel that the decision to allow women into the priesthood would be a small price to pay and could only be seen as the correct decision to make. I speak from the experienced position of witnessing what women can offer in the areas of spirituality.

or..... religions can forget about and cancel out the whole hierarchy and title business (priests, bishops, cardinals) and start everyone on an even level.

Edited November 30, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Pope Clement writes: Why can't a human "experience" tree-ness?[/quote]
Maybe in their next physical incarnation.
[quote]Pope Clement writes: Why can't an adult "experience" baby-ness?[/quote]
What? Do you mean in the infantile ignorance and the constant reliance of others? Some adults are already experiencing this.

[quote]Pope Clemens writes: So now it's a stereotype to recognize that "God made them male and female"? Tell you what - when men can naturally become mothers, women may be able to become fathers.[/quote]

The belief that God made them male and female is for our benefit, not GOD’s. What would be the importance of physical gender identification to GOD? What relevant consequences to GOD would it be for a man to behave masculine or a woman to react and respond like a female?

[quote]Pope Clement writes: If a man wants "the experience" of motherhood, why is this impossible?[/quote]
A woman cannot experience motherhood without a male donor so there is evidence of equality and shared responsibility. I cannot think of any male who is physically “built” for the experience of carrying and developing an infant inside of them for nine months.

The experience of parenthood can be played by any adult. When my father left my mother during my youth, my mother was both mother and father to me. Looking back, I realized that not only had she risen admirably to the occasion but that she was over-qualified in the love and caring of many children (she was a school cafeterian). But we are not talking about parenting here are we?

[quote]Pope Clement writes: I'd like to see you attend a worship service celebrated by Rev. Rover, if you think it's ridiculous, that's just your form of prejudice. Everyone has prejudices, mine are a preference for high Mass in English - however, that prejudice is not a requirement for everyone to celebrate Mass to my liking.[/quote]
It is not our individual small-mindedness and prejudices that are being argued and uncovered at this time. When certain religions reside certain opportunities or positions to certain members, it is their knowledge and understanding of GOD that will be exposed and scrutinized.

Edited November 30, 2007 by carrdero

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lena' post='1427173' date='Nov 30 2007, 02:41 AM']nonsense? If only it could be dismissed as easily as that, there wouldn't [i]be [/i] an issue.[/quote]
Its an issue for feminists. The Church is the bride of Christ, not the groom.
If Jesus had wanted priestesses he would have had them. However he did not appointment women into positions of heirarchical authority, and nether do we. As males are head of the family, males have position of authority in the Church. They are called and ordained by the Church, to serve the Church.

[carrdero]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1427259' date='Nov 30 2007, 09:49 AM']Its an issue for feminists. The Church is the bride of Christ, not the groom.
If Jesus had wanted priestesses he would have had them.[/quote]
If Jesus wanted an accurate documented account of his full historical life and willful intentions he would have wrote, scripted and preserved it himself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427261' date='Nov 30 2007, 10:00 AM']If Jesus wanted an accurate documented account of his full historical life and willful intentions he would have wrote, scripted and preserved it himself.[/quote]
He did, they are called the evangelists. and the early church fathers

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

If you don't believe in the Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus that has revealed Himself to the Church, you only believe in a Jesus you have created in your head. Either way, the Jesus that you have constructed is not the one whom the Church knows. Reincarnation? Returning as a woman? Becoming a tree? These constructs are not Catholicism, nor Christianity in general. Your views may fit within a Hindu system, but not Catholicism.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1427226' date='Nov 30 2007, 04:34 AM']There are a few reasons why prejudice exists. Hate, fear and/or ignorance. There is no evidence and absolutely no reason to determine that organized religions who deny women the status of priesthood hate or abhor their female counterparts. If it is fear, then the reason for fearing women in a position as a priest is unclear and most likely a concern with the authorities who maintain the doctrine and keep these decisions.[/quote]So there is no evidence of fear or hate. That should lead you to conclude that there is another reason why women can't be priests - perhaps because the Church sees no evidence that Jesus ever intended women to be priests.

[quote]Which leaves us with ignorance or the inablility and reason for some to recognize woman as equal to men, especially in this area of serving God. Though ignorance can be the most easiest reason to forgive, the willful continuance of such ignorance (especially in this day and age) does seem to damage a religion’s reputation, cause and purpose.[/quote]So unless every person is an ordained priest, they are unequal? You do realize that all baptized are part of the lay priesthood.. Your claim that all must serve in the exact same capacity is frivolous.

[quote]I suspect that there may be a combination of both ignorance and fear involved in this issue. That is to say, that if a particular religion announced that they were now accepting women into the priesthood, they would also have to provide a reason why and this explanation may bring even more reproach and criticisms upon a religion.[/quote]
At this time, it is socially/secularly more difficult to not ordain women. When Anglicans broke their own rules and 'ordained' women-priests they didn't provide any theological or Scriptural reasons, they just repeated the feminist mantra.

[quote]People will start wondering what else the organization is misunderstanding. At the expense of elevating women to their proper human equality (this would include their physical, mental and spiritual abilities and attributes) I feel that the decision to allow women into the priesthood would be a small price to pay and could only be seen as the correct decision to make. I speak from the experienced position of witnessing what women can offer in the areas of spirituality.[/quote]
So only priests can offer something in the area of spirituality? I think those who support these ideas have convoluted and strange views of Spirituality. Everything is relative, equal - Hinduism, Christian, whatever, it's all the same.. they just want the end result they desire, even with no Scriptural, Traditional support.. no matter if they destroy the Faith itself, as long as they can recreate it in their image. Which gets to the following:

[quote]or..... religions can forget about and cancel out the whole hierarchy and title business (priests, bishops, cardinals) and start everyone on an even level.[/quote]
Again, another convoluted view of equality. We could recreate society and have 360Million Presidents of the US, and 17Million PM of GB, and 1billion PMs of India, but I think such an animal would hardly be constructive or effective. In addition, we could stop handing out awards and recognition and just give everyone the same salary, career, etc. no matter of qualification, education, etc.. - what would that do, other than cripple society?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lena' post='1426867' date='Nov 29 2007, 05:49 PM']In my opinion.

Women are capable of becoming priests=Women can be priests.

BUT

The Church isn't capable of accepting that right now. For that to happen, major social change has to occur.
[b]
Social change is always occurring. [/b]

You nor I can guarantee what the far-off future will hold.[/quote]
It is not a social issue, as socrates is.

[quote name='Lena' post='1427173' date='Nov 30 2007, 01:41 AM']nonsense? If only it could be dismissed as easily as that, there wouldn't [i]be [/i] an issue.[/quote]

there isn't an issue. not within the church, anyway. John paul said, in ordinatio sacerdotalis

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

[carrdero]

[quote]Pope Clement writes: If you don't believe in the Jesus of the Scriptures, the Jesus that has revealed Himself to the Church, you only believe in a Jesus you have created in your head. Either way, the Jesus that you have constructed is not the one whom the Church knows.[/quote]

I’ve read the book, I am familiar with the stories and the authors. I never said that I do not believe in the Jesus of the Scriptures, it may be that I am not as enamored or compelled by these writings as you are but there is very little I do not believe in. Anybody who has ever related to me on Phatmass knows that I would never stop anyone from believing…..until they thought that they were believing in something that they thought was more than a belief.

[quote]Pope Clement writes: So there is no evidence of fear or hate. That should lead you to conclude that there is another reason why women can't be priests - perhaps because the Church sees no evidence that Jesus ever intended women to be priests.[/quote]

Some religious organizations are not looking for evidence to ordain women to be priests. I think that some authorities prefer to remain dominated by males. They are faithfully playing this rule by a book, which as I mention earlier, is both primitive and archaic. If this book was written any earlier, I can imagine that some religious organizations would be relegated to dragging women behind from their hair.

There is also much speculation as to what Jesus’ existence and what his original intentions actually entailed as compared to what was exactly inscribed over 35 years later after his death. How woman were looked upon and perceived in the time of Jesus’ existence is also a concern and consideration in this matter. Much has changed for women since these primitive times and this includes the right to be perceived in an equal light. It is not because some feminist movement is demanding it; it is because we have eventually learned to understand the Truth that women deserve it. And Truth will always preside over one’s belief or faith. Many religions have been using this faith as an excuse and many faithful women have been surrendering to such faith because they are taugh that faith can not and should not be reasoned with.

[quote]Pope Clement writes: So only priests can offer something in the area of spirituality?[/quote]
Not only male and female priests but cardinals, elders, apostles, bishops, prophets, anyone can and should offer something in the areas of spirituality if one will only allow it.

[quote]Pope Clement writes: Everything is relative, equal - Hinduism, Christian, whatever, it's all the same.. they just want the end result they desire, even with no Scriptural, Traditional support.. no matter if they destroy the Faith itself, as long as they can recreate it in their image.[/quote]

So this is what you are concerned about? Preserving an outmoded faith and tradition at the expense of a woman’s respectable rights to life and living?

[quote]Pope Clement writes: I think those who support these ideas have convoluted and strange views of Spirituality.[/quote]
Lol. I can’t imagine them becoming any more strange and convoluted then what many religions are already proposing. The concept of ordaining women as priests is not a radical or strange idea. On the contrary, I believe it is a Natural, considerate one.

[quote]Pope Clement writes: Again, another convoluted view of equality. We could recreate society and have 360Million Presidents of the US, and 17Million PM of GB, and 1billion PMs of India, but I think such an animal would hardly be constructive or effective. In addition, we could stop handing out awards and recognition and just give everyone the same salary, career, etc. no matter of qualification, education, etc.. - what would that do, other than cripple society?[/quote]

We are still talking about religion here, aren’t we?