What Is Wrong With Women Becoming Priests?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Wy can't women become Priests in the Catholic Church proper?

-- Darren (.@..com), December 23, 2002

Answers

Dear Darren,

There are several rather involved theological reasons for a male priesthood, involving the Divine Fatherhood of God, the gender of Christ, and the priest as "alter Christi", literally standing in the place of Christ. However the simplest valid reason is that Jesus is perceived to have clearly taught that a male priesthood is His divine will. Jesus taught both by word and by example. His example in selecting males twelve times in succession is taken as a definitive and irrevocable statement by Jesus Himself of His holy will regarding His priesthood. Based on that perceived teaching, the Holy Father has declared as an article of faith binding on all the faithful that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. By that action of the Vicar of Christ, the matter is settled for all time. No such declaration by any Pope has ever been reversed by a subsequent Pope.

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2002.


Very well stated, Paul. I have read the same, and it feels right in my gut too.

When the priest stands at the altar as priest and in the person of Jesus, he represents Jesus Christ in His entirety; body,soul, and spirit; thus no woman could ever possibly do this.

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 24, 2002.


Because women priests would alter the Divine Analogy, of the relationship between the bridegroom Christ and His bride the Church, re-rendering it into a lesbian analogy.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 24, 2002.

I second that! I was thinking of saying the exact same thing, Emerald. You beat me to it:)

Merry Christmas to you all.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.


Dear Darren:
It wouldn't even be ''wrong'', if God were calling women to the holy piesthood. Nobody just ''becomes'' a priest, it's a calling to each man who is ordained. There are even men, great numbers, who think they're called, just like the wannabe women think they are called. --But these uncalled MEN are wrong to want to ''become'' a priest without God's call. God makes priests, and has His own way of calling a man when He intends him for the priesthood.

Saint Francis of Assisi was told by the Pope himself, ''You must enter the priesthood.'' His saintly character was so clear to the Pope, he advised him so. But Francis did not hear the call of God. He would eagerly have accepted, if the call came from God; and it didn't. He remained a Brother, and founded the Order of Friars minor, the original Franciscans.

What makes women presume they're entitled to ordination, if they haven't been called? And in 2,000 years, they haven't been called to the priesthood. They have received grace and calls to religious orders. --We know this form historical sources. Even woman saints such as Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, and many others entered convents; not the holy priesthood. They didn't presume to TELL God, ''Make me a priest, Lord.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 24, 2002.



Hi Paul, Ive been catching up on old threads and must say thankyou for all your many answers. As a Catholic who has some grasp of the basics but who is a little short on details its been a pleasure to read your informed words. I see youve been at the forum a while, but I offer a bleated welcome! May I ask you how you gained your theological knowledge?

Blessings and a Happy new year to you.

Courtenay

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.


thats "belated" welcome

-- (csishewood@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.

You all missed the primary reason women are forbidden from being pastors or "bishops" as the Bible puts it... the Bible says so.

1 Timothy 2:7, 12 ...I speak the truth in Christ, and do not lie;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.... do not permit not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but rather to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 11:9-11 The man was not created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels....

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one wife (meaning a real woman- Jesus is the bridegroom of the church, not priests), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;...

Titus 1:6-9 If any be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE, having faithful CHILDREN not accused of riot or unruly. For a BISHOP must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (money)...

I know most Catholics do not see the Bible as the final or even primary authority on matters of theology and faith, but that's what Jesus said it was supposed to be- Jesus said: "Sanctify [clean them up] them by thy truth... thy WORD is truth" (John 17:17). Jesus alluded to scripture as being THE WORD of God, in Matt. 15 and Mark 7. Jesus quoted scripture often, and used it solely, as His defense when he was tempted by Satan, in Matthew 4 and Mark 4.

Jesus explained that the Pharisees were guilty of rejecting and ignoring the scriptures, in favor of their own spins on top of it. Jesus precisely quoted from Leviticus, and rebuked the Pharisees for contradicting scripture, in their catechisms (traditions). (See Matt. 15 and Mark 7)

Also read: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

-- Vera Plechash (verap1@earthlink.net), December 26, 2002.


Dear Vera,

One small problem with this 16th century tradition you are preaching ...if Jesus or the Apostles said that scripture is the final authority, they MUST have meant that the old Testament was the final authority, because that was the only scripture that existed when Jesus lived. It was the only meaning of the word "scripture" when they used that word. Therefore, anyone who thinks Jesus said such a thing would necessarily have to throw out the New Testament, and everything that Jesus taught, including of course His supposed teaching on scripture as the final authority.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2002.


Thank you, Vera Plechash;

First of all, the importance of Scripture has never been disputed by the Catholic Church. Scipture is sacrosant and unimpeachable. But not always for use as text-proof. No power for judging every controversial truth, nor for refuting or corroboration of Sacred Tradition is even suggested in the scriptures themselves. The Church is sole arbiter of all scriptural revelation in cases where a meaning may not be clear. We need no help in some parts of the Word of God to understand; and there are many chapters which are self-explanatory. But many others call for the Church's final authority to mandate our belief.

That doesn't imply the Word of God is secondary. What it states unequivocally is the truth. --Private interpretation can be seriously flawed and the Word of God can be distorted by false teachers.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 26, 2002.



Had an error mesage in the last post which necessitates my giving it in two sections. Here is the final section:

Your statement: ''Jesus quoted scripture often, and used it solely as His defense when he was tempted by Satan, in Matthew 4 and Mark 4.'' is irrelevant. Christ founded a Church for the work of evangelization and exegesis both. --He taught His apostles without recourse to scripture as well as with it. And He revealed many things never before revealed in the scriptures.

In fact, By the grace of the Holy Spirit His Church is teacher and mother to many exemplary saints and theologians; doctors of the Church with great spiritual influence. --Particularly so in their ability to find His truth in Scripture. We accept these graces as FACT because Christ promised them to His Church. Everything good comes to us from Jesus Christ. By downplaying the role of Christ's apostles and their Church --in favor of sola scriptura --some non-Catholics neglect the impact which the Holy Spirit has had during salvation history, with the spiritual progress of great multitudes of souls. Depending solely on the Bible -- exclusively --is very similar to depending all our lives on television for our information; and discarding alternate proven sources of knowledge. Because the Bible is divine truth; but our human wisdom is not divine wisdom. The Church, however, is a divine institution; with all the truth safely entrusted to her by Our Lord. We don't follow this Church blindly. We are believers first in Him, and with Him His Church and the Holy Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 26, 2002.


Dear Vera,

I just noticed at the end of your post that you have gotten yourself involved with some very bad company. I did not go to the site you indicated, because the URL has the name "chick" in it. Jack Chick is a purveyor of blasphemous literature that has probably done more damage to Christianity and to Christian people than anyone since Nero and Calligula. Any Christian person who comes into contact with the spiritual pornography peddled by Mr. Chick's hate-driven organization should burn it without delay. Apparently Vera, you yourself have already been harmed by this ungodly material, as have a great many other sincere followers of manmade religion with little knowledge of real Church history or authoritative Biblical truth. I encourage you to turn away from such filth before it destroys you spiritually, turning your heart to stone and transforming you into a mean-spirited bigot like Mr. Chick. You need to get yourself some genuine Christian literature, and learn some actual historical and spiritual truth before you decide to become a disciple of Jack Chick, throwing his perverted accusations against the one Church Jesus founded for all men. You will be in my prayers.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2002.


"Jack Chick is a purveyor of blasphemous literature that has probably done more damage to Christianity and to Christian people than anyone since Nero and Calligula."

You really think so Paul? I think you give Jack Chit too much credit; I'm sure he has snagged a few unsuspecting souls here and there, but those souls must have been looking for a good reason to bail common sense anyways. His cartoons are stupid, and most people aren't.

The reason I don't worry about Jack Shick is that I find his literature so patently stupid and corny that if it weren't so blasphemous I would be laughing my off. Well, actually I do laugh at it. It's stupid. The very fact that guy has to resort to cartooning to get his point across speaks volumes.

The cartoons are so completely goofy, I can't help it; I break out laughing. I'm not arguing the point that it isn't blasphemous, because it is... I'm just doubtful it is really that effective in inducing people into apostacy that were already headed in that direction by any number of more subtle tactics.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.


Emerald and Eugene,

there is another new article my Vera I would like your comments on if you don't mind.

-- Andrew Boyd (andrewboyd100@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.


I may be late in offering my two pence, but concerning why women cannot become Catholic priests...why can't wives become husbands?

Each of us has been given, through the grace and wisdom of God, the burdens, challenges, rewards and methods to manipulate, finesse, ameliorate and achieve successful results from our efforts based on our talents. We cannot all bear children, nor can we all piddle in the wilderness. Even though there are defined sex roles, neither is lessened by the Catholic Church. Women are not down-played because they are not permitted to become ordained priests. Women serve very important roles. Women can do something more valuable for the Catholic Church that no man or priest can ever do...we give birth to sons who may become priests! How wonderful and powerful is that?

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 26, 2002.



That's a good two pence. Or how about status of the Virgin Mary.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 26, 2002.

Dear Emerald,

You are certainly right about the Chick material being totally absurd and goofy - well, at least the Catholics are always pictured as goofy :-)

But I'm afraid Mr. Chick and company have damaged far more than a few unsuspecting souls. His tracts have been printed by the hundreds of thousands (quite possibly millions by now) have been circulated widely, and translated into several languages. This is not a garage- size enterprise! I'm especially fond of his tract on the Eucharist - Title: "The Death Cookie". Then there is that old favorite "Why Is Mary Crying?" (obviously because Catholics are praying to her instead of to Jesus). As ridiculous as this stuff is, there are, sad to say, many thousands of fundamentalist Christians who have obtained most if not all of their "information" about Catholicism from tracts and books he publishes.

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2002.


You might be right. I always thought his stuff was so looney... who knows; maybe the damage is worse than I might imagine.

Ever heard of Bart*Brewer? Back in the eighties, his son was in the same non-denom Protestant high school I attended; I'll never forget the look on his face when I told him I was Catholic... it was like he had met the antichrist face to face. Haha!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 27, 2002.


Thank you Emerald!

Without a woman, Christ could not be born to become the Saviour of us all.

Personally, I wished, at one time, to be male...so I could be a priest. When I realized, as a woman, that I had as much importance and as many expectations as a woman truly practicing her faith as a priest, I learned that there are SO many ways to be a "woman priest" in today's Catholic Church. Firstly, I began a role as a catechist for unbaptised adults, and then considered the religious life. Now I realize, after much discernment, I am not to be a nun. I am not to be solely a catechist. I have learned, as a (admittedly loud- mouthed, gregarious, not shy to admit and embrace, well-versed) Catholic, my most important role is to do precisely the thing St. Francis espoused. And, for those of you who know me, St. Francis is my favorite saint, and my spiritual guide-post. He said:

Always preach the gospel. Whenever neccessary, use words.

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 27, 2002.


By the way, the booklet I posted on another thread was NOT written by Jack Chi[k] or anyone in his organization. He just posted a booklet written by a former Catholic, Rick Jones.

I just happened to catch it on a google search. But I've seen the book before. It's on other websites, and in bookstores. No one here seems to be able to refute what Rick Jones says, IN his book. He compares Catechism teachings to Bible teachings, and shows how RCC Catechism appears to be contradicting scripture.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

I am a former Catholic who could not reconcile what I was reading in the Bible, to what the Catholic church taught. I had what you would call a "salvation experience". A distinct moment when I accepted Christ as my savior, and repented of my sins (not like penance- repentance is a gift of God.

2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Penance is attemtping to pay a penalty for your own sins, trying to "earn" salvation. We don't need Jesus (our Savior), if salvation could be earned. The Bible ("The Word") says salvation is a free gift, "not by deeds of our righteousness, lest any man should boast".

-- VeraP (verap1@earthlink.net), December 27, 2002.


An example of repentance: someone who is exgay, now living chastely.

An example of penance: A person who fasts and says the Rosary, but continues to sexually sin. All the Rosary recitations and fasting in the world won't cleanse unrepentant (ongoing, volitional) sin.

-- VeraP (verap1@earthlink.net), December 27, 2002.


Dear Vera,

Actually, anyone with a basic knowledge of Biblical truth and Church history can easily refute anything Rick Jones or other failed Catholics have to say. After all, everything they say is based on nothing but their personal interpretations of the Bible, which are backed up by absolutely no authority, and which in fact are in direct opposition to what the Bible says! If you are going to disobey the Word of God by trying to interpret it for yourself, it follows that what you end up with will be not only untrue, but so far from truth that it sounds ridiculous to anyone who actually has learned the truth through the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church compiled both the Bible and the Catechism. How could one collection of official Catholic writings contradict another collection of official Catholic writings? Obviously, what is in conflict here is your personal interpretations of both the catechism and the Holy Bible, neither of which you have any authority to interpret. So it is little wonder that your Catechism interpretations conflict with your Biblical interpretations.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2002.


There is no reason. Everyone can take the Bible and choose statements from it to support any view. I have read and studied the Bible in its entirety - cover to cover. For those of you who do not believe that ALL people are called to profess the Living Word, you are mistaken. Do you believe that God has not chosen women to lead? What about Deborah? How do you justify closing this "loop-hole" in the Bible? Do Paul's statements outweight God's choice of judge? I choose to trust God, as he trusted Deborah to lead.

-- Kevin (private@do_not_reply.com), January 16, 2003.

Dear Kevin,

[Everyone can take the Bible and choose statements from it to support any view.]

So very true! Which is why God gave us one infallible interpreter of His Holy Word! Since you acknowledge that anyone can twist scripture to support a personal opinion, why are you doing it?

[I have read and studied the Bible in its entirety - cover to cover.]

So have all the thousands of other denominations whose views conflict with yours. Why do suppose your viewpoint is any more valid than theirs?

[For those of you who do not believe that ALL people are called to profess the Living Word, you are mistaken].

We all believe that.

[Do you believe that God has not chosen women to lead?]

No I do not. There are a great many women in leadership positions in God's Church, and doing a superb job.

[What about Deborah? How do you justify closing this "loop-hole" in the Bible?]

Deborah was not a priest, so why is she relevant to this discussion?

[Do Paul's statements outweight God's choice of judge?]

in fact, Paul's statements ARE God's Word - or don't you accept the Bible as the Word of God??

[I choose to trust God, as he trusted Deborah to lead.]

If you trusted God, you would obey Him. He said that He was founding one Church for all men. Why do you follow a different, and conflicting tradition?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2003.


I just wanted to point out, that the idea of even having a priest is wrong. Firstly, Jesus is our priest, once and for all, abolishing the old priesthood. By electing a priest you try to replace Jesus, which is some sort of treason o_O Secondly, we are all called, both male and female, to be ministers to God equally, as Paul states, in Christ we are the same. So even if there was a priesthood, women would be included as we, too, are "temples of the holy spirit"? What, we can be the temple of God but not the priest? Are not our hearts the priests within the temple, our bodies? It is so.

As an afterthoughts, which is worse? Being deceived and doing wrong, or knowing exactly what you were doing and doing it anyway? I would say the latter. I say this in regards to the garden of Eden and the sins committed, the mans sin cannot be used to make him appear better, for fully knowing what he was doing he turned against God; even worse, he made himself a coward by trying to put the blame on Eve, even though he was not deceived.

-- sorelle (sorelleachie@hotmail.com), November 05, 2003.


"I just wanted to point out, that the idea of even having a priest is wrong

A: Apparently Jesus disagrees with you since He personally called a group of men, instructed them in the teaching of the Church, sent them forth as missionaries to make disciples of all people, commanded them to baptize, to forgive men's sins, to minister the sacrament of the sick, and to celebrate the Eucharist - which is exactly what those first priests did in the early Church, and is exactly what their successors, the priests of that same True Church, still do today, and will do until the end of time.

"Firstly, Jesus is our priest, once and for all, abolishing the old priesthood. By electing a priest you try to replace Jesus, which is some sort of treason"

A: First of all, we don't elect priests. God calls them. The Church trains and ordains those whom God calls. Yes, Jesus is our priest. He is also our teacher, our healer, our counselor, our consoler. But He has chosen to do much of this work through men. Human teachers in the Church participate in, not replace, His teaching. Human healers paticipate in, not replace, His healing power. And human priests participate in, not replace, His priesthood. He is still the high Priest, the High Teacher, the High counselor, and priests minister by HIS grace, not their own.

"Secondly, we are all called, both male and female, to be ministers to God equally, as Paul states, in Christ we are the same"

A: Well of course we are all called to minister. So were the people of the early Church. But they were NOT all called to be Apostles. Paul makes it very clear that different people are called to different ministries. And clearly Jesus intended certain ministries to be filled by men. Otherwise, why did He choose 12 out of 12 MEN to be His Apostles, the first priests and bishops of His Church? In Christ men and women are equal, but not identical.

"So even if there was a priesthood, women would be included as we, too, are "temples of the holy spirit"?

A: Weren't women temples of the Holy Spirit in apostolic times to? Yet when Jesus chose His priests, He restricted his choices to men. Have you heard the expression "actions speak louder than words"? This consistent action by Jesus, repeated 12 times in succession with no exception, is an obvious statement that the example He gave is a statement of His will, an example we are to follow.

"What, we can be the temple of God but not the priest?"

A: Yes, obviously, since that is the way Jesus Himself set it up.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 05, 2003.


Nothing at all is wrong about women priests in the Catholic Church. It only needs for God to begin calling them.

If they opt to enter holy orders from personal ambition they are forcing themselves on God and the Church. The calling must come from above; and since the beginning of the Church, women were called, but not to holy orders. It was not to please men in the Church; nor were women rejected. God was not sending the vocation to other than men. He selects the priest. If Catholics are faithful, they'll see their obligation to follow the impulse of the Holy Spirit. No one, man or woman, can impose his/her will on God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 05, 2003.


"A: Apparently Jesus disagrees with you since He personally called a group of men ..."

These weren't priests tho, they were apostles.

"which is exactly what those first priests did in the early Church"

There were no priests in the early church, and even if there was and they were sent "as missionaries to make disciples of all people, commanded them to baptize, to forgive men's sins, to minister the sacrament of the sick", the fact that women do the very same thing would automatically make them priests also, as "actions speak louder than words" ;P

"Yet when Jesus chose His priests.." As I said, they weren't priests. And as these so called "priests" are doing things that women also do, we must be priests as well. Imagine if Jesus -had- called women? What would have happened? Considering the customs back then, he would have been breaking the legal law as women were seen as property. A strange man walking around with a train of women? I don't think that would have down very well with the fathers etc..

"A: Yes, obviously, since that is the way Jesus Himself set it up."

Well, the Jesus and the writer of Hebrews and other parts of the Bible contradict themselves, don't they. Or are you going to admit that they were apostles, not priests?

As for being "called", I expect that even if a woman did say she was called to be a priest no one would believe her. They would probably think "oh, she is deceived, obviously women can't be priests.." We all know what happened with Joan of Arc - she was called by God to save the French, accused of heresy and burned at the stake. She also had authority OVER men, an army in fact, and she DID save France. It is possible that the English pretended that she had committed heresy and then burned because they were angry, but if the church will falsly accuse a 19 year old girl who faught for and saved her country and then burn her at the stake just coz they're having a hissy fit that they didn't win, that is just as bad if not worse than falsly accusing her of heresy and actually believing she -was- heretical, and then burning her at the stake. So there we have an example of a woman who was CALLED to have AUTHORITY over MEN, and she was accused of being heretical and burned at the stake.

-- sorelle (sorelleachie@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.


Sore:
Take a deep breath count to ten. Count to how many were rejected by GOD. I was, and I'm a man. I studied; I could have taken holy orders.

God wasn't calling me. I have the humility to realise it, and I'm not blaming women. Women who carp about being kept down by men are just disappointed climbers.

Thousands of great woman saints have been raised to the altars by Catholic Popes. They had equal oportunity and nobody barred them. Try to see the Will of God, and not just your own.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 06, 2003.


If it walks like a priest, talks like a priest, ministers like a priest, forgives like a priest, baptizes like a priest, consecrates like a priest, it's probably a priest. The Apostles were priests, and the current priesthood of His Church traces directly back to those first priests, chosen and ordained by Christ Himself. These priests were not doing the same things women were doing. They were doing things that no woman OR unordained man could possibly do. And they are still doing so within that same Church today.

Paul to Timothy: "Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2003.


Paul, I suppose you're speaking of the rituals and stuff priests perform. Which leads me back to something I previously said - what was the purpose of a priest in the bible? To offers sacrifices for the sins of the people, is a prominent reason that first comes to mind. However, since this is no longer required, earlthy priests or obsolete. Which makes me wonder if this whole "discussion" isn't just over a mute point. Like arguing who is going to be Jesus or something .. Actually, Jesus is the only example you will find of an actual ordained priest in the NT.

As for some of the verses used to prevent women from being priests, I have research into translations/interpretations and found quite a lot of interesting things! Those with an open mind won't be afraid to at least "consider" what some people say about these verses.

As for taking a deep breath, there is no need. Why would I need to? There is perfectly enough oxygen in the air at the moment ;P

Also, the verse about a deacon being the husband of one wife was quoted. This does not, I believe, mean that only men can be deacons. Through the Bible things are often stated from a mans point of view. A well known example that will sum this up for you is the commandment that a man ough not to covet his neighbours wife. Does this mean that women are allowed to covet their neighbours husbands? Of course not; the commandment is given from a mans point of view, but encompasses both sexes.

Also, all of the other verses relating to gender issues and headship in the new testament that I have read speak specifically to the husband and wife. In these cases the same greek words that were used by paul (although some say it was a disciple of his that wrote Timothy) to mean husband and wife in a number of instances, where translated as man and woman in the verse that says that a man is the head of the women, which has many people wondering "why?".

Some might say that for a women to be a pastor or priest she would be having "authority" over her husband, and therefore even so, it would not be permitted. But in the church there is not husband and wife in the sense that when christ returns for us, we will be like the angels, neither given in marriage nor taken in marriage. Christ is the head of the church, does that mean that he is only the head of the men in the church? No, but in the church, christ is head of both me and women, there is no distinction between the sexes. This may be a weak arguement, but a much stronger one is this: when Jesus was raised to have dominion over everything, etc., and his name made above all names, and when he was raised to sit -beside- God on the throne, was he having dominion over God? No, he was like him, not only in manner (sitting beside) and in function (God also has dominion over all things etc.), but he was not having authority over God, but was in submission to him .. sometimes it is hard to understand someone with such power being in submission, be he was. He was still subject to him, though functioning equally with him. I think the idea/term "authority" needs to be reconsidered. Clearly, one can be the same as and functioning the same as another, and yet still be under there authority. I would conclude that for a woman to be a pastor or priest is not a breach of authority. Husbands and wives, as the Bible states (not men and women) are to work as one, on equal standing (side by side on the throne), and in doing so they do not sin. In fact, to force one to sit lower or not even sit on the throne corrupts the image of God in us, for when God created us we, together, where his image, and God and Christ, together, perfectly united, are the complete image of God (with the holy spirit, of course). God and Christ sat side by side and functioned the same, and God is the head of Christ. It should be the same with a husband and wife. What is authority? What is submission? Is it a woman reserving her (deceived) teaching for gullable children and other women (who must need more deception?). When the word submission is spoken, do the words "dominate" and "subdue" spring to mind? For they should, for the wife who is told to submit to her husband, is also told to have dominion over and subdue the earth. I am certain that sin has corrupted the original function of a husband and wife (just as it has corrupted everything else), so these functions need to be transformed into what they were supposed to be by the renewing of our minds - which should also include correct interpretations of the word.

A note on Timothy. He also said that women would be saved through childbirth. Obviously this is not so as we are all saved through Christ, there is no other way to salvation. There is so much information about these verses, not dicrediting it, but going deeper into it and the context in which it was written (for example, Ephesus, the place to where the letter was written, had a strong female deity culture (remember the riot of Artemis), .. I really can't go into all this here! There is just too much o_O). I'll close with saying that the context and connotations of the verse suggest that "Paul" was saying, "for now, I do not permit women to teach.." ..

"When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne)."

You can all look further into this yourself, as I have. I don't do this for my own will as you have suggested. Nor do I want to become a priest or any such thing. I simply want the truth, and when something doesn't add up I go to God about it and I research until I find an answer that fits in with all the other scriptures I have read. And this is just one of the verses that didn't fit in at all.. I'm not saying my understanding is perfect, but it's getting there. Nothing you can say will dissuade me, and you can undermine me by telling me to take deep breaths and to stop fighting the will of God, but I don't care as that is condescending, and something I would not have said to you two (as I am not a condescending person).

-- sorelle (sorelleachie@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.


LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN ----


... since this [offering sacrifices for the sins of the people] is no longer required, earthly priests or obsolete.

Miss Sorelle, you'll have to tell that to Jesus, who ordained the Apostles as priests and instructed them to offer his eternal sacrifice to the Father "in memory of" him. Catholic priests today do not offer a new sacrifice each day, but rather they re-present to God the one sacrifice of Jesus, which, in the Mass, becomes "present" to us who witness it, as if we ourselves were upon Calvary.

Which makes me wonder if this whole "discussion" isn't just over a mute point. The word is "moot," meaning "of no practical value. ("Mute" means silent or unable to speak.) This discussion is not "over a moot point."

Actually, Jesus is the only example you will find of an actual ordained priest in the NT.

Incorrect. We have, handed down to us from the Apostoles themselves, that Jesus ordained them as priests. We also see, in the writings of St. Paul, references to "presbyteroi" (elders), which is the very Greek word from which is derived the English word "priest" -- and that is not an accidental derivation.

As for some of the verses used to prevent women from being priests, I have research into translations/interpretations and found quite a lot of interesting things! Those with an open mind won't be afraid to at least "consider" what some people say about these verses. Even people "with an open mind" don't need to consider any verses, no matter what the "translations/interpretations" say. The fact that only men are priests is not based on "verses" but on the actions of Jesus, who ordained only men and did not tell his first priests, the Apostles, to ordain women. The Church, therefore, lacks the authority to change what Jesus instituted.

... the verse about a deacon being the husband of one wife was quoted. This does not, I believe, mean that only men can be deacons.

But it does not mean that anyone other than men can be deacons. Thus the decision cannot be based on scripture, but upon Apostolic Tradition, and that is what tells us that the sacrament of Holy Orders (even to the diaconate) is only to be given to men.

Through the Bible things are often stated from a mans point of view. [etc.]

While it is true that most, or all, of the secondary authors were men, the primary author was God, who cannot err and cannot inflict injustices (on women or anyone else). Your radical feminist theology is wasted on faithful Catholics, Miss Sorelle.

I simply want the truth, and when something doesn't add up I go to God about it and I research until I find an answer that fits in with all the other scriptures I have read.

You won't arrive at the truth by using that "I'm-my-own-pope" method. Millions have tried it, and the only result is more than 30,000 Protestant denominations, plus millions of unchurched people who can't find a denomination that fits their own beliefs. Instead of trying to figure things out on your own, learn that Jesus founded just one church -- the Catholic Church -- and the Holy Spirit protects that Church from teaching any errors. Knowing that, you can join the Church and be perfectly confident that what she teaches you is correct. Of course, we only want honest people in the Church. So when you get over your tendency to plagiarize (such as from this page), come back and look us up again.

-- (Priests@Are.Men), November 08, 2003.


whoa, completely off topic, but i just thought abuot something really cool...

if catholics add up to 1.2 billion members worldwide, that writes out like this

1,200,000,000

thats HUGE. how about it catholics? great to be part of something so big huh? well, i mean, even if there were only five of us, because God is with us it is still big, but thats ALOT of people.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 08, 2003.


If the Catholic Church is the one true church, as you said, why do they ordain gay priests? That doesn't sound very "true" to me .. in fact, it is in complete contradiction to scripture as it has been passed down since the days of Moses and the NT. It sounds like the Catholic Church is making allowances for some reason. How deviant. How every "untrue".

Besides, -anyone- could say that they are the one true church. That doesn't mean that it is true.

You keep saying that Jesus made the apostles priests but you haven't given one referenced or complete example of this. Provide it if you expect me to believe you.

As for "being my own pope", everyone who tries to interpret the Bible does exactly that. Who are you to say you are right and not I, when it is simple your opinion against mine? Perhaps you consider yourself to highly =P

-- sorelle (sorelleachie@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.


"If the Catholic Church is the one true church, as you said, why do they ordain gay priests?"

A: The Church does not ordain "gay priests". Your question should read "why do some Catholic priests commit sins of a homosexual nature?" The answer, obnviously, is that all men are sinners, and out of 45,000 Catholic priests in the U.S.A. alone it is inevitable that a small percentage would have difficulties in this specific area of sin. Incidentally, there are examples of priests who sin against all the other commandments as well. Priests are not free of sin. They are the sinners God has specifically chosen to minister to the rest of the Church's sinners. Just like the Apostles.

"That doesn't sound very "true" to me .. in fact, it is in complete contradiction to scripture as it has been passed down since the days of Moses and the NT"

A: The Church isn't "true" because its members don't sin. It is true because it was founded by Jesus Christ, is guided by the Holy Spirit, and consistently teaches the fullness of truth in spite of the sins of its members. Every Church can claim sinners among its clergy. But only the Catholic Church can rightfully make the above claims.

"Besides, -anyone- could say that they are the one true church. That doesn't mean that it is true."

A: That's right. Which is why we look at history, which clearly reveals the history of the Catholic Church right back to Jesus and the Apostles. The history of any other Christian Church can be traced back either to the 11th century (Orthodox), or to the 16th century or later (Protestant churches).

"You keep saying that Jesus made the apostles priests but you haven't given one referenced or complete example of this. Provide it if you expect me to believe you."

A: What do priests do that specifically makes them priests? Not preach and teach. Lay people can do that as well. Not counsel or administrate. Lay people can do that also. What makes a priest a priest is the ability to celebrate the Mass - something which Jesus empowered the Apostles, and only the Apostles to do at the Last Supper. Priests also have other specific sacramental functions swuch as sacramental forgiveness of sins, solemn baptism, and annointing of the sick. The Bible clealy records each of these ministries being given to the Apostles. They did everything that modern day Catholic priests do. Therefore they were priests.

"As for "being my own pope", everyone who tries to interpret the Bible does exactly that. Who are you to say you are right and not I, when it is simple your opinion against mine? Perhaps you consider yourself to highly =P"

A: The only way I can know that "my" interpretation is correct is to see if it measures up against the interpretation of the Church to which Jesus said "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". He didn't say this to me or to you, or to any individual minister or priest. He said it only to the divinely appointed teaching authority of the Church, which resided in the Apostles, and now resides in their successors.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2003.


But the apostles weren't the only ones who celebrates mass, or communion, which I think is what you are talking about. All memebers of the church did this, as is indicated in the letters of Paul. The apostles were simply the first to do it, but Jesus never said that only apostles could do .. which I suppose is why everyone did it. They simply came around the table and ate, as indicated by Paul, there was no special ceremony or special clothes or person needed to do this. Which is good, as otherwise those separated from the body would have no way of doing this; but that is not the case. All ppl can take communion no matter where they are.

Also, all churches where the Holy Spirit moves, or where Jesus is present, are called and founded by God. Obviously. Also, there was no setting up by God of the Catholic church, the people of the original church met in houses and waited on the Holy Spirit and prayed etc., addressing each other with psalms and spiritual songs, encouraging each other etc., taking turns at reading scriptures, teaching, prophesying .. Paul said that everyone was the bring some to the gather, which was the "church" of the early Christians, for the edification of the body. The Catholic church is certainly not an example of this, and I think we would be stretched to find any mainstream church is IS.

-- sorelle (sorelleachie@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.


"But the apostles weren't the only ones who celebrates mass, or communion, which I think is what you are talking about. All memebers of the church did this, as is indicated in the letters of Paul."

A: You miss the point. Of course all the people gathered together for the Eucharistic celebration. They still do. But ONLY a validly ordained priest can consecrate bread and wine in the name of Jesus, causing it to become the literal Body and Blood of Christ. Of course, your modern manmade tradition probably doesn't believe that this happens. But every Christian on earth did believe it for the 1,500 years of Christianity before your unauthorized tradition was founded; and members of the Church Christ founded still do believe it, and will until the end of time - because He said it is so.

"there was no special ceremony or special clothes or person needed to do this"

A: There was no special clothing required, and strictly speaking there still is not. However, there was indeed a very special "ceremony" involved - exactly the same "ceremony" Jesus Himself performed at the Last Supper, immediately before commanding those present - and no-one else - "do THIS in remembrance of Me". His Church has continued to obey that divine command for 2,000 years, and will do so until the end of time. Do you?

"Which is good, as otherwise those separated from the body would have no way of doing this; but that is not the case. All ppl can take communion no matter where they are"

A: Sure, all people can take a "communion" of their own design - a piece of bread, a cracker, a bit of wine or grape juice. And this little snack can even have some religious symbolism. But it is not the Eucharist as celebrated by Jesus Christ - just a pale, tepid, symbolic counterfeit of the real thing. The REAL Eucharist - the Eucharist about which Christ said "My Flesh is REAL food; My Blood is REAL drink" - is available only through the action of a validly ordained priest.

"Also, all churches where the Holy Spirit moves, or where Jesus is present, are called and founded by God"

A: How many churches does scripture record as founded by God? Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build MY CHURCH". Singular. No hint of "churches". the Apostles taught about "THE CHURCH". 1 Tim 3:15 tells us that THE CHURCH of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. "Churches" are a human institution. His CHURCH is a divine institution. The Holy Spirit may move to some extent even through the limited truth of a manmade church, since those truths came from His Church. But the fullness of truth and the full power of the Holy Spirit can be found ONLY in the Church Christ Himself founded, the one which He said would receive the fullness of truth from the Holy Spirit, not in unauthorized institutions founded by men 1,500 years later.

"Also, there was no setting up by God of the Catholic church, the people of the original church met in houses and waited on the Holy Spirit and prayed etc., addressing each other with psalms and spiritual songs, encouraging each other etc., taking turns at reading scriptures, teaching, prophesying .. Paul said that everyone was the bring some to the gather, which was the "church" of the early Christians, for the edification of the body. The Catholic church is certainly not an example of this, and I think we would be stretched to find any mainstream church is IS."

A: You need to read some early Church history. Of course the first Catholics met for the Eucharistic celebration in their homes. They were hunted outlaws, subject to death if discovered. They also celebrated Mass in the catacombs, underground burial vaults where the superstitious Roman soldiers wouldn't venture. Once Christianity was legalized by the Emperor Constantine, Catholics began building public places of worship where they could come together as a community to praise God and celebrate the Eucharist as a larger body. If you took the time to attend a Mass, you would see that various members of the congregation do indeed read the scriptures, lead spiritual songs and prayers (which incidentally always include a psalm). The priest presides over the gathering, and consecrates the Eucharist, just as he did in Apostolic times.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2003.


Paul, in your first awenser i have a question. How in the name of the Lord would you know what Jesus thinks. we as people are created in the same image of God, therefor we all have equil rights. But yet women are constintly discriminated against. Paul, we only have one life, and what u are saying is that we cant live it the way we want to. If i want to become a preist i will and i will only become a preist in the Roman catholic league. Guess what, i do want to become a preist, and i will even if it means me talking to the Pope personaly. Jesus loves us all and he does not love one over the other. Sure he was a guy, but if he where a girl would that change anything. I as a women belive in him enough that i want to speak to people about him. but you are saying i cant because he was a guy. Some, if not, most of the people who followed him where women. Why cant we teach the word of God? Is that not what he wanted us to do?

-- Diana Giannetti (tweetybirdy99@yahoo.com), October 14, 2004.

Diana, Paul was not the only answerer, several woen posters say the same thing. What you seem to miss is that, speaking about Jesus is OK, but beign a Proest doesnt require only preaching, that is what protestant Ministers do.

However, Catolic Preists stand " In Persona Christi", which means they are representign Christ at the mass, Physically, spiritually, and emotionally.

To use an analogy, think of it as a play. No one woidl cast a woman to play Abraham Lincoln, or Richard the Lionheart, as Historiclaly these where men. Same applies to Jesus, the preyst "Plays" Jesus at the mass. ( Not to be irreverent, just makign a point.)

This is why women cannot be priests.

Perhaps try anglican, They allow it though.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 14, 2004.


"How in the name of the Lord would you know what Jesus thinks"

A: We know what Jesus "thinks" when He tells us what He "thinks". If I were inviting people to a banquet, and I only invited Republicans, you would probably figure out pretty quickly that I only wanted Republicans at the banquet, wouldn't you? My actions would constitute a statement of my will. In the same way, when Jesus was instituting His priesthood, He repeatedly and exclusively chose men for that ministry. It is apparent then that it was His will that His priesthood should be comprised of men.

"we as people are created in the same image of God, therefor we all have equil rights"

A: Of course we do. But being a priest is not a "right". It is a calling from God, and as I mentioned above, God called only men to that ministry in His Church.

"But yet women are constintly discriminated against."

A: Discrimination applies only when rights are involved, and as I said above, the priesthood is not a right. Neither men nor women have any "right" to be priests. But some men do have a calling to be priests. Women do not.

"Paul, we only have one life, and what u are saying is that we cant live it the way we want to."

A: That's right. Following Christ means that we can't do whatever we want to do. It means placing our own will in subservience to His divine will, and living as He calls us to live.

"If i want to become a preist i will and i will only become a preist in the Roman catholic league."

A: League? I'm afraid you won't become a Catholic priest, since that is impossible. It is an article of the Catholic faith that the Catholic Church does not possess the authority to ordain women. Therefore, even if you found some liberal Catholic bishop who rejected the authority of his Church, and went through the motions of "ordaining" you, you still would not be a priest, just a schismatic.

"Guess what, i do want to become a preist, and i will even if it means me talking to the Pope personaly."

A: The Pope is already well aware that some women feel as you do. And He would tell exactly you what I just told you - that it is out of his hands - that the Catholic Church cannot ordain women because Christ did not give the Church the authority to do so.

"Jesus loves us all and he does not love one over the other."

A: Absolutely! Are you suggesting that he loves the men he calls to be priests more than he loves the men He doesn't call to be priests? Is calling someone to the priesthood a sign of greater love for that person?

"I as a women belive in him enough that i want to speak to people about him. but you are saying i cant because he was a guy. Some, if not, most of the people who followed him where women. Why cant we teach the word of God? Is that not what he wanted us to do?"

A: Yes it is what He wants us to do. Do you have to be a priest to speak to people about God? Or to teach the Word of God? I know many excellent teachers, catechists, evangelists, and apologists who are women. Some of them are religious sisters (is the sisterhood an example of discrimination against men?), while many are single or married Catholic women of God. You won't find fulfillment or contribute much to His Church until you start concentrating on His will for you instead of your will for Him.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 14, 2004.


Just an observation to throw into the mix.......

Paul (and others) keep saying that women can't be ordained because Jesus didn't give his authority to the church to so.......

yet you also argue that the Bible is not the only source of truth because authority was given to Peter (and every Pope since) that whatever he allowed would be allowed and whatever he bound would be bound.

How do these two views blend to result in a continuous no go for women to be priests?

-- Sharon. (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), October 15, 2004.


The Bible actually has nothing to do with it. The Bible is not the source of the Church's teaching, but a written testimony of what the Church already believed before the New Testament was written, having received that teaching as the Word of God, directly from the lips of Christ Himself. The manner in which Jesus set up His priesthood would be part of Apostolic Tradition, and therefore part of the faith of the Church, whether it was ever written down or not, and whether the church had ever compiled the Bible or not.

As for papal infallibility, you have it backwards. It is not that anything the Pope defines doctrinally thereby "becomes" bound in heaven. Rather, the Pope can define as doctrine only that which is already bound in heaven. The Holy Spirit will not allow it to be otherwise. The truth doesn't become the truth because the Pope confirms it. The Pope, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can only confirm as binding truth on earth that which of itself is already true.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 15, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ