NationStates Jolt Archive

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.

The PC answer is Tradition! ;)

Because they might molest the altarboys.

Because they might molest the altarboys.
Maybe they would moslest alter girls instead?

I don't remember too much of the religious instruction I received in Catholic school, but I vaguely remember that the priest, during the portion of the mass where he reenacts the last supper witht the body and blood of Jesus, is supposedly a stand-in for Jesus. They may have a problem with a woman playing the role of Jesus.

Or I could be completely wrong.

Because we're all sexist cavemen.

Admit it, that's the answer you're going for.

tradition

jesus was male and chose only male apostles

Because we're all sexist cavemen.

Admit it, that's the answer you're going for.
Normally I would agree but she or he seems to have derived the question from a humanities class which leads me to believe maybe actually trying to get an answer

tradition

jesus was male and chose only male apostles

Debatable. There were Gospels written by women (at least one). They simply were not chosen to be included in the canon.

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.
Tradition, something people today do not respect as much as they did in the past.

tradition

jesus was male and chose only male apostles

Maybe Jesus was a sexist; and a racist too and the bible was a cover story :confused:

Debatable. There were Gospels written by women (at least one). They simply were not chosen to be included in the canon.
oh he had women followers, some he obviously held in very high regard

but they werent among the 12 apostles.

besides i was just telling the reason, not claiming it to be a good one.

The entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, portray God as a Father figure - not only in the titles that are used for Him, but also in the things He does. A father loves his children, but he is not afraid to punish them for screwing up, and God treats His followers the same way. Jesus was fully God, and He also acted the Father role with His disciples. Peter and the other apostles inherited Christ's mission and His authority. (Peter's special authority, as keeper of the "keys to heaven," is why we Catholics follow the Pope.) Priests, bishops, deacons, whatever, are inheritors of Christ's authority and responsibility through the apostles. So women are not good as priests because they are called to nurture, not to discipline. You can call that sexist if you want to, and I'm not claiming to have the whole answer, but there's a reason only women can be mothers. And only men can be fathers.

If I am not mistaken it is said in the Bible that only a Jew can be a priest, and that children who misbehave have to be stoned to death. I am confused, who is not following tradition?
:confused:

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.
You want the real answer, or the Church answer?

Real answer: Catholicism is founded upon a fundamentally mysogenistic system, and much of Christian tradition demands that women be subjugated and systematically mistreated. Psychologically speaking, this is the use of an "in group" and "out group" for reinforcement and control.

Church answer(s): Eve is the source of Sin, the Bible says women are supposed to be submissive, women aren't as holy as men, women are intended to serve as mothers and nothing else, yada yada.

(Peter's special authority, as keeper of the "keys to heaven," is why we Catholics follow the Pope.)

...even though there was no pope until centuries after Peter died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

Most of whom were only called pope long after their death. There was no "pope" as such in the Catholic church until after the East/West split. In fact, the Roman bishop attempting to establish primacy was a large part of the split itself.

Edit: Interestingly enough, your source lists the pope as leader of the "Roman Catholic Church", a distinction which did not exist, again, until the East-West split.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp


"...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"
-JPII

By the way, www.catholic.com is a good place to have all of your common "why do Catholics do this?" questions answered.

The entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, portray God as a Father figure - not only in the titles that are used for Him, but also in the things He does. A father loves his children, but he is not afraid to punish them for screwing up, and God treats His followers the same way. Jesus was fully God, and He also acted the Father role with His disciples. Peter and the other apostles inherited Christ's mission and His authority. (Peter's special authority, as keeper of the "keys to heaven," is why we Catholics follow the Pope.) Priests, bishops, deacons, whatever, are inheritors of Christ's authority and responsibility through the apostles. So women are not good as priests because they are called to nurture, not to discipline. You can call that sexist if you want to, and I'm not claiming to have the whole answer, but there's a reason only women can be mothers. And only men can be fathers.To be fair, imagery is used (both new and old testaments) that portray a mother figure as well. Take, for instance, the monologue given on his final entry to Jerusalem. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" There are plenty of other references, though the "Father" figure is the dominant one.

ok, I'm not Catholic, but my church, (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) also only allows male priest/bishops/what have you.

The short answer: Because God commanded it that way. for example, see the letter of Paul the apostle when speaking of deacons and bishops. He called for them to be worthy "men" not women.

Longer Answer: A priest is one who holds the priesthood (the power of God to serve mankind). Only worthy males recieve the priesthood. Women and men are seen as equal in the sight of God. Both however have distict roles to play, neither being more or less important than the other. Women have the power and gift to be mothers, something to which a man can never aspire. and men have the "oportunity" to recieve the priesthood IF they are worthy and righteous. This priesthood is given by the laying on of hands by one who hold the same priesthood. "No man can take this honor upon himself, he must be called as Aaron" (Letters from Paul) Aaron recieve this priesthood from Moses to be able to officiate in the ceremonies and ordinances of the Old Testament.

As for the Catholic church not having a pope for several centuries, it is quite true. There was no one. Oh, there were a few feuding bishops here and there but no leader. By the way, Peter was not a Pope but a Prophet/ Apostle. Prophet because he recieved revelations and led the church, Apostle because he was chosen as a special witness of Christ.

The short answer: Because God commanded it that way. for example, see the letter of Paul the apostle when speaking of deacons and bishops. He called for them to be worthy "men" not women.

Of course, Paul's writings make it rather evident that he was a mysogynist.

As for the Catholic church not having a pope for several centuries, it is quite true. There was no one. Oh, there were a few feuding bishops here and there but no leader. By the way, Peter was not a Pope but a Prophet/ Apostle. Prophet because he recieved revelations and led the church, Apostle because he was chosen as a special witness of Christ.

Over much of church history, there were five major bishops over five major sees. Rome was one, Antioch and Alexandria were others. (I can never seem to remember all of them. All held the same amount of power in the church. In fact, a letter from one of the "popes" often listed specifically tells the other bishops not to call him pope, as he is no higher than they.

Over time, those in the Western church began to defer to the bishop of Rome (made since, right? It was the capital city throughout most of Rome's history), while the Eastern bishops remained (and overall wished to remain) equal powers at councils, etc.

Another theological argument for an all-male priesthood:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0910-96/article3.html

oh he had women followers, some he obviously held in very high regard

but they werent among the 12 apostles.

besides i was just telling the reason, not claiming it to be a good one.

Well it was the age. Were women equal? If you convert the male then the women and children followed.

Another theological argument for an all-male priesthood:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0910-96/article3.html

The discussion of biology is cute. I love the way they conveniently leave out the fact that biological sex is not as cut-and-dry as they would like it to be.

It's all because the people in control are a bunch of sexist old farts who are too afraid to change anything that has persisted since the early days of the Church.

Women can do a great job as priests-I'm an Episcopalian, and the rector of my parish is a woman. She's energetic, kind, loving, and knows what she's talking about. She's also a mother and a wife (her husband is an actor and a deacon, who participates in the service weekly), proving that she can manage both the needs of the church and her personal life. The fact is, plain and simple, women can do as good a job as men.

In retaliation to the common Catholic arguments as to why women should not be priests:

Because of Eve's sin, women are blackballed and are less holy than men

Christ died for everyones sins, right? Right. Would not his sacrifice on the Cross have negated the picking of a piece of fruit off of a tree? How can you support salvation and forgiveness for all when you maintain that women are still guilty of a sin that happened thousands of years before Christ, whom supposidly died to forgive such a transgression? It seems hypocritical to me.

All of the apostles were men

What about Mary, whom you revere so much (more than Peter, I'd say), and Mary Magdelane? I'd call them apostles.

(This is my favorite-I got it in 6th grade religion class with a Catholic Sister)
Because there are some jobs that are intended especially for men

What a bunch of BS. I think all of you can formulate you own rebuttal here-I don't need to type any more.

I'll come back later and post my thoughts on the celabacy (sp?) debate. Guess which side I'm on?

The discussion of biology is cute. I love the way they conveniently leave out the fact that biological sex is not as cut-and-dry as they would like it to be.

Or perhaps more than others would like it to be.

Because of Eve's sin, women are blackballed and are less holy than men

Christ died for everyones sins, right? Right. Would not his sacrifice on the Cross have negated the picking of a piece of fruit off of a tree? How can you support salvation and forgiveness for all when you maintain that women are still guilty of a sin that happened thousands of years before Christ, whom supposidly died to forgive such a transgression? It seems hypocritical to me.

All of the apostles were men

What about Mary, whom you revere so much (more than Peter, I'd say), and Mary Magdelane? I'd call them apostles.


1st Point: yes price was paid. No, that is not the reason women are excluded from the priesthood.

2nd Point:Mary was NOT an apostle. Nor was the other Mary. The Apostles were as special group of Twelve Men that Jesus called and Ordained. He ordained no other person.

As for women being able to do anything a man can do. YES! They can! and often better! (I am a man, btw.) BUT ability does not equal responsibility. Plain and simple. The priesthood is a male responsibility (not a perk) it is a responsibility to serve. It will bill that way until God Himself says otherwise. For He not man was the one who decided this.

Or perhaps more than others would like it to be.

I haven't seen anyone argue that biological sex is any less cut-and-dry than it actually is (which, strangely enough it isn't very). Sex chromosomes can and do end up in some pretty weird combinations.

As for women being able to do anything a man can do. YES!


Can they write their name in the snow? :p

I haven't seen anyone argue that biological sex is any more cut-and-dry than it actually is (which, strangely enough it isn't very). Sex chromosomes can and do end up in some pretty weird combinations.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

2nd Point:Mary was NOT an apostle. Nor was the other Mary. The Apostles were as special group of Twelve Men that Jesus called and Ordained. He ordained no other person.

(a) You assume that he didn't call any women because the writings of women were not put into the canon.

(b) The disciples were 12 men. The apostles included a few others. Paul, for instance, was an apostle, despite having never known Christ in life.

The priesthood is a male responsibility (not a perk) it is a responsibility to serve. It will bill that way until God Himself says otherwise. For He not man was the one who decided this.

So the women who feel called to the priesthood are just making it up? Or are you going to admit that you don't know what God calls others to do?

:D In the Catholic Church there are 7 Sacraments, and each 1 has Form and Matter. Example when some one is baptised into the Church the priest pours water(matter) on the head the head of the person, and at the same time says the words of baptisim (form). I Baptize thee in the name... In the sacrament of Holy Orders(odination of priest). The matter is a man, and only a man. and the form is the anointing of the hands of the individual being ordained. If you don't have both Matter and form no sacrament takes plase, and that is why Women can not be ordained. The Church isn't sexist. The greatest creature ever created was a woman named Mary. Mary son is Jesus Christ,the son of God.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Most people only hear the grade-school biology: XX=female, XY=male.

In fact, the sex chromosomes, unlike autosomal chromosomes, which can cause huge defects if you end up with more or less than two fo them, can exist in all sorts of combinations.

There are those who are XXY or XXXY, and so on (Klinefelter's syndrome). These people often end up with sex characteristics of both genders. They generally develop male genitalia, but may develop breasts at the same time that they grow facial hair. Many are either asexual, or feel as if they are female, and wish to act that way.

There are those who are XY, but have a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). Their bodies cannot react to testosterone, so they develop completely as females. They are declared female on their birth certificates and generally raised as females. However, they are *genetically* male. These women often need hormone replacement therapy.

There are those who are XO (Turner's) and this can happen in all sorts of ways. The original egg may be devoid of a sex chromosome, and the sperm carry an X. The person may start out as XX or XY and have an improper division leading to most cells in their body being XO. Those who begin as XY often have undescended testes, but like those with CAIS, develop mostly as female and are labeled as such. When they should be hitting puberty, nothing happens (for all) and they don't hit growth spurts like most do. Those who began as male and have undescended testes must have them removed, as they are a cancer risk. Most have to go on hormone replacement therapy.

Some men are XYY, and tend to be more agressive.

Some people are chimeric, with some of their cells one genotype and the rest another. This could be due to a condition like Turner's or could be due to having absorbed a fraternal twin in the womb. Because of this, a person may have some of their cells male and some female.

And these are simply the ones I know of.

(b) The disciples were 12 men. The apostles included a few others. Paul, for instance, was an apostle, despite having never known Christ in life.


Paul was an apostle, true--but he was also presented to the original apostles, and apparently ordained by them before they sent him forth. The chain back to the Twelve is unbroken.

Most people only hear the grade-school biology: XX=female, XY=male.

In fact, the sex chromosomes, unlike autosomal chromosomes, which can cause huge defects if you end up with more or less than two fo them, can exist in all sorts of combinations.

Point taken, though I would argue that these are more degrees of masculinity or femininity within a definite male or female sex than a third sex.

I'd forgotten it until just now, but the Church does require that the priest have functional male genitalia, which would disqualify most of these examples right off the top.

Point taken, though I would argue that these are more degrees of masculinity or femininity within a definite male or female sex than a third sex.

So being completely genetically male but developing as a female is just a degree? Technically developing as neither (Turner's) is a degree?

Ok, if you say so.

I'd forgotten it until just now, but the Church does require that the priest have functional male genitalia, which would disqualify most of these examples right off the top.

Of course, that requirement is a direct result of the misconception that sex is cut and dry and is determined by which genitalia you have.

oh he had women followers, some he obviously held in very high regard

but they werent among the 12 apostles.

besides i was just telling the reason, not claiming it to be a good one.

On the contrary one of the 12 apostles was in fact a woman. I cant recall her name but she was a red head, and when John Paul II was in his death bed they had a huge story on her.

None the less, I personally am against it because 1) a Priest is referred to as Father...and usign Mother as well would be irritating. 2) Nuns are woman and thats fine as is. 3) Tradition 4) Just Because

Roman Catholicism is not the only branch of the three in Christendom that historically has not ordained women to the special offices of the church. All three traditions (Western Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) have done the same. Theologically, the reason has been because of the economic (no, not monetary) differences between men and women. Ontologically, men and women are the same (as the Apostle Paul states in Gal. 3:28). Economically (i.e., roles), they are different. (Another example: the governor and I are ontologically the same; economically [roles] we differ.)

Those who claim sexism embrace, wittingly or unwittingly, the ontological relationship b/w men and women but not the economic one.

So being completely genetically male but developing as a female is just a degree? Technically developing as neither (Turner's) is a degree?

Ok, if you say so.


The point is reproductive capabilities. Can your completely genetic male who develops as a female bear children without having corrective surgery? If so, then you have a case.

As far as Turner's go, you yourself said that they began as either XX or XY.

Point taken, though I would argue that these are more degrees of masculinity or femininity within a definite male or female sex than a third sex.

I'd forgotten it until just now, but the Church does require that the priest have functional male genitalia, which would disqualify most of these examples right off the top.
Wait, why do they require male genitals is they aren't allowed to use them? I had 13 years of Catholic school and never heard that one.

Well even Jesus didnt follow tradition. Like knockking down those altar shops and talking about some grazy madness about not hurting your fellow man and turning another cheek.

The point is reproductive capabilities. Can your completely genetic male who develops as a female bear children without having corrective surgery? If so, then you have a case.

A genetic male whose outer genitalia appear to be female cannot have children at all. Why does that matter?

Meanwhile, how do reproductive capabilities have anything to do with it? Are you telling me that a man who was sterile couldn't become a priest? Do they check them for that? How do they check to see if he has a "working" penis?

As far as Turner's go, you yourself said that they began as either XX or XY.

Oh, so it is what they began as? So, if a person begins as XXY (technically female) and has most of their cells XX, they are male?

What about someone who is chimeric, and is part male and part female?

If you want to understand the correct Catholic Perspective, read this!!

Actually, the first pope was Peter, who became what he was when Christ said to him: "Peter, thou art the rock upon which I shall build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against me"
After him:
Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Sixtus, Crysogenus, Damien, Cornelious... ...Pius, Paul, John, John Paul, John Paul, Benedict.
The line of apostolic succession has allways been strong, the Primacy of Peter, remains to this day, and the Pope truly is Christ's infalliable vicar on Earth. God would never abandon his people, and he guaranties that we shall never lose the truth he gave us. I think it is ridiculous that people follow churches that proclaim the ever changing "truth" of wayward Germen priests, fifteenth century English kings, and insane New Yorkers, rather than the Church founded by Christ. As for the the Eastern Split, the fact that some people refused to recognize the primacy of Peter does not change God's mind. This is why the Church never changes, EVER, on dogma and teaching. It has allways been right! How else can that be explained other than by Divine intervention.

As to women priestesses, or the lack there of, you assume that men and women are the same thing. THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. Is it not entirely obvious? Men are the initiaters of love, and that love is received by women, and returned. Their love is the child. It is a parallel of the Holy Trinity!
Also, as you can read in much great literature, from Plato to Milton to Mauritan, Man glorifies the first part of nature--reason. Women are guided by his reason, and confirm it with her passion, or emotion. Man must lead. Ever read Paradise Lost? That is a good example of a timeless classic that can explain this far better than I.

Roma Locuta, Causa Finita Est!!

If you want to understand the correct Catholic Perspective, read this!!

Actually, the first pope was Peter, who became what he was when Christ said to him: "Peter, thou art the rock upon which I shall build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against me"
After him:
Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Sixtus, Crysogenus, Damien, Cornelious... ...Pius, Paul, John, John Paul, John Paul, Benedict.
The line of apostolic succession has allways been strong, the Primacy of Peter, remains to this day, and the Pope truly is Christ's infalliable vicar on Earth. God would never abandon his people, and he guaranties that we shall never lose the truth he gave us. I think it is ridiculous that people follow churches that proclaim the ever changing "truth" of wayward Germen priests, fifteenth century English kings, and insane New Yorkers, rather than the Church founded by Christ. As for the the Eastern Split, the fact that some people refused to recognize the primacy of Peter does not change God's mind. This is why the Church never changes, EVER, on dogma and teaching. It has allways been right! How else can that be explained other than by Divine intervention.

As to women priestesses, or the lack there of, you assume that men and women are the same thing. THEY ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. Is it not entirely obvious? Men are the initiaters of love, and that love is received by women, and returned. Their love is the child. It is a parallel of the Holy Trinity!
Also, as you can read in much great literature, from Plato to Milton to Mauritan, Man glorifies the first part of nature--reason. Women are guided by his reason, and confirm it with her passion, or emotion. Man must lead. Ever read Paradise Lost? That is a good example of a timeless classic that can explain this far better than I.

Roma Locuta, Causa Finita Est!!

Apparently, you missed my point.

A genetic male whose outer genitalia appear to be female cannot have children at all. Why does that matter?

Because he's still a male, bodily defects notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, how do reproductive capabilities have anything to do with it? Are you telling me that a man who was sterile couldn't become a priest? Do they check them for that? How do they check to see if he has a "working" penis?

That's exactly what I'm saying, though I really could not tell you the "how" (in earlier times, anyway). I do recall that from the very first, castrated males were not eligible for the priesthood.

Oh, so it is what they began as? So, if a person begins as XXY (technically female) and has most of their cells XX, they are male?

What about someone who is chimeric, and is part male and part female?

If they can bear children, they're female. If they can inseminate another person, they're male. If they can do neither, we're splitting hairs. If they can do both...then, you have a case.

Dempublicents1,
I think you are just a bit obsessed with getting your genetalia discussed.
It is almost a non-issue.

99% of people are pretty obviously male or female. I don't think the church is going to bother worrying about writing a specific rule that only deals with 1% of the population.

Besides, the question was why not females? NOT, "what is the difference between male and female?"


"So the women who feel called to the priesthood are just making it up? Or are you going to admit that you don't know what God calls others to do?"


Yes they are. I'm sorry. But God has revealed the way He does things. And unless He specifically says otherwise, that is how it stands. (He calls a person, a person does not call themself)(The same goes for any MAN who is not called of God but "joins" a clergy)(

The priesthood USED to be limited to only LEVITE males. But God Revealed that it was to go to all SEMETIC males. Then later God revealed it was to go to ALL males. But never has He said females.


(a) You assume that he didn't call any women because the writings of women were not put into the canon.


nope. I don't. I know they weren't because the names of the apostles were written down. AND because of revelation from God (not to me) stating it in other books.

I think you are just a bit obsessed with getting your genetalia discussed.
It is almost a non-issue.

99% of people are pretty obviously male or female. I don't think the church is going to bother worrying about writing a specific rule that only deals with 1% of the population.

Besides, the question was why not females? NOT, "what is the difference between male and female?"

The answer I'm trying to get across is that it's because Jesus was male, and it matters that Jesus was male. That almost inevitably spills over into gender differences.

sorry maulm, I left out who the reply was to. I wasn't reffering to you :)
I agree, Jesus was and is male.

As was said before, it is a matter of Tradition, meaning the teachings of Christ handed down through the centuries. All the Sacraments have their proper form and matter, as someone also mentioned. The Church does not have women priests because it does not have the power to make women priests. This is for the same reason that a priest can't consecrate a macaroon into the Body and Blood, can't baptize a golden retriever with motor oil, and can't marry me to a ham sandwich. These are not the matters for which the Sacraments were established. Jesus knew what he was doing when he appointed the Apostles. He prayed long and hard before chosing them, and had a purpose for all of them. Furthermore, He was a man who was not burdened by the mores and taboos of the society He lived in. He ate with sinners, outcasts, pagans, and lepers. And yet, He chose only men for the apostolate. True, there were women among the disciples at large. True, some of them were as close to Him as the Twelve. But it was to the Apostles that He gave the authorities we normally associate with priests. They were the ones who were there at the Last Supper, when He instituted the Eucharist. To Peter first, and then later to others, was given the power to bind and loose. They were the ones given authority to forgive sins. They were the ones who preached, judged, and pronounced. Mary, indeed, is revered above all humans, but she was not made a priest. For other reasons, including Jesus' male person and the role of the priest in persona Christi, it is fitting that all priests be men, but that is corollary to the reality that it is essential that a priest be a man. Any ordained woman is not truly or validly ordained, and to this the overwhelming teaching of the universal Church has always attested.
Pax vobiscum

sorry maulm, I left out who the reply was to. I wasn't reffering to you :)
I agree, Jesus was and is male.

It's all right, but the disagreement Dempublicents1 and I are having is over whether it matters that Jesus is male.

Jesus is black. Jesus walked across the sea. Jesus won death. But where does it say that Jesus doesn't dig woman priests? Didn't he wash some "dirty" womens feet, so you can't say he didnt dig girls.But hey you can argue to sunrise to sunset about this and still you got those who don't and those who do.

The thing about this is yes: there are no women priest because it is traditional. Now what is bad about traditional? Traditions are as important as progress. Personally in my opinion the church is right to stick to their guns. This dosnt mean women are not equal to men. Far be it. However both men and women have roles to fill.

Jesus is black. Jesus walked across the sea. Jesus won death. But where does it say that Jesus doesn't dig woman priests? Didn't he wash some "dirty" womens feet, so you can't say he didnt dig girls.But hey you can argue to sunrise to sunset about this and still you got those who don't and those who do.


Actually, the "dirty" woman you refer to washed HIS feet.

As for Jesus being black, that's just silly. There is nothing wrong with a person being black. If Christ had been, I would admit it. But the fact that He was a Jew (and many other facts) make this an imposibility and indeed a ridiculous thing to argue. There were no black Jews at the time of Christ as far as I know. (Because Jews were forbidden to intermarry with other cultures) Those that exist now are mainly converts.

Uhh then that damn movie and my memory is tricky one are you sure because then it would make sense that he would wash sinful womans feets like he does wash sins from us but ah. And about his blackness it wasn't racist thing and he game from area whose people got darker skin color than average Joe from South.

On the contrary one of the 12 apostles was in fact a woman. I cant recall her name but she was a red head, and when John Paul II was in his death bed they had a huge story on her.

None the less, I personally am against it because 1) a Priest is referred to as Father...and usign Mother as well would be irritating. 2) Nuns are woman and thats fine as is. 3) Tradition 4) Just Because
hey i live in socorro!

that there are popular books of fiction that claim female apostles doesnt make it true. there are no mainstream sects of christianity who believe that any of the apostles were female. thats all that counts.

the church's deep misogyny is reflected in its reluctance to put women in any leadership role. in the US they have been forced to allow a few women important parish jobs due to the severe lack of priests. women could be preaching; women could be ministering, women could be running the day to day parish affairs. everything but actual priestly duties. the few women in these roles shows the church's true motive.

It is said that Jesus was the "bridegroom" of the Church and he was in essence "married" to it, making the Church his "bride." Since a priest is "marrying" the Church and taking it his his "bride" and since a bridegroom (now commonly refered to as a groom) can only be a man and the Church is the "bride," a woman cannot possibly "marry" the Church and become a priest.

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.

Things take a long time to change in the church. We prefer it that way. It makes us look bad on issues like this, but matters of religion shouldn't be terribly malleable.

But consider other Christian denominations-all branches of Anglicanism, the United Methodist Church and others allow priests to both marry and be women. Look at them. It seems to have worked pretty well-I can vouch for that. I'd even say that it has bettered my faith, enriched it. How is this a bad thing?

But consider other Christian denominations-all branches of Anglicanism, the United Methodist Church and others allow priests to both marry and be women. Look at them. It seems to have worked pretty well-I can vouch for that. I'd even say that it has bettered my faith, enriched it. How is this a bad thing?

Catholicism will come around. I just take comfort in the fact that it takes awhile. If religion is allowed to change too quickly, you can end up with some nutcase who has a "revelation from the lord" whenever he feels like changing something on a whim (mormonism anyone?)

Catholicism will come around. I just take comfort in the fact that it takes awhile. If religion is allowed to change too quickly, you can end up with some nutcase who has a "revelation from the lord" whenever he feels like changing something on a whim (mormonism anyone?)

I guess they just need to get some young guy (+/- 40 would be good) made Pope. Someone young with an open mind and liberal views and not afraid to change things.

*sigh* Maybe my grandchildren will see it.

Aust-
There are an awful lot of arguements for and against this tradition, as you see above. The tradition is not, however, inherently misogynstic as some people above have claimed (the veneration of Mary as the Holy Mother doesn't really sync with a hatred of women,) nor is it based on chromosomes complexity (God might have known about that, but he certainly didn't explain it to the Church anymore than He explained particle physics or the presence of dark matter.) The apostles are special because God chose them to lead His Church, as signified by their speical relationship with Him as well as the tongues of fire that descended on them to allow them to preach to the masses (Acts.) I couldn't really help you explain it to a humanities class, but I do think there are probably many Catholic priests who could. My best advice would be to talk to one of them, in person if possible, or by phone if not. They probably know a great deal more about it than most people, including most Catholics, having gone to Seminary. As for Jesus being a particular ethnicity, my two cents is that he almost certainly would look like an Arab today, because of the climate He grew up in and the fact that the Israelites had been living there for quite some time before He was born. He probably wasn't black, but he definately isn't the white male that seems so common an image in today's Christian churches.

Tradition, something people today do not respect as much as they did in the past.
Setting aside my feelings on Catholicism for a moment, tradition is fine. But I will never respect a tradition that I feel undermines efforts for equality. You gotta prioritize ^_^.

Because he's still a male, bodily defects notwithstanding.[/wuote]

But her birth certficate says female.

[QUOTE=Maulm]That's exactly what I'm saying, though I really could not tell you the "how" (in earlier times, anyway). I do recall that from the very first, castrated males were not eligible for the priesthood.

So do they check them to see if they are sterile, or not? Could a person with CAIS get a penis added on and take hormones?

If they can bear children, they're female. If they can inseminate another person, they're male. If they can do neither, we're splitting hairs. If they can do both...then, you have a case.

Your dichotomy is cute, but very naive.

Besides, the question was why not females? NOT, "what is the difference between male and female?"

The latter question is pretty important to the former.

Yes they are. I'm sorry. But God has revealed the way He does things. And unless He specifically says otherwise, that is how it stands. (He calls a person, a person does not call themself)(The same goes for any MAN who is not called of God but "joins" a clergy)(

The priesthood USED to be limited to only LEVITE males. But God Revealed that it was to go to all SEMETIC males. Then later God revealed it was to go to ALL males. But never has He said females.

I'm glad you are so full of yourself that you think you know God's full revelation.

nope. I don't. I know they weren't because the names of the apostles were written down. AND because of revelation from God (not to me) stating it in other books.

Sure, as long as you realize that that isn't faith in God - it is faith in the people who wrote down what they claimed to be a revelation from God.

Do you also believe that rabbits chew the cud, crickets have 4 legs, and you can tell whether or not a woman is a virgin by whether or not she bleeds? Do you believe that God is a big proponent of slavery?

It's all right, but the disagreement Dempublicents1 and I are having is over whether it matters that Jesus is male.

I haven't argued anything like that.

He probably wasn't black, but he definately isn't the white male that seems so common an image in today's Christian churches.

Apparently that image of a blue-eyed blonde Jesus is based on Alexander the Great.

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.

Tradition is the main point i think. It's a very imporant part of the Church, i think there's even something in the catechism about it, though i'm not sure. And one of the reasons that the Bible is full of male leaders is the culture of the time. You might not have noticed but they weren't exactly all for womens rights 2000 years ago. There could've been plenty of women leaders that no one knows about because they were women.

Tradition is the main point i think. It's a very imporant part of the Church, i think there's even something in the catechism about it, though i'm not sure. And one of the reasons that the Bible is full of male leaders is the culture of the time. You might not have noticed but they weren't exactly all for womens rights 2000 years ago. There could've been plenty of women leaders that no one knows about because they were women.

The more posts of yours I read, the more ignorant you seem.

St. Helen, the mother of Constantine, ultimatley led to Christianity becomming the state religion. Before Christianity became the cool religion to be in, it wsa women who organized it. Often times, because churches weren't allowed, Christianity would be practiced in rich people's houses (yes, catacombs were also quite the shizzle). The rich man organized these gatherings? No, the rich man's wife and rich women. Women are really the ones who facilitated the growth of the church after Jesus's death. When Christianity became more organized and legal, women played less of a role. Women are more into doing illegal things and organizing religious gatherings...

That's why we burn them as witches!

In all seriousness, as a liberal Catholic (I'm actually an Agnostic, raised Catholic who practices Catholism, despite an extreme lack of faith), I think women should be allowed to be priests (or Priestesses. That sounds hotter. :fluffle: ). Just, as like 20 others have said, because Jesus was a man the priest should be a man. THough God has no gender (well the son of God does... so... you get what I'm saying), I don't think the gender should matter as long as they are a holy and pious person. Unlike Nuns... Catholic education is painful. I know from experience. I'm hit by Xaverian brothers in my high school though...

They may not be mentioned in the Bible, but history has them recorded. So does my Sophomore Religion Book, so we do know about them. Women may not of had many rights but they were as bossy and obsessed with running everything as they are now.

I'm a Christian, but not Catholic.

I have seen people say that Eve brought sin into the world, but all of the scripture that I remember says that sin came in through [1] man <which would be Adam>. Not only that, but original sin is passed along by men, not women. Women were deceived, so they didn't sin, per se. Adam knew full well what he was doing, and chose to be disobedient.

So, Christianity is not biased against women because of original sin, since man brought that into the world.

Now, Eve (and all of womankind) was cursed, and that is perhaps the reason that women seem to always have a submissive role. Perhaps because atleast men know what they are doing (which also makes any screw up worse!?)?

I am somewhat divided on whether women should be allowed to be priests or heads of churchs, although I have had the desire to be a CoPastor of a church along with my wife. Just like marriage, my wife would be submissive (although I pray to God that it would never become a heavy burden, since I would fervently desire to serve my wife and to keep her happy), but there must be a final arbiter, if you will, and man is the Spiritual Head.

When I was a young Christian, this used to jibe with my "equality" sense, but I have come to realize that in this, because I would have the greater responsibility, I am at the loss. It isn't about sexism, atleast for a true Christian, it is just about obedience and Love for Him who first Loved us...

Oh, btw, I am against tradition without reason. I will not follow tradition unless I know, understand or see some reasoning or teaching behind it. Perhaps that is why I am not Catholic? I have catholic friends, though. My friend, who happens to be a female Roman Catholic, agrees with the basics of this.

Women's ovaries contain at most only a few hundred potential eggs. Since each egg must have half a soul, this gives womens reproductive organs the holy power of about 150 souls. But men can have more than 300,000,000 sperm in their testes at one time. This gives their gonads the holy power of over 150 million souls. This is the reason why only men are suited to being priests and why you should not waste your vital soul juices. I once made the mistake of allowing a woman to drain my vital soul essense, and a feeling of great weakness overcame me. But the woman, infused with the power of 150,000,000 souls became powerful and demanding and insistant that 30 seconds was not enough. This proves that women can't handle infusions of holy soul power and are unsuited to be priests.

Women menstrate, therefore unclean to serve on the altar.
Id say thats the reason why, Im pretty sure it is anyway.

N-u-m-p

I'm glad you are so full of yourself that you think you know God's full revelation.

Sure, as long as you realize that that isn't faith in God - it is faith in the people who wrote down what they claimed to be a revelation from God.

Do you also believe that you can tell whether or not a woman is a virgin by whether or not she bleeds? Do you believe that God is a big proponent of slavery?

ok, dude, you aren't putty up arguments, just insults. Having knowledge of something is not the same as being full of one's self. And yes I DO have access to God's full revelation because I belong to Christ's church that He restored on the earth after mankind corrupted what he did 2000 years ago. :p

As for the other silly questions. If the test was done by a true servant of God, it would yield a true answer. Otherwise you are out of luck. And no God is not a proponent of slavery. But he does chastise His children when necessary. :D

ok, dude, you aren't putty up arguments, just insults.

What was insulting?

Having knowledge of something is not the same as being full of one's self.

It is when you claim that your own knowledge is the end-all-be-all. You are not infallible.

And yes I DO have access to God's full revelation because I belong to Christ's church that He restored on the earth after mankind corrupted what he did 2000 years ago. :p

And yet you assume that no one has corrupted it since, thus, faith in man rather than faith in God.

And no God is not a proponent of slavery.

So I suppose you believe the Bible is not the word of God, then?

It is when you claim that your own knowledge is the end-all-be-all. You are not infallible.

And yet you assume that no one has corrupted it since, thus, faith in man rather than faith in God.

So I suppose you believe the Bible is not the word of God, then?

It is true, I AM fallible. but that does not mean I did not speak truth.

I know it has not been corrupted because God Himself has vouched for it. I have also prayed and been answered. (But you probably will not accept that).

The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been Translated (and to some degree Interpreted) correctly.

God's chosen people were made slaves. This was because they misbehaved. He sought the best for them but if they messed up they got reprimanded. The Entire Old Testiment is evidence to that.

God also stated that all men are equal, that He is not a respecter of persons. He loves the sinner and the saint equally. (Mainly because we are all sinners in one form or another :D yes even the saints)

Actually, the "dirty" woman you refer to washed HIS feet.

As for Jesus being black, that's just silly. There is nothing wrong with a person being black. If Christ had been, I would admit it. But the fact that He was a Jew (and many other facts) make this an imposibility and indeed a ridiculous thing to argue. There were no black Jews at the time of Christ as far as I know. (Because Jews were forbidden to intermarry with other cultures) Those that exist now are mainly converts.


There were black jews at the time of Jesus.

http://website.lineone.net/~susandurber/Sheba.html

As for the OP,

http://www.cin.org/vatcong/admiswom.html

From the Inquisition.

Women menstrate, therefore unclean to serve on the altar.
Id say thats the reason why, Im pretty sure it is anyway.
I'm a fairly conservative Catholic myself… but what the Hell has that got to do with serving on the altar? Surely it could only ever prevent them for a few days!

It is true, I AM fallible. but that does not mean I did not speak truth.

But it does mean that you cannot state with absolute certainty that you did speak truth.

I know it has not been corrupted because God Himself has vouched for it. I have also prayed and been answered. (But you probably will not accept that).

Why wouldn't I accept that? It is how I get my own guidance. Of course, the fact that you and I have, through prayer and guidance, come to different conclusions is evidence that one of us has misinterpreted that guidance. You will obviously say that I am the one who is wrong. But you cannot say that with absolute certainty without faith in your own infallibility. Human beings interpret the signs they are given, and all of us can interpret incorrectly.

The Bible is the word of God as far as it has been Translated (and to some degree Interpreted) correctly.

Translated - very few seem to be even close.
Interpreted - now that is a problem with the fallibility of humankind, isn't it?

God's chosen people were made slaves. This was because they misbehaved. He sought the best for them but if they messed up they got reprimanded. The Entire Old Testiment is evidence to that.

Irrelevant. I was speaking of the rules and regulations that (if you believe the entire Bible is the infallible word of God) God laid down for having the ancient Hebrews *make* people into slaves. The rules that allowed them to hold a man's family hostage to force him to become a life-long slave. The rules that allowed them to hold a woman as a slave forever, while letting male Hebrew slaves go after 7 years.

Are these really the sorts of rules you think an omnibenevolent God would lay down?

God is also a perfectly Just God. If a Jew was in debt, he had to have a way to pay off that debt, and selling himself and/or his land or family into slavery was that way. Second, the mere fact that something is in scripture doesn't not mean that God supports it. Judas hanged himself...does anyone believe that God told him to do it? If you do, then you don't know my God.

Second, Moses also made divorce legal, but (except in the case of sexual immorality) divorce is not scriptural and not ok. <not to burst anyones little bubble). Unfortunately, man has found ways of perverting what God has provided, and this method of justice was one of them.

The Jews' law was written on stone, but God's law is not written in our hearts. We obey out of love, not out of duty or social guilt. Because the Jews were legalistic, the laws were perverted so that people would be able to benefit at someone else's expense.

And, yes, I do believe that the Bible is God's Word, and infallible. Men's interpretation isn't, necessarily, and translations are imperfect, since it is not possible to interpret anything exactly. The only way that any interpretation can be truly right is if it agrees with the entire Bible in context.

God is also a perfectly Just God. If a Jew was in debt, he had to have a way to pay off that debt, and selling himself and/or his land or family into slavery was that way.

Yes, because selling another person for your own gain is just.

Second, the mere fact that something is in scripture doesn't not mean that God supports it. Judas hanged himself...does anyone believe that God told him to do it? If you do, then you don't know my God.

It doesn't say "God decreed that Judas should hang himself," now does it?

Second, Moses also made divorce legal, but (except in the case of sexual immorality) divorce is not scriptural and not ok. <not to burst anyones little bubble). Unfortunately, man has found ways of perverting what God has provided, and this method of justice was one of them.

So you don't believe that the laws in the Bible came from God? You do not see the entire Bible as scriptural?

And, yes, I do believe that the Bible is God's Word, and infallible.

But you said those laws were man's perversion, not actually God's Word? I'm confused?

The only way that any interpretation can be truly right is if it agrees with the entire Bible in context.

I agree, and extend that to the writings themselves. If they are not consistent with the Bible as a whole, and with Christ's teachings, then they are nothing more than interpretations from a man which made it into canon.

Can just answer me why you don't have/are against women preists. We're doing it in humanities and I can't see any resons other than tredition.

The Theology of the Body (http://www.theologyofthebody.net) could be used to justify a position against female priests, but it would rely on the assumption the homosexuality is intrinsically wrong, something I and many others are inclined to reject.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with female priests, and the allowance of female priests would be a boon to a Church starved for priests and having to close churches because of it. However, a move to allow female priests would be extremely divisive at this time, and because dividing a community in the name of equality would defeat its own purpose, I can't support the inlclusion of women in the priesthood yet.