Women Priests in Catholic Church (Only Theological discussion)

alex73

(guy poster here)

Heard Ghooks discussion on Women priests. Now I did not make the rules up about women priests.. But as explained to me by a priest the Men only rule goes back to the very begining of the church and all catolic/Orthodox churchs follow the same teaching. He said it would be near impossible to change the church's teaching as nobody has to power to do so, (not even the Pope). Same goes for Priest to marry (however Married priests are allow in the church in some of the 24 catholic rites)

My point of discussion is the following, and I want to focus on theological Catholic/Orthodox point of view. Why can't women become priests and what is their role in the church.

drifting

alex73 wrote: »

Why can't women become priests and what is their role in the church.

Well I suppose that you could say that it went all the way back to the "beginning of the church," if you count Adam and Eve as the first church members, after the fall.

Gen 3;16: "your husband, ... will rule over you"

The most fundamental law, apart from the law of marriage, known to mankind.

PDN

drifting wrote: »

Gen 3;16: "your husband, ... will rule over you"

That was part of the curse of sin and death. Last I heard Jesus died to set us free from the curse.

Pal

alex73 wrote: »

(guy poster here)

Why can't women become priests and what is their role in the church.

interested to hear the answer to this one.

cant imagine why anybody of sound mind, man or woman would want to be a priest, but lets have it anyways.

is there actually a reason or just another one of these catholic church things we are supposed to take on faith but not understand.

alex73

Pal wrote: »

interested to hear the answer to this one.

cant imagine why anybody of sound mind, man or woman would want to be a priest, but lets have it anyways.

is there actually a reason or just another one of these catholic church things we are supposed to take on faith but not understand.

From what I understand it is a 2000 year succession from the last supper. Every Priest/Bishop in the Catholic/Orthodox church can trace their succession back to the apostles. Christ ordained 12 disciples and ask them to celebrate the last supper in memory of him. Those disciples passed on this to other men. I suppose the fact that Christ had no women at the last supper sort of indicates why the apostolic succession as been such. I suppose given that the Eucharist is so central to the Catholic/Orthodox church it would be hard to break with this doctrine. No Pope or Patriarch would have the power to change it.

drifting

PDN wrote: »

That was part of the curse of sin and death. Last I heard Jesus died to set us free from the curse.

No, he died to set us free from the curse of the law, not the curse of the flesh. The flesh remains cursed:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," Rom 5:12

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 1 Cor 15:22

Only the spirit is made alive, that causes the cursed flesh to uphold the law:

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Roms 3:31

kelly1

Nothing to do with 2nd class citizenship. The Church doesn't have the authority to ordain women. The official word is here

Pal

The Church IS the authority.

Doh !

alex73

Pal wrote: »

The Church IS the authority.

Doh !

I not offense, This is a theological discussion. So no Doh's..

The Church is not the Authority on the doctrine and faith, WE(the church are its members) are the custodians of the faith we believe, Its no open to us to change as we want.

mdebets

alex73 wrote: »

From what I understand it is a 2000 year succession from the last supper. Every Priest/Bishop in the Catholic/Orthodox church can trace their succession back to the apostles. Christ ordained 12 disciples and ask them to celebrate the last supper in memory of him. Those disciples passed on this to other men. I suppose the fact that Christ had no women at the last supper sort of indicates why the apostolic succession as been such. I suppose given that the Eucharist is so central to the Catholic/Orthodox church it would be hard to break with this doctrine. No Pope or Patriarch would have the power to change it.

If you go by this logic, there shouldn't be any African, Asian, white Europeans, etc. priests, only Middle Eastern men. After all, there were no African, Asian, white Europeans, etc men at the last supper.

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

I not offense, This is a theological discussion. So no Doh's..

The Church is not the Authority on the doctrine and faith, WE(the church are its members) are the custodians of the faith we believe, Its no open to us to change as we want.

The Authority being referred to, I think, is Rome. It has (it says) the authority to change things as it sees fit. It has done so before.

drifting

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Authority being referred to, I think, is Rome. It has the authority to change things as it sees fit. It has done so before.

Indeed. "....and try to change the set times and the laws." Dan.7:25.

Pal

right

Fanny Cradock

I was watching the news last night (or was it the night before?) and they had an interview with a very sprightly 80 year old lady who was attempting to gather support for a day's boycott from the church with women and any supporting men who felt that the RCC was needlessly patriarchal.

Ah, just found it! I wish her all the best.

We also had a thread that ran along somewhat similar lines to the OP found here.

drifting

It seems to me that you either believe Paul the apostle in 1 Cor 11;3:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."

Or you don't believe it, as many purported theologians do not. And if you don't believe it then certain consequences follow, such as free divorce for women, etc., and an effective dissolution of the institution of marriage, and its extension to any sort of relationship, whether between same sex persons, or between people and animals.

But if you do believe it, then certain consequences also follow, such as the teaching in 1 Tim 2;11,12 which is just taking the basic principles to their logical outcome, as 1 Cor 14;34 also.

PDN

drifting wrote: »

It seems to me that you either believe Paul the apostle in 1 Cor 11;3:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."

Or you don't believe it, as many purported theologians do not. And if you don't believe it then certain consequences follow, such as free divorce for women, etc., and an effective dissolution of the institution of marriage, and its extension to any sort of relationship, whether between same sex persons, or between people and animals.

But if you do believe it, then certain consequences also follow, such as the teaching in 1 Tim 2;11,12 which is just taking the basic principles to their logical outcome, as 1 Cor 14;34 also.

So, if we don't agree with your interpretation of that Scripture then we're on the slippery slope to allowing people to marry donkeys? :rolleyes:

drifting

PDN wrote: »

So, if we don't agree with your interpretation of that Scripture then we're on the slippery slope to allowing people to marry donkeys? :rolleyes:

As happens in Africa & Indonesia & India, I believe.
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
Man forced to marry cow faints at wedding
Man 'marries' dog to beat curse

alex73

drifting wrote: »

As happens in Africa & Indonesia & India, I believe.
Sudan man forced to 'marry' goat
Man forced to marry cow faints at wedding
Man 'marries' dog to beat curse

Nothing to do with the thread, If you have nothing useful to add from a theological christian point of view please don't post.

alex73

mdebets wrote: »

If you go by this logic, there shouldn't be any African, Asian, white Europeans, etc. priests, only Middle Eastern men. After all, there were no African, Asian, white Europeans, etc men at the last supper.

That would be contrary to Christ's teaching. Have you read the gospels?

drifting

alex73 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the thread, If you have nothing useful to add from a theological christian point of view please don't post.

The argument is that either there is a God appointed order to creation, that is to be upheld by men and women in their relationships with each other and with God, or there is no God appointed order to creation, in which case there is the type of disorder and anarchy of the type described.

The desire of women to usurp the hierarchy of any church is simply an outworking of the lack of belief in a divine order to creation. It is therefore commensurate with unbelief. I was following through the logical consequences of there being no belief in any order.

The reason for the order is found in Genesis, Genesis 3:16 etc. There is really is no other biblical argument, as least from the apostolic viewpoint.

mdebets

alex73 wrote: »

That would be contrary to Christ's teaching. Have you read the gospels?

Which teachings? Could you please give a reference where Christ says that the gender of priests does matter, but their race doesn't.

drifting

mdebets wrote: »

Which teachings? Could you please give a reference where Christ says that the gender of priests does matter, but their race doesn't.

Matt 5:18, Luke 16:17 following

Exd 30:30 And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that [they] may minister unto me in the priest's office.

antiskeptic

drifting wrote: »

Luke 16:17

"17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law".

Exd 30:30 And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that [they] may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Which kind of excludes a lot of male priests who aren't Aarons sons..

drifting

antiskeptic wrote: »

"17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law".




Which kind of excludes a lot of male priests who aren't Aarons sons..

This is why the RCC concept of a "priesthood" breaks down because ultimately, there is no carry over from the OT, for that reason, and also because the old order of atonement under the law of Moses was abolished with the New Covenant.

The RCC hierarchy is a man-made priesthood, without any warrant of biblical authority. The only New Testament authority vis-a-vis the church is for overseers or elders, which as Paul says, must be male:

Tts 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife...

The Smurf

If one wishes to get the Church teaching and stance on this, check out the documents Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and Inter Insigniores.

Now there is also a good book by a lady who was initially very much in favour of the idea of women priests, but on gaining greater understanding on the issue, realised it was not possible. She wrote a book and you can read her basic explanation here.

The other thing to remember is the idea of the farm gate. When you're out in the fields and you come across a gate lying open, you should leave it as it is. You should pass through it but just leave it like you found it. You mightn't know why the gate is left open. Perhaps the farmer wants the naimals to graze both fields, or perhaps he plans to drive a tractor and trailer through in the morning, or maybe a hunting party is coming through later in the afternoon. The point is, you don't know why it's left open and it is no business of yours to be opening and closing gates about which you know nothing. It is similar with priesthood. We know some things about the priesthood. We know some basic things, like that which is found in those above Vatican documents. But there are many things we don't know, and there are many things the Church is only beginning to become conscious of, in her deepening of the knowledge of the truth as led by the Holy Spirit as the Lord promised.

I think we shall see greater insight and explanations for why there can only be male priest. I think a key part of this greater understanding will come about through the study of Pope John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body', which explains the meaning and nature of human sexuality and how this is part of the made in God's image concept of the Church's teaching.

My own, very basic idea, informed by a friend who I talk to a lot and the insights he has given me now follows. Bear in mind these are only my thoughts - the Church teachings are definitive and can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Christ is the Bride Groom. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Christ is male; the Church is female. In this sense, all souls, even those of men, are female, because they belong to the Church, which being the Bride, is female. The souls of members of the Church are given the 'fertilisation', if you like, of the Divine Word in baptism. In the Eucharist, these same souls receive the Eucharist, which is the Bridegroom - Christ Himself. The priest acts in the person of the male Christ. Hence the priest must be male. The priest, acting in the person of the Head, Christ, must be male.

Two things come to my mind: the Church has a very important nuptial theology and we are coming to greater understanding of this reality. Also, we need to reclaim the beauty of human sexuality and how it reflects the Divine Reality, the nature of God Himself. There is a lot of territory to be reclaimed in the minds of the faithful members of the Church, from the damage and destruction caused by Satan and his angels in ruining and destroying human sexuality with his corruption and lies, especially through sexual immorality and pornography. Human sexuality is so special because it is so reflective of our being created in the image and likeness of God and we will see a development in the teachings of the Church especially on this point, not so that we can ever have women priests or homosexuality accepted (these things will never happen) but so that we can have a greater understanding of the realities which the Church has professed from the beginning. It is for this reason that Satan attacks us on this level with such intensity and why the attacks really are very intense on the family and human sexuality.

I've rambled on enough. I've not read the 'Theology of the Body'. I think that it will be key to restoring our Church and gaining a better and more beautiful understanding on the Church teachings on sexuality.

For anyone especially interested, there is a good explanatory blog post over here at wdtprs.com.

The main point:

Let us stipulate that, yes, ministry in the early Church was messy. It took centuries for the Church in both the East and West to figure things out clearly. Fine. The relationship of the norms of doctrine and authority with the Patristic tradition is thorny. No news there. Let her have that ground for the time being, though someone could really have fun picking her references apart.

So. The early Church was messy. There were schisms and dissenters and fights and arguments all the time. This is the history of the Church. No surprise there.

In fact, as the situation was in 2nd-5th centuries, so to it is today. Today all sorts of different people in a myriad of different communities call themselves ordained. Not all the "ordained" are recognized even by others within their own faith communities.

PDN

alex73 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the thread, If you have nothing useful to add from a theological christian point of view please don't post.

The only people in this Forum who get to tell others (in bold type no less) what they can and can't post are the Forum moderators.

santing

drifting wrote: »

This is why the RCC concept of a "priesthood" breaks down because ultimately, there is no carry over from the OT,
...
The only New Testament authority vis-a-vis the church is for overseers or elders, which as Paul says, must be male:

Tts 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife...

The RCC usage of the word "Priest" has indeed nothing to do with the OT usage of priest. It is wellknown that the RCC meaning comes from the biblical word "elder/old person" in greek "Presbyteros" which became "priest" If we would speak another language than English (say German) the confusion wouldn't be there...

In the current "Catechism" there is therefore a recogition of the priesthood of all believers (which is biblical) and another, special priesthood (which is apartly better than the biblical one) for which special grace is required, and which is only available to males. Apart from linking this back to "presbyteros," there is no reference in Scripture for this type of Priesthood. Quite the opposite, of Christ it is said (in comparison to the OT priests) that "if He was on earth, He would not be priest at all..."

drifting

santing wrote: »

The RCC usage of the word "Priest" has indeed nothing to do with the OT usage of priest. It is wellknown that the RCC meaning comes from the biblical word "elder/old person" in greek "Presbyteros" which became "priest" If we would speak another language than English (say German) the confusion wouldn't be there...

In the current "Catechism" there is therefore a recogition of the priesthood of all believers (which is biblical) and another, special priesthood (which is apartly better than the biblical one) for which special grace is required, and which is only available to males. Apart from linking this back to "presbyteros," there is no reference in Scripture for this type of Priesthood. Quite the opposite, of Christ it is said (in comparison to the OT priests) that "if He was on earth, He would not be priest at all..."

A priest in the order of Melchizedek, that is a priest by oath, no less.

Hbr 7:21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever.' "

A priest of the order of Melchizedek is greater even than the temple itself Mat 12:6.

Therefore the old order of priesthood has passed away Hbr 8:13.

santing

drifting wrote: »

A priest in the order of Melchizedek, that is a priest by oath, no less.
Therefore the old order of priesthood has passed away Hbr 8:13.

Yes, and as Priest in the order of Melchizedek the Lord Jesus is unique... Christians are never called that way. He is the perfect priest and High Priest of a "once for all" sacrifice and therefore not in need of "minor" priests.

In the New Testament there are ministers, elders, pastors, evangelists etc. in the church; but there is no one mentioned who is a priest, except in the general sense that all are priests. All who are freed from sins are also priests (male/female, old & young!)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

(Rev 1:5-6 ESV)

The Smurf

santing wrote: »

Yes, and as Priest in the order of Melchizedek the Lord Jesus is unique... Christians are never called that way. He is the perfect priest and High Priest of a "once for all" sacrifice and therefore not in need of "minor" priests.

In the New Testament there are ministers, elders, pastors, evangelists etc. in the church; but there is no one mentioned who is a priest, except in the general sense that all are priests. All who are freed from sins are also priests (male/female, old & young!)
(Rev 1:5-6 ESV)

The Body needs a Head. The Church has all the various members which make up the Body that is the Church. We all share, as Catholics, in the common priesthood of believers, but this does not mean that the Lord did not will to have ministerial priests who act in the person of the Head when they offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or forgive sins. The Lord anointed the Apostles for this purpose and we can see that He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them when He commissioned them to go and teach to all nations and baptise and to forgive sins.

santing

The Smurf wrote: »

The Body needs a Head.

Of course it does. And the Church has the best head available: Christ Himself.

And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Eph 1:22-23 ESV)
... we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph 4:15-16 ESV)
... Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, ... (Eph 5:23-24 ESV)
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Col 1:18 ESV)

Christ is head of the Church. He cannot be replaced. What body part can take the role of the Head? Can the hand play Head, or the neck?

The Smurf wrote: »

The Church has all the various members which make up the Body that is the Church. We all share, as Catholics, in the common priesthood of believers, but this does not mean that the Lord did not will to have ministerial priests who act in the person of the Head when they offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or forgive sins.

Where do we find these "ministerial priests" in the Bible? There is no reference this at all. Who had the authority to forgive sin? In 2 Cor the Apostle Paul says to "the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia" (2Co 1:1 ESV)

Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ ... (2Co 2:10 ESV)

Paul wants the Corinthians to forgive the repentant adultarer, but he waits till the Church is ready to it! Forgiveness of sins is not "solely" given to the eleven disciples/apostles, but through them to the Church. In Matthew 18(:17) the Church also has the last say. The Church defined as

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." (Mat 18:20 ESV)

When in Acts 2 3000 people were added to the early Church we read that they (the 3000 believers) were breaking bread in their homes Acts 2:42, 46 a clear reference to what you think the Mass is about. It was the Church who had the authority to do this.

The Smurf wrote: »

The Lord anointed the Apostles for this purpose and we can see that He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them when He commissioned them to go and teach to all nations and baptise and to forgive sins.

The breathing of the Holy Spirit on the disciples was "replaced" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers at (and after) Pentecost. With a reference to Acts 1:21,22 we learn that many more disciples have been present at those instances where only the 11/12 disciples are mentioned. Most people take the reference to the 500 brothers (1 Co 15:6) to refer to the ascention of the Lord Jesus into Heaven, the very occasion where (all 500) disciples where told to "make disciples of all nations, etc."

Michael G

The Irish Independent reports that "the Humbert Summer School in Castlebar, Co Mayo, next week will bring together leading progressive Catholics from Ireland and the United States to investigate reforming relations between the churches in both countries and the Vatican."
Announcing the programme yesterday, director of the Humbert School and Irish Independent Religion Correspondent, John Cooney, said: 'It will discuss ways of liberating the Irish and American churches from the diktat of the papacy and the Roman Curia, as well as initiating new forms of ministry such as married male clergy and women priests.'"


I am a Catholic. I am younger than John Cooney and, I suspect, most of his friends. I never imagined that the world began again in the 1960s or that Vatican II was like the break between the Old and New Testaments. I do not know what a "progressive Catholic" thinks he or she is, but what is he or she starting from in their progress? (The word progress means starting from somewhere.) I feel no need to be "liberated from the diktat [sic] of the papacy and the Roman Curia", because I am already as free as God made me and I don't need to be liberated from anything.



I would like all of those unhappy people at Mr Cooney's party to go away to some form of Christianity-lite in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches.

JimiTime

Michael G wrote: »

I would like all of those unhappy people at Mr Cooney's party to go away to some form of ChristianityRoman Catholic-lite in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches.

FTFU

The Smurf

Michael G wrote: »

The Irish Independent reports that "the Humbert Summer School in Castlebar, Co Mayo, next week will bring together leading progressive Catholics from Ireland and the United States to investigate reforming relations between the churches in both countries and the Vatican."
Announcing the programme yesterday, director of the Humbert School and Irish Independent Religion Correspondent, John Cooney, said: 'It will discuss ways of liberating the Irish and American churches from the diktat of the papacy and the Roman Curia, as well as initiating new forms of ministry such as married male clergy and women priests.'"


I am a Catholic. I am younger than John Cooney and, I suspect, most of his friends. I never imagined that the world began again in the 1960s or that Vatican II was like the break between the Old and New Testaments. I do not know what a "progressive Catholic" thinks he or she is, but what is he or she starting from in their progress? (The word progress means starting from somewhere.) I feel no need to be "liberated from the diktat [sic] of the papacy and the Roman Curia", because I am already as free as God made me and I don't need to be liberated from anything.



I would like all of those unhappy people at Mr Cooney's party to go away to some form of Christianity-lite in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches.

I agree Michael. I am a young Catholic man aged 28. I look around me in the church and there are so few young men at Mass. A friend told me an anecdote about the Bishop emeritus of Lancaster diocese who visited one of his parishes and asked the priest 'Where are the young people?' to which the PP replied 'There they are!', pointing at some children. The bishop said 'No, they are children, where are the young people?'

Hmm may I suggest they have been let down by dire catechesis and dreadful liturgy since the 60s? But I digress.

I have to laugh at this effort and that of the new 'ACP' led by Fr Brendan Hoban. It reminds me of a group of petrol stations. I won't use Shell what with the unpleasantries on the west coast of Ireland, nor BP (exploding and sinking oil rigs), so perhaps ESSO will do. So anyway, it is like these petrol station franchises in Ireland saying to ESSO Corp. 'Look we don't like your petrol anymore!' To which ESSO Corp. reply 'Fine. But you can no longer operate under the ESSO brand name.'

This is what is about to happen. These ejits think they can dictate to the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church how things are done and what is taught. What part of 'the gates of hell won't prevail' do they not understand? A little petrol station cannot dictate to ESSO about anything. They just sell the petrol. If they don't like the petrol then they can move to another brand. Of course that won't stop them taking possession of churches and whatnot, as well as take us to court for teaching the faith. We're going to see things turning very nasty in the next few years. Very nasty indeed.

End rant.

lmaopml

Michael G wrote: »

The Irish Independent reports that "the Humbert Summer School in Castlebar, Co Mayo, next week will bring together leading progressive Catholics from Ireland and the United States to investigate reforming relations between the churches in both countries and the Vatican."
Announcing the programme yesterday, director of the Humbert School and Irish Independent Religion Correspondent, John Cooney, said: 'It will discuss ways of liberating the Irish and American churches from the diktat of the papacy and the Roman Curia, as well as initiating new forms of ministry such as married male clergy and women priests.'"


I am a Catholic. I am younger than John Cooney and, I suspect, most of his friends. I never imagined that the world began again in the 1960s or that Vatican II was like the break between the Old and New Testaments. I do not know what a "progressive Catholic" thinks he or she is, but what is he or she starting from in their progress? (The word progress means starting from somewhere.) I feel no need to be "liberated from the diktat [sic] of the papacy and the Roman Curia", because I am already as free as God made me and I don't need to be liberated from anything.

I am Catholic too. I agree with you on the above point, as I have an understanding ( just learning ) of the beauty of the faith,...that's really hidden underneath lots of 'noise' of these times. However, I do believe that there is such a thing as perhaps - not so much a more 'progressive or perhaps what could be seen as super 'liberal' Vatican II Catholic', but a more 'aware' Catholic, as is only inline with the times and with readiness of information..and answers to questions..

Information is our friend, the faith can be complicated sometimes when one starts to ask questions - and I genuinly feel for anybody who starts questioning or struggling, especially with all the press etc., but the information is there to be accepted or rejected with sincere study...and a little objectivity.

A good age we live in too...

I would like all of those unhappy people at Mr Cooney's party to go away to some form of Christianity-lite in the Anglican or Presbyterian churches.

This I don't really agree with. I think it's important to 'talk'...to be aware of our faith, and also aware that some people don't agree with us on everything, but are still our common family. We need to look at the approach and alter it to be more 'informative' rather than distant and reproachful....

Tutting, from 'whoever', bugged the hell out of me years ago, and I imagine tutting bugs everybody..

That doesn't mean major 'change', just change in communication, which is a criticism I feel is warranted. However, I agree that whatever they're doing in Mayo is not floating my boat...it's rather irritating.

The Smurf

lmaopml wrote: »

I am Catholic too. I agree with you on the above point, as I have an understanding ( just learning ) of the beauty of the faith,...that's really hidden underneath lots of 'noise' of these times. However, I do believe that there is such a thing as perhaps - not so much a more 'progressive or perhaps what could be seen as super 'liberal' Vatican II Catholic', but a more 'aware' Catholic, as is only inline with the times and with readiness of information..and answers to questions..

Information is our friend, the faith can be complicated sometimes when one starts to ask questions - and I genuinly feel for anybody who starts questioning or struggling, especially with all the press etc., but the information is there to be accepted or rejected with sincere study...and a little objectivity.

A good age we live in too...





This I don't really agree with. I think it's important to 'talk'...to be aware of our faith, and also aware that some people don't agree with us on everything, but are still our common family. We need to look at the approach and alter it to be more 'informative' rather than distant and reproachful....

Tutting, from 'whoever', bugged the hell out of me years ago, and I imagine tutting bugs everybody..

That doesn't mean major 'change', just change in communication, which is a criticism I feel is warranted. However, I agree that whatever they're doing in Mayo is not floating my boat...it's rather irritating.

There are a few categories of 'Catholics':

1. Those who know the truth of what the Catholic faith is, but reject it, all the while attempting to remain within the visible Catholic Church, subverting the Church and defiling the faith.

2. Those who protest about Church teaching but have never bothered to study the teaching for themselves, and so don't really know what they are rejecting.

3. Those who want to live the faith but are confused and led astray by the above individuals.

4. Faithful Catholics who know their faith and want to live it.

Of course this is very simple and not even complete, but it shows that we need to adopt different approaches to different people and groups. The first group largely comprises dissident priests and even bishops. These need to be disciplined and offered a chance to convert or else be shown the door. The other groups need catechesis and evangelisation. Sound worship in-line with Church norms is also essential. We need to see a full implementation of Redemptionis Sacramentum in Ireland. It seems to have fallen on death ears so far. I imagine most priests probably haven't even heard of it. Too much monkey business and distorting of the faith has gone on for too long. With the internet and free access to good, affordable books, more and more Catholics can know what the Church is teaching and the direction the Pope is trying to steer the Church the get back on course, after the attempted hijacking that went on in the 60s. We just need our bishops and more of our priests to catch on.

Michael G

JimiTime wrote: »

FTFU

#
Would you explain what those letters mean? Thanks.

Michael G

The Smurf wrote: »

End rant.

What rant? You have nothing to explain or apologise for.

Michael G

lmaopml wrote: »

This I don't really agree with. I think it's important to 'talk'...to be aware of our faith, and also aware that some people don't agree with us on everything, but are still our common family. We need to look at the approach and alter it to be more 'informative' rather than distant and reproachful....

Tutting, from 'whoever', bugged the hell out of me years ago, and I imagine tutting bugs everybody..

That doesn't mean major 'change', just change in communication, which is a criticism I feel is warranted. However, I agree that whatever they're doing in Mayo is not floating my boat...it's rather irritating.

The site seems to have taken from my post that you were answering but I agree with you. I hope to go to Mayo and express a bit of dissent.

JimiTime

Michael G wrote: »

#
Would you explain what those letters mean? Thanks.

Fixed that For U.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

FTFU

Although I agree with your correction, it's not appropriate to a thread with an OP asking...

My point of discussion is the following, and I want to focus on theological Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

In such a thread, it would be fair enough to work from the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Sorry Jimi

The Smurf

Michael G wrote: »

The site seems to have taken from my post that you were answering but I agree with you. I hope to go to Mayo and express a bit of dissent.

Can we do that? Can we bring papal flags and suchlike?

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although I agree with your correction, it's not appropriate to a thread with an OP asking...



In such a thread, it would be fair enough to work from the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Sorry Jimi

As I don't seek approval from anyone when I post, there is no need to apologise.

The OP wanted a theological discussion about women priests, but that was left behind quite a while ago, so its fair game IMO. You're free to disagree, but it wont put me off posting what I think;):)

Slav

alex73 wrote: »

Heard Ghooks discussion on Women priests. Now I did not make the rules up about women priests.. But as explained to me by a priest the Men only rule goes back to the very begining of the church and all catolic/Orthodox churchs follow the same teaching

I think this is more a tradition of the two respectful Churches. It has very little theological but a lot of symbolical meaning attached.

The only thing that can be considered theological is that both Churches actually do have female priests as every baptised Christian is a priest. The fact only few of them are ordained to be celebrants does not void (and is not in conflict with) the priestly liturgical role of the whole congregation. This is the traditional understanding of Christian priesthood. Historically, Christian priests (in the meaning of celebrants) were probably the last order to appear in the early Church, i.e. they appeared after presbyters/bishops (males only) and deacons (both male and female). They appeared around the time when the Church moved from presbyterian model (one parish - one presbyter/bishop) to monoepiscopacy (one city - one bishop). As the Eucharist cannot be celebrated without bishop they started ordain celebrants. Their role was to represent bishop and act in persona Christi (who both are males).

He said it would be near impossible to change the church's teaching as nobody has to power to do so, (not even the Pope).

For Orthodox Church it can only be an Ecumenical Council that can change the rule. However there should be a very good reason to call one: so far they were called only as a reaction on a dangerous heresy and the last one was in 787 - quite a long time ago. Anyway, I'm not aware that there is an itch in Orthodoxy for female priesthood or there is any organised (or not so organised) movement that's pushing for it.

For the Roman Church I think in theory it's in Pope's hands. Unless the issue of female priesthood is not a question of faith or morals the Pope theoretically can give a go ahead for it. However if it is the issue of faith and morals then that hypothetical Pope who would decide to allow it will be strangling with the aforementioned John Paul's II Ordinatio Sacerdotalis where his position on the issue can be seen as an ex cathedra statement and therefore should be seen as infallible. The only thing that can save it from infallibility is that's it's not a faith issue. Many insist that is a faith matter but I personally have not heard a convincing argument why. The best explanation I've got so far is that it a matter of faith and morals because it's a matter of faith and morals.

what is their role in the church.

Same as everyone else who cannot or does not want to become a bishop or a priest I guess.

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point of discussion is the following, and I want to focus on theological Catholic/Orthodox point of view.

In such a thread, it would be fair enough to work from the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church.

Perhaps Orthodox would still object.

antiskeptic

Slav wrote: »

Perhaps Orthodox would still object.

D'Ortho's do sound a little more reasonable in that respect.

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

D'Ortho's do sound a little more reasonable in that respect.

Just because there are so few around. So there's a couple more vocal Catholics on this forum that the single orthodox. You haven't seen a bunch of Orthodox men get angry, have you? Reason can go right out the window with both Catholics and Orthodox, so your comment is unfounded.

The Catholic Church has provided plenty of reasons (documents have been linked to on this thread by me) why there can be no women priests and all a person has to do is read the material and then accept it in faithful obedience, if they are Catholic. If not, then the matter doesn't concern them.

antiskeptic

Smurf wrote:

If not, then the matter doesn't concern them.

Precisely - which is why I 'critcised' Jimi for expressing his non-RC views on the RC assertion that they are the one true church - in a thread like this.

The Smurf wrote: »

Just because there are so few around. So there's a couple more vocal Catholics on this forum that the single orthodox. You haven't seen a bunch of Orthodox men get angry, have you? Reason can go right out the window with both Catholics and Orthodox, so your comment is unfounded.

The issue of Ortho 'reasonableness' wasn't a generalisation. It had to do with a specific issue. So, do Orthodox churchs consider themselves the one true church like the Roman church does?

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely - which is why I 'critcised' Jimi for expressing his non-RC views on the RC assertion that they are the one true church - in a thread like this.





The issue of Ortho 'reasonableness' wasn't a generalisation. It had to do with a specific issue. So, do Orthodox churchs consider themselves the one true church like the Roman church does?

I don't know, you'd need to ask them. All I was pointing out was the unfairness of trying to paint Catholics as unreasonable and irrational, when Orthodox can be every bit as unreasonable if not more so than Catholics, especially when they get upset. Additionally, I would say that the Catholic Church has put a lot more thought into why it can't have women priests than the Orthodox, and also, since it has a living, teaching Magisterium, is able to articulate Christian teaching according to new circumstances and technologies, especially concerning sexual morals and reproductive ethics, whereas the Orthodox have really nothing to say to the modern world about these problems and challenges.

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

I don't know, you'd need to ask them. If you don't know then how can you All I was pointing out was the unfairness of trying to paint Catholics as unreasonable and irrational, when Orthodox can be every bit as unreasonable if not more so than Catholics, especially when they get upset.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The point wasn't that Catholics are less reasonable than anyone else. The point was that any denomination that doesn't claim itself the one true church sounds more reasonable (given the impossibility of proving the claim true - I might add)

ps: I just see that the Orthodox church does claim itself to be the One True Church, and reading back I see that Slav is objecting to Rome claiming that title and not that the title shouldn't be claimed at all. It looks like the Orthos and the Romans are as unreasonable as each other in this regard,

Additionally, I would say that the Catholic Church has put a lot more thought into why it can't have women priests than the Orthodox, and also, since it has a living, teaching Magisterium, is able to articulate Christian teaching according to new circumstances and technologies, especially concerning sexual morals and reproductive ethics, whereas the Orthodox have really nothing to say to the modern world about these problems and challenges.

As you would have it. I'm not familiar enough with Orthodoxy-ism to comment.

SonOfAdam

the smurf wrote:

The Catholic Church has provided plenty of reasons (documents have been linked to on this thread by me) why there can be no women priests and all a person has to do is read the material and then accept it in faithful obedience, if they are Catholic. If not, then the matter doesn't concern them

the smurf wrote:

It is indeed binding on all Christians without exception and this is the Church teaching. The Holy Mother Church has the absolute authority to teach all Christians with Christ's authority (cf. Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:19). The fact that some of her disobedient and separated children don't listen to their Mother is a sad result of human sin, pride, and rebellion (Lk. 10:16). The Holy Catholic Church is NOT a denomination

Can you have it both ways ?