Religious Vocation discussion

recourse

Hi, a friend have mine is one of the 20 new seminarians that started training this year. He seems very happy with his choice. Half thinking about giving me life to something more full filling. Has anyone on this forum any advice about becoming a Priest?

Doc Farrell

You need to get your feet wet by going to a number of different groups and orders and offering your time, find out what kind of work they do. Some are involved in education, some pastoral, missionary, some specifically with the poor and homeless.

You definitely won't find any answers here, the answers you are looking for will come from within, after taking voluntary action.
Take your time, years if necessary, but get stuck in. There are dozens of different orders.

martinedwards

Bishop Ken (Fanta) Clarke had the advice of go and do something else first.

if God wants you in the preisthood, he'll make it impossible for you to escape!

recourse

martinedwards wrote: »

Bishop Ken (Fanta) Clarke had the advice of go and do something else first.

if God wants you in the preisthood, he'll make it impossible for you to escape!

Thanks.. Well that is pretty much what I did.

I think I will talk to my friend as he has a lot of contacts.

I am about 80% sure I want to be a priest,

recourse

Ok.. Contacted someone who has put me in touch with 2 priests, He said that probably will take about a year to get sorted, Which is fine since I would need to give notice to my employer and arrange to sell my house.

Seems like there will be a good crowd there as there are 70 seminarians.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Student-Catholic-priests-numbers-on-the-rise-in-Ireland-221298231.html

recourse

Guys I am Signing off.. My email inbox has gotten full of emails from boards.ie and its getting to much.

If they open a Catholic forum I might come back so I won't cancel my account. I will post a photo once I enter the seminary next year.

P.S. to the Mod Benny, on the Constructive note about the C. Church I forgot ST. PATRICK... (It gets us to the white house every year!!!). Thread was closed before I could add it.

recourse

Saw this today, Vocation numbers hit by mortgage debt crisis. I have a mortgage and it was one of the things I needed to sort out before I could consider entering the seminary. Thankfully is practically paid off, So I will probably pay the mortgage from savings and hold the house until I am sure its what I want to do.

Sad to see other men caught. However I don't see much that the church can do, they can't be the ones taking on debt from seminarians.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/20130829/news/vocation-numbers-hit-by-mortgage-debt-crisis-S36781.html

Peregrinus

recourse wrote: »

Guys I am Signing off.. My email inbox has gotten full of emails from boards.ie and its getting to much.

You can change this yourself.

Click on the little arrow up there beside your own name on the top right of the screen. From the drop down menu that appears choose "control panel". When that page comes up, click on "edit options" (under "settings and options" on the left hand side of the screen. That brings up a bunch of "messaging and notification" options, you can check and uncheck them as you wish. The main thing you need to do is to choose "no e-mail notification" as your default thread subscription mode. Once you do that, you won't get a new e-mail every time someone posts to a thread you have subscribed to.

robp

recourse wrote: »

Hi, a friend have mine is one of the 20 new seminarians that started training this year. He seems very happy with his choice. Half thinking about giving me life to something more full filling. Has anyone on this forum any advice about becoming a Priest?

I guess its worth going to plenty of retreats first. and then later progress to something for a few weeks to experience the ups and downs of it.

If your not sure maybe the diaconate is for you. their needed more then ever.

recourse

robp wrote: »

I guess its worth going to plenty of retreats first. and then later progress to something for a few weeks to experience the ups and downs of it.

If your not sure maybe the diaconate is for you. their needed more then ever.

Yeah I have been told to think about it for a year and explore it with retreats or living with some of the communities. I am pretty sure one way or the other I will end up going into Relgious life. I don't think I will go for parish priest life as I prefer to be around people.

robp

recourse wrote: »

Yeah I have been told to think about it for a year and explore it with retreats or living with some of the communities. I am pretty sure one way or the other I will end up going into Relgious life. I don't think I will go for parish priest life as I prefer to be around people.

Fair enough. If I was taking hat path I would be that way myself too. I would add though that the idea of a cleric living alone is pretty modern. The idea is that priests should always live in a community with other priests.

recourse

robp wrote: »

Fair enough. If I was taking hat path I would be that way myself too. I would add though that the idea of a cleric living alone is pretty modern. The idea is that priests should always live in a community with other priests.

Exactly... I would to, how will I put it,, mental to face living alone in a house. I like have contact with people,, I can't stand eating alone. Apparently I share this with Pope Francis who decide to stay in St. Martha to be around others.

Faith2013

recourse wrote: »

Hi, a friend have mine is one of the 20 new seminarians that started training this year. He seems very happy with his choice. Half thinking about giving me life to something more full filling. Has anyone on this forum any advice about becoming a Priest?

I was thinking about it myself.. 29 recovered alcoholic, was a wild teenager.. Seriously could I? A priest was pivotal getting my life back on track, can't thank him enough. Probably saved my life and helped me back to university.

Faith2013

I suppose there is nothing to loose becoming a seminarian, if its not for me I can always leave and enter politics like Tony Abbott.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Just speaking as a curious observer but how does one go about becoming a Priest in Ireland? Obviously only those who feel the call towards the vocation would take steps towards it but how does the process work? What is the protocol and procedure for getting accepted into somewhere like St Patrick's in Maynooth?

Faith2013

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Just speaking as a curious observer but how does one go about becoming a Priest in Ireland? Obviously only those who feel the call towards the vocation would take steps towards it but how does the process work? What is the protocol and procedure for getting accepted into somewhere like St Patrick's in Maynooth?

Seemingly its a lot harder than it used to be, they prefer men who have done some third level studies, you need to be debt free.

Best thing is to contact a vocational director or talk to local Bishop.

I Heart Internet

Thought people might be interested in this:

http://irishdominicanvocations.blogspot.ie/2013/09/our-brothers-in-formation.html

The Irish Dominicans have 19 brothers in "initial formation" i.e. in training.

That's some success story!

Faith2013

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Thought people might be interested in this:

http://irishdominicanvocations.blogspot.ie/2013/09/our-brothers-in-formation.html

The Irish Dominicans have 19 brothers in "initial formation" i.e. in training.

That's some success story!

Wow that is a lot of one Religious order in Ireland today.

Irelandcool

I have an irish exemption from school so I don't know much irish would this be a problem? I am asking this because I was at Medjugorje on a pilgrimage and I felt in my heart that Our Lady was asking me to become a priest. I don't know how I would explain this to my locawl parish priest, my parents know but not my brothers who aren't as devoted to me and a lot of my other family except for my parents, uncles, aunts and grand parents. A number of priests while I was at there did mighty Sermons how they were extremely skeptical and possibly atheists that the time but while on pilgrimage were chosen by our lady to become full blown priests. I don't care if it is unofficial from what I've experienced there this is real. Thing is I am going into my first year of CIT in computing.

Any advice?

am946745

Irelandcool wrote: »

I have an irish exemption from school so I don't know much irish would this be a problem? I am asking this because I was at Medjugorje on a pilgrimage and I felt in my heart that Our Lady was asking me to become a priest. I don't know how I would explain this to my locawl parish priest, my parents know but not my brothers who aren't as devoted to me and a lot of my other family except for my parents, uncles, aunts and grand parents. A number of priests while I was at there did mighty Sermons how they were extremely skeptical and possibly atheists that the time but while on pilgrimage were chosen by our lady to become full blown priests. I don't care if it is unofficial from what I've experienced there this is real. Thing is I am going into my first year of CIT in computing.

Any advice?

Why not take some time to talk to vocational directors. fr. Ger Dunne .

You could also talk to you local bishop.

There are a lot of priest who found their vocation in Medjugorge.

katydid

recourse wrote: »

Hi, a friend have mine is one of the 20 new seminarians that started training this year. He seems very happy with his choice. Half thinking about giving me life to something more full filling. Has anyone on this forum any advice about becoming a Priest?

Just wondering why, as a man, you are thinking of becoming an "official" in an organisation that discriminates against women? Isn't that a bit strange, if you want to devote your life to God, who doesn't discriminate against anyone?

hinault

Irelandcool wrote: »

I have an irish exemption from school so I don't know much irish would this be a problem?

It shouldn't be a problem.

Irelandcool wrote: »

I am asking this because I was at Medjugorje on a pilgrimage and I felt in my heart that Our Lady was asking me to become a priest. I don't know how I would explain this to my locawl parish priest, my parents know but not my brothers who aren't as devoted to me and a lot of my other family except for my parents, uncles, aunts and grand parents. A number of priests while I was at there did mighty Sermons how they were extremely skeptical and possibly atheists that the time but while on pilgrimage were chosen by our lady to become full blown priests. I don't care if it is unofficial from what I've experienced there this is real. Thing is I am going into my first year of CIT in computing.

Any advice?

I think that it is very important for you to discern as best that you can the calling that you have received.

It's important on many levels but in my view the most important consideration level is "by joining the priesthood am I truly serving God as best that I can?"

Each of us are called to serve God in some way, regardless of our status in life, be it in the Laity or in the Clergy.
Every single one of us has a vocation.
The important thing is for each individual to try to discern as best they can the vocation that they are called to fulfil.

Being able to hear the call to religious life is a great gift. To act on that gift is even greater.

My advice is to take your time to discern on what you say you heard in Bosnia. Talk to people who you trust to give you and honest and truthful answer about what you are discerning.

I think the advice about researching different religious orders is excellent advice because the religious life is very diverse (missionary work, teaching/education/health, contemplative life, parish/pastoral work).

The call to serve in the clergy is a very noble calling especially so in this day and age in this part of the world.

I wish you well in your discernment.

am946745

Maynooth has an open day. No harm visiting.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Just wondering why, as a man, you are thinking of becoming an "official" in an organisation that discriminates against women? Isn't that a bit strange, if you want to devote your life to God, who doesn't discriminate against anyone?

He might also decide to become an 'official' in a Golf Club that discriminates against women ... or you might decide to become an 'official' in a womens club, that discriminates against men !!!

... what's your problem with private organisations deciding how they run their organisations???

katydid

J C wrote: »

He might also decide to become an 'official' in a Golf Club that discriminates against women ... or you might decide to become an 'official' in a womens club, that discriminates against men !!!

... what's your problem with private organisations deciding how they run their organisations???

None at all. I'm just curious how a man who presumably has a mother and sisters and women friends, and who has been raised to respect them, can in all conscience become an official in an organisation that disrespects them and all other women. And how he, as a priest, could in all conscience, stand up on a pulpit and preach love of one's fellow human beings while taking such a stance.

It's a reasonable question. Not answered, I note...

J C

katydid wrote: »

None at all. I'm just curious how a man who presumably has a mother and sisters and women friends, and who has been raised to respect them, can in all conscience become an official in an organisation that disrespects them and all other women. And how he, as a priest, could in all conscience, stand up on a pulpit and preach love of one's fellow human beings while taking such a stance.

It's a reasonable question. Not answered, I note...

Far be it for me to defend the RCC ... but they have every right to run their church as they see fit.

I would also question your assumption that they 'disrespect' women ... they have male-only hierarchies that do much of the work in their church ... so what is the problem with men doing most of the 'heavy lifting' ... while everybody else gets on with their day-jobs???
... and the fact that this work is indeed 'heavy lifting' at great personal sacrifice, is proven by the fact that men aren't exactly beating a path to become priests.

... it's also only a short few years since many other denominations had men-only clerical rules ... and I don't think anybody was shouting about this being 'disrespectful' towards women in these churches, at the time.

Is a man who is a member of a mens club or a woman who is a member of a womens club 'disrespecful' of their respective spouses?

katydid

J C wrote: »

Far be it for me to defend the RCC ... but they have every right to run their church as they see fit.

I would also question your assumption that they 'disrespect' women ... they have male-only hierarchies that do much of the work in their church ... so what is the problem with men doing most of the 'heavy lifting' ... while everybody else gets on with their day-jobs???

... it's also only a short few years since many other denominations had men-only clerical rules ... and I don't think anybody was shouting about this being 'disrespectful' towards women in these churches, at the time.

When did I say that the RCC doesn't have the right to make rules as it sees fit?

It's not an assumption that they disrespect women. They do disrespect women. They don't just have all-male hierarchies, they have an all male priesthood. They don't allow women to be priests. Which means they don't consider them as equal.

I've no idea what "heavy lifting" you're waffling on about. Last time I looked, bishops weren't out there mixing cement and lifting blocks.

Any church that doesn't treat women as equal is being disrespectful to them.

J C

katydid wrote: »

When did I say that the RCC doesn't have the right to make rules as it sees fit?

It's not an assumption that they disrespect women. They do disrespect women. They don't just have all-male hierarchies, they have an all male priesthood. They don't allow women to be priests. Which means they don't consider them as equal.

They don't consider women to be eligible for the job of priest ... and they don't have any priestesses ... so I guess the nunnery beckons for you Katydid, if you want to become part of the Roman Catholic full-time religious !!!:)

katydid wrote: »

I've no idea what "heavy lifting" you're waffling on about. Last time I looked, bishops weren't out there mixing cement and lifting blocks.
Any church that doesn't treat women as equal is being disrespectful to them.

The ordinary man and woman in the pews of any church aren't equal in power or responsibility to the heirarchy of that church ... but this isn't disrespectful towards them.
... or do you believe that the fact that people have managers in their job is somehow 'disrespecful' towards them ... or that they should be 'equal' to their boss when decisions must be taken and implemented?

katydid wrote: »

I've no idea what "heavy lifting" you're waffling on about. Last time I looked, bishops weren't out there mixing cement and lifting blocks.

The popularity of mixing cement or being a priest is measured by the fact that new construction workers are numbered in tens of thousands and you can count on one hand the number of new candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland.

katydid

J C wrote: »

They don't consider women to be eligible for the job of priest ... and they don't have any priestesses ... so I guess the nunnery beckons for you Katydid, if you want to become part of the Roman Catholic full-time religious !!!:)

The ordinary man and woman in the pews of any church aren't equal in power or responsibility to the heirarchy of that church ... but this isn't disrespectful towards them.
... or do you believe that the fact that people have managers in their job is somehow 'disrespecful' towards them ... or that they should be 'equal' to their boss when decisions must be taken and implemented?

The poularity of mixing cement or being a priest is measured by the fact that new construction workers are numbered in tens of thousands and you can count on one hand the number of new candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland.

They don't consider women eligible for the priesthood because they don't consider them equal. There is no scriptural or theological reason for the prohibition, it is purely tradition, and therefore stemming from nothing other than misogyny.

If the managers in a job are all male, because women are not allowed to be managers for no good reason, then of course it's disrespectful to women. Just as it would be disrespectful to black people if they were barred from management because of their skin colour. What a strange question.

I am even more confused about your "heavy lifting" analogy in relation to the denial of the priesthood to women. It makes no sense whatsoever.

J C

katydid wrote: »

They don't consider women eligible for the priesthood because they don't consider them equal. There is no scriptural or theological reason for the prohibition, it is purely tradition, and therefore stemming from nothing other than misogyny.

I thnk that its erroneous to level the charge of misogyny against any church that continues with the model Jesus Christ initiated when He established Church governance by appointing 12 male apostles.
Are men not eligible to join the Mother's Union because they aren't equal ... or because they aren't women/mothers?
... is this misandry?
Personally, I think men are equal to women ... but they're not mothers/women ... and they are therefore correctly excluded from membership of the Mother's Union ... and many other women-only organisations.
This is neither misandry nor disrespectful to men/fathers ... they have their own complimentary roles ... and structures.

katydid

J C wrote: »

I thnk that its erroneous to level the charge of misogyny against any church that continues with the model Jesus Christ initiated when He established Church governance by appointing 12 male apostles.
Are men not eligible to join the Mother's Union because they aren't equal ... or because they aren't women/mothers?
... is this misandry?
Personally, I think men are equal to women ... but they're not mothers/women ... and they are therefore correctly excluded from membership of the Mother's Union ... and many other women-only organisations.
This is neither misandry nor disrespectful to men/fathers ... they have their own complimentary roles ... and structures.

His apostles were male because at the time it would have been impossible for women to go out into the world and spread the word His women disciples were called on to spread the word in their own way. We live in a totally different society, where men and women are considered equal. There's no reason why women can't do the same evangelising and pastoral work as men, and certainly no theological reason why they couldn't carry out the sacerdotal duties of a priest.

Your argument is a nonsensical argument. If you take it to its logical conclusion, Jesus appointed twelve Jews from Palestine, so only Jews from Palestine should be priests...


I'm sure if there was a man who was a mother, he could join the Mothers' Union. Another nonsensical "argument"; the priesthood is nowhere specified as exclusive to men.

J C

katydid wrote: »

His apostles were male because at the time it would have been impossible for women to go out into the world and spread the word His women disciples were called on to spread the word in their own way.

He was God and He chose this form of Church Governance ... and women did have substantive roles in spreading the Gospel ... but not in church governance.

katydid wrote: »

We live in a totally different society, where men and women are considered equal. There's no reason why women can't do the same evangelising and pastoral work as men, and certainly no theological reason why they couldn't carry out the sacerdotal duties of a priest.

Priestesses have historically existed ... amongst paganism, for example ... but never in Christian Churches.
Women can and have always done evangelising and pastoral work down the centuries.
I know nothing about the saerdotal duties of a priest ... so I'll leave comments on this to those who do.

katydid wrote: »

Your argument is a nonsensical argument. If you take it to its logical conclusion, Jesus appointed twelve Jews from Palestine, so only Jews from Palestine should be priests...

Every Christian father is a priest to his own household ... who should be priests in the RCC, I'll respecfully leave to the RCC to decide.

katydid wrote: »

I'm sure if there was a man who was a mother, he could join the Mothers' Union. Another nonsensical "argument"; the priesthood is nowhere specified as exclusive to men.

The point I'm making is that not allowing men to be members of the Mother's Union isn't disrespectful of men ... it merely recognises the complementary and unique capacities of mothers ... and it isn't misandry either ... no more than a male priesthood is misogyny or disrespectful of women either.:)

katydid

J C wrote: »

He was God and He chose this form of Church Governance ... and women did have substantive roles in spreading the Gospel ... but not in church governance.

Priestesses have historically existed ... amongst paganism, for example ... but never in Christian Churches.
Women can and have always done evangelising and pastoral work down the centuries.
I know nothing about the saerdotal duties of a priest ... so I'll leave comments on this to those who do.

Every Christian father is a priest to his own household ... who should be priests in the RCC, I'll respecfully leave to the RCC to decide.


The point I'm making is that not allowing men to be members of the Mother's Union isn't disrespectful of men ... it merely recognises the complementary capacities of mothers ... and isn't misandry ... no more than a male priesthood is misogyny.:)

Church governance???? What church? There was no church until many years afterwards. There were no priests, no bishops, no rites or rituals. There were people sent out into the world to spread the Word in whatever way they could.

Governance only came into play when the movement went from a minor Jewish sect to a larger organisation and needed to be structured. And at that point, despite the contributions of many women to the growth of Christianity, it became, as was inevitable in a patriarchal society, a boys' club.
Two thousand years later, there is no reason for this to continue, any more than we should continue other features that were considered normal at the time, such as slavery.

Of course not letting men into the Mothers' Union isn't disrespectful of men. Man can't be mothers, physically. If a man was, by some freak of nature, to become a mother, of course he could join the Mothers' Union.

There is no physical reason why a woman can't be a priest. The possession of a penis and testicles is not a prerequisite for priesthood, especially in the RCC, where they are not supposed to be used for reproductive purposes anyway... So to bar women from the priesthood on the trumped up excuse that Jesus's apostles (who weren't priests) were male is nonsense.

I see you didn't address my point about the apostles being Palestinian Jews...

You know nothing about the sacerdotal duties of a priest??? Really? It's a bit strange for you to be engaging in a discussion about who can or can't be priests when you don't know the basics. A priest celebrates the eucharist, administers penance, and carries out other sacramental duties. So tell me, why can't a woman do that? And you are wrong that priests have never existed in Christian churches. They exist in mine.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Church governance???? What church? There was no church until many years afterwards. There were no priests, no bishops, no rites or rituals. There were people sent out into the world to spread the Word in whatever way they could.

The only priests were the male heads of Christian households ... but the early church was governed by the 12 apostles.

katydid wrote: »

Governance only came into play when the movement went from a minor Jewish sect to a larger organisation and needed to be structured. And at that point, despite the contributions of many women to the growth of Christianity, it became, as was inevitable in a patriarchal society, a boys' club.
Two thousand years later, there is no reason for this to continue, any more than we should continue other features that were considered normal at the time, such as slavery.

Slavery was a Roman (secular) institution at the time of the early Church.

katydid wrote: »

Of course not letting men into the Mothers' Union isn't disrespectful of men. Man can't be mothers, physically. If a man was, by some freak of nature, to become a mother, of course he could join the Mothers' Union.

... I agree ... motherhood is a female role by defintion ... and precisely the same logic applies to why women cannot become priests (which is a male role, by definition).

katydid wrote: »

There is no physical reason why a woman can't be a priest. The possession of a penis and testicles is not a prerequisite for priesthood, especially in the RCC, where they are not supposed to be used for reproductive purposes anyway... So to bar women from the priesthood on the trumped up excuse that Jesus's apostles (who weren't priests) were male is nonsense.

I think you'll find that the word 'priest' is indeed a male only role ... 'priestess' would be the female equivalent ... but it has always been confined to non-christian religions.

katydid wrote: »

I see you didn't address my point about the apostles being Palestinian Jews...

What is there to address?
Jesus appointed Messianic Jews to initially govern His Church ... because only Messianic Jews belonged to His Church, at the time.
There were both male and female Messianic Jews in His Church, at the time, but significantly, IMO, He chose an all-male team to govern His Church.

katydid wrote: »

You know nothing about the sacerdotal duties of a priest??? Really? It's a bit strange for you to be engaging in a discussion about who can or can't be priests when you don't know the basics. A priest celebrates the eucharist, administers penance, and carries out other sacramental duties. So tell me, why can't a woman do that? And you are wrong that priests have never existed in Christian churches. They exist in mine.

Like I have said the male head of each Christian household is a priest to that household ... I'll take your word on the sacerdotal duties of Episcopal Priests.
... and I said that priestesses have never existed in Christian Churches.

katydid

J C wrote: »

The only priests were the male heads of Christian households ... but the early church was governed by the 12 apostles.

Slavery was a Roman (secular) institution at the time of the early Church.

... I agree ... motherhood is a female role by defintion ... and precisely the same logic applies to why women cannot become priests (which is a male role, by definition).

I think you'll find that the word 'priest' is indeed a male only role ... 'priestess' would be the female equivalent ... but it has always been confined to non-christian religions.

What is there to address?
Jesus appointed Messianic Jews to initially govern His Church ... because only Messianic Jews belonged to His Church, at the time.
There were both male and female Messianic Jews in His Church, at the time, but significantly, IMO, He chose an all-male team to govern His Church.

Like I have said the male head of each Christian household is a priest to that household ... I'll take your word on the sacerdotal duties of Episcopal Priests.
... and I said that priestesses have never existed in Christian Churches.

The only priests were the male heads of Christian households? Really? Where did you get this from? They were priests? Who ordained them? What priestly duties did they perform?

I repeat, there was no church to have governance of. The apostles scattered in various directions, and set about teaching and helping to set up communities, but you can't have governance of something that doesn't exist.

Jesus appointed Messianic Jews to spread the Word in their own ways. That was, as you said, the only people available to him at the time. If the criterion for priesthood is only the kind of people available to him at the time, then logically, only Messianic Jews should be priests. But since far more people are now available; male, female, black, white, whatever, there is no need to limit the priesthood to Messianic Jews, is there?

No, you won't find that "priestess" is the female equivalent of a priest. Language, like society has moved on. We don't have doctoresses or authoresses. We have doctors, authors and priests. A priestess is a specific description of roles held in ancient religions.

How is a priest a "male role by definition"? Can you supply the definition? I'll ask again, is a penis and a pair of testicles necessary to perform priestly duties?

I don't know what religion you are, but you really need to educate yourself on what these priestly duties are. The duties I outlined are not confined to Anglican priests, they are the basic duties of any priest. Including Roman Catholic ones. None of them require male genitalia in order to be carried out.

It's hilarious, you trying to argue about the role of a priest, when you don't even know what priests do!

J C

katydid wrote: »

The only priests were the male heads of Christian households? Really? Where did you get this from? They were priests? Who ordained them? What priestly duties did they perform?

They led their households in prayer and in the knowledge of God and His Word.

katydid wrote: »

I repeat, there was no church to have governance of. The apostles scattered in various directions, and set about teaching and helping to set up communities, but you can't have governance of something that doesn't exist.

As Christianity spread, local churches (using the same governance) were established.

katydid wrote: »

Jesus appointed Messianic Jews to spread the Word in their own ways. That was, as you said, the only people available to him at the time. If the criterion for priesthood is only the kind of people available to him at the time, then logically, only Messianic Jews should be priests. But since far more people are now available; male, female, black, white, whatever, there is no need to limit the priesthood to Messianic Jews, is there?

The Christian priesthood isn't confined to Messianic Jews allright.

katydid wrote: »

No, you won't find that "priestess" is the female equivalent of a priest. Language, like society has moved on. We don't have doctoresses or authoresses. We have doctors, authors and priests. A priestess is a specific description of roles held in ancient religions.

Priestesses are still to be found in some non-christian religions, like paganism, for example.

katydid wrote: »

How is a priest a "male role by definition"? Can you supply the definition? I'll ask again, is a penis and a pair of testicles necessary to perform priestly duties?

Going right back to the Old Testament, the priestly role was a masculine one ... this role was continued in Christianity by Jesus Christ, who was a man ... and by the male heads of each Christian family who are also men.

katydid wrote: »

I don't know what religion you are, but you really need to educate yourself on what these priestly duties are. The duties I outlined are not confined to Anglican priests, they are the basic duties of any priest. Including Roman Catholic ones. None of them require male genitalia in order to be carried out.
It's hilarious, you trying to argue about the role of a priest, when you don't even know what priests do!

You do have a point there in relation to Episcopal Priests ... but the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox churches should know ... and they seem to think that male genitalia are a requirement !!!:)

katydid

J C wrote: »

They led their households in prayer and in the knowledge of God and His Word.

As Christianity spread, local churches (using the same governance) were established.

The Christian priesthood isn't confined to Messianic Jews.

Priestesses are still to be found in some non-christian religions, like paganism, for example.

Going right back to the Old Testament, the priestly role was a masculine one ... this role was continued in Christianity by Jesus Christ, who was a man ... and by the male heads of each Christian family who are also men.

You do have a point there in relation to Episcopal Priests ... but the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox churches would know ... and they seem to think that male genitalia are a requirement !!!:)

You really really need to learn a bit before continuing with this discussion. It's getting really ridiculous that you are trying to argue about something you don't understand. The duty of a priest is not to lead prayers - a priest does lead prayers, but so do lay people. I have already explained to you what the priestly duties are.

I have also already explained to you at what point the church became an organisation with governance issues, and that it had nothing directly to do with the apostles.

Yes, I KNOW the priesthood isn't confined to Messianic Jews. The point I was making has gone right over your head...I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it again if you either can't or won't bother to try to understand.

I'm not sure what relevance the OT priesthood has to this discussion. We're discussion the Christian priesthood, a totally different role. The Jewish priesthood was a totally ceremonial role, it had no pastoral or evangelical element, and was a family affair, passed from father to son and not open to anyone outside the priestly families.

This is ridiculous, your putting forward these silly arguments when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

As for your final point; just because the RCC and Orthodox churches seem to think male genitalia are required doesn't mean they are. Can you outline specifically what male genitalia are used for in the priestly role?

J C

katydid wrote: »

You really really need to learn a bit before continuing with this discussion. It's getting really ridiculous that you are trying to argue about something you don't understand. The duty of a priest is not to lead prayers - a priest does lead prayers, but so do lay people. I have already explained to you what the priestly duties are.

I have also already explained to you at what point the church became an organisation with governance issues, and that it had nothing directly to do with the apostles.

Yes, I KNOW the priesthood isn't confined to Messianic Jews. The point I was making has gone right over your head...I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it again if you either can't or won't bother to try to understand.

I'm not sure what relevance the OT priesthood has to this discussion. We're discussion the Christian priesthood, a totally different role. The Jewish priesthood was a totally ceremonial role, it had no pastoral or evangelical element, and was a family affair, passed from father to son and not open to anyone outside the priestly families.

This is ridiculous, your putting forward these silly arguments when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I think we may be at cross purposes here ... you are talking about the Episcopal priesthood ... on which you seem to have some expertise ... while I'm talking about the priestly role of the male head of a Christian household to his family.

katydid wrote: »

As for your final point; just because the RCC and Orthodox churches seem to think male genitalia are required doesn't mean they are. Can you outline specifically what male genitalia are used for in the priestly role?

You've got me on that one ... all I know is that, the RCC and Orthodox churches seem to think male genitalia are a requirement for Episcopal Priests ... and some Anglican Communions don't.

katydid

J C wrote: »

I think we may be at cross purposes here ... you are talking about the Episcopal priesthood ... on which you seem to have some expertise ... while I'm talking about the priestly role of the male head of a Christian household to his family.

You've got me on that one ... all I know is that, the RCC and Orthodox churches seem to think male genitalia are a requirement for Episcopal Priests ... and some Anglican Communions don't.

I am talking about the Christian priesthood. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal - they all have the same sacerdotal role. You really need to sort all this out in your head, because you're making pretty foolish statements here based on your ignorance.

What, specifically, is the "priestly role" of the "male head of a Christian household" (A very strange concept in the 21st century). I have given you an idea of what the priestly role is, since you clearly didn't know, so can you tell me which of those roles such a person fulfills? Do they give absolution? Celebrate the Eucharist?

So all you know is that the RCC and Orthodo churches seem to think male genitalia is necessary for the role of priest but you can't tell me why... Hmm.

I'm off to bed. Maybe you could read up on the role of a priest and get back to me when you've learned a bit...

J C

katydid wrote: »

I am talking about the Christian priesthood. Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal - they all have the same sacerdotal role. You really need to sort all this out in your head, because you're making pretty foolish statements here based on your ignorance.

I have never claimed competence in the minutae of the Episcopal priesthood.

katydid wrote: »

What, specifically, is the "priestly role" of the "male head of a Christian household" (A very strange concept in the 21st century). I have given you an idea of what the priestly role is, since you clearly didn't know, so can you tell me which of those roles such a person fulfills? Do they give absolution? Celebrate the Eucharist?

What is so strange about a male head of a Christian Family leading his family in prayer and the knowledge of the Word of God?

katydid wrote: »

So all you know is that the RCC and Orthodo churches seem to think male genitalia is necessary for the role of priest but you can't tell me why... Hmm.

I'm off to bed. Maybe you could read up on the role of a priest and get back to me when you've learned a bit...

That makes two of us who could possibly do this !!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have never claimed competence in the minutae of the Episcopal priesthood.

Do you any knowledge/understanding of the sacerdotal role of a priest with regard to any Christian denomination (as per the question posed by katydid)?

katydid

J C wrote: »

I have never claimed competence in the minutae of the Episcopal priesthood.

What is so strange about a male head of a Christian Family leading his family in prayer and the knowledge of the Word of God?



That makes two of us who could possibly do this !!!:)

No, my friend. You don't just lack expertise in the "minutae of the Episcopal priesthood", you know nothing about the priesthood, full stop. The fact that you think that a paterfamilias leading prayer is fulfilling a sacerdotal role - despite me having explained to you TWICE what a sacerdotal role involves - means you not only don't know, but have no interest in knowing.

I'm not carrying on this discussion until you show some sign of informing yourself. There's no point in this discussion otherwise.

J C

SW wrote: »

Do you any knowledge/understanding of the sacerdotal role of a priest with regard to any Christian denomination (as per the question posed by katydid)?

Practically all of the non-episcopal Christian churches don't recognise or have any role for a sacerdotal priest.

J C

katydid wrote: »

No, my friend. You don't just lack expertise in the "minutae of the Episcopal priesthood", you know nothing about the priesthood, full stop. The fact that you think that a paterfamilias leading prayer is fulfilling a sacerdotal role - despite me having explained to you TWICE what a sacerdotal role involves - means you not only don't know, but have no interest in knowing.

I'm not carrying on this discussion until you show some sign of informing yourself. There's no point in this discussion otherwise.

I never said that a paterfamilias is a sacerdotal priest.
Practically all of the non-episcopal Christian churches don't recognise or have any role for a sacerdotal priest.

Having said that, I fully accept that the episcopal churches have every right to have such an institution ... but I cannot resist giving my opinion, when the episcopal churches start looking down on one another over whether they have/haven't female sacerdotal priests ... as distinct from male only ones.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, surely the word priest implies a male incumbant ... and if women are to get involved, then are they not sacerdotal priestesses?
... or has the english language lost all of it's meaning to post-modernist re-interpretation???

katydid

J C wrote: »

I never said that a paterfamilias is a sacerdotal priest.
Practically all of the non-episcopal Christian churches don't recognise or have any role for a sacerdotal priest.

Having said that, I fully accept that the episcopal churches have every right to have such an institution ... but I cannot resist giving my opinion, when the episcopal churches start looking down on one another over whether they have/haven't female sacerdotal priests ... as distinct from male only ones.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, surely the word priest implies a male incumbant ... and if women are to get involved, then are they not sacerdotal priestesses?
... or has the english language lost all of it's meaning to post-modernist re-interpretation???

You said a paterfamilias leading prayers was acting as a priest. He is not. A priest has sacerdotal duties, and someone who doesn't perform sacerdotal duties is not a priest. So someone is either a priest or not a priest and leading prayers doesn't make you a priest...

Who's looking down on anyone? A priest is a priest. The Anglican church accepts that men and women are equal and that therefore women have just as much right as men to be priests. It's hardly the fault of Anglicans if other Christian denominations such as the RCC haven't caught up with the concept of equality.

I've already explained that the word "priest" has no more of a gender basis than the word "doctor" or "author".

katydid

J C wrote: »

Practically all of the non-episcopal Christian churches don't recognise or have any role for a sacerdotal priest.

We're talking about RCC, Orthodox and Anglican priests. The sacerdotal role is the same for all.

J C

katydid wrote: »

You said a paterfamilias leading prayers was acting as a priest. He is not. A priest has sacerdotal duties, and someone who doesn't perform sacerdotal duties is not a priest. So someone is either a priest or not a priest and leading prayers doesn't make you a priest...

That would be an eucuminical question.:)

katydid wrote: »

Who's looking down on anyone? A priest is a priest. The Anglican church accepts that men and women are equal and that therefore women have just as much right as men to be priests. It's hardly the fault of Anglicans if other Christian denominations such as the RCC haven't caught up with the concept of equality.

... there is a slight bit of 'moral superiority' in your posting in relation to the RCC !!
... a bit of 'looking down', if you will.:)

katydid wrote: »

I've already explained that the word "priest" has no more of a gender basis than the word "doctor" or "author".

... but you have also pointed out that there are no doctoresses ... but there are priestesses.
This indicates that 'priest' is indeed a male only function ... while a doctor can be both male and female.:)

katydid

J C wrote: »

That would be an eucuminical question.:)

... and therein is a slight bit of 'moral superiority' in your posting in relation to the RCC !!
... a bit of 'looking down' if you will.:)

... but you have also pointed out that there are no doctoresses ... but there are priestesses.
This indicates that 'priest' is indeed a male only function ... while a doctor can be both male and female.:)

Well, I do think that equality is morally superior to discrimination, but to be honest I just feel sorry for the members of those churches who either allow themselves to be discriminated against...

There were doctoresses and authoresses; language just caught up with reality. There was a time when people would have laughed if you said that a doctor could be either male or female.

The same with priestesses. I'm sure back in the early church, had there had been female priests, that's what they would have been called.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Well, I do think that equality is morally superior to discrimination, but to be honest I just fee sorry for the members of those churches who either allow themselves to be discriminated against...

... I thought we had gotten over the fact that just like we don't need to feel sympathy for the COI because their Mother's Union doesn't accept male members ... the RCC doesn't need any sympathy either, because their priestly union doesn't accept female members.:)

katydid wrote: »

There were doctoresses and authoresses; language just caught up with reality. There was a time when people would have laughed if you said that a doctor could be either male or female.

I never heard of a doctoress !!!
You're a mine of information katydid !!!:)

katydid wrote: »

The same with priestesses. I'm sure back in the early church, had there had been female priests, that's what they would have been called.

... and therein are two weaknesses in your argument ... the early church ... indeed, with the exception of parts of Anglicanism, the modern church, doesn't have priestesses ... or indeed female priests, for that matter.:)

katydid

J C wrote: »

... I thought we had gotten over the fact that just like we don't need to feel sympathy for the COI because their Mother's Union doesn't accept male members ... the RCC doesn't need any sympathy either, because their priestly union doesn't accept female members.:)

I never heard of a doctoress !!!
You're a mine of information katydid !!!:)

... and therein are two weaknesses in your argument ... the early church ... indeed, with the exception of parts of Anglicanism, the modern church doesn't have priestesses ... or indeed female priests, (if that isn't an oxymoron) for that matter.:)

We never mentioned sympathy before...

You never heard of a doctoress, because it was a mocking word used to describe female doctors back in the nineteeth century, used by people who thought the idea ridiculous.

The early church didn't have female priests, or priestesses or whatever word they would have used, because it was a patriarchal society and women were not considered equal. This is 2015, women are equal. The RCC and the Orthodox churches just haven't accepted the fact.

J C

katydid wrote: »

We never mentioned sympathy before...

We didn't ... but you did here:-

Originally Posted by katydid
"Well, I do think that equality is morally superior to discrimination, but to be honest I just feel sorry for the members of those churches who either allow themselves to be discriminated against".:)

katydid wrote: »

You never heard of a doctoress, because it was a mocking word used to describe female doctors back in the nineteeth century, used by people who thought the idea ridiculous.

Well I never ... you really are a mine of information Katydid.

katydid wrote: »

The early church didn't have female priests, or priestesses or whatever word they would have used, because it was a patriarchal society and women were not considered equal. This is 2015, women are equal. The RCC and the Orthodox churches just haven't accepted the fact.

... or maybe they have ... but concluded that priesthood isn't a place where equailty can be granted.
... just like the Mother's Union isn't such a place either.:)