Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

LordSutch

But when?

Discuss.

uck51js9zml2yt

Discuss "but", "when" or the "?"

gctest50

LordSutch wrote: »

But when?

Discuss.

sod that

........ kittens instead :



cos lack of OP effortz n lazyness is a sin etc

LordSutch

gctest50 wrote: »

sod that

........ kittens instead :

cos lack of OP effortz n lazyness is a sin etc

Alright then, I'll give it a go.

I suspect female priests (RC) can never be accepted, because Rome will always dictate that all Priests must be male. This in contrast to some other Christian denominations who now have female Priests!

Admittedly, in the beginning it was a bit odd having a lady preciding over a service, preaching, giving out communion etc, etc, but I guess we've got used to it over the years ... and now it seems totally normal.

hinault

I don't think that we will ever see female priests in the Catholic Church.

This stems from the teaching that Jesus Himself only directly called 13 men to serve.

lazybones32

LordSutch wrote: »

Alright then, I'll give it a go.

I suspect female priests (RC) can never be accepted, because Rome will always dictate that all Priests must be male.

Female priests can never be legitimately ordained and therefore can never be accepted.
The priesthood is a sacrament and the sacraments ave certain criteria to be met for them to be genuine. Baptism must use water (milk, cola, oil or any other liquid is not an acceptable substitute) for it to be valid. Marriage can only be between man and woman (not m+m, w+w, tg+m, et al) for it to be a sacramental marriage. Likewise, the priesthood was only given to males and the RCC doesn't see itself as having the right or the power to change that. They could change certsin rules but the ordinations wouldn't be legitimate and powerless to fulfill the functions and duty of the priest.

Thinkingaboutit

lazybones32 said it well. Pope Francis said as much too, that it cannot happen, it's impossible. That Protestant communities with wymen ministers, with their shouty or quietly spoken political liberalism, have suffered headlong decline, is of note (not too much for they have do not have priests as a Catholic understands), but the main point is that the sacrament of orders would not be valid.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

I don't think that we will ever see female priests in the Catholic Church.

This stems from the teaching that Jesus Himself only directly called 13 men to serve.

Really because I remember reading where Jesus sent out 72 disciples around the lands to serve. Forgive sins and cure people. Where does it say they were all men. To those who say women can not be ordained because it says so. Where is this

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

Really because I remember reading where Jesus sent out 72 disciples

Jesus Christ did not appoint 72 people.

oldrnwisr

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ did not appoint 72 people.

I believe martingriff is referring to Luke 10:1, although some translations render the verse as 70 rather than 72. Since Jesus sent them away on a mission, they are, by definition, apostles. Their gender is not mentioned so the group may have included women.

Mrs OBumble

Jesus did not ordain anyone.

hinault

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Jesus did not ordain anyone.

He appointed 13 apostles.

martingriff

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I believe martingriff is referring to Luke 10:1, although some translations render the verse as 70 rather than 72. Since Jesus sent them away on a mission, they are, by definition, apostles. Their gender is not mentioned so the group may have included women.

Thanks was not sure of the verse and you are correct in some gospels it does vary

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

This stems from the teaching that Jesus Himself only directly called 13 men to serve.

From which the notion of priesthood, which is a gross (Old Convenant inspired) extrapolation*. The notion of a bar on female priests is but an extrapolation upon an extrapolation.

Upon a pebble, we will build a theology

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I believe martingriff is referring to Luke 10:1, although some translations render the verse as 70 rather than 72. Since Jesus sent them away on a mission, they are, by definition, apostles. Their gender is not mentioned so the group may have included women.

It would be the nature of a hierarchical structure to suppose a hierarchy of apostleship. From whence a pope. From whence junior apostles

spurious

The first people to witness the resurrection were women. Many of the early Church leaders were women.

The only way the RCC can survive is with women.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Jesus Christ did not appoint 72 people.

Luke 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.

Latin Vulgate version.

endacl

hinault wrote: »

This stems from the teaching that Jesus Himself only directly called 13 men to serve.

Bartholomew was a lady.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

From which the notion of priesthood, which is a gross (Old Convenant inspired) extrapolation*. The notion of a bar on female priests is but an extrapolation upon an extrapolation.

Upon a pebble, we will build a theology

This from the church of one.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Luke 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.

Latin Vulgate version.

Chapter 9 of the Gospel of St.Luke tells the account of Jesus personally appointing 12 apostles.

hinault

spurious wrote: »

The first people to witness the resurrection were women. Many of the early Church leaders were women.

The only way the RCC can survive is with women.

The Church will survive because Jesus said it would survive.

Therefore this is the only basis on which His church, the only church which He founded, can survive.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Chapter 9 of the Gospel of St.Luke tells the account of Jesus personally appointing 12 apostles.

So they were the 1st 12 it still does not forbid women being priests. Plus if those disciple he sent out had the power to forgive,retain sins or banish demons then they must have been of a high order (for want of a better word)

Mrs OBumble

hinault wrote: »

He appointed 13 apostles.

Agreed.

Appointed, not ordained.

hinault

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Agreed.

Appointed, not ordained.

No. If you read the very first verse of St.Lukes gospel chapter 9, it states

Then *having called together the twelve apostles, He gave them power, and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases

Verse 1 is proof of the transfer of Jesus power and authority to the 12 apostles.

The 12 were ordained with power and authority by Jesus Christ. This is called apostolic succession and this succession only resides in the Catholic Church and has done since inception.

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

So they were the 1st 12 it still does not forbid women being priests. Plus if those disciple he sent out had the power to forgive,retain sins or banish demons then they must have been of a high order (for want of a better word)

Again, as St.Luke's gospel seems to be flavour of the month here with some of our resident non-Catholics, verse 1 of Chapter 10 of St.Lukes gospel could not be clearer.

Then *having called together the twelve apostles, He gave them power, and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Again, as St.Luke's gospel seems to be flavour of the month here with some of our resident non-Catholics, verse 1 of Chapter 10 of St.Lukes gospel could not be clearer.

First of all I am a Catholic not sure of the others so less of the digs.

I am not counters you that he gave them power over daemons and to forgive sins. But he also gave that authority to the 72 as per Luke's gospel and they came back rejoicing as they could do it. Just because he gave it to the 12 does not mean he did not give it to others which he did in Luke's gospel. No where does it say in anywhere in the bible they could not be women

Darkglasses

hinault wrote: »

He appointed 13 apostles.

I am curious why you think specifically their gender should be taken as an absolute rule for the following ~2,000 years of the Catholic Church. They were married, Aramaic-speaking Jews - Why are not Priests only taken from these specific bands also? It would make the priesthood all the closer to the original apostles. Maybe Peter's succcessor must be married also?

Personally, I believe it is a consequence of the Church's early movement across the Greco-Roman world, and that prior to this there was female leadership in Christian groups. For example, Romans 16:7 :

"“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

First of all I am a Catholic not sure of the others so less of the digs.

I am not counters you that he gave them power over daemons and to forgive sins. But he also gave that authority to the 72 as per Luke's gospel and they came back rejoicing as they could do it. Just because he gave it to the 12 does not mean he did not give it to others which he did in Luke's gospel. No where does it say in anywhere in the bible they could not be women

Your claim to be Catholic is contradicted by your opposing the clear teaching of the Catholic Church concerning apostolic succession. If you accept church teaching, then you are Catholic. If you reject church teaching, you are not Catholic. You reject church teaching...............

The gospel of St.Luke is actually very very clear on this. Chapter 9 explicitly states that Jesus personally bestowed power and authority upon the 12 only.

St.Luke doesn't refer to Jesus bestowing power and authority upon anyone else. If Jesus did bestow power and authority, wouldn't St.Luke's gospel explicitly state this in other parts of the gospel, as it did in Chapter 9?

Why didn't Luke explicitly refer to Jesus bestowing power and authority to people other than the 12? The gospel doesn't state it because it did not happen. If it did happen, Luke would have told us so. And certainly if it happened in the way it happened in chapter 9, Luke would have told us so.

hinault

Darkglasses wrote: »

I am curious why you think specifically their gender should be taken as an absolute rule for the following ~2,000 years of the Catholic Church. They were married, Aramaic-speaking Jews - Why are not Priests only taken from these specific bands also? It would make the priesthood all the closer to the original apostles. Maybe Peter's succcessor must be married also?

Personally, I believe it is a consequence of the Church's early movement across the Greco-Roman world, and that prior to this there was female leadership in Christian groups. For example, Romans 16:7 :

"“Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”

Because Jesus was and is God incarnate, we believe that Jesus is omnipotent and transcendent.
Therefore in creating His church, Jesus would have willed it that women be admitted to the priesthood.

The gospel accounts are clear. Jesus, God-incarnate, personally only called men to His ministry.

If you accept that Jesus is God-incarnate, He is therefore omnipotent and transcendent. He therefore foresaw everything. If He willed it, He would have personally ordained a woman in to His ministry. It is only reasonable to assume therefore that He willed that only men serve His priesthood.

Darkglasses

hinault wrote: »

Because Jesus was and is God incarnate, we believe that Jesus is omnipotent and transcendent.
Therefore in creating His church, Jesus would have willed it that women be admitted to the priesthood.

The gospel accounts are clear. Jesus, God-incarnate, personally only called men to His ministry.

If you accept that Jesus is God-incarnate, He is therefore omnipotent and transcendent. He therefore foresaw everything. If He willed it, He would have personally ordained a woman in to His ministry. It is only reasonable to assume therefore that He willed that only men serve His priesthood.

To reiterate my question - did he also not will anyone but Aramaic-speaking Israelite Jews to become priests?

hinault

Darkglasses wrote: »

To reiterate my question - did he also not will anyone but Aramaic-speaking Israelite Jews to become priests?

You'll be able to cite where the gospel says that only Aramaic-speaking Israelite Jews, need apply.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Your claim to be Catholic is contradicted by your opposing the clear teaching of the Catholic Church concerning apostolic succession. If you accept church teaching, then you are Catholic. If you reject church teaching, you are not Catholic. You reject church teaching...............

The gospel of St.Luke is actually very very clear on this. Chapter 9 explicitly states that Jesus personally bestowed power and authority upon the 12 only.

St.Luke doesn't refer to Jesus bestowing power and authority upon anyone else. If Jesus did bestow power and authority, wouldn't St.Luke's gospel explicitly state this in other parts of the gospel, as it did in Chapter 9?

Why didn't Luke explicitly refer to Jesus bestowing power and authority to people other than the 12? The gospel doesn't state it because it did not happen. If it did happen, Luke would have told us so. And certainly if it happened in the way it happened in chapter 9, Luke would have told us so.

To the 72 Jesus says as per Luke 10:09 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you. and again in Luke 10:19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy.

That seems like bestowing power on others. As for going against the teaching of the church many have gone against the teaching of the Catholic Church such no more Limbo unbaptized children can now be buried in normal graveyards. Unmarried mothers are no longer look down upon in disdain. The church is allways changing and I think questioning and speaking one mind is good for the church rather then blindly following along.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

You'll be able to cite where the gospel says that only Aramaic-speaking Israelite Jews, need apply.

You'll be able to cite where the gospel says that only males, need apply not that his first 12 were men so ergo they all have to be men

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Because Jesus was and is God incarnate, we believe that Jesus is omnipotent and transcendent.
Therefore in creating His church, Jesus would have willed it that women be admitted to the priesthood.

The gospel accounts are clear. Jesus, God-incarnate, personally only called men to His ministry.

If you accept that Jesus is God-incarnate, He is therefore omnipotent and transcendent. He therefore foresaw everything. If He willed it, He would have personally ordained a woman in to His ministry. It is only reasonable to assume therefore that He willed that only men serve His priesthood.

Can we also accept that the bible we have today was put together by the omitting pieces. How so we know there was no females.

Darkglasses

martingriff wrote: »

You'll be able to cite where the gospel says that only males, need apply not that his first 12 were men so ergo they all have to be men

If He willed Irishmen to be priests, He would have personally ordained a celibate, Irishman in to His ministry.

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

To the 72 Jesus says as per Luke 10:09 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you. and again in Luke 10:19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy.

Nice try.

Chapter 9 refers to the 12 - the 12 appointed by Jesus personally - be commanded to heal the sick, to preach the kingdom of God.

Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 are quantitatively and qualitatively different because Jesus personally appointed the 12, and personally bestowed authority and power upon them and no one else.

Chapter 10 does not include any reference to Jesus personally bestowing power and authority.
If He had done so, Chapter 10 would have said so. Chapter 10 doesn't.

martingriff wrote: »

As for going against the teaching of the church many have gone against the teaching of the Catholic Church such no more Limbo unbaptized children can now be buried in normal graveyards. Unmarried mothers are no longer look down upon in disdain

Martin, you reject church teaching. You've said you reject church teaching.

A catholic accepts church teaching.

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

Can we also accept that the bible we have today was put together by the omitting pieces. How so we know there was no females.

Not really interested in discussing these sort of conspiracy theories either.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Nice try.

Chapter 9 refers to the 12 - the 12 appointed by Jesus personally - be commanded to heal the sick, to preach the kingdom of God.

Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 and quantitatively and qualitatively different because Jesus personally appointed the 12, and personally bestowed authority and power upon them.

Chapter 10 does not include any reference to Jesus personally bestowing power and authority.
If He had done so, Chapter 10 would have said so. Chapter 10 doesn't.



Martin, you reject church teaching. You've said you reject church teaching.

A catholic accepts church teaching.

Nice try how about you read Luke 10 as the first sentence is After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2 He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.

So yes the Lord appointed the 72. Is that not Jesus. Who says we cant question the Catholic church Pope Francis has opened sinoids to debate the teching. Not sure of your parish but ours were invite to submit thoughts to our bishop through our priest. This is on going. Didn't Pope Francis himself in his First Holy Thursday mass was the feet of women

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

Not really interested in discussing these sort of conspiracy theories either.

You really think thats a conspiract theory. They removed 14 books

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

Nice try how about you read Luke 10........

It's how the church, who's teachings you reject, reads it Martin.

Have you asked the Eastern Orthodox churches why they don't ordain women?

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

You really think thats a conspiract theory. They removed 14 books

:rolleyes:

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

It's how the church, who's teachings you reject, reads it Martin.

Have you asked the Eastern Orthodox churches why they don't ordain women?

No but I could ask have you asked the Protestant Church why they ordain women

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

No but I could ask have you asked the Protestant Church why they ordain women

What protestants do within their denomination is of zero-interest to me, Martin.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

What protestants do within their denomination is of zero-interest to me, Martin.

So the Eastern Orthodox churches because they don't ordain woman interest you I should ask them yet we I say why don't you ask Protestants why they ordain women it has zero interest to you so why should you. :rolleyes:

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

So the Eastern Orthodox churches because they don't ordain woman interest you I should ask them yet we I say why don't you ask Protestants why they ordain women it has zero interest to you so why should you. :rolleyes:

I don't reject the gospels, nor do I reject church teaching.

Therefore whatever protestants hold remains of zero interest to me, Martin.

The Eastern Orthodox churches have stayed faithful to the only Church founded by Jesus Christ in that regard, whatever about other regards.

FanadMan

Tomorrow, if the pope decreed that women could become priests, would people accept it? He is, after all the voice of God on earth.

hinault

FanadMan wrote: »

Tomorrow, if the pope decreed that women could become priests, would people accept it? He is, after all the voice of God on earth.

The Pope would have to justify the lifting of the ordination embargo.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

I don't reject the gospels, nor do I reject church teaching.

Therefore whatever protestants hold remains of zero interest to me, Martin.

The Eastern Orthodox churches have stayed faithful to the only Church founded by Jesus Christ in that regard, whatever about other regards.

The Easter Orthodox reject our Pope they have there own. So if you believe in all teaching without question as you say you should reject the orthodox church.

martingriff

hinault wrote: »

The Pope would have to justify the lifting of the ordination embargo.

Nope the Pope is infallible so if he says it its true

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

The Easter Orthodox reject our Pope

You too reject the Church who's head is the Pope, Martin.

martingriff

Anyway I am out hinault. First you demand the gospel of Luke does not mention other been giving authority even when pointing it out. When I quote the passage to you you change the goalpost by saying it may say that but this is how the church tell you. There is no point in this discussion going forward