Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

nuac

hinault wrote: »

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

Where did Jesus say that women may not be ordained priests?

nuac

hinault wrote: »

The Church has declared upon this issue throughout the centuries, Martin.

The same heretical line that you peddle here today, has been peddled for centuries by many others who, like you, reject Scripture and who reject the Church and who reject the Pope.

So if the Pope did recommend that women be ordained priests you would deem him to be a heretic?

uck51js9zml2yt

nuac wrote: »

Where did Jesus say that women may not be ordained priests?

Were did Jesus say there were to be priests full stop?

The New Testament is clear that everyone( including women) is given spiritual gifts and there is a requirement for everyone to function in those gifts for the edification of all.
The only priests mentioned in the Bible were the Jewish ones(rabbis) who mediated between God and men and
those of the many false gods.
God judged the pagan priests and replaced the practices of the old testament with a new way of doing things.
Everyone knowing God, hearing from Him and ministering to the body.
There are a few instances of priests being believers but in the while they were the ones resisting the Gospel and instigating the killing of the Christians.

hinault

nuac wrote: »

Where did Jesus say that women may not be ordained priests?

Why didn't He appoint a female apostle?

hinault

nuac wrote: »

So if the Pope did recommend that women be ordained priests you would deem him to be a heretic?

The pope can recommend whatever he wishes. He can recommend that we refer to today as Tuesday, if he wishes. The church can ignore such a recommendation.

What the pope can only recommend are suggestions that conform to already established doctrine/dogma/tradition.

Nekarsulm

hinault wrote: »

The pope can recommend whatever he wishes. He can recommend that we refer to today as Tuesday, if he wishes. The church can ignore such a recommendation.

What the pope can only recommend are suggestions that conform to already established doctrine/dogma/tradition.

But as "already established" doctrine/dogma/tradition was likely invented by an earlier Pope, if the current Pope declared today to be Tuesday (or that only Egyptian eunuchs can be priests, or whatever) then the next Pope or the one after that can implement the new rule.

lazybones32

nuac wrote: »

So if the Pope did recommend that women be ordained priests you would deem him to be a heretic?

Francis has already said there will be no female priests.

"St. Pope John Paul II had the last clear word on this and it still stands, this stands." Francis, referencing jpii's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, when asked if the rcc will have female priests in the next few decades.

Now, if you want to know why the Church sees itself as not having the right or power to ordain female priests, you can google Ordinatio Sacredotalis.

feargale

No women at the Last Supper.

Therefore no women should attend Mass.

Discuss, comment, criticise.

hinault

Nekarsulm wrote: »

But as "already established" doctrine/dogma/tradition was likely invented by an earlier Pope.... if the

Invented?

The Church takes the precedent of Holy Orders from Jesus Christ himself, who personally appointed only men to His ministry. Jesus did not appoint any female to the role of apostle. From the gospels.

But even if there was a sense in the Church that women should be appointed as priests, wouldn't Jesus himself, God incarnate, have provided for this sentiment if it conformed to His wishes? One would think that Jesus would have foreseen this sentiment and He would have provided for this in His earthy ministry?

It is reasonable therefore to assume that if Jesus had willed to personally appoint a woman as an apostle, He would have done so.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Jesus willed that only men serve the priesthood.

uck51js9zml2yt

I'm so glad for Priscilla and Aquila and Lydia getting mentioned in the Bible. All 3 were influencial in the early church, 2 of them where women. And Lydia was the leader of her church in Thyatira.

Were in the position where dogma and tradition have replaced the authority of God's word.

Nekarsulm

hinault wrote: »

Invented?

The Church takes the precedent of Holy Orders from Jesus Christ himself, who personally appointed only men to His ministry. Jesus did not appoint any female to the role of apostle. From the gospels.

But even if there was a sense in the Church that women should be appointed as priests, wouldn't Jesus himself, God incarnate, have provided for this sentiment if it conformed to His wishes? One would think that Jesus would have foreseen this sentiment and He would have provided for this in His earthy ministry?

It is reasonable therefore to assume that if Jesus had willed to personally appoint a woman as an apostle, He would have done so.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Jesus willed that only men serve the priesthood.

Perhaps I should replace "invented" with "decreed" or "adopted" or" intrepreted" if that helps.
But these men were infallible, so their decisions were Gods.

And if you considers Christ's actions and omissions to be unwaveringly correct, then the Church has been acting contrary to Gods will ever since non Jewish, un-circumcised men were appointed to the priesthood.

hinault

hinault wrote:

Invented?

The Church takes the precedent of Holy Orders from Jesus Christ himself, who personally appointed only men to His ministry. Jesus did not appoint any female to the role of apostle. From the gospels.

But even if there was a sense in the Church that women should be appointed as priests, wouldn't Jesus himself, God incarnate, have provided for this sentiment if it conformed to His wishes? One would think that Jesus would have foreseen this sentiment and He would have provided for this in His earthy ministry?

It is reasonable therefore to assume that if Jesus had willed to personally appoint a woman as an apostle, He would have done so.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Jesus willed that only men serve the priesthood.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Perhaps I should replace "invented" with "decreed" or "adopted" or" intrepreted" if that helps.
But these men were infallible, so their decisions were Gods.

And if you considers Christ's actions and omissions to be unwaveringly correct, then the Church has been acting contrary to Gods will ever since non Jewish, un-circumcised men were appointed to the priesthood.

The authors of the gospels are clear as to who and how Jesus personally appointed the apostles.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The authors of the gospels are clear as to who and how Jesus personally appointed the apostles.

He ignores the fact that Paul was also an apostle and as is asserted elsewhere, never met Jesus.Yet the church recognises his apostleship!

martingriff

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

hinault wrote: »

The authors of the gospels are clear as to who and how Jesus personally appointed the apostles.

He ignores the fact that Paul was also an apostle and as is asserted elsewhere, never met Jesus.Yet the church recognises his apostleship!

Or the 72 appointed by Our Lord in Luke 23:10 to go to towns before him to forgive sins and command demons

uck51js9zml2yt

martingriff wrote: »

Or the 72 appointed by Our Lord in Luke 23:10 to go to towns before him to forgive sins and command demons

Its interesting that no more mention is made of the 72..I wonder why!

There is also Barnabas.Mentioned in Acts as selling his land and giving it to the church for ministry. Next thing we see is him extending the hand of fellowship to Paul who was under suspicion by the Church and then with Paul in Antioch among the prophets and teachers. God then separates them both and sends them both to the gentiles
Was Barnabas an Apostle? ..I would contend that he was ...He was sent out which is the meaning of the word and had a broader ministry within the general Church.

hinault

martingriff wrote: »

Or the 72 appointed by Our Lord in Luke 23:10 to go to towns before him to forgive sins and command demons

Gospel of St.Luke Chapter 23 verse 10 reads

23:10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood by, earnestly accusing Him.

http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._Luke/Chapter-23.html

Ironic.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Gospel of St.Luke Chapter 23 verse 10 reads



http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._Luke/Chapter-23.html

Ironic.

I dont see the relevance of that verse..but ..never mind !!

martingriff

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

hinault wrote: »

Gospel of St.Luke Chapter 23 verse 10 reads



http://traditionalcatholic.net/Scripture/New_Testament/The_Holy_Gospel_of_Jesus_Christ,_According_to_St._Luke/Chapter-23.html

Ironic.

I dont see the relevance of that verse..but ..never mind !!

Well I misquoted it should have been St. Luke 10:1. But is hinault saying that that is why Jesus was prosecutted

uck51js9zml2yt

martingriff wrote: »

Well I misquoted it should have been St. Luke 10:1. But is hinault saying that that is why Jesus was prosecutted

Because he chose men as the first apostles ?...I've no idea what way hinault thinks.
All I know is he's prepared to replace the Word of God with the traditions of men :eek:

feargale

hinault wrote: »

Why didn't He appoint a female apostle?

Why didn't he appoint a gentile?

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Why didn't he appoint a gentile?

What is a gentile?

Nekarsulm

I think Jesus would be / must be quite disappointed at the way his ministry has failed.
There he was, the Messiah predicted for millennium in the Jewish faith, and what happens? The pesky apostles he chose go off and form a new breed of religion and church.... abandoning most of the tenants of the Jewish faith.

And to add insult to injury (literally) the Jewish people and their leaders don't acknowledge him as the promised One at all!
They just downgrade him to a minor Prophet.

Nekarsulm

hinault wrote: »

What is a gentile?

You, Me, Bob Marley, Idi Amin, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, everyone who is not Jewish.

lazybones32

martingriff wrote: »

Or the 72 appointed by Our Lord in Luke 23:10 to go to towns before him to forgive sins and command demons

The 70 or 72 were appointed in Lk 10, yes, and they were sent ahead to every town that Jesus was to go to. They were told to trust in providence, to heal the sick and to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom. They weren't given power to forgive sins or explicit authority over demons.
In Lk 9, Jesus sent out his 12 apostles, explicitly giving them power and authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal diseases.

There is a reason the author records Jesus sending the 12 first. There is probably some significance to the number 70/72 because iirc, this is the last we hear of them. And none of the gospels say a woman was included among them.

hinault

lazybones32 wrote: »

The 70 or 72 were appointed in Lk 10, yes, and they were sent ahead to every town that Jesus was to go to. They were told to trust in providence, to heal the sick and to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom. They weren't given power to forgive sins or explicit authority over demons.
In Lk 9, Jesus sent out his 12 apostles, explicitly giving them power and authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal diseases.

There is a reason the author records Jesus sending the 12 first. There is probably some significance to the number 70/72 because iirc, this is the last we hear of them. And none of the gospels say a woman was included among them.

Yes.

The gospel of St.Luke Chapter 9 specifically states the words "12 apostles"
In the same gospel in Chapter 10, the text states that 72 were appointed.

72, what were appointed? Chapter 10 makes no reference to "72 apostles", unlike Chapter 9 which states "12 apostles". The designation "12" and "apostles" is clear. These 12 men were selected by Jesus, God incarnate, as His delegates.

And as you say there is no mention in the gospels as to the gender of the 72.

uck51js9zml2yt

lazybones32 wrote: »

The 70 or 72 were appointed in Lk 10, yes, and they were sent ahead to every town that Jesus was to go to. They were told to trust in providence, to heal the sick and to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom. They weren't given power to forgive sins or explicit authority over demons.
In Lk 9, Jesus sent out his 12 apostles, explicitly giving them power and authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal diseases.

There is a reason the author records Jesus sending the 12 first. There is probably some significance to the number 70/72 because iirc, this is the last we hear of them. And none of the gospels say a woman was included among them.

As the Jews rightly pointed out to Jesus, a point He didn't disagree with was that "only God could forgive sin"

With regard to healing and casting out demons, Mark 16 "these signs shall follow those who believe, they shall speak in new tongues, lay hands on the sick and they will be healed, cast out demons" . This was something which the newest believer could do and wasn't reserved for the apostles.
Paul mentions healing as being one of the gifts given to believers in 1corinthians, again not the reserve of an elite few, not that the apostles were elite. They were just fellow servants of Jesus Christ.

feargale

lazybones32 wrote: »

There is a reason the author records Jesus sending the 12 first.

Bishops, maybe?

lazybones32 wrote: »

There is probably some significance to the number 70/72 because iirc, this is the last we hear of them. And none of the gospels say a woman was included among them.

Nor a man. Could we interpret that as all women, therefore no male priests?

In Western Christianity, they are usually referred to as disciples, whereas in Eastern Christianity they are usually referred to as Apostles.Using the original Greek words, both titles are descriptive, as an apostle is one sent on a mission (the Greek uses the verb form: apesteilen) whereas a disciple is a student, but the two traditions differ on the scope of the words apostle and disciple.

wotzgoingon

Forget female priests what needs to be done is allow priests to marry. Nobody wants to be a priest any more allow marriage and there will be more priests. My local parish has no priest since that previous guy retired. I'm sure it is the same around the country.

EirWatchr

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Nobody wants to be a priest any more allow marriage and there will be more priests.

If nobody wants to be a priest, why do you think they suddenly will want to become one if they can marry?

It takes a commitment of seven years full-time in a seminary just to become a Catholic priest, and the pastoral demands once ordained are no less arduous and time-consuming than that, even more so (especially if there's no one else wants to be a priest). You think the demands of a family on top of that commitment makes priesthood any more attractive?

It is a vocation. Most priests (and monks/nuns for that matter) willingly forsake marriage to devote their whole life in the service of God.

uck51js9zml2yt

EirWatchr wrote: »

If nobody wants to be a priest, why do you think they suddenly will want to become one if they can marry?

It takes a commitment of seven years full-time in a seminary just to become a Catholic priest, and the pastoral demands once ordained are no less arduous and time-consuming than that, even more so (especially if there's no one else wants to be a priest). You think the demands of a family on top of that commitment makes priesthood any more attractive?

It is a vocation. Most priests (and monks/nuns for that matter) willingly forsake marriage to devote their whole life in the service of God.

How do Anglican ministers do it? most of them are married. Is there calling any less?