Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 4   [ 67 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:03 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Ottawa
Religion: Catholic
Lauda Jerusalem Dominum wrote:
CommonMan wrote:
If the 12 are the model for the priesthood, the CC should be ordaining only married Jewish men.


Where in Scripture does it say that they were married?
Peter, the first Pope if I remember correctly, was married.


Sorry, I'm not catholic but I'm thinking about it........feel called to the Deaconate.

_________________
T. Watson
B.Th- Saint Paul University
S.T.B- Saint Paul University

Finally Home!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:04 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 83628
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
CommonMan wrote:
If the 12 are the model for the priesthood, the CC should be ordaining only married Jewish men.


Again, we've been over this. "Married" and "Jewish" are not unalterable characteristics of a person. If I were married, I would still be me. If I were Jewish, I would still be me. On the other hand, "man" is an unalterable characteristic. The very concept of me as female is meaningless. The Church from the earliest time has viewed "being a man" as the salient characteristic of those to whom Jesus gave the gift of the priesthood, and Scripture certainly supports it.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:06 pm 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 40411
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
tom58 wrote:
Lauda Jerusalem Dominum wrote:
CommonMan wrote:
If the 12 are the model for the priesthood, the CC should be ordaining only married Jewish men.


Where in Scripture does it say that they were married?
Peter, the first Pope if I remember correctly, was married.


Sorry, I'm not catholic but I'm thinking about it........feel called to the Deaconate.


Peter's mother-in-law was mentioned but not his wife . . . leading one to believe that he was a widower.

CommonMan, I'm not sure that that passage means what you think it means.

_________________
Formerly Bagheera

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King." (1 Peter 2:17)
Federation of North-American Explorers - North Star Group - How You Can Help


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:19 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:29 pm
Posts: 6815
Location: New Jersey
Religion: Catholic
It seems to indicate that they were married.

In any case, the CC has changed the criteria for the priesthood over time. With each change there is a "reason" why. We know priests were married in the early church. We also know Paul writes about women involved in ministry and there is a strong belief that Phoebe was a deacon. (Rom 16:1-2) and Junia an Apostle "who are of note among the apostles, " (Rom 16:7) note, I have read that the sex of Junia is in doubt but Junia is more likely female than not.

The CC may decide not to ordain women, fine, but the argument for the exclusion remains weak IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:25 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 83628
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Again, you're a little weak on the facts here. The deaconess issue is one that I will defer argument on, not having studied it, but the Church does not claim that singleness is an ontological requirement for Holy Orders and never has.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:35 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Alabama
A priest is the Biblical equivalent of an elder, overseer, shepherd, or whatever you want to call them. The qualifications of which are clearly laid out in Timothy and Titus. The qualifications given for elders and deacons are the qualifications for male elders and deacons. Biblically, we can not know what the qualifications of a female elder or deacon would be. The qualifications for an elder or deacon does call for them to be the husband of but only one wife but this does not necessarily mean they must have a wife. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is better not to marry because a unmarried person is better equipped for the cares of the Lord. Paul encourages them to be like he is - unmarried. Celibacy is a spiritual gift and a sacrifice. There were more than likely not very men in the early church that were both unmarried and qualified to be elders and knowing human nature it was best to make qualifications for those positions which limited marriage to one time only. These are also authority position which Paul had told Timothy women were not to have over men. However, in the case of deacons the scriptures do lay out what a deacons wife should be like. I think this may be cause in some respects a deacons wife shares in the deaconate role to a degree. An elders wife would not because it is the supreme local authority in a given parish

_________________
Sure, this is the heart of the great mystery: God became man, shouldering the weight of suffering so that on the final day none could say. "who are your to judge the world? What do you know of injustice? What do you know of torture, sickness, poverty? How dare you call yourself a righteous God! What do you know of death?" - Byzantium -


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:27 am 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:29 pm
Posts: 6815
Location: New Jersey
Religion: Catholic
(1 Timothy 3) The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way-- 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11 Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

(Titus 1)......appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

These are the verses that you named as the qualifications for a priest?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:17 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
Um, since when did the Church go 'sola Scriptura' on us? I missed that memo. Your appeal to Scripture is futile since Christ gave authority and truth to the Church, not the Scripture. You can proof-text us til you're blue in the face, but Scripture alone is an arbitrary and very wrong standard for ANY issue in the Church. In any sense, this is a case of taking up a position and THEN building a case for it from Scripture. Surely this is not the proper way to determine what is in Scripture, is it?

Your argument that women were deacons, in the fully ecclesial sense has not been proven. Still, even granting this, there is NO basis for ordination as priests, simply because a woman was a deacon. Still, let us see what the Church (the same Church that's called 'pillar and foundation of the truth') says about women deacons.

Canon 19 of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD asserts:

Quote:
"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, [the Paulianists being received into the true Church], let the same form be observed [rebaptism]. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit [enrolled], but who, since they have no imposition of hands [actually it might be rendered, "although, not having been in any way ordained"], are certainly to be numbered [or "reckoned"] only among the laity."


The Church Fathers speak of youru position as deceptive. This is because the inability of women to be ordained by holy orders was a foregone conclusion. John Chrysostom says:

Quote:
Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, 'Peter, lovest thou me more than these?' Yet He might have said to him, 'If thou lovest me practise fasting, sleeping on the ground, and prolonged vigils, defend the wronged, be as a father to orphans, and supply the place of a husband to their mother.' But as a matter of fact, setting aside all these things, what does He say? 'Tend my sheep.'
For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also; and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others, . . . ."


I've yet to see any argument denying the Church's lack of authority to make women priests. This is the foundation of the Church's teaching on this, yet nobody has been able to prove that Mother Church in fact CAN ordain women priests. John Paul the Great said:

Quote:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of the ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk. 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."


Are you part of the 'all' he's talking about, or do you self-select out to the realm of our Protestant brothers and sisters? John Paul says that if you cannot abide in his declaration, you likely do not belong among the 'faithful'.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:26 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
And in anticipation of your inevitable objection, YES, this declaration demands assent despite not being ex-cathedra. Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus says:

Quote:
This power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate. Regarding this jurisdiction, the shepherds of whatever rite or jurisdiction and the faithful, individually and collectively, are bound by a duty of hierarchical subjection and sincere obedience; and this not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world .


and Lumen Gentium says:

Quote:
This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:02 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Alabama
I must say I fail to see your point. However, I am glad to see, as you say, that appealing to Scripture is futile. I guess that means I can disregard the parts of the catechism which refer to it. Because I am sure that the church just used arbitrary scripture to proof-text a particular position they wanted to build a case for.

The Church builds it's principles and standards on Tradition and Holy Scripture. If you discount Scripture you discount half of what the church is built on.

That being said, I never said women could be priest or deacons and never attempted to make a case for it. I simple was trying to show what the Holy Scriptures said on the matter. And to say that Timothy and Titus are not speaking of church elder or bishops is to blind to what it says. Your quick dismissal of the Holy Scripture is troubling to me and saying that it doesn’t say what I think it says is taking the same approach to it as you accuse me of taking.

Again, let me explain this again so I am not misunderstood. I don't believe that I ever said that women could be deacons. I said that one could argue that a deacon's wife has a shared role in his ministry. This is not to say that she has one of her own. I stand firm with the Church’s teaching on matters of the priesthood which, as I attempted to show, also correlates with scripture. The foundation of the Church’s teaching is found in scripture and this is how I knew the Catholic Church is the true and only church. I apologize if I offended you delicate senses by use of scripture. I will try not to do it again.

_________________
Sure, this is the heart of the great mystery: God became man, shouldering the weight of suffering so that on the final day none could say. "who are your to judge the world? What do you know of injustice? What do you know of torture, sickness, poverty? How dare you call yourself a righteous God! What do you know of death?" - Byzantium -


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:16 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 697
Location: down south
Common Man and GoodSam, you're misunderstanding Rajah. Rajah was simply using Scripture to back up the Church's position against female priests/deacons, not appealing to Scripture alone. Is there something wrong with this?

Quote:
Your argument that women were deacons, in the fully ecclesial sense has not been proven.


Rajah did not try to argue for female deacons. He said that one way we know there can be none is because no qualifications were given for them. This is an argument against female deacons, not for them. You misunderstood him.

Quote:
And in anticipation of your inevitable objection, YES, this declaration demands assent despite not being ex-cathedra.


What inevitable objection? He stated from the outset that we only have qualifications for male elders and deacons and none for women as part of his argument AGAINST women priests. I would think that that should obviously have said to you that he was not objecting to the Church's clearly Scripturally harmonious position, no matter whether it was proclaimed ex cathedra or not.

_________________
Domine Iesu Christ, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatorem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:46 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:29 pm
Posts: 6815
Location: New Jersey
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
Your appeal to Scripture is futile since Christ gave authority and truth to the Church, not the Scripture.


?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:02 am 
Offline
Apostle of Iraq
Apostle of Iraq
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:06 am
Posts: 20427
Location: Gardner Kansas
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th degree Knight of Columbus
CommonMan wrote:
Quote:
Your appeal to Scripture is futile since Christ gave authority and truth to the Church, not the Scripture.


?


CommonMan, surely you are aware of nature, right? You know that you can't tell a woman a secret! When you do it becomes the occasion of "sharing"! Didn't you watch HEEHAW? Confession would be out of the question!

Ladies, just kidding! ::):

_________________
http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa16 ... reedom.flv

*NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL* http://www.youtube.com/defendercatholic *NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL*
http://catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.html
Ephesians 6:10-17
1 Timothy 3:15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:13 am 
Offline
Apostle of Iraq
Apostle of Iraq
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:06 am
Posts: 20427
Location: Gardner Kansas
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th degree Knight of Columbus
PS, celebacy for the sake of the Kingdom, let those do it who can!

_________________
http://s203.photobucket.com/albums/aa16 ... reedom.flv

*NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL* http://www.youtube.com/defendercatholic *NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL*
http://catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.html
Ephesians 6:10-17
1 Timothy 3:15


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:58 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Alabama
I want to apologized for my last post being snotty. I should never write while irritated.

_________________
Sure, this is the heart of the great mystery: God became man, shouldering the weight of suffering so that on the final day none could say. "who are your to judge the world? What do you know of injustice? What do you know of torture, sickness, poverty? How dare you call yourself a righteous God! What do you know of death?" - Byzantium -


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:57 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
CommonMan wrote:
Quote:
Your appeal to Scripture is futile since Christ gave authority and truth to the Church, not the Scripture.


?


Why do we know that Scripture is inerrant and inspired? Is it because Scripture says it is? Of course not. We believe this because a higher authority, an infallible Church, has declared it so. Jesus never said that Scripture is inerrant or even authoritative. He placed all Truth in the Church, the Church then created, by the Inspiration of God, the Bible. Your appeal to Scripture is futile if you try to claim it as definitive OUTSIDE of a Church authority. I'm not disparaging Scripture, just placing it in its proper place to understand the Church's stance on women priests.

Quote:
Common Man and GoodSam, you're misunderstanding Rajah. Rajah was simply using Scripture to back up the Church's position against female priests/deacons, not appealing to Scripture alone. Is there something wrong with this


I agree with Rajah that Scripture can prove his/her case that women priests are NOT part of God's plan for His Church. Refer to the council of Nicea which defines Scripture with authority in declaring the women mentioned in Scripture as deaconesses to be nothing more than laity. A wife of a deacon may 'partake' in her husband's ministry but NEVER becomes the deacon/minister, but rather remains 'laity', just as Nicea says.

My point is merely that this is unnecessary when we have definitive pronouncements from the Church regarding its authority and Tradition. The Church is the interpretive authority given us by God. So if the Church pronounces it, even if it's not an infallibe pronouncement, (although John Paul just about took it that far), the issue is settled for the laity. We're on the same side here, just arguing from different sides of the same coin. :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:01 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:11 pm
Posts: 75
Women are PHYSICALLY unable by their sex to be "another Christ" A woman could NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER perform the unbloody sacrifice of calvary (the mass)

_________________
"It ain't braggin if you can back it up." - Ali


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:33 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:29 pm
Posts: 6815
Location: New Jersey
Religion: Catholic
All are unable to be another Christ, period.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:44 am 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 73635
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
Steve Green wrote:
Women are PHYSICALLY unable by their sex to be "another Christ" A woman could NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER perform the unbloody sacrifice of calvary (the mass)


:poop

I'm sure there is a much better reason for it than that.

Siggy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:23 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:55 am
Posts: 2527
Location: Hiding from the Empire
geeze I'm so sick of hearing this argument! "I wanna be a priest, but I can't because I'm a woman, waaaaa!" You know, I want to be Mary Queen of Scots, but it ain't going to happen. This has been explained over and over again and is an endless debate. Heres the point. Rome says no women priests, therefore there are no women priests. Rome says there can be no women priests, therefore there will be no women priests. Priestesses are a pegan invention. If you can't stand there being an only male priesthood, and think the church is wrong on the issue, there are a million other churches you can belong to. To be catholic is to be orthodox, period.

(I apologize for the hostility of this post, but I'm sick of people ranting and whining because the church hasn't had women priests for 1972 years. People need to deal with it or go somewhere else :x )

_________________
http://seminarianzach.blogspot.com/ <--- my new blog, check it out!

"Holy Priests make holy people, but a priest who is not holy is not only useless, but harmful to the world" - Pope St. Pius X

All opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Holy Catholic Church or the diocese of Columbus.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 4   [ 67 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: