Duggar family values??

[DanieltheDragon]

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar ... 1738185507

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?

[Bust Nak]

Again, not sure what you consider practical reasons. The requirements of being a mother is being a mother.

That is a practical reason, isn't it?

Do you not see the difference between men being physically unable to be a mother, and women not being allowed to be a priest?

It is the difference between my old banger of a car physically unable to go over the speed limit, and not being allowed to go over the speed limit.

It is the difference between physically unable to afford to buy a toy, and not being allowed to buy it.

It is the difference between physically unable to enter into a locked building, and not being allowed to enter it.

It is the difference between physically unable to speak due to a disability, and not being allowed to speak.

One is a practical constrain, the other an artificial requirement.

You want to reduce her role to cook, chauffeur, babysitter, etc. and if you do that, then yes, anyone can be a mother – a man, a computer, etc. Like I said, you don’t get it.

So what is the role of a priest, other than to lead a congregation? What have I missed when I reduced a priest's role to compassion, public speaking, educated on matters of theology/history/Scripture, organized, inspiring, nurturing, loving and tolerance?

Again, thank you for your opinion. But would be like saying it bothers you that women are mothers because it is used as a justification for preventing men from being mothers.

No it wouldn't, since it is a biological fact that females are the child bearing members of our species. It is however, not a fact that male can't be homemakers: As such, it would be like saying it bothers me that women are mothers because it is used as a justification for preventing men from being the homemaker, and yes, such a justification would indeed bother me. Such a justification would indeed be sexist, just like the Church.

So, is motherhood sexism?

No, for the reason above. The same cannot be said for priesthood.

Ha, ha, ha . . . women have many leadership roles in the Church. Ever been a member of a Catholic parish?

Why yes I have, who do the leaders of the prayer groups and so on answer to? The priests. But that's besides the point, if female are banned from any role without practical justification, leadership or otherwise in Church, it would still be sexist.

What they can’t be is men. Nor should they want/need to be.

Who are you to say what other people should and shouldn't want? As for needing to be, that's exactly the point - women don't need to be a man to be a priest. Note the difference between a priest, and a brother or a father or an uncle. Unlike the others, priesthood is not gender specific.

Says you.

Says reality - Anglicans, amongst others denominations, have female priests. There is even debate amongst the Catholic clergy to allow for the ordination of women - that alone should have been enough to tell you that there are no practical limitation for female priests.

Who are you to tell the Church what her requirements for the priesthood should include?

A rational person with real life counter-examples, that's who.

I feel so oppressed. All my life I will only get to be a sister and an aunt – never a brother or uncle to anyone. The universe is so sexist!!!!!!

Buzz, you are once again conflating gender specific nouns with a non-gender specific role. You can be a sibling as a female just as you can be one as a male. You can be the sibling of a parent as a female just as you can be one as a male.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Do you not see the difference between men being physically unable to be a mother, and women not being allowed to be a priest?

One more time – the requirement for being a priest isn’t about the physical ability or skill set. It is about the nature of the role. The nature of the role of being an Uncle is to be male. The nature of being a father is to be male.

It is the difference between my old banger of a car physically unable to go over the speed limit, and not being allowed to go over the speed limit.

Yes, a woman does not meet the physical requirement of being a priest – she is not male.

It is the difference between physically unable to afford to buy a toy, and not being allowed to buy it.

No, it isn’t. You don’t understand the role of priest. You reduce it to a job/occupation. It is not.

It is the difference between physically unable to enter into a locked building, and not being allowed to enter it.

Yes, a woman cannot physically be a priest anymore than she could physically be an uncle, grandfather or brother. She doesn’t share the male nature. This isn’t a slight, but you see it that way.

It is the difference between physically unable to speak due to a disability, and not being allowed to speak.

Yes, a woman cannot share the male nature, though I certainly wouldn’t describe not being male as a disability – I suppose if your worldview does, then it is you who is guilty of sexism – thinking one sex is better/superior to the other. I don’t see it this way. No one is denying a woman to the priesthood anymore than a dog not being able to fly is denying the dog something over the bird. Both dogs and birds are awesome. One is not better than the other. They simply share different natures. That is life. Thank God.

One is a practical constrain, the other an artificial requirement.

Wrong. It is constrained only by the limitations of nature itself. We wouldn’t say a dog is constrained from being a bird, or if we do, we certainly wouldn’t conclude that is unjustified/horrific.

So what is the role of a priest, other than to lead a congregation? What have I missed when I reduced a priest's role to compassion, public speaking, educated on matters of theology/history/Scripture, organized, inspiring, nurturing, loving and tolerance?

What is the role of a mother? Why can’t a man be a mother? What have I missed?

it is a biological fact that females are the child bearing members of our species.

Yes, thank you for this acknowledgement.

It is however, not a fact that male can't be homemakers:

Agreed. A man can be a homemaker, but he can’t be a mother. Mothers are not just homemakers. Again, if you don’t get that there isn’t much I can say.

So, is motherhood sexism?

No, for the reason above. The same cannot be said for priesthood.

Only because you don’t understand the priesthood. Again, if you can understand motherhood you should be able to understand priesthood, but apparently you admit you cannot. This isn’t really my problem.

Note the difference between a priest, and a brother or a father or an uncle. Unlike the others, priesthood is not gender specific.

Yes it is. This is what I keep telling you, but you don’t like it. Again, not my problem,.

Says reality - Anglicans, amongst others denominations, have female priests. There is even debate amongst the Catholic clergy to allow for the ordination of women - that alone should have been enough to tell you that there are no practical limitation for female priests.

I’m only interested in what Christ’s appointed Church has to say. And debate all you like, she has not nor will not change on this matter because she can’t. The Church cannot declare a man a mother – that only females can be mothers is not something decided by a democratic vote.

Quote:
Who are you to tell the Church what her requirements for the priesthood should include?

A rational person with real life counter-examples, that's who.

Uuummm . . . not how these matters are decided. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ told the Church, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ Not “He who hears any rational person with real life experience, hears me . . . “

[tam]

[Replying to post 16 by tam]

if the RCC (or any other religion) is insisting that the kings and priests here must be male

The Church is insisting what Christ says she should.

Thank you for your opinion.

we who are in Christ are all to act as priests - in that we are to ask forgiveness and mercy even for our enemies.

We are all called to imitate Christ. This does not mean all are called to be ordained priests in His Church.

Peace.

[/quote]

I believe you sidestepped the point from my post countering the continued assertion that priests must be male:

The Bride is made of both male and female. The kings and priests who reign with Christ in His Kingdom are both male and female.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Bust Nak]

One more time – the requirement for being a priest isn’t about the physical ability or skill set.

You are making my point - it's an artificial requirement that can be dismissed at the drop of the hat, all it takes is the will to say, meh, lets not bother with this requirement anymore, exactly because there aren't any physical ability or skill considerations.

It is about the nature of the role. The nature of the role of being an Uncle is to be male. The nature of being a father is to be male...

Yes, a woman cannot physically be a priest anymore than she could physically be an uncle, grandfather or brother. She doesn’t share the male nature. This isn’t a slight, but you see it that way.

Now this should be interesting. Elaborate on this in detail, please. What is physical limitation that means female physically cannot be a priest?

Note how simple my answer is, when you turn it round on me:

What is the role of a mother? Why can’t a man be a mother? What have I missed?

A womb! A man cannot physically become pregnant, let along give birth.

I expect a similar answer for why can't a woman be a priest.

Agreed. A man can be a homemaker, but he can’t be a mother. Mothers are not just homemakers. Again, if you don’t get that there isn’t much I can say.

Start by explaining why. Insisting that a priest is like a father doesn't help anyone understand your stance, since fatherhood physically require the production of sperm. What is the equivalent of sperms, the equivalent of wombs, for priesthood?

Only because you don’t understand the priesthood. Again, if you can understand motherhood you should be able to understand priesthood, but apparently you admit you cannot. This isn’t really my problem.

Right back at you, if you understood why motherhood is limited to female you should be able to understand how the same is not applicable to priesthood.

I’m only interested in what Christ’s appointed Church has to say. And debate all you like, she has not nor will not change on this matter because she can’t. The Church cannot declare a man a mother – that only females can be mothers is not something decided by a democratic vote.

But she can declare a woman a priest. She merely lacks the will. The Church had never fielded the question of ordained women as if there is a physical limitation, as far as I know. It is something decided by a theocratic vote.

Uuummm . . . not how these matters are decided. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ told the Church, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “ Not “He who hears any rational person with real life experience, hears me . . . “

Okay, then lets go there:

Where has the Christ say woman can't be priest, or is it merely an understanding formulated by theologians?

When successive Popes declared that woman can't be priest, were they speaking Ex cathedra, infallible with the Holy Spirit speaking through them?

Or perhaps you are so sure of this because you are told by the Holy Spirit yourself?

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

The Church is insisting what Christ says she should.

Thank you for your opinion.

I wouldn’t really label my comment as opinion. If one is a Bible believing Christian he would have to acknowledge Christ gave authority to His Church.

I believe you sidestepped the point from my post countering the continued assertion that priests must be male:

The Bride is made of both male and female. The kings and priests who reign with Christ in His Kingdom are both male and female.

I did not side step. Many evangelicals and other Christian groups incorrectly understand how we are all the royal priesthood


Here is an explanation to help you see your error. For full explanation see https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

*****************************

Catholics also affirm that all believers are priests. The only difference is that they call this doctrine the "universal priesthood" instead of "the priesthood of all believers." Catholics quote exactly the same verses Protestants do to show that all believers are priests. The writings of the popes and the councils are very firm on saying that ordinary Christians share a common priesthood. We are all priests who can offer intercessions, praises, and spiritual sacrifices.

However, the very same verses which talk about the universal priesthood imply that there is a non-universal one. If you have a good Bible, those verses should have a footnote referencing you to Exodus 19:6. When we turn to that passage, we read that God tells the nation of Israel:

"And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

So it isn't just the Church which is a kingdom of priests. Israel was a kingdom of priests, too.


But that did not stop Israel from having a special, ministerial priesthood. In fact, if you keep reading in Exodus 19, when you get down to verse 21 & 22, you will find God telling Moses to warn the people and the priests not to come onto the holy mountain, lest the Lord break out against them. So even in the very same chapter God is calling the whole nation a kingdom of priests, there is still a separate, ministerial priesthood.

Incidentally, this priesthood was not the Levitical priesthood. That wasn't created until much later in Exodus. This one was not founded on the Law of Moses, but predated the Law, meaning no one can say it was only God's pattern to have special, ministerial priests under the Mosaic economy. God had priests long before the Mosaic law, as indicated not only by this priesthood in Exodus 19, but by Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, and by Abraham's contemporary, Melchizedek.

. . . .today we have Jesus as our high priest and we are all individual priests. This is quite true, and it is the same situation that existed in the Old Testament. There was a single high priest at the top, and there was the universal priesthood of all Old Testament believers at the bottom. But in addition to those two, there was also that middle, ministerial priesthood that was ordained and served Israel full-time.

Notice that the hearers of the gospel in this passage are not depicted as priests, but as the sacrifice to God. Paul draws a distinction between himself and his duty of preaching the gospel, and his readers and their duty of hearing it. It is the minister, not the congregation, who is here pictured as priest.

Scripture takes this distinction between clergy and laity very seriously. Both Old and New Testaments warn people against assuming an office to which they have not been ordained. For example, I direct your attention to Jude 11, a verse most people gloss over when they read the book. That verse discusses various wicked Church leaders and states,

"Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion."

All three examples cited in this verse—Cain, Balaam, and Korah—involve religious ministry

We must stay faithful to the word of God and keep to our position as universal priests, not assuming a priesthood to which we have not been ordained. Failure to do this puts us in danger of perishing in the same rebellion that Numbers and the book of Jude warn us against.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

*************************

So, as you can see the Catholic understanding is quite comprehensive. She's had alot more time (over 2000 years) then most other Christian denominations to know/study/learn Sacred Scripture and its meaning. She also has a little help from the Holy Spirit

Peace.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 24 by Bust Nak]

it's an artificial requirement that can be dismissed at the drop of the hat

I’m sure the Holy Catholic Church will take your opinion under advisement.

what is physical limitation that means female physically cannot be a priest?

The physical limitation is comparable to a bird being unable to be a fish because it does not share the nature required in being a fish.

Quote:
What is the role of a mother? Why can’t a man be a mother? What have I missed?

A womb! A man cannot physically become pregnant, let along give birth.

Who said anything about physically becoming pregnant and giving birth as defining motherhood? Physically giving birth is not the requirement of being a mother. Uummm . . . ask any adoptive mother – that isn’t the requirement of being a mother.

Quote:
Agreed. A man can be a homemaker, but he can’t be a mother. Mothers are not just homemakers. Again, if you don’t get that there isn’t much I can say.

Start by explaining why.

Babysitting children, cleaning a house, and cooking meals does not make you a mother. It’s weird to me for you not to get this.

Quote:
Only because you don’t understand the priesthood. Again, if you can understand motherhood you should be able to understand priesthood, but apparently you admit you cannot. This isn’t really my problem.

Right back at you, if you understood why motherhood is limited to female you should be able to understand how the same is not applicable to priesthood.

On the contrary, because I understand motherhood is limited to females, I understand why the priesthood is limited to males. We even call our priests father, because their role, like fatherhood is limited to males.

But she can declare a woman a priest. She merely lacks the will

Like I said, you don’t understand how the Church works.

.

The Church had never fielded the question of ordained women as if there is a physical limitation, as far as I know. It is something decided by a theocratic vote.

More like a Holy Spirit guided vote coming from God Himself, so yeah we can go with that.

Where has the Christ say woman can't be priest, or is it merely an understanding formulated by theologians?

It’s based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – exactly as it should be. This shows some Scriptural evidence and why the Catholic understanding of the male priesthood is not arbitrary but both beautiful and reasonable . . . . .

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html


Jesus did not ordain any women. He selected all of his apostles, and none were women.

Some say that he was bound by the cultural norms of his era to suppress the roles of women, but no one has been able to prove that this was his motive. Furthermore, this accuses Jesus of sexism and it paints an inaccurate portrait of Christ, who had no qualms about shattering the cultural norms regarding interaction with women (Matt. 9:20; Luke 7:37; John 4:27). The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him, since it was a common practice in religions of his time and culture, though not Judaism. (If Jesus had wanted women as priestesses, he would have had the ideal candidate in Mary. Here was a woman who could have spoken the words of consecration literally: "This is my body. This is my blood.")

There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ. They were also allowed to pray and prophecy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), but they were not to assume the function of teaching in the Christian assembly (1Cor. 14:34-38; 1 Tim. 2:1-14), which was restricted to the clergy.

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.

Since God is the one who has appointed the different roles within the Church, no one can claim a right to any position within the body of Christ. This is especially the case with sacraments. No one – male or female – has a "right" to be a priest. It is not like a governmental office that anyone can run for. It is a sacrament, and no one has a title to grace. It is an unmerited gift from Christ.

This may strike some as unfair, but realize that God has given women other gifts that he has not given to men. For example, women bring the body of Christ (souls) into the world one birth at a time. Men do not have this privilege. Priests bring the body of Christ (Eucharist) into the world one Mass at a time – a gift reserved to them, acting in the person of Christ.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

[Replying to tam]

The Church is insisting what Christ says she should.

Thank you for your opinion.

I wouldn’t really label my comment as opinion. If one is a Bible believing Christian he would have to acknowledge Christ gave authority to His Church.

He would not have to acknowledge that the Church (the Body and Bride of Christ) is the RCC.

Your words, 'the church is insisting what Christ says she should', could be spoken by anyone in any denomination who believes theirs is the Church. But it would not prove their point any more than it proves your point.

I believe you sidestepped the point from my post countering the continued assertion that priests must be male:

The Bride is made of both male and female. The kings and priests who reign with Christ in His Kingdom are both male and female.

I did not side step. Many evangelicals and other Christian groups incorrectly understand how we are all the royal priesthood


Here is an explanation to help you see your error. For full explanation see https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

From your link then:


**

Catholics also affirm that all believers are priests. The only difference is that they call this doctrine the "universal priesthood" instead of "the priesthood of all believers." Catholics quote exactly the same verses Protestants do to show that all believers are priests. The writings of the popes and the councils are very firm on saying that ordinary Christians share a common priesthood. We are all priests who can offer intercessions, praises, and spiritual sacrifices.

Well, there you go.

Seems to defeat your argument with Bust Nak that a woman cannot be a priest ("universal or clergy"), anymore than a fish can be a bird.

However,

And the author was doing so well, up until now (if one discounts the distinction without a difference re: "universal" and "all")

the very same verses which talk about the universal priesthood imply that there is a non-universal one. If you have a good Bible, those verses should have a footnote referencing you to Exodus 19:6. When we turn to that passage, we read that God tells the nation of Israel:

"And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."

So it isn't just the Church which is a kingdom of priests. Israel was a kingdom of priests, too.


But that did not stop Israel from having a special, ministerial priesthood. In fact, if you keep reading in Exodus 19, when you get down to verse 21 & 22, you will find God telling Moses to warn the people and the priests not to come onto the holy mountain, lest the Lord break out against them. So even in the very same chapter God is calling the whole nation a kingdom of priests, there is still a separate, ministerial priesthood.

And here is where the author misunderstands.

Israel was TO BE a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. She was to be the kingdom of priests that reign with the Messiah. Non-Israel people from the nations would then have been the SUBJECTS of that Kingdom.


One cannot, however, reign with Christ in His Kingdom if one rejects Him. Much of Israel rejected Him. So that the invitation which was offered first to Israel, but was rejected (in general), then opened up to the people of the nations as well. So the gentiles could be grafted IN to Israel, now made up of both literal Israel and spiritual Israel. All of these ones (providing they remain in Christ) will be kings and priests with Him in His Kingdom. Male AND female. Just as they - male and female - are the Bride.


**

Regardless, this article seems to be speaking about hierarchy... and not at all about gender. Except to agree that women can indeed be, and ARE, priests.

. . . .today we have Jesus as our high priest and we are all individual priests. This is quite true, and it is the same situation that existed in the Old Testament. There was a single high priest at the top, and there was the universal priesthood of all Old Testament believers at the bottom. But in addition to those two, there was also that middle, ministerial priesthood that was ordained and served Israel full-time.

There is the high priest: Christ.
There is the Body of Christ: Christians (who will be given authority, and who will reign with Christ as kings and priests in His Kingdom- both men and women)
There are the subjects of the Kingdom (people of the nations who were not Christian, but who are also invited into the Kingdom - both men and women; and the sheep and the goats parable demonstrates WHY they are invited into the Kingdom)

Scripture takes this distinction between clergy and laity very seriously. Both Old and New Testaments warn people against assuming an office to which they have not been ordained. For example, I direct your attention to Jude 11, a verse most people gloss over when they read the book. That verse discusses various wicked Church leaders and states,

"Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion."

All three examples cited in this verse—Cain, Balaam, and Korah—involve religious ministry

Jude is not speaking about clergy and laity; but rather about the 'godlessness' of these men.

Unless the author is trying to suggest that Cain was not permitted to offer a sacrifice or something, because he was not an appointed priest? That is completely false, so if that is the example the author is using, the author is does not know what she or he is talking about.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Bust Nak]

I’m sure the Holy Catholic Church will take your opinion under advisement.

There is no need, they already know what I am telling you. They realise it's an artificial restriction that has zero physical justification, as such they have always defended it using scriptures.

The physical limitation is comparable to a bird being unable to be a fish because it does not share the nature required in being a fish.

In other words, gill vs lungs, fins vs wings or scales vs feathers. Now lets see you list some of the features that differentiate priesthood from women.

Who said anything about physically becoming pregnant and giving birth as defining motherhood? Physically giving birth is not the requirement of being a mother. Uummm . . . ask any adoptive mother – that isn’t the requirement of being a mother.

So we are going back to gender specific nouns instead of physical features then? A woman cannot be a priest but can be a priestess? Was that what you were holding on to all this time?

Babysitting children, cleaning a house, and cooking meals does not make you a mother. It’s weird to me for you not to get this.

I mean start explaining what features women does not have that stops them from being priests, not explain why men can't be mothers.

On the contrary, because I understand motherhood is limited to females, I understand why the priesthood is limited to males.

But the only reasons why motherhood is limited to females are physical considerations re: giving birth, or linguistic re: gender-specific nouns. You banged on about birds and fishes, went as far as to say women does not meet the physical requirement of being a priest, but could never name me what physical features women are missing. And had your reservation been about language, then by all means, use the word priestess instead of priest when referring to ordained women, the complain had never been about word use.

We even call our priests father, because their role, like fatherhood is limited to males.

So start using the word priestess and call them mother because of their role? What's the problem here?

Like I said, you don’t understand how the Church works.

you say that, but of the 4 points I stated, which is incorrect? 1) Women are barred because of theological reasons - namely Jesus didn't pick female disciples, and Paul said women shouldn't teach in church. 2) This banning of female priests is not based on the words of Jesus, but understood from inference. 3) Inference by theologians are not infallible, nor are the proclamations of Popes infallible when they are not speaking from the chair of Peter. 4) Such matter are decided by the Church leadership, either the Pope himself, or by a vote from the College of Bishops.

More like a Holy Spirit guided vote coming from God Himself, so yeah we can go with that.

Right, you are making my point again - women can't be priests because of theology, as opposed to any physical limitation. The language in that piece you linked to proves my point - with words such as "allowed" and "admitted" are enough to show that it's a prescribed limitation, as opposed to a one of nature.

All your argument re: birds and fishes, mothers and uncles are red herrings that has nothing to do with why women are barred from priesthood - they are barred because God, via the Church, said so.

It’s based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – exactly as it should be. This shows some Scriptural evidence and why the Catholic understanding of the male priesthood is not arbitrary but both beautiful and reasonable . . . . .

That goes back to my original point - you are not defending the Church from the charges of sexism, you are defending sexism. You are not saying the Church is not sexist, you are saying it's okay to be sexist in this case - it is beautiful and reasonable.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html

Again, you are making my point - through out the article it repeatedly says that women can do just as well as any men, that physical limitations had never part of the equation. To bar women from the role is by definition, sexist. So either Jesus was himself sexist, or he was conforming to cultural norms, as the article points out - since men and woman are supposed to be equal in God's eyes, we can rule out sexism on Jesus's part. That leaves cultural norms, and that culture is long gone - sexism is no longer acceptable. So it's time for the Church to catch up, and not do things for the sake of tradition, scared or otherwise. It's either that or face a new schism.

[Justin108]

what is physical limitation that means female physically cannot be a priest?

The physical limitation is comparable to a bird being unable to be a fish because it does not share the nature required in being a fish.

Can you be specific? The reason a bird cannot be a fish is because it physically does not possess gills, fins, etc. It cannot perform the specific actions a fish can. It cannot breathe under water, swim as well, etc.

Now instead of the vague comparison that a woman priest is like a bird who is a fish, can you explain, specifically, why a woman cannot be a priest? Does one need a penis to perform the actions of a priest? Does one need an Adam's apple in order to perform the actions of a priest? Does one need an XY-chromosome? Is there perhaps something inherent in women that prohibits them from being priests? Do their wombs somehow get in the way?

What are they key tasks a priest must be able to perform and why is it absolutely necessary for a man to perform these key tasks?

On the contrary, because I understand motherhood is limited to females, I understand why the priesthood is limited to males. We even call our priests father, because their role, like fatherhood is limited to males.

The only reason mothers are female and fathers are male is as a result of our linguistic distinction between male and female. It's arbitrary. Just as distinguishing between "waiter" and "waitress" is arbitrary. They both perform the same roles. We only call them different things because our language tends to specify gender.

If your only argument for why women can't be priests is because priests are male by definition, then the question becomes why does the Church not allow priestesses? What can a priest do that a priestess cannot do? If you went to a restaurant and asked for a waiter, would you protest if a woman showed up instead just because, technically, shes a waitress? It's an arbitrary distinction. It's petty and pointless. Unless you can specifically tell me what a priest can do that a priestess cannot do.

The Church had never fielded the question of ordained women as if there is a physical limitation, as far as I know. It is something decided by a theocratic vote.

More like a Holy Spirit guided vote coming from God Himself, so yeah we can go with that.

How exactly did the Holy Spirit guide the vote? Did it whisper in everyone's ear what they should vote for? Did God somehow influence the will of the voters? Would that not entail a violation of free will? If God makes people decide things, does this not go directly against our having free will?

Also, if God guides votes, would one not expect unanimous decisions? If God guided a vote and the outcome was 70/30, did God somehow fail to convince the 30? Why are all votes guided by the Holy Spirit not 100/0?

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

If one is a Bible believing Christian he would have to acknowledge Christ gave authority to His Church.



He would not have to acknowledge that the Church (the Body and Bride of Christ) is the RCC.

Well, he would if he were true to history and the requirements that Scripture speaks about in recognizing Christ’s Church. But yes, I can understand how one could be misinformed or deceived into thinking otherwise.

Your words, 'the church is insisting what Christ says she should', could be spoken by anyone in any denomination who believes theirs is the Church. But it would not prove their point any more than it proves your point.

I could probably rule out the overwhelming majority of these other denominations you suggest by holding them up against how Scripture tells us to recognize the Church. Here’s a start – you can rule out any church that was not founded until after the death of Jesus Christ. If they were, buh buy.

Quote:
Catholics also affirm that all believers are priests. The only difference is that they call this doctrine the "universal priesthood" instead of "the priesthood of all believers." Catholics quote exactly the same verses Protestants do to show that all believers are priests. The writings of the popes and the councils are very firm on saying that ordinary Christians share a common priesthood. We are all priests who can offer intercessions, praises, and spiritual sacrifices.


Well, there you go.

Seems to defeat your argument with Bust Nak that a woman cannot be a priest ("universal or clergy"), anymore than a fish can be a bird.

I take it you didn’t read the whole thing. What you are referring to is the universal priesthood not the ministerial priesthood. Go back and re read. God intended a universal priesthood as well as a ministerial priest and He intended only males be ordained as priests to His ministerial priesthood. Scripture shows this.

And here is where the author misunderstands.

Israel was TO BE a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. She was to be the kingdom of priests that reign with the Messiah. Non-Israel people from the nations would then have been the SUBJECTS of that Kingdom.


One cannot, however, reign with Christ in His Kingdom if one rejects Him. Much of Israel rejected Him. So that the invitation which was offered first to Israel, but was rejected (in general), then opened up to the people of the nations as well. So the gentiles could be grafted IN to Israel, now made up of both literal Israel and spiritual Israel. All of these ones (providing they remain in Christ) will be kings and priests with Him in His Kingdom. Male AND female. Just as they - male and female - are the Bride.

No, I am afraid you misunderstand and the article I linked went on to explain why. Scripture made a distinction between the universal priesthood and the ministerial priesthood in the OT as well as the NT.


From https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html

When Paul wrote about there being neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28), he is discussing our justification through faith, not our roles in the Church. Even in 1 Corinthians 12, when Paul speaks about there being Jews, Greeks, slaves, and free being baptized into the one body of Christ, he mentions that within this one body, there are different parts:

"There are varieties of service, but the same Lord . . . All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body. . . . If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. . . . Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles . . . Are all apostles?" (1 Cor. 12:5-29).

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... iests.html


Beautiful, right? And a logical conclusion. Paul’s words beautifully touch on God’s vision for men and women. Catholic teaching honors Scripture, unlike many revisionist attempts.

Regardless, this article seems to be speaking about hierarchy... and not at all about gender. Except to agree that women can indeed be, and ARE, priests.

I’m afraid you need to re read the article if that is your take away. You are not following it.

There are the subjects of the Kingdom (people of the nations who were not Christian, but who are also invited into the Kingdom - both men and women; and the sheep and the goats parable demonstrates WHY they are invited into the Kingdom)

No, as the article already clarified that both men and women are saved does not mean both men and women can be ordained priests.

So, while Paul acknowledges the universality of God's plan for salvation, he's clear that there are different roles within the body of Christ. Men and woman are equal in the eyes of God, but this equality is not synonymous with sameness. They play different roles within the Church, as there are different instruments within an orchestra. Just as the instruments are arranged for a symphony, God has "arranged the organs of the body" (1 Cor. 12:18), and we are not to reconstruct the design that he has established.

Jude is not speaking about clergy and laity; but rather about the 'godlessness' of these men.

Jude was speaking about those attempting to suggest they had authority to speak when they had not been ordained to do so.

“Jude warns us about the dangers from false teachers worming their way into the community.� http://www.usccb.org/bible/jude/1

Unless the author is trying to suggest that Cain was not permitted to offer a sacrifice or something, because he was not an appointed priest? That is completely false, so if that is the example the author is using, the author is does not know what she or he is talking about.

Hebrews 11 shows why it is wrong to be jealous when God chooses some over others. Like the article accurately assessed this example involves religious ministry and what our response in obedience to God should be.


It seems your understanding is incomplete. You take the cultural world view and try to make Scripture fit. The Church however looks at what is written and what Christ did. If what Jesus did doesn’t fit today’s idea of “women’s rights� may I suggest today’s ideas may be getting it wrong – not Jesus. Many are use to hearing, “No fair!� “That’s sexist!� “That’s not equal!� “What about me?� from our culture so cannot see that what men see as fair is different then what God sees as fair. Being a ministerial priest is not a right – on this Scripture is clear. It isn’t Christ’s outlook that needs tweaked, rather usually the modern worlds.

Peace.