Ordination of Women

[Ausinus]

Do you think the catholic church should ordain women as preists? Or perhaps, even a female pope? La Papesse?

Me: YES:D

[ajk]

No because again it goes back to the Bible. It was never intended to be this way. The apostles (or first priests technically) that surrounded Jesus at the Last Supper were all men. He could have had a woman too if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Therefore it was that way then, so should it remain now.

[Ausinus]

No because again it goes back to the Bible. It was never intended to be this way. The apostles (or first priests technically) that surrounded Jesus at the Last Supper were all men. He could have had a woman too if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Therefore it was that way then, so should it remain now.

Talk about obsolete values. Women are actually treated as people now ajk. What makes a man so much better to do the job than a woman?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Talk about obsolete values. Women are actually treated as people now ajk. What makes a man so much better to do the job than a woman?

Nothing. But traditions, espescially those upheld by a religion are extremely hard to change. There is no justifiable reason why it should not change, but if people believe that things ought to be different than their current faith, then they obviously do not belong to this faith and ought to find (or create) one that agrees with their own beliefs.

[ajk]

Talk about obsolete values. Women are actually treated as people now ajk. What makes a man so much better to do the job than a woman?

Hey I didn't make the laws, but we still have to abide by them.

[Ausinus]

Hey I didn't make the laws, but we still have to abide by them.

But is it law? Does the bible say "thou shalt not ordain women as preists" or "thou shalt not make woman a pope"? No, its called dogma, which was enforced by misogynistic men.X(

[ajk]

To that I say, if God wanted a woman priest, he would have had a woman disciple. As it is he did not.

[Ausinus]

To that I say, if God wanted a woman priest, he would have had a woman disciple. As it is he did not.

Thats like saying if a person didnt want blacks to be slaves he would have had a white one. It is no basis for planning.

Besides, I reckon a female pope would be a lot better than the neo nazi they got on the papal throne now.

[ajk]

Thats like saying if a person didnt want blacks to be slaves he would have had a white one. It is no basis for planning.



Isn't it though? The apostles were the first priests no? Therefore, those first priests set the tone for what priests are meant to be, including gender.

[Ausinus]

Isn't it though? The apostles were the first priests no? Therefore, those first priests give an idea of what priests are meant to be, including gender.

Umm no it isnt. Its like saying that because the first president of the united states had a set of lead teeth, every suceeding president should ALSO have a set of lead teeth. Or what if one of the apostles was a child molester?

[Ausinus]

Ajk, may I suggest you read a book called "The Second Sex" by Simone De Beauvior.

[General Septem]

Do you think the catholic church should ordain women as preists? Or perhaps, even a female pope? La Papesse?

Me: YES:D

Rather arrogant of you to think you can tell us how to run our religion when you don't even belong to our religion, and in fact think we're the bane of society.

But as long as you asked...

It has nothing to do with any kind of "superiority" men have over women, because that doesn't exist. It doesn't have anything to do with women not being capable of preaching, because they are, and they can.

No, there is one and only one reason women cannot be priests. The main function of a priest is the Sacrement of the Eucharist. In a Sacrement, an object symbolizes what it does and does what it symbolizes.

In baptism, water symbolizes the cleansing of the soul, and that's exactly what it does. The wine which becomes the Blood of Christ symbolizes and becomes the Blood of Christ, because like the Blood of Christ, wine is the "blood" of the crushed fruit, and it invigorates, inebriates, and reminds us of the tang of death. Water does not and cannot symbolize the Blood of Christ, so it cannot become the Blood of Christ. That doesn't make either one superior to the other.

And likewise, the priest symbolizes Christ as in the Last Supper, when He initiated the Eucharist. The priest symbolizes Christ because Christ is the bridegroom of the Church. A woman cannot symbolize and therefore cannot become the bridegroom of the Church; therefore there really is no reason for a woman to become a priest seeing as now the Eucharist is the main reason behind having priests.

Jesus had no qualms about doing a multitude of things that pissed others off for various reasons; if He wanted women ordained, He'd have said so.

[Ausinus]

If you wanna believe in transubstantiation, then thats ok. At least you do it with wafer's, the orthodox church actually dip bread bits in wine. I hear its disgusting. lol:D

Ok. Thanks for discussing:D

[Seth=L]

Or what if one of the apostles was a child molester?
Now that might make sense.:D

[Ausinus]

Now that might make sense.:D

HAHA it would make a LOT of sense lol:D

[MrBirdy]

No because again it goes back to the Bible. It was never intended to be this way. The apostles (or first priests technically) that surrounded Jesus at the Last Supper were all men. He could have had a woman too if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Therefore it was that way then, so should it remain now.

SEXIST!!
thats all you are...

[General Septem]

To that I say, if God wanted a woman priest, he would have had a woman disciple. As it is he did not.

Actually, Mary Magdalene could be said to have been an apostle of Jesus, even though she wasn't one of the Twelve. Not to mention His mother. Both played a great part in the foundation of the Catholic Church, but I doubt either one ever wanted to be a priest, let alone complained that they couldn't.

I'm not arguing with you about the priest thing, but Jesus had disciples besides the Twelve.

Simply put, though, the only reason behind it is because a woman can't symbolize the bridegroom of the Church.

[General Septem]

Or what if one of the apostles was a child molester?

Far as I know, this wasn't the case.

[Seth=L]

Far as I know, this wasn't the case.
I believe that was a random statement, that I molded into a truth of today.:D

[Seth=L]

SEXIST!!
thats all you are...
In some religions, women are considered to be evil. So what do they do in these religions, they allow one man to marry multiple women. That makes no sense at all.

[England Expects]

Just an interesting point, for all the bad press that Muslims get for their treatment of women, they have a book of the Qu'ran devoted to Miryam (Mary to you and me)

The gospel of Mary Magdalene was ommited, as well as other "gnostic" gospels by early catholic who decided which scripts were "suitable for inclusion"

[Ausinus]

Just an interesting point, for all the bad press that Muslims get for their treatment of women, they have a book of the Qu'ran devoted to Miryam (Mary to you and me)

The gospel of Mary Magdalene was ommited, as well as other "gnostic" gospels by early catholic who decided which scripts were "suitable for inclusion"

Did you know in one of the gnostic gospels it says (in greek),"The companion of the Lord is Mary Magdalene", and the word they use for companion is gamos whihc means wife as opposed to syndrophos which means friend or colleague?

[General Septem]

The gospel of Mary Magdalene was ommited, as well as other "gnostic" gospels by early catholic who decided which scripts were "suitable for inclusion"

More like which scripts didn't just appear out of nowhere and weren't written by disciples of Jesus at all, which is what they decided the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" was. There were also many Gospels that made Jesus out to be all God and no human at all, which is against what we believe, but it was found these Gospels were likewise written long after any of the disciples were still alive, and was a result of much debate over the first Christians as to whom Jesus really was.

[Ausinus]

Need I remind you that the Ecumenical Councils were held to determine the churches' stance on Christ's divinity. Look at the Arian and Monophysite heresies.

Additionally, how can you say any of the gnostic gospels are false when some could have been written by the apostles, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Paul.

[theicidal maniac]

so forget the gnostic gospels, what about the multitude of books from the Tanakh that got cut from the Bible. They were good enough for God for a while, but then It came up with something better? I thought god was 'posed to be steadfast...instead It almost seems to change with what humans have LEARNED about the world...as if the whole faith part of it were...dare I say, completely made up *gasp*

[General Septem]

Additionally, how can you say any of the gnostic gospels are false when some could have been written by the apostles, like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Paul.

They may have claimed to have been written by these apostles but for whatever reason were found not to have been. They were written by an early sect of Christianity that believed Jesus was 100% God but not human at all. This belief also included the belief that everything connected to the physical world is evil, and that no humans have souls except those within their faith, and the rest would just cease to be when they die. That's what the majority of these "Gospels" pertained to, hence why they were considered false Gospels.

[Ausinus]

They may have claimed to have been written by these apostles but for whatever reason were found not to have been. They were written by an early sect of Christianity that believed Jesus was 100% God but not human at all. This belief also included the belief that everything connected to the physical world is evil, and that no humans have souls except those within their faith, and the rest would just cease to be when they die. That's what the majority of these "Gospels" pertained to, hence why they were considered false Gospels.

That is no more valid an argument than to say that the canonical gospels were written by the apostles themselves. The reason they were omitted is because the early churches wanted to tailor the bible according to their views on the divinity on christ.

[General Septem]

That is no more valid an argument than to say that the canonical gospels were written by the apostles themselves. The reason they were omitted is because the early churches wanted to tailor the bible according to their views on the divinity on christ.

Wrong. The "gnostic gospels" were written by members of this particular sect of Christianity, rather than from the teachings of the Apostles like the canonical Gospels were. It has nothing to do with the fact that the non-canonical gospels didn't go in accordance with the Church's view on Christ, but that they were completely written by man and not God. Considering the Gospel is a written account of the life of Jesus, you can see why something written out of nowhere by people with their own ideas cannot be accepted.

[Ausinus]

Not all the non canonical gospels are gnostic mind you.

[General Septem]

Not all the non canonical gospels are gnostic mind you.

The same reasons apply to all of the non-canonical Gospels. Basically it's because do not accurately describe Jesus's ministry.

[Ausinus]

The gospel of peter does, it falls into the right time frame, but they canonized it because it supported the Diocetists veiws.