The Catholic Church insists that it cannot ordain women priests and any such attempt to do so is invalid.
The original reason was stated in Aquinas' Summa Theologica.
"Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she. would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions;
Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order . . . Summa Theologica Suppl. qu. 39 art. 1.
However, this argument isn’t taken seriously any longer. So the Church had to come up with a new reason not to ordain women.
The argument now used that Christ made apostles of men only, only a man can be ordained. But if we follow this logic, although Romans and Greek were in Israel in Christ's time, he only made Jews apostles. So, if the Church is to use parallel reasoning, only Jews can be ordained priests.
Why a woman cannot be ordained a priest.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
Right reason posted
[quote] I don’t pretend to be smarter than Our Lord. It is He who uses the pronouns He does.[/post]
RESPONSE: Actually, he might not have.
Keep in mind the Gospels were written about 40 to 65 years after Jesus’s death by non-witnesses to the events they described.
Many, including the fundamentalists, overlook that fact.
[quote] I don’t pretend to be smarter than Our Lord. It is He who uses the pronouns He does.[/post]
RESPONSE: Actually, he might not have.
Keep in mind the Gospels were written about 40 to 65 years after Jesus’s death by non-witnesses to the events they described.
Many, including the fundamentalists, overlook that fact.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #32
Peace to you,
Paul is the one who speaks the most about the Church being the Body of Christ, with Christ as the head. Not once does he ever mention Peter (or anyone else) as the head. Paul has many opportunities for this in his letters, but nothing. Not once does anyone else mention this either. Every mention of the Body (of Christ) mentions only Him as the Head.RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 29 by tam]
It isn’t an either or. It is an and. Christ AND he who He put in charge of His Church are both the head of the Church. The Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth.So are you saying that Christ - the Living Christ - is not the Head of the Church?
This is because Christ - and only Christ - is the Head of the Church.
In keeping with the analogy, a body has only one head.
Christ is that Head.
Anything else is something men have added.
That is a real catholic teaching?Are you suggesting that the priests are not part of the bride?
The priests are acting in persona christe therefore they, like Christ, are the bridegroom to the Church.
That is a false teaching. There is only one bridegroom. No one else is ever suggested to be a bridegroom to the Church. The wedding is called the wedding of the LAMB (Rev 19:9)- Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church is His Bride.
Simple.
"I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him." 2Corinthians 11:2
See also Ephesians 5:23-31; Revelation 16:6-9
Having union with someone or something other than Christ, all the while promising oneself TO Christ... this is adultery. That is why Babylon The Great is called an adulteress. She is a great city (made of people) that believes herself to be enthroned as a Queen - because she believes herself to be married to the King (Christ) who will never die (hence, she claims she will never be a widow). But she is not faithful to Him. See Rev 18:7
Agreed. And she does have a bridegroom: Christ Himself. The one John the Baptist pointed out as being the Bridegroom. The Lamb whose wedding it is. The Husband and head of the Church.The Church is the bride. Therefore the Church does not need a bride, she needs a groom.I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?
If the RCC priesthood (including the Pope) is not part of the Bride, then it is not part of the Church, and therefore not part of the Body of Christ.
Just as the Church (the Bride) needs Christ, and just as Christ is the Head of His Church (His Bride).I just re explained. And the relationship fails because a bride would not have another bride. A bride needs a groom and a groom needs a bride.I am simply asking you to explain your statement here:
Priests are acting in the place of Christ as being head of the Church. Therefore, a bride does not need another bride. In fact, the relationship fails... RR
I already said no one was arguing against pronouns or even that God is the Father, and Christ is the Son. So that is a strawman. Christ is also, however, referred to as 'she' as Wisdom.You are still ignoring it. No one is suggesting that God not be referred to as a 'he' or as 'Father'; or that Christ not be referred to as the Son. But you are ignoring the fact that Christ is also referred to in the feminine when He is Wisdom. You are also ignoring the fact that men are part of the Bride, and women are part of the kings and priests.
Gender does not matter among the Bride; gender does not matter among the kings and priests - they are all both male and female.
I don’t pretend to be smarter than Our Lord. It is He who uses the pronouns He does.
What you continue to ignore though is that the Bride is also made of men; and the kings and priests are also made of women.
Gender does not matter.
The imagery and symbolism of marriage is applied to Christ and His Church. Christ, the Bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be His bride (Ephesians 5:25–27).
Yes, the Church that is the Body of Christ - made of many members; made of people - all of whom have ONE Bridegroom: Christ Himself.
The Church that is the Body of Christ (made of people), yes. Not the institution that calls itself the RCC (or any other religion for that matter).It is also a good reminder, especially for those “anti-church�ers to say it is impossible for us to love Christ and not love his bride, the Church. It's a package deal.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #33
[Replying to tam]
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church�
“He who hears you, hears me�
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�
“Whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.�
Thank you for acknowledging this. First, I am grateful that you acknowledge a bride needs a bridegroom and the relationship would fail to give the bride another bride. I applaud you being able to say this – unfortunately many today cannot. Second, like I said, the priests are acting in persona christe -- which is why (justified in your acknowledgment that the relationship must be between a bride (female) and a bridegroom (male) it makes sense that those given authority and put in charge (IOW, to be the head) would need to be male in nature.Quote:
Quote:
I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?
The Church is the bride. Therefore the Church does not need a bride, she needs a groom.
Agreed. And she does have a bridegroom: Christ Himself. The one John the Baptist pointed out as being the Bridegroom. The Lamb whose wedding it is. The Husband and head of the Church.
Yes, again thank you for acknowledging the relationship. Now it appears only where we differ is if Christ established others to head His Church in His absence. And well, Scripture is clear on this.I just re explained. And the relationship fails because a bride would not have another bride. A bride needs a groom and a groom needs a bride.
Just as the Church (the Bride) needs Christ, and just as Christ is the Head of His Church (His Bride).
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church�
“He who hears you, hears me�
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�
“Whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.�
Gender does not matter in the least regarding our salvation. God created them male and female. But clearly, Scripture tells us there is a distinction. God created them male AND female. For whatever reason God felt it important to establish Himself and Christ as HE (male/father) and His Church as she (female/mother). Who am I to not accept this?Gender does not matter.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #34
Peace to you,
I think many people acknowledge that the Bride (the Church - made of people) needs the Bridegroom (Christ).
However, it is unfortunate that so many people have been taught that the actual Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them. It is also sad that so many people believe that the Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them.
Second - I did not state that the bride is female. I stated what is true: that the Bride (the Church) is made of both male and female members. You must acknowledge that truth - unless you are suggesting that the only people who make up the Bride (the Church) are women. No men.
I have also stated that the kings and priests (who reign with Christ) are male and female.
Christ is the Bridegoom. The ONLY Bridegroom. The Church (made of people - both male and female) is the Bride.
viewtopic.php?p=876330#876330
That being said - your words take us all the way back to our first exchange on this thread. Christ is NOT absent. He is not dead; He is alive. He is with us, just as He promised,
"If anyone loves me, they will obey my commands. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with(in) them."
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
RightReason wrote: [Replying to tam]
Thank you for acknowledging this. First, I am grateful that you acknowledge a bride needs a bridegroom and the relationship would fail to give the bride another bride. I applaud you being able to say this – unfortunately many today cannot.Quote:
Quote:
I do not understand what you are suggesting. Who is the bride that does not need the bride?
The Church is the bride. Therefore the Church does not need a bride, she needs a groom.
Agreed. And she does have a bridegroom: Christ Himself. The one John the Baptist pointed out as being the Bridegroom. The Lamb whose wedding it is. The Husband and head of the Church.
I think many people acknowledge that the Bride (the Church - made of people) needs the Bridegroom (Christ).
However, it is unfortunate that so many people have been taught that the actual Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them. It is also sad that so many people believe that the Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them.
First - you have ignored everything I wrote to repeat this claim.Second, like I said, the priests are acting in persona christe -- which is why (justified in your acknowledgment that the relationship must be between a bride (female) and a bridegroom (male) it makes sense that those given authority and put in charge (IOW, to be the head) would need to be male in nature.
Second - I did not state that the bride is female. I stated what is true: that the Bride (the Church) is made of both male and female members. You must acknowledge that truth - unless you are suggesting that the only people who make up the Bride (the Church) are women. No men.
I have also stated that the kings and priests (who reign with Christ) are male and female.
Christ is the Bridegoom. The ONLY Bridegroom. The Church (made of people - both male and female) is the Bride.
See above.Yes, again thank you for acknowledging the relationship. Now it appears only where we differ is if Christ established others to head His Church in His absence.I just re explained. And the relationship fails because a bride would not have another bride. A bride needs a groom and a groom needs a bride.
Just as the Church (the Bride) needs Christ, and just as Christ is the Head of His Church (His Bride).
See the link posted in my previous post. Here, I'll just repost it:And well, Scripture is clear on this.
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church�
viewtopic.php?p=876330#876330
Said to the apostles and the disciples. Not just Peter.“He who hears you, hears me�
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�
“Whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.�
That being said - your words take us all the way back to our first exchange on this thread. Christ is NOT absent. He is not dead; He is alive. He is with us, just as He promised,
"If anyone loves me, they will obey my commands. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with(in) them."
Not sure how many times you want me to repeat that this is not about Christ being the Son or God being the Father, or the use of pronouns. Not sure how many times you are going to ignore the significance of Christ also being referred to as 'she' as Wisdom. Or how many times you are going to ignore that the Bride is made of both male and female members (so the gender does not matter to be a bride) or that the kings and priests are made of both male and female members (so that again gender does not matter to be a king or a priest).Gender does not matter in the least regarding our salvation. God created them male and female. But clearly, Scripture tells us there is a distinction. God created them male AND female. For whatever reason God felt it important to establish Himself and Christ as HE (male/father) and His Church as she (female/mother). Who am I to not accept this?Gender does not matter.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #35
[Replying to tam]
I was thanking you for acknowledging a bride (feminine nature) can only be married to a groom (male nature). You would be surprised how many people do not acknowledge that relationship. At least that is what I thought I was thanking you for.
Isn’t it. And that some have been taught that Christ’s words mean nothing. If He leaves someone else in charge and tells us to listen to that someone, many unfortunately disregard Christ’s words, even under the irony of claiming, “I will only listen to Christ� when listening to he who Christ passed authority to IS listening to Christ. What it actually comes down to is not trusting Our Lord and using the, “I shall only listen to Christ� as some kind of excuse or rational to not have to listen to His Church.
You must acknowledge that Christ referred to His Church as a bride (feminine). And the Church is referred to as mother church. Christ, just like priests are referred to as father, denoting the bride/bridegroom relationship.
You are referring to the universal priesthood that all human beings are called to. However, Scripture is more than clear that Christ also intended a magisterial priesthood, whom He gave authority. It is this magisterial priesthood who acts in persona christe as the bridegroom to the bride (the Church).
Even though in the Old Testament all the Israelites were considered priests, there existed a specific ministerial priesthood. For example, just a few verses after the Israelites are called a “kingdom of priests,� one discovers a distinct order of men who are considered priests apart from the people.
Clearly, the Israel of God in the Old Covenant had two priesthoods: the universal and the ministerial.
We can demonstrate that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood in the New Testament by showing how Christ gives the apostles priestly duties.
In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins:
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.� And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.�
Notice that Jesus sets it up so that the forgiveness of sins is received through the ministry of the apostles. From the words of Christ it is clear that the apostle has the authority to make a judgment whether to forgive or not to forgive.
These passages show that God’s ordinary way of dealing with man’s sin is through God’s priests. Notice that it was not a part of God’s will for his people simply to confess their sins privately to him; their confession of sin involved the ministry of the priests.
A second priestly duty that Jesus gives the apostles is to offer sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice that Jesus offered at the Last Supper. After Jesus pronounces the words of consecration over the bread, St. Luke records Jesus saying, “Do this in remembrance of me� (22:19). Knowing that sacrifice within the Old Testament is always associated with priests . . we will be able to conclude that Jesus is establishing them as priests.
The sacrificial characteristic of the Last Supper is supported by the Greek word used for the command “do.� According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this� in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do� is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense.
To add to the evidence, one can turn to Matthew 12:1-8, which recounts the story of the apostles picking the heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees object to this action of Jesus and the apostles because they view it as breaking the Sabbath rest. St. Matthew records the Pharisees’ objection in 12:2: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.�
Jesus defends his apostles by calling to mind an event that involves David and his men eating the showbread or bread of presence within the Holy Place: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?� (Matt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21).
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that eating the bread was the duty solely of the priests.
Similarly, in Matthew 12:5, Jesus refers to the priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath by performing their work of offering sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus says, “Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?� This Sabbath offering that Jesus refers to is found in Numbers 28:9-10.
Why would Jesus, in defense of his apostles breaking the Sabbath rest, use two examples of the Old Testament priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath rest if he did not intend to reveal that his apostles are the New Testament priests?
We’ve established the reasonableness of the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the common priesthood. We’ve also established the evidence that Jesus constitutes his apostles as priests by the priestly duties he gives them and by ascribing the priestly prerogative to break the Sabbath rest without incurring the guilt of sin.
But the question now is, “Does this biblical blueprint reveal the apostles recognizing their priestly character and exercising a hierarchical priestly ministry in the early Church?� As we’re going to see, the answer is yes.
In Acts 1 the apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas—that is, who would take on his apostolic duties. This practice of casting lots calls to mind the method that David used to decide who and at what time each of the descendants of Aaron would minister in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Another scriptural passage that witnesses to this priestly act is Luke 1:8-9, which records of Zechariah: “Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.� Notice the connection between the casting of lots and Zechariah’s priestly duties.
It is in light of this Old Testament tradition that the apostles cast lots to determine who would succeed Judas, indicating that the apostles saw their apostolic office as the new priesthood of the New Israel of God.
Another scriptural passage that demonstrates the apostles recognizing their priestly rank is Romans 15:15-16: “Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.�
Notice the language Paul uses in reference to his ministry. He calls it his “priestly service.� The Greek word that Paul uses for “priestly service� is hierourgounta, which is the verb form of the Greek word hiereus. In the Bible, hiereus is commonly used in reference to the Jewish priests of the Old Covenant. For example, Exodus 28:1, 4, and 41 speak of the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests. The word for priests in the Greek Septuagint is hiereus. Therefore, if Paul sees his apostolic work through the lens of the priestly work of the Old Testament, then he must recognize his apostolic office as a priestly office.
The second clue to draw out of this passage is the Greek word that Paul uses when he describes himself as “a minister of Christ�: leitourgos, which means “public servant� and is used in the Jewish tradition to describe the work of the priesthood.
For example, the word is used in Exodus 28:35 to speak of the ministry that Aaron performs within the sanctuary. The letter to the Hebrews uses this very Greek word to describe how Jesus “ministers� in the heavenly sanctuary: “We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven . . . a minister [Greek, leitourgos] in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord� (Heb. 8:1-2).
Paul sees Jesus as the true high priest fulfilling the priestly ministry of old. By referring to himself as leitourgos, Paul sees himself as participating in the one high priesthood of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul recognizes himself as a New Testament priest.
According to the biblical blueprint, we have seen a plan set down by the Divine Architect for the building of a new covenant ministerial priesthood. He establishes the Church as the New Israel paralleling the priestly ranks of old. He invests his apostles with certain duties that, when compared with the Old Testament, prove to be priestly. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he leads them to recognize and exercise their priestly prerogatives. Such prerogatives are even transferred to other men outside the college of the twelve apostles, but the evidence for such an affirmation must wait for another article.
In light of this divine plan, we can conclude that Christ willed for his Church to have a ministerial-hierarchical priesthood that is distinct from the common-universal priesthood. Therefore, when one compares Christ’s blueprint for his Church with the priestly ranks in the Catholic Church, one finds a perfect match.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... priesthood
I am not ignoring that at all. There was nothing to say about it because it is right in line with all that I am saying, especially regarding God’s use of different pronouns (he/she) to bring forth His plan. Words have meaning.
Wisdom personified as feminine is a beautiful foreshadowing of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s spousal unity as bride of the Holy Spirit in the Immaculate Conception and why she is referred to as ‘Seat of Wisdom’. Woman was a gift to man. She was to be his helpmate. She was the mother of all. When paradise was lost thru the sin of Adam & Eve, Mary was to be the new Eve. She is co-redemtrix. Not exactly a slight to woman! We all have our roles. Mary’s role as woman and female and mother is paired with the male-only priesthood to repair the Sin of Adam & Eve. It’s all in God’s plan.
Again, you misunderstand the distinction between the universal priesthood and the magisterial. Christ would not refer to Himself as a bridegroom and the Church as a bride if the Church was a groom. The relationship doesn’t work.
I think many people acknowledge that the Bride (the Church - made of people) needs the Bridegroom (Christ).
I was thanking you for acknowledging a bride (feminine nature) can only be married to a groom (male nature). You would be surprised how many people do not acknowledge that relationship. At least that is what I thought I was thanking you for.
However, it is unfortunate that so many people have been taught that the actual Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them.
Isn’t it. And that some have been taught that Christ’s words mean nothing. If He leaves someone else in charge and tells us to listen to that someone, many unfortunately disregard Christ’s words, even under the irony of claiming, “I will only listen to Christ� when listening to he who Christ passed authority to IS listening to Christ. What it actually comes down to is not trusting Our Lord and using the, “I shall only listen to Christ� as some kind of excuse or rational to not have to listen to His Church.
I stated what is true: that the Bride (the Church) is made of both male and female members. You must acknowledge that truth - unless you are suggesting that the only people who make up the Bride (the Church) are women. No men.
You must acknowledge that Christ referred to His Church as a bride (feminine). And the Church is referred to as mother church. Christ, just like priests are referred to as father, denoting the bride/bridegroom relationship.
I have also stated that the kings and priests (who reign with Christ) are male and female.
You are referring to the universal priesthood that all human beings are called to. However, Scripture is more than clear that Christ also intended a magisterial priesthood, whom He gave authority. It is this magisterial priesthood who acts in persona christe as the bridegroom to the bride (the Church).
Even though in the Old Testament all the Israelites were considered priests, there existed a specific ministerial priesthood. For example, just a few verses after the Israelites are called a “kingdom of priests,� one discovers a distinct order of men who are considered priests apart from the people.
Clearly, the Israel of God in the Old Covenant had two priesthoods: the universal and the ministerial.
We can demonstrate that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood in the New Testament by showing how Christ gives the apostles priestly duties.
In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins:
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.� And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.�
Notice that Jesus sets it up so that the forgiveness of sins is received through the ministry of the apostles. From the words of Christ it is clear that the apostle has the authority to make a judgment whether to forgive or not to forgive.
These passages show that God’s ordinary way of dealing with man’s sin is through God’s priests. Notice that it was not a part of God’s will for his people simply to confess their sins privately to him; their confession of sin involved the ministry of the priests.
A second priestly duty that Jesus gives the apostles is to offer sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice that Jesus offered at the Last Supper. After Jesus pronounces the words of consecration over the bread, St. Luke records Jesus saying, “Do this in remembrance of me� (22:19). Knowing that sacrifice within the Old Testament is always associated with priests . . we will be able to conclude that Jesus is establishing them as priests.
The sacrificial characteristic of the Last Supper is supported by the Greek word used for the command “do.� According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this� in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do� is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense.
To add to the evidence, one can turn to Matthew 12:1-8, which recounts the story of the apostles picking the heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. The Pharisees object to this action of Jesus and the apostles because they view it as breaking the Sabbath rest. St. Matthew records the Pharisees’ objection in 12:2: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.�
Jesus defends his apostles by calling to mind an event that involves David and his men eating the showbread or bread of presence within the Holy Place: “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?� (Matt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21).
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that eating the bread was the duty solely of the priests.
Similarly, in Matthew 12:5, Jesus refers to the priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath by performing their work of offering sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus says, “Have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?� This Sabbath offering that Jesus refers to is found in Numbers 28:9-10.
Why would Jesus, in defense of his apostles breaking the Sabbath rest, use two examples of the Old Testament priestly prerogative of breaking the Sabbath rest if he did not intend to reveal that his apostles are the New Testament priests?
We’ve established the reasonableness of the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the common priesthood. We’ve also established the evidence that Jesus constitutes his apostles as priests by the priestly duties he gives them and by ascribing the priestly prerogative to break the Sabbath rest without incurring the guilt of sin.
But the question now is, “Does this biblical blueprint reveal the apostles recognizing their priestly character and exercising a hierarchical priestly ministry in the early Church?� As we’re going to see, the answer is yes.
In Acts 1 the apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas—that is, who would take on his apostolic duties. This practice of casting lots calls to mind the method that David used to decide who and at what time each of the descendants of Aaron would minister in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Another scriptural passage that witnesses to this priestly act is Luke 1:8-9, which records of Zechariah: “Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.� Notice the connection between the casting of lots and Zechariah’s priestly duties.
It is in light of this Old Testament tradition that the apostles cast lots to determine who would succeed Judas, indicating that the apostles saw their apostolic office as the new priesthood of the New Israel of God.
Another scriptural passage that demonstrates the apostles recognizing their priestly rank is Romans 15:15-16: “Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.�
Notice the language Paul uses in reference to his ministry. He calls it his “priestly service.� The Greek word that Paul uses for “priestly service� is hierourgounta, which is the verb form of the Greek word hiereus. In the Bible, hiereus is commonly used in reference to the Jewish priests of the Old Covenant. For example, Exodus 28:1, 4, and 41 speak of the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests. The word for priests in the Greek Septuagint is hiereus. Therefore, if Paul sees his apostolic work through the lens of the priestly work of the Old Testament, then he must recognize his apostolic office as a priestly office.
The second clue to draw out of this passage is the Greek word that Paul uses when he describes himself as “a minister of Christ�: leitourgos, which means “public servant� and is used in the Jewish tradition to describe the work of the priesthood.
For example, the word is used in Exodus 28:35 to speak of the ministry that Aaron performs within the sanctuary. The letter to the Hebrews uses this very Greek word to describe how Jesus “ministers� in the heavenly sanctuary: “We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven . . . a minister [Greek, leitourgos] in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord� (Heb. 8:1-2).
Paul sees Jesus as the true high priest fulfilling the priestly ministry of old. By referring to himself as leitourgos, Paul sees himself as participating in the one high priesthood of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul recognizes himself as a New Testament priest.
According to the biblical blueprint, we have seen a plan set down by the Divine Architect for the building of a new covenant ministerial priesthood. He establishes the Church as the New Israel paralleling the priestly ranks of old. He invests his apostles with certain duties that, when compared with the Old Testament, prove to be priestly. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he leads them to recognize and exercise their priestly prerogatives. Such prerogatives are even transferred to other men outside the college of the twelve apostles, but the evidence for such an affirmation must wait for another article.
In light of this divine plan, we can conclude that Christ willed for his Church to have a ministerial-hierarchical priesthood that is distinct from the common-universal priesthood. Therefore, when one compares Christ’s blueprint for his Church with the priestly ranks in the Catholic Church, one finds a perfect match.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... priesthood
No argument there. See above explanation of magisterial priesthood. Not all members of the Church (who make up the universal priesthood) had the authority Christ gave to the Apostles. Not all members of the Church were told “whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� – All though many have done just that making themselves their own authority and forming their own churches.Quote:
“He who hears you, hears me�
“Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven�
“Whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.�
Said to the apostles and the disciples. Not just Peter.
Not sure how many times you are going to ignore the significance of Christ also being referred to as 'she' as Wisdom.
I am not ignoring that at all. There was nothing to say about it because it is right in line with all that I am saying, especially regarding God’s use of different pronouns (he/she) to bring forth His plan. Words have meaning.
Wisdom personified as feminine is a beautiful foreshadowing of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s spousal unity as bride of the Holy Spirit in the Immaculate Conception and why she is referred to as ‘Seat of Wisdom’. Woman was a gift to man. She was to be his helpmate. She was the mother of all. When paradise was lost thru the sin of Adam & Eve, Mary was to be the new Eve. She is co-redemtrix. Not exactly a slight to woman! We all have our roles. Mary’s role as woman and female and mother is paired with the male-only priesthood to repair the Sin of Adam & Eve. It’s all in God’s plan.
Or how many times you are going to ignore that the Bride is made of both male and female members (so the gender does not matter to be a bride)
Again, you misunderstand the distinction between the universal priesthood and the magisterial. Christ would not refer to Himself as a bridegroom and the Church as a bride if the Church was a groom. The relationship doesn’t work.
Post #36
Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica gave a simple answer. Women could not be ordained because of their inferior status. They had to live in subjection to men.
Besides we had always done it that way.
But more recently it became unpopular to claim that women were inferior to men any more, the Catholic church changed this traditional teaching, and a priest had to be male because Christ was male. A priest was a "persona Christ."
However, St Paul disagreed. He wrote in Galatians 3:28 that
"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Besides we had always done it that way.
But more recently it became unpopular to claim that women were inferior to men any more, the Catholic church changed this traditional teaching, and a priest had to be male because Christ was male. A priest was a "persona Christ."
However, St Paul disagreed. He wrote in Galatians 3:28 that
"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #37
Peace again to you,
1 - You are saying that Christ told us (the bride) to listen to His church. For the past year, you have been saying this to me. Since you acknowledge that the bride is the Church, in effect, you are saying that the bride must listen to the bride.
AT THE SAME TIME:
2 - You are also saying that the priests in the RCC are acting as bridegrooms. They are not the bride (the church), they are bridegrooms; and the church must listen to them (the bridegrooms).
You cannot have it both ways. Something must be wrong. Indeed, there is more than one thing wrong in your claims.
A - Christ never told His Bride (His church) to listen to His church (ourselves). He said that we are to listen to Him.
B - there is no priesthood of bridegrooms that is separate from the bride, the church.
Take away those two untruth - and we are left with the actual truth:
The Church (the people made of men and women) is the Bride.
Christ is Himself the Bridegroom.
The Church (the Bride) listens to Christ (the Bridegroom).
There is nothing and no one else in between.
**
Of course the more a religion adds mountains and mountains of information, the more the truth gets buried under that pile (the whole 'if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull'). It is designed that way for just that reason.
The POINT of course was that kings and priests (normally designations just for males) are made of male and FEMALE members. Obviously the gender of the person does not matter - not to be a king or priest; not to be a member of the Bride.
I am not going to debate your entire copy-paste article; especially since I have argued those issues with you before. None of the 'points' in your article denote a separate priesthood. It is very similar to your 'Peter' article; the points don't mean what the author suggests and do not even refer to a separate priesthood to begin with. If you wish to discuss any certain point, then perhaps you will consider creating a new thread. Or at least highlighting the specific point you wish to discuss.
For example:
Not just a certain few who are being called the 'magesterial priesthood'.
So how does that point from the article denote a separate priesthood?
Not only that, but Christ told the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations - teaching them (the new disciples) to obey everything that He had commanded them (the apostles).
Not to obey 'some' of the things that He had commanded the apostles. But to obey ALL of the things that He had commanded the apostles. Then these would do the same with the newer disciples coming in after them, and so on and so on.
There is no room for a separate 'class' of Christian, as the RCC seems to teach, as the WTS teaches also, for that matter.
False.
Wisdom personified is Christ.
Not Mary.
Read proverbs 8. This is all Christ. The whole thing. The simple statement at the end should make it clear:
Those who find me find life.
Of course. Because Christ IS the Life. Find Christ, find Life.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
"I am the Resurrection and the Life."
How is it that you do not see what you are saying?
You are correct that Christ would not refer to Himself as a bridegroom and the Church as a bride if the Church was a groom. But the Church is not a groom!
Christ is the Bridegroom. The Church is the Bride.
There is no one else in between. There are no other bridegrooms forming some separate priesthood.
There is the Bridegroom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church).
And again, you have defeated your OWN argument with me over the past year - your argument that Christ said to listen to His church.
You are now stating the exact opposite.
May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear and eyes to see, so as to know the truth of this matter from the One who IS the Truth (and the Life and the Way): Christ Jaheshua. May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say,
"Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"
Peace again to you and to your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
I wonder if you notice the contradiction that you have set forth?However, it is unfortunate that so many people have been taught that the actual Bridegroom (Christ) is not enough for them.
Isn’t it. And that some have been taught that Christ’s words mean nothing. If He leaves someone else in charge and tells us to listen to that someone, many unfortunately disregard Christ’s words, even under the irony of claiming, “I will only listen to Christ� when listening to he who Christ passed authority to IS listening to Christ. What it actually comes down to is not trusting Our Lord and using the, “I shall only listen to Christ� as some kind of excuse or rational to not have to listen to His Church.
1 - You are saying that Christ told us (the bride) to listen to His church. For the past year, you have been saying this to me. Since you acknowledge that the bride is the Church, in effect, you are saying that the bride must listen to the bride.
AT THE SAME TIME:
2 - You are also saying that the priests in the RCC are acting as bridegrooms. They are not the bride (the church), they are bridegrooms; and the church must listen to them (the bridegrooms).
You cannot have it both ways. Something must be wrong. Indeed, there is more than one thing wrong in your claims.
A - Christ never told His Bride (His church) to listen to His church (ourselves). He said that we are to listen to Him.
B - there is no priesthood of bridegrooms that is separate from the bride, the church.
Take away those two untruth - and we are left with the actual truth:
The Church (the people made of men and women) is the Bride.
Christ is Himself the Bridegroom.
The Church (the Bride) listens to Christ (the Bridegroom).
There is nothing and no one else in between.
**
Of course the more a religion adds mountains and mountains of information, the more the truth gets buried under that pile (the whole 'if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull'). It is designed that way for just that reason.
So are you refusing to acknowledge the truth that the Bride is made of both male and female members?I stated what is true: that the Bride (the Church) is made of both male and female members. You must acknowledge that truth - unless you are suggesting that the only people who make up the Bride (the Church) are women. No men.
You must acknowledge that Christ referred to His Church as a bride (feminine).
I certainly do not need to acknowledge such a thing. Your religion teaches this; but Christ said to His apostles that they were to call no man Father, because ONE is their Father (in heaven). He certainly was not telling the apostles (who are part of His Church, His Bride) that they were bridegrooms. And NONE OF THEM ever suggest that in the entire NT. So this claim is just one more falsehood. A falsehood that could be revealed and discarded if one were to simply listen to Christ, Himself.And the Church is referred to as mother church. Christ, just like priests are referred to as father, denoting the bride/bridegroom relationship.
No, I am referring to the Body of Christ, the Church, the Bride - and what they will be at the resurrection. They will reign as kings and priests with Christ in His Kingdom.I have also stated that the kings and priests (who reign with Christ) are male and female.
You are referring to the universal priesthood that all human beings are called to.
The POINT of course was that kings and priests (normally designations just for males) are made of male and FEMALE members. Obviously the gender of the person does not matter - not to be a king or priest; not to be a member of the Bride.
I am not going to debate your entire copy-paste article; especially since I have argued those issues with you before. None of the 'points' in your article denote a separate priesthood. It is very similar to your 'Peter' article; the points don't mean what the author suggests and do not even refer to a separate priesthood to begin with. If you wish to discuss any certain point, then perhaps you will consider creating a new thread. Or at least highlighting the specific point you wish to discuss.
For example:
And now ALL the Bride eats the bread (and drinks the wine).I wish to draw your attention to the fact that eating the bread was the duty solely of the priests.
Not just a certain few who are being called the 'magesterial priesthood'.
So how does that point from the article denote a separate priesthood?
Not only that, but Christ told the apostles to go and make disciples of all nations - teaching them (the new disciples) to obey everything that He had commanded them (the apostles).
Not to obey 'some' of the things that He had commanded the apostles. But to obey ALL of the things that He had commanded the apostles. Then these would do the same with the newer disciples coming in after them, and so on and so on.
There is no room for a separate 'class' of Christian, as the RCC seems to teach, as the WTS teaches also, for that matter.
Not sure how many times you are going to ignore the significance of Christ also being referred to as 'she' as Wisdom.
I am not ignoring that at all. There was nothing to say about it because it is right in line with all that I am saying, especially regarding God’s use of different pronouns (he/she) to bring forth His plan. Words have meaning.
Wisdom personified as feminine is a beautiful foreshadowing of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s spousal unity as bride of the Holy Spirit in the Immaculate Conception and why she is referred to as ‘Seat of Wisdom’.
False.
Wisdom personified is Christ.
Not Mary.
Read proverbs 8. This is all Christ. The whole thing. The simple statement at the end should make it clear:
Those who find me find life.
Of course. Because Christ IS the Life. Find Christ, find Life.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
"I am the Resurrection and the Life."
[/quote]Or how many times you are going to ignore that the Bride is made of both male and female members (so the gender does not matter to be a bride)
Again, you misunderstand the distinction between the universal priesthood and the magisterial. Christ would not refer to Himself as a bridegroom and the Church as a bride if the Church was a groom. The relationship doesn’t work.
How is it that you do not see what you are saying?
You are correct that Christ would not refer to Himself as a bridegroom and the Church as a bride if the Church was a groom. But the Church is not a groom!
Christ is the Bridegroom. The Church is the Bride.
There is no one else in between. There are no other bridegrooms forming some separate priesthood.
There is the Bridegroom (Christ) and the Bride (the Church).
And again, you have defeated your OWN argument with me over the past year - your argument that Christ said to listen to His church.
You are now stating the exact opposite.
May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear and eyes to see, so as to know the truth of this matter from the One who IS the Truth (and the Life and the Way): Christ Jaheshua. May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say,
"Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"
Peace again to you and to your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #38
[Replying to polonius.advice]
Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica gave a simple answer. Women could not be ordained because of their inferior status. They had to live in subjection to men.
Well you got that partially right. Inferior status – no. Subjection to men – yes. This is something we learn from Scripture. Wives be submissive to your husbands, as the husband is the head of the household (see the parallels of Christ (the groom) being the head of His Church (the bride)? But notice it is a two way street – no inferior status required – just different roles. A tall order is expected from the husbands as well. They are called to love their wives just like Christ loved His Church. When someone loves someone he treats the other like royalty. He serves the other and sacrifices. So, tell me again about women being inferior?
Besides we had always done it that way.
Well, he was correct about that as well. Of course, not in a blindly following way, rather a respecting of those who have gone before us, knew what they were doing, and honoring their wisdom and practice. Sacred Tradition has always been the mark of Christianity. We take our example from the first Christians. We are told to listen to Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition – makes sense seeing how the Church existed for years prior to giving us the Holy Bible we use today.
But more recently it became unpopular to claim that women were inferior to men any more, the Catholic church changed this traditional teaching, and a priest had to be male because Christ was male. A priest was a "persona Christ."
Uumm . . . the Church does not consider women inferior. I’m afraid that’s on you. Women were the first ones to see the empty tomb after the Resurrection, women were noted as important and vital as Christian witnesses and helpers within the Church. Jesus’ mother, Mary, has the highest honor – far above any male priests even though she was not a priest. It was Christians who made rules among themselves to be sure to take care of widows and those rejected by society in a time when they were typically kicked to the curb. So, sorry you aren’t quite getting it.
However, St Paul disagreed. He wrote in Galatians 3:28 that
"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Uumm . . . like I said the Church has always taught and honored this. If you are fond of Paul, perhaps you will recall these words from him . . .
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord�. -Colossians 3:18
“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says� -1 Corinthians 14:33-35
Here is a beautiful example of Paul showing that even though women were not called to the priesthood, they were vital in serving the Church. . .
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia. ...-Romans 16:1-16
And from Luke . . .
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. –luke 2:36-38
And back to Paul emphasizing we all have a unique role in salvation history. Each one of us depends on the other.
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. -1 Corinthians 11:11-12
Why a woman cannot be ordained
Post #39Right Reason posted:
RESPONSE: Nice try but sorry its infallible. See the infallible teaching below.
Actually its on Thomas Aquinas and Church teaching found in his Summa Theologica.
“I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Supplement:32:2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder.�
And more recently:
Responsum ad Dubium
October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32 ), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
Uumm . . . the Church does not consider women inferior. I’m afraid that’s on you. Women were the first ones to see the empty tomb after the Resurrection, women were noted as important and vital as Christian witnesses and helpers within the Church. Jesus’ mother, Mary, has the highest honor – far above any male priests even though she was not a priest. It was Christians who made rules among themselves to be sure to take care of widows and those rejected by society in a time when they were typically kicked to the curb. So, sorry you aren’t quite getting it.
RESPONSE: Nice try but sorry its infallible. See the infallible teaching below.
Actually its on Thomas Aquinas and Church teaching found in his Summa Theologica.
“I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Supplement:32:2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder.�
And more recently:
Responsum ad Dubium
October 28, 1995
Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: In the affirmative.
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32 ), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
+ Tarcisio Bertone
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Why a woman cannot be ordained
Post #40[Replying to polonius.advice]
What’s infallible? That women cannot be ordained priests? No kidding. That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. I believe however it is you who some how sees that as inferior status. Men and women have unique roles to play in salvation history. They aren’t the same roles. They are different, but both still vital. It’s a shame you don’t/can’t get that.
RESPONSE: Nice try but sorry its infallible. See the infallible teaching below.
What’s infallible? That women cannot be ordained priests? No kidding. That is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. I believe however it is you who some how sees that as inferior status. Men and women have unique roles to play in salvation history. They aren’t the same roles. They are different, but both still vital. It’s a shame you don’t/can’t get that.
