Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Dec 4th 2013 new
Philip,

May peace rest on you, and the Holy Spirit share his wisdom and grace with you, and with us all.

You are certainly not alone in your understanding, even among the Catholic faithful, but the Church teaches otherwise.

I agree with Paul and others in this thread, that the man described in the gospels always chose what was right, rather than what was the social norm. He ate with scandalous company, spoke to Samaritan women, preached in his home town, and called out powerful men as hypocrites. He broke with the Law of Moses when he deemed it appropriate. He threw out the moneychangers in the Temple.

Any of those could have ended his ministry, I suppose. (Being thrown off a cliff certainly would have ended many people's careers...)

His disciples were married, single; tax collectors, fishers; religious zealots and secular people suddenly caught up by His message. But they were all men; even in the married couples, he chose the husbands for his inner circle, but not the wives. Women were leaders in many facets of the early church, but nowhere did they receive a call to be priests.

There might have been some reason for Christ's decision that no longer applies; I don't think so, but there's an argument along that line. However, I don't think it has to do with the role of women in 1st Century Judea.

--

Peace and love.
Dec 4th 2013 new
Hi Chris

I enjoyed your comments.

I would like to call your attention to the recent opening of the catacombs by Pope Francis that shows women as Priests in the Art Frescos.

As we find more and more revelations as each layer "of the Onion" is pealed back I think that we will find many things that are not what we origanally believed. I believe that we have the responsibility to use our "Free Will" to find the truth that we can believe in and die for.

I don't think that Jesus wanted His creation (man and woman) to be sheep. I think He wanted us to be loving individuals with our fellow man and forge a life of dignity and do for ourselves and not wait for Him to be the Marinette Master. He wants us to pull our own strings.

God Love

Philip

Dec 5th 2013 new
(quote) Philip-600116 said: Hi Chris

I enjoyed your comments.

I would like to call your attention to the recent opening of the catacombs by Pope Francis that shows women as Priests in the Art Frescos.

As we find more and more revelations as each layer "of the Onion" is pealed back I think that we will find many things that are not what we origanally believed. I believe that we have the responsibility to use our "Free Will" to find the truth that we can believe in and die for.

I don't think that Jesus wanted His creation (man and woman) to be sheep. I think He wanted us to be loving individuals with our fellow man and forge a life of dignity and do for ourselves and not wait for Him to be the Marinette Master. He wants us to pull our own strings.

God Love

Philip

There is no certainty that what is depicted are women priests.

The media sure jumped on that wholly unsupported assumption.

I would guess that when all the research is completed, it will prove the media was wrong as usual. Of course they will not report it.
Dec 5th 2013 new
There are a couple of things to think about when talking about the issue of married priests.

There is not now, nor has there ever been a doctrine requiring all priests to be celibate. There is a discipline that requires it, as a general rule, in the Roman rite. Since it is a discipline and not an infallible doctrine it has and CAN be changed.
There IS an infallible doctrine that prevents women from being ordained. Since it is an infallible doctrine, there is no way it can EVER be changed. No Pope or Church council will ever be capable of changing it.

I challenge the assertion that there is a shortage of ordinations "all over the world". This is an often stated and rarely substantiated claim. For the past 15 years, at least, there has been an increase of priests worldwide. Although there have been declines in Europe, many dioceses in the United States report dramatically increasing numbers of candidates and a growing number of priestly ordinations. According to the Official Catholic Directory, there were 442 men ordained to the priesthood in the United States in 2002. Ordinations rose to 454 men in 2005, and in 2011, there were 467 priestly ordinations. Some dioceses experienced much greater increases. Since all of these places have the same rules regarding priestly celibacy maybe we should find out what is different about these places that are having such great increases in ordinations.

If there is one thing the sex scandal in the U.S. should have taught us, it's that not everyone should be ordained. The primary purpose of requiring priests to be celibate is to promote a more devout priesthood. And before anyone tries to blame the scandal on celibacy.. look at the statistics. Most acts of sex abuse against minors are perpetuated by MARRIED men.

It makes little sense to change the rule on priestly celibacy, at this time. Worldwide ordinations are on the rise. Certain diocese are experiencing great increases in ordinations, which obviously has nothing to do with celibacy.It makes little sense to "lower the bar" at this point. On the contrary, we should "raise the bar" and require more devotion and better seminary training.

Dec 5th 2013 new
Hi Patrick.Welcome to the Forums. wave
Dec 6th 2013 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Gary, I can imagine that this is the view that most authors and other laity are putting forth regarding the Eastern Catholics, but it's not true.

It is a dogma that Holy Orders imparts an indelible character. It was judged solemnly at the Council of Trent as such. (Seventh Session, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Canon IX. If any one saith, that, in the three sacraments, Baptism, to wit, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.) This means that regardless of a person's view, it does change a man ontologically in such a way that he can never undo the change. No Catholic has a choice but to believe this.

Even moreso the dogma on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, that it is indissoluble once consummated except by death. This is from the very words of Our Lord and tradition (and even Adam under divine inspiration), not to mention agreed upon by East and West at the Council of Florence (Bull of Union with the Armenians, The seventh is the sacrament of Matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church according to the words of the Apostle: "This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the Church." The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to Matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.). So, regardless as to how it is viewed, it is in fact indissoluble, and no Catholic has a choice but to believe this.

We cannot practice what is claimed the East does without leaving the one true Church of Christ.


Nota bene that I did not say Eastern Catholics. I did not know that they were bound to accept the indelible character understanding, but I'm not surprised, either. This thread has by no means limited itself to genuinely viable courses of action -- we've already discussed unlikely and remote ones, as well as actually impossible ones.

Not that anybody asked, but I find the Eastern approach to the sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders to be defective. It's one of several reasons why, despite my preference for Greek over Latin, I am here rather than there.
Dec 6th 2013 new
(quote) Philip-600116 said: Greetings All

I just spent the past 45 minutes reading all the posts in this thread and I believe that all of you could have written the Obamacare fiasco. So much gibberish and each trying to outsmart the next one.

One of the basic reasons that women were not selected by Jesus is the culture of the times. Women were considered chattle and not worth much except for procreation and cooking et all.

Had He selected women for an apostle there would have been a complete uprising among the ranks and all would be over before getting off the ground. Society would have condemed Him and His work would not be completed.

In the social structure of that region even today the woman is to be covered up and must not be seen without a family male or husband and even then they walk at least one step behind their male companion. Just look at the Jewish and Muslem faith,as only men can worship together and the women cannot partake in the services with the men. It is forbidden.

The saturday after Thanksgiving, my weekend guest, (a former Nun and 20 years younger) visited the Paulist Catholic bookstore in Charleston where we met the Married pastor of a Catholic Church and his 2 children of 12 and 14 years of age. He is the Pastor of one of the largest Catholic Churches in the area. They were shopping for Christmas as was I and they impressed me grately. I knew of him and was pleased to meet him finally.

I grieve to have a Priest as wonderful as He. In my opinion He is better than most Priests I have been involved with the past many years. We should cultivate men like him as I am sure someone with his compassion and understanding would be a wonderful asset to the Church.

What difference does it make who is the one that preaches the Word of the Lord. Can you not take the direction from a woman? Must all authority be given by the "Man"?
I don't think so. If any of you recall that the first influence and direction you received was from a woman. Your mother. Continued education was generally presented by female teachers or Nuns. Why is it so hard to believe as I do that women are less worthy? Which Commandment so dictates that? I believe that a married priest brings a wonderful balance to the Church structure.

God love all

Philip








You're not getting it. It's not a matter of "men are worthy, women aren't". That isn't the Church's teaching, so why bring that up? The basis for restricting to males only is not one of worth, but of embodiment. A sacrament is a symbol that is simultaneously the reality it symbolizes. One cannot be a father if one is a woman. There are ways indeed to be a mother, but that is not priesthood.

To be rather blunt, there has never been any such thing as a female priest until the Anglicans came up with the idea. Yes, there have been female religious leaders -- prophetesses -- but that is different. Priesthood isn't just leadership; it's a particular type of ministry that involves a particular type of sacrifice.

Women shed the blood of life: menstruation, the puncturing of the hymen (usually), and childbirth. Men shed the blood of death: war, hunting, and sacrifice. This underlies every single religion, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan, with regards to priesthood. Women have their own priestly role as they offer their lives in motherhood. What offends people about this is that it is less prominent. Ideologues want limelight more than they do "equality".

If you want to have a married priest, though, I'm totally with you. If you'll just fork over $30,000 per year, we can afford to have ONE full-time priest and his family, without making him work another job on the side to make ends meet. If you're not personally willing to pay the extra expense, though, you really have no place to complain. The discipline of celibacy has very legitimate, prudent grounds.

Peace & grace.
Dec 6th 2013 new
(quote) Gary-936836 said: You're not getting it. It's not a matter of "men are worthy, women aren't". That isn't the Church's teaching, so why bring that up? The basis for restricting to males only is not one of worth, but of embodiment. A sacrament is a symbol that is simultaneously the reality it symbolizes. One cannot be a father if one is a woman. There are ways indeed to be a mother, but that is not priesthood.

To be rather blunt, there has never been any such thing as a female priest until the Anglicans came up with the idea. Yes, there have been female religious leaders -- prophetesses -- but that is different. Priesthood isn't just leadership; it's a particular type of ministry that involves a particular type of sacrifice.

Women shed the blood of life: menstruation, the puncturing of the hymen (usually), and childbirth. Men shed the blood of death: war, hunting, and sacrifice. This underlies every single religion, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan, with regards to priesthood. Women have their own priestly role as they offer their lives in motherhood. What offends people about this is that it is less prominent. Ideologues want limelight more than they do "equality".

If you want to have a married priest, though, I'm totally with you. If you'll just fork over $30,000 per year, we can afford to have ONE full-time priest and his family, without making him work another job on the side to make ends meet. If you're not personally willing to pay the extra expense, though, you really have no place to complain. The discipline of celibacy has very legitimate, prudent grounds.

Peace & grace.
A family trying to make it on on $30,000/year today would be one that would have a very difficult time.

I realize there are far too many families doing that today. But that would not be proper to pay a priest who has a family.

On the other hand, anyone who thinks having a married priesthood would solve the vocation problem (which is already improving without it) needs to just do some research.

The Eastern Catholic Churches as well as our Orthodox brethren, who already have a married clergy, are alos having trouble attracting new vocations. The Protestant Sects which also have a married clergy have a vocation crisis of their own.

And they all have the problem because, like us, they have been impacted by the culture which has produced a population that tends to be selfish and interested in making it big financially. Despite the fact that most people never accomplish the latter.

It is a culture that disdains religion as well to the point that even people who still believe tend, as a group,to keep their beliefs to themselves as if they are ashamed. Mainly because they don't want to be the butt of jokes a sniggers.

For those who think that ordaining women could be the answer, and unfortunately there are some of them here on CM, should reflect on the fact the Anglican/Episcopalian Church has suffered major losses of membership mainly because they began ordaining women as well as flagrantly practicing homosexuals
Dec 6th 2013 new
I wholeheartedly agree.

And, though it's not very important, I was presuming $30,000 over and above the stipend priests generally receive. It i understand correctly, that stipend is about $1,000 per month, so $42,000. Is that enough to take care of a family? Not likely. My point is that it's pretty ridiculous for people to demand allowance of married clergy and yet they don't realize the Church isn't made of money. If they're not willing to pony up for it, they should probably stop whining.
Posts 111 - 119 of 119