There is no legitimate “calling” “received” by a female to the Roman Catholic ministerial priesthood, not because any poster says so, but because the Spirit-led Church, speaking for Christ, has declared it an impossibility, infallibly. The subject is closed, and oppositional claims otherwise, by any female, have no validity.
We are merely the messengers of a dogma which is unchangeable and did not originate with the laity.
Second, there can be all sorts of reasons the poster isn’t answering to you, none of which justifies your clear ignoring their words.
They did not say, as you keep insisting, that all women are obsessed with power. They did not say it! They were giving a report on what they had experienced, not a general judgement. I shall no longer respond to these sorts of comments, since I feel I’ve made my point.
Try to distance yourself for a moment from Church dogma. Are you saying that women are never called to the priesthood by the Holy Spirit? That if they desire this vocation, they “distrust” God? That all such women are dissidents and will harass the Pope? That they only think of themselves? That these women are seduced by the Beast? You just can’t make generalizations like these!
Now, I love JPII, but, seriously, how did he know what was in the mind of Christ about women clergy? Also, as far as “we don’t base our faith on feelings”, faith is all about feelings and one in particular…love.
Now, I love JPII, but, seriously, how did he know what was in the mind of Christ about women clergy?
With regard to the second quote, How would any Pope know? It’s not so much mind-reading as being led by the same Spirit which is one with Christ and which Christ bequeathed (promised) to His Church. It’s not possible to be fully faithful to the Church and not trust that the Spirit guides the Holy Father, without error in matters of dogma.
With regard to the first quote, though addressed to another poster, if they distrust (or dismiss, or disregard, or consider themselves of greater private authority than the Church’s Christ-proclaimed authority), then by definition they are not trusting God.
And as Catholics we don’t “distance ourselves from Church dogma” when discussing dogmatic matters.
Also, as far as “we don’t base our faith on feelings”, faith is all about feelings and one in particular…love.
No. Love is described in this context, theologically, as action and decision. We behave out of love when we do what is right, regardless of what our feelings tell us. Being led by our feelings is the epidemic of modern secular culture, a culture which has also infected the Church.
The argument about “if Jesus wanted women priests, he would have picked them for apostles” is so trite but, here again we can respond with “What were the social and religious mores of the time that would have made female apostles scandalous and that would have taken attention away from the message?”
Outside of the convent, what are the other religious ways in which women can be part of God’s master plan? And you really believe that all women who are called to the priesthood are receiving demonic advice? Really? And help me out: what “power” would a woman get by being ordained? Do men get superpowers when they are ordained?
All of this has been thoroughly asked and answered in the 40-page thread I referenced just a few posts ago. In that discussion the aspect of the social and religious mores of the time is addressed, and references quoted. The Cliff Note version is that Jesus, as God and as fully free, was not limited by social conventions. He broke dozens of social conventions during His earthly ministry, many, many of those scandalous. Your answers (regarding that question) are on that thread.
Also, you are calling a dogma of the Catholic Church “trite.” By what authority do you do so? An authority greater than that of the Magisterium? The Pope, such as Pope John Paul the Second?
So…the Church says that it is “impossible” for women to get called? How does the Church know what is in a woman’s heart? How can we ignore and demean such feelings? And, nope, the subject isn’t closed and women’s claims have validity despite what is being said here.
It’s not about “heart” or “feelings.” Vocations, including male vocations, are not primarily about “feelings,” in any case.
Do you understand that you are opposing all of the modern Popes and previous Popes, as well as the Magisterium, when you say that “the subject isn’t closed and women’s claims have validity?” I ask you again, By what private authority or private revelation do you declare either your own opinion or the opinion of other women superior or more authoritative and valid than that of the Holy See?
“What is being said here” is not the utterances of lay people. It merely duplicates the message from Rome and the Chair of Peter.
“ignoring their words” is supposed to mean that the poster clearly states that it has been their experience, which is opposed to your claim it’s a generalisation. It’s like me saying “All the trees I have ever seen have leaves.” and you replying “But not all trees have leaves!”. None if the two is false, the answer is just simply unrelated to the question.
Thus, the point about the “powers argument” becomes irrelevant, because no one is making that case here.
The same way he knew the mind of Christ on anything else. A man like Blessed John Paul was steeped in prayer, Scripture and the Traditions handed down from the Apostles, and as Elizabeth already said, the Holy Spirit. The Church has “the mind of Christ” as mentioned in Scripture:
*1 Cor 2.13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.
A few quotes:
*Mary attains a union with God that exceeds all the expectations of the
human spirit. (MD, 3)
From the first moment of her divine motherhood, of her union with the Son whom “the Father sent into the world, that the world might be saved through him” (cf. Jn 3:17), Mary takes her place within Christ’s messianic service. (MD 5)
The dignity of every human being and the vocation corresponding to that dignity find their definitive measure in union with God. Mary, the woman of the Bible, is the most complete expression of this dignity and vocation. For no human being, male or female, created in the image and likeness of God, can in any way attain fulfilment apart from this image and likeness. (MD 5)*
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it trite.
but, here again we can respond with “What were the social and religious mores of the time that would have made female apostles scandalous and that would have taken attention away from the message?”
Erm… I could say that this argument is… but I won’t. When did Jesus ever worry about scandalising people?
If a woman stops and reflects on the lives of the saints who were women, they would move farther and farther away from those “feelings.” We have our dignities as men and women. When I was a young man, I would find it absurd to want to be a nun, but to take it further,there are some things I could never do and never know, in that I will never have the connection to a child, the way a Mother can. I could never imitate the Blessed Mother fully, nor understand that relationship with Christ, the way the Blessed Mother cradled the Christ child in her arms, both in a spiritual manner as well as material matter in motherhood. The obedient daughter of the Church in humility would recognize that deprivation of one experience for this or that sex does not mean, that God was cruel when he created both Man and Woman.
Generalization or not, you are arguing on the side of pride of the woman, any woman with humility would place obedience as more important than disobedience if they truly sought holiness.
The lives of St Therese of Lisieux and St Theresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Sienna, are of lives that I will never know to imitate as a male and one can see they have a unique closeness to God as daughters of the Church and spouses of him, and while I can learn from them, there was a unique function they had that I cannot experience. The women in the gospels were clearly important in their humility and showed where they differed from the men in the gospel as they were less afraid during the Lord’s Passion.
The priesthood is a service males give it is not superior, to those who are called to be Spiritual mothers, it is a role and a duty, they are first and foremost called to sacrifice, and offer the Sacrifice, in persona Christi.
This concept of the priesthood, and feminist philosophy creeping in, can only be a result of the rupture between one’s love for the Eucharist and its connection to the priesthood; and also the neglect for the Blessed Mother.
To say that women can be priests is to deny the reality of the nature of man and woman.
Now, I love JPII, but, seriously, **how did he know what was in the mind of Christ **about women clergy?
The Office of Peter. He invoked it! Through the holy spirit. Not JPII the man, but as Vicar, that only the individual could on Earth.
**Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing. **
Also, as far as “we don’t base our faith on feelings”,** faith is all about feelings and one in particular…love**
This is not what I learned from the clergy. Love is not a feeling, but willing the good for the beloved.
The Righteous, The Just man shall live by Faith. A priest, ". . .not according to our senses, our feelings. Again, this is very much diffused amongst Protestants, and many Catholics. Sentimentalism, they think their whole faith & relationship with God, Charity, depends on how they feel. That is why many fall away, because feelings can only go so far. "
If Faith was based on Feelings then Mother Theresa, St. Therese of Liseuix , St. John of the Cross, who underwent the dark night of the soul and were removed from the consolations of God, would not have had the grace to go on in their good works and obedience to keeping the Commandments. They remained faithful.
St Theresa of Avila says, “Learn to love the God of consolations, not the consolations of God”
Yes love for God will have its moments of joy and sorrows, but true love , or true charity is not based on feelings. That is sentimentalism.
We do not make our life decisions based on feelings, or emotions all the time ( if we did we would have the current American culture as a result) We make it on the part of the will. It’s easy to be deceived by feelings, one can have bad feelings for instance towards our family member or our spouse and we could say, “I believe I do not love them anymore”
Love is not based on feeling, but the will.
It takes the will, to express true love, and that we still hold them in heart, and pray for them. The same priest said, if love were based on feelings, then how can Christ ask us to love our enemies?
Unfortunately, as I believe Pope Benedict illustrated in his encyclical Caritas in Veritae, the modern understanding of Love has become obscured. Bishop Fulton Sheen and other priests have pointed out that, the English language has contributed to this false understanding of love reduced to Sentimentalism. That is why one can see people leave the Church and God, because of initial bad feeling to teachings that are *“hard to hear” *
You can reject what I said, just something to think about. If a woman sincerely feels the church is depriving them of something, they should pray more. “Lord, increase my humility” “Lord, increase my charity” These are infallible prayers.
They don’t have to be cloistered nuns; they can be ministering in the world as Sisters. Women serve in pastoral and administrative roles in parishes and as chancellors of dioceses. In 2004, for the first time, the JPII appointed two women theologians to the prestigious International Theological Commission and named a Harvard University law professor, Mary Ann Glendon, to be president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. There are women working in the Vatican, teaching in seminaries, ministering as teachers, nurses, mothers, wives, etc.
And you really believe that all women who are called to the priesthood are receiving demonic advice? Really?
I don’t believe they*** are ***called. Not by God anyway. You could say they are being misled by their own desires and willfullness, or there is that old saying that if it’s not of God, it’s of the devil.
And help me out: what “power” would a woman get by being ordained? Do men get superpowers when they are ordained?
Proponents of women priests seem to be focused on the supposed power and dominance of males in the Church, which is why it was mentioned earlier in the thread. It is the spirit of the age: “we can do whatever men can do.”
However, only priests can minister certain sacraments: reconciliation,confirmation, annointing the sick, and the Eucharist.
So essentially, the Spirit is not the essence of Truth in your argument. He Who can neither deceive nor be deceived cannot have two opposing truths. If you believe this, you must clarify yourself and respond to Elizabeth’s post by what private authority…