Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[eight bits]

Star

Thank you for the feedback. It is always tricky to analyze the sacred by analogy to the profane. I really am glad that I managed it in this case without straying into offense.

Chloe

After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute

That doesn't start with "them," but was directly and personally Pope Gregory I, during a sermon around the turn of the Seventh Century. It was a plain misreading, a conventional rhetorical point about penitence badly propped up by an example that isn't in the text.

Note how far removed in time this is from any "Gnostic" knock-off scripture being in circulation. There is no political agenda here. It is a mistake, like Obama mentioning the wrong number of states. Yes, he does know better.

A better question, I think, is how Gregory's lapse survived the Reformation. Behold, Jesus Christ Superstar, not only post-Reformation, but post-modern in the bargain, and its chief female character is Mary the Prostitute who "doesn't know how to love" Jesus, and in some productions, holds up her end of a triangle with Judas. Let's not even go to Dan Brown's spectacle of Mary as the priestess of a pagan fertility cult. Prostitute indeed. Dan, not Mary.

Neither contemporary example displays sympathy toward Roman Catholicism. The Church plain and simple doesn't teach this about Mary. Both Gregory's ancient slip and its enduring enthusiastic reception, even by people who wouldn't take a Catholic Pope's word for anything else, are windows into the human mind.

while she may have very well been an Apostle.

No maybe about it. John 20 is the institution of the apostleship, and his first apostle is Mary. The chapter is visibly organized with Paul's analysis of the apostolic office in mind, and emphasizes the favorable contrast of Mary's claim with his.

The issue before us, however, is who shall preside at the sacrifice. It is not at all obvious that the chief teachers, administrators and managers of the church should be the same people as the priests. It is obvious that Jesus did not command that form of ecclesiastical organization. He didn't offer specifications for the sacrificial office, either. What difference does that make?

Let's bring Leo into the conversation.

Christ said nothing regarding the ordaining of women as priests. However I can understand that spinning his actions - made to be acceptable within the culture he was operating in - can be made to suggest his intentions.

Again, this is all very interesting from a Protestant perspective, but does not reflect the theory of spiritual and ecclesiatical authority in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. For these, the churches to which the majority of Christians belong, apostolic succession is the basis of authority.

The reasoning here, however repugnant to the Protestant mind, is really not so different from secular constitutional interpretation. Because Jesus said to the original apostles, "Do this in memory of me," it becomes the responsibility of the living successors of the apostles to do it, in memory of him. With responsibility comes authority, and so the specifications of the performance are the sole province of those responsible for bringing it about.

As Star points out, their paramount concern is to carry out what they understand Jesus' intentions to have been. Those intentions are the ultimate foundation of all ecclesiastical authority, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until Jesus returns. If somebody else understands Jesus' intentions differently, or feels that the Holy Spirit guides them differently, then that's what authority means, whose opinion shall prevail.

There is the Reformation in a nutshell. "It's not in the Bible."

"No," says the Catholic or Orthodox bishop, "but in the Bible my antecedent had personal responsibility for that subject matter. Authority and reponsibility should coincide, according to reason. If I inherit my antecedent's responsibility, then I inherit my antecedent's authority as well. I do inherit his responsibility by virtue of being consecrated in an unbroken chain of consecrations reaching back to the commissioning of the first apostles by Jesus."

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

[Leonardo]

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

A well-reasoned post, eb, but I would expect nothing less.

I do not question that the CC have their reasons for ordaining only males as priests. My argument concerns whether those reasons are reasonable according to the only source of authority we have, the bible.

My arguments are also not based on the Protestant position. I have no religious affiliation, and my only duty is to my own reason - not to any religious ideology.

As for the interpreting of Jesus' words to suit an agenda, I give you this...

John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

...which I interpret to mean all are to be treated equally, as loved friends, as Jesus treated all equally. Not making of a man or a woman to a specific role, but allowing each of them to fulfil what they are best suited to them. If that means a woman be well suited to be a priest, then let that woman be a priest, for Jesus would not have denied one he loved to do this thing.

How's that for "doing in the memory of Jesus"?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

My argument concerns whether those reasons are reasonable according to the only source of authority we have, the bible.

Who's we? Surely not a heathen like me.

Among Christians, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both disagree that the Bible is the only source of authority. That's why there is such a thing as a Protestant church, to accommodate the minority of Christians who do think of the Bible as the only source of authority.

My arguments are also not based on the Protestant position. I have no religious affiliation, and my only duty is to my own reason - not to any religious ideology.

Nobody said you were religiously affiliated. I said the ideas were Protestant. To describe the Bible as "the only source of authority we have" is exactly religious ideology. It is to assert the view of Martin Luther in rebuttal to the position of his native church.

Sola scriptura plays no role in the thinking of the older churches. Really none; it is another faith's tenet. To judge anyone's reasonableness according to a standard that neither they nor I accept is unattractive to me. You're welcome to do it, but it'll have to be with someone else.

[Star of the Sea]

Hi Leonardo,

What I think you are missing as Eight Bits has pointed out is that the RCC and the Orthodox Churches continue the line of tradition from what Christ established in appointing his Apostles.. If Jesus as you say was/is 'asexual' and actually against the tradition of the culture at that time then that was his perfect opportunity to prove his point by appointing several/or an equal mix of male and female Apostle's don't you think? The RCC is not 'spinning it' do you think Jesus was a bit slow on the uptake about picking his Apostles and didn't understand the consequences in the short or long term? I think I would give Jesus much more credit than that!! I'm not saying Jesus was anti woman either, as it's clear by scripture his love of woman. Actions speak louder than words at times. He was sending a clear message.... "Do this in memory of me" I don't think the RCC are 'second guessing' at all.. it's there for all to see whom he appointed and how he wanted it played out and that is what the RCC have done in time in memorial.

Your quote:

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in.

To be fair Leonardo Jesus never minced his words, you only have to look at scripture to see that, if he wanted to he would of done, so I think your point is 'moot'.

The RCC endorses the rights of woman by encompassing the teachings of Christ.. which does protect woman and give them status through lots of different avenues for example: the sanctity of marriage. What I find very interesting Leonardo is that Catholic woman are more than happy with tradition, but it appears it causes a storm with non-Catholics, almost everything the RCC stands by (notwithstanding the sex scandals) is contested, isn't that an enigma? Those who don't have a horse in the race complain... I have to ask myself why??? As Shakespeare eloquently said "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Edited April 12, 2012 by Star of the Sea

[ChloeB]

Chloe

That doesn't start with "them," but was directly and personally Pope Gregory I, during a sermon around the turn of the Seventh Century. It was a plain misreading, a conventional rhetorical point about penitence badly propped up by an example that isn't in the text.

Note how far removed in time this is from any "Gnostic" knock-off scripture being in circulation. There is no political agenda here. It is a mistake, like Obama mentioning the wrong number of states. Yes, he does know better.

No Gnostic knock-off scripture in circulation, but the Vatican vault, the Vatican vault! Secret hidden, guarded documents are there!! LOL, I'm teasing, in the spirit of Dan Brown,

A better question, I think, is how Gregory's lapse survived the Reformation. Behold, Jesus Christ Superstar, not only post-Reformation, but post-modern in the bargain, and its chief female character is Mary the Prostitute who "doesn't know how to love" Jesus, and in some productions, holds up her end of a triangle with Judas. Let's not even go to Dan Brown's spectacle of Mary as the priestess of a pagan fertility cult. Prostitute indeed. Dan, not Mary.

Oh it's probably the same as why we see a light-brown, blue-eyed Jesus. Once those things get implanted in the psyche, they stick. Hahaha, no Mary as priestess, but you gotta admit, the hieros gamos ritual was an interesting theory between Mary and Jesus. I kind of liked the idea.

Neither contemporary example displays sympathy toward Roman Catholicism. The Church plain and simple doesn't teach this about Mary. Both Gregory's ancient slip and its enduring enthusiastic reception, even by people who wouldn't take a Catholic Pope's word for anything else, are windows into the human mind.

No maybe about it. John 20 is the institution of the apostleship, and his first apostle is Mary. The chapter is visibly organized with Paul's analysis of the apostolic office in mind, and emphasizes the favorable contrast of Mary's claim with his.

Well I guess they righted that wrong, but if you are so convinced Mary was an apostle, just based on John 20, no secret Gnostic text required; a strong patriarchal institution might have some investment in the idea of her as a prostitute, but we're venturing into conspiracy, I realize this. The fact is, Star says as I understand, it's not the RCC's fault, women don't get to be priests, they're just following Jesus lead, so it's not really on them, but Jesus made that decision and they really had no choice. So what is the deal then? You seem convinced she was an apostle, the first one, in fact so is this ignored and denied by the RCC? And if so, why? Because if we're saying women are only priests because Jesus only had male apostles, well this contradicts that in Mary Magdalene. That's about as simple as I can see it, that either they deny she was or the all-male apostleship isn't the reason women can't be priests.

The issue before us, however, is who shall preside at the sacrifice. It is not at all obvious that the chief teachers, administrators and managers of the church should be the same people as the priests. It is obvious that Jesus did not command that form of ecclesiastical organization. He didn't offer specifications for the sacrificial office, either. What difference does that make?

Let's bring Leo into the conversation.

Again, this is all very interesting from a Protestant perspective, but does not reflect the theory of spiritual and ecclesiatical authority in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. For these, the churches to which the majority of Christians belong, apostolic succession is the basis of authority.

The reasoning here, however repugnant to the Protestant mind, is really not so different from secular constitutional interpretation. Because Jesus said to the original apostles, "Do this in memory of me," it becomes the responsibility of the living successors of the apostles to do it, in memory of him. With responsibility comes authority, and so the specifications of the performance are the sole province of those responsible for bringing it about.

As Star points out, their paramount concern is to carry out what they understand Jesus' intentions to have been. Those intentions are the ultimate foundation of all ecclesiastical authority, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until Jesus returns. If somebody else understands Jesus' intentions differently, or feels that the Holy Spirit guides them differently, then that's what authority means, whose opinion shall prevail.

There is the Reformation in a nutshell. "It's not in the Bible."

"No," says the Catholic or Orthodox bishop, "but in the Bible my antecedent had personal responsibility for that subject matter. Authority and reponsibility should coincide, according to reason. If I inherit my antecedent's responsibility, then I inherit my antecedent's authority as well. I do inherit his responsibility by virtue of being consecrated in an unbroken chain of consecrations reaching back to the commissioning of the first apostles by Jesus."

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

You kind of lost me here, I'm sorry. I get the Protestant deal, with all that is, is what the bible says, full stop, not the same for Catholicism. It's been a long week, so forgive me, but so Jesus' intentions and do this in memory of me......so Jesus' intentions were only females to be priests? Is this that kind of rare thing where the holy spirit whispers answers in the Pope's infallible ear? LOL, I feel like a dufus, but I'm not sure what you mean.

Edited April 12, 2012 by ChloeB

[Leonardo]

Nobody said you were religiously affiliated. I said the ideas were Protestant.

The ideas are my own, eb. If they are similar to those arguments and ideas which caused the Schism and instigated the Protestant Church then that is just a coincidence of reason.

Hi Leonardo,

What I think you are missing as Eight Bits has pointed out is that the RCC and the Orthodox Churches continue the line of tradition from what Christ established in appointing his Apostles.. If Jesus as you say was/is 'asexual' and actually against the tradition of the culture at that time then that was his perfect opportunity to prove his point by appointing several/or an equal mix of male and female Apostle's don't you think? The RCC is not 'spinning it' do you think Jesus was a bit slow on the uptake about picking his Apostles and didn't understand the consequences in the short or long term? I think I would give Jesus much more credit than that!! I'm not saying Jesus was anti woman either, as it's clear by scripture his love of woman. Actions speak louder than words at times. He was sending a clear message.... "Do this in memory of me" I don't think the RCC are 'second guessing' at all.. it's there for all to see whom he appointed and how he wanted it played out and that is what the RCC have done in time in memorial.

Your quote:

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in.

To be fair Leonardo Jesus never minced his words, you only have to look at scripture to see that, if he wanted to he would of done, so I think your point is 'moot'.

The RCC endorses the rights of woman by encompassing the teachings of Christ.. which does protect woman and give them status through lots of different avenues for example: the sanctity of marriage. What I find very interesting Leonardo is that Catholic woman are more than happy with tradition, but it appears it causes a storm with non-Catholics, almost everything the RCC stands by (notwithstanding the sex scandals) is contested, isn't that an enigma? Those who don't have a horse in the race complain... I have to ask myself why??? As Shakespeare eloquently said "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

You are entitled to your beliefs, Star. My only wish for you is that they are your beliefs - and not those of someone else you have accepted as your own.

As my reasoning appears to be causing a bit of vexation to some on this thread, and this is not the forum for skepticism (although, in my defence I do not consider my argument to be antithetical to the belief in God, or Jesus) I will retire. And I graciously accept the faint praise with which eb has damned me.

[Beckys_Mom]

Nope a Pope cannot go against the doctrine. The pope is infallible through the light of the rcc theology,

Strange... It was the pope that once made up his version as to how Mary did not die but went to heaven back in the 1950's.. and people believed him..No bible required... No proof required..

And his infallibility is argued many times over .. He can pick and chose what he feels like defending..

It was noted that pope John Paul would start a new page of its history... Remember the pardon he gave to Galileo, ?

The pope can change over what suits...

Edited April 12, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Star of the Sea]

But do you really think the RCC is a credible source that Jesus did only choose male Apostles? After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute and later had to right that wrong? I know this is going to sound so Da Vinci Code, but the gnostic writings show the tension between Peter (the rock which the Catholic church was built) and Mary Magdalene and the story goes from there, her being made out to be a prostitute while she may have very well been an Apostle. This is all very "what the RCC says" more than what Jesus says, imo, or that's how I see it, but I'm not Catholic so I guess I don't have the faith in them a I think my hesitance is trusting everything they say is well-deserved based on their history. But I guess in carrying on in St. Peter's tradition, the not allowing female priests makes sense and it really does seem to me in my eyes, more his church than Jesus'. To me, it's hard not to wonder if Jesus didn't give Mary Magdalene an important role, very well an apostle, maybe even a leadership role.

Edit: Because my laptop mouse thingy is a demon from hell and has a mind of its own.

Hi Chloe,

The Da Vinci Code was a good read and I enjoyed it even though it was heretical! Eighbits beat me to it... Mary Magdalene was much maligned and her reputation has been quite rightly restored in the RCC. Augustine saw her as an 'Apostle to the Apostles' apostolarum apostola. We only need to look at when the Gnostic Gospels were dated which refer mostly to Mary Magdalene and that was 2nd and 3rd centuries... . She is seen as a Disciple to Christ in the RCC.

At the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was celebrated with the 12 Apostles. Jesus tells the twelve explicitly that he is confering his Father's kingdom on them, and then addresses Peter directly...

It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.

(Luke 22:28-32)

The word

apostle

comes from the Greek word ἀπόστολος (

apostolos

), a broad definition of which is "one who is sent on a mission". In fact, the word 'missionary' is related to this word. Because the Twelve are sent by Jesus on a mission to "

make disciples of all nations

",

ipso facto

they are

missionaries

or

apostles

.

What is the difference between a Disciple and an Apostle?

Jesus separated those two terms here:

{6:13} And when daylight had arrived, he called his disciples. And he chose twelve out of them (whom he also named Apostles)

Edited April 12, 2012 by Star of the Sea

[Star of the Sea]

It's just like the Church's positions on homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc., etc. - if you don't agree with it, don't be a Catholic.

Pretty simple actually.

Well said!!!!

[Star of the Sea]

The ideas are my own, eb. If they are similar to those arguments and ideas which caused the Schism and instigated the Protestant Church then that is just a coincidence of reason.

You are entitled to your beliefs, Star. My only wish for you is that they are your beliefs - and not those of someone else you have accepted as your own.

As my reasoning appears to be causing a bit of vexation to some on this thread, and this is not the forum for skepticism (although, in my defence I do not consider my argument to be antithetical to the belief in God, or Jesus) I will retire. And I graciously accept the faint praise with which eb has damned me.

Hehe Leonardo it's good to thrash things out! I have faith in what I believe, if I didn't then I wouldn't be in for the long haul! It aint easy being a Roman Catholic in this day and age... ah well the hymn "Faith of our Fathers" comes to mind a real anthem for Catholics!...

[eight bits]

Chloe

but if you are so convinced Mary was an apostle, just based on John 20, no secret Gnostic text required;

Both the Roman and Eastern churches are on board with this one. The Orthodox are just as patriarchal as Roman Catholics, and also have a male-only priesthood. The Magdalene is a highly venerated saint in their rota, and her liturgical titles include apostolic status, no ifs ands or buts.

The key thing is that an apostle isn't a priest. So fas as we know, Paul wasn't a priest, either. His 1 Corintians 11 depicts the Eucharist as an already established ritual. Paul writes a lengthy description, complete except for one thing: who presides. There may not even have been a full-time status of "someone who regularly presides" in his churches. Maybe people took turns. Maybe everybody performed the ritual for themselves or their family. Paul just doesn't say.

Which I think brings us to this:

You kind of lost me here, I'm sorry

No, I'm sorry. I hope I did better at rebutting the claim that there was no reason than I did at explaining what the reason was .

We know the sacrifice was performed from the beginning, so there was such a thing as a priest, if only for each time the sacrifice was actually being performed. We don't know whether or not its performance was a special office for the earliest Christians.

We know that there was always something special about the status of Apostle within the movement. It wasn't necessarily the status of being a full-time priest. Whatever the priestly office was, it wasn't necessarily confined to the Apostles and their pupils.

There isn't really a contradiction, then, between recognizing the Magdalene's unique stature within the earliest Christianity and yet not imputing priesthood to her.

As always, when I explain what I think a position is, it doesn't mean I agree with the position. On this particular matter, I don't have a vote anyway. It doesn't really matter what I think. For what it's worth, then, I think Mary from Magdala rocked. If I had to guess Jesus' intention, I'd have guessed he was down with Mary offering the sacrifice in his memory.

But I relaize I can't rigorously conclude that simply from her having other distinctions.

[Copen]

Chloe

Both the Roman and Eastern churches are on board with this one. The Orthodox are just as patriarchal as Roman Catholics, and also have a male-only priesthood. The Magdalene is a highly venerated saint in their rota, and her liturgical titles include apostolic status, no ifs ands or buts.

The key thing is that an apostle isn't a priest. So fas as we know, Paul wasn't a priest, either. His 1 Corintians 11 depicts the Eucharist as an already established ritual. Paul writes a lengthy description, complete except for one thing: who presides. There may not even have been a full-time status of "someone who regularly presides" in his churches. Maybe people took turns. Maybe everybody performed the ritual for themselves or their family. Paul just doesn't say.

Which I think brings us to this:

No, I'm sorry. I hope I did better at rebutting the claim that there was no reason than I did at explaining what the reason was .

We know the sacrifice was performed from the beginning, so there was such a thing as a priest, if only for each time the sacrifice was actually being performed. We don't know whether or not its performance was a special office for the earliest Christians.

We know that there was always something special about the status of Apostle within the movement. It wasn't necessarily the status of being a full-time priest. Whatever the priestly office was, it wasn't necessarily confined to the Apostles and their pupils.

There isn't really a contradiction, then, between recognizing the Magdalene's unique stature within the earliest Christianity and yet not imputing priesthood to her.

As always, when I explain what I think a position is, it doesn't mean I agree with the position. On this particular matter, I don't have a vote anyway. It doesn't really matter what I think. For what it's worth, then, I think Mary from Magdala rocked. If I had to guess Jesus' intention, I'd have guessed he was down with Mary offering the sacrifice in his memory.

But I relaize I can't rigorously conclude that simply from her having other distinctions.

Yes, an apostle is more authoritative than a priest. An apostle is a messenger who is commissioned and sent by God Himself. The apostles were not all male. The entire 120 in the upper room on Pentecost were "in the apostleship." All 120 of them received the baptism of the Holy Ghost which gave them power from God. Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the other women were among the 120 "in the apostleship."

God bless us all

[TheNightOwl]

You'd nearly think the pope or any Christian leader has NEVER made changes eh? Trust me, they will change what they want to change... Women have been trying to become clergy for many years.. it is not some over night decision .. Stubbornness and sexism will prevent it... Some Church leader's allow it...some wont..

Fact is.. if they wish to keep it all male, it still is sexist .. and not wanting to change is stubborn...

We can't just say that everyone who wants to keep the priesthood male is sexist. Sure, maybe some of those people are sexist, but there are other people who believe for theological reasons that God has set different roles for men and women....that idea is not sexist at all. Saying that is sexist is like saying the idea that only women can get pregnant is sexist.

[Beckys_Mom]

We can't just say that everyone who wants to keep the priesthood male is sexist. Sure, maybe some of those people are sexist, but there are other people who believe for theological reasons that God has set different roles for men and women....that idea is not sexist at all.

In my opinion, those that created the male only rules from the very beginning, were sexist...

The Catholic church has so many strict rules and some of those they have broken themselves... And they wonder why a movement of protestantism was ever formed?

Saying that is sexist is like saying the idea that only women can get pregnant is sexist.

..

Saying only women can get pregnant is sexist? So pointing out a biological fact of life ........is n ow sexist?.... And you use this an a logical analogy? Are you serious? ......Hence why I enlarge the font in your post to see if I read that correctly !

I'll tell you something for real...I have just under two weks left of my own pregnany... And trust me.. what I would give just to hand it all over to my husband for him to take his share of the pains and sickness I have went though LOL.... IF only...He said he would but see biologically it cannot be... I am happy enough because it will be over soon...But there were times when I WISH my husband can share my pregnancy

Quick question............Why? It has nothing to do with making distinctions on jobs that both men and women can actually do... So again I have to ask - Why use such a poor analogy?

Anything in bold or CAPS is only to lay emphasis..I do it in all my posts..

Edited April 13, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Beany]

Patriarchal systems do tend to favor men, don't they? And it's always the men explaining & defining the proper role of the female gender to women. I choose to define myself in accordance with my beliefs, experiences, and common sense, education, & whatever wisdom I've attained, without needing anyone's approval or consent.

[ChloeB]

Chloe

Both the Roman and Eastern churches are on board with this one. The Orthodox are just as patriarchal as Roman Catholics, and also have a male-only priesthood. The Magdalene is a highly venerated saint in their rota, and her liturgical titles include apostolic status, no ifs ands or buts.

The key thing is that an apostle isn't a priest. So fas as we know, Paul wasn't a priest, either. His 1 Corintians 11 depicts the Eucharist as an already established ritual. Paul writes a lengthy description, complete except for one thing: who presides. There may not even have been a full-time status of "someone who regularly presides" in his churches. Maybe people took turns. Maybe everybody performed the ritual for themselves or their family. Paul just doesn't say.

Which I think brings us to this:

No, I'm sorry. I hope I did better at rebutting the claim that there was no reason than I did at explaining what the reason was .

We know the sacrifice was performed from the beginning, so there was such a thing as a priest, if only for each time the sacrifice was actually being performed. We don't know whether or not its performance was a special office for the earliest Christians.

We know that there was always something special about the status of Apostle within the movement. It wasn't necessarily the status of being a full-time priest. Whatever the priestly office was, it wasn't necessarily confined to the Apostles and their pupils.

There isn't really a contradiction, then, between recognizing the Magdalene's unique stature within the earliest Christianity and yet not imputing priesthood to her.

As always, when I explain what I think a position is, it doesn't mean I agree with the position. On this particular matter, I don't have a vote anyway. It doesn't really matter what I think. For what it's worth, then, I think Mary from Magdala rocked. If I had to guess Jesus' intention, I'd have guessed he was down with Mary offering the sacrifice in his memory.

But I relaize I can't rigorously conclude that simply from her having other distinctions.

Every time we (Star, you, and I) get talking about Catholic stuff, I get dizzy, lol. I appreciate you both being patient and trying to explain. Seems there are some differing opinions and that's all good. You talk about Orthodox a lot and a few years ago, before I came on here, when I was a really little spitfire and argued a lot, lol, but I was kind of a jerk, but I knew these guys that tried, (without much luck I might add) to explain everything, but I was very the bible hates women kind of mode back then, but anyway, one of those guys was finishing up a degree in theology somewhere and his friend maybe had too or invested a lot of time, but they always praised the Orthodox Church, said it was the closest to what the church was meant to be, basically it had been far enough away from Rome to avoid a lot of the corruption and such and more in sync with I guess what you would call the intention of Jesus, more Jesus less politics I assume.

[Beckys_Mom]

Every time we (Star, you, and I) get talking about Catholic stuff, I get dizzy, lol.

The thing about the Catholic church and growing up in it I never knew anything else other than male priests.. I saw it as the norm and believed that's how it was meant to be... So you tend not to get bothered by it.. You just think -Meh its how things are so be it......

I remember once when some women from our church would go up to help the priest give out the bread....I refused to take it of the women...I would only take it from the priest ......I know silly of me... but it was only because I believed women at the time had no place.. It was always just MEN....

Once I leave the faith..I get to see it from the outside looking in.......I see a different picture .

Edited April 13, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[ChloeB]

The thing about the Catholic church and growing up in it I never knew anything else other than male priests.. I saw it as the norm and believed that's how it was meant to be... So you tend not to get bothered by it.. You just think -Meh its how things are so be it......

I remember once when some women from our church would go up to help the priest give out the bread....I refused to take it of the women...I would only take it from the priest ......I know silly of me... but it was only because I believed women at the time had no place.. It was always just MEN....

Once I leave the faith..I get to see it from the outside looking in.......I see a different picture .

We hardly ever went to church, but if it was, it was Protestant. I think I went to church with a few Catholic friends, maybe 2 or 3 times, and I don't remember ever seeing a nun up close, and then my brother got in a wreck and was in a Catholic hospital once and this is so dorky, but I got to see a nun up close and I was so excited! Hahaha, I'm such a nerd, but she was hugging everyone because one boy had died in the wreck and I was all sitting up in my chair next to my mom by my brother's bed, hoping she'd hug me too, like I felt all special and blessed, like she had some magic, but there's something about the nuns, they just fascinate me. To me, they are like little priestesses. Usually the Catholics get a lot of crap for the how they are about Mary, and that's the think I like about it. I must have been really bored, but once I came across this old show and what made me stop and watch but it was black and white and on the church channel and it was 2 kids, a Catholic boy and a Jewish girl, and they were trying to be friends and go to one another's churches and lots of problems came up, but the little Jewish girl looked up at the statue of Mary, and said she liked her. I thought that was sweet. I think it's a side of it all that the other's are missing, that big dad God or even Jesus, there's nothing more sacred than a mother and I like that about them, so with how they are about her, I can't say they are too sexist, at least they give more credit to that than the Protestants. Good God, Martin Luther, what he said about women is terrible.

[Robbie333]

We hardly ever went to church, but if it was, it was Protestant. I think I went to church with a few Catholic friends, maybe 2 or 3 times, and I don't remember ever seeing a nun up close, and then my brother got in a wreck and was in a Catholic hospital once and this is so dorky, but I got to see a nun up close and I was so excited! Hahaha, I'm such a nerd, but she was hugging everyone because one boy had died in the wreck and I was all sitting up in my chair next to my mom by my brother's bed, hoping she'd hug me too, like I felt all special and blessed, like she had some magic, but there's something about the nuns, they just fascinate me. To me, they are like little priestesses. Usually the Catholics get a lot of crap for the how they are about Mary, and that's the think I like about it. I must have been really bored, but once I came across this old show and what made me stop and watch but it was black and white and on the church channel and it was 2 kids, a Catholic boy and a Jewish girl, and they were trying to be friends and go to one another's churches and lots of problems came up, but the little Jewish girl looked up at the statue of Mary, and said she liked her. I thought that was sweet. I think it's a side of it all that the other's are missing, that big dad God or even Jesus, there's nothing more sacred than a mother and I like that about them, so with how they are about her, I can't say they are too sexist, at least they give more credit to that than the Protestants. Good God, Martin Luther, what he said about women is terrible.

Nuns can indeed be scary when you are young Choe. I got a kick out of what you said, Thanks for the smile. I stay out of these from now on but let me say this. The sisters of the church around the world do much good and sacrifice much. Wether you are Catholic like me or not just let me say how much they give to help the poor, down troddin, abused and so on.

[ChloeB]

Nuns can indeed be scary when you are young Choe. I got a kick out of what you said, Thanks for the smile. I stay out of these from now on but let me say this. The sisters of the church around the world do much good and sacrifice much. Wether you are Catholic like me or not just let me say how much they give to help the poor, down troddin, abused and so on.

Yes, that's the kind you always see in movies, those kind with the rulers! But this was a really nice one and kind of young, had a kind face and she just had a way with all of us. I have to give a lot of respect to her and the ladies there going that all time in the face of death and grief day after day like that and not come off as insincere and truly help families deal with it and appear that they care, even to those like us who weren't Catholic, it didn't matter.

[Robbie333]

Yes, that's the kind you always see in movies, those kind with the rulers! But this was a really nice one and kind of young, had a kind face and she just had a way with all of us. I have to give a lot of respect to her and the ladies there going that all time in the face of death and grief day after day like that and not come off as insincere and truly help families deal with it and appear that they care, even to those like us who weren't Catholic, it didn't matter.

They will help anyone Chloe. This is what they have given their life to do, charity. Pray for them.

[jugoso]

Hi Jugoso,

I'm a cradle Catholic... born 1960 ( ) I'm not sure your comment that "many woman raised Catholic have progressed to different religions with no hierarchy based on gender" rings true. Look at what is happening in the Church of England because of woman being ordained, they are coming over to the Catholic Church in their droves!

Also Catholic schools are thriving... my girls age 21, 19 and 14 see no problem with woman not being ordained into the RCC! Jesus knew what he was doing at the time of choosing his Apostles... or don't you think he had the foresight to see that times would change?

edit: to add a link on the RCC reason for not ordaining woman

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

Hi Star of te Sea

sorry for getting back into this conversation so late....it´s been a busy week

Thanks for answering my questions and I found the link you provided interestin as well. I found an article about dissidents leaving te Church. It mentioned only about 600 but it´s a year old.

A first wave of about 600 Anglicans are officially leaving the Church of England in protest at the decision to ordain women as bishops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12685062

Perhaps more ave left since then.

I was also unaware that the Catholic church had created a new "branch " to accommodate them:

"They will be enrolled as candidates to join a new branch of the Catholic Church - the Ordinariate - which has been specially created for them."

It is also stated in the article:

"The group leaving the Church of England includes 20 members of the clergy"

but then mentions

"14 Roman Catholic priests had converted to the Church of England in the past five years."

Seems to be a two-way street.

My father was Catholic and my Mom Anglican. All of the kids were raised Catholic but it was always a "treat" to be able to go to church with mom. To be honest, I never really found the services to be that much different . The bonus was at the Anglican church You´d get to go up at communion time (this was before my first communion) and the priest would lay his hand on your head and say a little prayer. O yeah....and the wine. At the Anglican church all the parishioners got a glug of it while at the catholic mass only the priest.

Anyway, I certainly respect your views although still am puzzled by tthe belief that men have some god-given right to be closer to god.

HI CloeB! Long time!!

I´m certainly with you in feeling tat te catholic church has used manipulation and control of information to p ut forth their message and slowly take-over others belifs. I just don´t trust it . I´ve discussed this issue here

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220268&st=0

and really and truly question the validity of that event and how nicely it fit on top of their previous beliefs. Kind of a "bait & switch" IMO.

HI Beany!! Just like ChloeB, i always follow your posts and think you are pretty much bang on.

And Leonardo....thanks for your well-written insights

[Meiliken]

The thing about the Catholic church and growing up in it I never knew anything else other than male priests.. I saw it as the norm and believed that's how it was meant to be... So you tend not to get bothered by it.. You just think -Meh its how things are so be it......

I remember once when some women from our church would go up to help the priest give out the bread....I refused to take it of the women...I would only take it from the priest ......I know silly of me... but it was only because I believed women at the time had no place.. It was always just MEN....

Once I leave the faith..I get to see it from the outside looking in.......I see a different picture .

Aye, I saw forced indoctrination earlier in this thread and I think it somewhat links well with yours in my stance on it.

If you teach a child that 1+1=3 from birth, and their entire mathematical structure hinges on this, no amount of factual proof will ever change their stance. The same goes for religious brainwashing. It is extremely difficult for a mind to break from that kind of "indoctrination". I came from that myself so I know what you went through with such an eye opening experience.

People have a tendency to not question things out of pure laziness and go with the flow. These are the people I call sheep.

[ChloeB]

They will help anyone Chloe. This is what they have given their life to do, charity. Pray for them.

I shall give it a try, hopefully my heathen self, the prayers don't turn into curses.

[ChloeB]

HI CloeB! Long time!!

I´m certainly with you in feeling tat te catholic church has used manipulation and control of information to p ut forth their message and slowly take-over others belifs. I just don´t trust it . I´ve discussed this issue here

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=220268&st=0

and really and truly question the validity of that event and how nicely it fit on top of their previous beliefs. Kind of a "bait & switch" IMO.

HI Beany!! Just like ChloeB, i always follow your posts and think you are pretty much bang on.

And Leonardo....thanks for your well-written insights

Hey Jugoso!! Yes, long time!! I am terrible with keeping up with everyone, but I see you post, I always look too, though I miss your groovy, spiritual post stuff. That's what I like personally. I feel I get too negative sometimes on here, lol.