"Faith is believing in things you know ain't so". 

-Mark Twain

 

It's best not to get too involved in debate with people on a mission - they are often agressive for no apparent reason.

On a side note, I never understood the popularity of the christian music and book indsutry. We don't have anything like that where I live. I remember quite clearly looking for a special candle for the baptism of my niece in Sacramento. It's a RCC custom and we had to shop around for it and were lucky in in this one huge christian store that had a ton of music, hymn books, spiritual literature and everything you could possibly imagine, even a superher costume of Bibleman with a cape and mask (but I think there was a female option lol) FIGHTING THE SHADOW OF DOUBT!! That costume just reaffirmed my latent oppinion that americans are slightly crazy, no offense

Please, if you will check the Church's history...from the moment of the Church's beginning on that first Pentecost Day in 33AD, no woman was ever ordained as a priestess in the Catholic Church.

When you think about it, women as pastors has occurred only outside the Catholic Chruch and mostly in major denominations of centrifugal Protestantism (and as Leauki has noted, modern Jewry has women rabbis).

Well, actually the debate is closed ever since the late, great Pope John Paul II issued the July 10, 2002, Declaration by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which based upon the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis states in part,

  "In order to give direction to the consciences of the Catholic faithful, and dispel any doubts which may have arisen, the Chruch has no authority whsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." (n.4).

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was originally issued in 1994, and it clarifies the Church's perennial teaching on priestly ordination. In part, "4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time it is considered still open to debate, or the Chruch's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is a mere disciplinary force.  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Chruch's divine Constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (St.Luke 22:32), I declare that the Chruch  has no authority whsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

This settles any doubt about the authority and permancy of the Church's constant teaching, simply re-affirmed by the Pope's Apostolic letter founded on the written Word of God.  The priestly ministry is mentioned in St.Luke "confirming the brethren" was to only men under the Sacrament of Holy Orders, "the laying on of hands." Acts of the Apostles. It did not proclaim a new or altered teaching. This teaching was from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church and now it has been set forth infallibly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

In short, women's ordination in Christ's Church is an impossibility and always has been.

Just one more thing.

To understand the Church's position on only male priests, we must look at the nature of the priesthood. The priesthood is an office entrusted by Christ to His Apostles.....Christ chose only men as His Twelve Apostles and He gave them His authority to teach, govern, sanctify and forgive sins in His Holy Name. 

Christ ordained only males becasue only males can be priests. When priests celebrate the Holy Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, they act in persona Christ, in the person of a groom, the Spouse of Holy Mother Chruch, which is the Bride of Christ. In this sense, the Chruch is feminine and the Holy Mass emphasixes the marital relationship between Jesus and His Chruch by recalling the passage in The Apoc. 19:7-9. The Lamb's Bride is in her wedding garments...The celebrant acting in persona Agni, has to be male.

 

Dr. Guy posts:

Brilliantly true statement and question Doc. The true Christian Faith was taught and passed down from generation to generation by oral teaching..the early Christians learned by hearing the faith...it was the priesthood of the Old Covenant Church who was Divinely appointed to be the teacher of man before Christ and the priesthood of the New Testament Chruch who was Divinely appointed to be teacher of man after Christ. God never intended that man learn his holy religion solely from the Holy Bible.

Christ didn't say "Write Bibles and scatter them all over the earth and let every one read his BIble and judge for himself". If Christ had said that there never would have been Christianity sent to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. There would never have been one Church, the union of one body in Christ.       

Go stake a man's salvation on the declaration that the Bible and the Bible only is the sole rule of faith.....That was the injunction of 16th century Protestant plan of salvation and churches upon churches have been springing up since, fighting and quarreling with each other. 

With this line of thinking, what became of the millions of poor souls who lived before 1517....before the Bible was printed and who couldn't read it if they had one? Did our Blessed Lord fail to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His Truth?

Melkhitsedeq was a Canaanite priest.

Do Catholic priests really see themselves as spiritual descendants of Canaanite priests?

 

Lula. I will make this my last statement on the issue as I do not discuss religion.  However, in the early church, Priests were not ordained, Bishops were.  Priests were just the lay leaders at the time.  It was not until later that the church institutionalized the priests as an ordination.  It is not opinion, it is history.

As such, any leader or worship - and some where women - was the priest of the day.  I never said they were ordained, only that they were women.

I respect your beliefs, but do not agree with your view of history.

Dr.Guy,

What is a Catholic Priest?

He is one chosen from among men, dedicated to God by consecration, and deputed to teach and sanctify men, and to offer sacrifice to God. Christ, Himself most emphatically, chose men, consecrated them, and commanded them to teach, govern, and sanctify all nations.

Here's my study of history concerning the Catholic Priesthood.

The Catholic priesthood is the priesthood of Christ Himself as the Eternal High Priest. The New Testament is full of evidence that Christ established the Catholic priesthood. Christ mediated between His Father and the human race and for that priestly mission, He came into the world. Christ consecrated His chosen Twelve and said, "As the father has sent Me, I also send you. (i.e. you must continue in My Name My priestly mission).

He consecrated them communicating to them His own power, St.John 20:21-22, "He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." After consecrating them, He commanded them to to Go, and teach all nations until the end of the world and that He would be with them.

As regards sanctifying men, St.Matthew teaches that Christ said, "Baptize them, ......" In St.John verse 23, "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them." St.James 5:14 writes, "Is any man sick? Let him call in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven them."

Finally, Christ ordered them to offer sacrifice to God. At the Last Supper, it was Christ Who took bread and wine and said, "THis is My Body" and "This is My Blood", afterwhich He said to His Apostles, "Do this in commemmoration of Me and as oftern as you do it, you shall show the death of the Lord".  Christ first effected the change and gave only to others who were duly and lawfully ordained in the priesthood the power to effect the same change. The power to effect the change is only in the Catholic priesthood.

As often as a lawfully ordained priest of Christ celebrates the Mass, he offers this Sacrifice.And this didn't end with the death of the last Apostle...  Read The Book of Acts....it's is an actual history of the early Catholic Church. The Catholic priesthood was there from the beginning...men were consecrated into the priesthood from the beginning of Chruch history...These men in turn ordained other men...and only by a successive and perpetual priesthood by choice, consecration and divine commission can this be done.

 Christ institued 7 Sacraments and one of them is the priesthood, now called Holy Orders. It's a rite and the fact that it gives grace is shown in Scripture. St.Paul says that Christ "gave Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, etc. for the work of the ministry." Holy Orders is ordaining by "the imposition of hands" and Timothy was told not to neglect the grace of God "which is in thee by the imposition of hands."

All Bishops are Priests first, but not all Priests are Bishops.

And getting back to the main topic of the original article, rightly ordained Priests alone have the God-given right to teach the Gospel authoritatively and carry on its sacred mininstry.

 

lula posts:

leauki posts:

Good question ....let's explore.

To clarify and expand what I said.....The Old Testament predicts that Christ will offer a true sacrifice to God in bread and wine---that He will use those elements. This prediction is as clear as the one that He will also offer Himself upon the Cross. Genesis 14:18 tells us that Melchisedech, King of Salem, was a Priest, and that he offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine. Now, Psalm 109, (Douay Rheims version) predicts most clearly that Christ will be a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech., i.e. offering a sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine.

Our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the prediction at the Last Supper and told His Apostles to continue that sacrificial rite. ...and the fact is it has been continued in exactly the same sense. And furthermore, it was predicted that it would continue. After foretelling of the rejection of the Jewish priesthood, the prophet Malachais 1:10-11, predicts a new sacrifice to be offered in every place. "From the rising of the sun even to the going down my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice and there is offered to My Name a clean oblation."

The Sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for a sacrifice apart from Calvary, one offered in every place under the forms of bread and wine. The Holy Mass is that Sacrifice. The Offering of Christ in the Eucharist is known as the Mass and the Mass is the Sacrifice of the New Covenant.

 

 

   

This is true Doc.  I agree.  To go a bit further...the word Bishop in the Greek is "episkopos" and literally means "overseer".  Also "Presbuteros" means "an elder" and is another term for the same person as bishop or overseer.  The term "elder" indicates the mature spiritual experience and understanding of those so described; the term "bishop" or "overseer" indciates the character of the work undertaken.  According to the scriptures there were to be "bishops" in every local church.  In our church we always had a plurality of elders believing that was the most biblical. 

I'm totally respecting your desire not to delve too far into religion.  You're one of my favorite people and I consider you a JU friend,  so I hope I didn't say anything that you found to be offensive.  I never push my denomination or tell anyone what group they should go to,  but I do like to discuss biblical truths and history quite a bit because I feel it's much more objective than "religion" tends to be. 

Lula, please don't come into this discussion pushing your version of the RCC faith.  I keep asking you not to do this.  This site is NOT about the Eucharist, but yet you continue to push it every time you come here. 

I've deleted you before.  You know this.  While I love spirited discussion like anyone else, I'm tired of the Eucharist/baptism speak every single time we even get close to discussing anything spiritual.  You know I totally disagree with you yet, you continue.  Why?  I'm not going down this road again. 

Please stick to the topic.  Yes, we agree on this particular subject.  We both do agree on female leadership as heads of churches is NOT biblical and is based on opinion not fact.  Let's keep it in that realm, shall we? 

 

No you did not (and since this is not about religion, I can still comment. ).  I have no problem reading about religion, but my faith is strong and I do not like to proselytisize.  I have said what I believe.  I am not here to convert, but I don't mind learning.

I stay out of the religious forum, but since this one was in blogging, and the story was interesting, I offered my view.  As I said, I may not ever see a female Priest, but I don't have any objections to them. Which given my age, probably makes me a bit of a renegade.

I respect your faith and Lula's as well.  I know we (Lula and I) will never agree on many things.  I do read her comments.  But while I love to debate politics, I am a coward when it comes to religion.

Where are you getting that Melchizedek was a Canaanite priest? 

He was the King of Salem ( early name for Jerusalem).  He was a mysterious king and priest of God who blessed Abraham.  The greater always blesses the younger. 

Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek, again to the greater. 

You can see further references (outside of Genesis) in the Psalms and in the letter to the Hebrews.  Psalm 110 predicts that David's greater son (Christ) will be ordained by God to an eternal priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" 

Using typical rabbinic arguments, the author of Hebrews demonstrates that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superiour to the Aaronic priesthood because...(and I know you like lists-so for you especially)

1.  Melchizedek is "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.  He has a timeless priestly authority (Heb 7:3).

2.  The priestly line of Aaron, then present in the loins of Abraham, acknoledged Melchizedek's superiority in Abraham's act of paying a tithe (Heb 7:4-10).

3.  God's oath ordains an eternal priesthood for the one who takes up Melchizedek's role, while the Aaronic priesthood is destined to be set aside (Heb 7:11-28). 

This whole argument was very compelling to first century Jewish Christians who were struggling to justify their abandonment of Judaism and who could see in this discussion evidence that the high priesthood of Jesus is biblically defensible and superior to that of the OT. 

Jesus is the only Priest (High Priest), Prophet and King out there.  One could be a Prophet and a King or a Prophet and a Priest but no one held all three offices at once until Christ. 

And to get back on topic.  There were no female Priests, Prophets or Kings holding office anywhere in the scriptures. 

 

That's really kind of my idea as well Doc.  In fact, I've only mentioned my preferences for denomination once or twice in the many years I've been here and that's solely because they are more bible believing than most.  Most know me as biblical or evangelical but don't even know what denomination I attend. For me, that's not important anyhow.  That could change as man or culture dictates.  I'm not tied to an earthly institution. 

 I am a teacher and I love to teach but love to learn as well.  I have years of learning behind me but still look forward to many more years of learning ahead.  Truth seeking is my hobby!    I have gone on record more than once saying I am not out to convert but to educate.  Converting anyone is not my job.  That's the job of the Holy Spirit.  Only the Holy Spirit convicts and converts.  

 

I think most don't know your denomination, because that is not the important part to your religion.  Your beliefs and faith come through, and whatever the name of your church is comes across as secondary to that.

I don't follow your faith, but I know you are a very good person.  That is why I like to read your posts.

KFC posts:

I have stuck to the topic...that's exactly what I've done. I added to the discussion by providing a deeper theological meaning behind why there shouldn't be women pastors and will never be women priestesses.

kfc posts:

Of course whatever I say is gonna be from my Catholic perspective..that's what I am. I'm always Catholic, in thought, word and deed. I don't drop my Catholicism or water it down when I post on JU.  

In response to the topic, Dr. Guy posted his version of the Catholic Faith and we both responded to it...you in your Evangelical way and me in the Catholic way.

Yes, you do come across as a theological teacher....but what and whose theology are you teaching? A variant of Protestantism and its doctrines.

I am a defender of the Church and the Catholic Faith...While I am defending those, I am teaching as well...not converting or proselytizing. But it's not believable that you are open to learning....otherwise, you'd be open and welcome to what I have to say.

Dr.Guy:

well, ditto for me.... it's a discussion and learning a thing or two should always be the end result.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me?

You are proselytizing.  You are not bringing anything new to the table for me Lula.  I was a RCC myself.   You know that.  This blog does not require that you come here and defend your RCC.  

What you're really saying is exactly what this lady at the garage sale was saying...because I didn't buy her theology I wasn't listening to her.  I know exactly what you have to say BECAUSE YOU'VE SAID IT MANY MANY TIMES!  What's not to know?  You keep saying the same things. 

 Like I said everytime you come on my site you have to bring up something exactly like this:

We are NOT discussing Communion.  We are NOT discussing the Eucharist.  We do not agree on this subject.  Yet, every single time you bring this up.  Enough already.  Please. 

 

I'm only teaching biblical theology.  That's it.  It's not Catholic.  It's not Protestant.  It's Biblical.  I suppose from your POV it would be considered Protestant because it's NOT Catholic.  So, in that case, you would be correct although that's not how I see it.  There are many Protestant religious teachings I do not agree with either because they are NOT biblical. 

I understand.  But you and I've talked many many times here and in person.  I thought we agreed to keep the discussion biblical and not denominational?  As long as we keep it only to what the bible has to say and not what the RCC teaches we should be fine.  But you keep insisting.  That's where the rub is Lula. 

My faith is Christ.  Pure and simple.  So if you follow Christ, then we would share the same faith Doc.  Faith in Christ transcends everything.  Faith is about trusting in God.  Faith is about trusting an unknown future to a known God. 

 

@Utemia:

No offense taken.  In fact I think alot of what you're saying is very true and nothing more than an opportunisitic way of making money using Christianity as the means.  Christianity has turned into big business.  Some of it's good but I'm afraid alot of it isn't.  It's like Christianity is being marketed big time in favor of filthy lucre!  Reminds me of Simeon in the book of Acts when he saw the Apostles power via the Holy Spirit.  He definitely wanted in on that to make money. 

Bibleman was totally overthetop - it looked like batman with a purple mask and cape. I mean honestly, any kid running around that in the neighbourhood would be made fun of or come off as slightly weird and crazy or even brainwashed. Kids don't usually concern themselves with meaning of life stuff. They're kids, they want to have fun and build a tree house or go to the beach etc. And the parents who would buy their kid a costume like that.. that's just too strong.

As for people trying to tell me their oppinion about faith? At first I listen politely, like you, but if they don't get the nonverbal hints that I am not interested I just get blunt and tell them that I am not interested in discussion religion with a stranger and to please leave me the heck alone or talk about something else. I think it is very offensive and rude to try and tell someone that what he or she believes is in fact wrong. I can't believe wars are and were fought over this, it seems so trivial. Why can't everybody just believe what they want and belong to the faith that they do and ignore the others? It's not like I'm using up your oxygen or other valuable resources by not taking the bible as literal as you do, for example (not that you would wage war on me or anything lol maybe that's a bad example), or because I don't believe in allah.

Probably because cult is always linked with political power - those who controll the masses via cult and tradition have the upper hand. The catholic church played an important political role for that reason during the last 1000 years or so since it became a powerful political institution under king charles the great in 800AD. But the evangelical denominations are doing the same exact thing in the US today. I read that the portion of evangelical americans that are registered in the republican party is +40%. I read that in a gallup statistic somewhere but I can't cite it right now. It shows a trend to organize themselves politically - controll the masses=power. It may not be a significant portion of the population, but you don't need alot of people to influence the outcome in an election if hardly anybody else is voting.

kfc posts:

I will be glad to honor your request and not mention the Catholic Faith or Church as long as you or someone else in the discussion does not bring them up first.

And in this discussion I  am not the one who first brought up the Catholic Faith or the Catholic Church.

In # 6, Dr.Guy posted "While my faith does not allow women Priests/pastors, I really have no problem with them." (We both know that DrGuy is Catholic.)

 In post # 8, YOU  are the one who first brought up the Catholic Church.

kfc posts:

It does when someone says something incorrect or erroneous about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's true. You are pushing that Jesus guy, but not your particular denomination. I don't even know what your particular denomination is, other than it is Trinitarian and protestant.

Religion is a set of laws and rituals. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spirituality or history.

 

Short answer:

He was a priest. He lived in Canaan.

Long answer:

When Abraham moved from Beyth Naharayin (northern Mesopotamia) to Canaan (the lowlands at the Mediterannean Sea) via Aram (the highlands between the two) his entourage mixed with the local population (which is why Hebrew and Phoenician are very closely related languages).

Among the local populations there both friends and enemies. Canaanites had city states that feuded with each other and each city state worshipped their own god.

The most powerful of these city states was Tyre (in today's Lebanon) which also founded colonies in the far west (Carthage in today's Tunisia and most of today's Spain) until the Romans destroyed them.

Tyre's god was Baal ("ba3al" meaning "lord", "husband" or "owner" in Hebrew/Phoenician, "ba3alath" is the female form), who was, in Semitic mythology, the son of El ("el" = "supernatural", "god") and Asharath (no idea what it means). Both Baal and Asherath were widely worshipped in Israel until a king put a stop to it around 800 BCE (although worshipping of Asherath survived until well into the second century BCE).

Salem (possible from the root "shalam" = "complete" whence also "shalom" = "peace" derives), located in today's Israel, of course, worshipped the god El (and no other). El was later found by Moses to be the same god as YHWH but in Canaanite times was considered the head honcho of the traditional type, i.e. he was a thunder god and what not.

Abraham believed in only one god, El, and found an ally in the Canaanite city that worshipped El. (Moses would later run into another famous priest of a god also identified as that same one.)

Melkhitsedeq's clan apparently lost control over Salem to the Jebusites later because the returning Israelites found them in control of the city. When exactly Salem became known as "Yerushalayim" (a grammatical dual) I don't know, but the city did then become the capital of the Kingdom of Israel and later the Kingdom of Judaea.

It is important to note that while Abraham believed that only one god was real (and the others either didn't exist or were as non-creator gods simply not important), other followers of El (or El Shaddai or whatever name they knew Him under) did not necessarily believe that. Although El was widely recognised as the creator god and head of the pantheon.

Before monotheism the Semitic peoples were much like the Greeks: there was a head honcho and his wife and lots of children, all of them were gods, and each city state chose one of those as their protector and built him or her a temple. Solomon's Temple on Jerusalem was one of those temples. The fact that later so many would believe that Salem's god was the only god made that temple special and the city important.

 

 

You would notice that trend among other groups too. Evangelicals are just easier to identify as a group.

I don't understand why democracy is good but when people team up to support a party, it's suddenly an attempt to control the masses. Isn't that what democracy is about?

I notice other groups as well,  I just went with the Evangelicals because I had once specifically read about them while doing a lil research for a presentation on the movie "jesus camp" and thuse knew a bit more about them than about other groups.

Controll the masses sounds overly negative, doesn't it, but that's exactly what they want to accomplish (as do other political groups) by gaining political influence - that is what every political party and their lobbyist do after all. It is indeed what democracy is all about.  I only wanted to show the general connection between cult/religion and political power, something that is visible in most major high societies, but I had no intention  to single the evangelicals out and paint them as the bad guys with nefarious goals. They're easy to identify, though, and that's why I used them.

I stumbled across this site here www.frc.org It was during election timeand they had a voter impact toolkit for pastors that you could download or order where pastors and private people could get campaigning material to support the republican vote. I tried to download it but you had to supply your credit card information and I didn't want to do that. I feel uneasy about pastors telling their congregations what party and candidates to vote - that's what statereligions did and do. Pastors have a specials place in a community after all so their reccomendation carries weight. That is  direct influence at the core and an small attempt to controll the masses on a community level. The aim is to widen political influence.

I know that other groups do similar things, but a church is not like any other political lobbyist group. You can't deny that there is an organized effort to have key positions filled with republican or even evangelical politicians. Even if everything is democratic in the US, religeous groups want political influence - that's been the case throughout history.

 

You didn't get my point. There is nothing special about religious groups wanting influence. EVERYONE wants influence. And democracy exists to make sure that everyone can have influence.

Why single out religious groups? They have just as much a right to influence policy as treehuggers and traffic cone fans.

And yes, there is an organised effort to have key positions filled with Republican politicians. It's called the Republican Party. There is also an organised effort to have key positions filled with Democratic politicians. That's the Democratic Party.

I don't understand why that seems like a big surprise to you or like something that needs pointing out.

In fact I would be shocked and surprised if there weren't an organised effort to have key positions filled with Republican politicians. It would mean that democracy is failing.

 

You treat a church, the core of moral values for many, like any political lobbyist group. Fine, you can do that. 

But I think a pastor has no business in telling his people which candidate possesses the correct moral base and who doesn't. They should stay out of politics, I sort of like the concept of no clerical influence on political decisions. That is my oppinion. They don't have the right to influence policy - my oppinion. Thankfully, they stay in the background in Germany even though the church is much more intertwined with the state here.

I was sort of surprised just how well organized the effort is to get key positions filled with people that share a specific moral and religious value codex. They dont seem to bet republicans first, they're biblical evangelicals first like Ahscroft. I think that is worth pointing out, but that's me. The mixing of religious beliefs with political goals makes my warning bells go off.

In a secular state like the US, what other treatment would be justified?




Yes, he does.

That's his job. People follow a religion because it gives them moral guidance. Everyone has the right to tell people whom to vote for. Television does it all the time. Why wouldn't a pastor have that right?




There were countries that had laws against clerical influence on political decisions. The Soviet Union was one such country. But in a liberal democracy clerics will have influence just like everybody else does.

I think you are confusing a secular state with a state where religious people have no right to voice their opinion or to vote.




They stay in the background? I find them quite vocal. They constantly speak up, sometimes against abortion but mostly for left-wing causes. Maybe it's hardly noticceable if you live there because the clerics basically parrot what the media say.




But religious beliefs are political goals.

What's the point of believing in something and then not acting on it?