Then nothing will make you happy. This is a religious matter, not a civil or governmental one, so how can you demand rationale of a non-religious nature? You will find any such answer unsatisfying.

 

So you're saying the only answer is because the Pope says so? Sorry, that's just dumb IMO.

 

Plenty of answers would be satisfactory. The answer to why priests can't be married (family time could cause them to focus less time and effort to their duties), while I don't agree with it, is at least founded in logic.

 

There has to be a logical answer better than "If Jesus didn't make any women an apostle, then clearly that means the priesthood is meant only for men".

I'm assuming it was a an argument along the lines of "the Bible says so" or something of that nature. Holds zero water to me. I want logical rationale common sense reasoning.

 

"gives a very good, logical and well thought out explanation"

 

While the writing I am sure references scripture, I would be willing to bet it even goes to the earliest writings of the Apostles after the Pentecost and other Early Church Father's who's writings are still used in church teaching today.

"gives a very good, logical and well thought out explanation"

 

While the writing I am sure references scripture, I would be willing to bet it even goes to the earliest writings of the Apostles after the Pentecost and other Early Church Father's who's writings are still used in church teaching today.

 

The gist I got from Getslow's article (which I'm assuming is the same) is that the reasoning is basically Jesus never made a woman an apostle, so clearly they can't be priests.

The gist I got from Getslow's article (which I'm assuming is the same) is that the reasoning is basically Jesus never made a woman an apostle, so clearly they can't be priests.

 

There is more to it than that, but it is primarily the writings of early church fathers like Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom and others interpreting Christian scripture passages that today would -- quite frankly -- be considered sexist: "I suffer not a woman to teach" (1 Timothy 2:11) or "...it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:35). If you're looking for something to hit you over the head that isn't from the Bible, you're not going to find it on this issue... and that's fine. There are a lot of people who agree with you.

"gives a very good, logical and well thought out explanation"

 

While the writing I am sure references scripture, I would be willing to bet it even goes to the earliest writings of the Apostles after the Pentecost and other Early Church Father's who's writings are still used in church teaching today.

Then why did it take the Vatican more than 1,100 years to prohibit married clergy?

So you're saying the only answer is because the Pope says so? Sorry, that's just dumb IMO.

 

Plenty of answers would be satisfactory. The answer to why priests can't be married (family time could cause them to focus less time and effort to their duties), while I don't agree with it, is at least founded in logic.

 

There has to be a logical answer better than "If Jesus didn't make any women an apostle, then clearly that means the priesthood is meant only for men".

 

Maybe it is that simple. Remember the Apostles were the first men ordained as priests. One of the tenets of Catholicism is that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and as such his interpretation of things "holds more water" then anyone else. Bottom line for me is it's a matter of belief and as such may not be able to be logically backed.

Maybe it is that simple. Remember the Apostles were the first men ordained as priests. One of the tenets of Catholicism is that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit and as such his interpretation of things "holds more water" then anyone else. Bottom line for me is it's a matter of belief and as such may not be able to be logically backed.

 

So you believe female priests would be wrong? What would be a negative to having a female priest?

Then why did it take the Vatican more than 1,100 years to prohibit married clergy?

 

The practice of clerical celibacy was official throughout the Western Church by the fifth century and practiced in many areas even longer than that. What the canons of the First Council of the Later in the 12th Century did was to actually take the rather extreme step of dissolving all marriages involving the clergy, not simply forbidding the marriages to take place. It's the difference of "illicit, but sacramentally valid" and "invalid". Small difference, but it reshaped the culture of the Church and really ended the longstanding practice of priests that simply ignored the prohibitions.

So you believe female priests would be wrong? What would be a negative to having a female priest?

 

 

Not necessarily, I believe the church has reasons that are above my pay grade to fully understand for their position. Maybe it will change someday, I'll be fine with that as long as it's done within the confines of interpretation of church teaching rather then pressure from people saying it's "the right thing to do". Changes happen. Abstinence from meat every Friday not just Lent, fasting from midnight on the night before receiving communion, only a priest being allowed to touch the Eucharist were all practices that I remember that were changed. Now granted ordination of women would be much bigger then any of those but it is a change that could happen.

The practice of clerical celibacy was official throughout the Western Church by the fifth century and practiced in many areas even longer than that. What the canons of the First Council of the Later in the 12th Century did was to actually take the rather extreme step of dissolving all marriages involving the clergy, not simply forbidding the marriages to take place. It's the difference of "illicit, but sacramentally valid" and "invalid". Small difference, but it reshaped the culture of the Church and really ended the longstanding practice of priests that simply ignored the prohibitions.

The two Lateran councils in 1123 and 1139 solved the problem of widows and children of priests laying claim to church property. Religious solution to a civil problem.

Not necessarily, I believe the church has reasons that are above my pay grade to fully understand for their position. Maybe it will change someday, I'll be fine with that as long as it's done within the confines of interpretation of church teaching rather then pressure from people saying it's "the right thing to do". Changes happen. Abstinence from meat every Friday not just Lent, fasting from midnight on the night before receiving communion, only a priest being allowed to touch the Eucharist were all practices that I remember that were changed. Now granted ordination of women would be much bigger then any of those but it is a change that could happen.

 

Don't forget masses being held in Latin only.

There is more to it than that, but it is primarily the writings of early church fathers like Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom and others interpreting Christian scripture passages that today would -- quite frankly -- be considered sexist: "I suffer not a woman to teach" (1 Timothy 2:11) or "...it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:35). If you're looking for something to hit you over the head that isn't from the Bible, you're not going to find it on this issue... and that's fine. There are a lot of people who agree with you.

I don't know if many agree with me but most of the major religion's holy books make women second class citizens.

Could this be because they were written by men?

Changes happen. Abstinence from meat every Friday not just Lent, fasting from midnight on the night before receiving communion, only a priest being allowed to touch the Eucharist were all practices that I remember that were changed. Now granted ordination of women would be much bigger then any of those but it is a change that could happen.

 

Some of those practices ought to return. The loss of reverence for the Eucharist (which is, of course, the flesh of Christ himself sacrificed for the sins of the world) and the mass itself really started as those practices evolved. The mass has been in a constant state of deterioration ever since. Completely off topic here, I know, but I'm a big believer in the idea that improving the mass would go a long way toward invigorating the Church. It's not a cure-all, but it's a start.

Edited May 31, 201412 yr by Getslow

The two Lateran councils in 1123 and 1139 solved the problem of widows and children of priests laying claim to church property. Religious solution to a civil problem.

 

Right. But that was hardly my point. The Church had clerical celibacy as an official policy for many centuries prior to the Councils of the Lateran in the 12th century; and it was encouraged long before that... dating back even to St. Paul.

I don't know if many agree with me but most of the major religion's holy books make women second class citizens.

Could this be because they were written by men?

 

No argument from me. Someone asked for the sources for the rule, I obliged.