Catholics only: should women be ordained as priests?

[Kingpoleon]

Go.

You know this is actually a majority opinion among non-Catholic Christians, right?

[Kingpoleon]

Nah, let progressive Protestant churches welcome them with open arms though!

If equality between men and women is too progressive for Catholicism, I think the Western world is too progressive for Catholicism.

[Kingpoleon]

Nah, let progressive Protestant churches welcome them with open arms though!

If equality between men and women is too progressive for Catholicism, I think the Western world is too progressive for Catholicism.

I think that's been self-evident for a long time.  What has been the M.O. of the Catholic Church on those matters is, "We don't need to get with the times, the times need to get with the Church."  Which I can respect to a degree, because religions fundamentally should not operate like political parties do and accommodate their beliefs for the whims of the time.

So I do not have a problem with the Catholic Church standing firm on its exclusivity, or the countless other reactionary beliefs it teaches.  I am grateful to belong to a church that does things differently and ordains women who receive the call, despite those who allege that being more welcoming as a church causes its membership to decline.  Of all of the things God expects from us, popularity is not one of them.

What baffles me is progressive/liberal Christians who join the Catholic Church (I have known a few) with the stated intent of "changing it from within," whether it's leadership roles for women or LGBT acceptance.   If anything, the fact that we have so many denominations now with which we are free to choose makes the chances of the Catholic Church changing its position on gender roles or marriage far less likely.

I’m very proud of being from a denomination with a long history of supporting female preachers - a tradition as old as Methodism and Wesley himself, who first recognized female preachers and was arguably the first to ever license/ordain a female preacher.

Of course, I must also resist Catholicism. If women are to never preach of Christ’s resurrection, I must refer to the Gospel. Who first preached that Christ was risen? Not a man, not by any account of the Gospels. For a church reliant on Scripture and tradition to deny this should be continued is, to my mind, lunacy.

[Kingpoleon]

I take issue with the idea that a priest is in persona Christi. A servant has no claim to his master’s seat, and it is to my mind highest heresy and base blasphemy to proclaim that to be ordained as a servant of Christ is, indeed, to embody Christ.

Nonetheless, if my eyes were blind to blasphemy, - may such blindness never come to pass - you have been told that in Jesus Christ, that all are one* - there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, rich nor poor. I defy any scholar to contradict and question the indivisible unity of the Catholicos Church - not the Roman Catholic Church, but the universal church of all followers of Christ. Laying aside the Jewish practices of religious circumcision and Levites, there is now no distinction between male nor female Christians in the Eyes of God.

I’m glad to note the tone of uncertainty and distancing yourself from those positions, however, because otherwise I might count the falsehood of such beliefs against you - something I ought not do against one who is neither male, nor female, but a follower of Christ.

*Literally in Latin: In Christi, e pluribus unum - in Christ, out of many, is one.

[Kingpoleon]

]On the contrary: Protestantism (apart from few Old Lutherans) is a haughty Pelagianism, a shameless "atheism" (id est SelfDeification).

Per se not more than 1 (or rather 3) persons deserve to live. Our only salvation is to be absorbed into the Holy Trinity. If the priest isn't HE and isn't renewing HIS sacrifice for us and if we don't eat&drink HIM, we cannot be saved from our own worthlessness and hence immortal damnation.

It saddens my heart and my soul to hear such judgment from you, if you claim Christ. On that count, and that count alone, I would accuse you of high heresy and base blasphemy. Unless you claim to be Christ, and, in that position, judge, then who are you to claim a billion souls who claim Christ are damned to hellfire? He who judges harshly shall himself be judged harshly. I despise not Catholicism, nor Protestantism, nor evangelicalism, but I utterly despise such judgment against your fellows who claim Christ like you.

[Kingpoleon]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore. I don’t know what your point is, unless you agree that non-Catholics are damned, in which case, you should argue that instead of... me not liking that he attacked non-Catholic Christians(?).

[Kingpoleon]

I’m used to arguments of damnation against fellow Christians, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good thing or something to ignore. I don’t know what your point is, unless you agree that non-Catholics are damned, in which case, you should argue that instead of... me not liking that he attacked non-Catholic Christians(?).

I wouldn't go quite so far as to say non-Catholic Christians are necessarily damned (for one thing their internal disposition clearly matters. I have little doubt that there are some Protestants in heaven and that Protestants are in principle capable of perfect contrition). However, the ordinary means that Christ provides for is to receive the salvation Christ won for us is the reception of the sacraments. That isn't the same as saying all non-Catholics are going to hell. Georg didn't even say that to begin with; in fact he said what Christ said nearly verbatim.*

Your denunciation of Catholicism as "high heresy and blasphemy" seems to rest upon two rather strange objections (i) that In Christi, e pluribus unum means there isn't a priesthood, and (ii) that a belief that other Christians may be going to hell is heretical because it's judgmentalism. The first point is one that is rather odd although intelligible, but the second one is the reason I am continuing to pursue the argument. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion it would seem to mean it is heretical to think there is anyone in hell. And once we get to that conclusion there really is no point in following Christ.

*John 6:53-54:  Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

Neither a denial of the priesthood nor sacraments. Instead, I do think the Catholic offense, to imply non-Catholics are some sort of half-Christians because they are not Catholic, is a grave and serious charge. It is one thing to say that there are even now billions of souls in hell; it is quite another to say those who do not believe and practice Catholic dogma are in danger of hellfire. The former lacks judgment of specific damnation, which I argue is good: I do not consider it the job of myself or any mortal to put souls into groups of the saved and unsaved based on their outward denomination or theology, like counting and sorting beans by their coloring.

I have a great respect for Catholic beliefs, Catholic theology, Catholic clergy, and Catholic laity. I have a deep disregard for Catholic intolerance of Protestant and Orthodox beliefs, theology, clergy, and laity. That summarizes my position well, I believe.

I am, in this argument, reminded of this:

You have heard ten thousand stories of us who are commonly called Protestants, of which, if you believe only one in a thousand, you must think very hardly of us. But this is quite contrary to our Lords rule, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’; and has many ill consequences, particularly this — it inclines us to think as hardly of you. Hence we are on both sides less willing to help one another, and more ready to hurt each other. Hence brotherly love is utterly destroyed; and each side, looking on the other as monsters, gives way to anger, hatred, malice, to every unkind affection, which have frequently broke out in such inhuman barbarities as are scarce named among the heathens.

https://johnwesley.wordpress.com/john-wesleys-letter-to-a-roman-catholic/
(It should be noted that this, like most Methodist and Wesleyan writings, has far less emphasis on theology and dogma and a greater focus on practical Christianity, especially compared to other Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc. writings.)

[Kingpoleon]

I did not argue either for tolerance or for liberalism, but rather for you not to judge and condemn others on the basis of their thoughts or for committing the heinous crime of being a Protestant. You deny the salvation of others who claim to be save, and, in doing so, argue for a form of extreme Calvinism: that you know which churches are saved and unsaved, which are the elect. Intolerance of dissent in theology, dogma, and beliefs - indeed, outright opposition of critical thinking that disagrees - is a sign of a cult, not a church.

[Kingpoleon]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

[Kingpoleon]

In 2013, at his papal inauguration of March 19-20, Pope Francis said he strives to “promote friendship and respect between men and women of different religions.” Does this respect between different religions, then to your mind suggest the Pope has no respect to any religion?

Yes.

On the contrary, the Pope is infallible on such matters of doctrine, as he is, in your words, a Catholic clergyman and therefore in persona Christ. Your own reasoning condemns itself, and those who supported you before don’t have a lot of room: that is your argument against respecting other religions taken to its natural conclusion.