Priestesses? Why Only Boys Can be Daddies!

by Steve Ray on November 21, 2010

20080708womenpriestsThis is an excellent audio talk by Peter Kreeft on why the Catholic Church has a male-only priesthood.

Why Only Boys Can Be Daddies

It was only a month ago we were in Israel and a group of Anglican priests and priestesses stayed in the same hotel. Some of the men wore pinkish-purple shirts with white collars and most of the women wore black shirts with white collars. One wanted to be called Fr. Christina.

For dissent Catholics who want no pope, a democratic church that accepts and approves of sexual deviations, homosexual marriages and priests, female priestesses, gay and women bishops — there is a church just for you. The Anglican church is just for you!

But remember, orthodox Anglicans and Episcopalians are leaving their schism by the boatload to find refuge in the Catholic Church.

Can you imagine going to this group of “priestesses” for confession?

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

mark mitchell November 21, 2010 at 10:55 AM

No, I really can’t & I’m sure if I was to try to, within 5 minutes we’d be on the verge of coming to blows, even if they were “womyn priestess”, but fortunately, as you mention earlier, ALL THIS may be on the way out, as perhaps HALF A MILLION Anglicans & their priests & bishops prepare to RE-ENTER, after 500 years, the ONE TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH! WHAT A DEVESTATING BLOW TO LUCIFER, who thought he had PUT ONE OVER on God, and this time, made it stick. HE NEVER GETS IT! (AND NEVER WILL)–thank God for that! PRAISE BE TO THE ONE TRUE GOD & HIS HOLY CHURCH—–MARKRITE

Nick November 21, 2010 at 1:03 PM

How can any woman dare to become a priest when no man becomes a priest but is called by Christ to be a priest?

Jay Everett November 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Yes I can believe that they are leaving many of the Anglican and Episcopalian members are leaving their churches for the Catholic Church because that is where they belong. Modernists are doing their best to change religion into today’s secular society and have succeeded in those churches who were not founded by Jesus Christ. The head of the Anglican church is the Queen of England. The head of the Episcopalian church is a gay bishop. People have a hard time understanding that God sent his SON not his daughter to found the Christian religion. God also created man and women so that the race might live on through family life not as homosexuals. We will always have the sinners with us and therefore must pray for them that they will discover the true son of man and his father, the “I AM” of all that is seen and unseen.

Theresa Henderson November 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I sure wish the speech was also written, so that I oculd have it for my shut-in friends.

Deacon Brian M. Chase November 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM

I would like to note that a great many of us orthodox Anglicans remain. The numerical majority of the Anglican Communion is composed of traditionalists in poorer countries in the southern hemisphere that lack the financial means possessed by their Western and more revisionist counterparts, who are actually a numerical minority, to influence policy. We are working very hard to bring these revisionists under the proper ecclesiastical disciplines. This has brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.

We traditionalists, who have more affinity with Rome than with The Episcopal Church as far as these topics are concerned, would very much appreciate your prayers and support as we fight, to the tune of great persecution, this heretical beast. The Arian heresy took more than a century to bring under control, and there were moments when it seemed that the Arians had won the day, with even emperors and majorities of bishops on their side and Athanasius in exile! But the orthodox faith cannot be defeated, and like Athanasius in exile, we will wait and fight for the triumph of truth. We traditionalists would very much appreciate your prayers and support in this battle.

And, as a corollary, we would NOT appreciate your revisionists!!! Anglicanism is not the place for Roman Catholic revisionists. The Episcopal Church may be the place for them, but then again, today Episcopalianism and Anglicanism are not synonymous anymore. I pray that through this battle with these revisionist heretics (who, by the way, are Roman Catholics as well as Anglicans) we traditionalist Anglicans and Roman Catholics would fight together and create stronger ecumenical ties and truly work toward the goal of a full, and not just partial, reunion of our Communions. By recognizing what is catholic in traditional Anglicanism, even if only partially catholic by your standards, and by rejecting heresy, you do more to bring us into union with Rome again than if you were to just discard the whole of Anglicanism when only the part has gone bad. The cancer has not yet spread that far. And where orthodoxy is, it will triumph.

Mack November 21, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Surely that photograph is taken from a production of MACBETH?

Harper MacDonald November 21, 2010 at 5:30 PM

In many ways I am a traditionalist–I disapprove of homosexuality, gay clergy, and abortion. I follow my Lord’s teachings, and consider myself a good Catholic. But on one point I disagree with certain of my brethren: I firmly believe in female priests.
I have heard many, many arguments for male-only clergy, and some of them have been quite thoughtful and brought up interesting points, but I have yet to hear any argument that truly convinces me. I would disagree that the ordination of women is disobedience to God, because I find no scriptural basis for denying women this sacrament. There were female prophets, and even a female apostle–Romans chapter 16, Paul mentions a woman named Junia, whom he calls an apostle. Unfortunately, this verse is not present in every copy of the Bible, because, when the scriptures were being translated, some geniuses assumed that only men could be apostles.
Furthermore, even if some basis for male-only clergy is found in the scriptures, I refer you to Saint Augustine of Hippo: “When You suddenly command some unusual, unexpected course of action, then even if it is something You have hitherto forbidden, even if for the time You conceal the reason for Your behest, and even if it contravenes the accepted norms of human society, can we doubt that it is right to obey, seeing that a human society is just precisely insofar as it serves You? Blessed are they who know that You have commanded them. Everything that is done by Your servants is done either to make plain what needs to be revealed at present, or to foreshadow the future.”
I fully expect to get some rather angry replies, as oft has happened before in response to my opinions, but I assure all commenters that my views shall not change.

Miriam November 21, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I would hope that we never have female priests. I would have a hard time calling her Father. Seems kinda weird to me.

And then I would know that the gates of hell did prevail and that would break my heart as a convert since it means I would have no place to go.

Alan Church November 21, 2010 at 6:09 PM

Harper said -
“but I assure all commenters that my views shall not change”

A true sign of a heretic. Obstinate and disobedient to the magesterium of the Church.

If you support womyn priests, then you are NOT a good Catholic.

The early church father Origen (died A.D. 252) referred to Junias(-as) as a man (MPG 14: 1289), and the early church historian Epiphanius (died A.D. 403) explicitly uses a masculine pronoun of Junias.

Cotton November 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Harper thoughts are valid. I’ve not heard a teaching other than Christ selected men, as valid for male only priesthood, that is, until I began to study and learn of the sacrifice of the mass. My suggestion to Harper is not to look to others for an explaination but to study Christ’s sacrifice at the mass and the role of the priest in scripture and at the mass.

I pray God provides Harper the gift of understanding in this area – it is always difficult being in disaggreement with one’s faith.

Mark Sells November 21, 2010 at 8:43 PM

First, let me say that Steve Ray makes an excellent point about the Anglican church already being there for Catholics who want a church with “no pope, a democratic church that accepts and approves of sexual deviations, homosexual marriages and priests, female priestesses, gay and women bishops.” Also, I welcome anything by Kreeft who is consistently rational and respectful in his work as an apologist.

And like many of you, I also find it repulsive to see a woman dressed as a priest, essentially pretending to be something she is not. But the closing of Ray’s post and some of the subsequent comments betray a lack of charity that has nothing to do with being a faithful Catholic. Here are some of the comments I’m referring to:

Original post: Can you imagine going to this group of “priestesses” for confession?

My reply: Well, it wouldn’t be sacramentally valid, but, likewise, it wouldn’t be sacramentally valid to confess to Spencer Tracy in costume or to an Anglican priest.

Mack: Surely that photograph is taken from a production of MACBETH?

My reply: So they’re witches, now? Actually, they look like grandmothers and kindly aunts to me. Some of them are probably just that.

Mark Mitchell: No, I really can’t & I’m sure if I was to try to, within 5 minutes we’d be on the verge of coming to blows, even if they were “womyn priestess.”

My reply: No comment necessary.

Pope St. Peter: “Always be ready to give an answer for the hope that you have, but do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).

Harper MacDonald November 21, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Alan said (of myself) “A true sign of a heretic. Obstinate and disobedient to the magisterium of the Church. If you support women priests, then you are NOT a good catholic.”

Right-o, thanks for the spiritual assessment. I suppose my parting remark could be taken as a sign of close mindedness, but what I meant by that is that I really, really doubt anyone will come up with something that could make me change my mind. Also, you are correct that many early church fathers referred to Junia as male, but, in the original Hebrew, she is called a woman.

Cotton, thanks for the comments. I don’t entirely understand what you mean about the mass, though. Are you talking about the symbolic part of mass? If so, I would note that there can be many symbols attached to the act of celebrating mass. For a further explanation of some of these, I would refer you to an article titled ‘Eight Reasons Why Men Only Should Serve At Mass.’ The comments below the main article make some very good points.

And, lastly, but definitely not least, I’m not in disagreement with my faith, and I am sure that I would be very uncomfortable if I were. I have been told before that I’m a heretic and a bad catholic–but I know my Lord quite well, and trust him to guide me right.

Jen November 22, 2010 at 6:27 AM

Harper- Do you think the Lord would guide you into believing that women should become priestesses and guide the Magisterium into believing that men should hold that position?

Is God revealing something to you that He hasn’t revealed to His church?

bill912 November 22, 2010 at 8:51 AM

“…in the original Hebrew…”

St. Paul wrote in Greek, not Hebrew.

kendallpeak November 22, 2010 at 10:37 AM

In many ways, original sin is the sin of pride. God told Adam and Eve they could listen to Him and do it His way, or they could figure their ideas were better ideas. This pride is the source of most sins today.
All this modern malarky is the same as Adam’s sin in the garden. God’s scripture gives us a way of life, we have better ideas. And the beat goes on.

Michael+ November 22, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I am a priest in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America and a member of Forward in Faith North America. I do not ascribe to the modern innovation of women’s ordination as there is no foundation for such in Holy Scripture nor in the traditions of the Church. All we need do is take an honest look at the track record of the Church since WO began, and I think we can see the fruits of our labors….very little of it good. I know many women who are godly women called to God’s service but were mistakenly given collars based on the mistaken idea that wthout the collars they were still somehow second class citizens. WO originates in the social justice, feminist movement, progressive bent of ECUSA not because of any proper theological basis.

Harper MacDonald November 22, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Jen– Well, I don’t know. Maybe. I seem to recall something about “scattering the proud in the conceit of their heart” and “putting down the mighty from their seat”. (I’m not calling the Holy Father conceited or suggesting we should remove him from office.)

Bill912– Thank you for the correction. I did already know that, but I was typing fast.

kendallpeak– pride is surely a sin, but I don’t believe at all that I am disagreeing with God. Rather, I disagree with what certain people think God is saying. (I don’t know if your comment was directed at me specifically, but it seems courteous to reply in any case.)

Tam o' Shanter November 22, 2010 at 3:21 PM

I’m a fairly recent convert, still learning about my faith, so I would appreciate if someone could answer this question I have: I don’t know of any scripture saying women can’t be priests (though I’m not saying they should be)–but Benedict XVI says priesthood is for men alone. How exactly do we know this? I’m sure there’s some good reason for it, but I just don’t know what it is yet.
Also, why is there so much confusion about this? I mean, shouldn’t this be a fairly black and white issue one way or another, like abortion, gay marriage, etc.?

Bill November 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Harper-

As Catholics we confess the magisterial teaching of the Church to be infallible. The Church holds, infallibly, that women cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

To say that they can is heretical.

To say that the Church can make a mistake in her formal teaching on faith or morals is heretical.

To say that scripture alone (sola scriptura) provides the basis for the Church’s teaching (which you imply by asking for a scripture reference) is heretical.

Tam:

Per my last to points, the Church has 3 teaching authorities, Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. All three are infallible. The Pope has said that it is a part of the infallible Tradition of the Church that we are to accept as a matter of faith that women cannot be priests.

Any other stance is heresy.

Tam o' Shanter November 23, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Bill, thanks for answering my comment. But I’m still wondering–why are there so many people who want female priests?

Marilena November 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

The kumbaya celebration of community that is the focus of the New Mass invites perplexity over the Church’s refusal to ordain priestesses. In Orthodoxy, in Anglo-Catholic churches, and in Tridentine parishes, there is no confusion, The Mass is a drama where the priest stands in for Christ. You can no more cast a woman in that role than you can have a man play Scarlett O’Hara.

Note that radical changes in the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church preceded the “ordination” of priestesses. This is not sheer chance.

lucius November 28, 2010 at 5:55 AM

There is not a priesthood in the New Testament, only bishops, deacons, and elders. So all of you who are Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or whatever go back and read your Bibles…it ain’t there. Also, to be a bishop, one must be a male, married, and with children. Read Timmothy and Titus if you don’t believe me.

STEVE RAY HERE: WOW! HAVE YOU GOT THAT MESSED UP. YOU BETTER GO BACK AND READ **YOUR** BIBLE AND THEN SEE HOW THE FIRST CHRISTIANS, THOSE WHO WERE THE DIRECT DISCIPLES OF THE APOSTLES PRACTICED THE TEACHING OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES BEFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS EVEN COLLECTED INTO A BOOK. YOU WILL FIND OUT THAT YOU AND YOUR TRADITION HAVE FALLEN OFF THE RAILS AND ROLLED OFF THE TRACKS. WHICH IS WHY I GOT BACK ON THE TRACK AND BECAME A CATHOLIC. I INVITE YOU TO READ MY BOOK “CROSSING THE TIBER.”

Emily November 29, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Bill,

I would like to point out that the teaching that women cannot be ordained is not, in fact, an infallible truth of the Catholic Church. Rather, it is an Authoritative But Non-Irreformable Teaching, which means that the Church holds it to be true. The term for this is an authentic, but non-infallible teaching. Non-infallible. Also in this level of doctrine resides the definition of marriage. So despite what current religious leaders say today, the very laws of the Magisterium are not opposed to change – if you look into the past, you can see that a great many popes supported slavery, even.

I suggest becoming more familiar with the levels of doctrine before speaking on behalf of the Magisterium.

STEVE RAY HERE: I agree that we should all understand the levels of authority with Church teaching. However, even Paul approved of slavery, so to speak, in his time, but it was his words that eventually brought down the institution of slavery. Paul would not have approved of female priests and since the male priesthood is so definitively held and taught in the Church, as imposed by Jesus himself, it will never change since it is in fact, unchangeable by the very nature of the priesthood, a thing revealed by God. Anglicans and Episcopalians are abandoning the false acceptance of female priests and flocking to the Catholic Church.

Michael November 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM

The teaching that women cannot be ordained is indeed infallible and was clarified by Pope John Paul II in 1995. Ordained priests stand in the place of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was a man. Female priests are a vision in the minds of liberal Catholics and should (rightly) be rejected.

Leave a Comment

 

Previous post:

Next post: