Does Catholic theology imply support for (male) same-sex marriage?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

... just as the priest is standing in the place of Christ, not himself. If this means that the one standing in the place of the "bridegroom" must be male, why doesn't it mean that the ones standing in the place of the "bride" must be female?

Or are you arguing that the priest doesn't have to be a man?

Click to expand...

The Priest does have to be man, God never ordained for women to receive priestly orders

ForeverFaithful said:

The Priest does have to be man, God never ordained for women to receive priestly orders

Click to expand...

Okay... why?

I mean, in the Bible, Jesus never comes out and says "women can't be priests." What is the reason that the Church gives for why priests must be men?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Okay... why?

I mean, in the Bible, Jesus never comes out and says "women can't be priests." What is the reason that the Church gives for why priests must be men?

Click to expand...

The Sons of Levi were Priests, and Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) forbids women to be Priests, Christ only choose male apostles even though he had loyal (sometimes more loyal) female followers

I could give you why I believe that women should not be priests, I could speculate why God said so, I could regurgitate what others have told me, but ultimately it just comes down to the fact that the Church can not change the sacraments established by God, Priests must be male, Baptism must be done with water, The Eucharist host is always bread and wine

ForeverFaithful said:

The Sons of Levi were Priests, and Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) forbids women to be Priests, Christ only choose male apostles even though he had loyal (sometimes more loyal) female followers

Click to expand...

When did Paul forbid women to be priests?

I know the passages where he forbade women from speaking in church or teaching men, but I've been to plenty of masses where women gave the teaching readings or led the congregation in prayer, so apparently the Catholic Church doesn't give these sections much weight, if any.

I don't think any Catholic priests I've met were Levites, so apparently that rule no longer applies either.

Edit: As for the apostles... I don't recall anything in the Gospels where he says "I picked these people specifically because they're men." They shared lots of characteristics; they were all Jews, all natives of Israel, all men... fishermen were over-represented among them... Why is that one characteristic important but not the others? Without specific words from Jesus explaining his reasons, you can't know.

ForeverFaithful said:

I could give you why I believe that women should not be priests, I could speculate why God said so, I could regurgitate what others have told me, but ultimately it just comes down to the fact that the Church can not change the sacraments established by God, Priests must be male, Baptism must be done with water, The Eucharist host is always bread and wine

Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to change the sacraments; I'm asking you to consider their full implications.

Just to repeat: I'm not saying that Catholics should change anything about the priesthood or the mass. I'm asking about the larger implications of the beliefs being expressed in these things.

ForeverFaithful said:

The Sons of Levi were Priests, and Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) forbids women to be Priests, Christ only choose male apostles even though he had loyal (sometimes more loyal) female followers

Click to expand...

"Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her." John 20:18

Sorry friend, Jesus actually chose a woman to be the apostle to the apostles.

But there are other bible passages that support woman priesthood.

I believe that the church has interpreted the bible in ways that have concluded women should not be priests. Women have been priests and have been ordained in apostolic concession. These rites cannot be undone.

also, if we are to include the gnostic gospels there is even more reason to allow woman as priests.

Curious George said:

I believe that the church has interpreted the bible in ways that have concluded women should not be priests. Women have been priests and have been ordained in apostolic concession. These rites cannot be undone.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because women have been ordained, there are women priests regardless of what the Vatican says about it, or are you saying that there are women in the Catholic Church's line of apostolic succession?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because women have been ordained, there are women priests regardless of what the Vatican says about it, or are you saying that there are women in the Catholic Church's line of apostolic succession?

Click to expand...

Both of these.

Moreover, I am suggesting that there are arguments which refute the reasoning which the church uses behind not letting women into priesthood

Tbone said:

You can infer whatever you will from the teachings of men, it doesn't matter what men teach or what you think they teach.
It only matters what God says.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, since God appears to only speak through humans, rather than directly, the question isn't what God says, but "Which human are you going to believe about what God says?"

Bump!

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Quiddity said:

I feel it noteworthy to note that the Catholic Church has never actually defined the reason for this; I don't even think there's a dominant theory. However, that doesn't mean there is nothing to it.

The bridegroom and bride comparison has already been noted so I won't beat that dead horse. I will however note that if we look at the relationship between bridegroom and bride, the bridegroom is he who gives and the bride is she who receives. In this sense, the Bridegroom is to Bride, as Act is to Potency (it gets a bit philosophical here). Thus, God who is Pure Act, can be seen to be the ultimate "masculine" figure. Furthermore, Christ, who gives Himself for the Church displays forth this "masculine" character of God (even though He is genderless), whereas the Church receives all she has from God ("for what have you that you have not received.") Thus the four marks of the Church principally belong to Jesus Christ, but by His relationship to the Church as Bridegroom, He gives of Himself to her so that receives the four marks (for instance, sanctity). It follows that one who is to engage in the priestly ministry, one who acts in persona Christi, should have that same "masculine" and kenotic character in order to fulfill all fittingness (sp?). Thus, it seems that the priest should be male.

Other possible fitting reasons:

1. Men hunted and men gathered and so it was fitting that they offer.
2. Unlike the surrounding pagan religions where women played a larger role in worship and whatnot; having men do this would be unique and point to a different deity.
3. This verse "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God" points to the reality that through the Church (which is female) a new man is born.

The relationship to the laity and the Church is not one of marriage, so I'm not sure I understand the logic behind it.

Click to expand...

Boy, a lot of these old threads are being brought back up lately. That must mean we need some new interesting threads.


Women have been leaders, Prophets, teachers, and Preachers, from the beginning.


Deborah a Prophetess and Judge of Israel, led the army of Israel against the Canaanites. (Jdg 4:4)



The Prophetess Huldah lived and taught in the Jerusalem College. Hilkiah THE PRIEST and King Josiah enquired of her concerning the Words of the Lord. (2Ki 22:14)



We are told the prophetess Anna lived in, and never left, the Temple where "she served God with fasting and prayers day and night." AND - she taught about JESUS to all that came to Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38)



Mary was the chosen Apostle to the Apostles.



Rom 16:1 I commend unto you PHEBE our sister, who is DIAKONOS of the church which is at Cenchrea:


Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and JUNIA, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the APOSTLES, who also were in Christ before me.


We also have documents from outside the Bible that show the same thing.

Professor of Religion Elaine Pagels, and others, have written about this subject.


*

Tbone said:

You can infer whatever you will from the teachings of men, it doesn't matter what men teach or what you think they teach.
It only matters what God says.

Click to expand...

"What God says," do you mean to say what man says God says? The Catholic Church, is all about doctrine, the making of a religion. The Early Church did not see Jesus as divine. That was decided at the Council of Nicaea and the Chalcedon was about the Trinity. Then you must consider that fascism ( marriage of Church and State) began with the Emperor Constantine beginning 300 A.D. Corruption was carried from Rome to Roman Catholic.

Those interested would be amazed at what history teaches if only they can divorce themselves from Catholic teaching.

Quiddity said:

I feel it noteworthy to note that the Catholic Church has never actually defined the reason for this; I don't even think there's a dominant theory. However, that doesn't mean there is nothing to it.

The bridegroom and bride comparison has already been noted so I won't beat that dead horse. I will however note that if we look at the relationship between bridegroom and bride, the bridegroom is he who gives and the bride is she who receives. In this sense, the Bridegroom is to Bride, as Act is to Potency (it gets a bit philosophical here). Thus, God who is Pure Act, can be seen to be the ultimate "masculine" figure. Furthermore, Christ, who gives Himself for the Church displays forth this "masculine" character of God (even though He is genderless), whereas the Church receives all she has from God ("for what have you that you have not received.") Thus the four marks of the Church principally belong to Jesus Christ, but by His relationship to the Church as Bridegroom, He gives of Himself to her so that receives the four marks (for instance, sanctity). It follows that one who is to engage in the priestly ministry, one who acts in persona Christi, should have that same "masculine" and kenotic character in order to fulfill all fittingness (sp?). Thus, it seems that the priest should be male.

Other possible fitting reasons:

1. Men hunted and men gathered and so it was fitting that they offer.
2. Unlike the surrounding pagan religions where women played a larger role in worship and whatnot; having men do this would be unique and point to a different deity.
3. This verse "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God" points to the reality that through the Church (which is female) a new man is born.

The relationship to the laity and the Church is not one of marriage, so I'm not sure I understand the logic behind it.

Click to expand...

The relationship is symbolic.

ForeverFaithful said:

The Sons of Levi were Priests, and Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) forbids women to be Priests, Christ only choose male apostles even though he had loyal (sometimes more loyal) female followers

I could give you why I believe that women should not be priests, I could speculate why God said so, I could regurgitate what others have told me, but ultimately it just comes down to the fact that the Church can not change the sacraments established by God, Priests must be male, Baptism must be done with water, The Eucharist host is always bread and wine

Click to expand...

The reality hear is that the Church established what she wanted God to say. It is all doctrine, Canon Law, etc. Originally, what is called the mass today was a gathering of a small community, at a household (what would be now called a church) coming together to pray, have a meal together, welcoming those in need, giving all they had to the well being of all. This included prophets after the meal prophesying ( as in the OT). They did this throughout the week, two or three times. They were organized by a bishop (elected by the household. The bishop for the first two hundred years only organized weekly gatherings, etc. The bishops were not priests and did not serve the meal. Priests, as we call them now, took apprentice on and taught them to teach. The same was true with the women. Women taught the women.

Reference the Didache.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Bear with me here...

The reason given for why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church is the Eucharist: during the sacrament of the Eucharist, the priest takes on the role of Christ, and this role includes the idea that Christ is the "bridegroom" and the Church is his "bride". Since "bridegroom" implies male, the priest must be male... QED, end of story... or is it?

The part that they never really talk about is the other half of that relationship: the bride. By the same logic that says bridegrooms must be male, brides (normally) must be female. This implies to me that for logical consistency, the laity must be female just as the clergy must be male... but this isn't the case. Both males and females are welcome to be part of the laity... IOW, to take on the role of "bride" during mass.

If we take this "divine" marriage as a model for the ideal of marriage, here's what we get:

- one spouse must be male.
- the other spouse may be either male or female.

Therefore, the mass itself supports the idea of same-sex marriage... for men, at least.

I realize this is contrary to the Catholic Church's stance on same- sex marriage.

Discuss.

Click to expand...

Roman Catholicism is a cult of Christianity. Therefore what the RC system teaches has to be very carefully matched with what the Holy Bible teaches. For one example the WHOLE Bible is totally against IDOL or icon worship or veneration or bowing to idols and icons. So when they teach people to bow before the statues of Mary or Jesus or the Saints, it's totally sinful.

Now what matters in sexual relationships is that they should be in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and only the Bible if one wants to follow Jesus Christ as thier Lord, God and Personal Savior.

Pl. read this:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
1 Corinthians 6:9Amplified Bible (AMP)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inheritor have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

Andywelikandy said:

Roman Catholicism is a cult of Christianity.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.
But then, I do not make any exceptions from from the cult claim.
What cult do you make an exception for?

Andywelikandy said:

Roman Catholicism is a cult of Christianity. Therefore what the RC system teaches has to be very carefully matched with what the Holy Bible teaches. For one example the WHOLE Bible is totally against IDOL or icon worship or veneration or bowing to idols and icons. So when they teach people to bow before the statues of Mary or Jesus or the Saints, it's totally sinful.

Now what matters in sexual relationships is that they should be in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and only the Bible if one wants to follow Jesus Christ as thier Lord, God and Personal Savior.

Pl. read this:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
1 Corinthians 6:9Amplified Bible (AMP)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inheritor have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

Click to expand...

Please clarify what about 1 Corinthians 6: 9 says that is pertinent to this thread.

Understanding this passage would be key to your point. What is that point?

"Adultery", has to do with marriage. "Idolatry", addresses your mention of "IDOL worship". Is there more than these two identifiers that completes your point?

Let me give you another passage (paraphrased): 1 Timothy 1: 10; "for the immoral, for perverts, for slave dealers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is opposed to sound teaching --" The New Testament, Hal Taussig, p. 355.

Essentially, 1 Corinthians 6: 9 is saying the same thing that 1 Timothy 1: 10 says. How then is there a difference in terms? I like TNT's paraphrase because it clearly represents what was meant to say. Digging deeper, some of which is misrepresented by so many versions of the NT makes for "liking" the TNT's paraphrase understandable.

There is a purpose behind the 2nd century author of 1 Timothy 1; "sound doctrine." Notice the similarities of this catalogue of vices. What common theme, do these vices represent. The AMP really loses that theme when it says "homosexualtiy." You seem to emphasize homosexuality. Again, why? What does it have to do with this thread?

Homosexuality is not a good interpretation of the ancient Greek. Fact is, that Greek language leaves modern translators with an ambiguous translation. Further, that ambiguous translation, interpretation, "homosexuality," does not fit this class of vices. The writer is making a point here and "homosexuality" is taken out of context.

"In 6, 12-20 the fornication referred to is probably that of religious prostitution, and accepted part of pagan culture in Rome." NAB, ed 1970, ff. 6, 9-20, p. 1264.
1 Corinthians 6:
" 9*+ Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the kingdom of God" Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sodomites, 10* thieves, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherit God's kingdom." NAB, edl, 1970, p. 1264.

"Sodomites," as defined by Ezekiel 16: 49.

Andywelikandy said:

Roman Catholicism is a cult of Christianity. Therefore what the RC system teaches has to be very carefully matched with what the Holy Bible teaches. For one example the WHOLE Bible is totally against IDOL or icon worship or veneration or bowing to idols and icons. So when they teach people to bow before the statues of Mary or Jesus or the Saints, it's totally sinful.

Now what matters in sexual relationships is that they should be in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and only the Bible if one wants to follow Jesus Christ as thier Lord, God and Personal Savior.

Pl. read this:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
1 Corinthians 6:9Amplified Bible (AMP)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inheritor have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

Click to expand...

All Christian sects are "cults."

AGAIN - 1Co 6:9 does NOT have the word homosexuality in it !!!!!!!!!

*

Andywelikandy said:

Roman Catholicism is a cult of Christianity. Therefore what the RC system teaches has to be very carefully matched with what the Holy Bible teaches. For one example the WHOLE Bible is totally against IDOL or icon worship or veneration or bowing to idols and icons. So when they teach people to bow before the statues of Mary or Jesus or the Saints, it's totally sinful.

Now what matters in sexual relationships is that they should be in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and only the Bible if one wants to follow Jesus Christ as thier Lord, God and Personal Savior.

Pl. read this:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
1 Corinthians 6:9Amplified Bible (AMP)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inheritor have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,

Click to expand...

I always find it funny when someone uses a passage that condemns homosexuals and revilers to justify reviling homosexuality. I enjoy irony.