Brian, this is one of the best explanations about this topic I have ever heard, and believe I have heard many. The edition of the footage is amazing but much better are the considerations you do. Blessings
@@josephkoob8370 You like things nice and simplistic don't you. Lots of woman-haters are married. Misogyny is a belief system, not some inherent male trait.
@@mightymissk Yes, I am a simple person. You're right. You won't change your position no matter what I say, so arguing is useless. You don't want to change your views, and you won't. Thus, we Catholics pray. We pray for you all.
This grandma who grew up in the midst of the chaos of "Women's Lib" agrees with you 100%. I had the odd notion growing up that Feminism meant supporting women who responded to their natural talents. But then I saw the bossy push to ostracize women who were drawn to motherhood and home life, and even women who were drawn to traditional careers (nursing, teaching, secretarial), so it became obvious that it was driven by unhealthy desire for power. It's basically the Junior High Clique in T-Rex Mode. As some much-older-than-I Baby Boom women in my parish brought up their wish for the ordination of women, I had to look around at the group -- most of them 60+, very few younger than 40, none younger than 30. There are some 30-and-under women in our parish, but very very very few. We're in the Rust Belt of the U.S., so our population has declined, but these Boomer women had small families who have left the Church, and it's obvious that they didn't bring them up with orthodox values. I can't help but notice that they aren't calling for women to be ushers and pass the collection baskets. They don't think our religious orders are "good enough" or "comparable" to what priests do. The local nuns are dying out and nobody is discerning with them - and you can't even tell who they are, they just dress in frumpy street clothes with short hair. And they were some of the women cheering for ordination of women. There were only about five present, at most -- I don't even know if there are other nuns in the city any more. When I was very young our little city had many, many nuns wearing habits, walking downtown every Saturday to shop, praying the Rosary between stops. Even my Southern Baptist neighbor's mom told us to be silent when we passed them so we wouldn't disturb their prayer. Now prayer is seen as "inaction." The focus is on social revolution, but meantime we've got more drug addicts, so I don't see that they've improved anything, and I can't imagine how women in the priesthood is going to improve the environment, either (their other focus). Honestly, the local nuns have a social media account that promotes "Meatless Mondays for the Environment." I left a comment: We're Catholic. We do Meatless Fridays. And I'll tell you straight up: I ain't confessin' to no woman. I know women too well. We have to vent, to share our emotions, talk about the workday. I'm a teacher, so I hear it in the staff room - even as a substitute teacher in buildings where other teachers don't know me. I have lots of friends who are nurses, and it's uncomfortable when they begin violating patient confidentiality by discussing their work -- I have to end the conversation. There are healthy ways to deal with this aspect of our careers, but sharing it with someone who isn't in that workplace is not healthy. Putting women in the Confessional would be a disaster because there is NO place they can discuss what they feel based on what they have heard. We, as women, have emotional strength, we are nurturers, and we need nurturing. And we never forget. We're annoyed that men can seem cold-hearted to us because men deal with emotion differently. It seems like something can just roll off a guy's back. And we're annoyed that men forget what we've told them. But these qualities are a strength in the Confessional. But most of all, I don't trust these women to lead because I don't trust their desire for power. They do see the priesthood as a position of power -- they've told me this! When I said I see the priesthood as a position of service and sacrifice, the other women insisted that "Priests have a lot of power - a LOT of power!" So I just asked, "What do you think about getting on your knees to wash the feet of the laity on Holy Thursday?" Nada. No response. I just don't think they know everything our priests sacrifice in their lives. The priesthood is a gift of service. If any have used the position to lord it over others, they're doing it wrong, and that's not the model we should be promoting.
KA Fleury you sound very misogynistic the way you put women down as gossipers. Obviously you don’t know much about how men talk with each other. I agree with some aspects of what was said about glorifying masculinity to the detriment of femininity. You need more self esteem. You bought into the whole deal you try to disclaim
Having experienced women ministers (ordained, religious and lay) as an Anglican I will say that I don't see why a nun who has proven herself cannot be ordained. Yes our female presbyters and deacons make similar mistakes to the males. Some also perform spectacularly. As ministers they have to give up lust for power, sex and money. That is the job of formation. It is good to explore what type of formation works and which doesn't.
Good for you The issue is not about you ( sorry not that important in this context) The issue is not about women who want to be men It is about women who want to be priests I wish people only comment about that & not confuse the issue
There has only been male priests since the beginning of the Church. Even when the Apostles were still alive. You really have to have very good Logical and Biblical arguments to push for that change. Are you even a Catholic? Show your arguments.
@@theobserver3753 We could start by contesting that generalisation: 'There has only been male priests since the beginning of the Church'. It took a couple of centuries to develop a form of priesthood that we'd recognise today and, arguably, longer than that. To assume that those early forms of priesthood were 'male only' is, to put it charitably, courageous.
@@RodDop-us9ex Really? You know that as a historical fact? Is there any record of Jesus saying that priests should always and ever be men? Without that clear obligation it's reasonable that we can assume that this limitation of the priesthood is human-made and can be undone by humans. If not, then we can extend your logic. Jesus only chose middle-eastern men to be his disciples so, by your logic, it follows that Jesus only wanted middle-eastern men to be his disciples. Jesus only chose Jewish men to be his disciples, so, by your logic, it follows that Jesus only wanted Jewish men to be his disciples. But the early church, after some struggle, made the decision that their movement (and their priests) were to be opened up to non-Jews and men from any country, despite what Jesus 'chose' in his eartly life.
Brian I absolutely loved this video. You are so good at articulating the message that you want to convey. Thank you for your kindness in sharing your thoughts.
Brian, I just have to say how much I enjoy your videos. I appreciate how well developed your thoughts are, and how clearly and simply you communicate it. You have a simple and pure sincerity, that has no arrogance in it. You have confidence in what you believe and say, yet I get a definite sense from you that you clearly have an openness and respect for others, it's a great example of humility in my opinion. Lastly, your production of your videos is simply excellent. Thanks for sharing your talent, always look forward to your videos. God Bless! Robert
Yes! As a mother of 5 and a former teacher - I completely agree! God gave the woman unprecedented influence by entrusting her with children. It pains me to see young women abandon this divine responsibility in favor of trivial things.
Tropical Garden, with all due respect, it’s not like fathers are not supposed to be present during the formative years of the children so they too have access to children. Women are abandoning their “Devine” responsibly to have equal access the institutions of the society which don’t favor the needs of females. By restricting women by this moral obligation of bearing children, these conditions won’t change. Through evolution there’s a biological imperative to have children and women will always have it with or without this moral obligation.
Well can't one argue that, God gave men the ability to impregnate, so that is what men should do all day and that is their only duty? So why do men get to priests and not women?
We see in the Pauline Epistles that women were elevated in the Church in a way not representative of that time or any time previous to it. It needs be said that the verse regarding women honoring or subjugating themselves to their spouses is sorely misunderstood.
ON THE ISSUE OF DEACONESSES There is an essential difference between the “Sacraments” instituted by Christ, and offices and “Sacramentals” instituted by the Church. The “order” of Deaconesses belongs to this second category, as well as Religious orders and minors orders. It is not related to the Sacrament of Holy Orders (instituted by Christ) but to an office/sacramental (instituted by the Church). Sacramentals work “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae”, from the working of the Church and the good disposition of the recipient, and not “ex opere operato” by virtue of the rite itself Divinely Instituted. The Church can both institute and eliminate offices according with times and needs. Consequently, the “consecration” of a Deaconess did not imprint an ontological character as in the case of ordination of men to Holy Orders. To be a “VIR” (MAN) is essential to the validity of the 3 degrees of Holy Orders (and not 2 degrees out of 3, given the “UNITY” of the Sacrament of Holy Orders) because masculinity (being Spiritual Bridegroom and Spiritual Father) pertains to the MATERIAL CAUSE of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Women are a sign of the Church as a “BRIDE” and cannot even enter the first degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which makes a man relate to the Church as a Servant/Bridegroom. That is why in the Byzantine Liturgy the Deacon is called “Bridegroom” (how could we call a woman: Bridegroom?) The deacons enter the sanctuary from the sides (the Deacon’s gates), the priest enters the sanctuary from the center (the Royal Gate) but women are not allowed to enter the Sanctuary in the Byzantine Church. Not because of discrimination but because of the order in the distinctions of roles: CHRIST: BRIDEGROOM/FATHER THE CHURCH: BRIDE/MOTHER MATERIAL CAUSE: Imposition of the hands on a VIR (MAN) FORMAL CAUSE: The words that define the rank of Holy Orders EFICIENT CAUSE: The Bishop FINAL CAUSE: The three ranks have in common to be a Spiritual Bridegroom of the Church at the image and likeness of Christ (MAN) who washes Her feet right in the context of His institution of Holy Orders. Therefore, since both the Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic Church and the Byzantine/Orthodox Tradition oppose it, it is pointless even to discuss the Diaconal ordination of women, as there is no Theological possibility at all for its existence in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I t would be like discussing the "pregnancy" of men." In the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity on assuming an Office to be exercised in the name of the Church, clergy not only believes with firm Faith the Solemn Judgements of the Magisterium but also the ordinary and universal Teachings of the Magisterium of the Church as divinely revealed. Clergy also firmly accepts what is definitively proposed and religiously submit their will and intellect to the Authentic Magisterium, even when the teachings are not proclaimed by a definitive act. Every man must take this Oath before entering Holy Orders. For those who have taken this Oath, to support Woman Ordination, does not speak well in terms of their loyalty to Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterial Propositions we already have, which they should know, teach, and defend: First Council of Nicaea, Canon 19: “Deaconesses, not having been in any way ordained, are certainly to be numbered among the laity”. The Council of Laodicea (Canon 11, inter 343/381 AD): “The so-called presbyteresses or Presidentesses are not to be ordained in the Church. … Women who among the Greeks are called presbyteresses, but by us are named older widows, women once married, and women on the register, are not to be stationed in the Church as if they were ordained”. St Hippolytus of Rome (The Apostolic Tradition, ca 215 AD): At the Ordination of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons - all receive the imposition of hands, but not widows: “When a widow is to be appointed she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named such. … A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with other widows. Hands are not imposed upon her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the Liturgy (or she has not a sacred ministry). Ordination is for the clergy because of the Liturgy (or their ministry). But a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all”. (William Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, vol. 1 entry 349f). Tertullian (Demurrer against the Heretics, ca 200 AD): “The heretical women themselves, how shameless are they! They make bold to teach, to debate, to work exorcisms, to undertake cures, and perhaps even to baptize. Their ordinations are casual, capricious, and changeable.” (William Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, vol. 1 entry 300). The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration “Inter Insigniores”: “In fact we know from the book of the Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the letters…Priscilla, Lydia…Phoebe, in service of the Church of Cenchreae…Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.” Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (J.P. II, 1994): “In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: "In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner… In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan… The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry.”
You do understand that the Greek of the New Testament speaks of Presbytresses and Presbyters not older men and older women in the teaching ministry. It is a typical Roman Catholic Church attitude to concoct dogma to explain a Church position rather than explain the simple rules of Scripture.
St Catherine of Siena herself puts down any claims that the Church is and always was "sexist." She had no "influence" my ass she didn't. And St Hildegard of Bingen? Her titles (Abbess, artist, author, composer, mystic, pharmacist, poet, preacher, theologian) are about a dozen including, like St Catherine, a Doctor of the Church. And she lived all the way back in the 2nd century. And how abut (I dunno) the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven? Yeah. So get outta here with all that sexist bull. This especially irks me because I myself am a girl, and people claiming that I' being oppressed by the Church and (essentially) Jesus Himself is appalling beyond belief.
Just a little point more to your claim. The greater honor that God bestowed to a creature was precisely to a woman. His Mother. Mary is the only creature in all creation that was created immaculate. Yes, Adam and Eve, were created pure, but not impervious to sin. But Mary, was preserved from that, since God, in the Second Person, to be incarnate could not be born of a stained creature, but from someone that could not ever be defiled by sin. For that reason, a woman is revered in Heaven as on Earth as the most perfect and majestic. No one occupies in the Church the same place as Mary. We, catholics, say that not all the saints combined can achieve from God what Mary can. You can ask a true catholic who does he revere the most, and undoubtedly Mary is the answer.
@zbm100 I think there truly are sincere women that feel they have a calling for the Church and in particular the priesthood, because they want to emulate Jesus as much as possible, because they feel called to have a flock etc... We shouldn't be dismissive and instead figure out what other roles those women could have instead. Being dismissive might just make them feel rejected, or like their voice has no meaning.
@zbm100 zbm100 I am certain there are many women who feel a calling to the Church which is other than nun or motherhood, and don't know how to be heard, and they sincerely believe it must be priesthood. It isn't a question of power, it isn't a question of pride or even equality. Men have their uniqueness and women do too. Yet rare is the space for women in the Church (not a lay person) who can be a real intellectual and do research on theology for example. I don't understand what the fuss is, that women would want to engage themselves in more intellectual roles in the Church? Furthermore, if we look at sacred scripture and sacred Tradition, then women were able to be deacons. Even today, the vast majority of bishops are for a return of women deacons. Yet this Tradition ceased, why? I think it's a shame is all. And this isn't at all in support of women priests, but I can understand that some may feel a real calling, but not as a nun, a mother, a wife, a saint or a perpetual virgin.
Protestant here. I love your videos and I have learned a lot about the Catholic faith but I am going to say we find both married priests in the old testament and new testament and woman serving priestly roles in old and new testiment as well. Female elders, female disciples, females preachers, church leaders and females intervening on the behalf of the high priest.
I remember deaconesses being mentioned but as for "priest" I never saw this mentioned as an office in the Church. Priests were part of the Temple worship in Jerusalem, not in the NT Church, but there are lists of many roles, including pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists etc., but it seems today all of those roles are carried out by one man "at the front" while the majority of the congregation remain passive. I came across ministers, bishops, deacons, but not PRIESTS. Maybe the grandeur of the Temple is why so many grandiose cathedrals are built, but I thought the priesthood and Temple were done away with by God, and we are kings and priests only in spiritual terms, not in actual offices, otherwise we'd all be wearing golden crowns too. Strange how any female priest I know always wears man's clothing, which is prohibited.
Women do have one of the most importance in The Church since that they are often the ones who lead their children as well as their husbands to attend Mass.
Great video! It’s a pity that motherhood is so underestimated in our days. In some African countries, after giving birth women are helped by all the village. They are served and honoured. The appreciation and care of my husband made me proud of my role as a mother and helped me to embrace it fully.
"boo-hoo, women are so opressed in religion!" Yeah, that's why we honour Mary. Being a mother doesn't equal unemployment. It's a full-time job, which should be honoured in our society. Instead, we talk about how women should have right to return to work as soon as possible. A right to pay taxes instead of being there for their family?
TheGuardian And could it not be men who could be there for their families and women who pays taxes? I personally don't care which works, but I do think that a family does better when one of the parents stay at home? father or mother. And really, you honor Mary only because she's a mother? You can't see her as a women? What about Mary Magdalene? We honor her too... and she was a disciple and is considered as the "apostle of the apostles"... Yet she's not a mother... Should we kick her out? Or ignore her? No, why not give her a bad rep, already done though.
You honor Mary, a virgin. How many of the world's women are virgins? A lot less than are not. Where is the honoring of the majority of women in a state they exist in most of their lives? Nowhere. The RCC only honors women if they stay virgins.
@@nerdanalog1707 I agree what with you have to say, but what I think he’s trying to say is that some people view being a mother as being oppressed or a dead end job. He wrote that comment with that in mind I believe. He’s arguing against that stance. We honor Mary as a person and for what she did, one of her greatest responsibilities was her being a mother to Jesus Christ and she prevailed.
I agree with almost everything. But i dond see the insane work of the priests now a days... Where is the debate about abortion in the homilies when ireland and argentina put abortion into law? Where is the protection of the sacredness of the house of god? Where is the care of the liturgy? Where is the wisdom of the sheperds....i know that the priest had sacramental honor but also sacramental duties...here in europe we are alone against the world
Priests take their queue from their Bishop. If the Bishop will back them up with being controversial and maybe alienating a large number of pew sitters, then they will be more likely to preach these things. Lots of priests don't because they have Bishops who would abandon them in a second and remove them with cause of due to complaint letters and falling registration rolls.
You make a really good point. Maybe the reason we are debating women priests is because we don’t understand what a priest is anymore. Maybe we don’t see priests doing priestly things as much as we need to.
@@pickcomb332 perhaps if the Bishop they take orders from is female on this point then maybe they could argue it as a fair point. But it's set that religion and beyond ancient beliefs still dictate the lives and laws of so many in so many countries.
What a well thought out and cogent argument. Nothing crazy or metaphysical, but clearly and concisely expresses what the Church believes and why a seemingly arbitrary male-only clergy is actually very specifically chosen and important in God's Church. Well done again Brian
The priest in local parish spent a lot of his time chasing women and playing golf, paid for by his cut from the collection plate. They all don't work so hard.
@@msminicooper2010 work.. Who defines what it is? A very small number of priests behave as you describe but being a priest in layman's eyes might seem that way. Ever heard of "walk a mile in my shoes"?
There may be a good ontological argument for why, in God's plan for humanity, the role of priest is reserved for men. However, the current case for it made by the Catholic Church does not hold up well under serious scrutiny, and to say that misogyny is not part of the problem is simply absurd.
Its a dodge, not an answer. It comforts you. The blatant injustice of it makes me angry. I hope one day to see women leave the Church over the Vatican's misogyny in such large numbers, that the old boys club has no choice but to stop treating us like 2nd class citizens.
That was an excellent explanation! A very enthusiastic round of applause. I had this discussion with my daughter when she first started high school and was really really smacked in the face with a lot of anti-Catholicism. And she knew I had a visceral dislike of the word “feminist” based on my childhood experiences of women heaping scorn and disrespect at my beautiful, brilliant and very pro- life mother. She was a very vocal leader of the pro life movement in our state since 1973, giving interviews and talks, lobbying, etc. I saw “feminist” women all but spit on her. So my daughter had a goofy idea that I held the role of women as less important than that of men. Especially after being bombarded day in and day out at school with anti Christian, anti God, anti traditional values ideologies. She did in fact play the “Jesus was just following the social norms of the times” card. And I wish I had heard this talk then!!!! I could have equated it to sin. I never drew it to its natural conclusion. I explained that Christ was never once bound by social conventions, that his whole life was a very long lesson in turning earthly values upside down utterly. He went where he was needed and he had imperfect vessels to be his voice after his death and resurrection. I explained that there are women Doctors of the Church, including her own patron saints, that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix. And I went to that old kernel that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. I needed to have heard this to be able to send it home right then and there
Some one should write a book shedding light to the beauty of woman hood. Society seems to eradicate all that is feminine and treating it like a burden or a curse. Sometimes I as a woman feel inadequate, since the place I hold in my life is that of a scullery maid. People get confused and say “u can’t wash dishes for the rest of ur life”. But I reflect that Our Lady, who is the greatest Saint, Queen of Heaven, and Mother of God, spent her earthly life doing very similar mundane chores. And so in doing this with Christ in my heart, how could I possibly be lacking in any thing in my life as the Blessed Virgin is proof of this. God Bless!
Francis&Fawn /Catholic&Danish “the privilege of being a woman” by Alice Von Hildrebrand and “The Eternal Woman” by Gertrude Von Le Fort are excellent philosophical and theological insights into the depth and breath of womanhood.
If women knew how much men really loved femininity and the feminine virtues they would never listen to the feminists. Incidentally there is a tendency to see this in the abstract "women cannot be priests but men can' or 'Women do mundane jobs' - most men, apart from a very few, also have mundane jobs, very few are priests or ministers. How many women arguing for the right for women to be priests would actually become priests - given the option? A similar issue arises in STEM fields - 'more women should do STEM' - ask them if they want to do STEM, and they will say no, and in that case there is in fact nothing stopping them doing STEM, there is not just that many women interested. The fact is there are plenty of options, and although women can often do mens' jobs and roles and vice-versa, maybe that is not the best outcome - either for them or society.
Brian, my students ask this all the time. Your point about the mystery around why Jesus is a man and why he chose only men is analogous to another reality that confounds. Why did God choose only women to bear the grace and burden of child bearing and rearing? Why did God naturally create men to have a physical and temporal barrier between loving and caring for their children (i.e. fathers need to learn to care for child while for many women it comes naturally if not instinctually)? These mysteries lie at the heart of God’s plan for nature to communicate part of God’s divine trinity to us. So just as I cannot explain why God chosen women to be the chosen for child birth, I cannot necessarily rationally (exhaustively) explain why God chose only men for the divine priesthood of sacrifice. Is this a legitimate analogy?
E_ B_ - very good. I would like to point out that Christ, the incarnate god, by a physical act of washing the feet is emboldening and honoring the material dimensions of creation. God who is all powerful and all knowing is not just zapping here and there his will but engages in the material, physical and social dimensions and limitations. This is an act of rising up man. Folks often do not contemplate how god in the course of history chooses to interact with humans.
E_ B_ -. You are correct. It is my attempt to point out that god through all his works and at that of his son’s interaction with humans uses acts like the washing of feet to establish his church and bring his life in to a mystical body. In this way god does rise up his human creatures for the glory of god. I mention this only because moderns sarcastically ask if god is so great and powerful why does he spent 2 thousand years trying to work with the Jews and then all this secretive work with Jesus’s followers like washing of feet as a ritual to initiate apostles into the priesthood. I’m stating the obvious. God has placed his life on earth in the hands of his baptized. This is an act of love so unfathomable all we can do is bow in reverence and worship. In addition so many Catholics unknowingly take a Protestant idea think that god’s grace and god’s will makes people do good things and makes them saints as if they were robots. Therefore, why should we honor the human creature; we should just think god and leave the human element aside. This not correct. There is always a free will and a struggle by both god and humans. How often do we hear that god allows temptation to bring his human creatures to himself. Upon some heroic charity or life by a little human person, that person is brought to the attention of angels for all to see.
I think everyone should remember that there is a higher position in the church that anyone, regardless of gender, can become: Saints. Anyone can, and should aspire to, become a Saint.
Benjamin gutierrez oriol The problem with that argument, is that then why shouldn't men only want to be saints? Why do some want to become priests? Shouldn't aspiring to become a saint be sufficient? And what if a women truly and sincerely wants to become a priest? Giving an option, is not giving and answer.
Brian, can you do, or have you done, a video on why the Catholic Church maintains the celibacy rule (because, for those who don’t know, it is a rule in the Church, not a doctrine or dogma) for priests? As you probably know, priests were once permitted to marry, but for a multiplicity of reasons (the most well-known one being that the Church did not want Church property to be passed down from father to son and thus be consolidated into select priestly families), the Church elected to enforce compulsory celibacy upon priests . Much rhetoric and theology about the sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood because of the celibacy rule has been heaped onto the priesthood. A crucial question or two is this, then, I think: Is the celibacy rule, even though it is only a rule, essential to the much-lauded sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood? Or could the priesthood’s sacrificial nature be re-examined to exist without compulsory celibacy? That would thus also require an examination of what it means for anyone to make sacrifices for God, then, I think. We might also need to then examine whether our understanding of human self-sacrifice places too much emphasis on sacrifice in sexual terms, minimizing other forms of sacrifice that God might want us to appreciate. Wow, I’ve gone on for a bit. But my point is this, as a reminder: Have you thought about these questions/considerations in a video? If not, would you in the future? 😊
Female priests? NEVER! The Word is the seed of life, it is given by Jesus, the bridegroom. The Church, the bride, receives it, nurtures it, nourishes it and makes it grow. The priest stands in for Jesus, he gives the Word.
I've been binge watching your videos and LOVE them all but this has got to be one of my favorites! Thank you for your content, it is AWESOME and Im totally sharing it with all my family and friends! :D
Spot on. No more actresses, but we still use "man" to mean human. This proves your point. Feminism is all about women becoming more like men. We don't value female/feminine contributions, which is why women want what men have. Who can blame us? It takes a lot of strength to insist on being valued for our femaleness and femininity.
thanks Brian! great explanatory video, just want to add that Jesus chose 12 apostles (all men ) to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, which were 12 brothers, sons of Jacob (named Israel) all men.
In the book _The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church_, the author nails the feminist epistimology, it's all about power and abolishing the structures that lead to a disparity of power and this will, per Ruether and Chisteiser's own writings, will eventually lead to the abadonment of distinct and effectual Sacraments, and even any importance about the Incarnation itself. Women's ordinantion is only the means to the end if destroying the Catholic Church as anything resembling Catholic.
@Brian Holdsworth You're somewhat of a radical-cultural feminist. I'm Catholic and recently took a Women's Studies class in a very anti-Catholic environment and one of the theories we talked about was radical-cultural feminism. It says that in order to achieve equality between the sexes society must recognize our differences and uphold feminimity as well as masculinity. Thanks for the video!
The Church has no authority to ordain women as priests, is not merely a matter of Church discipline which can be changed, but belongs to the deposit of faith which cannot. In regards to modern women wanting to be men.Going against the nature of God. Romans 1;26 26; For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. The west is losing their religion becoming sodom/gomorrah plain and simple all we can do as Christians is point it out with love/charity.
Another case of shoe-horning scripture to fit an ideology. Scripture is alarmingly silent on the nature of priesthood in general and makes no reference for the need for celibacy or a male-only requirement. There seems to be no doubt for example, that Peter was married. If Jesus had a thing about celibacy, he certainly didn't tell his number one man. There is no convincing evidence that the early church had an exclusively male only priesthood. In short, the nature of the priesthood being 'deposit of faith' is a fiction. It developed and changed over centuries and it can develop and change further. To say otherwise is a form of idolatry.
@@tonycarey1735 You start out with "Another case of shoe-horning scripture to fit an ideology. Scripture is alarmingly silent on the nature of priesthood in general and makes no reference for the need for celibacy or a male-only requirement. There seems to be no doubt for example, that Peter was married. If Jesus had a thing about celibacy, he certainly didn't tell his number one man." When celibacy is not the issue being discussed. The Catholic Church does not teach that celibacy is doctrine nor that it is scriptural, it teaches that it is a discipline, a practice adopted by the Church. I don't hear anyone complaining about Jainism or Buddhism promoting celibacy among their monastic adherents. So unless you're going to start criticizing your local Buddhist monastery, I don't want to hear your attempts to hypocritically impose your own moral beliefs onto Catholicism. As for the priesthood, who in the old testament was allowed to be priests? Oh, right, sons of Levi. So there is actually a scriptural reference to the nature of the priesthood because the old testament priesthood is a type of the new testament priesthood. Then you say "There is no convincing evidence that the early church had an exclusively male only priesthood. In short, the nature of the priesthood being 'deposit of faith' is a fiction. It developed and changed over centuries and it can develop and change further. To say otherwise is a form of idolatry." ... “It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34-35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office” (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]) - Tertullian “For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:1-2 [A.D. 225]) “[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74:10 [A.D. 253]) “[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]). - St. John Chrysostom If you discount all of the evidence, records, and testimony of the Church fathers, toss out the bible, and remove everything related to Christianity from the discussion I suppose you might not see the evidence for a male only priesthood in the early church.
AMEN TO THIS!!!!! >>>Well, the thing I’d say to that, is that traditionally, women already had the MOST influential role in the Church. Nothing is more influential than motherhood. To have the most exclusive access to children at their most critical stages of development is more influence than you can ask for. There are no theological papers, encyclicals, or magisterial exhortations that compare to the mentoring of a child by their mother.
I really liked this and found it very thoughtful. I disagreed on 2 points and would like to propose them for thoughts. The Church is not the People of God. She is a self sustaining entity (i.e. Aquinas uses the term perfect society) independent of her members. This is one of the reasons why we see members of the Church commit sin but the Church herself does not. Also, isn’t it disconcerting that in our current time we have become so confused about the differences in gender that we struggle explaining why women cannot hold positions in the hierarchy of the Church. The priesthood is threefold. It sanctifies, teaches, and governs. This is reserved exclusively to men, and to men supernaturally called by God. The Catholic Church does teach that women cannot have this calling, but that any able bodied man could. It does have to do with gender but our culture has successfully confused gender to the point that even rational and understanding people struggle understanding the differences and roles. That was alluded to in this thoughtful video but not fully explained. One more point, which is not specifically part of the two points, is that the difficulty understanding gender comes from turning it into an emotional argument instead of the objective, rational argument that it is. That emotion seems to come from being upset about one gender not being perceived as good as the other. But both, despite being unequal in what they are, are still equal in goodness.
Great video - as an additional source, which I found helped me understand this even more deeply and richly, I recommend reading The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church, by Monica Migliorino Miller. She goes through the early Church teachings, the symbolism of the male and female in the covenant, and the essential and irreplaceable role women have, and the authority that that entails.
Your logic is outstanding!! Why do women want to be more like men instead of focusing on their own strengths?? You are absolutely right about motherhood being devalued in today's hyper secular world. Now all woman have to be executives, managers, CEOs etc in order to have value. But remember the old adage "The woman who rocks the cradle, rules the world". We shouldn't be giving up on motherhood so easily.
There are, like with all things, people that take movements to a point that makes other uncomfortable but the point of celebrating women taking on roles that aren’t ‘traditional’ is to allow more space for people to be themselves and positioned to receive gods love as they are. I think saying women’s equality aims to make women like men is incorrect. Women have been told what they are for centuries rather than able to decide for themselves. God also allows us to find who we are and ultimately to come back to him both through and in-spite of whomever we find in ourselves along the way.
Priesthood was never exclusively a male profession. There is artwork dating back to the 2nd century that depict female preachers, priests and bishops. St Paul wrote in his Letters to the Romans, that he will send the Deacon Phoebe for consultation, 16:1. I agree with the argument that many women aspire to have traditionally masculine qualities and jobs in the hopes of gaining respect, however that shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to have these aspirations. Everybody wants respect and if this is a way to garner that respect then go off for all I care. However, I believe the praising to women's ability to be nurturing and procreate before listing the 'undesirable' aspects of priesthood to be a manipulative argument. Yes, traditionally feminine jobs deserve respect, but the list of 'undesirable' aspects of priest hood all reference the idea that women want families. All jobs include sacrifice, and just like men, women are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of their beliefs.
Very good, very accurate observations and conclusions on the current "women-should-be-men" fad... At the same time, being Anglican, I do not agree that the church cannot ordain women. As a teenager, my observation on the topic was, 1 of the 10 Judges was a woman (so, it's not that women "cannot", but it's equally true that 9 times out of 10, it's a man's job), and also that the roles that priests are called to fulfill include a very wide range of activity, some tasks included are very well done by women. As an adult, I observed that (1) there is a shortage of clergy, and (2) many of our problems we have brought on ourselves - male priests too full of themselves (or too insecure) to mention how much the women have contributed to the life of the congregation, also by insisting on celibacy which results in "falling off the wagon" in even worse directions... and finally as an older person, I observe that part of the problem is that the official structures require credentials, so an ordained priest can legally interact with certain gov't/legal procedures, but the head of the women's group at the church cannot, and this has both good and bad outcomes. We can only approach this prayerfully, and with openness to the Holy Spirit. (I am in the Anglican Provence of Japan, Diocese of Tokyo, which has 20-year history of ordaining women, and at the same time, absolutely no goal involving "equal numbers")
Brian, please don't lump this as "hate mail." You seem like reasonable person who wants to look at things logically, so please read this in the spirit in which it's written. I think you're being very blinded by your cognitive biases and you may want to examine your points for that. While you make a lovely point, which I agree with, in saying that traditional female roles aren't given enough credit for their worth and depth of responsibility and aren't celebrated, you absolutely ignore the fact that not all women fit well in those roles just as not all men fit well in traditional male roles. Your whole point of celebrating what are generally thought of as feminine traits ends up sounding like pandering as the video goes on though. You're saying that fractions that want women ordained also want to end the vow of celibacy (not all do, by the way) because they want all the glamour and none of the sacrifice. Nuns, Brian, nuns!! You totally fall into the trap you yourself just described earlier. You talk about how difficult it is to be a priest and don't even mention that nuns have all those same issues to contend with. Is that not hypocritical? If a woman has a calling to your church, she's forced only to accept a role that is subservient. Therefore, all of the sacrifice and none of the "glamour" (as you call it). Yes, I agree, the idea of equality between sexes isn't sameness. So your argument that women shouldn't be allowed to be priests falls quite short. If women have all these great strengths and power and they feel they have a calling to your faith, why shut out the highest roles in the church to them? And if you're dismissing the cultural norms of the time as a reason why all the chosen disciples were only males, then how do you rationalize that priests shouldn't only be Jewish? If we're excluding on base of gender, why not race? Do you truly want to look at things truthfully and honestly? Do you really not just want to make a case for something you just want? Then I would suggest to you that an excellent exercise would be to try to imagine how someone who wants to keep women out of roles of power would rationalize keeping women from being priests. Perhaps they would try to say that the role isn't really that great to have? Ignore that the roles within the same organization without authoritative power can also be a huge sacrifice and also be difficult? Place a false equivalence between the power of a subservient role and the power of a role with authority? Make it sound crass to want a role with power? And then make a plea to one interpretation of scripture while dismissing any cultural norms at the time of its writing? And then watch this video for those same things. It's funny, but this reminds me here of an episode of Father Knows Best I watched once. Betty, the eldest daughter, wanted to become an engineer and everyone around her was incensed that she should even want to consider it. They were convincing her that the work was so hard, that it's unseemly for a woman to do that kind of work, that she would be better suited and happier just supporting a man, as a wife, in his chosen role and that that was likely more important. Here I am 60 years after that episode was made listening to this same reasoning to keep women in subservient roles. "Sexism is wrong" is a culturally defined moral wrong. Where in your scriptures does it say it's a sin? Please point that out to me. So your red herring of saying that Jesus committed that sin and that should ultimately end your faith is horribly misleading. A mother will have more influence than any priest or bishop will have over their children? What about their father and his influence in mentoring his children? You've again ignored the male side in tradition female roles. And women that don't have children either by nature or choice? Where's their influence that beats out a priest or bishop? Please Brian, be honest with yourself and review this video.
There’s no reason to ordain women if it was an innately good thing the early Church would have allowed it, anyone with common sense knows it would just bring dysfunction and more heresy
As Brian pointed out, Jesus did not follow the diktats of the time, if they were not desired by God. What do I mean? He "defiled" the sabbath, according to the Jews, by curing people. He talked with prostitutes and allowed one, Mary Magdalena (not a prostitute in the sense we have today, but she had loads of lovers, and for that reason was also called a prostitute), to wash his feet, twice, with super expensive perfume, which was a scandal. He called a tax collector, which was also a profession despised by the jews, to be one of the 12; He was seen around leppers - a tabu at the time. He used of violence once, to expel the vendors from the Temple. He fiercely criticize the actions of the Saenedrim and the high priests, and so on and so on. But, most importantly, when Peter tried to deter Him from completing His divine mission, Jesus says harshly: "behind me, Satan". No man must deter the will of God! Jesus cared little if his actions were liked or not. His goal was to fulfill his passion and redeem the human race, as was God's plan. Nothing that Jesus did was not in accordance with God's plan. So, if really to have ordained women was one of God's plan, Jesus would have ordained His own mother, because there was nobody else better fit to announce the kingdom of Heaven as Mary. She was revered by all the apostles, and by all the followers of Jesus. So, instead of having choose men, Jesus would have appointed as High Priestess, Mary herself. But, that He did not do. Why? Jesus does the will of God, not the will of men. And if that was what He decided, then who else as the power to decide otherwise? Who is man to change what God has decided? Those who wish to change the things according to their whims do not follow the will of Christ, but their own pride. Jesus was also very clear: "If you do not do what I ask, you are not my friends". The Church is despised in the world (as Christ himself announced) because she refuses to follow the will of man and continues to follow the will of Him who created her. To do otherwise would be to cut herself from God. Point.
As I approached the end of this writing here I could seem that you are coming from a very biased perspective. You are a feminist and you full embrace of those ideologies is shown when you said not wanting to have children by choice. Look to the Bible and pray for answers to every question you might have. Blessings
@@AmakaRickman It is kind of unfair to label someone as feminist with the intention to undermine their point. There are even different understandings of what feminism actually mean and not all of them are those evil cults attacking a traditional family. Also, mentioning that some woman can be childless by choice certainly does not imply that the author of the quote is a feminist. Imagine someone choosing not to have children because of financial or medical circumstances. Say someone who is suffering of clinical depression. Or someone who does not want to bear children amid a war zone. I think these are legitimate reasons and the woman certainly does not have to be a feminist, regardless of our understanding of what feminism means.
Wow. Could you have missed the point of the women’s ordination movement any more spectacularly? It’s not about wanting glamor and not the sacrifice. It’s saying that women image Christ too, not just men, and that God calls women too - to those same responsibilities and sacrifices. It’s not about privileging traditional gender roles, it’s saying those do not apply here. Nothing in your argument is new or exceptional. It’s just more thinking that tradition equals God’s plan. It’s exactly the erroneous sort of thinking that we all need to get over. And that doesn’t mean women becoming masculine, not at all. It means opening up to the awareness that priesthood is not an exclusively male role like fatherhood is. In baptism we are all clothed in Christ. We can all image Christ to one another. Jesus was biologically male but “in Christ there is neither male nor female”!
I am a woman and I agree with you 100%. Men and women are equal in dignity, but have different roles. There are undeniable theological reasons why priests can only ever be male. The priest stands "in persona Christi" when he utters the words of consecration of the blessed sacrament. This must be done by a man because Christ is a man.
Brian, you mentioned about the sacrifice of intimacy. I think you may want to clarify that on two accounts: First in 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic churches we have married men ordained as priests, absolute continency is not imposed. Second, in St John Paul II theology of the body it's explained that intimacy isn't the opposite of celibacy. In fact physical intimacy is the lowest of all form of intimacy. A mother to her son is more intimate than her son can be with his wife. Spousal intimacy if it's only physical is no different than animal intimacy. I believe you don't have an intention to sideline Eastern Catholic's practice of married priesthood or to imply that marital union is merely physical intimacy that celibate priests are sacrificing. But I think it's worth addressing in your upcoming video. In fact I recommend you to address both married priesthood and the true meaning of marital union that truly transcend physical intimacy. Great video as always.
"we have married men ordained as priests" Yes, but you have no married men ordained as bishops. You need to see the whole picture : the consequence is that your bishops are systematically chosen among monks, which is not the case in the latin church. I don't say it is wrong or right : it is a choice. and, by the way, in the latin church, the celibacy of all the clergy was a decision of a monk who became pope ... And why have all (true) apostolic churches finally decided to chose their bishops among unmarried men ? Because the "episcopal families" became the plague of the church soon after the free exercise of christianism in the roman empire : the episcopus, the episcopa and their many children used to "phagocyte" the church, grabbing all ecclesiatical functions and revenues (some sort of diocesan Borgias, actually)
I'm on the fence about the issue (coming from the Anglican perspective). Although your arguments are intriguing and in line with what is typically known as "complimentarianism", I would recommend N.T. Wright's Scriptural arguments for the ordination of women. He has an entire chapter on it in his book "Surprised by Scripture". Thank you for your input, Brian.
There is NO priesthoid, male or female, in Anglicanism. They are only "Ministers of the Gospel" CRANMER/CROMWELL. There was no Catholic bishop in those times who would 'ordain' a protestant 'priest'. So Cranmer had to resort to the above.
Whatever N.T. Wright's argument is, it won't be able to overcome the fact that Jesus chose only male apostles. So, if Church teaching is based on construing according to our wits, Wright's argument may sound great. But if Church teaching is based on what Christ chose, Wright's argument is spurious.
@@Anon.5216 don't you guys get tired of jaundiced arguments? The Roman Catholic Church broke away from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Have they declared you as having invalid orders? Do you care? Anglicans don't care!
I'm not a pretty good english speaker, but as I understood your video, I was sad you didn't speak about the Saint Women: Saint Hildegard Von Bingen, Ste Thérèse d'Avila, or Ste Thérèse de Lisieux were quite more influent on Church than any masculin priest ever was . And what about Ste Maria de Magdala or the Holly Virgin ? Which pope can pretend to have as much influence on Church tha women had ? Well, that's all, the whole video was really great, as all those you made, thanks a lot for your work, you're great . God bless you and yours .
I think it is important to include what the scripture has to say on this topic... I Timothy 2:11-14 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. I find that it is always wise to take our explanations of doctrine back to scripture.
Now this is funny. In Germany (possibly in all of Europa - at least I picked sth. similiar up in French lessons) we have a discussion about the use of female forms. To stick with the actors' example: "Actor" in German is "Schauspieler", "actress" is "Schauspielerin". It was common to use generic masculin in German, so just saying "Schauspieler" (which is also the plural form of this noun) when meaning "actors and actresses". Or "ein Schauspieler" for "an actor or an actress". But according to the Gender Ideology, one has to say "Schaupielerinnen und Schaupieler", or - because that is so long - "Schauspieler*innen. The concept of adding a suffix to create a female form isn't new in German language, it was already used by Goethe. However in recent years there's been a huge debate about the topic and it is actually the gender movement that suggest one has to use the so-called "gender star" or comparable language tools and the so-called conservatives that oppose it. I was kind surprised that is just the opposite way acros the Atlantic.
I am a Christian, and I agree with the RCC (Catholics) that Women should not be the HEAD of the CHURCH of GOD in Christ Jesus or be ordained as Priestess... why?... It is not about yours, theirs, or even my interpretation of the Bible, but the "WILL OF GOD."... (Matt. 7:21), "He who does the WILL of My (Christ) Father (God) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven"... "Matt. 12:50), "He who does the WILL of MY (Christ) Father (God) is my Brother, Sister, and Mother." We (mankind) have no right, to QUESTION God, nor to Challenge God's WILL... Some will ask, is God a racist?... a male chauvinist?... why St. Paul said this and that regarding women?... ETC... God has His REASONS why: 1. God created Man (Adam) first before Woman (Eve) from the dust thru God's Image and Likeness... (Gen. 2:7) 2. God commanded Adam to Rule over God's Creation (Ruler of the World) and to name all God's creation, and whatever name Adam gave so shall be their names... (Gen. 2:19-20) 3. It was from Man's Body/flesh and Blood that Woman was created (formed)... (Gen. 2:21-24) 4. The Glory of Woman is Man, the Glory of Man is Christ, the Glory of Christ is God... (1 Corin. 11:7) 5. It was the Woman who was deceived by Satan (serpent) and the FIRST to fall short (sinned) in the Glory of God. (Gen. 3 / 1 Tim 2:14) 6. The WILL of God is that Man to be the HEAD of the Family/Household of Mankind... (Eph. 5:22-23 / 1 Corin 11:3 / 7. The WILL of God that His Only Begotten SON (Christ Jesus) be the HEAD/GROOM of God's CHURCH... (Eph. 1:22) 8. God promised and had chosen ABRAHAM (not Sarah) to be the Father of All Nations of the World... (Gen. 17:5) Other LOGICAL Reasons why: (supported by the Bible) 1. St. Paul said, "Women in Faith," should KEEP SILENT (keep quiet) in God's Church (1 Corin. 14:34 / 1 Tim. 2: 11-15)... logically if you ordain women, they have the right to speak out about any Church matters and decisions. 2. Christ had chosen 12 MALE Apostles (no female Apostles but women can do "discipleship," like Mary Magdalene, Prescilla, etc.)... logically speaking, Christ obeys the WILL of His Father. 3. If God allowed both Man (Husband) and Woman (Wife) to be the HEAD of the Family... logically, who will take the Surname of their Children?... it will be CHAOS to have 2 Captains on a SHIP. 4. God created the PHYSIOLOGICAL and BIOLOGICAL Structure of Man GREATER than Women (not mental/psychological structure, I.Q.)... Logically, Man's Physique, Skeletal and Muscular Systems are Greater than Women, which is why women do not compete with Male Transgender in Physical Sports (not mental sports like Chess/Quiz games, etc.)... therefore "Physical Strenght" to Head the Family and to Head God's Church is preferred by God... why?... Women are WEAKER VESSELS (1 Peter 3:7) 5. God knew, if Men are susceptible to temptation, Women are more susceptible to temptation because Satan often used Women as Satan's OLDEST TRICK, since the beginning of her downfall in the Garden of Eden, to get Men in Satan's favor/power... logical example PORNOGRAPHY, what is the ratio?... 1:100... 1 male to 100 female porno artists... As the old saying goes, "Man's downfall is due to his weakness to Woman"... supported Biblically... Story of Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, Esther and the Persian King, etc... Have you ever wondered, why Companies in the Merchandise Business (ex. food/clothing) preferred more SALESLADIES than SALESMEN in Shopping malls, Fine Dining/Bars (waitresses), Groceries/Department stores, etc.?... you do the logic. 6. Logically, there were no Priestesses (Female Priests) chosen by God to work/administer in God's TABERNACLE/SANCTUARY/ALTAR since Moses accepted the 10 commandments of God at Mt. Sinai even up to now, but women can be Prophetess/Judge like Miriam (sister of Aaron = 1st High Priest) the first Prophetess and Deborah the first female Judge of the Jews/Israel... 7. Finally, God wants "Women of Faith" to always WEAR their VIRTUE of "MODESTY and SUBMISSION" to their HUSBAND and to the HEAD (Christ) of God's Church... Amen... Conclusion: it is not about what the Bible says that matters most, but it is a MATTER of GOD'S WILL... not yours, not theirs, not mine... but GOD'S WILL be done... that is the main ISSUE here... if we LOVE God, no argument, and no debate, no compromise, just OBEY and FOLLOW God's WILL... Like Christ had said to His Father, "NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS BE DONE." Let us Follow Christ's Examples... Facts and Truth, Biblically speaking... Amen...
Little tid bit, Mary Magdalene is considered by the Catholic Church as the "apostolorum apostola", the apostle of the apostles. Since the 1970s there have been 4 women considered as doctors of the Church and 2 men. And indeed, being a mother is the most important role a woman can have. But the thing is, like stated, the Church represents all of God's children. And I believe in fundamental differences in between men and women's way of seeing things, or talking about notions or getting across a message. I also believe that women's role in the Church (and/or society) hasn't always permitted that singularity to shine through, which is a shame and a privation. I really don't see women as priests, but I do hope that the "feminine singularity" or "perspective" will continue to feed the Catholic Church with different views of expression. Plurality of expression (and roles) for one unified message.
There’s more to add to this. For example, men are called to sacrifice their own lives like Christ whereas women are called to sacrifice for life through motherhood.
So, here's the real reason that "Jesus" and his "12 Disciples" were male: Once upon a time, when the imaginative authors of the magical Holy books were creating characters for this work of fiction, they choose men to play the leading rolls. A little about the "virgin Mary", she plays the part of a frightened little Jewish girl who told a fib. End of story. The traits that define the priest, Imam, Rabbi, pastor, etc. are universal, but perhaps less pervasive in the female gender. These traits being the same as those which define a sociopath, ie: deceit, narcissism, the absence conscience, and, for a significant number, we can add sexual perversion to the list. "all it takes to make a novel into a Religion is one con man, and a whole lot of idiots"...Alexander Tomov
@Ian Hernandez So PAL, what you are saying BUDDY, is that you've been exposed to logic, and yet, FRIEND, you still subscribe, MY BROTHER, to the fable, about the Son of Pantera? Is that correct COMRADE? Here's the problem HERMANO, the hypothesis I've put before you, HOMBRE, is the most probable rational explanation regarding your fictitious "King of Kings", creation. Therefore AMIGO, changing any "material" to something you haven't heard before, would be tantamount to fabrication. Irrational fabrication COMPADRE, is precisely what I am ridiculing. So now you see why I can't change the material, eh COUSIN? Oh, save your blessing, FRIEND and be careful what part of Christ's body you choose to ingest. I think you should lay off the perineum and anything above the pectinate line, for a while.... Man do I feel smart now! Thanks BRO.
@Ian Hernandez Bashful? Ian, are you sure you are using the correct adjective? OK, I was once almost BASHful when a Franciscan priest attempted to introduce me to his "Holey" Spirit.... It wasn't the 'gay"approach that offended me, as I would simply rebuff it. However, it was the hypocrisy in his actions, as a "Man of God". So, as much as I was tempted to BASH him in manner that would have crushed his zygomatic process, and multiply fractured his mandible, I refrained myself, and was not BASHful. OK, seriously Hombre, Mi Gente, Amigo, Hermano....Just kidding! Solo un oportunidad practicar mi espanol! Read this from an article I found not less then 2 minutes ago on LIVESCIENCE: Jesus Christ may be the most famous man who ever lived. But how do we know he did? Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. They draw that conclusion from textual evidence in the Bible, however, rather than from the odd assortment of relics parading as physical evidence in churches all over Europe. That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny. Roger Adds: AND, from my point of view, even if this Zealot did exist, he was no different from any of the hundreds of other self proclaimed Prophets at that the time. Read the history of the Catholic Church and choose a source that is "neutral". The Church is FILLED with TORTURE, MURDER, GENOCIDE, PROVOCATION OF FEAR, RAPE... If you'd like, I will show you several examples. God does not need a church to Exist. HE, SHE, IT, or THEY would most likely not enslave the very beings IT created, demanding prayers, worship, and ridiculous rituals....unless our Gods truly are ASSHOLES, as the many religions worldwide portray them. Try not to be a zombie fool. Step away from the ignorant crowd. Question the ridiculous and embrace life. real life. Not some stupidity fed to you with demands for your obedience and servitude! Religion is MAN MADE, and bears the flaws of mans arrogance, stupidity, and cruelty. It preys upon the fearful and ignorant. God, if it exists, will reveal itself, not through ancient fairy tales and religious psuedo-logic. but rather, Science...be patient, or be ignorant...it's your choice.
We can approach this question from another angle - in the history of mankind as we know it including times of Judaism and it's continuing Christianity all the way up to the beginning of 20th century, where do we have cases of female priestesses? In the pagan cults only. In The Orthodox Church we cherish and love our sisters that are performing various roles within The Church so much so that some of them we call "equal to the Apostles" like The Holy Myrrh-Bearer Equal of the Apostles Mary Magdalene, for example. However, clergy roles are exclusive to men.
On the issue of celibacy there are strong arguments to suggest that the reason there is so much molestation in the catholic church is because of the imposition of celibacy and the restriction of any physical relationships. What do you think about this?
There is absolutely no argument that suggest that. One of the priests at my college parish is pursuing a doctorate in psychology. I asked him about this exact topic he told me that there are no arguments that suggest that.
Amen. As a woman (mentioned only for the folks who think that matters), I am so thankful for the beautiful complementarity of man (male and female) God created, so thankful for our humble priestly fathers who sacrifice their lives in service to us... and I am sad for those women who articulate their desire for the priesthood as a grasp for power. That's not what priesthood is about -- but that's what the female-ordination-advocates MAKE it about, which is yet another sign that none of them should ever be allowed anywhere near it. If a woman cannot find her peace fully in that Christ loved and died for her; then go on to discern how best to live her life to glorify God (with such a vast array of adventures open to her (marriage! motherhood! catechesis! career! volunteer work! religious life!)), and is fixated not on what God shows her as a made-for-her path to bring Him glory, but on trying to appropriate someone else's path because she perceives it as 'higher'... then her focus is on glorifying herself. And she needs to sort through that. And recognize that she's in NO position to spiritually lead someone else until she actually allows herself to be led by the God, including (especially) when it seems difficult. Those are the times when God has the greatest graces in store for us.
The reason why women are standing up is not because of the masculine, as though they want to be masculine, that is not the actual issue, the issue is they want freedom, meaning, if they want to do these things that men have been doing traditionally, they also have the freedom to do these things, because men did not allow them to do these things, because men are dominating woman because they are men, this is the issue, it is like men saying, a woman's place is in the home, this is influenced by the carnal nature of man, when women can say, but I also have the freedom to work or to do other things, what right does a man have to tell woman that she does not have the right or freedom to do these things, it's not her place, this has nothing to do with the masculine as though the woman wants to be masculine, it never did, I am speaking of a spiritual thing here, not a flesh thing, but man is ruled by his flesh, and this is the problem, It is also the same when men say to their little boys don't cry don't be like little girls, men don't cry, understand, this is also dominated by flesh, if man finds compassion he also has the freedom to weep or is he told that he's being like a woman, see, yet the Christ wept he had a soft and compassionate heart, this is not a masculine thing, it is a feminine thing, and this is what I'm talking about, the spiritual position of a persons heart, that man will become woman, woman will become man, and in this they will equalise, I am speaking spiritually not of the flesh, the masculine or the feminine nature is a reflection, it produces a certain character, I see little girls cuddling a kitten, I see little boys throwing Stones at a kitten, you do many things like this, because of this nature, but we have to rise above this nature it's the reason why Christ came, that woman can be strong and have freedom, and man can be soft and have freedom, women have been suppressed in these freedoms that is the issue, we are not supposed to be locked into the masculine or feminine this is why the Christ came to free men and women from the carnal nature to rise above, giving freedom to all, Christ chose men and not women, because they would not have been accepted, because of the spiritual position of men at a time it's the reason why the men have been doing what they have been doing because of their spiritual position they were all locked in their carnal nature, this is a valid and true reason, it is also to show the power of God upon the masculine, so that the man rises above the masculine, the image of God is man and woman as one, it is a spiritual image, it is all about spirit not flesh, otherwise you will remain locked in your carnality, and you rise above nothing, this is the reason why women have been rising above, because the Christ has been inspiring her the Christ is giving her power which rises above her carnal nature, because man is so ignorant and loveless, in his carnal nature,
So, here's the real reason that "Jesus" and his "12 Disciples" were male: Once upon a time, when the imaginative authors of the magical Holy books were creating characters for this work of fiction, they choose men to play the leading rolls. A little about the "virgin Mary", she plays the part of a frightened little Jewish girl who told a fib. End of story. The traits that define the priest, Imam, Rabbi, pastor, etc. are universal, but perhaps less pervasive in the female gender. These traits being the same as those which define a sociopath, ie: deceit, narcissism, the absence conscience, and, for a significant number, we can add sexual perversion to the list. "all it takes to make a novel into a Religion is one con man, and a whole lot of idiots"...Alexander Tomov
Very very well said. My wife was bitten by a dog the day after we conceived our oldest daughter. She got very sick shortly thereafter and went to the doctor. She took a pregnancy test and a rabies test simultaneously. The pregnancy test came back the next day negative (too soon to tell) and the rabies test was delayed nearly 3 days during which time my wife kept getting worse and worse. The doctor told her she could get the vaccine and it would not hurt her if she did not in-fact have rabies. However, she refused the vaccine for fear it would terminate the pregnancy had she, in fact been pregnant. That’s heroic in my opinion. That’s motherly. That is even uniquely feminine- not the willingness to sacrifice self necessarily, but the holding out hope for something so intangible as pregnancy at that point was and acting out on that hope in an extreme way.
Thank you. Thank you so much for saying this. God bless you. As for calling it sexist to restrict certain roles to either men or women, our very anatomy is God restricting certain roles to us. Men cannot bear children. So, if this is sexist, then God is sexist, and if we agree sexism is evil, then God is evil, and if God is evil who/what is good?
M1and5M can I say that people make mistakes and the fact that there might have been women as deacons does not mean we should have. We have to think clearly and make decision in our time and generation based of facts and much discussion among those called to do so.
There were, but those deacons were not ordained, as the male deacons were. So, why have them? The early Church experienced, like us today, women who complained to the bishop about their husbands' physical abuse. These deacons examined their wounds, among other things. Pope Francis had someone look into the role of the early female deacons a few years back, and such tasks as that was all the historians could find. They didn't even catechize.
By the way, while we all know teaching authority rests solely at the bishop's level, go to any parish and you are likely to find a female DRE. Male DREs are out there, but the job has mostly been performed by females in recent times. I would submit that these DREs have far more influence and even 'authority' within their respective parishes than any historical Catholic female deacon ever had.
Interesting, thanks! Let me suggest you to include also the role of nuns and consacrated women. Not all women are called to be mothers. Furthermore, did Jesus ordained nuns? if not, we are not going to blame them as an unvalid vocation, right? Also, if a person (any son or daughter of God) feels a call for certain vocation through which serve God and his people, shouldn't it be respected? So many saints that have faced negative critics and some that needed to go against the rules or status quo, but remained faithful to Gods' voice to serve him through a certain service. I suggest we need more dialogue (true dialogue) about this topic. Moreover, as we face lack of priests and devalution of values in society. This situation of crisis, should make us dialogue to find solutions together to what the roles of each one of us should be in the Church and in the world to make it a lively and peaceful place where God can be perceived by the way we live and relate to one another. "Thy Kingdom come!" Thanks! My prayers for you brother. Peace be with you!
@@SciVias917 There is a yet unaswered questions about deaconesses... We must wait and find out whether the laying of the hands on the deaconess was with or without the Holy Spirit...
As tired as I am of repeating this. Feminism began in my parlance as Women’s Liberation. Equality has become Thee issue. Liberation was about freedom to choose. Equality is about Comparison against a measure against prescriptive goals not all women, certainly not me, signed up for. Many of us do not want to be smaller men but women who may choose motherhood, career or various roles all of which should be our calling to serve Gods will for us. And to the men and women who may read this support young women who choose traditional roles as there is terrible pressure out there to see these choices as less then.
"12 men exclusively for the role of the apostles..." + one woman, Mary Magdalen the apostles apostle. Also the "woman at the well, who was actually a Samaritan priestess (5 husbands = 5 false idols of the Samaritans) also took up as an apostles and is regarded so in the Orthodox Church. Remember, here Jesus doesn't tell her 'go and sin no more' like others when he heals them. John 4:28 Then leaving her water jar the woman went back to the town and said to the people, "come this could be the messiah" They came out of the town and made their way toward them. ... Many of the Samaritans believed because of the woman's testimony. You have to consider that there were in fact probably more, only as the books of the bible became codified over time and the "traditions" were such to record for posterity the male events over time, thus we have a male oriented practice. I'm not saying this should change, but even Buddha proclaimed that women could not reach nirvana, and his apostle Ananda petitioned to change this error. As much time as Jesus spent with women, and as much is recorded about women in the NT don't you think maybe his intention for women was not to be forgotten as apostles?
The weirdest part is that the script they work from (regardless of who "wrote it" and is directing it behind the scenes) is that women /feminists should advocate this. Effectively getting women to erase themselves.
There are temperamental differences between men and women, but they are trends that are only true in the aggregate, and represent a tendency within men and a tendency within women. As a result, there is a significant minority of men who are 'more feminine' than women, and a significant minority of 'women' who are 'more feminine' than men. Why should we bar these men and women from breaking their traditional gender roles, based on the general trend of others around them? The arguments presented here fail when it comes to individual's experiences.
Though I am officially an eastern Orthodox Christian, I have chosen to worship in an Episcopalian Church and, thus, have been blessed to be the member of a liturgical and (in many ways) traditional Christian Church which allows both women and men to express the fullness of their freedom and humanity through their vocations (if they are so called) in the clerical orders. What I can tell you from personal experience is that, on the whole, in terms of imitating and representing Christ (which is the true role of the clergy anyway), the female priests and bishops that I know FAR outshine, outstrip, and outclass their male counterparts (both Orthodox and Episcopal). After personally experiencing both traditions (Orthodox and Episcopal) I have come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics refuse to ordain women for the sole, secret reason that their male leaders are terrified that the same charismatic, pastoral, outshining by women will happen in their clerical ranks as well, such that the already feeble job that most men do as (Orthodox and Catholic) priests will be totally exposed and outshone by women.
Why do you think the female are outshining the male clergy? I'm interested. What is your opinion of male participation in your church and community in general these days?
A further excellent argument I read recently is why was Mary ..the Queen of the Apostles.... not selected as an apostle or all the other many women of profound spiritual integrity and devotion? And would we be able to relate to a "Personal IT" rather than God the Father? The main opposition to the Catholic tradition and principle is frankly sexist. Was God the Father a sexist for sending his Son? Perverse reasoning; the effect of largely neoMarxist identity politics reductios. The most murderous regimes in human history follow this line.
I think the argument that "there is nothing in the character of Jesus that would suggest that he would be motivated by fear of upsetting the arbitrary conventions and traditions of men" is a sound argument here but equally i would suggest the same idea should hold about other topics such as slavery which he never clearly abolished and neither did Paul or the apostles ( no need to rehash the old, Roman world wasn't the same as other forms of slavery.... it clearly wasn't dignified freedom no matter how one colours it ), but we are just taught that the early church through Peter and Paul could not just abolish it overnight as it would have created too much disorder to the Roman economic model and social structure and would have led to a backlash against the church... but if Jesus did not care for such arbitary conventions or traditions why not just condemn it outright regardless of the consequences as it was... well ... as wrong a thing as wrong can be. Just saying, your logic holds here on this but if you use it elsewhere you open a pandoras box ... NO ?
@@adventureinallthings You can read my comment below as to why women can NEVER be priests. It's part of the gender confusion of our age. Once something as fundamental as gender and sexuality issues are confused, the destruction cascades into almost every other area of life. To the point of gay marriage, legalized infanticide and contraception, which has spelled 'death by demography' for the western world. Probably why JP II spent the first 15 years of his pontificate focusing on gender and sexuality issues - albeit to little avail, and more or less undone by the disastrous pontificate of Francis. But as to your question, the maxim that "the good is the enemy of the best" comes into play. CS Lewis expounded on this at length in his Screwtape Letters and the Abolition of Man. Therein he presciently illustrates what has come to pass. That the principle of 'Christianity and.................' has become one of the devil's favorite tactics: e.g., Christianity and health care, Christianity and social justice, Christianity and immigration etc. By putting worldly issues - important though they are - on an equal footing, one makes Christianity contingent on them. Certainly most of Catholicism has fallen for it. Definitely most of Protestantism too. Which is why so many denominations have caved into gay marriage. The disastrous state of Catholicism too (outside of Africa, or India ) shows why the most powerful lies are founded on half-truths. Christ constantly warns that his kingdom is not of this world; that by trying to serve 2 masters, both would inevitably be lost. The proper approach is that we first seek the kingdom of heaven (i.e. his will) and then the world around us will progressively be more just as a result of our charitable lives. It wasn't long ago that every major city in the Western world had schools, hospitals and orphanages run by nuns and priests. Now that Catholicism has been overrun by homosexuals, all that's left are a few bitter old lesbian nuns and gay priests, good for nothing except complaining. Clearly, the destruction is due to our failure is to listen to Christ and his apostles. Consider for example the case of Philemon and his runaway slave Onesimus. Paul insists that Philemon treat his slave as an equal, because they are equal before God. In fact, the reason slavery was eventually outlawed was due to Christianity - though it took a long time. However, look at something even worse: 60 million babies have been murdered since Roe v. Wade - all because Catholics refuse to be Catholic. It would NEVER have happened otherwise. Impossible! Our bishops, for the most part, are beyond sad. As was demonstrated by Cardinal Timothy Dolan this week refusing to excommunicate Cuomo for legalizing infanticide. No John the Baptist for him! What can God do with such leaders? Nothing! www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-paul-worked-to-overcome-slavery
@@brentcarson9634 em brent, you are covering a lot of stuff there, most of it not really relevant to the issue I address ( I have a pet hate for strawman argument, I am not arguing here for abortion for example, why bring it up ?, what did i say that makes you believe I was in favour of it ? ).... this is just an academic point... ( I have no problem with only male priesthood, I'm cool with it ) I'm merely pointing out an obvious problem in one of the arguments Brian used, namely if Jesus or Paul with authority in his name, could just simply override such, how shall I put it ' worldly concerns " in one area, why not simply say " no man can own a slave , no ifs, no buts, simply not interested in how the Roman world sees the issue just now, it's like stealing, just wrong, get over it, next ". It just seems like an impossible circle to square. All I'm saying is that particular part is a poor argument but hey ... no problem here with all-male priesthood , he gave other good arguments. But my point still stands on that one thing.
@@adventureinallthings Okay, I'll keep it short. If Jesus said that no one can keep a slave, a social order that had existed since cave men, the gospel would have gone nowhere since individuals have little control global socioeconomic conditions. No so with respect to his radical teaching on sex and marriage, which individuals definitely have control over.
Great lead in to help illustrate the truth of your stance. The modern blurring of male/female distinctions is very dangerous. It's interesting that the societies who recognize and value these differences are gaining influence e.g. Asian nations in particular, and those who distort or try perverting them e.g. "Western" nations are faltering in so many ways. God's word warns of this.
I mean, while the Apostles who were chose were all men, Mary was chosen to be the MOTHER OF GOD. That is a title that no man can bear.
and Mary Magdalene the "apostle of the apostles" that too is a title no man can bear :)
@@nerdanalog1707 where is that written? Maria Magdalena never was an apostle. Or did I get something wrong there?
@@honigpur he probably meant disciple
MOTHER OF GOD is a title no woman except Mary can get too
Nerd Analog
That’s just a joke what apostle ... they just say that thinking women will stop asking about priesthood if they humored them with that
Brian, this is one of the best explanations about this topic I have ever heard, and believe I have heard many. The edition of the footage is amazing but much better are the considerations you do. Blessings
Wow. That's very humbling to hear. Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Padre Daniel, qué sorpresa jajaj te veo en tu canal, que "mola mazo", saludos
1
This the best? Really? How ignorant can people be
I agree wholeheartedly as well..
Well, this woman agrees with you 100%. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Shame on you then for buying into this guy's misogynist propaganda.
@@mightymissk "Misogynist" means woman-hating. If he hates women, why would he marry one? XD
@@josephkoob8370 You like things nice and simplistic don't you. Lots of woman-haters are married. Misogyny is a belief system, not some inherent male trait.
@@mightymissk Yes, I am a simple person. You're right. You won't change your position no matter what I say, so arguing is useless. You don't want to change your views, and you won't. Thus, we Catholics pray. We pray for you all.
@@mightymissk do you know what is the Rosary?
This grandma who grew up in the midst of the chaos of "Women's Lib" agrees with you 100%.
I had the odd notion growing up that Feminism meant supporting women who responded to their natural talents. But then I saw the bossy push to ostracize women who were drawn to motherhood and home life, and even women who were drawn to traditional careers (nursing, teaching, secretarial), so it became obvious that it was driven by unhealthy desire for power. It's basically the Junior High Clique in T-Rex Mode.
As some much-older-than-I Baby Boom women in my parish brought up their wish for the ordination of women, I had to look around at the group -- most of them 60+, very few younger than 40, none younger than 30. There are some 30-and-under women in our parish, but very very very few. We're in the Rust Belt of the U.S., so our population has declined, but these Boomer women had small families who have left the Church, and it's obvious that they didn't bring them up with orthodox values.
I can't help but notice that they aren't calling for women to be ushers and pass the collection baskets. They don't think our religious orders are "good enough" or "comparable" to what priests do. The local nuns are dying out and nobody is discerning with them - and you can't even tell who they are, they just dress in frumpy street clothes with short hair. And they were some of the women cheering for ordination of women. There were only about five present, at most -- I don't even know if there are other nuns in the city any more. When I was very young our little city had many, many nuns wearing habits, walking downtown every Saturday to shop, praying the Rosary between stops. Even my Southern Baptist neighbor's mom told us to be silent when we passed them so we wouldn't disturb their prayer. Now prayer is seen as "inaction." The focus is on social revolution, but meantime we've got more drug addicts, so I don't see that they've improved anything, and I can't imagine how women in the priesthood is going to improve the environment, either (their other focus). Honestly, the local nuns have a social media account that promotes "Meatless Mondays for the Environment." I left a comment: We're Catholic. We do Meatless Fridays.
And I'll tell you straight up: I ain't confessin' to no woman. I know women too well. We have to vent, to share our emotions, talk about the workday. I'm a teacher, so I hear it in the staff room - even as a substitute teacher in buildings where other teachers don't know me. I have lots of friends who are nurses, and it's uncomfortable when they begin violating patient confidentiality by discussing their work -- I have to end the conversation. There are healthy ways to deal with this aspect of our careers, but sharing it with someone who isn't in that workplace is not healthy. Putting women in the Confessional would be a disaster because there is NO place they can discuss what they feel based on what they have heard. We, as women, have emotional strength, we are nurturers, and we need nurturing. And we never forget. We're annoyed that men can seem cold-hearted to us because men deal with emotion differently. It seems like something can just roll off a guy's back. And we're annoyed that men forget what we've told them. But these qualities are a strength in the Confessional.
But most of all, I don't trust these women to lead because I don't trust their desire for power. They do see the priesthood as a position of power -- they've told me this! When I said I see the priesthood as a position of service and sacrifice, the other women insisted that "Priests have a lot of power - a LOT of power!" So I just asked, "What do you think about getting on your knees to wash the feet of the laity on Holy Thursday?" Nada. No response. I just don't think they know everything our priests sacrifice in their lives. The priesthood is a gift of service. If any have used the position to lord it over others, they're doing it wrong, and that's not the model we should be promoting.
KA Fleury ... Thanks for the comment. I love it.
You are so right! As a woman myself I agree men are better suited to be priests.
KA Fleury you sound very misogynistic the way you put women down as gossipers. Obviously you don’t know much about how men talk with each other. I agree with some aspects of what was said about glorifying masculinity to the detriment of femininity. You need more self esteem. You bought into the whole deal you try to disclaim
Having experienced women ministers (ordained, religious and lay) as an Anglican I will say that I don't see why a nun who has proven herself cannot be ordained. Yes our female presbyters and deacons make similar mistakes to the males. Some also perform spectacularly.
As ministers they have to give up lust for power, sex and money. That is the job of formation. It is good to explore what type of formation works and which doesn't.
That's why I dislike real witchcraft/sorcery because it's not just being born with powers. It's hungering for supernatural powers.
Whenever I talk like this my college professor calls me a sexist😂😂
gee, l wonder why that is
based
Cuz he's a leftie as most professors are lol
If a college professor says you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, any of them ists or phobes, you are doing something RIGHT
mansplain no more😂
I don't want to be a man😭😭😭😭. I want to be a pink loving girl.
Good for you
The issue is not about you
( sorry not that important in this context)
The issue is not about women who want to be men
It is about women who want to be priests
I wish people only comment about that & not confuse the issue
There has only been male priests since the beginning of the Church. Even when the Apostles were still alive. You really have to have very good Logical and Biblical arguments to push for that change. Are you even a Catholic? Show your arguments.
@@theobserver3753 We could start by contesting that generalisation: 'There has only been male priests since the beginning of the Church'. It took a couple of centuries to develop a form of priesthood that we'd recognise today and, arguably, longer than that. To assume that those early forms of priesthood were 'male only' is, to put it charitably, courageous.
@@tonycarey1735 Jesus chose only men as disciples...
@@RodDop-us9ex Really? You know that as a historical fact? Is there any record of Jesus saying that priests should always and ever be men? Without that clear obligation it's reasonable that we can assume that this limitation of the priesthood is human-made and can be undone by humans.
If not, then we can extend your logic. Jesus only chose middle-eastern men to be his disciples so, by your logic, it follows that Jesus only wanted middle-eastern men to be his disciples.
Jesus only chose Jewish men to be his disciples, so, by your logic, it follows that Jesus only wanted Jewish men to be his disciples.
But the early church, after some struggle, made the decision that their movement (and their priests) were to be opened up to non-Jews and men from any country, despite what Jesus 'chose' in his eartly life.
Brian I absolutely loved this video. You are so good at articulating the message that you want to convey. Thank you for your kindness in sharing your thoughts.
Brian, I just have to say how much I enjoy your videos. I appreciate how well developed your thoughts are, and how clearly and simply you communicate it. You have a simple and pure sincerity, that has no arrogance in it. You have confidence in what you believe and say, yet I get a definite sense from you that you clearly have an openness and respect for others, it's a great example of humility in my opinion. Lastly, your production of your videos is simply excellent. Thanks for sharing your talent, always look forward to your videos. God Bless! Robert
Yes! As a mother of 5 and a former teacher - I completely agree! God gave the woman unprecedented influence by entrusting her with children. It pains me to see young women abandon this divine responsibility in favor of trivial things.
Tropical Garden, with all due respect, it’s not like fathers are not supposed to be present during the formative years of the children so they too have access to children. Women are abandoning their “Devine” responsibly to have equal access the institutions of the society which don’t favor the needs of females. By restricting women by this moral obligation of bearing children, these conditions won’t change.
Through evolution there’s a biological imperative to have children and women will always have it with or without this moral obligation.
M Seth
Thank you!!
Well can't one argue that, God gave men the ability to impregnate, so that is what men should do all day and that is their only duty? So why do men get to priests and not women?
We see in the Pauline Epistles that women were elevated in the Church in a way not representative of that time or any time previous to it. It needs be said that the verse regarding women honoring or subjugating themselves to their spouses is sorely misunderstood.
ON THE ISSUE OF DEACONESSES
There is an essential difference between the “Sacraments” instituted by Christ, and offices and “Sacramentals” instituted by the Church.
The “order” of Deaconesses belongs to this second category, as well as Religious orders and minors orders. It is not related to the Sacrament of Holy Orders (instituted by Christ) but to an office/sacramental (instituted by the Church). Sacramentals work “ex opere operantis Ecclesiae”, from the working of the Church and the good disposition of the recipient, and not “ex opere operato” by virtue of the rite itself Divinely Instituted. The Church can both institute and eliminate offices according with times and needs. Consequently, the “consecration” of a Deaconess did not imprint an ontological character as in the case of ordination of men to Holy Orders. To be a “VIR” (MAN) is essential to the validity of the 3 degrees of Holy Orders (and not 2 degrees out of 3, given the “UNITY” of the Sacrament of Holy Orders) because masculinity (being Spiritual Bridegroom and Spiritual Father) pertains to the MATERIAL CAUSE of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Women are a sign of the Church as a “BRIDE” and cannot even enter the first degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which makes a man relate to the Church as a Servant/Bridegroom.
That is why in the Byzantine Liturgy the Deacon is called “Bridegroom” (how could we call a woman: Bridegroom?) The deacons enter the sanctuary from the sides (the Deacon’s gates), the priest enters the sanctuary from the center (the Royal Gate) but women are not allowed to enter the Sanctuary in the Byzantine Church. Not because of discrimination but because of the order in the distinctions of roles:
CHRIST: BRIDEGROOM/FATHER
THE CHURCH: BRIDE/MOTHER
MATERIAL CAUSE: Imposition of the hands on a VIR (MAN)
FORMAL CAUSE: The words that define the rank of Holy Orders
EFICIENT CAUSE: The Bishop
FINAL CAUSE: The three ranks have in common to be a Spiritual Bridegroom of the Church at the image and likeness of Christ (MAN) who washes Her feet right in the context of His institution of Holy Orders.
Therefore, since both the Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic Church and the Byzantine/Orthodox Tradition oppose it, it is pointless even to discuss the Diaconal ordination of women, as there is no Theological possibility at all for its existence in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. I t would be like discussing the "pregnancy" of men."
In the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity on assuming an Office to be exercised in the name of the Church, clergy not only believes with firm Faith the Solemn Judgements of the Magisterium but also the ordinary and universal Teachings of the Magisterium of the Church as divinely revealed. Clergy also firmly accepts what is definitively proposed and religiously submit their will and intellect to the Authentic Magisterium, even when the teachings are not proclaimed by a definitive act. Every man must take this Oath before entering Holy Orders. For those who have taken this Oath, to support Woman Ordination, does not speak well in terms of their loyalty to Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterial Propositions we already have, which they should know, teach, and defend:
First Council of Nicaea, Canon 19: “Deaconesses, not having been in any way ordained, are certainly to be numbered among the laity”.
The Council of Laodicea (Canon 11, inter 343/381 AD): “The so-called presbyteresses or Presidentesses are not to be ordained in the Church. … Women who among the Greeks are called presbyteresses, but by us are named older widows, women once married, and women on the register, are not to be stationed in the Church as if they were ordained”.
St Hippolytus of Rome (The Apostolic Tradition, ca 215 AD): At the Ordination of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons - all receive the imposition of hands, but not widows: “When a widow is to be appointed she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named such. … A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with other widows. Hands are not imposed upon her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the Liturgy (or she has not a sacred ministry). Ordination is for the clergy because of the Liturgy (or their ministry). But a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all”. (William Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, vol. 1 entry 349f).
Tertullian (Demurrer against the Heretics, ca 200 AD): “The heretical women themselves, how shameless are they! They make bold to teach, to debate, to work exorcisms, to undertake cures, and perhaps even to baptize. Their ordinations are casual, capricious, and changeable.” (William Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, vol. 1 entry 300).
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration “Inter Insigniores”:
“In fact we know from the book of the Acts and from the Letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). Saint Paul lists their names with gratitude in the final salutations of the letters…Priscilla, Lydia…Phoebe, in service of the Church of Cenchreae…Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.”
Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (J.P. II, 1994):
“In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: "In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner… In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan… The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers who would succeed them in their ministry.”
You do understand that the Greek of the New Testament speaks of Presbytresses and Presbyters not older men and older women in the teaching ministry. It is a typical Roman Catholic Church attitude to concoct dogma to explain a Church position rather than explain the simple rules of Scripture.
@@hesedagape6122 Give me the quotes/references from Scriptures to make your point.
St Catherine of Siena herself puts down any claims that the Church is and always was "sexist." She had no "influence" my ass she didn't.
And St Hildegard of Bingen? Her titles (Abbess, artist, author, composer, mystic, pharmacist, poet, preacher, theologian) are about a dozen including, like St Catherine, a Doctor of the Church. And she lived all the way back in the 2nd century.
And how abut (I dunno) the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven? Yeah.
So get outta here with all that sexist bull. This especially irks me because I myself am a girl, and people claiming that I' being oppressed by the Church and (essentially) Jesus Himself is appalling beyond belief.
St. Joan of Arc
Just a little point more to your claim. The greater honor that God bestowed to a creature was precisely to a woman. His Mother. Mary is the only creature in all creation that was created immaculate. Yes, Adam and Eve, were created pure, but not impervious to sin. But Mary, was preserved from that, since God, in the Second Person, to be incarnate could not be born of a stained creature, but from someone that could not ever be defiled by sin.
For that reason, a woman is revered in Heaven as on Earth as the most perfect and majestic. No one occupies in the Church the same place as Mary. We, catholics, say that not all the saints combined can achieve from God what Mary can. You can ask a true catholic who does he revere the most, and undoubtedly Mary is the answer.
Well you've never wanted to be a priest, so you can't really put yourself in their shoes.
@zbm100 I think there truly are sincere women that feel they have a calling for the Church and in particular the priesthood, because they want to emulate Jesus as much as possible, because they feel called to have a flock etc... We shouldn't be dismissive and instead figure out what other roles those women could have instead.
Being dismissive might just make them feel rejected, or like their voice has no meaning.
@zbm100 zbm100 I am certain there are many women who feel a calling to the Church which is other than nun or motherhood, and don't know how to be heard, and they sincerely believe it must be priesthood. It isn't a question of power, it isn't a question of pride or even equality. Men have their uniqueness and women do too.
Yet rare is the space for women in the Church (not a lay person) who can be a real intellectual and do research on theology for example.
I don't understand what the fuss is, that women would want to engage themselves in more intellectual roles in the Church?
Furthermore, if we look at sacred scripture and sacred Tradition, then women were able to be deacons. Even today, the vast majority of bishops are for a return of women deacons. Yet this Tradition ceased, why?
I think it's a shame is all. And this isn't at all in support of women priests, but I can understand that some may feel a real calling, but not as a nun, a mother, a wife, a saint or a perpetual virgin.
Protestant here. I love your videos and I have learned a lot about the Catholic faith but I am going to say we find both married priests in the old testament and new testament and woman serving priestly roles in old and new testiment as well. Female elders, female disciples, females preachers, church leaders and females intervening on the behalf of the high priest.
Female priest where?
I remember deaconesses being mentioned but as for "priest" I never saw this mentioned as an office in the Church. Priests were part of the Temple worship in Jerusalem, not in the NT Church, but there are lists of many roles, including pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists etc., but it seems today all of those roles are carried out by one man "at the front" while the majority of the congregation remain passive. I came across ministers, bishops, deacons, but not PRIESTS.
Maybe the grandeur of the Temple is why so many grandiose cathedrals are built, but I thought the priesthood and Temple were done away with by God, and we are kings and priests only in spiritual terms, not in actual offices, otherwise we'd all be wearing golden crowns too.
Strange how any female priest I know always wears man's clothing, which is prohibited.
Women do have one of the most importance in The Church since that they are often the ones who lead their children as well as their husbands to attend Mass.
Great video! It’s a pity that motherhood is so underestimated in our days. In some African countries, after giving birth women are helped by all the village. They are served and honoured. The appreciation and care of my husband made me proud of my role as a mother and helped me to embrace it fully.
"boo-hoo, women are so opressed in religion!" Yeah, that's why we honour Mary.
Being a mother doesn't equal unemployment. It's a full-time job, which should be honoured in our society. Instead, we talk about how women should have right to return to work as soon as possible. A right to pay taxes instead of being there for their family?
TheGuardian And could it not be men who could be there for their families and women who pays taxes? I personally don't care which works, but I do think that a family does better when one of the parents stay at home? father or mother.
And really, you honor Mary only because she's a mother? You can't see her as a women?
What about Mary Magdalene? We honor her too... and she was a disciple and is considered as the "apostle of the apostles"... Yet she's not a mother... Should we kick her out? Or ignore her? No, why not give her a bad rep, already done though.
You honor Mary, a virgin. How many of the world's women are virgins? A lot less than are not. Where is the honoring of the majority of women in a state they exist in most of their lives? Nowhere. The RCC only honors women if they stay virgins.
@@nerdanalog1707 I agree what with you have to say, but what I think he’s trying to say is that some people view being a mother as being oppressed or a dead end job. He wrote that comment with that in mind I believe. He’s arguing against that stance. We honor Mary as a person and for what she did, one of her greatest responsibilities was her being a mother to Jesus Christ and she prevailed.
I agree with almost everything. But i dond see the insane work of the priests now a days...
Where is the debate about abortion in the homilies when ireland and argentina put abortion into law?
Where is the protection of the sacredness of the house of god?
Where is the care of the liturgy?
Where is the wisdom of the sheperds....i know that the priest had sacramental honor but also sacramental duties...here in europe we are alone against the world
Priests take their queue from their Bishop. If the Bishop will back them up with being controversial and maybe alienating a large number of pew sitters, then they will be more likely to preach these things. Lots of priests don't because they have Bishops who would abandon them in a second and remove them with cause of due to complaint letters and falling registration rolls.
You make a really good point. Maybe the reason we are debating women priests is because we don’t understand what a priest is anymore. Maybe we don’t see priests doing priestly things as much as we need to.
@@pickcomb332 perhaps if the Bishop they take orders from is female on this point then maybe they could argue it as a fair point. But it's set that religion and beyond ancient beliefs still dictate the lives and laws of so many in so many countries.
What a well thought out and cogent argument. Nothing crazy or metaphysical, but clearly and concisely expresses what the Church believes and why a seemingly arbitrary male-only clergy is actually very specifically chosen and important in God's Church. Well done again Brian
The priest in local parish spent a lot of his time chasing women and playing golf, paid for by his cut from the collection plate. They all don't work so hard.
@@msminicooper2010 work.. Who defines what it is? A very small number of priests behave as you describe but being a priest in layman's eyes might seem that way.
Ever heard of "walk a mile in my shoes"?
There may be a good ontological argument for why, in God's plan for humanity, the role of priest is reserved for men. However, the current case for it made by the Catholic Church does not hold up well under serious scrutiny, and to say that misogyny is not part of the problem is simply absurd.
I disagree
"..we can't comprehend all of God's reasons because we're either not fit or not smart enough." Love this humble answer!
Its a dodge, not an answer. It comforts you. The blatant injustice of it makes me angry. I hope one day to see women leave the Church over the Vatican's misogyny in such large numbers, that the old boys club has no choice but to stop treating us like 2nd class citizens.
@@mightymissk calm down karen
@@mightymissk He's answering it though?
Thank you! You make an excellent point. Why should I aim to be more like men, as if it’s better? I don’t want to be like a man. I want to be a woman.
That was an excellent explanation! A very enthusiastic round of applause.
I had this discussion with my daughter when she first started high school and was really really smacked in the face with a lot of anti-Catholicism. And she knew I had a visceral dislike of the word “feminist” based on my childhood experiences of women heaping scorn and disrespect at my beautiful, brilliant and very pro- life mother. She was a very vocal leader of the pro life movement in our state since 1973, giving interviews and talks, lobbying, etc. I saw “feminist” women all but spit on her.
So my daughter had a goofy idea that I held the role of women as less important than that of men. Especially after being bombarded day in and day out at school with anti Christian, anti God, anti traditional values ideologies.
She did in fact play the “Jesus was just following the social norms of the times” card. And I wish I had heard this talk then!!!! I could have equated it to sin. I never drew it to its natural conclusion. I explained that Christ was never once bound by social conventions, that his whole life was a very long lesson in turning earthly values upside down utterly. He went where he was needed and he had imperfect vessels to be his voice after his death and resurrection. I explained that there are women Doctors of the Church, including her own patron saints, that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix. And I went to that old kernel that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. I needed to have heard this to be able to send it home right then and there
You are so good at explaining ambiguous topics.
Thank you, Brian. Excellent as always.
Some one should write a book shedding light to the beauty of woman hood. Society seems to eradicate all that is feminine and treating it like a burden or a curse. Sometimes I as a woman feel inadequate, since the place I hold in my life is that of a scullery maid. People get confused and say “u can’t wash dishes for the rest of ur life”. But I reflect that Our Lady, who is the greatest Saint, Queen of Heaven, and Mother of God, spent her earthly life doing very similar mundane chores. And so in doing this with Christ in my heart, how could I possibly be lacking in any thing in my life as the Blessed Virgin is proof of this.
God Bless!
Francis&Fawn /Catholic&Danish “the privilege of being a woman” by Alice Von Hildrebrand and “The Eternal Woman” by Gertrude Von Le Fort are excellent philosophical and theological insights into the depth and breath of womanhood.
Jackie Lon
Thank u, I’ll make note of that xD
If women knew how much men really loved femininity and the feminine virtues they would never listen to the feminists. Incidentally there is a tendency to see this in the abstract "women cannot be priests but men can' or 'Women do mundane jobs' - most men, apart from a very few, also have mundane jobs, very few are priests or ministers. How many women arguing for the right for women to be priests would actually become priests - given the option? A similar issue arises in STEM fields - 'more women should do STEM' - ask them if they want to do STEM, and they will say no, and in that case there is in fact nothing stopping them doing STEM, there is not just that many women interested. The fact is there are plenty of options, and although women can often do mens' jobs and roles and vice-versa, maybe that is not the best outcome - either for them or society.
Read more good love poetry, like the Song of Songs! :)
Thank you so much! You have such a way with clearly and concisely explaining topics! I plan to rewatch this video many times
Brian, my students ask this all the time. Your point about the mystery around why Jesus is a man and why he chose only men is analogous to another reality that confounds. Why did God choose only women to bear the grace and burden of child bearing and rearing? Why did God naturally create men to have a physical and temporal barrier between loving and caring for their children (i.e. fathers need to learn to care for child while for many women it comes naturally if not instinctually)?
These mysteries lie at the heart of God’s plan for nature to communicate part of God’s divine trinity to us.
So just as I cannot explain why God chosen women to be the chosen for child birth, I cannot necessarily rationally (exhaustively) explain why God chose only men for the divine priesthood of sacrifice.
Is this a legitimate analogy?
Yes, I'd say it's a legitimate analogy. Like all analogies, it only needs one or more similarities to be valid.
Great comment
Brian Holdsworth I’ll think more on it. Keep up the good work.
E_ B_ - very good. I would like to point out that Christ, the incarnate god, by a physical act of washing the feet is emboldening and honoring the material dimensions of creation. God who is all powerful and all knowing is not just zapping here and there his will but engages in the material, physical and social dimensions and limitations. This is an act of rising up man. Folks often do not contemplate how god in the course of history chooses to interact with humans.
E_ B_ -. You are correct. It is my attempt to point out that god through all his works and at that of his son’s interaction with humans uses acts like the washing of feet to establish his church and bring his life in to a mystical body. In this way god does rise up his human creatures for the glory of god. I mention this only because moderns sarcastically ask if god is so great and powerful why does he spent 2 thousand years trying to work with the Jews and then all this secretive work with Jesus’s followers like washing of feet as a ritual to initiate apostles into the priesthood. I’m stating the obvious. God has placed his life on earth in the hands of his baptized. This is an act of love so unfathomable all we can do is bow in reverence and worship. In addition so many Catholics unknowingly take a Protestant idea think that god’s grace and god’s will makes people do good things and makes them saints as if they were robots. Therefore, why should we honor the human creature; we should just think god and leave the human element aside. This not correct. There is always a free will and a struggle by both god and humans. How often do we hear that god allows temptation to bring his human creatures to himself. Upon some heroic charity or life by a little human person, that person is brought to the attention of angels for all to see.
I think everyone should remember that there is a higher position in the church that anyone, regardless of gender, can become: Saints.
Anyone can, and should aspire to, become a Saint.
Benjamin gutierrez oriol The problem with that argument, is that then why shouldn't men only want to be saints? Why do some want to become priests? Shouldn't aspiring to become a saint be sufficient? And what if a women truly and sincerely wants to become a priest?
Giving an option, is not giving and answer.
@Josaphat Martin Women in the initial years of Christianism were a lot more influential. Don't forget it.
@@TheRicktunero
Exactly.
Where are those women now?
Brian, can you do, or have you done, a video on why the Catholic Church maintains the celibacy rule (because, for those who don’t know, it is a rule in the Church, not a doctrine or dogma) for priests?
As you probably know, priests were once permitted to marry, but for a multiplicity of reasons (the most well-known one being that the Church did not want Church property to be passed down from father to son and thus be consolidated into select priestly families), the Church elected to enforce compulsory celibacy upon priests .
Much rhetoric and theology about the sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood because of the celibacy rule has been heaped onto the priesthood.
A crucial question or two is this, then, I think: Is the celibacy rule, even though it is only a rule, essential to the much-lauded sacrificial nature of the Catholic priesthood? Or could the priesthood’s sacrificial nature be re-examined to exist without compulsory celibacy?
That would thus also require an examination of what it means for anyone to make sacrifices for God, then, I think. We might also need to then examine whether our understanding of human self-sacrifice places too much emphasis on sacrifice in sexual terms, minimizing other forms of sacrifice that God might want us to appreciate.
Wow, I’ve gone on for a bit. But my point is this, as a reminder: Have you thought about these questions/considerations in a video? If not, would you in the future? 😊
Female priests? NEVER! The Word is the seed of life, it is given by Jesus, the bridegroom. The Church, the bride, receives it, nurtures it, nourishes it and makes it grow. The priest stands in for Jesus, he gives the Word.
I've been binge watching your videos and LOVE them all but this has got to be one of my favorites! Thank you for your content, it is AWESOME and Im totally sharing it with all my family and friends! :D
I love this! And I love your point of you! Thank you for all that you do!
Hit it right out of the park, Brian!!!! 🙌🙌🙌
Wonderful, Mr. Holdsworth! One of your best videos yet!
Great video! However, I felt that something could be said about that the Church is the bride of Christ
Spot on. No more actresses, but we still use "man" to mean human. This proves your point. Feminism is all about women becoming more like men. We don't value female/feminine contributions, which is why women want what men have. Who can blame us? It takes a lot of strength to insist on being valued for our femaleness and femininity.
thanks Brian! great explanatory video, just want to add that Jesus chose 12 apostles (all men ) to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, which were 12 brothers, sons of Jacob (named Israel) all men.
In the book _The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church_, the author nails the feminist epistimology, it's all about power and abolishing the structures that lead to a disparity of power and this will, per Ruether and Chisteiser's own writings, will eventually lead to the abadonment of distinct and effectual Sacraments, and even any importance about the Incarnation itself. Women's ordinantion is only the means to the end if destroying the Catholic Church as anything resembling Catholic.
@Brian Holdsworth You're somewhat of a radical-cultural feminist. I'm Catholic and recently took a Women's Studies class in a very anti-Catholic environment and one of the theories we talked about was radical-cultural feminism. It says that in order to achieve equality between the sexes society must recognize our differences and uphold feminimity as well as masculinity. Thanks for the video!
The Church has no authority to ordain women as priests, is not merely a matter of Church discipline which can be changed, but belongs to the deposit of faith which cannot.
In regards to modern women wanting to be men.Going against the nature of God.
Romans 1;26
26; For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
The west is losing their religion becoming sodom/gomorrah plain and simple all we can do as Christians is point it out with love/charity.
How do you explain the prophetesses of the New and Old Testaments?
@Josaphat Martin - yet both are holy and touched by the divine.
Who does have the authority? Who says leaders HAVE to be men?
Another case of shoe-horning scripture to fit an ideology. Scripture is alarmingly silent on the nature of priesthood in general and makes no reference for the need for celibacy or a male-only requirement. There seems to be no doubt for example, that Peter was married. If Jesus had a thing about celibacy, he certainly didn't tell his number one man. There is no convincing evidence that the early church had an exclusively male only priesthood. In short, the nature of the priesthood being 'deposit of faith' is a fiction. It developed and changed over centuries and it can develop and change further. To say otherwise is a form of idolatry.
@@tonycarey1735
You start out with "Another case of shoe-horning scripture to fit an ideology. Scripture is alarmingly silent on the nature of priesthood in general and makes no reference for the need for celibacy or a male-only requirement. There seems to be no doubt for example, that Peter was married. If Jesus had a thing about celibacy, he certainly didn't tell his number one man."
When celibacy is not the issue being discussed. The Catholic Church does not teach that celibacy is doctrine nor that it is scriptural, it teaches that it is a discipline, a practice adopted by the Church. I don't hear anyone complaining about Jainism or Buddhism promoting celibacy among their monastic adherents. So unless you're going to start criticizing your local Buddhist monastery, I don't want to hear your attempts to hypocritically impose your own moral beliefs onto Catholicism.
As for the priesthood, who in the old testament was allowed to be priests? Oh, right, sons of Levi. So there is actually a scriptural reference to the nature of the priesthood because the old testament priesthood is a type of the new testament priesthood.
Then you say "There is no convincing evidence that the early church had an exclusively male only priesthood. In short, the nature of the priesthood being 'deposit of faith' is a fiction. It developed and changed over centuries and it can develop and change further. To say otherwise is a form of idolatry."
...
“It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34-35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office” (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]) - Tertullian
“For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:1-2 [A.D. 225])
“[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74:10 [A.D. 253])
“[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]). - St. John Chrysostom
If you discount all of the evidence, records, and testimony of the Church fathers, toss out the bible, and remove everything related to Christianity from the discussion I suppose you might not see the evidence for a male only priesthood in the early church.
As a Catholic mother I completely agree.
You are hands down my favorite Catholic TH-camr, right up there with Bishop Barrón, Father Mike, and Matt Fradd
WOW!!! Brian this was powerful! I agree!!! You made some excellent arguments.
I love this video! I agree with you 100% - I love being a woman with everything that entails!
AMEN TO THIS!!!!! >>>Well, the thing I’d say to that, is that traditionally, women already had the MOST influential role in the Church. Nothing is more influential than motherhood. To have the most exclusive access to children at their most critical stages of development is more influence than you can ask for. There are no theological papers, encyclicals, or magisterial exhortations that compare to the mentoring of a child by their mother.
I really liked this and found it very thoughtful. I disagreed on 2 points and would like to propose them for thoughts. The Church is not the People of God. She is a self sustaining entity (i.e. Aquinas uses the term perfect society) independent of her members. This is one of the reasons why we see members of the Church commit sin but the Church herself does not. Also, isn’t it disconcerting that in our current time we have become so confused about the differences in gender that we struggle explaining why women cannot hold positions in the hierarchy of the Church. The priesthood is threefold. It sanctifies, teaches, and governs. This is reserved exclusively to men, and to men supernaturally called by God. The Catholic Church does teach that women cannot have this calling, but that any able bodied man could. It does have to do with gender but our culture has successfully confused gender to the point that even rational and understanding people struggle understanding the differences and roles. That was alluded to in this thoughtful video but not fully explained. One more point, which is not specifically part of the two points, is that the difficulty understanding gender comes from turning it into an emotional argument instead of the objective, rational argument that it is. That emotion seems to come from being upset about one gender not being perceived as good as the other. But both, despite being unequal in what they are, are still equal in goodness.
Great video - as an additional source, which I found helped me understand this even more deeply and richly, I recommend reading The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church, by Monica Migliorino Miller. She goes through the early Church teachings, the symbolism of the male and female in the covenant, and the essential and irreplaceable role women have, and the authority that that entails.
Becky Does that video answer the question as to why there stopped being women deacons in the Catholic Church?
The deaconess in the early church weren’t the same as Deacons, they were there for female baptisms in the early Church.
Your logic is outstanding!! Why do women want to be more like men instead of focusing on their own strengths?? You are absolutely right about motherhood being devalued in today's hyper secular world. Now all woman have to be executives, managers, CEOs etc in order to have value. But remember the old adage "The woman who rocks the cradle, rules the world". We shouldn't be giving up on motherhood so easily.
My goodness, this blew my mind. Great video!
There are, like with all things, people that take movements to a point that makes other uncomfortable but the point of celebrating women taking on roles that aren’t ‘traditional’ is to allow more space for people to be themselves and positioned to receive gods love as they are. I think saying women’s equality aims to make women like men is incorrect. Women have been told what they are for centuries rather than able to decide for themselves. God also allows us to find who we are and ultimately to come back to him both through and in-spite of whomever we find in ourselves along the way.
Priesthood was never exclusively a male profession. There is artwork dating back to the 2nd century that depict female preachers, priests and bishops. St Paul wrote in his Letters to the Romans, that he will send the Deacon Phoebe for consultation, 16:1. I agree with the argument that many women aspire to have traditionally masculine qualities and jobs in the hopes of gaining respect, however that shouldn't mean they shouldn't be able to have these aspirations. Everybody wants respect and if this is a way to garner that respect then go off for all I care. However, I believe the praising to women's ability to be nurturing and procreate before listing the 'undesirable' aspects of priesthood to be a manipulative argument. Yes, traditionally feminine jobs deserve respect, but the list of 'undesirable' aspects of priest hood all reference the idea that women want families. All jobs include sacrifice, and just like men, women are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of their beliefs.
"Nothing is more influential than motherhood." BAM!
Thanks for these clear words- this mother of 4 agrees 100% with you
Very good, very accurate observations and conclusions on the current "women-should-be-men" fad... At the same time, being Anglican, I do not agree that the church cannot ordain women. As a teenager, my observation on the topic was, 1 of the 10 Judges was a woman (so, it's not that women "cannot", but it's equally true that 9 times out of 10, it's a man's job), and also that the roles that priests are called to fulfill include a very wide range of activity, some tasks included are very well done by women. As an adult, I observed that (1) there is a shortage of clergy, and (2) many of our problems we have brought on ourselves - male priests too full of themselves (or too insecure) to mention how much the women have contributed to the life of the congregation, also by insisting on celibacy which results in "falling off the wagon" in even worse directions... and finally as an older person, I observe that part of the problem is that the official structures require credentials, so an ordained priest can legally interact with certain gov't/legal procedures, but the head of the women's group at the church cannot, and this has both good and bad outcomes. We can only approach this prayerfully, and with openness to the Holy Spirit. (I am in the Anglican Provence of Japan, Diocese of Tokyo, which has 20-year history of ordaining women, and at the same time, absolutely no goal involving "equal numbers")
Thank you very well said.
Such a good explanation, common sense and chilled! Thanks Brian
Brian, please don't lump this as "hate mail." You seem like reasonable person who wants to look at things logically, so please read this in the spirit in which it's written. I think you're being very blinded by your cognitive biases and you may want to examine your points for that.
While you make a lovely point, which I agree with, in saying that traditional female roles aren't given enough credit for their worth and depth of responsibility and aren't celebrated, you absolutely ignore the fact that not all women fit well in those roles just as not all men fit well in traditional male roles. Your whole point of celebrating what are generally thought of as feminine traits ends up sounding like pandering as the video goes on though.
You're saying that fractions that want women ordained also want to end the vow of celibacy (not all do, by the way) because they want all the glamour and none of the sacrifice. Nuns, Brian, nuns!! You totally fall into the trap you yourself just described earlier. You talk about how difficult it is to be a priest and don't even mention that nuns have all those same issues to contend with. Is that not hypocritical? If a woman has a calling to your church, she's forced only to accept a role that is subservient. Therefore, all of the sacrifice and none of the "glamour" (as you call it).
Yes, I agree, the idea of equality between sexes isn't sameness. So your argument that women shouldn't be allowed to be priests falls quite short. If women have all these great strengths and power and they feel they have a calling to your faith, why shut out the highest roles in the church to them? And if you're dismissing the cultural norms of the time as a reason why all the chosen disciples were only males, then how do you rationalize that priests shouldn't only be Jewish? If we're excluding on base of gender, why not race?
Do you truly want to look at things truthfully and honestly? Do you really not just want to make a case for something you just want? Then I would suggest to you that an excellent exercise would be to try to imagine how someone who wants to keep women out of roles of power would rationalize keeping women from being priests. Perhaps they would try to say that the role isn't really that great to have? Ignore that the roles within the same organization without authoritative power can also be a huge sacrifice and also be difficult? Place a false equivalence between the power of a subservient role and the power of a role with authority? Make it sound crass to want a role with power? And then make a plea to one interpretation of scripture while dismissing any cultural norms at the time of its writing? And then watch this video for those same things.
It's funny, but this reminds me here of an episode of Father Knows Best I watched once. Betty, the eldest daughter, wanted to become an engineer and everyone around her was incensed that she should even want to consider it. They were convincing her that the work was so hard, that it's unseemly for a woman to do that kind of work, that she would be better suited and happier just supporting a man, as a wife, in his chosen role and that that was likely more important. Here I am 60 years after that episode was made listening to this same reasoning to keep women in subservient roles.
"Sexism is wrong" is a culturally defined moral wrong. Where in your scriptures does it say it's a sin? Please point that out to me. So your red herring of saying that Jesus committed that sin and that should ultimately end your faith is horribly misleading.
A mother will have more influence than any priest or bishop will have over their children? What about their father and his influence in mentoring his children? You've again ignored the male side in tradition female roles. And women that don't have children either by nature or choice? Where's their influence that beats out a priest or bishop?
Please Brian, be honest with yourself and review this video.
What is your point?
There’s no reason to ordain women if it was an innately good thing the early Church would have allowed it, anyone with common sense knows it would just bring dysfunction and more heresy
As Brian pointed out, Jesus did not follow the diktats of the time, if they were not desired by God. What do I mean? He "defiled" the sabbath, according to the Jews, by curing people. He talked with prostitutes and allowed one, Mary Magdalena (not a prostitute in the sense we have today, but she had loads of lovers, and for that reason was also called a prostitute), to wash his feet, twice, with super expensive perfume, which was a scandal.
He called a tax collector, which was also a profession despised by the jews, to be one of the 12; He was seen around leppers - a tabu at the time.
He used of violence once, to expel the vendors from the Temple.
He fiercely criticize the actions of the Saenedrim and the high priests, and so on and so on.
But, most importantly, when Peter tried to deter Him from completing His divine mission, Jesus says harshly: "behind me, Satan". No man must deter the will of God!
Jesus cared little if his actions were liked or not. His goal was to fulfill his passion and redeem the human race, as was God's plan. Nothing that Jesus did was not in accordance with God's plan. So, if really to have ordained women was one of God's plan, Jesus would have ordained His own mother, because there was nobody else better fit to announce the kingdom of Heaven as Mary. She was revered by all the apostles, and by all the followers of Jesus. So, instead of having choose men, Jesus would have appointed as High Priestess, Mary herself.
But, that He did not do. Why? Jesus does the will of God, not the will of men. And if that was what He decided, then who else as the power to decide otherwise? Who is man to change what God has decided? Those who wish to change the things according to their whims do not follow the will of Christ, but their own pride. Jesus was also very clear: "If you do not do what I ask, you are not my friends".
The Church is despised in the world (as Christ himself announced) because she refuses to follow the will of man and continues to follow the will of Him who created her. To do otherwise would be to cut herself from God. Point.
As I approached the end of this writing here I could seem that you are coming from a very biased perspective. You are a feminist and you full embrace of those ideologies is shown when you said not wanting to have children by choice. Look to the Bible and pray for answers to every question you might have.
Blessings
@@AmakaRickman It is kind of unfair to label someone as feminist with the intention to undermine their point. There are even different understandings of what feminism actually mean and not all of them are those evil cults attacking a traditional family. Also, mentioning that some woman can be childless by choice certainly does not imply that the author of the quote is a feminist. Imagine someone choosing not to have children because of financial or medical circumstances. Say someone who is suffering of clinical depression. Or someone who does not want to bear children amid a war zone. I think these are legitimate reasons and the woman certainly does not have to be a feminist, regardless of our understanding of what feminism means.
Wow. Could you have missed the point of the women’s ordination movement any more spectacularly? It’s not about wanting glamor and not the sacrifice. It’s saying that women image Christ too, not just men, and that God calls women too - to those same responsibilities and sacrifices. It’s not about privileging traditional gender roles, it’s saying those do not apply here. Nothing in your argument is new or exceptional. It’s just more thinking that tradition equals God’s plan. It’s exactly the erroneous sort of thinking that we all need to get over. And that doesn’t mean women becoming masculine, not at all. It means opening up to the awareness that priesthood is not an exclusively male role like fatherhood is. In baptism we are all clothed in Christ. We can all image Christ to one another. Jesus was biologically male but “in Christ there is neither male nor female”!
I am a woman and I agree with you 100%. Men and women are equal in dignity, but have different roles. There are undeniable theological reasons why priests can only ever be male. The priest stands "in persona Christi" when he utters the words of consecration of the blessed sacrament. This must be done by a man because Christ is a man.
AnnInFL Christ is God and therefore not a sexual being. Jesus was a man and God. So it should be in persona jesu
Are you sure your Christ didn't check the little box for "other"?
Brian, you mentioned about the sacrifice of intimacy. I think you may want to clarify that on two accounts: First in 23 sui juris Eastern Catholic churches we have married men ordained as priests, absolute continency is not imposed. Second, in St John Paul II theology of the body it's explained that intimacy isn't the opposite of celibacy. In fact physical intimacy is the lowest of all form of intimacy. A mother to her son is more intimate than her son can be with his wife. Spousal intimacy if it's only physical is no different than animal intimacy. I believe you don't have an intention to sideline Eastern Catholic's practice of married priesthood or to imply that marital union is merely physical intimacy that celibate priests are sacrificing. But I think it's worth addressing in your upcoming video. In fact I recommend you to address both married priesthood and the true meaning of marital union that truly transcend physical intimacy. Great video as always.
"we have married men ordained as priests" Yes, but you have no married men ordained as bishops.
You need to see the whole picture : the consequence is that your bishops are systematically chosen among monks, which is not the case in the latin church.
I don't say it is wrong or right : it is a choice. and, by the way, in the latin church, the celibacy of all the clergy was a decision of a monk who became pope ...
And why have all (true) apostolic churches finally decided to chose their bishops among unmarried men ?
Because the "episcopal families" became the plague of the church soon after the free exercise of christianism in the roman empire : the episcopus, the episcopa and their many children used to "phagocyte" the church, grabbing all ecclesiatical functions and revenues (some sort of diocesan Borgias, actually)
No hate mail from me, only love. Very well explained.
I'm on the fence about the issue (coming from the Anglican perspective). Although your arguments are intriguing and in line with what is typically known as "complimentarianism", I would recommend N.T. Wright's Scriptural arguments for the ordination of women. He has an entire chapter on it in his book "Surprised by Scripture".
Thank you for your input, Brian.
I really like NT Wright & look forward to reading.
There is NO priesthoid, male or female, in Anglicanism. They are only "Ministers of the Gospel" CRANMER/CROMWELL. There was no Catholic bishop in those times who would 'ordain' a protestant 'priest'. So Cranmer had to resort to the above.
Whatever N.T. Wright's argument is, it won't be able to overcome the fact that Jesus chose only male apostles. So, if Church teaching is based on construing according to our wits, Wright's argument may sound great. But if Church teaching is based on what Christ chose, Wright's argument is spurious.
@@neptasur The twelve apostles Jesus chose were all Jews, so what does that prove?
@@Anon.5216 don't you guys get tired of jaundiced arguments? The Roman Catholic Church broke away from the Orthodox Catholic Church. Have they declared you as having invalid orders? Do you care? Anglicans don't care!
I'm not a pretty good english speaker, but as I understood your video, I was sad you didn't speak about the Saint Women: Saint Hildegard Von Bingen, Ste Thérèse d'Avila, or Ste Thérèse de Lisieux were quite more influent on Church than any masculin priest ever was . And what about Ste Maria de Magdala or the Holly Virgin ? Which pope can pretend to have as much influence on Church tha women had ?
Well, that's all, the whole video was really great, as all those you made, thanks a lot for your work, you're great .
God bless you and yours .
I think it is important to include what the scripture has to say on this topic... I Timothy 2:11-14 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
I find that it is always wise to take our explanations of doctrine back to scripture.
Now this is funny. In Germany (possibly in all of Europa - at least I picked sth. similiar up in French lessons) we have a discussion about the use of female forms. To stick with the actors' example: "Actor" in German is "Schauspieler", "actress" is "Schauspielerin". It was common to use generic masculin in German, so just saying "Schauspieler" (which is also the plural form of this noun) when meaning "actors and actresses". Or "ein Schauspieler" for "an actor or an actress". But according to the Gender Ideology, one has to say "Schaupielerinnen und Schaupieler", or - because that is so long - "Schauspieler*innen. The concept of adding a suffix to create a female form isn't new in German language, it was already used by Goethe. However in recent years there's been a huge debate about the topic and it is actually the gender movement that suggest one has to use the so-called "gender star" or comparable language tools and the so-called conservatives that oppose it. I was kind surprised that is just the opposite way acros the Atlantic.
I am a Christian, and I agree with the RCC (Catholics) that Women should not be the HEAD of the CHURCH of GOD in Christ Jesus or be ordained as Priestess... why?... It is not about yours, theirs, or even my interpretation of the Bible, but the "WILL OF GOD."... (Matt. 7:21), "He who does the WILL of My (Christ) Father (God) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven"... "Matt. 12:50), "He who does the WILL of MY (Christ) Father (God) is my Brother, Sister, and Mother."
We (mankind) have no right, to QUESTION God, nor to Challenge God's WILL... Some will ask, is God a racist?... a male chauvinist?... why St. Paul said this and that regarding women?... ETC...
God has His REASONS why:
1. God created Man (Adam) first before Woman (Eve) from the dust thru God's Image and Likeness... (Gen. 2:7)
2. God commanded Adam to Rule over God's Creation (Ruler of the World) and to name all God's creation, and whatever name Adam gave so shall be their names... (Gen. 2:19-20)
3. It was from Man's Body/flesh and Blood that Woman was created (formed)... (Gen. 2:21-24)
4. The Glory of Woman is Man, the Glory of Man is Christ, the Glory of Christ is God... (1 Corin. 11:7)
5. It was the Woman who was deceived by Satan (serpent) and the FIRST to fall short (sinned) in the Glory of God. (Gen. 3 / 1 Tim 2:14)
6. The WILL of God is that Man to be the HEAD of the Family/Household of Mankind... (Eph. 5:22-23 / 1 Corin 11:3 /
7. The WILL of God that His Only Begotten SON (Christ Jesus) be the HEAD/GROOM of God's CHURCH... (Eph. 1:22)
8. God promised and had chosen ABRAHAM (not Sarah) to be the Father of All Nations of the World... (Gen. 17:5)
Other LOGICAL Reasons why: (supported by the Bible)
1. St. Paul said, "Women in Faith," should KEEP SILENT (keep quiet) in God's Church (1 Corin. 14:34 / 1 Tim. 2: 11-15)... logically if you ordain women, they have the right to speak out about any Church matters and decisions.
2. Christ had chosen 12 MALE Apostles (no female Apostles but women can do "discipleship," like Mary Magdalene, Prescilla, etc.)... logically speaking, Christ obeys the WILL of His Father.
3. If God allowed both Man (Husband) and Woman (Wife) to be the HEAD of the Family... logically, who will take the Surname of their Children?... it will be CHAOS to have 2 Captains on a SHIP.
4. God created the PHYSIOLOGICAL and BIOLOGICAL Structure of Man GREATER than Women (not mental/psychological structure, I.Q.)... Logically, Man's Physique, Skeletal and Muscular Systems are Greater than Women, which is why women do not compete with Male Transgender in Physical Sports (not mental sports like Chess/Quiz games, etc.)... therefore "Physical Strenght" to Head the Family and to Head God's Church is preferred by God... why?... Women are WEAKER VESSELS (1 Peter 3:7)
5. God knew, if Men are susceptible to temptation, Women are more susceptible to temptation because Satan often used Women as Satan's OLDEST TRICK, since the beginning of her downfall in the Garden of Eden, to get Men in Satan's favor/power... logical example PORNOGRAPHY, what is the ratio?... 1:100... 1 male to 100 female porno artists... As the old saying goes, "Man's downfall is due to his weakness to Woman"... supported Biblically... Story of Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, Esther and the Persian King, etc... Have you ever wondered, why Companies in the Merchandise Business (ex. food/clothing) preferred more SALESLADIES than SALESMEN in Shopping malls, Fine Dining/Bars (waitresses), Groceries/Department stores, etc.?... you do the logic.
6. Logically, there were no Priestesses (Female Priests) chosen by God to work/administer in God's TABERNACLE/SANCTUARY/ALTAR since Moses accepted the 10 commandments of God at Mt. Sinai even up to now, but women can be Prophetess/Judge like Miriam (sister of Aaron = 1st High Priest) the first Prophetess and Deborah the first female Judge of the Jews/Israel...
7. Finally, God wants "Women of Faith" to always WEAR their VIRTUE of "MODESTY and SUBMISSION" to their HUSBAND and to the HEAD (Christ) of God's Church... Amen...
Conclusion: it is not about what the Bible says that matters most, but it is a MATTER of GOD'S WILL... not yours, not theirs, not mine... but GOD'S WILL be done... that is the main ISSUE here... if we LOVE God, no argument, and no debate, no compromise, just OBEY and FOLLOW God's WILL... Like Christ had said to His Father, "NOT MY WILL BUT YOURS BE DONE." Let us Follow Christ's Examples... Facts and Truth, Biblically speaking... Amen...
Little tid bit, Mary Magdalene is considered by the Catholic Church as the "apostolorum apostola", the apostle of the apostles.
Since the 1970s there have been 4 women considered as doctors of the Church and 2 men.
And indeed, being a mother is the most important role a woman can have.
But the thing is, like stated, the Church represents all of God's children. And I believe in fundamental differences in between men and women's way of seeing things, or talking about notions or getting across a message. I also believe that women's role in the Church (and/or society) hasn't always permitted that singularity to shine through, which is a shame and a privation.
I really don't see women as priests, but I do hope that the "feminine singularity" or "perspective" will continue to feed the Catholic Church with different views of expression. Plurality of expression (and roles) for one unified message.
Excellent presentation. It’s a shame we don’t have more bishops able to speak as clearly.
There’s more to add to this. For example, men are called to sacrifice their own lives like Christ whereas women are called to sacrifice for life through motherhood.
Simple answer: No. If Jesus wanted women priests He would have had women in his twelve disciples at the last supper
Emily S Also, if Jesus wanted a woman priest his Mother would have been the first pick.
That I Agree with.
So, here's the real reason that "Jesus" and his "12 Disciples" were male: Once upon a time, when the imaginative authors of the magical Holy books were creating characters for this work of fiction, they choose men to play the leading rolls.
A little about the "virgin Mary", she plays the part of a frightened little Jewish girl who told a fib.
End of story.
The traits that define the priest, Imam, Rabbi, pastor, etc. are universal, but perhaps less pervasive in the female gender. These traits being the same as those which define a sociopath, ie: deceit, narcissism, the absence conscience, and, for a significant number, we can add sexual perversion to the list.
"all it takes to make a novel into a Religion is one con man, and a whole lot of idiots"...Alexander Tomov
@Ian Hernandez So PAL, what you are saying BUDDY, is that you've been exposed to logic, and yet, FRIEND, you still subscribe, MY BROTHER, to the fable, about the Son of Pantera? Is that correct COMRADE?
Here's the problem HERMANO, the hypothesis I've put before you, HOMBRE, is the most probable rational explanation regarding your fictitious "King of Kings", creation. Therefore AMIGO, changing any "material" to something you haven't heard before, would be tantamount to fabrication. Irrational fabrication COMPADRE, is precisely what I am ridiculing. So now you see why I can't change the material, eh COUSIN?
Oh, save your blessing, FRIEND and be careful what part of Christ's body you choose to ingest. I think you should lay off the perineum and anything above the pectinate line, for a while....
Man do I feel smart now! Thanks BRO.
@Ian Hernandez Bashful? Ian, are you sure you are using the correct adjective?
OK, I was once almost BASHful when a Franciscan priest attempted to introduce me to his "Holey" Spirit.... It wasn't the 'gay"approach that offended me, as I would simply rebuff it. However, it was the hypocrisy in his actions, as a "Man of God". So, as much as I was tempted to BASH him in manner that would have crushed his zygomatic process, and multiply fractured his mandible, I refrained myself, and was not BASHful.
OK, seriously Hombre, Mi Gente, Amigo, Hermano....Just kidding! Solo un oportunidad practicar mi espanol!
Read this from an article I found not less then 2 minutes ago on LIVESCIENCE:
Jesus Christ may be the most famous man who ever lived. But how do we know he did?
Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. They draw that conclusion from textual evidence in the Bible, however, rather than from the odd assortment of relics parading as physical evidence in churches all over Europe.
That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny.
Roger Adds: AND, from my point of view, even if this Zealot did exist, he was no different from any of the hundreds of other self proclaimed Prophets at that the time.
Read the history of the Catholic Church and choose a source that is "neutral". The Church is FILLED with TORTURE, MURDER, GENOCIDE, PROVOCATION OF FEAR, RAPE...
If you'd like, I will show you several examples. God does not need a church to Exist. HE, SHE, IT, or THEY would most likely not enslave the very beings IT created, demanding prayers, worship, and ridiculous rituals....unless our Gods truly are ASSHOLES, as the many religions worldwide portray them.
Try not to be a zombie fool. Step away from the ignorant crowd. Question the ridiculous and embrace life. real life. Not some stupidity fed to you with demands for your obedience and servitude!
Religion is MAN MADE, and bears the flaws of mans arrogance, stupidity, and cruelty. It preys upon the fearful and ignorant.
God, if it exists, will reveal itself, not through
ancient fairy tales and religious psuedo-logic. but rather, Science...be patient, or be ignorant...it's your choice.
We can approach this question from another angle - in the history of mankind as we know it including times of Judaism and it's continuing Christianity all the way up to the beginning of 20th century, where do we have cases of female priestesses? In the pagan cults only. In The Orthodox Church we cherish and love our sisters that are performing various roles within The Church so much so that some of them we call "equal to the Apostles" like The Holy Myrrh-Bearer Equal of the Apostles Mary Magdalene, for example. However, clergy roles are exclusive to men.
Suppose I made a film of the life of JFK and I signed Julia Roberts to play JFK. Would anything seem odd about that?
Nice job Brian!
God bless great video! 🕊❤️🙏🏽
On the issue of celibacy there are strong arguments to suggest that the reason there is so much molestation in the catholic church is because of the imposition of celibacy and the restriction of any physical relationships. What do you think about this?
Bru Master There's absolutely no correlation between celibacy and sexual abuse.
There is absolutely no argument that suggest that. One of the priests at my college parish is pursuing a doctorate in psychology. I asked him about this exact topic he told me that there are no arguments that suggest that.
Amen. As a woman (mentioned only for the folks who think that matters), I am so thankful for the beautiful complementarity of man (male and female) God created, so thankful for our humble priestly fathers who sacrifice their lives in service to us... and I am sad for those women who articulate their desire for the priesthood as a grasp for power. That's not what priesthood is about -- but that's what the female-ordination-advocates MAKE it about, which is yet another sign that none of them should ever be allowed anywhere near it.
If a woman cannot find her peace fully in that Christ loved and died for her; then go on to discern how best to live her life to glorify God (with such a vast array of adventures open to her (marriage! motherhood! catechesis! career! volunteer work! religious life!)), and is fixated not on what God shows her as a made-for-her path to bring Him glory, but on trying to appropriate someone else's path because she perceives it as 'higher'... then her focus is on glorifying herself. And she needs to sort through that. And recognize that she's in NO position to spiritually lead someone else until she actually allows herself to be led by the God, including (especially) when it seems difficult. Those are the times when God has the greatest graces in store for us.
The reason why women are standing up is not because of the masculine, as though they want to be masculine, that is not the actual issue, the issue is they want freedom, meaning, if they want to do these things that men have been doing traditionally, they also have the freedom to do these things, because men did not allow them to do these things, because men are dominating woman because they are men, this is the issue,
it is like men saying, a woman's place is in the home, this is influenced by the carnal nature of man, when women can say, but I also have the freedom to work or to do other things, what right does a man have to tell woman that she does not have the right or freedom to do these things, it's not her place, this has nothing to do with the masculine as though the woman wants to be masculine, it never did, I am speaking of a spiritual thing here, not a flesh thing, but man is ruled by his flesh, and this is the problem,
It is also the same when men say to their little boys don't cry don't be like little girls, men don't cry, understand, this is also dominated by flesh, if man finds compassion he also has the freedom to weep or is he told that he's being like a woman, see, yet the Christ wept he had a soft and compassionate heart, this is not a masculine thing, it is a feminine thing, and this is what I'm talking about, the spiritual position of a persons heart, that man will become woman, woman will become man, and in this they will equalise, I am speaking spiritually not of the flesh,
the masculine or the feminine nature is a reflection, it produces a certain character, I see little girls cuddling a kitten, I see little boys throwing Stones at a kitten, you do many things like this, because of this nature, but we have to rise above this nature it's the reason why Christ came, that woman can be strong and have freedom, and man can be soft and have freedom, women have been suppressed in these freedoms that is the issue, we are not supposed to be locked into the masculine or feminine this is why the Christ came to free men and women from the carnal nature to rise above, giving freedom to all,
Christ chose men and not women, because they would not have been accepted, because of the spiritual position of men at a time it's the reason why the men have been doing what they have been doing because of their spiritual position they were all locked in their carnal nature, this is a valid and true reason, it is also to show the power of God upon the masculine, so that the man rises above the masculine, the image of God is man and woman as one, it is a spiritual image, it is all about spirit not flesh, otherwise you will remain locked in your carnality, and you rise above nothing, this is the reason why women have been rising above, because the Christ has been inspiring her the Christ is giving her power which rises above her carnal nature, because man is so ignorant and loveless, in his carnal nature,
Best response on this topic. Thanks for this.
Mary, a woman, is the Queen of Heaven-teach and pray the Rosary in Latin🙏🏼💪🏼🙏🏼
Another woman who completely agrees with you.
*_feminists screeching_*
So, here's the real reason that "Jesus" and his "12 Disciples" were male: Once upon a time, when the imaginative authors of the magical Holy books were creating characters for this work of fiction, they choose men to play the leading rolls.
A little about the "virgin Mary", she plays the part of a frightened little Jewish girl who told a fib.
End of story.
The traits that define the priest, Imam, Rabbi, pastor, etc. are universal, but perhaps less pervasive in the female gender. These traits being the same as those which define a sociopath, ie: deceit, narcissism, the absence conscience, and, for a significant number, we can add sexual perversion to the list.
"all it takes to make a novel into a Religion is one con man, and a whole lot of idiots"...Alexander Tomov
@@ThePassiveObservermay God have mercy on you. I will pray for you
It's a minefield I don't think you hit a bullseye but you did get the subject warmed up. Thank you for the enjoyable videos.
Very very well said.
My wife was bitten by a dog the day after we conceived our oldest daughter. She got very sick shortly thereafter and went to the doctor. She took a pregnancy test and a rabies test simultaneously. The pregnancy test came back the next day negative (too soon to tell) and the rabies test was delayed nearly 3 days during which time my wife kept getting worse and worse. The doctor told her she could get the vaccine and it would not hurt her if she did not in-fact have rabies. However, she refused the vaccine for fear it would terminate the pregnancy had she, in fact been pregnant.
That’s heroic in my opinion. That’s motherly. That is even uniquely feminine- not the willingness to sacrifice self necessarily, but the holding out hope for something so intangible as pregnancy at that point was and acting out on that hope in an extreme way.
Judging by the comments, you should do a video on why Catholics only know the secular version of Church history. Just sayin'
Thank you. Thank you so much for saying this. God bless you.
As for calling it sexist to restrict certain roles to either men or women, our very anatomy is God restricting certain roles to us. Men cannot bear children. So, if this is sexist, then God is sexist, and if we agree sexism is evil, then God is evil, and if God is evil who/what is good?
Im studying Catholic Theologe in Germany and my Professor would disagree with you. He would say that there are female deacons in the early chruch.
M1and5M Deacons are not Priests...they're not the same thing
M1and5M can I say that people make mistakes and the fact that there might have been women as deacons does not mean we should have. We have to think clearly and make decision in our time and generation based of facts and much discussion among those called to do so.
Germany great.We don't need another Martin Luther.
There were, but those deacons were not ordained, as the male deacons were. So, why have them? The early Church experienced, like us today, women who complained to the bishop about their husbands' physical abuse. These deacons examined their wounds, among other things. Pope Francis had someone look into the role of the early female deacons a few years back, and such tasks as that was all the historians could find. They didn't even catechize.
By the way, while we all know teaching authority rests solely at the bishop's level, go to any parish and you are likely to find a female DRE. Male DREs are out there, but the job has mostly been performed by females in recent times. I would submit that these DREs have far more influence and even 'authority' within their respective parishes than any historical Catholic female deacon ever had.
Interesting, thanks! Let me suggest you to include also the role of nuns and consacrated women. Not all women are called to be mothers. Furthermore, did Jesus ordained nuns? if not, we are not going to blame them as an unvalid vocation, right? Also, if a person (any son or daughter of God) feels a call for certain vocation through which serve God and his people, shouldn't it be respected? So many saints that have faced negative critics and some that needed to go against the rules or status quo, but remained faithful to Gods' voice to serve him through a certain service. I suggest we need more dialogue (true dialogue) about this topic. Moreover, as we face lack of priests and devalution of values in society. This situation of crisis, should make us dialogue to find solutions together to what the roles of each one of us should be in the Church and in the world to make it a lively and peaceful place where God can be perceived by the way we live and relate to one another. "Thy Kingdom come!" Thanks! My prayers for you brother. Peace be with you!
Nuns aren't ordained; the tradition of unmarried consecrated virgins & widows is part of antique Jewish tradition. See Anna in the Temple.
@@SciVias917 There is a yet unaswered questions about deaconesses... We must wait and find out whether the laying of the hands on the deaconess was with or without the Holy Spirit...
As tired as I am of repeating this. Feminism began in my parlance as Women’s Liberation. Equality has become Thee issue. Liberation was about freedom to choose. Equality is about Comparison against a measure against prescriptive goals not all women, certainly not me, signed up for. Many of us do not want to be smaller men but women who may choose motherhood, career or various roles all of which should be our calling to serve Gods will for us. And to the men and women who may read this support young women who choose traditional roles as there is terrible pressure out there to see these choices as less then.
Well put. Straight, easy on the point - be blessed
Great points man! Love this!
Great video!
You're a welcome blessing to both spiritual and logical reasoning
What do you mean "THE CHURCH" Surely you mean The Catholic Church?
"12 men exclusively for the role of the apostles..." + one woman, Mary Magdalen the apostles apostle. Also the "woman at the well, who was actually a Samaritan priestess (5 husbands = 5 false idols of the Samaritans) also took up as an apostles and is regarded so in the Orthodox Church. Remember, here Jesus doesn't tell her 'go and sin no more' like others when he heals them.
John 4:28 Then leaving her water jar the woman went back to the town and said to the people, "come this could be the messiah" They came out of the town and made their way toward them. ... Many of the Samaritans believed because of the woman's testimony.
You have to consider that there were in fact probably more, only as the books of the bible became codified over time and the "traditions" were such to record for posterity the male events over time, thus we have a male oriented practice.
I'm not saying this should change, but even Buddha proclaimed that women could not reach nirvana, and his apostle Ananda petitioned to change this error. As much time as Jesus spent with women, and as much is recorded about women in the NT don't you think maybe his intention for women was not to be forgotten as apostles?
The weirdest part is that the script they work from (regardless of who "wrote it" and is directing it behind the scenes) is that women /feminists should advocate this. Effectively getting women to erase themselves.
There are temperamental differences between men and women, but they are trends that are only true in the aggregate, and represent a tendency within men and a tendency within women. As a result, there is a significant minority of men who are 'more feminine' than women, and a significant minority of 'women' who are 'more feminine' than men. Why should we bar these men and women from breaking their traditional gender roles, based on the general trend of others around them? The arguments presented here fail when it comes to individual's experiences.
Though I am officially an eastern Orthodox Christian, I have chosen to worship in an Episcopalian Church and, thus, have been blessed to be the member of a liturgical and (in many ways) traditional Christian Church which allows both women and men to express the fullness of their freedom and humanity through their vocations (if they are so called) in the clerical orders.
What I can tell you from personal experience is that, on the whole, in terms of imitating and representing Christ (which is the true role of the clergy anyway), the female priests and bishops that I know FAR outshine, outstrip, and outclass their male counterparts (both Orthodox and Episcopal).
After personally experiencing both traditions (Orthodox and Episcopal) I have come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics refuse to ordain women for the sole, secret reason that their male leaders are terrified that the same charismatic, pastoral, outshining by women will happen in their clerical ranks as well, such that the already feeble job that most men do as (Orthodox and Catholic) priests will be totally exposed and outshone by women.
Why do you think the female are outshining the male clergy? I'm interested. What is your opinion of male participation in your church and community in general these days?
A further excellent argument I read recently is why was Mary ..the Queen of the Apostles.... not selected as an apostle or all the other many women of profound spiritual integrity and devotion? And would we be able to relate to a "Personal IT" rather than God the Father? The main opposition to the Catholic tradition and principle is frankly sexist. Was God the Father a sexist for sending his Son? Perverse reasoning; the effect of largely neoMarxist identity politics reductios. The most murderous regimes in human history follow this line.
I think the argument that "there is nothing in the character of Jesus that would suggest that he would be motivated by fear of upsetting the arbitrary conventions and traditions of men" is a sound argument here but equally i would suggest the same idea should hold about other topics such as slavery which he never clearly abolished and neither did Paul or the apostles ( no need to rehash the old, Roman world wasn't the same as other forms of slavery.... it clearly wasn't dignified freedom no matter how one colours it ), but we are just taught that the early church through Peter and Paul could not just abolish it overnight as it would have created too much disorder to the Roman economic model and social structure and would have led to a backlash against the church... but if Jesus did not care for such arbitary conventions or traditions why not just condemn it outright regardless of the consequences as it was... well ... as wrong a thing as wrong can be. Just saying, your logic holds here on this but if you use it elsewhere you open a pandoras box ... NO ?
No, you don't!
@@brentcarson9634 Ok, please explain ?
@@adventureinallthings You can read my comment below as to why women can NEVER be priests. It's part of the gender confusion of our age. Once something as fundamental as gender and sexuality issues are confused, the destruction cascades into almost every other area of life. To the point of gay marriage, legalized infanticide and contraception, which has spelled 'death by demography' for the western world. Probably why JP II spent the first 15 years of his pontificate focusing on gender and sexuality issues - albeit to little avail, and more or less undone by the disastrous pontificate of Francis.
But as to your question, the maxim that "the good is the enemy of the best" comes into play. CS Lewis expounded on this at length in his Screwtape Letters and the Abolition of Man. Therein he presciently illustrates what has come to pass. That the principle of 'Christianity and.................' has become one of the devil's favorite tactics: e.g., Christianity and health care, Christianity and social justice, Christianity and immigration etc. By putting worldly issues - important though they are - on an equal footing, one makes Christianity contingent on them. Certainly most of Catholicism has fallen for it. Definitely most of Protestantism too. Which is why so many denominations have caved into gay marriage. The disastrous state of Catholicism too (outside of Africa, or India ) shows why the most powerful lies are founded on half-truths.
Christ constantly warns that his kingdom is not of this world; that by trying to serve 2 masters, both would inevitably be lost. The proper approach is that we first seek the kingdom of heaven (i.e. his will) and then the world around us will progressively be more just as a result of our charitable lives. It wasn't long ago that every major city in the Western world had schools, hospitals and orphanages run by nuns and priests. Now that Catholicism has been overrun by homosexuals, all that's left are a few bitter old lesbian nuns and gay priests, good for nothing except complaining.
Clearly, the destruction is due to our failure is to listen to Christ and his apostles. Consider for example the case of Philemon and his runaway slave Onesimus. Paul insists that Philemon treat his slave as an equal, because they are equal before God. In fact, the reason slavery was eventually outlawed was due to Christianity - though it took a long time. However, look at something even worse: 60 million babies have been murdered since Roe v. Wade - all because Catholics refuse to be Catholic. It would NEVER have happened otherwise. Impossible! Our bishops, for the most part, are beyond sad. As was demonstrated by Cardinal Timothy Dolan this week refusing to excommunicate Cuomo for legalizing infanticide. No John the Baptist for him! What can God do with such leaders? Nothing!
www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-paul-worked-to-overcome-slavery
@@brentcarson9634 em brent, you are covering a lot of stuff there, most of it not really relevant to the issue I address ( I have a pet hate for strawman argument, I am not arguing here for abortion for example, why bring it up ?, what did i say that makes you believe I was in favour of it ? ).... this is just an academic point... ( I have no problem with only male priesthood, I'm cool with it ) I'm merely pointing out an obvious problem in one of the arguments Brian used, namely if Jesus or Paul with authority in his name, could just simply override such, how shall I put it ' worldly concerns " in one area, why not simply say " no man can own a slave , no ifs, no buts, simply not interested in how the Roman world sees the issue just now, it's like stealing, just wrong, get over it, next ". It just seems like an impossible circle to square. All I'm saying is that particular part is a poor argument but hey ... no problem here with all-male priesthood , he gave other good arguments. But my point still stands on that one thing.
@@adventureinallthings Okay, I'll keep it short. If Jesus said that no one can keep a slave, a social order that had existed since cave men, the gospel would have gone nowhere since individuals have little control global socioeconomic conditions. No so with respect to his radical teaching on sex and marriage, which individuals definitely have control over.
Great lead in to help illustrate the truth of your stance. The modern blurring of male/female distinctions is very dangerous. It's interesting that the societies who recognize and value these differences are gaining influence e.g. Asian nations in particular, and those who distort or try perverting them e.g. "Western" nations are faltering in so many ways. God's word warns of this.