Why do catholics and orthodox have such a problem with female priests?
>>18346523Evangelical Protestants are also against it. Pozzed cucked mainline Prots are the only ones violating 1 Timothy 2:11-12
>women cringe
>>18346565why do Christians still obey anything in Timothy? It's an obvious forgery.
>>18346569Ask Anglicans why they still consider it canonical while directly violating it
>>18346523But not with tradcath gays
>>18346575Homosexuals may be Catholic if they recognize that what they have is a deviance. In other words, there's no such thing as "reconciling" homosexuality with Catholic faith.
>>18346572I don't get why they do it either. I don't get why three proven forgeries remain in every New Testament and why no Christian denomination (for all the religion's emphasis on the Bible as the word of God) has incorporated the findings of modern scholarship into their doctrine.From an outside perspective it just seems bizarre.
>>18346523They have been vindicated after seeing what w*men have done to modern society since being given political power.
>>18346579>>18346575If they truly acknowledge that they have a deviation, they first need to abandon gay self-domination and something I've only seen Muslims talk about: do everything possible to get out of this sin. If he believes in Jesus, he must necessarily believe that he has the ability to free people from any sin, and why would homosexuality be different? Or do you think it's something innate and natural to the person? They don't want to give up the sin. Because of pride. But of course, cathocucks are contradictory.
>>18346575 I think the same way. There was a gay person in my family, and after prayers and some psychiatric sessions, he's no longer gay and even remembers the past with sadness. Homosexuality is not a state of being, but a practice.
>>18346586What do you mean? Homosexuality is a sin. If a Catholic sins they should seek God's forgiveness and the ability to overcome future sins.
>>18346586It is precisely Catholics who treat homosexuality as something insurmountable and adopt relativism, even going against scripture when it comes to homosexuality. At one moment, we have the metaphor of sinning with the heart, and at another, this does not apply to gays.
>>18346588
bump
>>18346523If you press them they'll say because Jesus only ordained men. This is true. But press further. Why did Jesus ordain only men? Not because of social factors of his patriarchal time, because Jesus very clearly didn't care what society thought of him or his teachings and actions.The answer to that "why" is sexual. There is sexual metaphysical symbolism of the Eucharist which makes men the only fitting people to perform the Eucharistic rite. It is the sacrament of the bride and bridegroom, where Christ, the bridegroom, consummates his mystical marriage to the Church, his bride. Catholic school middle schoolers will snicker at the language at Mass of receiving a man's flesh into yourself and putting his body on your tongue, but this is the actual intended imagery. So it does not make sense for a woman to perform this rite where sexual intercourse at the consummation of a wedding is the underlying metaphysical image.
>>18347224You have come to the altar, the Lord Jesus calls you, for the text speaks of you or of the Church, and he says to you: “Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth” [Song of Songs 1:1]. This word can be applied equally to Christ or to you. Do you wish to apply it to Christ? You see that you are pure from all sin, since your faults have been blotted out. This is why He judges you to be worthy of heavenly sacraments and invites you to the heavenly banquet: “May he kiss me with the kiss of his mouth” [Song of Songs 1:1]. You wish to apply the same to yourself? Seeing yourself pure from all sins and worthy to come to the altar of Christ.… You see the wonderful sacrament and you say: “May he kiss me with the kiss of his mouth,” that is, may Christ give me a kiss. (Saint Ambrose, On the Sacraments, 5:5–7)Every Celebration [of the Eucharist] is a celebration of Marriage; the Church’s nuptials are celebrated. The King’s Son is about to marry a wife, and the King’s Son [is] himself a King; and the guests frequenting the marriage are themselves the Bride.… For all the Church is Christ’s Bride, of which the beginning and first-fruits is the Flesh of Christ, because there was the Bride joined to the Bridegroom in the flesh. (Saint Augustine, Homilies on 1 John 2:12–17)
>>18347224This is why more conservative Catholics have an issue with female extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, whether they know it or not. To have a woman give you the Eucharist is to depict Christ as a lesbian consummating the marriage with his wife using a strap-on, it is unnatural
>>18347224The heavenly bridegroom left the heavenly chambers, with the presage of the nuptials before him. He came to the marriage bed of the Cross, a bed not of pleasure, but of pain, united himself with the woman, and consummated the union forever. As it were, the blood and water that came from the side of Christ was the spiritual seminal fluid. (Saint Augustine, Sermo Suppositus 120)
>>18347224>>18347226>>18347232>>18347253Have any scholars or critics noted that this interpretation of the Eucharist seemingly violates the Leviticus rule of laying with another man? For that matter, if nuns are like brides of Christ, then what does that make monks?Why is the Eucharist not just considered a more conventional meal but with major religious significance?
>>18346523Unrelated, but that pic is cute>>18346580Me also from an outside perspective. I’m not Christian. If you admit that Timothy is a forgery and should be non canonically then also you’d have to admit God basically lied and misguided people for 1900s years until modern scholarship. Also Timothy is still from the 1st century, so it’s still from the early Christians.
>>18346523>Why do catholics and orthodox have such a problem with female priests?We put women in charge of teaching schools and look how that turned out.
To be a priest you have to be able to act in the person of Christ so you have to be male to represent him(and not be in a state of subjection)
>>18346523"Based on reports surrounding her appointment announced in October 2025 and subsequent confirmation in January 2026, Sarah Mullally, the first female Archbishop of Canterbury, is generally considered a theological liberal and has been described as a pro-choice and pro-LGBT feminist by various observers." IDK.
>>18346523Women should never be allowed any position of power beyond motherhood, most even fail at that.
>>18347739>Also Timothy is still from the 1st century, so it’s still from the early ChristiansThat doesn't seem to be agreed on. https://earlychristianwritings.com/ puts the pastorals in the range 100-150, and as far as I know there's no evidence that Marcion knew about them. It's possible his canon excluded them because they didn't exist yet.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles> Proposals by scholars for the date of their composition have ranged from the 1st century to well into the second. The later dates are usually based on the hypothesis that the Pastorals are responding to specific 2nd-century developments, such as Marcionism and Gnosticism. Several scholars have argued that the pastoral epistles attack Marcionism in particular.
>>18347224>>18347226That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not receiving the flesh and blood of the person handing out the crackers, you're receiving the flesh and blood of Christ. If anything having a woman hand out the crackers has the advantage of making it marginally less gay.
>>18347798>To be a priest you have to be able to act in the person of Christ so you have to be male to represent him(and not be in a state of subjection)It's weird to think of the person handing out the eucharist as representing Christ in that context rather than an intermediary. It seems like you could just not do that.
>>18347728The default interpretation of the eucharist violates the Leviticus prohibition against consuming blood, so why not add one violation more to the pile? The attempt to understand Christianity as a full natural continuation of pre-Christian Judaism rather than an at least partial subversion and rejection of it has always been awkward.
>>18346569>why don’t Christians believe our secular anti-Christian fanfictionit’s a mystery
>>18346523Apparently, the apostles being all men is enough for them to decide that Jesus didn't want any woman close to priesthood. Also I've heard from them that God made us different and men are made to be priest while women belong in the kitchen and raising kids.I wonder if the first female Catholic priest wokeism is going to happen within my lifetime. So far Francis and now Leo were very adamantly against it so it so feels like there's more than a century to go, but I would like to see the meltdown.
>>18348299>Apparently, the apostles being all men is enough for them to decide that Jesus didn't want any woman close to priesthoodThat and verses from the bible (i.e the word of God) explicitly calling for women to stay quiet at church, yeah.
>>18348299>So far Francis and now Leo were very adamantly against itLol no, they’re just gradually turning Rome into a woke LGBT church. If they did it too quick they’d cut off the cash flow from conservatives
Mary Magdalene is depicted as Jesus's closest disciple who uniquely understood his teachings, causing tension with Peter, and is honoured as the "apostle to the apostles".
>>18348318>is honoured as the "apostle to the apostles".Referencing her announcing the Resurrection to the apostles. Meanwhile she was not one of the 12 sent to spread the gospel. You have to be working your way backwards to misrepresent details in order to conclude that this permitted female clergy. Which, of course, you are.
>>18348301The Catholic church is known for twisting the scripture as they will in light that they are the only ones allowed to interpret it. I find a bigger problem on how are they going to argue going against the entirety of their sacred tradition being against it, since they take that way more seriously.>>18348310Francis may have been as woke as he could be, but he always was very negative about female ordination. The fact that they chose Prevost after him tells me that they are willing to give in to pretty much anything EXCEPT this matter.
>>18346523A woman could never be a Levite priest because a woman can never be pure enough to stand in the presence of the most high for the reason that she has a vagina. She could never enter the Most Holy place, even a man with crushed balls was not allowed. A man had to be perfect and holy to withstand the presence of God. If a woman enters the Most Holy Place in her impurity she dies.
>>18348399Leviticus 16:1-3>The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, who died after they entered the Lord’s presence and burned the wrong kind of fire before him. The Lord said to Moses, “Warn your brother, Aaron, not to enter the Most Holy Place behind the inner curtain whenever he chooses; if he does, he will die. For the Ark’s cover—the place of atonement—is there, and I myself am present in the cloud above the atonement cover.Why doesn't the Vatican or the orthodox temple or any Christian church has a Most Holy place where the presence of God itself dwelled like he did in the Tabernacle of Moses and then eventually in the Temple of Solomon.If the Vatican is supposed to be the new holy house of the Holy One of Israel then why does it not have a Most Holy place where the presence of God itself dwells?
>>18348409>why does it not have a Most Holy place where the presence of God itself dwells
>>18346523First, the Christian priest is acting in persona Christi, and since God saw fit to come to earth as a man, it would be unfitting and insulting to have women as priests. The Protestants do not even have priests, they are just preachers. Second, there are the well known scriptures against women acting even as preachers, which actually goes further than just the priesthood. Furthermore, in 2026, we can see with our own eyes that female preachers are just one of many pretended liberal modernizations that led, quickly, to destruction. In 1960, fraught with normalcy, it might have been possible for an only moderate lackwit to say that female ministers were a good, modern, non destructive thing. In 2026, when only a single generation of decay has left us with gnostic rainbow buttscarring and mutilation flags planted on Methodist church lawns, it is impossible to miss the goal of destruction.
