Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/4/83; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm!v6m
From: V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Marchionni's OPINIONS on female priests (Dyer and Tinkham)
Message-ID: <1613V6M@PSUVM>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 13:44:30 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.1613V6M
Posted: Mon Feb 25 13:44:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 08:38:42 EST
Lines: 41

<<>>
At the risk of
A) Excommunication from my Church when I disagree
 or
B) Excommunication from the secular society when I agree

Here goes.

Female priests:

I agree with the Church here.  Christ had the opportunity to "ordain" women
when He ordained the Apostles. The Early Church also had ample opportunity
to ordain women.

Why is Tradition so IMPORTANT?  Precisley because not all contingencies could
be written down.  Can you see it now?? Something out of "Foundation"
where Christ would appear every so many years in pre-recorded form to tell us
what to do.

Since Christ wasn't stupid He left the Spirit to guide the Church. And it is
the Spirit which helps the Church UNDERSTAND Revelation.  As of this writing
the Church understands it to mean only male priests.

By the way an amputee would need permission to be a priest if he couldn't
pick up the host.  (See Jogues, Isaac; Saint and Martyr)
Celibacy is an ecclesiastical rule and can be revoked as necessary.

As for other characteristics:

Christ said teach all nations therfore males of all nations can be priests
since a worldwide apostolic succession is NEEDED.

Why didn't Christ come as a women?  He didn't tell me. (maybe He told
Ken Arndt :-)  )  If He had then all priests would have been women.

I know of no infallible teaching on it YET but if it is allowed then I'll
abide by it  (GRUDGINGLY)  since I look at the priesthood as the last
masculine role model intact; it being the perfect example of fatherhood.
(NO I don't feel like explaining it)

Vince   V6M@PSUVM.BITNET