Church of England ordains women as vicars and priest... but why not as bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zundrah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess my simple question is WHY? Why does the Church need to prove that Jesus’s maleness is what saved us? I don’t see how that relates to anything? Proponents of a male-only priesthood don’t believe that the Lord’s masculinity was the saving force but rather the totality of who He is and his sacrifice on the cross. Participating in the Mass, the priest is standing in Christ’s place. Christ was male, the priest must be male. But where in this in persona christi theology does it say that only someone who CAN and is able to stand in persona christi can be saved? Do the male-only proponents say that I, personally, even though I’m a humble sixth grade teacher, am saved because, if I wanted to, I could by the virtue of my maleness be a priest and thus I have the possibility of salvation? Is it the testosterone that male-only advocates are saying SAVES us or are they saying it’s the only person who can serve to bring us the sacraments?

In other words, and perhaps I’m cheesy in my analogy, but here goes…

A baby is a gift. It comes from God. It is a blessing. We can agree on that. God uses human beings to bring the baby into this world, into the family, into an incarnate life with hopes of salvation. Who does God use to bring the child? A woman. The woman, by her nature, is the only one who can bring this child into the world, period. God chose that to be the way it is, obviously. Does that lessen the male’s role in being a father then? Does a man have to also give birth in order to receive the blessings of the child in his life? Does a man have to be able to be pregnant in order to be looked at kindly by God as a parent? The man did participate in his way in the creation of the child, but the woman brings it into existence.
Reply to Contarini (Edwin)

Same thing with the liturgy. The priest is the Father only in this case, though it is not giving birth, God chose him to deliver the Eucharist to us, much like he chose the woman with the child. God chose the priest to be the same as Christ by nature, to be a father as he is father. To stand where he stands. Women participate in the liturgy as readers, altar servers, Eucharistic ministers, ushers, Christophers to deliver the host to shut-ins, etc. She is now acting much like the enthusiastic and happy father who watched as the baby was born into life, there to cut the cord and smile and take pictures and hold the baby and love it. Why must a woman participate 100% in the priesthood and delivery of the Host in order to be saved by it? I don’t see the Fathers rationalizing sex in this way? Why must men and women be identical in nature to be saved? A woman’s nature is motherly, a man’s is fatherly, both are saved by virtue of their being HUMAN, not sexual. Sexuality has meaning for the priesthood’s function, not the salvific outcome of it. That’s just my take.
 
Reply to Edwin cont’d…

Perhaps some folks, and I know the Greeks really felt this way (!!) believe that women are less of an expression of humanity, as you put it. However, is this the fundamental reason behind women not being priests? God did choose Adam first and was happy with him and then Eve was created to please, comfort, and love Adam after animals didn’t suffice. So I can see why the Fathers, in their ancient view, saw women as a tad under men in value or perfection, etc. I certainly don’t devalue women in anyway. But I am not sure that women were not considered priests for this reason? It’s impossible to overlook the Greeks’ prejudices against women. Whether it was Aristotle believing women were half a man or incomplete men or just inheritors of part of maleness on longterm loan from their parents, Greeks viewed women as property and inferior. Much of the Gentile world had this Greek mentality. So I see your points and think them valid. The students in my class are always shocked when we discuss how the Greeks, who seemed so progressive, so democratic, so free, so sky’s the limit, that these amazing people were so horribly oppressive to females. Slaves had more mobility than women. A woman couldn’t go to the agora without permission and a chaperone whereas a slave could no questions asked.

So, I see the Greek prejudices and the Jewish views as well. However, I think the reasoning used is that which I’ve said, natures being different with regard to motherhood and fatherhood. Perhaps prejudice was mixed in with it, hard to tell. But I feel that the common thread we read throughout church history is the fatherhood of the priesthood, the brotherhood of Christ, the essence of said priesthood being male in nature, father and brother to the congregation. God is a Father, the priest stands in his place as Father. And that’s why the priest is father and the nun is mother. Simple really in that the father stands in the place of Christ and the nun is in a motherly role for the congregation with pastoral care, teaching children and catechesis, etc. So, to sum it up, Jesus’s maleness isn’t salvific. To my knowledge, his maleness was never considered the saving virtue of his ministry. I would say there is male nature, female nature, and they go along motherly and fatherly spiritual lines. Then there is the common human nature in which Christ, men, and women share. The separate natures of motherhood and fatherhood make the priesthood defined not by common humanity but by fatherhood. The common humanity ensures both are saved. My take anyway.
Contarini said:
Bluegoat,

I am willing to grant that the word “nature” can mean a lot of things–for instance, Aquinas spoke of “individual nature.” But I don’t think that changes my argument. Christians have always believed that Jesus saved us by assuming our common human nature, and that’s why all humans can be saved. In other words, I don’t think Jesus’ maleness is traditionally regarded as salvific. Modern defenders of the male-only priesthood have to come up with a new anthropology/soteriology in which Jesus’ maleness *is *salvific for all humans, even though the male is no longer seen (as the Fathers saw it) as a more perfect expression of humanity than the female.

Defenders of women’s ordination, on the other hand, don’t need to change the traditional anthropology, Christology, or soteriology beyond the mere rejection of the view that the female is an imperfect male. We can still say that what saves us is Christ’s assumption of our common humanity.

Edwin
Click to expand...
 
Contarini said:
I think the only way one can defend the male-only priesthood is to deny this. But that surely tears apart the unity of Christ’s saving work. How can His priesthood be something other than his salvific action? What is His priesthood if *not *the means by which he unites us to Himself and thus to God? To say that the priesthood is something different from the salvific action is to make the priesthood something purely juridical and external–a mere office.

Edwin
Click to expand...
You may be right. Though I wonder if what is unity in Christ need appear that way to us, or even be that way for us at specific points in time.

But I wonder how you can reconcile this to your understanding of the Church? For me, even if I can’t wrap my mind around the reasoning, I would have to make a major change to my understanding of the Church to admit this change in the tradition was possible. I suppose I’d become a Quaker or something at that point, or maybe just revert to being a sort of Platonist. But there are other reasons that I consider strong ones that I think my understanding of the Church is correct, and therefor my reasoning with regard to this issue is incomplete.
 
Contarini said:
Zundrah,

I am rather mystified by how you get this from the discussion so far. I would have hoped that we had cleared up your misconception, but apparently you cling to it rather stubbornly.

As I said above, no one believes theologically that women may be ordained priests but not bishops. But as a practical question of preserving unity, many people who have no problem with the ordination of women have held back (rightly, in my opinion) on consecrating female bishops because it will lead to division, and because the episcopate is the instrument of Catholic unity (yes, we think we are Catholics in some sense!) and we ought not to change the order of the episcopate without the consent at least of those Christians with whom we are presently in communion.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you have stated.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Then you must do as Martin Luther did, go for it anyway, despite the response you will have from the church.
 
Contarini said:
Zundrah,

I am rather mystified by how you get this from the discussion so far. I would have hoped that we had cleared up your misconception, but apparently you cling to it rather stubbornly.

As I said above, no one believes theologically that women may be ordained priests but not bishops. But as a practical question of preserving unity, many people who have no problem with the ordination of women have held back (rightly, in my opinion) on consecrating female bishops because it will lead to division, and because the episcopate is the instrument of Catholic unity (yes, we think we are Catholics in some sense!) and we ought not to change the order of the episcopate without the consent at least of those Christians with whom we are presently in communion.

The truth is exactly the opposite of what you have stated.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Zundrah said:
Then you must do as Martin Luther did, go for it anyway, despite the response you will have from the church.
Click to expand...
I sense another reformation coming! I’m rooting for the brave soul who starts it! 😃

Luther certainly would not turn over in his grave, would he?
 
Contarini said:
We’ve been round this before, gurney.

It seems to me that the Christological and anthropological positions of the early Church lead to women’s ordination *once *we reject the premise that women are imperfect men. I do not find any basis in the early Church for the “separate but equal” anthropology promoted by conservatives today. I find an insistence that there is one human nature assumed by Christ. Once we no longer believe that women are imperfect instances of this nature, it seems to me that traditional, orthodox Christian doctrine not only permits but requires us to say that women may validly be ordained.

But as I said, I could be wrong.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Good post, Ed.

From an embryological point of view, men are imperfect women. The embryo develops initially as a female and then devolves into a male. The Y chromosome is small and incomplete–a double YY is lethal and a double XX is female. In addition, the Y chromosome is losing its telomeres, small bits of genetic material at the end of chromosomes,at a relatively rapid rate, so that eventually the Y chromosome may not be viable at all. The loss of telomeres is associated with aging. More males are conceived, more die in utero, more die in the perinatal period and first year of life, more die in the first few years of life. Men don’t live as long as women now, as the dangers of childbearing have been overcome in developed nations. Women have been shown to have vastly superior coping and social skills than men. Because men were felt to be superior to women in virtually all societies and were treated accordingly, it’s as if natural selection continued to remain operative for millions of years for women long after it had ceased for men.
 
Fascinating biology and sociology lesson but what’s the point? What does it have to do with God deigning men to be priests, fathers, and women not to be priests for they are mothers. What does it have to do with the Church and its history? The argument against WO is not that women are morons and incapable but rather the roles God gives us along with gender with relationship to the priestly sacrifice of the Mass. One can prove that women live longer, solve crossword puzzles faster, are less sex-obsessed, are nicer, whatever you like but it has nothing to do with talent. It’s about the other issues previously mentioned.
1234 said:
Good post, Ed.

From an embryological point of view, men are imperfect women. The embryo develops initially as a female and then devolves into a male. The Y chromosome is small and incomplete–a double YY is lethal and a double XX is female. In addition, the Y chromosome is losing its telomeres, small bits of genetic material at the end of chromosomes,at a relatively rapid rate, so that eventually the Y chromosome may not be viable at all. The loss of telomeres is associated with aging. More males are conceived, more die in utero, more die in the perinatal period and first year of life, more die in the first few years of life. Men don’t live as long as women now, as the dangers of childbearing have been overcome in developed nations. Women have been shown to have vastly superior coping and social skills than men. Because men were felt to be superior to women in virtually all societies and were treated accordingly, it’s as if natural selection continued to remain operative for millions of years for women long after it had ceased for men.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Fascinating biology and sociology lesson but what’s the point? What does it have to do with God deigning men to be priests, fathers, and women not to be priests for they are mothers. What does it have to do with the Church and its history? The argument against WO is not that women are morons and incapable but rather the roles God gives us along with gender with relationship to the priestly sacrifice of the Mass. One can prove that women live longer, solve crossword puzzles faster, are less sex-obsessed, are nicer, whatever you like but it has nothing to do with talent. It’s about the other issues previously mentioned.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it’s interesting, in any case. For example, in Genesis Adam is presented as being first, and Eve as having her origin from him. Whereas in biology, we have a pretty good idea that the opposite is true, including from an evolutionary perspective. Why? Is it just talking about something quite different than biology? Is it something about the idea of male and female that we don’t understand? Is it an indication that the story is far more allegorical than anything else? So I think it does speak to how we understand the spiritual aspects of sex and gender.

It could also be significant when we try to explain why we believe certain things to non-Christians with a secular education. This difference could result in a difficulty in a difficulty in accepting the Christian account at face value.
 
I think that it’s both funny and pathetic. There is a clear bias behind the role gender issue in the Christian churches. This issue will go the way of questions regarding whether women have souls (apparently “Yes” passed by one vote), should usury (lending-with-interest) be permitted, and whether it’s alright to enslave nations to convert them (at least one pope thought so). I hope that I live to see the day that women’s ordination is a non-issue in the AC as well as most or all Protestant churches. The RCC is hopeless, but its priest shortage is deteriorating so fast it may not make much difference, anyway.
 
By “hopeless” do you mean the Catholic Church doesn’t fit your standards for “ordaining” women? If you mean it’s a hopeless proposition to get the Catholic Church to go for this nonsense, then I guess hopelessness, for once, is a good thing! I happen to think it’s a great thing that Catholicism and Orthodoxy stick to their guns on this.👍
1234 said:
I think that it’s both funny and pathetic. There is a clear bias behind the role gender issue in the Christian churches. This issue will go the way of questions regarding whether women have souls (apparently “Yes” passed by one vote), should usury (lending-with-interest) be permitted, and whether it’s alright to enslave nations to convert them (at least one pope thought so). I hope that I live to see the day that women’s ordination is a non-issue in the AC as well as most or all Protestant churches. The RCC is hopeless, but its priest shortage is deteriorating so fast it may not make much difference, anyway.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
By “hopeless” do you mean the Catholic Church doesn’t fit your standards for “ordaining” women? If you mean it’s a hopeless proposition to get the Catholic Church to go for this nonsense, then I guess hopelessness, for once, is a good thing! I happen to think it’s a great thing that Catholicism and Orthodoxy stick to their guns on this.👍
Click to expand...
It’s the RCC’s lethal combination of requiring priests to be celibate males that is creating the priest shortage in Europe and the US, creating a shortage, which is hopeless. Their attitudes are, too, IMHO, but aren’t the issue here.

I think it’s sad that the US RCC has to reply on imports. Ireland is drying up, as it has its own priest shortage, aggravated by its pedophile crisis, and Asian and African priests coming to the US are ignoring the fact that there is an even graver shortage where they come from.

Orthodoxy has a better prognosis as it permits its priests to marry before ordination.

Underlying this is a deep-seating prejudice against women, which modern genetics and embryology , as we have stated, does not support.
 
I agree that the need to “import” is sad indeed. I also happen to be of the mind that priests should be able to marry again like in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. I agree. And I think there are too many pedophiles and creeps using celibacy to hide. I know I’m the minority opinion on that in this forum but it is my feeling nevertheless.

But the idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a male-only priesthood based on the idea that women are inferior trash is nonsense. It’s not a “deep-seeded prejudice,” to be fair to both camps. It is not that simple. It’s about roles as fathers and mothers and the biological relationship to each descriptor. Men are fathers, women are mothers. Fathers are not superior to mothers, just different. Men can never know the powerful bond of motherhood with the baby. I never will know the deep relationship my wife has with our three biologically. It’s powerful and words don’t describe it. Holding a child in one’s womb is a mystical, powerful, God-given blessing no man can know. Yet men are not scum and lower life forms because they can’t know it. Fatherhood is the essense of the priesthood. Fatherhood. The sacrificial Mass is a transcendent moment in time where the priest stands in persona christi, in the place of Christ and becomes Christ for the laity. At confession, he is Christ for me, at the altar of the Eucharist he is Christ for me. The essence of Christ is male, the Levite Priesthood of the OT was male, Christ ordained only males, the precedent was set over 2,000 years. We can do all the Discover Channel-style microbiology genome analysis we want. Women are just as smart as men, capable as men, wise as men, doesn’t matter. We’re not the same in the matter of ROLES. It’s not tantamount to gender prejudice or hatred. It’s just the way God ordained it to be.
1234 said:
It’s the RCC’s lethal combination of requiring priests to be celibate males that is creating the priest shortage in Europe and the US, creating a shortage, which is hopeless. Their attitudes are, too, IMHO, but aren’t the issue here.

I think it’s sad that the US RCC has to reply on imports. Ireland is drying up, as it has its own priest shortage, aggravated by its pedophile crisis, and Asian and African priests coming to the US are ignoring the fact that there is an even graver shortage where they come from.

Orthodoxy has a better prognosis as it permits its priests to marry before ordination.

Underlying this is a deep-seating prejudice against women, which modern genetics and embryology , as we have stated, does not support.
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I agree that the need to “import” is sad indeed. I also happen to be of the mind that priests should be able to marry again like in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. I agree. And I think there are too many pedophiles and creeps using celibacy to hide. I know I’m the minority opinion on that in this forum but it is my feeling nevertheless.

But the idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have a male-only priesthood based on the idea that women are inferior trash is nonsense. It’s not a “deep-seeded prejudice,” to be fair to both camps. It is not that simple. It’s about roles as fathers and mothers and the biological relationship to each descriptor. Men are fathers, women are mothers. Fathers are not superior to mothers, just different. Men can never know the powerful bond of motherhood with the baby. I never will know the deep relationship my wife has with our three biologically. It’s powerful and words don’t describe it. Holding a child in one’s womb is a mystical, powerful, God-given blessing no man can know. Yet men are not scum and lower life forms because they can’t know it. Fatherhood is the essense of the priesthood. Fatherhood. The sacrificial Mass is a transcendent moment in time where the priest stands in persona christi, in the place of Christ and becomes Christ for the laity. At confession, he is Christ for me, at the altar of the Eucharist he is Christ for me. The essence of Christ is male, the Levite Priesthood of the OT was male, Christ ordained only males, the precedent was set over 2,000 years. We can do all the Discover Channel-style microbiology genome analysis we want. Women are just as smart as men, capable as men, wise as men, doesn’t matter. We’re not the same in the matter of ROLES. It’s not tantamount to gender prejudice or hatred. It’s just the way God ordained it to be.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the well thought out post. In another post you saw that I said I support women’s ordination. What it comes down to, for many, is that religion has, including Christianity, has been abused as a tool for suppressing women throughout the ages.

You do a good job of showing that an all male priesthood is not intended to be rooted in bigotry and suppression of women. The same thing does apply though, that the argument against it is rooted in a relationship between the priest’s maleness and Christ’s maleness. Those who support WO question this relationship.
 
Hi Johnny,

And I respect and thank you for your understanding that you and I both have GOOD intentions in our views, neither of us demonizing the other side here. I passionately am opposed to it but for the reasons mentioned, nothing against women. I’m just not a chauvenist and I appreciate your openness and kind, charitable understanding that that’s not the case. Sometimes pro-WO think that’s the case.

I do agree with you that there are many folks who oppose WO because of a half-baked idea that women are simpering, wimpy, gullible drips who can’t handle leadership. That’s not it. But when I have championed the anti-WO position, I’ve had some Catholics who agree with me and say, “way to go bud. I had a woman boss once and boy they’re pea brains! Women make lousy anything except homemakers! 👍” to which I roll my eyes LOL…It’s like the racist loons who come to tea party rallies ruining it for the sane people there LOL! 😛
JohnnyReb said:
Thank you for the well thought out post. In another post you saw that I said I support women’s ordination. What it comes down to, for many, is that religion has, including Christianity, has been abused as a tool for suppressing women throughout the ages.

You do a good job of showing that an all male priesthood is not intended to be rooted in bigotry and suppression of women. The same thing does apply though, that the argument against it is rooted in a relationship between the priest’s maleness and Christ’s maleness. Those who support WO question this relationship.
Click to expand...
 
Gloria1 said:
Honestly I don’t understand why the catholic church and other denominations do not allow women to serve at those higher positions within the church. I personally think that God is omnipotent and HE is not bounded by ‘gender’…
Click to expand...
*Bold emphasis mine ; caps in original.

… by ‘gender’ or the prevailing human opinions of the day. Thank-you for demonstrating the Catholic Church’s point.

Pax,
Tim
 
slippery slope thinking is the heart of WO…next follows celibate gays, then openly active gays, then transvestites, “trans-genders” and God knows what else…ordaining ferrets? 😃
Timothy17 said:
*Bold emphasis mine ; caps in original.

… by ‘gender’ or the prevailing human opinions of the day. Thank-you for demonstrating the Catholic Church’s point.

Pax,
Tim
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Hi Johnny,

And I respect and thank you for your understanding that you and I both have GOOD intentions in our views, neither of us demonizing the other side here. I passionately am opposed to it but for the reasons mentioned, nothing against women. I’m just not a chauvenist and I appreciate your openness and kind, charitable understanding that that’s not the case. Sometimes pro-WO think that’s the case.

I do agree with you that there are many folks who oppose WO because of a half-baked idea that women are simpering, wimpy, gullible drips who can’t handle leadership. That’s not it. But when I have championed the anti-WO position, I’ve had some Catholics who agree with me and say, “way to go bud. I had a woman boss once and boy they’re pea brains! Women make lousy anything except homemakers! 👍” to which I roll my eyes LOL…It’s like the racist loons who come to tea party rallies ruining it for the sane people there LOL! 😛
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate your honesty and insight. For me, its a conflict between my head and heart. My head says the evidence for a male only priesthood is strong. My heart says it should be otherwise. Prior to coming into the Catholic tradition, I was part of the Weslyan Pentecostal tradition. When I did theological studies in seminary, pro-women’s ordination was literally pushed onto us by the professors. Indeed, from its earliest days, women have been leaders in Pentecostalism. But Pentecostalism lacks a priesthood in any form (valid, invalid/illicit, whatever).

I have tried reconcile my conflict by adopting the position of my former Pentecostal denomination-women can be ordained ministers, but not bishops. But that even doesn’t even work. I think a better approach is affirming women in ministry outside the priestly role, and in places beyond “homemaker” type roles. Then the oppression of women argument loses steam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top