Explaining female ordination

[Tantum_ergo]

You ask a good question but I can only say she does not have the full “Personhood” that Christ has. This is a philosophical question about “personhood” that I believe the Church uses in determining the liturgical priesthood. At each Mass, Christ is offering Himself to the Father as a person, so a female is not the same type of person as Christ is I believe. These are my answers but I would hope that there are better ones out there. This is not to say each person does not have equal dignity.

And remember above all that arguing whether or not a woman ‘can’ act as Christ, or whether or not women are ‘full’ etc has nothing to do with the actual teaching. . .

The Church has no authority to ordain women.

It just doesn’t.

So the whole ‘issue’ is a non-issue.

God, for whatever reason or reasons (there are probably several) has determined that Catholic Christian priesthood is for men only. God has given us both Scriptural precedent, Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Holy Spirit’s continued guidance and assurance of truth of this teaching. Because of the above there are several possible reasons, but it all boils down to "This is what God Himself has planned and chosen’.

It has nothing to do with fairness or unfairness, women’s ‘rights’, women’s ‘suitability’, ‘partriarchism’, conspiracies, or anything else what people dredge up to say, “WHY NOT?”. . .

 

[Novocastrian]

Because God, through the Holy Spirit, has declared this. Being part of Christ’s mystical body (as we are in Baptism) is a very different affair from acting in persona Christi as the Holy Spirit has revealed to us.

Remember St Paul’s letter about the body? How we are all parts of the body, but each part has a different function? And the hand can’t say, “Well, I’m not an eye, so I’m not part of the body”, or the foot can’t say, “Because I’m not a hand, I’m not part of the body”. . .each ‘part’ is still part of the body.

Well, the priests are a part of the body. So are lay people. Each has a different function. Both are part of the body, but the priests do not have the function of lay people, and lay people do not have the function of the priests.

Both are part of Christ’s body, but they are not ‘the same’.

I completely agree with your analysis of St Paul. There is a clear role in the Church for those admitted to the ministerial priesthood. Yet it is not clear from Paul’s words that this should be determined on the basis of sex.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I completely agree with your analysis of St Paul. There is a clear role in the Church for those admitted to the ministerial priesthood. Yet it is not clear from Paul’s words that this should be determined on the basis of sex.

That’s why we are not ‘limited’ to St. Paul’s words. Again, we have Scriptural precedent (the Jewish priesthood was all male. Christ had the perfect opportunity to ‘deepen teaching’ and include females if priesthood for males only was not ‘complete’. He did not), we have Sacred tradition, we have the Magisterium which notes priesthood requiring ‘males’ and not females, and we have in the last couple of decades the words of Pope John Paul II (confirmed by Pope Benedict) that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests and that this continued teaching is to be held as Truth.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether a woman is ‘good enough’, or whether men are ‘better’. . .it has nothing to do with rights, or capability. . .

There are plenty of theologians as I said who have given us reasons why God might have chosen men only. But God doesn’t have to come right out and give us the ‘grand list of why I have chosen men only as priests’. We don’t really need to know WHY --it is not necessary for our salvation. We only need know that it IS, and to obediently accept.

(Most people by now know this, but for those who don’t, I’m a woman myself, and I have no trouble at all accepting a male priesthood, and I don’t think that I am being deprived of something by not being ‘eligible’ to be a priest, or that I’m ‘second class’, or that I don’t have a ‘say’ or power or anything like that. )

 

[Novocastrian]

That’s why we are not ‘limited’ to St. Paul’s words. Again, we have Scriptural precedent (the Jewish priesthood was all male. Christ had the perfect opportunity to ‘deepen teaching’ and include females if priesthood for males only was not ‘complete’. He did not), we have Sacred tradition, we have the Magisterium which notes priesthood requiring ‘males’ and not females, and we have in the last couple of decades the words of Pope John Paul II (confirmed by Pope Benedict) that the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests and that this continued teaching is to be held as Truth.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether a woman is ‘good enough’, or whether men are ‘better’. . .it has nothing to do with rights, or capability. . .

There are plenty of theologians as I said who have given us reasons why God might have chosen men only. But God doesn’t have to come right out and give us the ‘grand list of why I have chosen men only as priests’. We don’t really need to know WHY --it is not necessary for our salvation. We only need know that it IS, and to obediently accept.

(Most people by now know this, but for those who don’t, I’m a woman myself, and I have no trouble at all accepting a male priesthood, and I don’t think that I am being deprived of something by not being ‘eligible’ to be a priest, or that I’m ‘second class’, or that I don’t have a ‘say’ or power or anything like that. )

I agree with you that it isn’t a rights issue; we’re talking about the divine constitution of the Church. Where female ordination has happened, it has often happened for the wrong reasons. At least we can agree on that.

I can also agree that you and I don’t necessarily need to know why. But if you’re going to appeal to the teaching authority of the Church, we have every right to ask where they’re getting that teaching from. Why is it any more than coincidental that the Apostles, etc., were all men? We seem to accept that their Jewishness is a simple historical contingency. Nobody suggests that only a Jew can act in persona Christi; why is femaleness different?

 

[mdcpensive1]

And remember above all that arguing whether or not a woman ‘can’ act as Christ, or whether or not women are ‘full’ etc has nothing to do with the actual teaching. . .

The Church has no authority to ordain women.

It just doesn’t.

So the whole ‘issue’ is a non-issue.

God, for whatever reason or reasons (there are probably several) has determined that Catholic Christian priesthood is for men only. God has given us both Scriptural precedent, Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Holy Spirit’s continued guidance and assurance of truth of this teaching. Because of the above there are several possible reasons, but it all boils down to "This is what God Himself has planned and chosen’.

It has nothing to do with fairness or unfairness, women’s ‘rights’, women’s ‘suitability’, ‘partriarchism’, conspiracies, or anything else what people dredge up to say, “WHY NOT?”. . .

I am not disagreeing with you. I hope that is not the reason you responded to my post. But I do question your first sentence about it has nothing to do with the teaching. My understanding is that doctrine can develop and we have to have a clear understanding about the issue to know why women cannot be ordained so that doctrine develops and not gets changed. I have stated that Christ is the one who instituted the sacraments and He is the one who made it male only (one of many reasons). I believe this is why the Church has no authority to change what He did. Others may have different opinions.
I have read Odanatio Sacramentum. JPII’s words you quote at the end of your post are also near the end of his document.
One idea that has not been stated is that it is an “office” and not a “job”. I am quoting a bishop on Catholic Answers on this one.

 

[JohnR77]

In history many female ministers were of pagan religions. They did not have the concept of fatherhood that is seen in Christ’s Church. My opinion is also that is why some churches are failing when they have female pastors and elect female bishops. But again that is just my opinion.

You make some interesting points. This issue gives us the opportunity to explain the difference between Catholicism and those pagan religions.

Christian theology vs. Pagan theology

To understand why we pray “Our Father” and not “Our Mother” and why women are not called to Ordained Priesthood consider:

Christianity does not teach that God the Father is male, but rather that He is pure spirit without sex. We refer to Him in masculine terms because He was revealed to us by the Son in that manner. Besides that, referring to the godhead in feminine terms is consistent with pagan theology, but it does not fit with Christianity. For example, Hindus believe that all creation is part of god. They view the world as being created out of the very substance of god.

The Latin derivation for “mother” is “mater” (think of maternal etc.) It means origin, source, or the substance out of which something is made. Also see the derivation for “matter.” Both words “mother” and “matter” come from the same word. If we had a Mother god, as pagans do, then that would imply that we are made out of the same substance of that god. Hence we would be gods ourselves.

However, Christians have a God who is Father. His creation is something outside of Himself. And the male and female symbolism tell us something about God and who He is and who we are. Unlike pagans, God transcends the universe. He is not part of it. And Divine revelation tells us about our relationship with God by describing Him as the Groom and the Church as the bride.

It has been said that Jesus is the most un-original person to have lived. He only did what He saw the Father doing. John 5:19 His Mother is the holiest human being. (Jesus is a Divine Being –Person). Yet, Jesus chose not to ordain her or any other woman. And so the Church has no choice but to follow Jesus’ example.

Gender is a lot more than just a set of sex organs.

My understanding is that doctrine can develop and we have to have a clear understanding about the issue to know why women cannot be ordained so that doctrine develops and not gets changed…

Another good point!

To really answer this question we need to study the following:
What is a Priest?
What is Sacrifice?
What is a Vocation?
What is a Sacrament?

The small booklet reproduced digitally below answers these important questions.

**Letter To Marianne On The Ordination Of Women **
By Maureen Mullins

Because Protestants often don’t understand these issues they often act more like the pagans in having women priestesses.

.

 

[mdcpensive1]

You make some interesting points. This issue gives us the opportunity to explain the difference between Catholicism and those pagan religions.

Christian theology vs. Pagan theology

To understand why we pray “Our Father” and not “Our Mother” and why women are not called to Ordained Priesthood consider:

Christianity does not teach that God the Father is male, but rather that He is pure spirit without sex. We refer to Him in masculine terms because He was revealed to us by the Son in that manner. Besides that, referring to the godhead in feminine terms is consistent with pagan theology, but it does not fit with Christianity. For example, Hindus believe that all creation is part of god. They view the world as being created out of the very substance of god.

The Latin derivation for “mother” is “mater” (think of maternal etc.) It means origin, source, or the substance out of which something is made. Also see the derivation for “matter.” Both words “mother” and “matter” come from the same word. If we had a Mother god, as pagans do, then that would imply that we are made out of the same substance of that god. Hence we would be gods ourselves.

However, Christians have a God who is Father. His creation is something outside of Himself. And the male and female symbolism tell us something about God and who He is and who we are. Unlike pagans, God transcends the universe. He is not part of it. And Divine revelation tells us about our relationship with God by describing Him as the Groom and the Church as the bride.

It has been said that Jesus is the most un-original person to have lived. He only did what He saw the Father doing. John 5:19 His Mother is the holiest human being. (Jesus is a Divine Being –Person). Yet, Jesus chose not to ordain her or any other woman. And so the Church has no choice but to follow Jesus’ example.

Gender is a lot more than just a set of sex organs.

Another good point!

To really answer this question we need to study the following:
What is a Priest?
What is Sacrifice?
What is a Vocation?
What is a Sacrament?

The small booklet reproduced digitally below answers these important questions.

**Letter To Marianne On The Ordination Of Women **
By Maureen Mullins

Because Protestants often don’t understand these issues they often act more like the pagans in having women priestesses.

.

You make some good points also. God our Father is not about sex but about relationship. After all, He encompasses all that we have but to an infinite higher level. We have sex in our human state to show complimentarity so both sexes can show more than one by itself can. This is a wonderful way of all of men and woman showing aspects of God who is all and much more. All that we are points to God and men and women have different gifts to do that. But as Christ determined for the Church, headship is a male office of service (thanks pope francis).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Another reason is that most all covenants have been based on a marital relationship.

If the Church teaches that the reason they cannot ordain woman is due to the reason above, I need the reference to the authoritative document where this is noted.

 

[Petaro]

If the Church teaches that the reason they cannot ordain woman is due to the reason above, I need the reference to the authoritative document where this is noted.

I, on the other hand, are one of those silly obedient Catholics, who accept the decision of my Pope in what appears to be a conclusively clear statement of doctrine under his full Papal authority reaffirming the agreed belief of the faithful, states, once and for all, that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
I am not wise enough to go to the tomes and try to argue from my individual reasoning the rights or wrongs of church teachings I disagree with.
If I am wrong I don’t think it will be a matter of issue in the destination of my immortal soul. At least I can claim to be loyal to my Faith.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I, on the other hand, are one of those silly obedient Catholics, who accept the decision of my Pope in what appears to be a conclusively clear statement of doctrine under his full Papal authority reaffirming the agreed belief of the faithful, states, once and for all, that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
I am not wise enough to go to the tomes and try to argue from my individual reasoning the rights or wrongs of church teachings I disagree with.
If I am wrong I don’t think it will be a matter of issue in the destination of my immortal soul. At least I can claim to be loyal to my Faith.

This implies that I am not faithful, with is judgmental and indicates that you simply do not understand anything I am saying. It’s also typical of many people to start accusing and name-calling when they can’t defend their own point of view.

The fact is I simply stated something that is the Truth: The Church cannot ordain woman, and the Church does not know why that is the case. Those that disagree simply have personal opinions.

Furthermore, a faithful Catholic can study and ask questions to learn. Deacons do it, priests do it, and bishops do it. I seriously doubt you would make the same accusations against them.

 

[balto]

This implies that I am not faithful, with is judgmental and indicates that you simply do not understand anything I am saying. It’s also typical of many people to start accusing and name-calling when they can’t defend their own point of view.

The fact is I simply stated something that is the Truth: The Church cannot ordain woman, and the Church does not know why that is the case. Those that disagree simply have personal opinions.

Furthermore, a faithful Catholic can study and ask questions to learn. Deacons do it, priests do it, and bishops do it. I seriously doubt you would make the same accusations against them.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there is a philosophical case to be made for why the Church has no authority to ordain priestesses. Peter Kreeft, in his usual witty style, offers an explanation here: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm. Here’s a condensed, less politically incorrect summary of his argument:

God revealed Himself as Father, Son, the bridegroom of the Church, in other words, a He. God is masculine. Why? Think about what it means to be masculine. It is a putting out of one’s nature. God is the Creator of the universe. He’s not a pantheistic spirit that animates the universe and the universe is His body. It is interesting to note that pantheists and pagans typically consider their equivalent of God to be either neuter or feminine. He is the source of Truth, Life, Beauty, Goodness, etc. and every created thing receives what it has of these qualities ultimately from God Himself. Every human being, in relation to God, is spiritually feminine, because we do not subjectively define these attributes but receive them as objective facts from God and His revelation. Hence, God is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. Catholic theology has quite a number of references to our relationship with God being like that of a spiritual marriage.

So what does this have to do with priests? The priest is supposed to represent God to the congregation. God actually uses the priest to confer graces through the Sacraments. We all know that when the consecration happens or when we are absolved of our sins in confession, we are hearing God speaking and working through the priest. Ordaining priestesses would symbolize that God is feminine, which He is not. We might as well pray to “Our Mother” instead of “Our Father” which is erroneous. Not only that, but a priestess would have no power to act in persona Christi at all, as God is masculine and Christ Himself was incarnated as a man. Does this help at all?

 

[balto]

Christianity does not teach that God the Father is male, but rather that He is pure spirit without sex. We refer to Him in masculine terms because He was revealed to us by the Son in that manner. Besides that, referring to the godhead in feminine terms is consistent with pagan theology, but it does not fit with Christianity. For example, Hindus believe that all creation is part of god. They view the world as being created out of the very substance of god.

The Latin derivation for “mother” is “mater” (think of maternal etc.) It means origin, source, or the substance out of which something is made. Also see the derivation for “matter.” Both words “mother” and “matter” come from the same word. If we had a Mother god, as pagans do, then that would imply that we are made out of the same substance of that god. Hence we would be gods ourselves.

However, Christians have a God who is Father. His creation is something outside of Himself. And the male and female symbolism tell us something about God and who He is and who we are. Unlike pagans, God transcends the universe. He is not part of it. And Divine revelation tells us about our relationship with God by describing Him as the Groom and the Church as the bride.

It has been said that Jesus is the most un-original person to have lived. He only did what He saw the Father doing. John 5:19 His Mother is the holiest human being. (Jesus is a Divine Being –Person). Yet, Jesus chose not to ordain her or any other woman. And so the Church has no choice but to follow Jesus’ example.

Gender is a lot more than just a set of sex organs.

I guess if I had looked a couple of posts earlier, I would have seen this post . I think you are correct about all of this and it is the reason why the Church has no authority to ordain women. Here’s me giving credit where credit is due for explaining it better than me :tiphat:.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Does this help at all?

I understand all the arguments. But it is important to understand that they are opinions, as well-formed and intended as they may be. That’s entirely different from the Magisterium making an authoritative statement on the matter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How can men be members of the Church then?

As I said, a primary “sacramental” function of holy orders is to represent Christ the bridegroom. The natural resemblance is demanded because of this essential facet of the sacrament. Baptism is one of the three “rites of initiation” whereas holy orders, like marriage, is one of the rites of “vocation.” Baptism brings incorporation into the body of Christ––Jesus became human for this purpose to save those in sin (cf. Heb. 2:9-18). Of course, Adam and Eve both sinned and both share Christ’s humanity in this way.

Even if one wanted to be completely rigid on females-only depicting the bride of Christ, it is only the female gender that can simultaneously “contain” males. I don’t think it necessary to go down that road, but even a person who incorrectly sees baptism as effecting a function exclusive to females would lose their argument in light of that reality.

As others also said, males and females all share in the royal priesthood of Christ, which itself is brought about by baptism and spans both genders. The priesthood, however, effects the ultimate espousal of Christ to his bride on the cross, when he “consummated” (i.e. it is finished) and this event is brought about ontologically at the confection of the Eucharist through the priest.

As I also said, marriage is a rite of vocation also, and has certain gender essentials involved with it. In order for a marriage to occur, the proper ingredients of 1 man and 1 woman must be there. Anything outside of that arrangement is a sterile action (just as it is reflected in biology, by the way), which brings about no marriage.

 

[mdcpensive1]

If the Church teaches that the reason they cannot ordain woman is due to the reason above, I need the reference to the authoritative document where this is noted.

I don’t believe there is an authoritative document on everything, but I got my information from Scott Hahn who writes a lot on covenant.

There is sola scriptura and I guess there is authoritative documentura.

There are many reasons why the Church makes a decision but this one was made by Christ. The Church has no authority to change the form or matter of any sacrament.
I hope this helps.

 

[Novocastrian]

As I said, a primary “sacramental” function of holy orders is to represent Christ the bridegroom. The natural resemblance is demanded because of this essential facet of the sacrament.

Why? This seems the major problem for me. Why is this the case? And if natural resemblance is demanded, why do we ordain white northern Europeans, or black southern Africans, or people from South East Asia, or wherever? I don’t understand why the male-ness of Christ is more important than his Jewishness, or his Middle Eastern complexion, or his age, or his height, etc.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Why? This seems the major problem for me. Why is this the case? And if natural resemblance is demanded, why do we ordain white northern Europeans, or black southern Africans, or people from South East Asia, or wherever? I don’t understand why the male-ness of Christ is more important than his Jewishness, or his Middle Eastern complexion, or his age, or his height, etc.

From the OT Israel was waiting, as the bride, for the bridegroom Messiah (Hosea, Songs) Jesus, God the Son, comes and reveals that he is the bridegroom (being God and one with the Father.) Mary, Ark of the Covenant, houses the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, because women have the place of the temple. Jesus offers the sacrifice because men have the place of the priest. Man = priest, woman = temple: Jesus = priest AND temple. Therefore, all Christians are called to the universal priesthood and all are temples of the Holy Spirit, we are made in the image of God, but we aren’t everywhere present and in all things. This is a far deeper reality than nationality, age, color or any other surface reality.

Gen 1:27. “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.”

 

[mdcpensive1]

Why? This seems the major problem for me. Why is this the case? And if natural resemblance is demanded, why do we ordain white northern Europeans, or black southern Africans, or people from South East Asia, or wherever? I don’t understand why the male-ness of Christ is more important than his Jewishness, or his Middle Eastern complexion, or his age, or his height, etc.

I understand your question but you have to think of it in terms of “Personhood”. In the new covenant there is a new priesthood. The old covenant had an old priesthood that had the sacrifices of bulls, goats and sheep. A new covenant needs a new priesthood according to the Epistle to the Hebrews. A new priesthood is needed to offer the new sacrifice. This sacrifice is offered by Christ to the Father in which we join Christ as the mystical body. The offering is from Christ so we need a “Persona in Christi” to stand in for Him and say the words for the offering. We need someone who is like the original person because the words are uttered as if Christ Himself are saying them. Personhood is an important factor of which females fail the test.
Christ instituted the sacrament Himself and the Church safeguards the sacraments as the jewels of grace giving. The Church cannot change any matter or form, just incidentals.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

In regards to why other ethnicities are allowed to share in Christ’s priesthood: gentiles are listed in Jesus’ lineage, like Ruth, and Rahab. Jesus is of both Jewish and gentile descent. In addition, Jesus said he had “other sheep” and after the Resurrection commanded his disciples to “make disciples of all nations.”

In order for Christ’s command that His Church go forth and “make disciples of all nations” be fulfilled, his Apostles had to be able to ordain others. In my opinion, Jesus set part of the example for ordaining only men when he instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper, and part of it in John 20, after his Resurrection, when he said, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Part of what Jesus was sent to do was send others out. And he himself said he only does the will of the Father (John 6:38) He sent only men as his Apostles, as the Father sent only the Son. He never sent a woman as an Apostle. Much as God in the Old Testament called only for men to be priests. In sending his Apostles forth, they would naturally have followed his example, ordaining only men as he had showed them, and as was obviously the will of the Father. When Jesus says he only does the will of the Father, he not only means that he does the will of the Father and nothing more, but also that he does all of the work the Father sent him to do, omitting nothing (John 17:4).

So basically, Jesus was sent to accomplish the will of the Father in total, omitting nothing. He ordained men as part of the work his Father sent him to do. He did not ordain women. Therefore, when Jesus says that he has finished the work the Father sent him to do, he means that he has not left anything undone. That means that if the Father had wanted women ordained to Holy Orders, the Son would have done so. Since he did not, it means that it is not the will of the Father and never will be.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

Additionally, Jesus says in John 8:29 that he always does what is pleasing to the Father. In the spirit of omitting nothing, he would not leave something undone if accomplishing it would please the Father. Since Jesus always does what is pleasing to the Father, and he did not ordain women, ordaining women must not only not be the will of the Father, but it therefore must not please him.