Female ordination (Anglican wondering what the issue is)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Future_Prodigy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Future_Prodigy

Guest
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such. The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.

What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
 
Women just aren’t valid matter. It’s like trying to baptize someone with sand. Or, to be more topical, trying to confer the sacrament of marriage on two people of the same sex 🙂

very-shortly-and-concisely yours,
Jeremy
 
Jesus ordained 12 men, not one single woman. We cannot ordain women because our Lord did not. I’m sure we would if we could though and if it was part of our Deposit of Faith. Anglicans split off from the Catholic Church a long time ago – I’m not so sure why Anglicans would be looking to Catholics as to how to run their church unless it was a model for success (which it is) 👍

God Bless.
 
In addition to the other replies, there’s another perspective to look at this:

If you consider a priest simply as someone who performs a set of jobs, then you could ask why a woman could not be a priest. It would be of an “equal rights” type of thing. The thing is, a priest is much more than a person who performs a set of jobs. A priest is an icon of Christ, and as Jesus was male, so must a “father” or priest be male.

I read a book that delves into this issue, along with other Catholic controversies. It’s a really good read, and very motivating:
amazon.com/gp/product/0066213304/ref=wl_it_dp/105-7524313-1774806?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1RHPCLN5CQ8QD&colid=111ZUX1NNIU8L

Hope this helps!
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such.
Click to expand...
Your timeline is WAY off.

First, there are still some provinces of the Anglican Communion that do not admit women to the diaconate, priesthood, or episcopate.

The first to do so, some bishops in the US, did so illicitly in direct opposition to the decrees of the 1968 Lambeth Conference. The first women were ordained in 1974. Canada soon followed in 1975. The US formally began ordaining women in 1976. In 1978 the Lambeth Conference hemmed and hawed about it, but could do nothing to stop it b/c each province is autonomous.

There was no theological foundation for the ordination of women. Nor was it really decided by Lambeth, but more or less they just gave up opposing it because it was a done deal in the countries who defied the Conference’s decrees.

It was based solely on the idea that women should have “equal rights”. Those in the Anglican Communion still disparage the bishops who deny on theological grounds the ability of women to be ordained as “sexist” and gleefully await the day those bishops die or retire.

It was a study of this very issue when I was Episcopalian that led me to the conclusion that my own denomination was, as scripture says, neither hot nor cold but rather lukewarm. The mode of operation is for Lambeth to lay down the regulation and then the Episcopal Church USA to ignore Lambeth and do as they please. Then, the other bishops will scold and threaten and then nothing happens… and pretty soon “poof” the dominos begin to fall b/c of the schizophrenia within the demonination. Any denomination that maintains its “unity” by allowing every member to do what they want no matter how absurd is just kidding themselves. This is a false unity, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to Acts 15:1.

That was the end of the line for me. I became a Catholic.
Future_Prodigy said:
The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.
Click to expand...
Not sure what position you were taking on it, but the implications are huge and not for the better of anyone.
Future_Prodigy said:
What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
Click to expand...
Here is the Apostolic Letter of JPII explaining why only men can receive Holy Orders.
 
Hi Future,

You can be sure that the Church has looked at this very carefully. The sacraments, to be valid must have correct matter and form. For example, in baptism, the matter is water, the form is the trinitarian formula. You cannot use orange juice to baptize or baptize in the name of Jesus. The sacrament would not “take”.

In Holy Orders, the matter has always been males. Nothing in the tradition of the Church, starting with the early church or the Fathers indicates that the matter is “humans”. And the reason for this may very well be that a male person represents the person of Christ (a male person) just like water represents cleansing in baptism. The Church does not say that it would be improper for a woman to be ordained, if that were God’s intention. It just says that it finds nothing that authorizes it to change what has been handed down from the beginning.

This of course does not mean that there is no place for women in ministering to God’s people. Throughout the epistles of St. Paul there is frequent mention of women whose role seems to be crucial. And today, you will find that women are heavily involved.

Verbum
 
**From the catechism:

[1577](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1577.htm’);)** "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

Many people have a hard time swallowing these statements thinking it is just an equality issue.
 
You should examine the assumptions that underlie all controversial issues like this.

IMO, when a person asserts that women are as able to be priests as men are, they have already accepted a certain worldview that gives birth to the question. In this case, they have already accepted the idea that the differences between man and woman are merely cosmetic. Physical plumbing differences, perhaps.

But is this wise? Is it TRUE? Is it not more likely that our differences are more than skin deep? Christianity has LOOONG rejected the idea that the human soul is an entity divorced or merely imprisoned in a body. Our bodies express elements of our very identity as human persons. Given that fact, it is both rash and foolish to dismiss the fact that Jesus himself did not ordain women to the sacramental priesthood. I don’t (and maybe nobody yet does) have enough of a understanding of healthy human sexuality to over-rule his judgement or to proclaim him to have been ‘culturally constrained.’ That rather smacks of obscene hubris, don’t you think?
 
While it is not a speficially Catholic argument, you might want to look at C. S. Lewis’ “Priestesses in the Church?” in God in the Dock.

David
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such. The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.

What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
Click to expand...
You might like to start with an Anglican argument against it, written by C.S. Lewis: Priestesses in the Church?
 
Note what happened when Miriam wanted Moses’s job: :
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman;
2: and they said, “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. . . . And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed;
10: and when the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned towards Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.
11: And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned.
12: Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother’s womb.”
13: And Moses cried to the LORD, “Heal her, O God, I beseech thee.”
14: But the LORD said to Moses, “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut up outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.”
Click to expand...
Numbers 12:1-14
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such. The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.

What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
Click to expand...
Hello Future Prodigy,

Some others have already posted links to the excellent essays by C.S. Lewis and Novak, and John Paul II’s encyclical. Here are some more:

Women’s Ordination, Fr. William Saunders.

The Male Priesthood, Mark Lowery.

Sexual Symbolism, Peter Kreeft.

Women Priests, Joanna Bogle.

The only thing I can really add is that the tradition of an all-male sacrificial priesthood goes back not just 2000 years to the foundation of Christianity by the Lord, but also another 2000 years prior to that with the Old Testament priesthood established by God, all the way back to the priestly sacrifices offered by Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, the father of the Judeo-Christian religion. For 4000 years, essentially all of recorded human history, a characteristic feature of the true religion of the true God has been an all-male sacrificial priesthood. And we can even look back further to the beginnings of creation in Genesis where we see Cain and Abel, both men, taking on the responsibiliy of offering sacrifice to God.

Of course, this doesn’t explain the “why” for an all-male priesthood, but an understanding of the most ancient quality of this tradition is necessary for approaching the Church teaching regarding the theology behind the doctrine with the necessary humilty. I think this is the source of the humilty expressed by John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis where he declares that neither he nor the Church has any authority to ordain women to the priesthood.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such. The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.

What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
Click to expand...
Sacraments are decreed by God, not man. We cannot change them.

Had Jesus ordained women, women’s ordination would be part of the sacrament of Holy Orders. As he did not, it is not.

You’ll note that keeping the “sacred” in “sacrament” also keeps churches out of such schism-engines as homosexual marriage. It is when we treat sacraments as though we invented them that churches run aground.
 
Women cannot be priests as God created them to be Equal.

But there is also little doubt that God created them differently. Different does NOT be ‘not equal’.

It is definitive Church teaching that a human person is a unity of two distinct entities body and soul, “Corprae et Anima unise”

The human person is the union, or junction of those two ‘parts’

We are not dualists, neither ‘part’ is complete without the other and neither is superior to the other.

The same is true for the human race itself, composed of two sexes. Male and Female.

Together the complete the human race, and together as sexes with the participation of God, do they engage in the God-like act of bringing forth new Life.

Note that in the Biological processes, each sex is required, but they perform different roles. God ordained that it is the woman who brings forth Biological Life, and only the woman. The Church cannot change that.

If the Pope sent out an Encyclical stating that men may now bear children, we would laugh our butts off. The Church does not have that kind of Authority to change God’s Plan.

The Body of a Man is designed by God to specifically NOT perform this function

But, as we discussed above, humans are not just Biological creatures (body), but are Ontological Creatures as well (Soul)

What about Ontological Life?

We know that Christ Instituted the Eucharist in the presence of Males and charged them with “Doing this in memory of me”

He charged the Apostles to bind or loose sin ( John 20),

There is the Source of Ontological Life, the Eucharist, the Sacrifice that establishes the New Convenant, and Reconcillation, with gives Ontloglogical Life to a soul which has lost it.

Both commands were only given to men and men alone. We have no record that a woman ever recieved the ability to generate Ontological Life in this way.

So does the Church have any more Authority to declare that women may bring forth Ontological Life than it would to say that a man can bring forth Biological Life. We would laugh if the Church claimed it had one Authority, so how could one demand it had the other?

When one looks at the distinct, seperate, but equal roles that men and women have, each complementing each other by bringing forth the two equal ‘halfs’ of a human person, it is amazing.

See the equality of God’s plan!, how each part of humanity contributes equally, but with the co-operation of the other on the creation of that which God most earnestly desires, a new Saint? Perfected Biological Life and Perfected Ontological Life, all in union as a sactified human person.

God has a great interest in equality. He made us equal. Different, each with different gifts, different bodies, different soul. But equal.
 
Hi Future Prodigy,

What do you think of the answers so far?

Verbum
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I guess I have taken it for granted that in the last 60 years or so we have had ordained women and i have never really wondered the theological implications of such. The other day i was aruging with my priest about the implications of the Canadian Synod (which essentially is going in favor of homosexual blessings) and i started to wonder about the female ordination issue.

What are the RCC arguments against it? I never heard them before and was honestly curious.
Click to expand...
The only “Ordination” of women prior to the protestant reformation was of “Deaconesses,” women ordained to a minor liturgical role, mostly for the baptism of women (due to social mores, men could not baptise women by naked full immersion). The issue is that of whether they were Ordained (granted the sacrament of Holy Orders) or ordained (more properly, instituted).

At present, the past two popes have both said that the church has no authority to ordain women into holy orders, and implied that deaconesses were properly instituted rather than Ordained.

The Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox both have reinstituted the role of Deaconess.

Further, the doctrine of the priest acting in persona Christi in the consecration gives rise to it being thought/taught impossible for a woman to truly act in persona Christi, even if they could be Ordained in Holy Orders.
 
To sum it all up, the priesthood is a spiritual fatherhood and females can’t be fathers.

OT - Judges 17, where a travelling young Levite is welcomed into the house of Micah, who says to him “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest”.

NT - Jesus is called “a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek”. Jesus is not a Levitical priest, but like Melchizedek is a priest on the basis of being the first-born son.

Jesus also has a ‘fatherly’ function. Hebrews chapter 2 talks about how Jesus says “Here am I, and the children God has given me”. And after his resurrection, when Jesus appears to his disciples by the sea, he calls them “Children” (John 21:5).

Gal 6:16 talks about the Church as the “Israel of God”, the new Israel, and in Matthew 19:28 Jesus establishes the apostles as the new patriarchs (see also Rev 21:12-14). They understood this as a fatherly ministry, often calling people in the Church their “children”.

St John said things like, “My little children, I am writing this to you …” (1 John 2:1); and “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4).

St Peter says things like, “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13).

St Paul says things like, “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4).

See also 2 Cor 12:14-15

St Paul’s spiritual fatherhood is associated with his mission as an apostle; he is “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God,” (Romans 15:15-16).

Probably the single clearest reference to spiritual fatherhood is in 1 Cor 4:14-15, where Paul says: “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. ** For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top