Female Ordination

[SonCatcher]

It would seem to me that the track record of denominations that have ordained priestesses would be somehow relevant to the discussion…

Not really. Their extending of ordination to women is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

 

[SonCatcher]

Once, it was explained to me that men are “expendable” in society. In the event of war or disaster, men would traditionally place themselves in a position where they would be the first to die. Women would be able to continue society by raising the children they already have. Masculine self-sacrifice is ingrained in our humanity.

The Son, therefore, came as a man to die for us. Priests work “in persona Christi” and by doing so, they become “alter Christus” (“another Christ”). The priest, therefore, is a living image of Jesus in a particular way. The nature of that image is necessarily masculine.

 

[KP3243]

I find parts of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s to be contrary to what the women have been created for. I am a woman in my twenties and it is completely unnatural to me that after three months, majority of women in this country hand their baby off to be cared for and essentially raised by complete strangers - when else has this happened in human history and if you ask most of these women the day they go back to work is like the worst day of their life and they are heartbroken and they are in constant conflict with their work responsibilities and their responsibilities as a mother and the latter usually gets shafted. A lot of women have to work because the cost of living in this country is so expensive but Forbes did a study two weeks ago and found out the number one job for women is the exact same as it was in 1952, secretary, so what progress has really been made?

 

[jinc1019]

It would seem to me that the track record of denominations that have ordained priestesses would be somehow relevant to the discussion…

Not all of these cases proves the point it appears you are trying to make, but in many cases, the more theologically liberal denominations are the ones who have ordained women. In many of those cases, the theologically liberal churches tend to be way off on many theological issues, some even questioning the divinity of Jesus.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the clear word about female ordination as it relates to being deacons:

ncregister.com/site/article/vatican_letter_censures_women_deacon_courses/

Peace,
Ed

 

[SonSearcher]

How kind. :curtsey: My paragraphs are but a brief summary of various writings on the topic which I have read, so I cannot take credit. I’m only echoing better thinkers/scholars than myself.

Well echo away. It is brief but meaty. Concise but full of wisdom.

 

[SonSearcher]

It would seem to me that the track record of denominations that have ordained priestesses would be somehow relevant to the discussion…

Also a very good point.

 

[Bballer32]

Of all the debates that i have had with this topic, the most simple, basic, and best understood argument is this:

God designed us this way. All part of his plan of salvation. The reason Christ chose men was not because of a cultural norm or even sexism for that matter, it was because he (since he is God) knew the human design, both man and woman.

 

[tabycat]

I am not quite convinced. If Jesus chose a women apostles, she would definitely not be allowed to preach. You know, at the time, the place of women is inside the household, not in front of the public. **Noone listen to her **and she **might be stoned to death for going against the tradition **(women stays home)

Who do you think ran the household when the husband was not home? Hint: the wife. Most husbands listen to their wives, even two thousand years ago (excample: St. Joseph). :knight1:

 

[tabycat]

Indeed this is true, however, there are historical reasons that the church fathers chose such an approach as well as the vows priests take (niether existed in the early church). There is scriptual reference for at least female deacons most notably in chapter 16 of Romans with reference to Phoebe. All said until the church fathers choose otherwise what is in the Catedhism stands.

In the Old Testament, all Isrealite preists were men. The female deacons (deaconesses) were to help the male deacons and preists when they were dealing with women.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men. Here’s your problem. You see, there is no REFUSAL here. The Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women. This is not something that the Church can ‘choose’ to do. And the ‘grounds’ were NOT limited to the ‘that was the way it was, so it’s the way it is, men had the power then’ argument.

Let’s see. Isreal society at that time was essentially patriarchy. If Jesus was born as woman, he would not be able to preach. He could not choose woman as apostles because they would not be allowed to preach in front of the public too. Actually, since God chose Christ to be born as a male, your argument is moot. If Jesus had been born in certain societies (even current ones) which were MATRILINEAL, he would not have been permitted to teach on subjects which would have been ‘women’s subjects’. So? He WAS (and is) a Man, His teachings are for ALL TIME and not just ‘patriarch’ times. The God/MAN who DIED for us somehow couldn’t arrange for women to be priests HAD HE CHOSEN IT??? That doesn’t make SENSE. Your argument wavers now into the ‘conspiracy theory’ that the big bad men just hid or ignored Jesus’ teachings and substituted their own ‘male rule.’ Baloney.

God has no gender. However, Jesus became human inside a history and He had to follow the prevailing norm of that society. Oh, you mean the NORM that a human didn’t claim to be GOD? (oh wait, He broke that.) The NORM that a human didn’t suffer and die for other people? (oh wait, He broke that). The NORM that humans could not live forever? (oh wait, He broke that). The NORM that people ‘of that time and society’ looked down on and refused to associate with the poor, the sick, the ‘dregs’ like tax collectors (oh wait, He broke that). . .The person who BROKE THE RULES OF SOCIETY in AD 33 on virtually EVERY POINT somehow couldn’t break the rules of 'women’s rights?"

Just imagine if Isreal society was matriarchy at the time, Jesus must be born as women. Otherwise, noone would listen to Him.

Remember that matriachy does exist in many places on earth.

Your arguments have NOTHING to do with who Jesus IS, only with who you would PREFER Him to be. . ..

 

[bitznbitez]

Not all of these cases proves the point it appears you are trying to make, but in many cases, the more theologically liberal denominations are the ones who have ordained women. In many of those cases, the theologically liberal churches tend to be way off on many theological issues, some even questioning the divinity of Jesus.

Is there a way to get to ordination of priestesses that isn’t theologically liberal ?

 

[Mark121359]

Your arguments have NOTHING to do with who Jesus IS, only with who you would PREFER Him to be. . ..

Amen to that!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I am not quite convinced. If Jesus chose a women apostles, she would definitely not be allowed to preach.

They tried to stop his male Apostles:

[16]
And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons, and such as were troubled with unclean spirits; who were all healed. [17] Then the high priest rising up, and all they that were with him, (which is the heresy of the Sadducees,) were filled with envy. [18] And they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. [19] But an angel of the Lord by night opening the doors of the prison, and leading them out, said: [20] Go, and standing speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.

[21] Who having heard this, early in the morning, entered into the temple, and taught. And the high priest coming, and they that were with him, called together the council, and all the ancients of the children of Israel; and they sent to the prison to have them brought. [22] But when the ministers came, and opening the prison, found them not there, they returned and told, [23] Saying: The prison indeed we found shut with all diligence, and the keepers standing before the doors; but opening it, we found no man within. [24] Now when the officer of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were in doubt concerning them, what would come to pass. [25] But one came and told them: Behold, the men whom you put in prison are in the temple standing, and teaching the people.

[26] Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. [27] And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, [28] Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. [29] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. [30] The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

[31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. [32] And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. [33] When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. [34] But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. [35] And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

[36] For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. [37] After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. [38] And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; [39] But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. [40] And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

[41] And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. [42] And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus.

You know, at the time, the place of women is inside the household, not in front of the public. **Noone listen to her **

The Holy Spirit is better at his job than you give him credit for. [To be continued.]

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

and she **might be stoned to death for going against the tradition **(women stays home)

That is nothing unique to any hypothetical female apostle.
Acts of The Apostles Chapter 6 & 7:

Ch 6:[6] These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. [7] And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. [8] And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. [9] Now there arose some of that which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them that were of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. [10] And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke.

[11] Then they suborned men to say, they had heard him speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God. [12] And they stirred up the people, and the ancients, and the scribes; and running together, they took him, and brought him to the council. [13] And they set up false witnesses, who said: This man ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law. [14] For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us. [15] And all that sat in the council, looking on him, saw his face as if it had been the face of an angel.

…

[And Steven said to them]
[51] You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. [52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: [53] Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. [54] Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him. [55] But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

CH 7[56] And they crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. [57] And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. [58] And they stoned Stephen, invoking, and saying: Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. [59] And falling on his knees, he cried with a loud voice, saying: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep in the Lord. And Saul was consenting to his death.

If the Lord, who was establishing a Church to endure all ages and to teach all peoples, had wanted female apostles there would have been.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Indeed this is true, however, there are historical reasons that the church fathers chose such an approach as well as the vows priests take (niether existed in the early church). There is scriptual reference for at least female deacons most notably in chapter 16 of Romans with reference to Phoebe. All said until the church fathers choose otherwise what is in the Catedhism stands.

Deaconesses were not ordained. Baptism was done in the nude by submersion so it was inappropriate that a man should oversee the baptism of women, hence the non-ordained office of deaconesses.

 

[Brendan]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

As far as I know, the refusal to ordain women is on the ground that 12 apostles were all men. Jesus was also men.

Incorrect

The Reason is the Christ never gave the Church the Authority to ordain women.

The Church can only do what Christ has permitted the Church to do.

It would be the same as the Pope issuing an encyclical mandating that elephants reproduce from now on by laying eggs.

Would it be possible for God have elephants lay eggs? Yes… Did He give that authority to the Church, No.

If a Pope attempted to issue such an encyclical, it would be ineffectual, as the Pope would have exceeded the authority given to him by God. The elephants would not begin laying eggs.

Likewise, if a Bishop attempted to ordain a woman, it would fail, the woman would not be ordained. The Bishop would have exceeded the authority granted to him by God.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Incorrect

The Reason is the Christ never gave the Church the Authority to ordain women.

The Church can only do what Christ has permitted the Church to do.

It would be the same as the Pope issuing an encyclical mandating that elephants reproduce from now on by laying eggs.

Would it be possible for God have elephants lay eggs? Yes… Did He give that authority to the Church, No.

If a Pope attempted to issue such an encyclical, it would be ineffectual, as the Pope would have exceeded the authority given to him by God. The elephants would not begin laying eggs.

Likewise, if a Bishop attempted to ordain a woman, it would fail, the woman would not be ordained. The Bishop would have exceeded the authority granted to him by God.

I think the papal document in question would be a Motu Proprio rather than a encyclical.

 

[jwinch2]

Please don’t throw stones on me but I don’t fully understand the Church’s stance regarding Female Ordination.

From what I have seen, 99% of the people who come here and start threads on this topic are not really interested in understanding the theology behind this issue. Rather, they already have their mind made up that the Church is wrong, and are here to argue. On the chance that you are serious about desiring to understanding this, listen to this presentation.

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Peace,

 

[Mark121359]

It amazes me that this subject never seems to die down. Despite the overwhelming wealth of evidence stacked against womens ordination it still has legs. Go figure! I’m going to catch some flack here on this, But I can’t help but thinking that to some at least, (feminists) the priesthood is the ultimate challenge, or prize if you will. Once upon a time, there were no women police officers, firemen, mailmen, soldiers, fighter pilots etc. etc. etc. These have all fallen one by one. The Mt. Everest of them all is still standing, and it boils their blood that in 2013 there is still one thing they can never ever be!..And thank God for that! Feminist priests… Lord have mercy!