V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It’s a common trend for all those issues to be grouped together.
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
My friend who is a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America said they don’t have female pastors, either.
S
steph03
Guest
There are many not mentionned… The smaller groups within Lutheranism, Baptists, Presbytherians, Reformed usually do not ordain women. Coptics and oriental Orthodox do not ordain women either.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Other than to say that I see inconsistencies that I can’t quite verbalize between the reasoning behind an all-male ordination and other teachings, I’m not going to wade in. But I do see inconsistencies.
Why couldn’t men be consecrated virgins?
Even if present Church law doesn’t allow for this, that is not doctrine and could be changed. A man is just as capable of being a virgin as a woman is. Is it a question of physical integrity? True, for a man, there is no question of physical integrity, but even for a woman, that physical integrity can cease to exist through means other than sexual relations (an accident, for instance), and that makes her no less of a virgin. And are consecrated virgins never to have had sexual relations, or are they simply repudiating sex from that point forward?
Needless to say, consecrated male virgins would be very counter-cultural. A man in our society who has never had sex is seen as having a serious problem. As I said in another post — and again, I don’t necessarily recommend this film — the whole plot of The 40-Year-Old Virgin was that the man in question was entirely happy with his life, he felt no need to cease being a virgin, and it was everyone else around him, not he, who had an issue with his being a virgin.
Last edited:
J
JosephJohn
Guest
Sorry my response was not as clear as I’d have liked.
Men and women are designed for fatherhood and motherhood respectively and in that regard we are complements. For both sexes every vocation we can have is some type of parental. I am absolutely not asserting the church should ordain women. I might not understand why not fully but this is an infallible doctrine and I will hold to it.
My only point is that it seems strange that some positions of worldly authority over the church have men greatly over represented party or mostly because of the all male priesthood. Maybe there are reasons to exclude non priests from these roles and maybe it’s the case that the difference of representation is actually natural and healthy. Frankly I’m not that well researched and it might be that other positions of authority are held by women that are as important… maybe we should know about those.
And finally my point about one gendered communities falling apart was made inelegantly. I think it’s likely that there are virtues which women have an easier time manifesting than men, and that the opposite is also true. Our differences are not skin deep either though we are the same in the most important fact that we are images of God. It seems reasonable to me that if God designed marriage as perfect than dont women have something to bring to that marriage (besides the obvious potential for procreation) which would not be possible without her. Women have gifts to offer the church men that men simply do not. I was wrong to say we will collapse without female representation but I was getting at something true.
This response is getting long so I’ll end with a thought about the Blessed Mother. So Christ in his person was absolutely sufficient to save us from sin and death without any help, and he choose to use a path to reception that needed the gifts of our Mother to proceed. Mary’s absolute greatest act was her Yes to God as a mother but she also had serious institutional power because the early church realized that she had gifts to give it would be a shame to waste. We know she had institutional power because Luke apparently spoke to her about the Lords infancy so that he could tell a full story. There are other explanations for this sure but Mary’s direct influence on the church seems the most probable to me at least. Should we not try to encourage women to give their gifts as mothers to the church in the way Mary did also rather than just in the family. Don’t we do a disservice by not encouraging the most saintly women to fill an analogous role today.
Men and women are designed for fatherhood and motherhood respectively and in that regard we are complements. For both sexes every vocation we can have is some type of parental. I am absolutely not asserting the church should ordain women. I might not understand why not fully but this is an infallible doctrine and I will hold to it.
My only point is that it seems strange that some positions of worldly authority over the church have men greatly over represented party or mostly because of the all male priesthood. Maybe there are reasons to exclude non priests from these roles and maybe it’s the case that the difference of representation is actually natural and healthy. Frankly I’m not that well researched and it might be that other positions of authority are held by women that are as important… maybe we should know about those.
And finally my point about one gendered communities falling apart was made inelegantly. I think it’s likely that there are virtues which women have an easier time manifesting than men, and that the opposite is also true. Our differences are not skin deep either though we are the same in the most important fact that we are images of God. It seems reasonable to me that if God designed marriage as perfect than dont women have something to bring to that marriage (besides the obvious potential for procreation) which would not be possible without her. Women have gifts to offer the church men that men simply do not. I was wrong to say we will collapse without female representation but I was getting at something true.
This response is getting long so I’ll end with a thought about the Blessed Mother. So Christ in his person was absolutely sufficient to save us from sin and death without any help, and he choose to use a path to reception that needed the gifts of our Mother to proceed. Mary’s absolute greatest act was her Yes to God as a mother but she also had serious institutional power because the early church realized that she had gifts to give it would be a shame to waste. We know she had institutional power because Luke apparently spoke to her about the Lords infancy so that he could tell a full story. There are other explanations for this sure but Mary’s direct influence on the church seems the most probable to me at least. Should we not try to encourage women to give their gifts as mothers to the church in the way Mary did also rather than just in the family. Don’t we do a disservice by not encouraging the most saintly women to fill an analogous role today.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Women already do dominate non-clerical administrative roles at the parish and Diocesan level - at least in the West. But yes, I think they could be given a broader role in the Roman Curia as well. I would favour women religious in particular. Some of the dicasteries are very clerical in nature and should be led by bishops - the congregations for bishops, clergy, promulgation of the faith, etc… but others? Sure.
E
Episcopalian
Guest
This sounds to me like “we don’t ordain women because we never did it that way before and there’s no past precedent”
Which is fine and conservative. Errs on the side of caution.
I think, though, that keeping in line with the context of that time: it was taboo/unheard of for women to be in positions of authority.
If a woman had been ordained by Jesus (or subsequent apostles or something) it’d be theologically acceptable to do it, but it would run the risk of turning people away from the Truth.
Women being in authority was so unacceptable, or heaven forbid, a man sitting down to listen to a woman preach might be so unseemly that it would repel people from Him.
Plus! Maybe the Twelve ordained their bachelor buddies that travelled with them to and fro, which a single woman couldn’t do either because of (maybe legal?) Societal travel restrictions for them.
Last edited:
F
Fauken
Guest
Because, like nuns and sisters, she is a Bride of Christ. It’s one of the most ancient vocations in the entire Church, older than the monastic tradition even.
Physical virginity isn’t the qualifying factor for a consecrated virgin. The fact she has never had sex (rape doesn’t count) is.
No sex before nor after they become consecrated.
Men can take a vow of continence, but they can’t be consecrated virgins due to the bridal nature of the vocation.
L
Lea101
Guest
To be fair, contraception was allowed pretty long ago. I think the same could be said for any heresy imo. That after X, stuff happened. Anything that they claim was objectively immoral that they deem acceptable now.
I’m not sure if you’re insinuating this, but I notice some Catholics like to say that the Church will crumble because female priests would start allowing sins. Because of the women themselves.
The key point, which I think you would agree, is that these churches went another direction because their claim to infallibility is now shattered. I.e. If they were wrong about birth control, they ‘have to be wrong about pre marital sex/female leaders/etc’.
F
Fauken
Guest
“Institutional power”? What does that even mean? Why does someone need to have “institutional power” to tell the full story? Who else was going to provide details over the Annunciation when only Mary and the angel Gabriel were the ones present?
They already do. I just listed three vocations that are only for women that are not marriage. In fact, consecrated virginity is the fullness of the role of being a mother in the Church, as like the bishop contains the fullness of Christ’s priesthood, the consecrated virgin is to be like the Bride of Christ: the Church Herself.
And is an opinion completely ignorant of Scripture. In Acts we hear of the guard who converts and has his whole household baptized. In Matthew Christ gives the command to baptize members of all nations, and women are part of a nation and a household. These instances in Scripture exist, unlike evidence for women in the priesthood.
So was healing the sick on the Sabbath, being an unmarried Jew talking to an adulterous Samaritan woman, dining with traitorous tax collectors, letting sinful women anoint your feet with perfume, telling people to eat your flesh and drink your blood, and also God becoming Man.
L
Lea101
Guest
In terms of their place in the hierarchy, I believe. As well as the similarities in their roles. They have different titles, but I wasn’t referring to that because imo I don’t really see how that changes the point.
I feel the same. I don’t advocate for female ordination, but it’s an issue I don’t fully understand. Whenever I try to question certain explanations and play the devil’s advocate, I still can’t see a logical line of thinking. Hence why I said this seems like an obedience thing.
Interesting question and I do agree. Virgin is seen as a feminine term, and even the church today looks at virginity as a female thing. A key ‘dimension’ to our dignity, according to JPII. You don’t hear that sort of language regarding men and their identities. I never understood this whole part of Catholicism, the whole bridal imagery, whether it makes sense or it’s just antiquated/exaggerated thinking or not. I mean men are the spouse of christ (by being the church)…anyway lol.
That being said, I don’t even know if there’s enough of a demand for such a change to even occur.
F
Fauken
Guest
In hierarchy? Monks and brothers would be obedient to their bishops as women would be, and priests would be. A bishop must respect the authority of an abbess at her abbey as he must an abbot at his abbey (such as saying Mass from the throne). Even in the clerical hierarchy not all men are equal, and there won’t be a movement to ordain all priests as bishops any time soon.
And women are priests by virtue of their baptism. But it’s not the same as the ordained priesthood, is it?
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
It’s both. Probably.
E
edwest211
Guest
Irrelevant. The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
He didn’t say anything in that post that supports female priests.
E
edwest211
Guest
There is no merit in your response. None.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
To be honest, as a boy this imagery always made me a little squeamish. To quote my son when he was 4 years old and I attempted to comb his hair, “I not a girl!!”
As an adult, I kind of go with it and ignore it. Because I not a girl.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
It’s mostly symbolic.
- Status