Female priests and patriarchy

[Lea101]

In hierarchy

As in brothers and sisters.

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

I wasn’t asserting that, but rather I was pointing out that the roles for women have their male equivalents. So ‘women can be nuns’ would not be a convincing argument to someone talking about the male priesthood.

And women are priests by virtue of their baptism. But it’s not the same as the ordained priesthood, is it?

IDK if this is relevant? People say a female priest will bring about a lesbian marriage because she’s the groom. But the church analogy includes men.

I guess same goes for consecrated virginity. I feel like the bridal analogy keeps going back and forth, depending on what’s convenient. Would like to hear a fleshed out argument refuting thje double standard though, but unfortunately threads always get closed before we reach to that

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

IDK if this is relevant? People say a female priest will bring about a lesbian marriage because she’s the groom. But the church analogy includes men.

I guess same goes for consecrated virginity. I feel like the bridal analogy keeps going back and forth, depending on what’s convenient. Would like to hear a fleshed out argument refuting thje double standard though, but unfortunately threads always get closed before we reach to that

Just use a different argument and there is no double standard.

 

[Lea101]

Yeah. I’ve read JPII’s encyclical on women many many times. Still didn’t get much besides him praising motherhood and virginity, and Mary. Which doesn’t really make it appealing to people calling the church sexist, lol!

 

[Lea101]

Just use a different argument and there is no double standard.

Different argument as in?

 

[edwest211]

Calling the Church sexist is a false accusation.

 

[Lea101]

Um…okay?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I like the one where the Church doesn’t have the authority. Silence from Scripture helps in that scenario and I saw something about how the priesthood of Melchizedeck was all-male. I don’t think that will be satisfactory to some, but it makes more sense than the bridal analogy.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Is there something else he needs to praise?

 

[edwest211]

Modern novelty should be rejected. Equality in the secular world does not apply to a Church established by Christ. As fodder for discussion, it serves no useful purpose. As Pope John Paul II points out, his conclusion is based on Scripture.

 

[Lea101]

like the one where the Church doesn’t have the authority

This is where I’m at now. That even though I may not find a fleshed out answer, it’s been already settled. I do like fully understanding the ‘whys’ of the church though.

I saw something about how the priesthood ofMelchizedeck was all-male. I don’t think that will be satisfactory to some, but it makes more sense than the bridal analogy.

Me too. It seems like the male priesthood was already there before Jesus, unless one argues that this was part of God’s plan. Aka setting up the imagery. Idk.

Is there something else he needs to praise?

Given that people were criticising people for reducing women to virgins and mothers, it was an interesting choice to delve into these two areas. I don’t think he identified other dimensions. I would have the check. Not that I think he reduced women to that in the document though. He was one of the few outspoken people in our Church that uplifted women.

 

[Episcopalian]

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.

Totally agree! I was trying to explain the Catholic churchs’s thought process, but forgot to include that I think it’s too outdated and not mindful of today’s sensibilities.

To be honest, my reception/confirmation sponsor (when I converted to Episcopalianism) was a female priest who even liked to be called “Mother” instead of “Reverend”!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Totally agree! I was trying to explain the Catholic churchs’s thought process, but forgot to include that I think it’s too outdated and not mindful of today’s sensibilities.

Today’s sensibilities have no power over the Church. Not sure what it has to do with what Fauken said.

 

[JosephJohn]

Ok so the church already does have women in an equal position of power in the churc. That was more the question I was looking for. There is a perception that women don’t have positions of authority on the church and if that’s not the case than the church does herself a service by explicitly setting the record straight.

And by institutional power I mean the inclusion for example in the formation of doctrine and pastoral authority over the church. It seems clear that Mary had a great deal of both as she appears to have been the source of research for parts of the gospel no one else would’ve known about and she clearly had a pastoral hand in the early church. Imagine the positive influence she would’ve had as the adoptive mother of a Bishop and apostle. If there are women of such influence today in the church we need to talk about them more because they would be an amazing invitation to the church to those who perceive us as sexist (and we all know many people view us that way).

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I think something could be said to argue for larger administrative roles for women and lay people in general.

The trouble is, from day one, to be the bishop/priest meant to have the chief governing/administrative role within the local Christian community.

I mean, arguably, the original presbyters (priests) and deacons largely included roles delegated to lay men and women today.

So it remains to be seen how we can authentically separate the bishops’ and priests’ due authority as chief shepherds (and, by extension, the “administrative” and “governing” aspects of the church), on the one hand, and an authentic delegation to lay women and men on the other.

I can see how this sort of thinking will never be truly satisfactory for someone who wants an equal role for women in the church, since the priesthood and episcopacy will always hold the chief governing roles in addition to the sacramental ones.

 

[Fauken]

Did you mean to direct that to me? I’m confused.

 

[Episcopalian]

This sounds to me like “we don’t baptize women because we never did it that way before and there’s no past precedent”

Aaah! I’m sorry everyone, especially to @Fauken and @VanitasVanitatum, who both responded to my post!

I meant “ordain” not “baptize”! I’ve corrected my original post but any quoting of it is now incorrect.

Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Thorolfr]

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’.

Most of these Protestant denominations haven’t ever made any claims to infallibility as far as I know. I attend a Lutheran church (ELCA) and I’ve never heard them make any such claims. That’s much more a Catholic thing than a Protestant thing.

 

[Divine3]

Not to answer your question but if the Catholic church ever (which it won’t) ordained women priests or deacons it will no longer be the Catholic church.
My skin would crawl if I had to be next to women who wear a priests collar and are so called ordained in some denomination. I feel ill just looking at women dressed up as priests. .

 

[Thorolfr]

There is no merit in your response. None.

Your responses are very brief, Ed. Why not elaborate a little and tell us why someone’s response has no merit? Just saying it has no merit without any explanation or argument on your part doesn’t add much to the discussion.

 

[Dovekin]

it remains to be seen how we can authentically separate the bishops’ and priests’ due authority as chief shepherds (and, by extension, the “administrative” and “governing” aspects of the church), on the one hand, and an authentic delegation to lay women and men on the other.

It is a long standing problem. Balancing our unity in Christ with the differences of our gifts been a topic since St Paul wrote about it to the Corinthians. I am not sure what is gained by injecting gender into the discussion. St Paul tries it without much apparent success:

Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God…But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.
I Corinthians 11

I can see how this sort of thinking will never be truly satisfactory for someone who wants an equal role for women in the church, since the priesthood and episcopacy will always hold the chief governing roles in addition to the sacramental ones.

Can you see how unsatisfactory it is to those who want our unity in Christ to be manifest in the governance of the Church? In Judaism, men bore the sign of the covenant, but the covenant of Baptism includes men and women. Why reintroduce the distinction?