B
Brendan_64
Guest
When God created people he created them male and female. Our sex is at the root of of our nature, not our height, eye colour etc.
How do pro-women's ordination deal with the 12 male Apostles?
- Status
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So, discounting our physical attributes, how is the nature of all men different from the nature of all women?Thorolfr:
When God created people he created them male and female. Our sex is at the root of of our nature, not our height, eye colour etc.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
That is certainly the reading traditionally held, I think. I suppose proponents of women’s ordination might argue (a) it doesn’t say there weren’t more than the Twelve present, only that Jesus arrived with the Twelve; (b) if this was, as is often supposed, in the Upper Room, all of Jesus’s close followers were likely to have been there, as they were, apparently, at Pentecost; (c) if it was a Passover meal, one would expect both genders to be present; and (d) one might expect the meal to be at least prepared and served by women.
I have a great ignorance about these subjects, so I’m quite unable to assess the merit of such arguments, but I have heard them made.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Men and women do not differ simply because of their physical appearance, they differ in their very nature. A man is not a man (or a woman a woman) because they have the physical features of a man, but because they are male. It is part of the core identity and definition of a person and is not changeable (unlike a physical attribute).
Tis_Bearself
Patron
My personal opinion is that Jesus picked men because, given the social restrictions of the time, women couldn’t reasonably carry out the tasks he expected the 12 to do.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Though I thought the quoted article on the right track, you are correct as to the “matter”. I also pointed out that confusion further above. Perhaps the quote marks were intended to make that word something other than the sacramental matter, with respect to the confection of the sacrament, but in that case, it is ineptly worded. Otherwise, it is oddly incorrect.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I almost noted your correction, but the note was getting too long already.
Even with the quotemarks, matter is problematic. It evokes the Eucharistic miracle in a way that almost negates the humanity of the priest. Keeping to the traditional language would promote a more nuanced view of what a priest is and how a perosn becomes a priest, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Making up a new theology might be the right way to go, it just seems awfully annoying, like fingernails on a blackboard.
Even with the quotemarks, matter is problematic. It evokes the Eucharistic miracle in a way that almost negates the humanity of the priest. Keeping to the traditional language would promote a more nuanced view of what a priest is and how a perosn becomes a priest, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Making up a new theology might be the right way to go, it just seems awfully annoying, like fingernails on a blackboard.
S
sonofbarry
Guest
Patriarchal, Jewish society.
Women preachers would not have been taken seriously.
Women preachers would not have been taken seriously.
E
edwest211
Guest
It really is a big deal when error is posted here.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I agree that if that is what the ordained ministry is, then women should be able to be ordained as priests.
But as you imply, the Catholic understanding goes a bit further. The Catholic understanding would center around the image of the Apostles around the Last Supper, so-to-speak. That so-called “priests” have a proper liturgical function, in addition to the kingly (leadership) and prophet (teaching) function.
We know the early church had other roles besides Apostles and presbyter-bishops (which would soon become fixed under the term presbyter/“priest,” whereas the term “bishop” would go on to refer to the specific role that the Apostles held). We see “prophets” and “apostles” (of the church, i.e., emissaries sent by churches) in the first century. The loose term “deacon,” meaning servant, also accompanied more than the liturgical role.
So indeed, I think Catholics can agree with you that women – and the “laity” (non-ordained) in general – had various roles in the early church. I think the key distinction is whether or not they were ordained. Early Christian documents that directly relate to this question say that, in fact, they were not. That is, women were not ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
However, because Catholics can agree that women had various other roles, we have no problem in promoting women in these roles today. Throughout history, women have been “leaders” and “preachers” in the Catholic Church — just not under the role of ordained priest, which, in the apostolic church, was generally assumed under the titles presbyter/bishop.
But as you imply, the Catholic understanding goes a bit further. The Catholic understanding would center around the image of the Apostles around the Last Supper, so-to-speak. That so-called “priests” have a proper liturgical function, in addition to the kingly (leadership) and prophet (teaching) function.
We know the early church had other roles besides Apostles and presbyter-bishops (which would soon become fixed under the term presbyter/“priest,” whereas the term “bishop” would go on to refer to the specific role that the Apostles held). We see “prophets” and “apostles” (of the church, i.e., emissaries sent by churches) in the first century. The loose term “deacon,” meaning servant, also accompanied more than the liturgical role.
So indeed, I think Catholics can agree with you that women – and the “laity” (non-ordained) in general – had various roles in the early church. I think the key distinction is whether or not they were ordained. Early Christian documents that directly relate to this question say that, in fact, they were not. That is, women were not ordained to preside at the Eucharist.
However, because Catholics can agree that women had various other roles, we have no problem in promoting women in these roles today. Throughout history, women have been “leaders” and “preachers” in the Catholic Church — just not under the role of ordained priest, which, in the apostolic church, was generally assumed under the titles presbyter/bishop.
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Yes, amen, and thank you for this. Especially:
Q
Questioner13
Guest
It has been said above that “Men cannot give birth, as women cannot be priests”. This is about “the unchangeable essence of a person’s male or female nature”.
That’s the point I wanted to expand on. As I see it the arguments for restricting the priesthood to men are very narrowly focused on the sacraments (and on one particular sacrament at that). Yet the clergy also assumes an exclusive authority to preach, teach and make moral pronouncements. (Yes there have been female Doctors of the Church - but every one of those first had to be approved by a man. Only a man can issue a Nihil Obstat. Only a man can deliver the homily. Only a man can issue an encyclical.)
Can that position be reconciled with the assertion that men and women have equal dignity (just different roles) in the eyes of God and the Church? I am not sure it can.
Or to put it another way, if the priesthood is an exclusively male role in just the same way that pregnancy and giving birth is an exclusively female role and those roles are equal, surely no priest can have authority to dictate to a woman what she should or should not do in respect of pregnancy and child-bearing. Therefore all papal teachings on contraception and abortion must be discarded as over-stepping a man’s authority and invalid in the same manner as a Eucharistic consecration performed by a woman.
No?
That’s the point I wanted to expand on. As I see it the arguments for restricting the priesthood to men are very narrowly focused on the sacraments (and on one particular sacrament at that). Yet the clergy also assumes an exclusive authority to preach, teach and make moral pronouncements. (Yes there have been female Doctors of the Church - but every one of those first had to be approved by a man. Only a man can issue a Nihil Obstat. Only a man can deliver the homily. Only a man can issue an encyclical.)
Can that position be reconciled with the assertion that men and women have equal dignity (just different roles) in the eyes of God and the Church? I am not sure it can.
Or to put it another way, if the priesthood is an exclusively male role in just the same way that pregnancy and giving birth is an exclusively female role and those roles are equal, surely no priest can have authority to dictate to a woman what she should or should not do in respect of pregnancy and child-bearing. Therefore all papal teachings on contraception and abortion must be discarded as over-stepping a man’s authority and invalid in the same manner as a Eucharistic consecration performed by a woman.
No?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I could see why someone MAY argue that an “old man’s club” has no legitimacy to decide matters relating to women. Just in the same way many in the secular world would say “straight celibates” have no authority to decide matters regarding the family, or sexuality in general.
But of course, this is absurd. It’s like saying that the Catholic hierarchy can’t say anything regarding the immorality of murder, since most Catholic priests aren’t murderers.
Or that a doctor can’t say anything about cancer unless he first has cancer.
Not to mention, that whether you want to say women should be ordained or not, the Christian still confesses a Church founded by the divine Christ, who is the Word of God, and who has promised to guide the Church into all truth.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
That is incorrect. Pope John Paul II:
In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)
In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I do not think my statement is in conflict with the one you posted. Christ may well have made his choice out of concern for women’s dignity rather than blind conformity.
There is of course room for interpretation, so let us agree to disagree.
There is of course room for interpretation, so let us agree to disagree.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
I do want to focus on this, though. Because I think it gets to the main issue. Many want women priests because priests/bishops are largely the chief decision makers in the Church. This makes men the chief decision makers in the Church.
(Of course, one could legitimately debate this, since at the local parish level, there are many lay levels of leadership — which can and often do include women).
I think that women DO need to have more of a role in the decision making of the Church. I’m not really sure what this means in practice. Do there need to be lay Cardinals, so that women can also be Cardinals and vote for the Pope? Perhaps so! In the early Church, some bishops were voted by a less exclusive group — even with confirmation from the laity. I think this could be an important, concrete (though seemingly radical today) step.
As for the role of preacher and pastor, I think women should be able to be emphasized more and more as legitimate spiritual directors and pastoral workers. They already can be. Maybe the role needs to be expanded. Could a woman be “commissioned” by a priest to represent him in some spiritual/pastoral capacity? IDK. People would still say that, in such cases, approval from a man is still necessary. And so it seems like we aren’t even solving the root of the problem.
Should lay people be allowed to preach at Mass? I think so. I don’t see anything inherently wrong about it. Special training may be necessary. But if this happened, then women, too could be preachers in a liturgical context.
There will be people who argue that the homily, because of the liturgical context, must be associated with an ordained person, like a deacon or priest. But I’m not sure if this is strictly necessary. We have lay lectors, for example.
Last edited:
Q
Questioner13
Guest
Thank you catholic1seeks - I think you are quite correct as to the driver of much of the desire to see women priests in the Church. And it’s a pointer also to the wider issue of clericalism.
I think there are many issues unfortunately tangled up here. There’s the issue of “What is the Church”? Is it the whole body of baptised Catholics, male and female, no matter how orthodox, schismatic (or just confused)? Or is it the men who constitute the clergy?
There’s the issue of male and female - when and how does it matter? That is of course the difference between my argument that priests cannot speak to contraception and abortion and your parallel of murderers and cancer suffers - we are asked to accept that “male and female” is a unique difference, a matter of essence, a fundamental dividing line. But then we are also asked to accept that men can step across it to dictate to women, while women are restricted to their side of the line.
Or again - if the difference between male and female is so fundamental that only a man can act “in persona Christi” in the marriage of Christ and the church - how can we have men in the congregation?
I think there are many issues unfortunately tangled up here. There’s the issue of “What is the Church”? Is it the whole body of baptised Catholics, male and female, no matter how orthodox, schismatic (or just confused)? Or is it the men who constitute the clergy?
There’s the issue of male and female - when and how does it matter? That is of course the difference between my argument that priests cannot speak to contraception and abortion and your parallel of murderers and cancer suffers - we are asked to accept that “male and female” is a unique difference, a matter of essence, a fundamental dividing line. But then we are also asked to accept that men can step across it to dictate to women, while women are restricted to their side of the line.
Or again - if the difference between male and female is so fundamental that only a man can act “in persona Christi” in the marriage of Christ and the church - how can we have men in the congregation?
A
AlNg
Guest
The Anglican Church allows women priests. I don’t know how they deal with the 12 male apostles except to say it was a cultural issue at that time. Would it ever be possible for the Roman Catholic Church to restore communion with the Anglican Church? Hasn’t the Pope received clergy women from Anglican and Lutheran denominations?
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
One concern I have is, as nifty or airtight this theology may be, who actually appreciates it? As in, how is it significant beyond the realm of theology textbooks? Do we in the congregation in fact NOTICE the priest as bridegroom, just because he is a man? Does it affect us in any meaningful way? In theory, it seems convincing, but in reality and in practice, I’m not sure if it holds up.
It is in fact this lack of concrete, practical significance that may be the undoing of the theology. For to many, it seems like an afterthought – a rationalization that was thought of later to justify the already-established male priesthood. And, in fact, we don’t really see early Christians defending the male priesthood with this theology. At least, I haven’t seen it, but I’m open to the evidence. As in another thread I started suggests, the early church was sometimes (unfortunately) sexist in its reasoning for the male priesthood.
And so some will go on to say that the Catholic Church maintains this ancient male-only priesthood NOT BECAUSE it is sexist, but rather, because it has a lot to stake on its understanding of Tradition and infallibility and so on.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
You’ll have to find a source from the Anglican Church regarding your first two sentences. No, it would not be possible to have the Church admit the Anglican Church.
From Crux Now:
"Monsignor Andrew Burnham -a former Anglican bishop and one of the leaders of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham-thinks the experiment is over and Bishop North should swim the Tiber.
"Writing in London’s Catholic Herald , Burnham explained why he left to become Catholic, “I left the Church of England when, in 2008, it became clear what the inexorable trajectory had become. Wherever it leads, it doesn’t lead to orthodoxy, and will always be shipwrecked on the rocks of secular liberalism and cultural Marxism. Secular liberalism rejects the Church’s notion of the complementarity of the sexes - male and female having separate and distinct roles within the economy of salvation - and cultural Marxism would do away entirely with the biblical teaching on marriage and the family.”
“Pope Francis’s overtures to Anglicans, and Choral Evensong being celebrated in St Peter’s, are certainly important symbolic gestures, but the ongoing divisions within Anglicanism itself over human sexuality, the sacraments, and doctrine will mean that such overtures must remain not much more than symbolic gestures.”
From Crux Now:
"Monsignor Andrew Burnham -a former Anglican bishop and one of the leaders of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham-thinks the experiment is over and Bishop North should swim the Tiber.
"Writing in London’s Catholic Herald , Burnham explained why he left to become Catholic, “I left the Church of England when, in 2008, it became clear what the inexorable trajectory had become. Wherever it leads, it doesn’t lead to orthodoxy, and will always be shipwrecked on the rocks of secular liberalism and cultural Marxism. Secular liberalism rejects the Church’s notion of the complementarity of the sexes - male and female having separate and distinct roles within the economy of salvation - and cultural Marxism would do away entirely with the biblical teaching on marriage and the family.”
“Pope Francis’s overtures to Anglicans, and Choral Evensong being celebrated in St Peter’s, are certainly important symbolic gestures, but the ongoing divisions within Anglicanism itself over human sexuality, the sacraments, and doctrine will mean that such overtures must remain not much more than symbolic gestures.”
- Status