How do pro-women's ordination deal with the 12 male Apostles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
So how to Christians (who want women’s ordination) deal with Christ appointing 12 men as Apostles?
Click to expand...
I don’'t think that is the central reason women can’t be ordained; I believe the central reason women cannot be ordained is because to be in persona Christi they must be male (as Christ was). The Apostles couldn’t be female because then they couldn’t be in persona Christi and couldn’t consecrate the Eucharist or give absolution. Priests aren’t male only because the Apostles were male only, priests (like the Apsotles) are male only because Christ was a man.
 
Yes…so my point was why assume a woman MUST just want power? That is a little insulting tbh irrespective of the yes / no to female ordination argument…
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
It would be unjust if men could give birth but were prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...
Men cannot give birth, as women cannot be priests. The Church cannot allow what cannot happen. A woman could dress like a a priest, give sermons, comfort and care for the parishioners, do all the actions of the Mass, but because of their female nature cannot be in persona Christi and cannot be a priest.
 
Not much. These standard racial groupings are still popular in everyday speech (he’s Caucasian, he’s Asian, he’s black, etc.), but they are social constructs not scientific ones. Genetically there is far more diversity in Africa, between different groups there, than all the rest of the world combined… If you really want to classify people into meaningful racial categories, you would probably have to group all Europeans / Asians together and then split Africans into a few groups. Of course that’s not at all compatible with social perceptions of race.
 
As someone who was part of the Woman’s Ordination movement at one time, I can tell you my reasoning.

In Jesus’ time, woman had no rights. For the most part they were property of their fathers or husbands. Men and women did not typically share each other’s company and woman had many more family roles (taking care of the elderly and children, cooking, etc) than the men did.

It was just the time.

That being said, my feeling was that if Jesus were alive now, he would have had women apostle’s as it would have been “normal”

What I found was, that as I started to actually learn more about the history of my faith and what the Church actually teaches and why, I understood the reasons for an all-male priesthood and have embraced the Church’s teaching.

So, basically, it is (or it least was for me) all a matter of poor catechesis.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
What you have said has been said about everything women have done that was traditionally done by men. For example, practicing medicine (I am a doctor). Is it not possible that we will look back on preventing women priests in the same way we look back on preventing women doctors?
Click to expand...
Being a doctor is completely different. Being a doctor is to do a job. Being a priest is not about doing a job proficiently, it is about being in the person of Christ. It isn’t about going up onto the sanctuary and saying all the words correctly and doing all the actions correctly, it isn’t about doing a job. Christ became incarnate as a male, he had a male nature. A woman could say the words of the Mass perfectly, have an expert knowledge of scripture, care for the parishioners and be a wonderfully loving example for all, but she cannot share in the male nature of Christ. A women cannot be a a priest.
 
Why after 1000 years of priestly celibacy are we still talking about priest abuse scandals?

And if you don’t want to discuss it, why bother answering the thread.

The OP has a question, last I knew that is what the forum is here for.:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Well, there’s nothing to “deal with.” I mean, I agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue … but the fact that all 12 apostles were men is incidental to her reasons. At best it’s suggestive corraborating evidence, but it’s not the main foundation of why the Church teaches it. If there were sound reasons to support female clergy, the fact that the original apostles were all men wouldn’t refute them.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Thank you. Your words are almost identical to the words stated when preventing women working as doctors, women voting, women educating or leading men.
Click to expand...
The way it makes sense to me is beginning with acting. Generally I think you would agree that a woman should play a female role and a man should play a male role.

A Priest administering the Sacraments is more than acting as Christ. He becomes Christ.
 
With that logic, no one should come to CAF and ask anything about catholic teaching that they cannot themselves look up in the Catechism.

Besides #1, if you’ll note the context of the OP, I’m not here to question the church’s teaching. I’m asking about how pro-women ordination defend their views in light of Christ’s choice of Apostles.

Besides #2, there ARE Christians out there who ordain women. And there ARE Catholics — misguided or not — who are pro women-ordination. Read the posts. So the matter is still relevant, and at the very least, people like you who are so confident in the Church’s position must at least know how to responsibly engage those who disagree with you.
 
CilladeRoma said:
Why after 1000 years of priestly celibacy are we still talking about priest abuse scandals?
Click to expand...
Non sequiter.

Priestly celibacy is a discipline and therefore not closed to discussion. Abusers have nothing to do with doctrine or discipline but one of personal sin.

Women’s ordination is a matter of doctrine, and John Paull II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
CilladeRoma said:
And if you don’t want to discuss it, why bother answering the thread.
Click to expand...
To point out that John Paul II already settled it, closed the matter definitively, and to point out that “pro women’s ordination” has no place in the Church because it isn’t possible.
 
Last edited:
On the question of the disciples, N.T.Wright has this to say about the fact that the Twelve were male:

“There were no doubt all kinds of reasons for this within both the symbolic world in which he [Jesus] was operating and the practical and cultural world within which they would have to live and work. But every time this point is made – and in my experience it is made quite frequently – we have to comment on how interesting it is that there comes a time in the story when the disciples all forsake Jesus and run away; and at that point, long before the rehabilitation of Peter and the others, it is the women who come first to the tomb, who are the first to see the risen Jesus, and are the first to be entrusted with the news that he has been raised from the dead. This is of incalculable significance. Mary Magdalene and the others are the apostles to the apostles. We should not be surprised that Paul calls a woman named Junia an apostle in Romans 16.7. If an apostle is a witness to the resurrection, there were women who deserved that title before any of the men.”

Professor Wright also looks at the famous passages in the epistles of Paul:

 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Thank you. Your words are almost identical to the words stated when preventing women working as doctors, women voting, women educating or leading men.

Stating women cannot do this because they are women, is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point, it is not about doing, it is about being. It is about the essence of the person. Just as a woman can never be a man (or a man a woman) a woman cannot share in the male nature of the incarnate Christ.

It is not about doing a job, or competency, or equality of opportunity, it is about the unchangeable essence of a person’s male or female nature. Christ was incarnate as a man, he had a male nature. A woman cannot share in this and cannot be alter Christus.
 
Last edited:
Part of the issue is what we mean by “Apostle.”

Do we mean the actual office – that of a bishop, which in itself does not require personal witness to the Resurrection?

Or are we only talking about that privileged sense of being a witness to the Resurrection?

We can agree with Wright on the latter. But there are no early claims to apostolic succession from Mary Magdalene, for example. The issue is quite different from the former.

Was Mary Magdalene at the table at the Last Supper?
 
Last edited:
You may be right. I have no horse in this race. Professor Wright’s views at least address the OP.
 
catholic1seeks said:
deal with the 12 male Apostles. So do they just say it was a matter of culture? Do they say Jesus was sexist? I’m guessing few Christians say these things. So they must have some other reason.
Click to expand...
So for me as a Catholic, I do not “deal with it”, as a boss might tell you at your job.

The Catholic church is the Church that Christ gifted to us. When you come into that Sacramental relationship with Christ in the Church, you are a follower of Christ. He is not just your leader, or pastor or some person who chose 12 male apostles and now the Church says to deal with it.

You know and understand the love He has for you and that He alone knows what is best and this was His decision, so you trust. You walk by faith. You are led by His love and accept and this brings you peace.

Yes, there are other denominations who have female priests or pastors but that is not how it is to be. I know this will offend some but the Catholic church is the Church given to us to be the visible light for us and the Holy Spirit leads it and this is how the Holy Spirit has led us - only male priests and we were led that way because of God’s love.

As far as Catholics ordaining women they are being disobedient to Christ and they are not ordained in the Church and they are not consecrating the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. That change or transubstantiation is not happening. They are deceived and are passing on that deception.

God bless
 
Last edited:
I think I was referring to how those in favor of women’s ordination deal with it.

But anyway, yes, Catholics would say that female pastors/priests are wrong.

Well actually, I don’t say female pastors are wrong any more than I would say a male pastor is wrong. For in the non-Catholic Protestant world, the understanding of ministry does not include the sacramental priesthood, which is the basis for the male-only understanding in Catholicism.

In other words, female ministers and pastors may make more sense in the Protestant world, where the emphasis is more on pastoral care and preaching the word (rather than, say, the Eucharist).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top