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.
Thorolfr said:
Maybe Jesus didn’t pick women as appostles because he knew that they wouldn’t be as effective in spreading the gospel at that time. A lot of the appostles went to far off places, but as men they could go on their own. A woman would probably have had to be accompanied by a man for her protection and because people would have thought it inappropriate for a woman to wander off to some place like India by herself. People from other cultures, especially men, would probably have been less likely to listen to a woman. So, Jesus might not have appointed women appostles not because he was afraid to, but for the practical reason that they would not have been as successful in their missions in the first century world.
Click to expand...
If Christ didn’t specifically say that he was creating a priesthood in the Order of Melchizedek, I would be more open to that chain of thought.

However, since Jesus did specifically mention the Order of Melchizedek (which was 100% specified to be men in ancient times), I have to believe that reasons are more theological than practical.

NOTE: I do recognize a practical part to all this, but I strongly believe (as the Church teaches) that there are theological reasons too.


God bless
 
Last edited:
If you have thoughtful discussion with folks who believe in female ordination, they believe that there were more than 12 Apostles. Mary Magdeline & Junia are the two whom I hear discussed the most. While I do not share their opinions, saying “12 Apostles were all men” is not a “gotcha” when debating with them.
 
phil19034 said:
The reason I say that the claim that Jesus only picked men because He was following social norms of His day is ridiculous is because Jesus broke with social norms all the time.
Click to expand...
Another example of Jesus going against social norms was when he was at Martha’s and Mary’s home and Mary sat at his feet listening which was the position that apostles took. Women didn’t do that in the Jewish culture of that day. If he broke the norm by allowing women to do that there is no reason why he could not have broke norms and made women apostles but he didn’t. This and the other examples make it difficult to argue that he didn’t have women apostles because he was following social norms.
 
Last edited:
How do they reconcile Luke 6:13 -"and he chose twelve of them, whom also he named apostles."
 
Last edited:
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy[-two] others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit.
 
They would probably say that the women known as Apostles were in the same sense that Paul later became an Apostle. Paul was not one of the original 12.

So I guess they would say.
 
I believe he is saying your post seems a little like an attack and it is not something that can be argued, debated and won. It is a useless argument because the male priesthood can’t be changed.

We can hope that there will be those who did not understand the why’s of men only in the priesthood and by reading some of the posts have come to understand it and now will walk by faith in how God has led the Church.
 
I can hardly see how the OP is an attack on the church’s teaching.

Regardless, I’m trying more and more not to engage those who favor confrontation on CAF. It wears you out.

Some people treat the CAF much the way many Catholics treat the church: We have to make sure everyone is of one kind, perfectly orthodox, and we must kick the sinners and heretics out.
 
Last edited:
We are all called to be disciples but we are not all called to be one of the twelve apostles.
 
GKMotley said:
Your terminology needs tightening. There is no single entity entitled The Anglican Church. I suspect you may have in mind the Anglican Communion, that group of autonomous Churches that originally sprang from the Church of England, and retain communion (occasionally impaired) with each other. The children, in a loose sense, of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I grew up attending both ACC and ACA churches (read: Both Anglican). To this day, neither one ordains women. Episcopal Church USA does.
 
catholic1seeks said:
We have to make sure everyone is of one kind, perfectly orthodox, and we must kick the sinners and heretics out.
Click to expand...
The Church is here because we are all sinners, so if the sinners were to get kicked out, we would all have to turn around and throw our ownselves out and there would be nobody left, but the Church isn’t here to leave us as sinners but to make us holy and to turn away from our sins and do penance.

As far as heretics, we do what we can to lead them to the truth and away from heresy, not encourage it and we do not let those heresies be part of our teaching, otherwise we run the risk of lost souls and we want those who follow heresy to return to the truth.

As far as being one, Yes!!! That is correct. There are four marks of the Catholic church - ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, so yes, we do want people to be one. One in the Lord and one in the Church.
 
Last edited:
The 72 in Luke are given a charge much like that given to the 12. The difference has more to do with where they go than their role or function iirc.

For that matter, Mary Magdalene at the tomb is told “Go…” which is the basis for the title Apostle. (in Mark, it is not clear that apostle refers to an office; it might just mean “ those who had been sent”)

You can always equate the 12 with the apostolate, until you look at Paul and Barnabas. Then you have to ask if the 12 were really the only model of the apostolate out there. The Church has always recognized the 12, and others.
 
When it becomes obstinate then it becomes something to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Which, among other things that went off the rails, is a point behind the existence of the Continuum, which umbrella term covers the ACC and the ACA, and others so situated.
 
blackforest said:
This is a good point. I grew up attending both ACC and ACA churches (read: Both Anglican). To this day, neither one ordains women. Episcopal Church USA does.
Click to expand...
True there are some Anglicans who do not support women’s ordination. But I thought that the Archbishop of Cantebury was the symbolic head of the Anglican communion? Doesn’t Justin Welby and did not Rowan Williams support women priests?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who promotes error is promoting error. The Church is the final authority.
 
Yes, but then again we are all called to be disciples. A disciple is a student or a follower. We are all given a charge to go out preach the gospel in the same way that Mary Magdalene was but we are not all called to be the 12 apostles.
 
Yet “hey, you are wrong” is not the most effective evangelization tool in the tool box. I prefer to listen to others, get where they are coming from, and go from there.
 
Aye, and again, what’s the relevance of your post?

Again, this thread is like this:

Question: Why do some people use chocolate chips in their recipes?
Answer: Cookies are bad for you!

Supremely annoying. Almost troll-like.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top