Jesus and the issue of women's ordination

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

You’re saying Christ can’t be pragmatic?
Interesting.

You would think that, since He actually became human, He would more than aware of what our limits were and what was possible.

He would be profoundly pragmatic when it came to humans.

He didn’t say “free all your slaves!” or “Don’t have hereditary ruling classes.” In fact, despite frequent baiting by the Pharisees, He made little if any contemporary social/political commentary.

He surely would have known that pushing too far all at once would have distracted from the important, transcendent and eternal essence of his message.

Did He violate some cultural norms? Sure…sometimes. But even the biggies like whether to keep the old law or convert gentiles He left for the Apostles to come to on their own.

As for Dignity…you’re the one who keeps using that term.
Talking about the dignity of a group is a silly as talking about any group property
Individuals have dignity

In the ancient world nothing Christ did lowered the dignity of any individual woman. The fact that women were regularly part of His group, that Martha and Mary were close friends, and that He appeared to women as well as men after the Resurrection clearly meant that in a culture where women were barred from many religious functions He had really pushed the envelope.

Since women were barred from many functions back then, not choosing one didn’t hurt anything.

As for Christ being “wrong” obviously He can’t be
He’s just been waiting for us to catch up a little.

It is wrong now not to have women priests?

If it is wrong now, it was wrong then. Period.

Christ could have avoided this whole issue by including them as His Apostles. He would not have us catch up to him by overturning the decision He made in the first place. How is this “catching up?”

The Catholic Churches argument is that Christ didn’t do it, so neither should we. He could have, couldn’t he? It was within the scope of his ministry.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

JimG:

What’s the point in discussing something that is not going to happen?

It is important to why it is not going to happen.

Peace

 

[turboEDvo]

dennisknapp:

All are welcome to this thread.

Peace

I agree. Just cuz somebody isn’t Catholic does not mean he or she doesn’t have the right to an opinion and to the civility of other board members (whether you choose to accept said opinions is your thing).

Eamon

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

It is wrong now not to have women priests?

If it is wrong now, it was wrong then. Period.

Christ could have avoided this whole issue by including them as His Apostles. He would not have us catch up to him by overturning the decision He made in the first place. How is this “catching up?”

The Catholic Churches argument is that Christ didn’t do it, so neither should we. He could have, couldn’t he? It was within the scope of his ministry.

Peace

You’re creating a false dilemma

If women were priests 2000 years ago and Christ purposefully did not included them then that would have been significant.

The Church has chosen to apply a significance where none (in my humble and admittedly limited and flawed opinion) exists.

JimG:

What’s the point in discussing something that is not going to happen?

Oh it will happen…eventually

they held out for 1800 (?) years on usury after all

and gave all sorts of people a hard time about the geocentric universe

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

You’re creating a false dilemma

If women were priests 2000 years ago and Christ purposefully did not included them then that would have been significant.

The Church has chosen to apply a significance where none (in my humble and admittedly limited and flawed opinion) exists.

Oh it will happen…eventually

they held out for 1800 (?) years on usury after all

and gave all sorts of people a hard time about the geocentric universe

There where pagan priestesses among the Gentiles, so women were included.

The issue of usury does not apply, it is comparing apples to oranges.

What my thread is trying to get at is, why did He not do something that He could have done when we know he had done other anti-cultural things?

Does Christ’s preogative even matter in this discussion?

It wont happen. The Catholic Church cannot go against Scripture, 2000 years of Tradition, and the choice of Christ Himself.

Peace

 

[Deacon2006]

There will never be women priests just like their will never be rice cracker hosts. Can’t be done regardless how much you pray over them. It is a nature essence substance issue that God created and ordered. It has nothing to do with hierarchy. BTW any women who thinks she is a priest (Anglican, breakaway catholic etc.) lives a deluded life that according to Numbers 18 will probally end in their destruction. Only the Church can validly ordain and the church can only ordain men, as revealed to them by God and evidenced for 2000 years of accepted doctrine, it can never change.

God Bless

 

[Tim_Hayes]

You people are forgetting one important point and it largely hinges on the differences between the sexes.

Generaly and genetically speaking, males are more obstinant and less willing to compromise, whilst this can obviously have a downside it also has its upside.

Woman are more empathetic, and sympathetic than men, woman are far more likely to compromise.

When you put someone in charge of continuing the teaching (not necessarily the practice) of UNCHANGEABLE ABSOLUTE truth, who would be more likely to stick to that. Of course it is the males because they are more naturally built that way.

Would anyone here doubt that woman are the softer of the sexes and in general are more caring, in other words when it comes to the LIVING of Christianity women generally are better at it.

Woman’s natures are better at some things than mens and vice versa, unfortunately people think that what is a natural difference is bad

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

…
What my thread is trying to get at is, why did He not do something that He could have done when we know he had done other anti-cultural things?

Does Christ’s preogative even matter in this discussion?..

Christ had the prerogative to choose anyone

He didn’t choose an Asian or an African or even a non-gentile.

Does that mean those groups are excluded? No

Couldn’t Christ have collected people from the four corners of the globe from day 1?

Could He have walked into Tiberius’ palace and ordered the conversion of the Empire right there and then and dispensed with 300 years of persecution?

Sure He could…He chose not to.

Did He not pick women priests? Sure…but I bet you He never ate pork either.

There are probably lots of things He didn’t do…like wearing trousers
They just weren’t part of the cultural milieu He chose to appear in

It really isn’t significant.

It is the same as if He happened to choose to appear in China rather than the Levant He may have used rice and tea instead of bread and wine

 

[Lorarose]

Doesn’t the male priesthood have more to do with the maleness of Christ - than it does the maleness of the 12 apostles?

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

You’re creating a false dilemma

If women were priests 2000 years ago and Christ purposefully did not included them then that would have been significant.

The Church has chosen to apply a significance where none (in my humble and admittedly limited and flawed opinion) exists.

Oh it will happen…eventually

they held out for 1800 (?) years on usury after all

and gave all sorts of people a hard time about the geocentric universe

Can you provide us with a theological argument as to why this will happen, besides just asserting that it will?

Peace

 

[Deacon2006]

The matter is settled. Either you believe all what Christ did and taught or you don’t. For those who need a Holy writ then here is something from the CDF and Now he is the Pope.

"In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church. "

God Bless

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

Can you provide us with a theological argument as to why this will happen, besides just asserting that it will?

Peace

I’m no theologian

Just a guy with a keyboard

But a quick search will bring you the opinions of many theologians on the matter…some of them Catholic

Some of these are flawed but it is pretty clear that it is not a slam dunk issue.

the Chruch has said that there is not anything “wrong” with women just that it doesn’t have the authoirty to do it now.
but a revelation is always possible.

I’m thinking the 2070s maybe…but it could be 2170 or even 3170 for all we know
could even be next week

“All who are baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

I’m no theologian

Just a guy with a keyboard

But a quick search will bring you the opinions of many theologians on the matter…some of them Catholic

Some of these are flawed but it is pretty clear that it is not a slam dunk issue.

the Chruch has said that there is not anything “wrong” with women just that it doesn’t have the authoirty to do it now.
but a revelation is always possible.

I’m thinking the 2070s maybe…but it could be 2170 or even 3170 for all we know
could even be next week

“All who are baptized in Christ have put on Christ. There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28

Are you talking about a new revelation?

If your rendering of Galatians 3:28 is true why didn’t Paul ordain women priests for Gentile congregations?

Peace

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

Are you talking about a new revelation?

If your rendering of Galatians 3:28 is true why didn’t Paul ordain women priests for Gentile congregations?

Peace

I don’t know…I’m not Paul

but according to these sources there were women in preistly roles in correspondance with Paul

religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl.htm

Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a disciple.

Acts 18:24-26 describes how Priscilla, a woman, and Aquila, her husband, both acted in the role of an official pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard). However, the New International Version has an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla’s and Aquila’s home.

Romans 16:1: This chapter is apparently unrelated to chapter 15 and to the rest of the book. It appears to be an independent note that has been attached to the epistle to the Romans. It starts with a letter of recommendation which introduces Phoebe to a group of people associated with the church at Corinth. Paul refers to her as a “deacon in the sense of a preacher, a minister, because Paul uses the same word for himself. He calls himself, in a number of instances, a deacon of the new covenant in 2 Corinthians.” 4 It is often translated “deaconess” or “servant” or “helper” in English translations - perhaps in order to disguise her true status. The same Greek word appears in Ephesians 6:21 where it refers to a male and is normally translated “minister.” It also appears in 2 Corinthians where Paul used the word to refer to himself.

Dr. Helmut Koester comments: “Most of the persons named in this list are not simply personal friends of Paul in the church of Ephesus, but associates and co-workers. This is shown by the repeated references to their functions. The fact that such a large number of women appears in this list is clear and undeniable evidence for the unrestricted participation of women in the offices of the church in the Pauline congregations.” 7

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla, a woman, as another of his “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a “co-worker”. But still other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a simple “helper”. The original Greek word is “synergoi”, which literally means “fellow worker” or “colleague.” 4…

It goes on and on like that

But dueling snippets really isn’t my style since things out of context can be construed 4 ways to Sunday and it starts to raise all sorts of questions about cultural context, intent, audiance, translation…etc

The ordination of Women simply makes more sense to me than the prohibition does for a host of reasons

your milage may vary

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

I don’t know…I’m not Paul

but according to these sources there were women in preistly roles in correspondance with Paul

religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl.htm

It goes on and on like that

But dueling snippets really isn’t my style since things out of context can be construed 4 ways to Sunday and it starts to raise all sorts of questions about cultural context, intent, audiance, translation…etc

The ordination of Women simply makes more sense to me than the prohibition does for a host of reasons

your milage may vary

I have no problem with women. My problems regarding this issue are theological.

I see a great obstacle to women’s ordination both in Scripture and Tradition, and see no way around it.

The arguments for ordination are to me shallow at best. They are mostly rooted in cultural understandings, not theological ones.

Do you think the current state of things are based in:

a. Ignorance
b. Sexism
or
c. Stupidity?

In my understanding those who hold to women’s ordination pick one or all of the above.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Steve Andersen:

I don’t know…I’m not Paul

but according to these sources there were women in preistly roles in correspondance with Paul

religioustolerance.org/ord_bibl.htm

It goes on and on like that

But dueling snippets really isn’t my style since things out of context can be construed 4 ways to Sunday and it starts to raise all sorts of questions about cultural context, intent, audiance, translation…etc

The ordination of Women simply makes more sense to me than the prohibition does for a host of reasons

your milage may vary

This website was listed on another thread and provides a great understanding of this issue.

It is from the American Catholic Bishops.

usccb.org/comm/archives/1998/98-210a.shtml

Peace

 

[Andrew_11]

Contarini:

First of all, I was specifically invited to this debate by dennisknapp. Second, it’s common for people on this board to claim that people who reject a defined doctrine of the Church are not really Catholic, and that the male-only priesthood is a defined doctrine of the Church. It therefore follows that all threads inviting debate on women’s ordination are inviting “non-Catholic” comment, at least following the rather unfortunate definition of “Catholic” maintained by many here.

More to the point, everything Catholic affects all Christians. You guys claim–with considerable credibility–to be the one true Church. If you were some little sect with no credible claims to anything more I would have no reason to challenge your beliefs or practices. It’s the height of inconsistency, even hypocrisy, for you to make the claims you do and then tell outsiders they have no business discussing your doctrines. You claim that your doctrines are universally true and valid. Well then, stand up like a man and defend them and don’t hide behind our culture’s privatization of religion.

In Christ,

Edwin

It was pointed out several time before in this thread that Jesus ws extremely countercultural and if he wanted to have women preists he would have had women priests. The cultures opinion of lepers did not prevent Jesus from associating with them.
The Catholic Church did not make a rule preventing Women from becoming priests, Jesus did.

I was not trying to be disrespectful to you in my previous post, I just simply cannot understand why non-catholics try to enter a Catholic debate. It is not a debate about which religion has the correct teaching, but is a debate about what the Catholic Church should do, and I truly cannot understand wh people who are non-catholic care about wether or not women are priests. I would expect thier (name removed by moderator)ut in debates between the differeces between christian denomonations, but not in a debate in a Catholic issue. So, I was wondering (respectfully) why do you care about wether or not women are priests ?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dennisknapp:

This website was listed on another thread and provides a great understanding of this issue.

It is from the American Catholic Bishops.

usccb.org/comm/archives/1998/98-210a.shtml

Peace

We do it this way because that this is the way we do it

I know, of course, that not all people are treated equally and that unequal treatment doesn’t necessarily imply discrimination.

We commonly treat different groups of people differently for a host of good reasons (no pun intended)

I simply do not understand it in this case.

Call me obtuse…call me hopeful

 

[Strider]

Since the Church, since her inception, has been the “Bride of Christ,” then, if the priest acts in persona Christi and she were to ordain women, that would be a, well… you get the idea.

 

[Andrew_11]

Andrew_11:

If you are not Catholic than stay out of this debate as it does not affect you.

I would like to apologize for making this post earlier. I am usually much tolerent of other people’ opinoins. I hope that this post has not caused people to judge me to quickly, and I can understand if it has. Please accept my apology Contarini.

God Bless,
Andrew