Ordination: having trouble understanding the Church's Stand

[centurionguard]

This is not the first time this type of thread has been rehashed before, nor is it likely to be the last. I do remember a few years after 1978 when Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyła reigned as our last Pope John Paul II. He had a BBC interview with popular international British columnist David Frost. The question about women ordination was also brought up in the televised discussion. The Pope’s lengthy answer spoke about the great dignity and respect that the Church had for the vocation of women in life. The Pope went on to state that the ordination of women was not something ANY POPE had authority to grant past, present, and future. The priesthood belonged exclusively to men ONLY by reason that it was solely Jesus Christ the Son of God in the mystery of the Trinity who instituted the priesthood.
No human on earth has been given authority to change what God Himself with His Son instituted. What would give any human with a primitive intellect before God Almighty argue what God has done in His wisdom ?

Personally; I find discussions like this that question God’s wisdom utterly futile and in the end it creates dissentions.

 

[po18guy]

This is not the first time this type of thread has been rehashed before, nor is it likely to be the last. I do remember a few years after 1978 when Cardinal Karol Józef Wojtyła reigned as our last Pope John Paul II. He had a BBC interview with popular international British columnist David Frost. The question about women ordination was also brought up in the televised discussion. The Pope’s lengthy answer spoke about the great dignity and respect that the Church had for the vocation of women in life. The Pope went on to state that the ordination of women was not something ANY POPE had authority to grant past, present, and future. The priesthood belonged exclusively to men ONLY by reason that it was solely Jesus Christ the Son of God in the mystery of the Trinity who instituted the priesthood.
No human on earth has been given authority to change what God Himself with His Son instituted. What would give any human with a primitive intellect before God Almighty argue what God has done in His wisdom ?

Personally; I find discussions like this that question God’s wisdom utterly futile and in the end it creates dissentions.

Very well said. The evil one is relentless in his attacks against all that is good in God’s sight.

 

[po18guy]

Wow, it really does seem with what I’m getting from on here and from PM’s is that since the Church has said women will not be ordained period that I should just shut up and accept it without question or thought. That may be alright for some of you, but when I see logical proof that there have been women Priests, Deacons and even Bishops, I’m going to consider it and try to understand why the church would try to cover up certain things such as the reference in Romans - I have found that there was a time in the 10th and 13th century when certain Popes had the reference of Junia made into a foot note or just tried to block it out completely - some note “Archbishop Giles, for erasing Junia from the New Testament. The archbishop’s mistranslation of Junia’s name, she says, appeared to flow from Pope Boniface’s “prejudice that women were to be kept in their place.” (Pederson The Lost Apostle) Historian Gary Willis believes that some attempted to get rid of the reference of Junias because it " offended the monopoly of church offices and honours” enjoyed by males."

puzzleannie -
I have to ask, if Junia, you are so sure was a male, then why can no one find another reference of a male with the name Junias (the male form) but there are multiple references to Junia being a well known female name? There are arguments for both sides and we could debate it all day, but the majority of sources believe that Junia was indeed female - even St. John Chrsostrom believed it!

Practically speaking, you always have the Presbyterian and Anglican churches as options, if you are dead-set on having women Priests and Bishops. As Ender has said so well, those who decry the Church’s teaching object not to what the Church has done, but to what Christ has done. Something to ponder.

 

[diggerdomer]

For quite some time, I have had a bit of a problem with the Church’s stand on not ordaining females. I believe that the Church is saying that it has never allowed women to be ordained. I really have a hard time believing this when there are so many examples of women having had roles in the church that ranged from Deacons to Presbyters (Priest) to even Bishops. I’m not going to mentione Pope Joan as evidence because I believe that that is too much of something that has almost become a legend or myth and there is too much evidence each way to allow it to be a true source.
I guess, I’ve also always wondered why if God didn’t truely want women to be Apostles or Priests why He appeared first to the women (after rising) and then told them to take the news to the 12 Aposltes. This is not a feminist question - although I do believe that A woman who has been inspired by the Holy Spirit can be just as capable as a male who has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to preach, to run a Parish and to do everything a Priest should do. I also believe there are many women who feel they are being considered “not good enough” to be a Priest because of their sex organs. If we were all created in the Image of God than shouldn’t a woman have been created just as equally as a man had been created? I always belived that being created in the “image of God” meant that we had an intillect and soul.
There is a lot of evidence out there to support the fact that the Catholic Church has in the past had femal Catholic Priests, Deacons and Bishops.(And since I know that most will want to know where I got much of this information, I have tried to include some of the books, etc. that this information can be found in).

In Romans 16:7, Paul makes a note of one. " Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me" Junias was a female and is being noted as an “apostle”. Even in the 4th Century, St. John Chrysostom refers to Junias as being a member of the “apostolic circle” (this can be found in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol. 1 the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom Series 1 - this is the 1956 version)

Also, at the beginning of the 16th Chaper of Romans, you will find it said "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; " I have a hard time believing that when Paul refers to Junias as an “apostle” that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

There is much archaeological evidence of women Presbyters, Deacons and even Bishops up until at least the year 840 and some even past then.

I found it interesting that even Therese of Liseux wanted to be a Priest - she felt that God took her early because she could not become a Priest.
“If I were a priest, how lovingly I would carry you in my hands when you came down from heaven at my call; how lovingly I would bestow you upon people’s souls. I want to enlighten people’s minds as the prophets and doctors did. I feel the call of an Apostle. I would love to travel all over the world, making your name known and planting your cross on a heathen soil.” (Story of a Soul pg. 187) There are other quotes that make it clear what she would have prefered to do.

Atto Vercelli in the 10th century wrote that due to Church needs women were ordained to lead worship and preside over the mass - Church Historian Gary Macy also writes in the Sep. 2000 issue of Theological Studies that “For over 1200 years the question of the validity of women’s ordination remained at least an open question. Some popes, bishops and scholars accepted such ordinations as equal to those of men, others did not."

I’m not sure how to put up the Archaeological evidence-there is so much and I can’t include pictures of any - there are sarcophagi in Catholic burial grounds - one from the 4th century of Leta Presbitera that states "Of blessed memory Leta the Presbyter lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days whose husband prepared her burial she departed in peace the day before the Ides of May.” This makes no doubt that the person in this burial crypt was indeed a woman.

I guess I don’t u nderstand why the Church has never seemed to explain why there are so many examples of women that have been Deacons, Priests and even Bishops, if they have never allowed them to exist. I have never even heard an explination of why in Romans Paul mentions Junias as an Apostle - in fact, I believe this is the only time outside of the known 12 apostles that he refers to someone else, in this case a woman as an “apostle”.

Am I misunderstanding what the Church says - are they not saying that they have never allowed women to be ordained? or is it that they just no longer allow women to be ordained?

Excellent question, but you likely will not find the depth of dialogue and discussion you might be looking for on this forum (as you’ve likely seen).

 

[mapleoak]

Excellent question, but you likely will not find the depth of dialogue and discussion you might be looking for on this forum (as you’ve likely seen).

Rather, you will find a concise answer to a question regarding an unchangeable and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is very clear from those who have studied Scripture well that women had significant roles in Jesus’ ministry and in the early Church. What their titles were (whether some of those roles were formalized, during or after his life on earth) is less clear.

Putting the evidence aside for a minute, it is difficult for me to be objective about the specific question of priestly ordination because frankly the concept of female ordination is not something I warm to – not just because I personally have never aspired to that or felt “called” to that, but because the idea does not attract me.

I do not have a problem with the Church’s stand on this; I only think that the rationale goes too far (from a scriptural standpoint – a RCC scriptural standpoint) to say that the Church “couldn’t” ordain women. That does not apply logically from any other doctrine or dogma which the Church has established despite inconclusive evidence. Thus, when Jesus is explicit about positive or negative commands, it follows that the Church on earth, and its members, either must do something or may not do something. When something is suggested but not explicit in the negative dimension, it is illogical to state that it is “impossible” for the Church to approve.

The Church could argue:
Jesus said “Whatever you bind on earth…(etc.)”
There is scriptural evidence only for 12 males as apostles – those sent – (vs. disciples – those following – of which undoubtedly there were females too).
The Church is empowered to state: We bind only males to be “those sent to preach to all nations” (i.e., priests) because there is inclusive evidence only of males in that position of the preaching ministry.

To me, it is logical that, lacking other evidence, there should only be males in the position of ordained priests. It is illogical to state that the Church must forbid women to be ordained. That would only make sense if (as with other commands and sayings of Jesus), he had stated a formal exclusion or prohibition.

Jesus clearly had enormous respect for the maternal role of women. It is logical to me that he did not “send women out” because such a role, in that time period, would make additional (and exclusive) female roles impractical. “Going out to all nations” – or at the time, to all physically reachable places – would have been difficult to impossible for women giving birth and having young children to raise. For example, the families of married apostles undoubtedly traveled along, a lot or a little, but that did not necessarily mean that spouses were “in the front lines” preaching, etc.

Nevertheless, female discipleship, including strong female leadership, was and is compatible with Jesus’ behavior in scripture and is not excluded by anything Jesus said or did, including his commission of The Twelve. There is nothing in scripture that implies that Jesus disapproved of females as decision-makers. The role of apostle was specific as to preaching and conversion, but not necessarily exclusive as to leadership. Again, it follows from the practicalities of the times that since the apostolic role was rigorous, physically difficult/demanding, and dangerous, commissioning females of child-bearing age would not have been the first choice.

It is also logical from the vantage point of 1st-century logic that a male Messiah, when choosing a physical representative, would choose other males. To me, that logic can be extended to all centuries. Being one who highly respects gender and finds gender heavily symbolic & reflective of God’s own internally complementary nature, I think the Church should, from a scriptural and Christological basis, continue to ordain only men to preach, celebrate the Eucharist, administer sacraments, etc. I think it is logical and natural (just as Jesus operated logically, from nature) that a universal Church – not just a modern American church – finds it easier to relate to a male as “in persona Christi.”

That said, it is illogical and unnatural from a scriptural standpoint and a modern standpoint to exclude women from significant power-sharing when it comes to decision-making – not just in practical matters but in theological matters. The Church for centuries has relegated women to a subservient role, when there is no evidence that Jesus viewed females as servants. In fact the evidence is contrary to that.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed for my position, but it is a position shared by many faithful, orthodox, traditional, holy, learned priests in many age categories.

 

[Ender]

I only think that the rationale goes too far (from a scriptural standpoint – a RCC scriptural standpoint) to say that the Church “couldn’t” ordain women. That does not apply logically from any other doctrine or dogma which the Church has established despite inconclusive evidence. Thus, when Jesus is explicit about positive or negative commands, it follows that the Church on earth, and its members, either must do something or may not do something. When something is suggested but not explicit in the negative dimension, it is illogical to state that it is “impossible” for the Church to approve.

You speak as if the Bible is the only source of teaching on this matter and that everything that Jesus ever said is in there when in fact neither is true. I don’t think you comprehend the implications of your doubt which go well beyond this particular question in that they constitute a rejection of the very foundation on which the Church stands.

• You reject the concept of infallibility (as this is an infallible teaching) which brings into question literally everything the Church teaches including the Bible itself as it was the Church which created it.
• You reject the concept that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to keep it from serious error. After all, a church which unfairly denied ordination to half its members for 2000 years out of mere sexism would have seriously erred.
• You reject the mission to which the Church believes she was commissioned:* “of authentically interpreting God’s law in the light of the Gospel.”* (Veritatis Splendor)
• You reject the authenticity of Church teaching which she believes is hers alone: “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei Verbum)
• You reject the Catholic basis on which God’s word is understood:* “… sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.”* (Dei Verbum) in favor of the Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura.

As I said, there is a lot more involved here than merely the question of women being ordained.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed for my position, but it is a position shared by many faithful, orthodox, traditional, holy, learned priests in many age categories.

No priest who shares your position is either orthodox or learned.

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

The Church could argue:
Jesus said “Whatever you bind on earth…(etc.)”

 

[JimG]

Women are of course, not excluded from positions of leadership within the Church. Look at nearly any parish, or any diocesan office, and you will likely find more women than men actually running things on a day to day basis.

 

[mapleoak]

I do not have a problem with the Church’s stand on this; I only think that the rationale goes too far (from a scriptural standpoint – a RCC scriptural standpoint) to say that the Church “couldn’t” ordain women. That does not apply logically from any other doctrine or dogma which the Church has established despite inconclusive evidence.

You forget that a priest acts in “persona Christi” during the consecration of the Mass. Something a female, because of her intrinsic nature, cannot do.

Thus, when Jesus is explicit about positive or negative commands, it follows that the Church on earth, and its members, either must do something or may not do something. When something is suggested but not explicit in the negative dimension, it is illogical to state that it is “impossible” for the Church to approve.

It is indeed impossible. The Church can not ordain women priests anymore than it can declare that God is not God. It simply does not have the authority to do the impossible. Therefore, having the power to “bind or loose” is irrelevant.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You forget that a priest acts in “persona Christi” during the consecration of the Mass. Something a female, because of her intrinsic nature, cannot do.

It is indeed impossible. The Church can not ordain women priests anymore than it can declare that God is not God. It simply does not have the authority to do the impossible. Therefore, having the power to “bind or loose” is irrelevant.

Wrong, on both counts.

(1) You didn’t read the post. I said that it was logical that a male standing in for Christ (I used the very Latin phrase that you claim I “forgot”) would select a male to represent that. No, I didn’t “forget.” Rather, you forgot to read.

(2) The statement that “God is not God” is not something even implied by the possibility that women could be ordained. Is such ordination wise? Is it indicated? Is it necessary? Should it be done? Those are different questions, and to which I answered in the negative. On other matters of which Jesus spoke, unless Jesus indicated, “You must/You must not,” the Church in its tradition of teaching has not drawn narrower, exclusive judgments than Jesus himself drew. An example of such a clear directive is in Jesus’ instruction about divorce. He is unequivocal about the very consequences.

I said like 4 times that I support an all-male priesthood, but I do not support the unnecessary and overbroad rationale by which the Church claims it “cannot” or “could not” have women priests. It chooses not to, and that is Church prerogative. I think it makes sense for the present, as well as having made sense in the past, which is why Jesus chose to “send forth” only males (that we know of).

 

[mapleoak]

Wrong, on both counts.

(1) You didn’t read the post. I said that it was logical that a male standing in for Christ (I used the very Latin phrase that you claim I “forgot”) would select a male to represent that. No, I didn’t “forget.” Rather, you forgot to read.

(2) The statement that “God is not God” is not something even implied by the possibility that women could be ordained. Is such ordination wise? Is it indicated? Is it necessary? Should it be done? Those are different questions, and to which I answered in the negative. On other matters of which Jesus spoke, unless Jesus indicated, “You must/You must not,” the Church in its tradition of teaching has not drawn narrower, exclusive judgments than Jesus himself drew. An example of such a clear directive is in Jesus’ instruction about divorce. He is unequivocal about the very consequences.

I said like 4 times that I support an all-male priesthood, but I do not support the unnecessary and overbroad rationale by which the Church claims it “cannot” or “could not” have women priests. It chooses not to, and that is Church prerogative. I think it makes sense for the present, as well as having made sense in the past, which is why Jesus chose to “send forth” only males (that we know of).

I assumed (wrongly apparently) that you read Ender’s answer above.

 

[po18guy]

Rather, you will find a concise answer to a question regarding an unchangeable and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

It does seem like a certain number of nominal Catholics either need to contemplate the concepts of revealed truth and obedience, or form their own church. All such notions to change/add to/modify/modernize the Church means that it will no longer be the one true Church. It will then be just another human organization that exudes the contemporary mantra of “fairness”, but it will no longer be the one true Church.

 

[JanetF]

Ryecroft:

This is material from catholic.com website’s library regarding female ordination.

The basis for the Church’s teaching on ordination is found in the New Testament as well as in the writings of the Church Fathers.

While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1–16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11–14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34–38).

Irenaeus(Against Heresies 1:13:2 [A.D. 189]) speaks of Marcus the Gnostic heretic allowing women to act as priests, “he has completely deceived many and drawn them away after him”.

Tertullian

“It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office” (The Veiling of Virgins 9 [A.D. 206]).

Hippolytus(The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]). Speaks to widows being appointed to prayer, not ordained.

“… For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us” (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

Council of Nicaea I

“Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity” (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Council of Laodicea

“[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church” (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] … In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony … ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit” (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

“It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess” (ibid.).

“From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses” (ibid.).

“If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good” (ibid., 79:3).

John Chrysostom

“[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature” (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

“A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:24 [A.D. 400]).

“Appoint, [O Bishop], a deaconess, faithful and holy, for the ministering of women. For sometimes it is not possible to send a deacon into certain houses of women, because of unbelievers. Send a deaconess, because of the thoughts of the petty. A deaconess is of use to us also in many other situations. First of all, in the baptizing of women, a deacon will touch only their forehead with the holy oil, and afterwards the female deacon herself anoints them” (ibid., 3:16).

“[T]he ‘man is the head of the woman’ [1 Cor. 11:3], and he is originally ordained for the priesthood; it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation and leave the first to come to the last part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For he says, ‘He shall rule over you’ [Gen. 3:16]. For the first part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of the priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ” (ibid., 3:9).

“A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters [priests] and deacons, but she guards the doors and greatly assists the presbyters, for the sake of decorum, when they are baptizing women” (ibid., 8:28).

 

[mapleoak]

It does seem like a certain number of nominal Catholics either need to contemplate the concepts of revealed truth and obedience, or form their own church. All such notions to change/add to/modify/modernize the Church means that it will no longer be the one true Church. It will then be just another human organization that exudes the contemporary mantra of “fairness”, but it will no longer be the one true Church.

And it was exactly that which took place during the period of rejection (err reformation).

 

[mapleoak]

(2) The statement that “God is not God” is not something even implied by the possibility that women could be ordained.

It was in reference to your conclusion that the Church chooses not to allow women as priest because it has the power to “bind and loose”. The Church cannot choose to allow women as priests using this power any more than it could use it to say God is not God. The Church simply does not have that power. Again, the Church does not have the authority to do the impossible.

Is such ordination wise? Is it indicated? Is it necessary? Should it be done?

They do not matter, nevertheless, the answer to all is no. Not only no, but it can’t be done. Why question the Church? Since you are aware that the Church has infallibly stated that it is beyond its power and authority to ordain women, to say it is only because it used it authority of binding on earth and in heaven is to reject an infallible teaching of the Church.

Those are different questions, and to which I answered in the negative. On other matters of which Jesus spoke, unless Jesus indicated, “You must/You must not,” the Church in its tradition of teaching has not drawn narrower, exclusive judgments than Jesus himself drew.

Jesus does not have to have indicated such. Since the Church infallibly stated it is beyond its power, then it is so.

I said like 4 times that I support an all-male priesthood, but I do not support the unnecessary and overbroad rationale by which the Church claims it “cannot” or “could not” have women priests.

Then you reject an infallible statement proclaimed by the late Pope John Paul II. He laid the issue to rest.

I think it makes sense for the present, as well as having made sense in the past, which is why Jesus chose to “send forth” only males (that we know of)

We know that women cannot act in “persona Christi” during the consecration of the Mass, therefore, yes it makes sense now, as in the past, and always. The Church has spoken.

 

[po18guy]

And it was exactly that which took place during the period of rejection (err reformation).

Deformation?

 

[FCEGM]

I found it interesting that even Therese of Liseux wanted to be a Priest - she felt that God took her early because she could not become a Priest.
“If I were a priest, how lovingly I would carry you in my hands when you came down from heaven at my call; how lovingly I would bestow you upon people’s souls. I want to enlighten people’s minds as the prophets and doctors did. I feel the call of an Apostle. I would love to travel all over the world, making your name known and planting your cross on a heathen soil.” (Story of a Soul pg. 187) There are other quotes that make it clear what she would have prefered to do.

Yours is an understanding of St. Therese totally at variance with her life and mission. She was not longing for ordination; rather, such was the intimate depth of her love of God that each ministry within the Body of Christ was so precious to her that she wished she could encompass them all in her person - missionary, priest, preacher, etc., etc… To present her as some proto-feminist longing for ordination is untruthful and does her a great disservice.

From an earlier discussion regarding Junia and Phoebe:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5146401&postcount=132

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5143786&postcount=123