Ordination of Women

[Matthew_Holford]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have put forward strong theological arguments against the ordination of women. What is the theological argument put forward by Anglican and Protestant churches for the ordination of women or have they ordained women solely on the basis of sex discrimination?

 

[Nine_Two]

For most protestants it is because they believe in a priesthood of all believers (which includes women), and Pastors are not actually priests but simply leaders of the congregation.

For Anglicans I don’t know for sure, My guess is for the majority it’s the discrimination thing.

 

[GKC]

For most protestants it is because they believe in a priesthood of all believers (which includes women), and Pastors are not actually priests but simply leaders of the congregation.

For Anglicans I don’t know for sure, My guess is for the majority it’s the discrimination thing.

Mostly, I would say.

But there was an erudite Anglican poster, who posted here extensively, who often presented a developed theory of female ordination, based on his understanding of soteriology and Christ’s nature.

He doesn’t appear here much, of late, but perhaps his posts are still archived.

GKC

 

[Edmundus1581]

I knew several Anglicans, including clergy, when the issue was debated here (in Australia) in the mid 1980’s. Most of the Anglicans I knew supported women’s ordination, and the the pro-ordination movement prevailed, comprehensively.

Their arguments were mostly “theological”, rather than just “emotional”.

The argument I recall, in particular, was:

Galatians 3:28 Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.

They also argued that the reasons against women’s ordination, namely that Jesus only commissioned men as apostles, and St Paul’s comments on women in the church, were applicable only to the place of women in society at the time, and that, now that society had recognized the equality of women, the church was required to read “the signs of the times” and open the church fully to womens ministry.

They were passionate about it, and believed very strongly that denying women the priesthood would be contrary to God’s will for the church. That said, they also relied heavily on ad-hominem arguments, and presented their opponents as out-of-date, and accused them of treating women as inferior and suppressing them, of ignoring the will of the church, repressing “the spirit”, etc.

They also believed that once they got ordination for women, that it would either follow in the Catholic Church, or that Catholics would desert their Church in droves for the Anglican Church.

Anglicans are somewhat different from other protestant denominations, in their own eyes at least, as they believe in some sort of ordained “priesthood”.

Just saying what I remember of their views, which may not be the same as my own.

 

[nhylan]

you are correct that that verse is used to defend the ordination of women. For a really wonderful explanation of the defense of it you can read the link I’ll paste below. Its a speech done by the highly respected Anglican theologian N.T. Wright. I think most RC’s think of him as being very orthodox for an Anglican but few know that he is a very staunch defender of WO.

Here is the speach.

ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have put forward strong theological arguments against the ordination of women. What is the theological argument put forward by Anglican and Protestant churches for the ordination of women or have they ordained women solely on the basis of sex discrimination?

is there such a thing among them? ordination? i thougth ordination is only in the Apostolic Church.

 

[GKC]

is there such a thing among them? ordination? i thougth ordination is only in the Apostolic Church.

Anglicans, including those who think they can ordain females validly, consider themselves part of the Apostolic Church. And clergy in Anglicanism are consecrated (bishops) or ordained (priests/deacons). In fact, the method by which this was done, back in the mid-16th century, led to a lot of discussions, around 1896 (Apostolicae Curae)

Among orthodox Anglicans, the invalidity of female clergy is a given.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JonNC]

is there such a thing among them? ordination? i thougth ordination is only in the Apostolic Church.

Rome’s opinion of Lutheran ordination aside, yes Lutherans do have ordinations. In most but not all Lutheran synods, ordination is presbyter in nature.

LCMS Lutherans, and some others, do not have female ordination.

Jon

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the basic argument among Anglicans comes to the idea that women are not ontologically different than men.

 

[Brendan]

I think the basic argument among Anglicans comes to the idea that women are not ontologically different than men.

Since the primary function of the soul would be to animate the body, it would be MANDATORY that men are ontologically different from women, since we are biologically different.

So that particular position makes no sense what so ever.

If women are biologically orientated towards the generation of new life in a way that men are not, it must follow that they are ontolocially oriented in a way that men are not. And vice versa.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I knew several Anglicans, including clergy, when the issue was debated here (in Australia) in the mid 1980’s. Most of the Anglicans I knew supported women’s ordination, and the the pro-ordination movement prevailed, comprehensively.

Their arguments were mostly “theological”, rather than just “emotional”.

The argument I recall, in particular, was:

Galatians 3:28 Because all of you are one in the Messiah Jesus, a person is no longer a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a male or a female.

They also argued that the reasons against women’s ordination, namely that Jesus only commissioned men as apostles, and St Paul’s comments on women in the church, were applicable only to the place of women in society at the time, and that, now that society had recognized the equality of women, the church was required to read “the signs of the times” and open the church fully to womens ministry.

I can see this argument as long as one ignores;

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

That kind of removes the argument of societal times.

 

[Bluegoat]

Since the primary function of the soul would be to animate the body, it would be MANDATORY that men are ontologically different from women, since we are biologically different.

So that particular position makes no sense what so ever.

If women are biologically orientated towards the generation of new life in a way that men are not, it must follow that they are ontolocially oriented in a way that men are not. And vice versa.

I must say, that even among those who do not support WO, I have not heard this argument. It has some rather interesting implications.

 

[Bluegoat]

I can see this argument as long as one ignores;

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

That kind of removes the argument of societal times.

Not necessarily. One would not expect principles to change - on the other hand, how they are most appropriately applied could. A person who took this position re WO would, I expect, argue that although Christ could have ordained women to the priesthood, he chose not to. So while from Gods position the facts of the matter are eternal, from our POV there can be change. We can see this for example in the fact that we are not as Christians required to be circumcised. There are lots of examples of more man-made changes as well, which I am sure you are aware of - exact requirements for modesty come to mind.

Of course this would have to be argued as a legitimate development of doctrine.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Very sound reasoning. Fascinating thought. I’m personally 100% opposed to women’s ordination.

Since the primary function of the soul would be to animate the body, it would be MANDATORY that men are ontologically different from women, since we are biologically different.

So that particular position makes no sense what so ever.

If women are biologically orientated towards the generation of new life in a way that men are not, it must follow that they are ontolocially oriented in a way that men are not. And vice versa.

 

[Bluegoat]

Very sound reasoning. Fascinating thought. I’m personally 100% opposed to women’s ordination.

It isn’t though. If women and men are ontologically different, and we only ordain men because Christ was a man, then it means women are ontologically different from Christ. I’m sure you can see that would be a serious difficulty. To make this work, you have to go a lot more into what is the nature of the difference between men and women - but they both have to be essentially human and share that humanity with Christ.

 

[GKC]

It isn’t though. If women and men are ontologically different, and we only ordain men because Christ was a man, then it means women are ontologically different from Christ. I’m sure you can see that would be a serious difficulty. To make this work, you have to go a lot more into what is the nature of the difference between men and women - but they both have to be essentially human and share that humanity with Christ.

This is the general point that Contarini was advocating.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

It isn’t though. If women and men are ontologically different, and** we only ordain men because Christ was a man**, then it means women are ontologically different from Christ. I’m sure you can see that would be a serious difficulty. To make this work, you have to go a lot more into what is the nature of the difference between men and women - but they both have to be essentially human and share that humanity with Christ.

Firstly, the bolded section is wanting. We don’t “only ordain men because Christ was a man.”

We only ordain men because only men can be fathers.

 

[Bluegoat]

Firstly, the bolded section is wanting. We don’t “only ordain men because Christ was a man.”

We only ordain men because only men can be fathers.

Yes, I tend to agree. But that is not what the poster I was responding to was saying - he was saying that men and women are ontologically different.

 

[PRmerger]

In the course of discussions on the priesthood I often hear comments like, “A woman can be a counselor, right? She can manage a parish, right? She can have some good things to say while preaching, right? She can even do the same things a man does in order to confect the sacraments! So what’s the big deal?”

These comments, in my opinion, show an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

The priesthood is not a job. It’s not what he does (for, to be sure, a woman can “do” all those things a priest does rather nicely!) It’s who he is. At his very essence.

I heard Fr. Vincent Serpa say, regarding Baptism (paraphrasing): If we could see the change that occurs in the soul of the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play. A sublime, profound change occurs, at our very essence, at the very moment we are baptized. An indelible (unchangeable, immortal) mark has been placed on our soul–more powerful than any mere nuclear fission!

Similarly, at the ordination of a priest a profound change occurs. What existed 30 seconds prior to his consecration does not exist anymore. He is a new creation: a priest, configured to Christ. Ontologically there is a change in his being. He may* look* like the same man, but what has just occurred is earth-shatteringly sublime! Just like in our sacrament of the Eucharist: “to observe that after bread becomes the Sacred Body of Christ, it still tastes like bread and feels like bread, but is now the Body of Christ? There has been an ontological change. A cup of wine still smells like wine and tastes like it, but it is now the Blood of Christ. At ordination an ontological change takes place.” source.

So ordination is not the “deputizing” of someone to perform an assignment; it is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such medicine or law.

Thus, just as at our essence we women can never be fathers, no matter what functions we perform better than men, we can never be a father to our children. When we women throw a baseball with our sons, go hiking with our daughters, teach our children to light a campfire, we are doing the same things men often do, but it’s always as mothers.

So, even if a woman were “ordained” to the priesthood, still she would not be, at her essence, a priest. It’s just not ontologically possible. That is, no amount of ontological change can transform a woman into a priest–at her essence she always remains a woman. [SIGN1]And a woman can never be a father.[/SIGN1]

 

[Izdaari]

Since the primary function of the soul would be to animate the body, it would be MANDATORY that men are ontologically different from women, since we are biologically different.

So that particular position makes no sense what so ever.

If women are biologically orientated towards the generation of new life in a way that men are not, it must follow that they are ontolocially oriented in a way that men are not. And vice versa.

I don’t see the connection. Yes, the body is different, but it doesn’t follow that the soul is. I am not sure there is such a thing as a male and a female soul.