It is by no means the ONE issue that would make me return to the Catholic Church—women’s ordination. It is but one of many actually, but a biggie nonetheless. I have said several times here in this forum that one should not become Catholic because one wishes to run away from something else, but rather because a person truly believes in what the Catholic Church teaches. Just like in the case of some of the forward in faith anglo-catholics who are burned out on women’s ordination. That should not be the catalyst for their jumping ship and going to Rome. They should go to Rome for more issues than that and because they truly are convicted that Catholicism is what it claims to be.
I am opposed to women’s ordination for many reasons. The pro-WO folks like to paint a male who is opposed to WO as having hangups about women or being a chauvenist pig. Perhaps that’s true with some, but not with yours truly. I’m fine with the thought of a woman president (as long as it isn’t Palin!..but that’s another topic for another talk show!
), I’m fine with a woman boss and readily admit that intelligence and talent isn’t exclusive to males. My wife can often times figure something out faster and more efficiently than me! She’s tougher and more resourceful than me any ole day of the week. She’s sharp as a tack. I have a wife and daughter so I respect women.
That being said, the role of priest is fatherly. The priest stands *in persona christi *as a father to the congregants and stands as Christ offering His very self on the altar re-presenting the one true sacrifice of Calvary. The priest is in a male because of the bridal/nuptual nature of the Church with Christ being the groom and the Church being his bride. This article articulates it better than this humble poster is able.
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710fea2.asp
Jesus chose an all-male priesthood for his apostles. Think about it. The Levites, the priests of the Old Testament—all males. The priest Melchizedek, male. Aaron and Moses. Male. Jesus’s twelve apostles–all male. Now in the time of Jesus most pagan religions had female priestesses. Certainly Jesus was no shrinking violet afraid to buck the system he lived in. Had our Saviour wished to ordain women, he would have! Jesus wasn’t afraid to knock over the money changers’ tables, not afraid to eat in the homes of sinners like tax collectors, and not afraid to stick a finger in the face of a pharisee and shout “hypocrites, all! blind guides!” He wasn’t afraid of squat. So if he wanted women apostles, boom, done. But He chose otherwise. He didn’t choose men because they’re “BETTER.” Peter denied Christ, Judas betrayed him, Thomas doubted him, the rest fell asleep on the night of Passion and later fled. So it wasn’t their inherent wonderfulness that he saw.
The priesthood is inherently fatherly, male, and since Christ was male, so should a priest be.
It is also worth pointing out that the gnostics had female priestesses. They were heretics and taught a completely insane version of Christianity. The orthodox Catholic Church of the time railed at the notion, as they rightly should.
For 2,000 years the tradition in Orthodoxy and Catholicism has remained all-male when it comes to the priesthood. That is worth noting. So between the Old Testament being all male in the priesthood, Jesus choosing only males (certainly Mary Madelen and Mary the Mother of Our Lord would’ve been the BEST candidates, right!?), 2,000 years of precedent, I’m sticking with the orthodox view on this.
The Galatians 3:28 passage about there being no differentiation 'between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female" etc. has nothing to do with ordination or clergy but rather SALVATION. This is an oft-quoted “defense” of W.O. that is thin as a stick.
There are Anglicans who refuse to ordain women like +Jack Iker and my bishop +John-David Schofield as well as some in the Church of England as well as obviously continuing Anglicans.
So I hold to Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and the priesthood’s nature as well as what popes, patriarchs, and learned men have had to say on the issue.
So that is my rationale with this issue. But if I were to return to Catholicism it would also be due to the papacy, the role of the magisterium, the sacraments, the priesthood, the communion of saints, the Eucharist, Mary, history, and a long laundry list of reasons along with the moral precepts Catholicism teaches in an age of immoral secular humanism.
Yes, that is one common view that is held by some theologians and is probably not far from the truth. Some try to say that they were merely wives of deacons. However, if both mean and women were part of the deaconate in any form, I do not think its like the priesthood. Its not a church office that involves partaking of the sacraments-except as you point out, baptism, but that even not in the same sense as the priesthood.
The deaconate seems to be a difficult animal to get tamed. It seems, more than the priesthood, like an office whose role has changed to some degree throughout the history of the church. From what I understand, the Catholic church only recently revived the permanent diaconate in recent years. Men often were ordained deacons as part of the path to the priesthood-the transitional deaconate. Obviously, that absolutely would be non applicable to deaconesses because until recently, no ecclesiatical body ordained women to the priesthood, and they should have never done so.
If I understand you correctly, it seems like this women’s ordination thing is real big for you. While I do not understand it, at least in these of being the one thing that would make someone choose between Catholicism and Anglicanism, I encourage you act according to your convictions.
