Ordination of Women

[ralphinal]

All of the verbiage out of Rome notwithstanding, I hold with St. Paul. (Gal 3:27-29) Even Rome has not the authority to contradict scripture. Maybe they just haven’t understood what it means.

Matthew

Oh goody. If there is no difference between Woman and Man in Christ then I can change in the women’s locker at the gym! No, there are differences, and some of these differences lead to different vocations. I cannot be a mother, and a woman cannot be a priest. These are two vocations tied to gender.

Jesus could have chosen women. Mary Magdalen could have at least been one of the 72, if not the 12 Apostles. There were reasons that he did not. We should respect that.

 

[FCEGM]

All of the verbiage out of Rome notwithstanding, I hold with St. Paul. (Gal 3:27-29) Even Rome has not the authority to contradict scripture. Maybe they just haven’t understood what it means.

Let’s see: the Magisterium of Christ’s Church doesn’t understand St. Paul, but you do? Uh huh.

The passage from St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians refers to baptism: that Baptism incorporates the individual person, male or female, into the paschal Mystery and into the Body of Christ. Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression – circumcision – was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.

It does not mean that the distinction between male and female established within Creation is obliterated on the natural level (and therefore on the level of natural symbol), but that this distinction does not exclude any man or woman from salvation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, however, is not established for everyone, but only for some, and is for the purpose of bringing to the Bride of Christ, the Church, a continuation of the definite God-Man Jesus’ sacrificial offering, forgiveness of sins, ruling the people, teaching them.

Therefore the quote which refers to Baptism can not be transferred to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and so there is no contradiction, for what is intended for all is by necessity different from what is intended for some.

Faithful Catholics opt for Rome, not an individual’s errant interpretion of a passage of Scripture. :tsktsk:

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

1. That is purely symbolism…

Symbolism??? That’s the kind of thing somebody who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation would say.

 

[adrift]

1. That is purely symbolism. The priests are not separate from the Church, they ARE the Church. The CC is almost completely male, except for the women who attend Mass. The Church is in hardly any way female.

This statement dumbfounded me it was so outrages. I don’t think you understand what Church is. It isn’t a building. Men and women have different roles. Women may not be priests but that isn’t something that takes away from her. There is also a fundamentally misunderstanding about what the priesthood is. The role of the priest is to serve. There are many roles in the Church. A woman such as Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon’s is head of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. There are many women who serve in local dioceses in varies roles and more women earning theological degrees. A sister oversees the parish my daughter belongs to. Women serve the community as lectors and as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

1. But again, this is only symbolism. Christ was not actually married to the Church.

A symbolism that would be lost if a women was a priestess.

1. How can we give a building gender? It is those who inhabit the building who give it that, and those are males. People become one with the Church, not separate and married to it. And females are the carriers of life, and can be much brighter and full of life than some priests!

see above

1. Priestesses could act “in persona God”, since you believe Christ is God, and God does not have a gender. Since God does not have a gender, it could be either one.

Jesus is God and He is man. So no it could not be either one.

But nothing in the Church will change, because at the time when it came about, man was dominant. Since the Church refuses to change and grow after 2,000 years, man is still dominant in the Church.

Since God is the one who established the Church, your argument is with Him.

I prefer a religion where both men and women can become leaders, and without traditional discrimination.

I prefer a religion that is God centered and not me centered.

 

[rpp]

1. That is purely symbolism. The priests are not separate from the Church, they ARE the Church. The CC is almost completely male, except for the women who attend Mass. The Church is in hardly any way female.
2. But again, this is only symbolism. Christ was not actually married to the Church.
3. How can we give a building gender? It is those who inhabit the building who give it that, and those are males. People become one with the Church, not separate and married to it. And females are the carriers of life, and can be much brighter and full of life than some priests!
4. Priestesses could act “in persona God”, since you believe Christ is God, and God does not have a gender. Since God does not have a gender, it could be either one.

But nothing in the Church will change, because at the time when it came about, man was dominant. Since the Church refuses to change and grow after 2,000 years, man is still dominant in the Church.

I prefer a religion where both men and women can become leaders, and without traditional discrimination.

None of this is Catholic. The Church is not a building so the assertions are silly. the Marriage figuring for the relationship of the the Church with Christ is not symbolic, but it is mystical. This post really demonstrates a lack of knowledge about Catholic teaching and theology and is just making uninformaed assertions based on invalid human reasoning alone.

 

[drafdog]

The Church’s basic argument is that neither Jesus nor the twelve apostles ordained any women. The Pauline epistles hold that there should be no differentiation between Jew and Greek which allows the Church to ordain both Jews and Greeks, and presumably any other nationality such as east Indians who were ordained by the apostles.
That leaves out Russians, Poles, Germans, English, Irish… But I am running on.
As you can see the basic argument from a negative leads to absurdities beyond measure. This leaves us with the plain language of St. Paul to deal with. And I have never seen an argument which dispenses with the passage in a convincing manner.

Matthew

 

[MarkBrown]

ya know…private interpretation of scripture was a pandora’s box the reformation opened. And I am a Baptist

The Galatians passage has already been addressed, it does NOT deal with ordination. It is talking about salvation and baptism. The problem with cherry picking scripture is obvious in this thread.
Start with v26. Every one is a Son of God through faith in Christ Jesus. This entire passage does not deal with ordination and to try and force it to do so is plain hardheaded. Unfortunately BOTH Protestants and Catholics are doing so, if the profiles are correct.

The Levitical reference is just a red herring. Ex 29:9 deals with priest and Lev 21: 17-23 deals with the high priest. Only the high priest had to be direct line to Aaron and free from blemish. The other priests were not under the same rules. Hebrews 6-9 tells us the High Priest for the church is Jesus. The perfect High Priest. Since Christ does not die, the position is filled forever.

Scripture tells us who can be a priest, deacon, bishop. The Timothy and Titus passages tell us. The inference to females in Acts and Roman fulfilling these roles is wishful thinking and wrongly dividing the word of God. Does scripture contradict itself or tell us wrongly? The problem with WO is not women, it is telling God he is wrong and His scripture is wrong and outdated and we must change.

As a note, the article used to support WO is theologically weak. First year seminarians can do better and usually do. The arguements used have been shown to be forcing scripture to support a wrongly devised theological belief.

From Genesis to Revelation is how scripture is to be viewed, not very narrow selected passages. And scripture and God are not in conflict with each other or themselves.

 

[nsper7]

I am sorry if some of my earlier comments came off as flippant or rude. That was definitely not my intention.

In regards to Miller’s article, it is part of a series of articles addressing the issue of women, so things that may appear glossed over may have in fact been addressed in other articles in the series.

 

[james_dillaplai]

Im new to theology and doctrine but one thing i know is ancient history. So here goes my attempt to use history to say that Jesus easily could have used women as preistess but didnt. (although I could still be wrong)
If you have ever researched the pagan and polythiestic reigions there were very rarely priests the majority of their clergy were priestess's examples of these reigions are Romes official polytheistic Religion. There were many Priestess's as every temple especially to Athena and the other goddesses. Others were Greece's and Egypts most likely the surrounding Countries of Israel.

 

[rpp]

ya know…private interpretation of scripture was a pandora’s box the reformation opened. And I am a Baptist

The Galatians passage has already been addressed, it does NOT deal with ordination. It is talking about salvation and baptism. The problem with cherry picking scripture is obvious in this thread.
Start with v26. Every one is a Son of God through faith in Christ Jesus. This entire passage does not deal with ordination and to try and force it to do so is plain hardheaded. Unfortunately BOTH Protestants and Catholics are doing so, if the profiles are correct.

The Levitical reference is just a red herring. Ex 29:9 deals with priest and Lev 21: 17-23 deals with the high priest. Only the high priest had to be direct line to Aaron and free from blemish. The other priests were not under the same rules. Hebrews 6-9 tells us the High Priest for the church is Jesus. The perfect High Priest. Since Christ does not die, the position is filled forever.

Scripture tells us who can be a priest, deacon, bishop. The Timothy and Titus passages tell us. The inference to females in Acts and Roman fulfilling these roles is wishful thinking and wrongly dividing the word of God. Does scripture contradict itself or tell us wrongly? The problem with WO is not women, it is telling God he is wrong and His scripture is wrong and outdated and we must change.

As a note, the article used to support WO is theologically weak. First year seminarians can do better and usually do. The arguements used have been shown to be forcing scripture to support a wrongly devised theological belief.

From Genesis to Revelation is how scripture is to be viewed, not very narrow selected passages. And scripture and God are not in conflict with each other or themselves.

Mark, thank you for this well reasoned argument. And coming from a non-Catholic minister nonetheless!

This is not to say I agree with absolutely everything (or disagree with anything) you said, but your reasoning is sound.

Well said!

 

[FCEGM]

Mark, thank you for this well reasoned argument. And coming from a non-Catholic minister nonetheless!

This is not to say I agree with absolutely everything (or disagree with anything) you said, but your reasoning is sound.

Well said!

Agreed!

 

[RebeccaJ]

In several other threads comparing Roman Catholic and Non-RC theologies (especially the theologies of the Episcopal Church), there is debate over whether women can be ordained as deacons, priests and bishops. I will admit that I used to think women should not be involved in ‘ordained’ ministry (prior to my involvement in the Anglican Communion I didn’t think all those titles and stuff were necessary, but that has changed); however, I wish to state the Episcopal church (technically a campus Chapel) I attend is overseen by a woman who is an ordained priest and I am theologically ‘okay’ with this (as well as with the fact that the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop is female).

After taking a contextualized look at the Scriptural verses that are used to bar women from ordained ministry, I believe that the bar to women from ordained ministry is not Scripturally defensible. By ‘contextualized’, I mean examing the linguistics, other passages on the issue and the socio-historical-cultural context.

I have spoken (actually written through e-mail) to J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and asked him if he had a theological concern with my involvement in a church spiritually directed by a woman and that the Episcopal Church is headed by a female Presiding Bishop. He saw no reason why they women couldn’t be in such ministries and directed me to an article by Glen Miller (of the Christian Think-Tank) that refutes the anti-‘women in ministry’ spin applied to certain Scriptural passages, especially Paul’s words.

Here is the article:
Women in the Heart of God (9): Paul and Women

I’d like to get a good debate/discussion going on this issue. Also, please note that I strongly agree that ordaining unrepentent committers of homosexual activity is wrong, but it is a completely separate issue from the ordination of women.

I was raised in a very patriarchal religion (mormonism). As a teen, I felt beyond repressed and oppressed and felt like my whole purpose as a young girl was to be groomed for serving the men of the mormon church. It was beyond anything I could even describe and nothing that I could live with, ever.

When I started looking at the RCC, I really investigated the all-male priesthood. One of the first books I read was “Catholic for Dummies” and I skipped around and looked specifically for the reasoning behind an all-male priesthood. That book had the explanation that women have the gift of creation. This, to me, is the lamest “reason” on the planet, and sitting there reading that declaration brought back those feelings from my teen years and I chucked that book across the room.

I decided to read more from other sources. I read the descriptions, that are brought up here, about Christ not appointing any female Apostles. And I thought, and so? He did not speak out against female Apostles either.

Then I read what the RCC teaches about a Priest’s role in the Eucharist. How the Priest is Christ, at that moment, and seeing as how Christ is male, it made sense to me that a Priest should be male as well.

Maybe I am not describing that doctrine very well.

Anyway, that was it for me. I see it as a logical Tradition, and one that would feel sort of weird to me if it were to change. Christ was not female. That, to me, is not a statement against women. And neither is the fact that Priests are all male.

And, there is the fact that women are very involved in many areas of the RCC where it is unheard of in a true, patriarchal religion.

Now Deacons? I don’t know the reasoning behind an all-male Diaconate, but I have never gone searching for reading material on the subject.

 

[thomasf]

I just wanted to point out, this so-called ‘debate’ is moot. The Pope, many times, has spoken about this both infallibly and definitively. You can disagree all you want, especially those who are outside the church looking in, but that will not change the Pope’s decision. Women cannot be priests in the church, and that cannot and will not change.

Sorry.

 

[Myqyl]

The Pope, many times, has spoken about this both infallibly and definitively.

It’s very possible that I’m mistaken, so please correct me. I had always heard that there has only ever been 1 “infallibly” stated doctrine by a Pope and that is the Assumtion of Mary. If I am mistaken, please link to a document where a Pope states this infallibly… Thank you

I am male, and I have not had a calling to the priesthood, so I have no vested interest (nor a strong opinion) on this whole issue… However, I have always wondered why Romans 16 is never discussed in discussions of female priesthood…
Romans_16:

1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is (also) a minister of the church at Cenchreae,
2 that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the holy ones, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a benefactor to many and to me as well.
3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus,
4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I am grateful but also all the churches of the Gentiles;
5 greet also the church at their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the firstfruits in Asia for Christ.
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.

Once again, I could be very wrong about this, but Paul seems to be mentioning that Phoebe is “a minister of the church”, and the role of several other women mentioned here seems to be fairly profound. Words like “co-workers in Christ Jesus” seem to me to put these women of the early Church on a par with Paul!

I have prayed often on this bit of Scripture in hopes of seeing how it should be understood. Any enlightenment would be greatly appriciated.

Thank you for your time…

May God bless and guide you.

Mike

 

[ralphinal]

It’s very possible that I’m mistaken, so please correct me. I had always heard that there has only ever been 1 “infallibly” stated doctrine by a Pope and that is the Assumtion of Mary. If I am mistaken, please link to a document where a Pope states this infallibly… Thank you

I am male, and I have not had a calling to the priesthood, so I have no vested interest (nor a strong opinion) on this whole issue… However, I have always wondered why Romans 16 is never discussed in discussions of female priesthood…

Once again, I could be very wrong about this, but Paul seems to be mentioning that Phoebe is “a minister of the church”, and the role of several other women mentioned here seems to be fairly profound. Words like “co-workers in Christ Jesus” seem to me to put these women of the early Church on a par with Paul!

I have prayed often on this bit of Scripture in hopes of seeing how it should be understood. Any enlightenment would be greatly appriciated.

Thank you for your time…

May God bless and guide you.

Mike

My understanding is that she was a deconess. In order to preserve modesty in baptism, women were baptised by women.

 

[rpp]

It’s very possible that I’m mistaken, so please correct me. I had always heard that there has only ever been 1 “infallibly” stated doctrine by a Pope and that is the Assumtion of Mary. If I am mistaken, please link to a document where a Pope states this infallibly… Thank you

Actually, Popes have made two doctrinal infallible pronouncements. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which you mentioned, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When leading the church and on matters of faith and morals, the Pope can and does speak infallibly. That would include John Paul II’s recent statement that the Church did not have the authority to change the Doctrine of a male only priesthood.

I am male, and I have not had a calling to the priesthood, so I have no vested interest (nor a strong opinion) on this whole issue… However, I have always wondered why Romans 16 is never discussed in discussions of female priesthood…

Once again, I could be very wrong about this, but Paul seems to be mentioning that Phoebe is “a minister of the church”, and the role of several other women mentioned here seems to be fairly profound. Words like “co-workers in Christ Jesus” seem to me to put these women of the early Church on a par with Paul!

I have prayed often on this bit of Scripture in hopes of seeing how it should be understood. Any enlightenment would be greatly appriciated.

Thank you for your time…

May God bless and guide you.

Mike

The passage in Romans in interesting. The NAB Bible on the USCCB website has a foornote for verse 1 that sends the reader to Phillipians 1:1. There that footnote identifies the key term in Greek ss diakonoi. It reads in part:

Ministers: the Greek term diakonoi is used frequently in the New Testament to designate “servants,” “attendants,” or “ministers.” Paul refers to himself and to other apostles as “ministers of God” (2 Cor 6:4) or “ministers of Christ” (2 Cor 11:23). In the Pastorals (1 Tim 3:8, 12) the diakonos has become an established official in the local church; hence the term is there translated as deacon. The diakonoi at Philippi seem to represent an earlier stage of development of the office; we are uncertain about their precise functions. Hence the term is here translated as ministers. See Romans 16:1, where Phoebe is described as a diakonos (minister) of the church of Cenchreae. 1, 2: The gifts come from Christ the Lord, not simply through him from the Father; compare the christology in Philippians 2:6-11.

Entire footnote and Philipians 1
Romans Chapter 16

Either way, the Pope has spoken. I can only presume that during the last 2,000 years, smarter and better informed people have looked at this and did not feel that this supported the concept of priestesses.

 

[Myqyl]

When leading the church and on matters of faith and morals, the Pope can and does speak infallibly. That would include John Paul II’s recent statement that the Church did not have the authority to change the Doctrine of a male only priesthood.

Either way, the Pope has spoken. I can only presume that during the last 2,000 years, smarter and better informed people have looked at this and did not feel that this supported the concept of priestesses.

Not to be a pain, but can anyone provide a link to the document in which Pope John Paul the Great spoke infallibly that the Church lacks the authority to change the Doctrine of male only priesthood? The Vatican web site drives me nuts

If he actually stated this in an infallible form then the whole debate is truely moot. I’ve just never seen the document. I’ve read several times that various Popes have expressed the opinion that only males may enter the priesthood, but I’ve not seen in stated infallibly.

Thank you very much for your enlightenment.

One point though, concerning Pheobe again. If she was a deacon, doesn’t that conflict with the current gender requirement for deacons? The Greek term diakonoi, that Paul uses to define Pheobe is the same term he uses to define himself and the rest of the apostles. Now I’m even more confused… Was Pheobe an apostle?

I’m sure I’m not the first person in 2,000 years to notice this, so I’m sure it has an explaination. Perhaps she was the early Church’s equivalent of a nun?

I have from time to time considered this debate in the light of it’s reverse… “Why can’t men be nuns?” While priests have profound duties they are responsible for, I have never thought they “outranked” nuns. Perhaps the reason this is an issue at all is that the role of Sisters has been undervalued and underestimated by today’s society? The profound effect that various Sisters have had on my life and on my journey to Christ is no less then that of priests. Maybe we are asking the wrong question… Maybe a better question is “What should be the role of nuns in the 21st century Church?”

Thoughts?

 

[ralphinal]

Not to be a pain, but can anyone provide a link to the document in which Pope John Paul the Great spoke infallibly that the Church lacks the authority to change the Doctrine of male only priesthood? The Vatican web site drives me nuts

If he actually stated this in an infallible form then the whole debate is truely moot. I’ve just never seen the document. I’ve read several times that various Popes have expressed the opinion that only males may enter the priesthood, but I’ve not seen in stated infallibly.

Thank you very much for your enlightenment.

One point though, concerning Pheobe again. If she was a deacon, doesn’t that conflict with the current gender requirement for deacons? The Greek term diakonoi, that Paul uses to define Pheobe is the same term he uses to define himself and the rest of the apostles. Now I’m even more confused… Was Pheobe an apostle?

I’m sure I’m not the first person in 2,000 years to notice this, so I’m sure it has an explaination. Perhaps she was the early Church’s equivalent of a nun?

I have from time to time considered this debate in the light of it’s reverse… “Why can’t men be nuns?” While priests have profound duties they are responsible for, I have never thought they “outranked” nuns. Perhaps the reason this is an issue at all is that the role of Sisters has been undervalued and underestimated by today’s society? The profound effect that various Sisters have had on my life and on my journey to Christ is no less then that of priests. Maybe we are asking the wrong question… Maybe a better question is “What should be the role of nuns in the 21st century Church?”

Thoughts?

I remember him saying that it has been the constant teaching of the Church that women cannot be ordained, but I cannot find it right now.

The role of a deconess was extremely limited. She was to baptise women so that there would not be men around naked women. That was all she did. When there were other ways to go about it without modesty issues, deconesses left.

This is not the same as a nun. There are male nuns, they are called religious brothers. Religious brothers may or may not be ordained at all.

The roles of female religious as the church goes on is a good topic for discussion. It belongs in another area, though.

 

[thomasf]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) ** I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.**

Can’t get much clearer than that.

 

[GKC]

Not to be a pain, but can anyone provide a link to the document in which Pope John Paul the Great spoke infallibly that the Church lacks the authority to change the Doctrine of male only priesthood? The Vatican web site drives me nuts

If he actually stated this in an infallible form then the whole debate is truely moot. I’ve just never seen the document. I’ve read several times that various Popes have expressed the opinion that only males may enter the priesthood, but I’ve not seen in stated infallibly.

Thank you very much for your enlightenment.

One point though, concerning Pheobe again. If she was a deacon, doesn’t that conflict with the current gender requirement for deacons? The Greek term diakonoi, that Paul uses to define Pheobe is the same term he uses to define himself and the rest of the apostles. Now I’m even more confused… Was Pheobe an apostle?

I’m sure I’m not the first person in 2,000 years to notice this, so I’m sure it has an explaination. Perhaps she was the early Church’s equivalent of a nun?

I have from time to time considered this debate in the light of it’s reverse… “Why can’t men be nuns?” While priests have profound duties they are responsible for, I have never thought they “outranked” nuns. Perhaps the reason this is an issue at all is that the role of Sisters has been undervalued and underestimated by today’s society? The profound effect that various Sisters have had on my life and on my journey to Christ is no less then that of priests. Maybe we are asking the wrong question… Maybe a better question is “What should be the role of nuns in the 21st century Church?”

Thoughts?

Ordinantio sacerdotalis. Here you are:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

And then the Responsum to the Dubium, written by a gentleman named Ratzinger:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM

Which seems pretty definitive, to this Anglo-Catholic. Though I have seen replies that the Responsum is not itself a part of the Ordinary or Extra-ordinary magisterium, nor are either documents declared ex cathedra, and hence…, etc, etc.

Protestants everywhere.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus