Question for those who think women should be ordained.

[Contarini]

Hmm… but, the principle speaks to the human person, that is, to human nature. Your application, however, takes one facet of human persons – that is, gender – and applies the same rationale. This is a logical error. If Nazianzus were appealing to physical qualities, he would have to make the statement that salvation depends on Jesus being male and female, Jew and Gentile, free and slave, blond and brunette and red-haired and black-haired, and possessing all physical characteristics in his physical body – or else, logically, no women, Gentiles, slaves, blonds or red-heads would have been able to be saved! Clearly, he does no such thing. So, why is it reasonable to suggest that Nazianzus’ claims about salvation and the human mind apply equally validly to Church roles and human biology?

Obviously the argument doesn’t apply to incidental features of being human. But when you take one feature of being human and argue that it’s so ontological central to the human identity of Christ that those who don’t possess it can’t act in persona Christi, then I think you do seem to be running afoul of Nazianzus’ principle.

The principle is that Jesus saves us by assuming our nature in its fullness. If Jesus didn’t assume–in its fullness–the human nature possessed by women, then they can’t be saved. If He did, then how can it be true that they can’t act “in persona Christi”?

Again, I’m willing to accept that there’s something I’m not seeing here. But I’m frustrated that no one seems even to see the difficulty.

It does no such thing! Rather, we are saved inasmuch as we share the same nature of Christ – formed in the image and likeness of God – not through the question of which gender we possess!

If we all share the same nature with Jesus, then we can act “in persona Christi.”

As I’ve demonstrated, the argument does no such thing:

No. You’ve asserted. You want it both ways. You want us to share the same human nature when it comes to salvation but not when it comes to acting “in persona Christi.”

Really? You’re not making the argument that there are no distinctions?

No. I’m not.

You’re explicitly claiming that there are no distinctions with respect to ministry and gender, are you not?

No. Not necessarily. This argument doesn’t address that point. Granted, I’m very happy that the Catholic Church clearly does not ask me to hold to Aquinas’ view that women are defective males, and that so venerable a figure as Pope Benedict said (in what is arguably an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, though certainly not one covered by infallibility) that Paul’s words about women keeping silence had to be considered “relative.” But the Aristotelian argument and the argument from the literal sense of St. Paul’s words are not affected by the argument I’m making here. It’s a specific argument about what it means to act “in persona Christi.” If women are ontologically incapable of acting in persona Christi, not because their poorly formed bodies impose an obstacle to the full expression of their humanity (as St. Thomas taught) or because they are incapable of exercising any position of authority, but because they possess a separate nature from men but one of equal dignity with that of men–then, and only then, it seems that women couldn’t be saved. Which is absurd. Hence, either there is something I’m not seeing or this is a bad argument explaining why women can’t be ordained.

I think one way around it is to drop the language of ontology altogether and to use iconic language instead. I’m still mulling over whether that makes a difference and how these two kinds of language are related.

How is the fact that Paul explicitly claims that there are distinctions in ministry amount to a straw man argument, since this is what you’re claiming?

I’m confused. What am I claiming? That there are no distinctions in ministry? Of course not. You persist in thinking that I must be making the stereotypical argument that exists in your head, no matter how many times I say that I’m not making any such argument.

Edwin

 

[pacloc]

No. It isn’t clear. It isn’t clear that giving the “big decisions” to one spouse or the other is a good idea at all.

Edwin

I don’t know where you read otherwise in scripture. Could you please share. I see plenty of scriptures that say the man is head over his wife. One of the clearest scriptures in the new testament showing the man is given the responsibility over his family is 1 Timothy 3:4,5. This does not equate to unfairness, it is just an orderly arrangement. If you feel otherwise, you might need to determine whether you are not ignoring God’s word, or if you really don’t think it says what a lot of people have determined it does in fact say, namely that the man is head of his wife.

 

[steve_b]

The problem with this argument is that the CDF’s clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis stopped short of saying that it was an ex cathedra statement. The CDF did claim that the teaching was irreformable, but it placed it as part of the ordinary rather than the extraordinary magisterium.

That’s not correct. See what follows
C:

But even if the fact that the Church can’t ordain women is settled (I’m not as sure as you are that this could never be reopened, but given the language of both St. JPII and the CDF it would be presumptuous and disobedient of me, as a lay Christian seeking full communion with Rome, to persist in saying that the Church ought to ordain women), the reasons why still need to be explored. To argue against bad arguments for the Church’s teaching is not to argue against the teaching itself. On the contrary, refuting poor attempts to explain and defend the Church’s position is necessary in order to develop a true understanding of the teaching.

I think that the key probably does lie in the bride/bridegroom analogy.

Edwin

Re: “the clarification”, as if JPII’s statement needed clarification, then Card Ratzinger wrote

(all emphasis mine)

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

It doesn’t get clearer than that.

To further make the point, Pope Francis excommunicates a priest
ihradio.com/2013/09/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-advocated-womens-ordination-sex-marriage/

 

[Gorgias]

Obviously the argument doesn’t apply to incidental features of being human. But when you take one feature of being human and argue that it’s so ontological central to the human identity of Christ that those who don’t possess it can’t act in persona Christi, then I think you do seem to be running afoul of Nazianzus’ principle.

Yet, we’re talking about a sacramental reality here. Is it reasonable that only wheaten bread and grape wine are central to the Eucharist? If so, then why is it unreasonable that Jesus’ example at the Last Supper points us to a sacramental reality, but that His example in naming his Apostles does not point us to a sacramental reality?

The principle is that Jesus saves us by assuming our nature in its fullness. If Jesus didn’t assume–in its fullness–the human nature possessed by women, then they can’t be saved. If He did, then how can it be true that they can’t act “in persona Christi”?

Well, first off, you’re missing part of the definition. It’s not that priests act ‘in persona Christi’, it’s that they act ‘in persona Christi capitis’ – “in the person of Christ the Head.” So, necessarily, we’re talking about a different distinction than simply the question of what it means to be person – we’re talking about what it means for Christ to be incarnate and be the Head of the Church. Part of that distinction gets to the root of what it means to be ‘head’ and ‘body’, to be ‘bridegroom’ and ‘bride’. Corporately, we are ‘bride’; but individually and personally, Christ is bridegroom! Therefore, we can point to the symbol value of the priesthood as reflecting the reality of Jesus engendered incarnation. Women fully participate in humanity, in personhood. However, in a particular way, they do not participate (individually) in bridegroom-hood.

If women are ontologically incapable of acting in persona Christi, not because their poorly formed bodies impose an obstacle to the full expression of their humanity (as St. Thomas taught) or because they are incapable of exercising any position of authority, but because they possess a separate nature from men but one of equal dignity with that of men–then, and only then, it seems that women couldn’t be saved. Which is absurd.

Makes sense.

Hence, either there is something I’m not seeing or this is a bad argument explaining why women can’t be ordained.

Right. I’m asserting the former, not the latter. I’m not asserting that women have a “separate (human) nature”; that’s your take on the argument, and I do not assent to it.

I think one way around it is to drop the language of ontology altogether and to use iconic language instead. I’m still mulling over whether that makes a difference and how these two kinds of language are related.

Correct me if I’m wrong – because I’m not in front of the Church documents at the moment – but the appeal to ontology comes from the description that there’s an ontological change that takes place in the sacrament of holy orders. I’m not aware of anything that suggests an ontological difference in humans based on any of their physical attributes. Can you provide something in the current teaching of the Church that asserts this?

 

[livingwordunity]

This may be a reasonable question for non-Catholics, but for Catholics it is simply irrational to believe that women can become priests.

The church has made a number of claims about who she is and what she believes, not merely on this question but on the very nature of the church itself. One cannot reject her statements that women cannot become priests without rejecting the church. If she is wrong on this particular subject then her fundamental principles are also wrong and our faith is a sham.

JPII stated: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.
This is an infallible teaching. If it is wrong then the church is wrong to claim that she is protected by the Holy Spirit from serious error, she is wrong to claim that she has fulfilled “*her mission of authentically interpreting God’s law in the light of the Gospel” (Veritatis Splendor), *she is wrong about infallibility, and she is wrong to claim that she can be trusted.

There is a great deal more involved here than simply asking for women to be ordained. The argument contains within it a rejection of foundational principles on which the church is based.

Ender

Well said.

 

[Abu]

Contarini #72
The problem with this argument is that the CDF’s clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis stopped short of saying that it was an ex cathedra statement. The CDF did claim that the teaching was irreformable, but it placed it as part of the ordinary rather than the extraordinary magisterium.

The fact that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, or any other defined doctrine, contains an infallible statement does not depend on that statement being ex cathedra.

From post #35:
“Popes may and have taught infallibly within a document as for instance the doctrine on male-only priests in Pope St John Paul II’s Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994 which confirms the male-only priesthood as instituted by Christ Himself.”

The reality is that it is infallible doctrine, and the three levels from St John Paul II’s Motu Proprio (on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

#78
If women can’t act in persona Christi because they don’t share Christ’s nature, then by the principle “what is not assumed is not saved” they can’t be saved and shouldn’t be baptized.
#86
If we all share the same nature with Jesus, then we can act “in persona Christi.”

It is not the human nature that Christ took that defines the nature of the priesthood but the reality that Christ chose only males to be His Apostles and priests to reenact His Passion and Death in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Contarini]

That’s not correct. See what follows

Re: “the clarification”, as if JPII’s statement needed clarification, then Card Ratzinger wrote

(all emphasis mine)

“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.”

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrespo.htm

It doesn’t get clearer than that.

Yes, it does. In fact, the “clarification” made things a lot muddier. Why didn’t he use the term “ex cathedra”? Folks on your side of the debate are very fond of making the argument (which I find absurdly speculative) that Jesus obviously would have chosen women as members of the Twelve if it had been possible for women to be priests. There are all kinds of assumptions going on in that claim that just aren’t warranted either by what we know about the Twelve, about the first-century historical context, or about the Incarnation. In contrast, it’s pretty reasonable for me, as someone with some acquaintance with how doctrinal debates have gone down in the Catholic Church, to say that a brilliant German theologian who was the chief doctrinal watchdog of the Catholic Church and was trying to make the point that everyone had to accept OS must have had some reason for not saying outright, “The Pope was speaking ex cathedra.” Why the rather tortuous appeal to the ordinary magisterium first?

But that’s not really particularly relevant to this thread. The OP asked why people believe in women’s ordination. The question is not whether the Catholic Church may yet ordain women. I agree that that issue seems to be closed. I am simply giving the theological arguments for women’s ordination. Fine–let’s stipulate that we know that they are wrong. But don’t ask what the arguments are if you don’t want to find out. And don’t make up silly straw-man reasons and then try to shut down any attempt to give stronger ones. That’s what’s been going on on this thread.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

That’s just not a historically believable claim. There have been too many points on which the Church appeared to have a firm position which turned out to be more capable of nuance and development than was once thought (extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the execution of heretics, the death penalty in general, the legitimacy of persons of Jewish heritage continuing to observe the ceremonies of the Old Law, and the advisability of laypeople reading the Scriptures freely, just to name the more obvious examples–usury may also be a good one, but slavery, the favorite example of most liberals, is a bad one and I’m not appealing to it).

I was very careful in my comment to make it clear that these examples would not apply. You appear not to have given any significance to the fact that the teaching on women priests is infallible. None of the other examples you cited meet that criterion. They are irrelevant to my comment.

The Church stands or falls on the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the sacraments, etc., not on whether women may be ordained.

No, it stands or falls on any issue which is infallible for the reasons I gave.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The problem with this argument is that the CDF’s clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis stopped short of saying that it was an ex cathedra statement.

It was in fact not an ex cathedra statement. It was, nonetheless, infallible, and the CDF did not stop short of saying exactly that.Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter * Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.
Responsum: Affirmative.
There are two ways a teaching can be considered infallible. Being declared ex cathedra is the more notorious of the two, but the second - that it has been taught infallibly - is the more common. The teaching that women may not be ordained is infallible by the second method. Moreover, as the citation above shows, this is clearly how the church sees the matter. What part of “affirmative” leaves room for doubt?

• “it has been set forth infallibly*…”
  Ender

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But the logic of the argument “women can’t be ordained because Jesus was a man and a priest is an alter Christus” implies either that women can’t be saved or that they are saved through men. Either way, the argument seems to imply that women do not share fully in the nature that Jesus assumed for our salvation.

I think the point should be made that women can’t be ordained because Jesus ordained the Sacrament in that way. The sub-context of the above argument appears to hinge on the supposition that Jesus and the Apostles just did what was apropos to the times and culture in which they found themselves, with an open ended arrangement which would allow for change when the culture became sufficiently “enlightened.”

But what should be borne in mind is that Jesus established a New Covenant. Something that hadn’t been done since Moses on Mt. Sinai. In the previous Covenant, God specifically set up the Levitical priesthood, and many other very specific laws which governed the Israelite nation in how God should be worshiped and obeyed.

Jesus was fulfilling ALL that had been prefigured before with the Levitical Priesthood and the bloody sacrifice, as well as the Priesthood/Kingship of Melchizedek and his sacrifice of Bread and Wine. The Priesthood was being re-cast in this new Covenant. THIS IS PRECISELY THE TIME when Jesus would have made the change of allowing women to be priests. BUT that would not have fulfilled the old law and Covenant. Instead it would in effect a complete abrogation of the Levitical/Aaronic Priesthood, The priesthood and kingship of Melchizedek, Worship and the Law.

But rather than try to justify the change Jesus made of ordaining men rather than JUST a certain tribe of men to the Priesthood, as another expedient required by the times, we should instead see the LIBERAL expansion and PERFECTION of the priesthood which Jesus fulfilled and commanded by including all baptized men as possible priestly candidates. However, the law was to be FULFILLED in Jesus, as He Himself often said. He did not come to abolish the old law. Therefore, it became necessary for the Apostles to be fully instructed in how this NEW COVENANT was to be followed. If there was to be ANY change Jesus would have made that clear then and there. Just as the new Worship in His Body and Blood was to be observed.

To argue that God established any of His COVENANTS at a time which would preclude something as BASIC as the Priesthood and Worship, are unthinkable and irreverent, in my view, when considered in this light. We would have to find justifications for ALL OF GOD’S decisions being CONSTRAINED by the times, and therefore open to a complete reworking, once we believers considered ourselves sufficiently enlightened. That would be tantamount to breaking the Covenant!

I am not arguing that some trivial matters were in fact open to change. Obviously, the Church has seen fit to abrogate certain matters of the old law with respect to dietary disciplines and certain other minutiae of the Mosaic law. But Christianity is unquestionably built on the Old Covenants (plural.)

To change the priesthood at this late date, would be to change worship. This is such a serious matter that only the Church has the AUTHORITY to say whether such a thing is even possible. We have heard from the Church on that score.

That such a questioning occurs in our time is indicative of our times. It is puffed up with a self-congratulatory sense of “finally knowing everything” (worth knowing.) That NOW, FINALLY women will take their rightful place as Priests, so long denied them by the dull understanding of unenlightened, unlearned former times. That God knew eventually WE would set things right (not His Only Begotten Son.)

 

[mdcpensive1]

AmbroseSJ has a very good reply. I thank him for it. Some more points:

1. The priesthood is NOT a JOB. It is an OFFICE. That is why it is not seen as unfair or unjust to have only men be called to fill the Office position. Priesthood is not under labor laws, cultural biases or political correctness.

2)The sacraments were ALL instituted by Christ. He is the one that made them the way He wanted them to be. The Church has no authority to change the forms of them. Most sacraments receive or operate on the very words of Christ which gives them their power to give grace. It is through His “person” that they are effective. When it is said at Mass “this is MY body” it is the whole person of Christ as the High Priest that is saying it using the form that was intended. The priest is not saying “Christ said this is my body” but he is standing in for Christ and saying the words as if he is Christ saying those words. He acts in the person of Christ.

1. It has been done this way for two thousand years. If it was not in the intention of the Holy Spirit then others could perform the sacrifice instead of a persona Christi priest. This shows that the acceptance by the Holy Spirit through the ages to be the true form of priesthood.
2. The sacrament of Orders has to do with the structure of the authority or headship of the Church. Every organization needs a structure or authority to run without anarchy. Christ gives the headship of the Church to the priesthood. The family is the microcosm of the structure of the Church.