Questions regarding "female ordination"

[Ignatius]

It seems you are assuming the purpose of my questions was to “debate” the subject. This is not the case – I simply want to understand the reasoning behind the Church’s teachings. After all, isn’t that the purpose of apologetics?

God bless,
Dean

Holy Orders is a Sacrament. A Sacrament must be instituted by Christ (review your catechism for a definition of Sacraments). Since Jesus didn’t institute an order or priestesses, the Church has no authority to do so.This has been defined infallibly.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Interesting, stanczyk. I’m not sure who’s right then:shrug:

I’m not sure how much doubt that casts on the article then either.

 

[stanczyk]

Interesting, stanczyk. I’m not sure who’s right then:shrug:

I’m not sure how much doubt that casts on the article then either.

I think in the absence of clear evidence one way or another, we have to assume that the priests of the early Church were not celibate, since this would not have been in accordance with contemporary Jewish and Greek customs.

 

[aicirt]

I think in the absence of clear evidence one way or another, we have to assume that the priests of the early Church were not celibate, since this would not have been in accordance with contemporary Jewish and Greek customs.

What about the influence of the ascetics and monks? They were celibate. There were thousands in Egypt up through Palestine and into Turkey as early as 285 AD and, apparenlty, there were ascetics living alone before monasteries.

Any possibilty of these men, who already vowed to be celibate, becoming priests?

 

[Church_Militant]

I think in the absence of clear evidence one way or another, we have to assume that the priests of the early Church were not celibate, since this would not have been in accordance with contemporary Jewish and Greek customs.

That would be fine except for the following blog article which covers the actual scriptures and informs the Catholic call to celibacy. Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That would be fine except for the following blog article which covers the actual scriptures and informs the Catholic call to celibacy. Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

Nobody here has a problem with celibacy.

But celibacy is not a necessity for Priests. St. Peter’s mother-in-law is mentioned at one point in the New Testament, implying a wife. And the Eastern Catholic Church has married Priests.

Certain Catholics may be called to celibacy but not necessarily ALL Priests.

 

[jmcrae]

I learned all of this from doing an essay on the subject in my Junior year and, more significantly, from the college level apologetics class I took my Senior year. My theology teacher had 3 masters degrees in Catholic and religious subjects and was going for his fourth in bioethics.

So unfortunately I don’t have citations I can pull up (my essay has long since disappeared), so you’re going to have to decide if you believe me. Myself, I have a source I trust very much

I learned it from some people who were doing an in-depth study of the pre-Nicene Fathers, and in my case, also, I don’t have the citations at hand, although I’m thinking that Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma and Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers would be places to start.

 

[inkaneer]

Didn’t St. Paul tell women to be quiet in church? He was also celibate as were Timothy, and Titus and of course Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Didn’t St. Paul tell women to be quiet in church? He was also celibate as were Timothy, and Titus and of course Jesus.

He was telling them to stop asking their husbands questions in the middle of the liturgy; it had nothing to do with whether or not women can participate. Elsewhere, he compliments many women for their participation in the liturgy, and for their street preaching, so it wasn’t a total ban on women speaking at all; it was a particular circumstance during the liturgy - one that could bear repeating for both men and women in our current age, as there are a lot of people who yap unceasingly during Mass, and I don’t mean the preacher.

 

[Church_Militant]

Nobody here has a problem with celibacy.

But celibacy is not a necessity for Priests. St. Peter’s mother-in-law is mentioned at one point in the New Testament, implying a wife. And the Eastern Catholic Church has married Priests.

Certain Catholics may be called to celibacy but not necessarily ALL Priests.

That theory doesn’t jive with either the New Testament nor the discipline of the Latin Rite Catholic Church. Though some Eastern Rites allow marriage, they also include celibacy is the wife passes away.

The vocation of marriage, although not exclusive of the vocation of the priesthood by discipline would still not comply with Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

1st Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

It would be more important to obey what one is called to by the Holy Spirit.

However, this is actually off topic and irrelevant to this thread’s topic of ordination of women, which has been very clearly defined for us by the Church in the following documents.
Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis by John Paul II
Concerning Women as Priests by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[adrift]

The Christ I see and read about in the Gospels was quite the radical in his thought, teaching and actions–he rocked the boat quite a bit. I can’t see him being constrained in the way you suggest. The gospels were written much earlier than they were assembled and they present these woman as witnesses to his resurrection even though they would not have been thought credible. There is nothing logical and safe or conventional in the Gospel message. It seems illogical to suggest that in this one area well Jesus decided to go with convention.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

Go with convention? I guess you might see that way. The truth is that the priesthood as already stated

Marc Anthony Re: Questions regarding “female ordination”

---

Let’s remember to-the Priesthood is the continuation of the Priesthood of the Levites, just under Christ.

Jesus fulfilled the Priesthood. When God first started the priesthood, priestess were common. Your point that Jesus decided to go with convention is false when you consider that the first establishment of the priesthood went against convention. If God had wanted priestess Marion, sister of Moses would have been the idea choice. God chose than to make it male only. Jesus wasn’t constrained by the era as some try to make case for, but Jesus was constrained by what the Father had already established. To say that Jesus wasn’t constrained does not than make an argument that Jesus did away with all. Jesus ordained 12 men staying with as you say “convention”. It is illogical to believe Jesus went against “convention” when the evidence is not there.

 

[jmcrae]

But still…whatever the reason he chose male apostles…why is that action interpreted by someone to mean that women should never, ever, for the rest of time on this earth, be ordained to spread the word of God in the church?

Women are certainly called to evangelize, and to teach - there is no prohibition against these things.

The priesthood is about facilitating the Sacrifice and presiding over the Sacraments. These activities also entail preaching and proclaiming the Word of God, especially the Gospel - but outside of the Church walls, all Christians, women included, are called to the work of evangelization. Which is more difficult; to preach a sermon in Church, or to teach your children at home to live good Christian and holy lives? I would say that women have been given the more important responsibility, if it were a matter of saying who is “more important.”

What is sexist is to downgrade the work of women in the home when they raise their children and say, “this is of no value” and then say that the work of those who stand on podiums and read words off a page is “more important” merely because it is typically done by men.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But still…whatever the reason he chose male apostles…why is that action interpreted by someone to mean that women should never, ever, for the rest of time on this earth, be ordained to spread the word of God in the church?
Especially because he made no reference to this?
This is an illogical, mental leap IMO.

Yes, we have the women being the first ones to see him after he appeared after his death…but, it is still the men who tell the story of it in the bible.
I know if I was Mary M and I was the very first person to see the son of God rise from the dead…I’d make sure that, in my lifetime, I got that info down on papyrus firsthand, in detail.
If she did write it down herself in a first person account, it wasn’t included in the final books bound together.
Why? It was a sexist time.
I’m gonna guess everyone thought it was more credible to hear her story from the guys even tho she’s the one who experienced it, even tho she was the first one to witness the most important event in Christianity, the turning point.

It is a very, very bad idea to impute 21st century attitudes to non 21st century people.

Why is your single one person ‘guessing’ supposed to be more credible than a Church who has been studying the whole situation, in context, for 2000 years?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Women are certainly called to evangelize, and to teach - there is no prohibition against these things.

The priesthood is about facilitating the Sacrifice and presiding over the Sacraments. These activities also entail preaching and proclaiming the Word of God, especially the Gospel - but outside of the Church walls, all Christians, women included, are called to the work of evangelization. Which is more difficult; to preach a sermon in Church, or to teach your children at home to live good Christian and holy lives? I would say that women have been given the more important responsibility, if it were a matter of saying who is “more important.”

What is sexist is to downgrade the work of women in the home when they raise their children and say, “this is of no value” and then say that the work of those who stand on podiums and read words off a page is “more important” merely because it is typically done by men.

What I bolded. THIS.

And I’m a woman.

So many women have been brainwashed into thinking that choice only has to do with rejecting what came before and embracing its opposite.

I’m all for women not having to be limited into only the choices of ‘wife, mother, teacher, nurse’ which was **supposedly all they could do through the 20th century world **(although that scenario is not the full truth).

But so often women are told to be everything BUT wife, mother, teacher, nurse. . .as though those ‘womanly roles and occupations’ were lesser simply because so many women chose them or ‘fell into them’ by default.

Those choices are not ‘second-class’.

 

[adrift]

But still…whatever the reason he chose male apostles…why is that action interpreted by someone to mean that women should never, ever, for the rest of time on this earth, be ordained to spread the word of God in the church?

Women are not ordained but that doesn’t preclude them from spreading the Gospel. Read my previous post you will see why.

Especially because he made no reference to this?This is an illogical, mental leap IMO.

It is a mental leap to assume that Jesus did not speak with the Apostles. We do not know everything Jesus spoke about scripture tell us that. Jesus left us a living Church to guide us. I trust in the Promise that Jesus made. It is illogical that Jesus would have left us blind but of course Jesus don’t. He left us the Church.

Yes, we have the women being the first ones to see him after he appeared after his death…but, it is still the men who tell the story of it in the bible.
I know if I was Mary M and I was the very first person to see the son of God rise from the dead…I’d make sure that, in my lifetime, I got that info down on papyrus firsthand, in detail.

I don’t see how this relates?

If she did write it down herself in a first person account, it wasn’t included in the final books bound together.

Nor is there any record that women wrote anything.So you base an argument on a mythical book to come to a conclusion.

Why? It was a sexist time.

So you invent a straw-man and then knock it down

I’m gonna guess everyone thought it was more credible to hear her story from the guys even tho she’s the one who experienced it, even tho she was the first one to witness the most important event in Christianity, the turning point.

The turning point? What turning point? The turning point of What?
Even so what are the women told? Go and tell the disciples. I guess the angels are sexist too:shrug: Jesus must be sexist too as He didn’t have any women at the Last Supper:shrug:

Those choices are not ‘second-class’.

[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]

 

[aicirt]

All I can find when I do that are the “legends” or “tradition” of how they died…that are not linked to any fact.

Like a death certificate?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That theory doesn’t jive with either the New Testament nor the discipline of the Latin Rite Catholic Church. Though some Eastern Rites allow marriage, they also include celibacy is the wife passes away.

It’s not a theory. You just said it yourself, in the Eastern Church Priests can be married and not celibate. Sure, they need to be celibate AFTER their wife dies. But the point is they can be Priests and not celibate.

In fact, we DO have non-celibate Latin Rite Priests. Anglican Priests who convert to the Latin Church and get ordained as Catholic Priests are permitted to have wives provided they were married before becoming ordained as a Catholic Priest.

I know. I met a married Latin Rite Catholic Priest who was a former Anglican. He had several children and certainly wasn’t celibate.

However, it’s true that it doesn’t jive with the DISCIPLINE of the Latin Rite Church. But discipline can theoretically be changed one day, and there are exceptions. It’s not unchangeable doctrine.

 

[adrift]

Also…to use the example that women should not be ordained because the apostles were all men…another reason why this seems a leap to me is that there are a lot of specifics Jesus performed that we *don’t *follow in this same way.

For example…there were supposedly only men at the last supper, yes? (Unless the women were, um, serving? At least, if there were other women present, serving, cooking and/or eating with the men, it’s not mentioned).

And that is when he did the whole bread/wine this-is-my-body talk, right?
So only men received the Eucharist; he only gave it to men.

So using the same line of argument, I am curious…why do we not take that act, for example, as meaning *only men can receive the Eucharist? *
He only chose men to receive it the only one time he did it, so it follows that…he only meant for men to receive it…?

The apostles only ordained men so we have not only Jesus choosing men we have those men He trained ordaining only men. Why? Because they did what Jesus instructed. God started the priesthood with Aaron. It wasn’t a cultural thing as I have already pointed out as the culture around them had priestesses. As to your point, did the Apostles then restrict the Eucharist to men only nope!. Your argument fails because all it is a straw-man.

 

[LucyLight]

The apostles only ordained men so we have not only Jesus choosing men we have those men He trained ordaining only men. Why? Because they did what Jesus instructed. God started the priesthood with Aaron. It wasn’t a cultural thing as I have already pointed out as the culture around them had priestesses. As to your point, did the Apostles then restrict the Eucharist to men only nope!. Your argument fails because all it is a straw-man.

She does make the point though that more of a reason is needed than “because only men were at the last supper.” While I believe in the all male priesthood some of the reasons given in defense of it fall flat.

DaddyGirl, what about the reason posted by jmcrae and Marc Anthony that priests must be men to make atonement for the sin of Adam which was mortal compared to Eve’s venial sin?

 

[Salvatore123]

Based on womens’ arguments “for” ordaining women (which cannot happen) and their “anger” at being prevented from doing so, am I supposed to be able to make an equivalent argument that I, as a man, should be angry at God at not being given the ability to have children as was given to women?

Should I be angry with God because I will never experience what a woman feels like when she carries a growing child within her, when she experiences that “bloom” that everyone can see, when she holds that child next to her immediately after the child is born, when she nourishes that child from her own body? I cannot and will not experience ANY of these things, and I think that ALL of them are wondrous and special.

But I am not about to go around stomping my feet like a two year old, angry with the “way things are”, and arguing for something that is simply not going to change . . . I accept it (in fact, I never questioned it . . .) and I move on.

To me, it seems an easily remedied “problem” for those women who insist on ordination: quit the Catholic Church and join the other women who have done the same thing (Sinead O’Connor as an example), and form your own Church of women priests. That would be SO easy to do . . . yet they don’t want that. No, they want the CHURCH to change to meet THEIR DEMANDS . . .