Rcia question that came up about ordination of woman in the priesthood

[flightkid]

I am a sponser for my fiance in the RCIA class and our discussion tonight was on Holy Orders. A question that rose that us Catholics need a better response on to defend the catholic stance was this…Is it possible for the Magisterium to allow for woman to be ordained as priest? We had just previously discussed how celibacy in the priesthood was a DISCIPLINE and that it COULD be changed by the Church, but very in likely. And that question up above was posted, whether the ordination of woman is a sound doctrine that the Church cannot change WHATSOEVER or is a just a discipline that COULD be changed but highly unlikely like the celibacy thing. Than this student went on to state this scriptural verse saying that it supports woman being Apostles or AKA a priest or bishop. I would like a well thought out Catholic response using scripture and the magisteriums encylicals pertaining to this matter please so I can pass on to our RCIA class to help so they can better understand the Catholic stance! Thanks for your time and God bless!

Below is her scripture verse she uses to show woman being ordained as apostles,

Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my(F) fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me.”

 

[choy]

I am a sponser for my fiance in the RCIA class and our discussion tonight was on Holy Orders. A question that rose that us Catholics need a better response on to defend the catholic stance was this…Is it possible for the Magisterium to allow for woman to be ordained as priest? We had just previously discussed how celibacy in the priesthood was a DISCIPLINE and that it COULD be changed by the Church, but very in likely. And that question up above was posted, whether the ordination of woman is a sound doctrine that the Church cannot change WHATSOEVER or is a just a discipline that COULD be changed but highly unlikely like the celibacy thing. Than this student went on to state this scriptural verse saying that it supports woman being Apostles or AKA a priest or bishop. I would like a well thought out Catholic response using scripture and the magisteriums encylicals pertaining to this matter please so I can pass on to our RCIA class to help so they can better understand the Catholic stance! Thanks for your time and God bless!

Below is her scripture verse she uses to show woman being ordained as apostles,

Romans 16:7 “Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my(F) fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me.”

there were no female apostles. they were the 12 men (13 if you include Paul) who followed Jesus and known him more than anyone. Paul by extension was given this revelation on his vision of Christ.

it says Adronicus and Junia were KNOWN TO THE apostles. it didn’t say they were apostles or KNOWN TO BE apostles

there were women disciples though

 

[Cluny]

<<Is it possible for the Magisterium to allow for woman to be ordained as priest? >>

Not according to ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS by John Paul II in 1994.

The final paragraph reads: “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.”

This sounds like an ex-cathedra statement to me.

<<it says Adronicus and Junia were KNOWN TO THE apostles. it didn’t say they were apostles or KNOWN TO BE apostles

there were women disciples though>>

The Byzantine tradition makes a distinction between two groups of apostles: Apostles of the 12 and Apostles of the 70.

And there are many women, St. Mary Magdalene among them, who are called “Equals of the Apostles.”

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Cluny,

Never in John Paull II’s long pontificate did he use words that were arguably ex cathedra, except to put to end once and for all the hopes of some that Catholic women may be ordained. If Andronicus and Junia were being described as apostles, it wouldn’t change the Tradition of the Catholic Church, nor would it change this very recent, modern, post Vatican II rejection of Andronicus and Junia as Catholic priestesses by Pope John Paul II.

An apostle simply means, “one who is sent”. It does not necessarily follow that every individual in the New Testament who “is sent” also qualifies as a holder of the Apostolic office. I would suggest to RCIA classes that if the Catholic Church has erred in this matter for this long, followed by an error of the magnitude made by Pope John Paul very recently, it speaks to the apostasy of the Catholic Church. How could the one true church have been wrong for such a very very long time, when women had actually held ecclesiastical authority not merely as priests, not merely as bishops, but as apostles alongisde Sts. Matthew, Peter, Andrew, and John? And people who believe in the apostolicity of Abndronicus and Junia are investigating a church that doesn’t even celebrate their Feast Days? Why would anyone want to go to RCIA, thinking the Church is so misguided now, even as it has been for almost 2,000 years? Worse, why would such an one teach RCIA?

Rory

PS: For the original poster…carry on…I can see you are only asking questions, not favoring this discreditable point of view. If it is concluded that Andronicus and Junia were apostles like Matthew and Peter, the Catholic Church in my opinion has failed. If Catholic Tradition is wrong about this, what other teachings become suspect in their turn? I would think none of them would be exempt from reconsideration.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Church could choose to allow married priests – this is a practice issue. The Church cannot choose to allow female priests – this is a doctrinal issue.

There are married Catholic priests. Like the Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic priests are often married (though they may only be married prior to ordination, no dating priests). There are also Catholic priests in the Latin Rite who are married, primarily converts from Anglicanism. Anglican priests are given a dispensation from the usual vow of celibacy even though their Holy Orders are invalid because they share most of the same doctrinal beliefs and worldview as Catholics, as opposed to other Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism. More than 70 former Anglican/Episcopalian priests in the United States have taken advantage of this and have received ordination in the Catholic Church.

Also, technically, priests can petition for laicization, often to get married. Priests who abandon the faith without being formally released from their duties may also get married. Priests are priests forever, no matter what, even if they are not functioning as priests or have become Protestants or atheists. Thus, these are also technically married priests.

It is possible for priests to be married prior to ordination and even to marry (if they give up their duties). It is not possible for priests to be female, it is considered impossible to ordain a woman, much like someone cannot consecrate apple juice or baptize a dog. It doesn’t mean that women are somehow lesser, this is just something that is impossible. It is akin to men wanting to be mothers, it doesn’t make any sense. Women can be very good teachers and preachers, there were female prophets and judges in Israel, but they cannot become priests. “Roman Catholic WomenPriests” and other schismatic groups that try to ordain women do not have women priests, they have women who are pretending to be priests – there is a big difference.

Some people have tried to say that there have been Christian priestesses in the early Church but this is not true. They twist and falsify history to support their agenda.

Groups who try to advocate for women priests are wasting their time, the Church has no authority to change the rules because it is not merely a human institution. I even told my Protestant friend that even if you don’t believe God would prevent the Catholic Church from doing this, it is enough for the Church to believe that it cannot do it. The Church can never change dogma. Women cannot become priests. Sorry.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It doesn’t mean that women are somehow lesser.

That’s the problem: that’s what they do not see. That’s the entire crux of it. The dogmatic arguments, no matter how sound or logical, are not convincing to them. It’s an emotional issue, not a spiritual one. They are attracted to what they see as “the romance of power.” They are also misguided in their equation of male attributes as preferable and superior to inborn female attributes. That’s the irony of it: while battling against the male archetype and male hierarchy, they have nevertheless internalized an assumption of the higher value of male dominance and the artificial “inequality” of the sexes.

When all else fails, I want to ask such people - whether in RICA or anywhere else: Would you want to relate to a Jesus with female attributes? (I don’t!)

 

[Cluny]

<<nor would it change this very recent, modern, post Vatican II rejection of Andronicus and Junia as Catholic priestesses by Pope John Paul II.
While Ss Andronicus and Junia are commemorated as Apostles on the Byzantine Calendar, Andronicus (as his very name suggests) was a man. Junia, however, was never considered within the presbyterate.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That’s the problem: that’s what they do not see. That’s the entire crux of it. The dogmatic arguments, no matter how sound or logical, are not convincing to them. It’s an emotional issue, not a spiritual one. They are attracted to what they see as “the romance of power.”

It’s always based on an emotional issue. I was involved in the Episcopal Church prior to my (on-going) conversion to the Catholic Church (it was a half-way point between my being raised as Evangelical and my romance with the Catholic Church, apparently many other people have done this as well). Though not all branches of the Anglican Communion (not to mention other Anglican-style denominations not part of the communion) recognize priestesses, the Episcopal Church does. The Anglican churches had been arguing about this issue until it came to a head in America in 1974 when eleven women (“The Philadelphia Eleven”) were illicitly “ordained” by two retired and one resigned bishop. It was a calculated provocation, a politicized mass ordination. They did it and then asked, “Now what are you going to do about it?”

When this was tried in the Catholic Church, seven women (“The Danube Seven”) were illicitly “ordained” by an Independent Catholic (i.e. pseudo-Catholic, not in communion with Rome) bishop, the women and anyone else involved were ex-communicated. But in the Episcopal Church, an emergency meeting of bishops was held and the ordinations were ruled invalid – women could not be ordained. However, another meeting was held two years later in which it was voted that women could be ordained and the Eleven were regularized the next year, in 1977. In 2006, the first female Anglican Primate was elected in the United States – Katharine Jefferts Schori. Although Anglicans in the Anglican Communion recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as symbolic head of the Anglican Communion, he has no defined authority over other Primates, thus Rev. Schori is the ultimate head of the Episcopal Church USA.

While I was in the Episcopal Church, I said that there are two things preventing me from accepting the ordination of women (though I did twice receive Communion from the same female priest, I felt strange about it). The first was that there needed to be a rigorous examination of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers to find something that would support the ordination of women – this necessary theological underpinning is severely lacking It is not enough to say that St. Paul was only writing about the Church at that particular time and that, for some reason, things are different now.

The second thing is that I would like to see female priests who weren’t completely tied to liberal theology and this liberal agenda. You would expect to see women who are all over the spectrum but instead you see a large number of lesbian (or at least straight but pro-gay) women who are also pro-abortion. The epitome of this is lesbian feminist priestess Katherine Ragsdale, a former board member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice for 17 years, as well as NARAL and now head of the Episcopal Divinity School, who posted a sermon entitled “Abortion is a Blessing”.

Her sermon, posted on conservative Episcopalian/Anglican as well as Catholic blogs, was one of the final reasons for giving up on the Episcopal Church. My Episcopal priest and a portion of the congregation left the Episcopal Church and is now part of the newly formed Anglican Church of North America. Prior to his departure, there was still the air of high church traditionalism, conservatism and distance from the liberal agenda of the national church that many people complained about. There are still many good people and close friends at the Episcopal parish I attended. But I chose not to follow them and decided to join the Catholic Church instead.

The Catholic Church has its problems and I knew I was simply going from one mess to another. But in spite of all the liberal agenda groups who have much power, especially in the US, there is a core that cannot change. Despite those who would like to see female priests, there can never be female priests. Despite those who would like to see gay marriage in the Church, this won’t happen either. We don’t have to worry about these things happening because it’s not our fight, though we hold the orthodox line against heretics and dissenters, ultimately it’s God’s fight and God doesn’t change and God doesn’t lose. We just need to embrace and educate people.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That’s the problem: that’s what they do not see. That’s the entire crux of it. The dogmatic arguments, no matter how sound or logical, are not convincing to them. It’s an emotional issue, not a spiritual one. They are attracted to what they see as “the romance of power.” They are also misguided in their equation of male attributes as preferable and superior to inborn female attributes. That’s the irony of it: while battling against the male archetype and male hierarchy, they have nevertheless internalized an assumption of the higher value of male dominance and the artificial “inequality” of the sexes.

You have hit the fault of second-wave feminism on the head. They see men as superior and end up emulating them in order to gain a foothold in the male world, which they see as better. But today’s post-feminist and third-wave feminist laugh at “Dress for Success” women like Hillary Clinton, padded shoulders and ugly pantsuits. Though I live in a very liberal university town, women have re-embraced feminine ideals. Of course, so have the men and though I happen to think this is a better plan, I think it’s better to let the men be men and the women be women.

If women re-discover their feminine ideals and see womanhood not as a burden but as a benefit, a blessing instead of a curse, then we won’t have nearly as many women who would want to be priests. If women really want to dedicate their lives to God, they should become religious sisters or nuns (the traditional kind, not the Sr. Joan Chittister type). But I fear that these would-be priestesses have in mind temporal power, misguided politics and a false spirituality instead of submission to God and servitude to His people. Priests are ultimately servants, not rulers. Anyway, these same people complain about “the hierarchy”, why do they want to be a part of it?

The desire for female priests comes back to the disintegration of traditional gender roles. Whereas many people shudder and think of Amish or fundamentalist-like strict structures, I just mean an embracing of men being men and women being women instead of trying to deny either. In our culture, women are pressured into being both and men are left wondering where they fit in. Women’s fertility is denied through birth control and abortion (and with Depo and skipping the sugar pills on regular BCP, periods can also be eliminated) and this is part of forcing women to be men. Women are also pushed into the workforce – instead of being married early and raising a family, women now outnumber men at universities and end up trying to balance the cultural pressure to have a career and the natural pressure to have children (there are many double-standards for women).

Women are actually much better at many things than men. But that doesn’t mean that women should take over men’s roles – they’re not really that desirable. Women have taken over universities and in the Church, many women have overtaken the parish life from teachers to altar servers (this is true in most Protestant churches as well). Men now shirk from religion because it is seen as “effeminate”. Even children’s names that were once unisex or became unisex, have become “girl’s names” – Dana, Leslie, Ashley, Lindsay, Kelly, etc. Though there are very few female Episcopal bishops and still a majority of male priests, nearly half of all deacons are female and now the seminaries are mostly female so we will probably be seeing a surge of women taking over the priesthood of the Episcopal church. The only men allowed will be ones who are useful to the liberal agenda such as the gay ones.

Yes, women are good at most things intellectual (and many women quite good at physical jobs as well) but that doesn’t mean they should do them. And the priesthood isn’t just another job, it’s a sacred duty which given to men by God and it should remain that way – it was God’s decision, not men’s. The Church isn’t just a human institution, otherwise this all is meaningless and there’s no point to becoming a priest anyway. But if you believe in God, you believe in the Church, then you should believe that God has created the priesthood as a male role just as He created motherhood as a female role.

 

[John92]

I totally agree with people talking about women forgetting their womanhood and wanting to be men.

My grandpa was right: men are still men but now women are expected to be both women and men: they “should” have a job AND raise kids, should go out in the world AND be devoted mothers, etc.

Women need to relearn what they used to be taught: raising children is the most important job there is and the wife is (in many ways) ruler of the home.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t be allowed to work or whatever, they just need to ignore the feminists and realize that having children and raising them is a GOOD thing, and something that men aren’t necessarily good at (not that men can’t be fathers, duh, but we don’t do as well in the intimate role of “mother”).