The Forbidden Subject: The Ordination of Women

[pnewton]

How is it impossible for a woman to receive the laying on of hands and to then carry out the work of Christ.
They are not asking to be changed into a man? Their gender is as much worthy of Christ’s mission as the opposite gender.

Seems from the link I quoted in the OP that people need to see a man act as Jesus in order for them to understand that Jesus was and remains a man, which is a visual effect, because no man becomes Jesus the man-God.
So we leave out half of the image of God when we see only men at the ‘top’ of the spiritual world.
In which way do women image Jesus then? They are not men, so they could not do this.

I understand why you would go to a website that advocates for this change to learn of this topic. The Church has nothing to fear from good questions, as St. Thomas shows us. In this case, there is a point made that should be addressed. Unquestionably the gap between Man and God is so great that the difference between God and a woman is scarcely different. So if a man can sacramentally serve as persona Christi, then why can’t a woman? It is a good question. I have two answers.

1. There is no reason she could not. That is, there is no reason God could not have set up a Sacramental theology that would have done allowed this, just like he could have chosen another nation than Israel to redeem mankind. He could have chosen the tribe of Joseph for the priesthood. He could have been a woman incarnate instead of man. Also, he could have established that either men or women would serve as his apostles.
2. The same argument could serve to say any edible matter could be the body of Christ, as that too is a gap that is infinite.

The Church has never claimed on this matter to have any say. The position has always been one of discernment and interpretation. In the end, like with so much more of Christianity, the question that first must be answered is, “by what authority do we believe what we so?”

 

[Wesrock]

How is it impossible for a woman to receive the laying on of hands and to then carry out the work of Christ.
They are not asking to be changed into a man? Their gender is as much worthy of Christ’s mission as the opposite gender.

Worthiness and value have nothing to do with it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, Simpleas, if I were you I wouldn’t be searching for non-Catholic 'sites to look for answers to Catholic teachings. I’d be looking at the Catholic ones. And if I found myself doubting, I’d still be looking at the Catholic sites. Womenpriests is not a Catholic site. I don’t care if they call themselves ‘priests’. I could call myself her Majesty the Queen but it sure wouldn’t get me up on the British. . .or any other royal. . .throne. . .

Seriously, it’s as though, if the Internet had been around in AD 1533 in London, England, and you were looking up Catholic teaching on the sacraments, you decided instead of checking ‘Vatican.va.’ to look up “Martin Luther’s Blog” instead since, hey, he was a priest once, right, so shouldn’t he know? Besides, his language was more colorful than that dry old boring Vatican stuff. . . Womenpriests compared to the Vatican, or New Advent, or the Catechism, has exactly the same kind of Catholic cred that Luther would have had back in the day. . .

 

[simpleas]

A woman could say the words of consecration, could have her hands anointed, and hear confessions: but every sacrament would be invalid. Jesus chose twelve men to carry out His mission. Only to men did He give the power to forgive sins, lay on hands and offer the Eucharist. If Jesus wished to open up the priesthood to women, He would have done or said something that made it a possibility. As another posted said, Jesus had twelve “chances” to correct our understanding of the priesthood, but He didn’t challenge it.

Magesterium aside, Scripture itself makes it abundantly clear that the priesthood is a vocation only men are called to.

I can’t yet understand why the sacraments would be invalid. If women can baptise under certain circumstances, and men for that matter, yet not be ordained, how would that be valid?

When you say Jesus would have said something to make it possible, Jesus didn’t say anything that made it clearly impossible, not that I recall.

It’s mostly a traditional understanding, but to say women could be ordain, yet all sacraments would be invalid, renders them spiritually enable or something.
Setting aside all arguments from people who want women to be able to become part of the Magesterium, something just doesn’t add up for me regarding men only.

But thanks all for your posts, it’s a serious question for me at this stage in my life.

 

[Church_Militant]

Here’s a concise and well documented article on this that is just a year old.

Why the Church Doesn’t Ordain Women

The answer from me is that you have no support for this anywhere in scripture or in any Tradition of the church. That being the case the church cannot and will not do it.

There’s a host of ways that we all can serve, but this is not one of them.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)