To Christians with female clergy

[Rosebud77]

It’s not a matter of the Church forbidding something. It’s an existential thing based in the Incarnation.
Christ is a man.
Forbidding is when someone has the capacity or the right to do something and is denied it.
The problem becomes that some people see the priesthood as a matter of rights and/or power. The Church does not see the priesthood as a position of power and privilege but rather as a vocation of service.

Not sure how that bears on this theme. One person I know o wholeheartedly approves of women clergy does as her female vicar was very good to her when her parents died, as a counsellor. .

I understand your words when referring ti eg the so called catholic women priest group, but easier somehow when other denoms although I have never been a member of a church with a woman in charge and would not like to be. And a woman Bishop

 

[goout]

Rosebud77:
Not sure how that bears on this theme. One person I know o wholeheartedly approves of women clergy does as her female vicar was very good to her when her parents died, as a counsellor. .

I understand your words when referring ti eg the so called catholic women priest group, but easier somehow when other denoms although I have never been a member of a church with a woman in charge and would not like to be. And a woman Bishop

I’m not sure what you’re confused about.
I was responding to the topic, especially this:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

Originally Posted by goout View Post
It’s not a matter of the Church forbidding something. It’s an existential thing based in the Incarnation.
Christ is a man.
Forbidding is when someone has the capacity or the right to do something and is denied it.
The problem becomes that some people see the priesthood as a matter of rights and/or power. The Church does not see the priesthood as a position of power and privilege but rather as a vocation of service.

 

[Contarini]

It’s not a matter of the Church forbidding something. It’s an existential thing based in the Incarnation.
Christ is a man.

Right. The question is why that is relevant for ordination (any more than an of the other particulars of Christ’s humanity), and why it is relevant for ordination but not baptism.

All Christians are saved by sharing in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation. The Catholic position makes Christ’s maleness relevant with regard to ordination but not baptism. I have yet to see an entirely adequate explanation of why.

In short, the Christological/Incarnational argument seems to me to work for, not against, women’s ordination, and I have yet to hear a good response to it.

Accusing proponents of women’s ordination of just being concerned with power is a straw man, just as accusations of “sexism” are on the other side. The real question is theological.

Edwin

 

[Kay_Cee]

God has already given women one of the greatest gifts in the universe.

For this year’s Mothers’ Day I wrote a short blog post comparing it with the priesthood. You can find the post here: reflections911.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/mothers-day

 

[Rosebud77]

God has already given women one of the greatest gifts in the universe.

For this year’s Mothers’ Day I wrote a short blog post comparing it with the priesthood. You can find the post here: reflections911.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/mothers-day

 

[Contarini]

God has already given women one of the greatest gifts in the universe.

For this year’s Mothers’ Day I wrote a short blog post comparing it with the priesthood. You can find the post here: reflections911.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/mothers-day

I know you say you don’t mean to downplay fatherhood, but it seems to me that that’s exactly what you are doing. That’s why I find this comparison really wide of the mark.

Eve Tushnet did help me see more value in it by meditating on the implications of a “motherly” view of the priesthood. And while you don’t go as far as she does, you are gesturing in that direction. I also really like the point about the Blessed Virgin bringing God to the people and thus in a sense combining the two roles (I get that you’re not saying that she was sacramentally ordained as a priest, of course!) So perhaps I need to rethink my knee-jerk reaction to this.

 

[1lucy1]

God has already given women one of the greatest gifts in the universe.

For this year’s Mothers’ Day I wrote a short blog post comparing it with the priesthood. You can find the post here: reflections911.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/mothers-day

not all women are mothers (infertility, those who are not called to be moms), I don’t think the whole comparison of “women can give birth, guys can’t” whenever priesthood is mentioned is appropriate. (don’t bring up spritual motherhood, that’s never the same, and guys can technically nurture and care for others, they aren’t stopped from that, while girls are stopped from becoming priests solely because of their gender.)

I personally don’t care much about female priests, it has never been an issue for me, but I do get slightly annoyed when some people try to sugarcoat things and act like there is an equivalent, so I apologise if I sound rude

the complementary role to motherhood, is fatherhood (as in fathers, not priests).

 

[goout]

Right. The question is why that is relevant for ordination (any more than an of the other particulars of Christ’s humanity), and why it is relevant for ordination but not baptism.

All Christians are saved by sharing in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation. The Catholic position makes Christ’s maleness relevant with regard to ordination but not baptism. I have yet to see an entirely adequate explanation of why.

In short, the Christological/Incarnational argument seems to me to work for, not against, women’s ordination, and I have yet to hear a good response to it.

Accusing proponents of women’s ordination of just being concerned with power is a straw man, just as accusations of “sexism” are on the other side. The real question is theological.

Edwin

Whoa. What?
How do you assume I am accusing anyone of anything? Our culture is wildly confused about the difference between vocation/position and service/power/authority.
I don’t know where to begin.

How about here:
Do you agree that Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate, and that he is male in his human nature? If you concur that Christ is observably male, how could that “work for women’s ordination” as you say?
The priesthood is the vocation to serve in Christ’s ministerial role. The priest is “in persona Christi”.

The way this is typically gotten around is to claim that the Incarnation is essentially not very meaningful.
We hear this all the time:
“Well yea Christ is a man in the Gospels but he could have just as easily been a woman. The fact that scripture says he is a man is a product of the cultural bias against women”.

The implications of relativizing the Incarnation are disastrous and are probably

 

[goout]

Right. The question is why that is relevant for ordination (any more than an of the other particulars of Christ’s humanity), and why it is relevant for ordination but not baptism.

All Christians are saved by sharing in the nature Christ assumed for our salvation. The Catholic position makes Christ’s maleness relevant with regard to ordination but not baptism. I have yet to see an entirely adequate explanation of why.

In short, the Christological/Incarnational argument seems to me to work for, not against, women’s ordination, and I have yet to hear a good response to it.

Accusing proponents of women’s ordination of just being concerned with power is a straw man, just as accusations of “sexism” are on the other side. The real question is theological.

Edwin

Whoa. What?
How do you assume I am accusing anyone of anything? Our culture is wildly confused about the difference between vocation/position and service/power/authority.
I don’t know where to begin.

How about here:
Do you agree that Christ is the second person of the Trinity incarnate, and that he is male in his human nature? If you concur that Christ is observably male, how could that “work for women’s ordination” as you say?
The priesthood is the vocation to serve in Christ’s ministerial role. The priest is “in persona Christi”.

The way this is typically gotten around is to claim that the Incarnation is essentially not very meaningful.
We hear this all the time:
“Well yea Christ is a man in the Gospels but he could have just as easily been a woman. The fact that scripture says he is a man is a product of the cultural bias against women”.

The implications of relativizing the Incarnation are disastrous and are probably best for another thread.

 

[alwayswill]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

**
you are wrongly equating submission with equality:**

the Son submits to the Father without being any less God…
The Father sends the Son : the Son never sends the Father.
Yet the Son is not unequal to the Father in His divinity…

in the same way
In the Church: women are to submit to the men.
that does not mean the women are on-equal to the men.

Christ is our model; not the feminist movement or culture

 

[benjohnson]

To be frank, there is a sexism problem in the church - we’ve done a lousy job in finding strong roles for women to become awesome parts of the Body of Christ.

This makes is hard to defend the male priesthood.

That said, I think we have to confidently rely on what God has revealed to us - priests are men.

 

[benjohnson]

Christ’s maleness relevant with regard to ordination but not baptism.

Perhaps it has to do with John the Baptist - while he was in line to become the a high-priest, he didn’t act in that role when baptizing with water. Also, mikveh attendants are both male and female.

 

[Padres1969]

A point I’ve raised, myself, of late. Though we do have our personal distinguishing characteristics.

Not to puff you both up two much. But your posts GKC and Contarini’s are some of the most insightful on this forum. Both of you need to post more often if possible.

 

[Padres1969]

not all women are mothers (infertility, those who are not called to be moms), I don’t think the whole comparison of “women can give birth, guys can’t” whenever priesthood is mentioned is appropriate. (don’t bring up spritual motherhood, that’s never the same, and guys can technically nurture and care for others, they aren’t stopped from that, while girls are stopped from becoming priests solely because of their gender.)

I personally don’t care much about female priests, it has never been an issue for me, but I do get slightly annoyed when some people try to sugarcoat things and act like there is an equivalent, so I apologise if I sound rude
**
the complementary role to motherhood, is fatherhood (as in fathers, not priests). **

Thank you for stating this. Motherhood is so often equated with the priesthood as an “complimentary” or “equal” gift that women are afforded but men are not as a partial explanation as to why men alone are able to be priests when women are not. But that ignores the actual equal to motherhood which is fatherhood. And frankly as a father I find the apparent diminishment of what fatherhood is by that position a tad insulting. Fatherhood is an equally important role for a father, and for their child, as motherhood is for a mother and child. And just as a man can’t be a mother, a woman can’t be a father. The two roles are both mutually exclusive to the sexes and yet co-equal to the other role.

Priesthood is not a corresponding equal replacement for men compared to motherhood.

 

[goout]

Thank you for stating this. Motherhood is so often equated with the priesthood as an “complimentary” or “equal” gift that women are afforded but men are not as a partial explanation as to why men alone are able to be priests when women are not. But that ignores the actual equal to motherhood which is fatherhood. And frankly as a father I find the apparent diminishment of what fatherhood is by that position a tad insulting. Fatherhood is an equally important role for a father, and for their child, as motherhood is for a mother and child. And just as a man can’t be a mother, a woman can’t be a father. The two roles are both mutually exclusive to the sexes and yet co-equal to the other role.

Priesthood is not a corresponding equal replacement for men compared to motherhood.

“Unique” describes the various vocations.
Human beings are equal in human dignity and rights before the law etc… but we are unique in our vocations.

Vocation=“call from God”. I am a male. I do not have a right to claim priesthood for myself. I am not called to the vocation. The fact that I am equal in human dignity to my parish priest doesn’t confer me the right to be a priest.

Motherhood is unique. Men are not mothers. They are not *forbidden to be *mothers, men simply are not.
Fatherhood is unique.
The priesthood is unique.
The role of Mary is wholly unique in salvation history. She has motherhood in common with all mothers, but she is wholly unique in her vocation.

 

[goout]

To be frank, there is a sexism problem in the church - we’ve done a lousy job in finding strong roles for women to become awesome parts of the Body of Christ.

This makes is hard to defend the male priesthood.

That said, I think we have to confidently rely on what God has revealed to us - priests are men.

People are sexist in our behavior towards one another.
The institution of the priesthood is not sexist.

Speaking for my parish, the strongest roles are all filled by women. And that is true for many parishes in the US. The priests in our parish do some catechesis, and some of this and some of that. But women run all the catechetical programs and sacrament prep.
Compose the petitions, compose the bulletin. Etc…

They do a great job. And their service is not an attempt at equality to the priesthood. It is unique and of value in itself.

 

[Padres1969]

“Unique” describes the various vocations.
Human beings are equal in human dignity and rights before the law etc… but we are unique in our vocations.

Vocation=“call from God”. I am a male. I do not have a right to claim priesthood for myself. I am not called to the vocation. The fact that I am equal in human dignity to my parish priest doesn’t confer me the right to be a priest.

Motherhood is unique. Men are not mothers. They are not *forbidden to be *mothers, men simply are not.
Fatherhood is unique.
The priesthood is unique.
The role of Mary is wholly unique in salvation history. She has motherhood in common with all mothers, but she is wholly unique in her vocation.

Guess that’s where we’ll have to disagree. I don’t see motherhood and fatherhood as unique vocations. Rather they’re two co-equal parts of the same single vocation, parenthood.

The priesthood by comparison is a single vocation that is not biologically required to be unique as you put it to males.

 

[benjohnson]

People are sexist in our behavior towards one another.
The institution of the priesthood is not sexist.

Speaking for my parish, the strongest roles are all filled by women. And that is true for many parishes in the US. The priests in our parish do some catechesis, and some of this and some of that. But women run all the catechetical programs and sacrament prep.
Compose the petitions, compose the bulletin. Etc…

They do a great job. And their service is not an attempt at equality to the priesthood. It is unique and of value in itself.

Agreed! And awesome that your church has done so well!

 

[GKC]

Not to puff you both up two much. But your posts GKC and Contarini’s are some of the most insightful on this forum. Both of you need to post more often if possible.

Especially Contarini. Who was the respondent on the first post I ever made anywhere, maybe 15 years ago. So far back we go.

 

[carefullytread]

When the conversation turns to whether ‘maleness’ is required for the priesthood, I am reminded of the last saying in theGospel of Thomas (from the Doresse translation):

Simon Peter says to them: “Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!” Jesus says: “See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven.”

This is a gnostic gospel and obviously not part of the canon, and moreover, saying 114 is the last one and often thought to have been added later. So we have a dubious gnostic gospel with a saying that probably wasn’t even included in the original. Which is to say that it’s doubtful this saying had anything to do with Jesus.

But what it does show is that the people of this time could write down a sentence like that and have it make sense to them. What could it mean for woman to become male and worthy of walking with the disciples and entering the Kingdom of Heaven?

Does it mean that what women lack is the will to act the part of a male and they can be called to take up the mantle of maleness? Does it mean that women inherently lack some spiritual zest that Jesus can impart upon them?

I really don’t know. But facing my own ignorance of what this saying could mean reminds me that the ideas of what maleness meant to people of that time may be very far away from what it means to us today.