Validity of female "ordination"

[tomhuth]

She is not a Roman Catholic therefore this is a non issue.

Well, Anna Claire, I hear you, but she sincerely believes she is a validly ordained priest and bishop. If I sincerely believed that I am a validly ordained priest, when I’m not, you would be doing me a favor by attempting to correct me. Analogously, as long as she seems open to discussing it, I may have an obligation to try to help her.

 

[Frank_Hagen]

I hope that you do not mind some (name removed by moderator)ut from a Non-Denominational Evangelist.
I have noticed that in many faiths there are a rise of female preachers, teachers and such. Many are really rather rebellious to sound doctrine.
Many use one or two scriptures to back female ministers but overlook the abundance.
The word of God says that in the multitude of counsellers there is safety. That safety being from the wrath of God.
While there may have been one or two women in a leadership position it is the multitude that we should strive to follow.
In terms of those saved as the days of Noah and Lot when the Lord returns. Both were straight males that were the head of their households. Noah’s sons were straight males that were the head of their household.
Since the church is the “household of faith” it would apply.
Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt. Not his wife or sister.
Aaron was the High Priest. Not his sister Miriam.
Abraham was the one whom God made the covenant with. Not Sarah.
Going down the list it was Isaac and Jacob that had that covenant. Not their wives or sisters.
When the Lord chose his disciples whom he called Apostles they were all men.
Paul the Apostle unto the Gentiles was a man.
If the church should ordain ministers for positions of leadership they should ordain men.
The final one I’ll mention is Christ and his church.
From Genesis to Revelation the word of God is about the Lord giving his life on a tree at Calvary for the very betrothed he would return for to take to his wedding supper. She would then go from being his betrothed to his bride.
Women fail to see that they are a type and shadow of the church as well as the bride of Christ.
When women want to lead and be ordained they aren’t satisfied with their role.
Rather than be a type and shadow of the church and bride they want to be a type and shadow of Christ. That’s the man’s place in life and in a marriage.

 

[Rence]

Impossibility of a physical nature for the one. Impossibility of a spiritual nature for the other.

Exactly, and the two are not the same. The physical barrier to men bearing children is obvious and not subject to arguement. The ‘spiritual’ inability of a woman to be ordained is not obvious, it’s a rule of the Church, believed by those who have complete trust and faith in the Church.

It is not merely a “rule” of the Church.

Yes, it is a rule of the Church and since the Church teaches that it speaks on behalf of Christ, it can say whatever it wants and say that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Church said “we declare that 2 + 2 = 5” then that’s what is has to be, and we know how “true” that is. It’s another one of those teachings can’t can be proven, and is a matter of faith, and has no rationale. One is better off just saying, “cuz the Church says so” rather than grasping at straws that make the matter worse due to lack of logic.

 

[Rence]

Rence, a lot of people empathize with your sentiment.

What sentiment was that? The sentiment that the rule doesn’t make sense and sounds like it was merely made up? Because I have no desire to become a priest. So it’s not like I have a dog in the fight. You won’t see me picketing, or lobbying, or writing nasty letters to the Pope in opposition of his decisions regarding this matter. It’s simply that the rule sounds made-up-as-you-go along. While you are confident that it will never happen, I’m thinking it will happen someday, and I’m totally okay with that. When priests are finally allowed to be married again, and when women are ordained, I’ll be happy to welcome the change, but it’s not like I’ll be lining up to be ordained or encouraging anyone to do so.

But Rence, why do you suppose Our Lord himself ordained only those hapless, spineless men who fearfully abandoned him before his Passion, when he had a number of faithful women followers who never abandoned him that he could have ordained, including his own sinless mother?

Women were not allowed to leave their families and go off with Jesus like the men were. They would bring shame to their families. As sinners, who brought shame to their families, the message would have been lost. It was hard enough for the men to preach the news of Jesus. Why do you suppose priests can’t get married, yet St. Peter was married when he traveled with Jesus. To me, it’s just another rule decided by a Pope.

 

[Rence]

She is not a Roman Catholic therefore this is a non issue.

That’s right, she’s not even Roman Catholic. I’m sure she takes her role very seriously in her Church, just like anyone takes their role in their religion very seriously. She’s no less dedicated just because she practices a different religion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is this a testament that the Orthodox Church has gained the same prominence as the Catholic Church in that people recognize it as a true Church, and that in a sense that these false groups feign affiliation with either or both to give a false sense of validity to unsuspecting Christians?

 

[AJV]

Women were not allowed to leave their families and go off with Jesus like the men were. They would bring shame to their families. As sinners, who brought shame to their families, the message would have been lost.

Though the position of women was clearly not “modern”, and society was certainly patriarchal it is not necessarily exactly like popular explanation would have it. There is a lot of literature (and of course debated) on gender roles in Second Temple Judaism, even by non-Christian/progressive authors which argue that the role of women at time time was a lot more egalitarian than later centuries and several ideas have arisen other sources like projecting back later rabbinic decrees. If you are interested, I would suggest “Women & the historical Jesus: feminist myths of Christian origins” by feminist scholar Kathleen Corley or Levine’s “Feminist Companion to the New Testament”.

As for sinners bringing shame – I suppose it depends on perspective, but there quite a lot of shame in the central person of message associating with ritually unclean, tax collectors, servants, etc. and basically being executed as a criminal.

Even if one assumes that women would be shamed for traveling around, those following Jesus around the region were then already shamed.

Why do you suppose priests can’t get married, yet St. Peter was married when he traveled with Jesus. To me, it’s just another rule decided by a Pope.

Of course that’s a rule decided by a Pope - the Church has never claimed otherwise.

 

[tomhuth]

… It’s simply that the rule sounds made-up-as-you-go along.

I’m sure it does seem that way, if one fails to understand that masculinity and femininity are cosmic archetypes, running through everything, both visible created nature (like biological maleness and femaleness) and the spiritual (God is masculine with respect to the created universe - transcendent to it, coming into it from without to create within it and spiritually impregnate it, hence all the masculine imagery in Scripture of Hunter, King, Warrior, Husband - always He, never She.) The priest literally channels the presence of Christ in the sacraments - a priest must be male because Christ is male (still today!), Christ is male because God is masculine. How could a woman possibly perform that role?

While you are confident that it will never happen, I’m thinking it will happen someday, …

Then you may be unaware that on this matter the Church has repeatedly spoken infallibly. In two thousand years the Church has never contradicted herself on any infallibly determined issue. It would be like the Church deciding to teach that God is not a Trinity. It’s not going to happen, my friend. As Peter Kreeft says, the issue isn’t whether the Church will have priestesses - she won’t. The issue is whether the would-be priestesses will have the Church.

Women were not allowed to leave their families and go off with Jesus like the men were.

But Rence, they did. There were many women followers of Christ. As I’ve already pointed out, they were the only ones who remained faithful to him!

Why do you suppose priests can’t get married, yet St. Peter was married when he traveled with Jesus. To me, it’s just another rule decided by a Pope.

Rence, the Church is quite clear that the celibacy rule is a *discipline *of the Church, one recommended by St. Paul, but still something that is changeable, and has changed over time. In fact, there are married Latin-rite Catholic priests today. The male-only priesthood is something altogether different - you are conflating the two issues in your mind and therefore muddling your thinking on them.

 

[Usige]

I don’t really understand that analogy. A man can’t have a baby, not because another human has told him he can’t, but because he’s not physiologically able. Both a man and a woman are physiologically capable of entering a priesthood. The only difference is, the woman is told she can’t. There is no other impediment but her gender, defined by human limits.

Rence, it is not about physical or spiritual capability, it’s about what Christ himself did.

You are familiar that for a valid consecration that the priest must use bread made of wheat and wine made of grapes, correct? Substituting rice cakes and grape juice is not allowed because that is not what Christ used. The church cannot change what Jesus did himself.

Female ordination is the same. Trying to confer holy orders on a woman is like using rice cakes and grape juice. It has zero effect because the subject/matter of the sacrament is incorrect and therefore “won’t take”. No matter how much people want to see female ordination it will never happen because it can’t. Call it a “rule” all you want, but that doesn’t change what Christ himself instituted.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is this a testament that the Orthodox Church has gained the same prominence as the Catholic Church in that people recognize it as a true Church, and that in a sense that these false groups feign affiliation with either or both to give a false sense of validity to unsuspecting Christians?

Yes. Exactly. The so called “Orthodox Catholic Church” of this woman is not-Orthodox, not-Catholic and not-a-Church. They call themselves that in order to appear legitimate to people who either don’t know better, or do know better but would rather allow themselves to be deceived because it’s convenient for them.

 

[tomhuth]

Yes. Exactly. The so called “Orthodox Catholic Church” of this woman is not-Orthodox, not-Catholic and not-a-Church. They call themselves that in order to appear legitimate to people who either don’t know better, or do know better but would rather allow themselves to be deceived because it’s convenient for them.

Only too true, Fr David. I mentioned in an earlier post that I became acquainted with these folks through a chance meeting of one of her colleagues at a funeral. He stood out to me because he was dressed in a Franciscan habit and was busily mingling among the attendees like a congressional candidate, giving an introduction of himself that went almost exactly like this: “I’m Fr. Chuck, my church is both Orthodox and Catholic. We don’t follow the Pope’s rules and we accept everyone just where they are in their spiritual journey. We allow everyone to receive the Eucharist no matter their faith tradition, we ordain women priests, we allow priests to marry, and we help divorced Catholics remarry without the bother of obtaining an annulment.” I had the distinct impression that he loves getting into crowds of Catholics to give his spiel in the hopes of attracting the ignorant and disaffected ones.

By the way, I’m almost certain that “Fr. Chuck” is a laicized Franciscan priest. I’ve tried to engage with him, but he won’t answer me. I’m praying for him mightily - I don’t judge his fate, but on the surface it seems he will have a lot to answer for when he stands before the Lord in judgment.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t really understand that analogy. A man can’t have a baby, not because another human has told him he can’t, but because he’s not physiologically able. Both a man and a woman are physiologically capable of entering a priesthood. The only difference is, the woman is told she can’t. There is no other impediment but her gender, defined by human limits.

I really think that if you want properly catechise someone regarding this rule of the Church, that the analogies should be comparable and make sense. But it’s up to you. If it works, and you get people to understand by your analogy, that’s great. But I don’t see how it can work. In fact, I never questioned this teaching until I came to this forum and heard all the ‘reasons’ why women “can’t” be ordained. I don’t buy it. It’s not a problem for me because I’m not in any way interested in entering religious life. But it certainly doesn’t make or break my day that women are pressuring the Vatican to ordain women. I’ll put it this way: when women get ordained, I certainly won’t be among those unhappy, that’s for sure. I would welcome the change.

“When”, Rence? Not even an ‘if and when?’

Despite Pope John Paul’s words later themselves confirmed to state an infallible teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women?

You STILL think that somehow a bunch of people living in AD 2011 ‘know better’ than the apostles, the early Church Fathers, the major theologians, even the first "reformers’?

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again --and this is not directed at you personally, Rence, but more as an observation to ALLliving in these times:

The main SIN of those alive today is PRIDE. The people who ‘mock’ at the idea of a God who made Adam and Eve and that ‘eating an apple’ should ‘condemn all humanity to torture’ are themselves ‘eating that apple’, engaging in continuous ‘pride’–setting themselves up as gods–every day, in hundreds of ways. “We” know best, "we’ do everything best, we are more loving than God, more caring than God, we run things better than God, we don’t need Him because we can do it all better ourselves. . .

May God have mercy on us.

 

[Bookcat]

Exactly, and the two are not the same. The physical barrier to men bearing children is obvious and not subject to arguement. The ‘spiritual’ inability of a woman to be ordained is not obvious, it’s a rule of the Church, believed by those who have complete trust and faith in the Church.
.

It is not simply a “rule” of the Church. It is an infallible teaching of the Church. It has the certainty of the authority of Christ the Son of God. More certain than that I cannot be a mother.

But yes of course those who do not know the reality of the Church may not accept such. Just as they may not accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But their lack of acceptance does not make it in reality an open question. Jesus is who he is.

 

[Bookcat]

and since the Church teaches that it speaks on behalf of Christ, it can say whatever it wants and say that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. If the Church said “we declare that 2 + 2 = 5” then that’s what is has to be, and we know how “true” that is. It’s another one of those teachings can’t can be proven, and is a matter of faith, and has no rationale. One is better off just saying, “cuz the Church says so” rather than grasping at straws that make the matter worse due to lack of logic.

Such would not be the correct understanding of the nature of the Church or of her teaching.

Truth does not contradict truth. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit in terms of infallibility from saying such silly things as 2+2=5. No worries.

 

[SpectatorX]

No, the person being ordained is the subject of Holy Orders, not the matter. The matter is something different - various sources claim it is either the instruments of the office, such as the chalice, or the laying on of hands.

But you are right in principle. The valid subject of Holy Orders is a man, and attempting this on a woman results in an invalid, simulation of a sacrament.

“Like baptizing an eggplant” might be an amusing illustration, if I may needlessly interject.

The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not “as strangers or silent spectators,” but as participants “in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly”

I resemble that remark…

 

[SpectatorX]

I don’t really understand that analogy. A man can’t have a baby, not because another human has told him he can’t, but because he’s not physiologically able. Both a man and a woman are physiologically capable of entering a priesthood. The only difference is, the woman is told she can’t. There is no other impediment but her gender, defined by human limits.

I really think that if you want properly catechise someone regarding this rule of the Church, that the analogies should be comparable and make sense. But it’s up to you. If it works, and you get people to understand by your analogy, that’s great. But I don’t see how it can work. In fact, I never questioned this teaching until I came to this forum and heard all the ‘reasons’ why women “can’t” be ordained. I don’t buy it. It’s not a problem for me because I’m not in any way interested in entering religious life. But it certainly doesn’t make or break my day that women are pressuring the Vatican to ordain women. I’ll put it this way: when women get ordained, I certainly won’t be among those unhappy, that’s for sure. I would welcome the change.

You seem to be conflating “can’t” with “won’t” in such a way as to question the ontology of Catholic theology. This amonts to an equal conflation of Church teaching with mere mutable opinion. This has a certain nihilistic aroma which has set some of my coreligionists’ emotions aflutter. If you believe that the only reason women can not be ordained is that nobody performs the appropriate actions, your question is against the very theology of ordination and its only consistent expression from the very foundation of Christendom. If you think the Pope or a council or a wide enough consensus can overturn such a thing in Catholicism, your understanding of Catholicism is itself fundamentally flawed.

In concision: If Catholicism is true, women’s ordination is impossible. If women’s ordination is possible, Catholicism is untrue. To convice a Catholic that women’s ordination is possible, you must dissuade him of his Catholicism. You are thus barking up the wrong tree via this argumentation. Equally, those who wish to dissuade purveyors of women’s ordination with arguments toward form, matter, and subject must first establish the axioms which necessitate these assertions.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Women were not allowed to leave their families and go off with Jesus like the men were. They would bring shame to their families. As sinners, who brought shame to their families, the message would have been lost. It was hard enough for the men to preach the news of Jesus. Why do you suppose priests can’t get married, yet St. Peter was married when he traveled with Jesus. To me, it’s just another rule decided by a Pope.

Actually if you know your Biblical history especially your OT history you know that not having female priests was the countercultural thing to do. Judaism was the only religion that did not have female priests. Since Christ was speaking openly of welcoming Gentiles a study of other religions would be appropriate. Almost every single one had female priestesses. Therefore Christ ordaining only men had a much bolder underline. Also, some of the females present such as Mary of Magdalene and even the Blessed Virgin Mary had not families to raise so again your argument falls flat.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Is this a testament that the Orthodox Church has gained the same prominence as the Catholic Church in that people recognize it as a true Church, and that in a sense that these false groups feign affiliation with either or both to give a false sense of validity to unsuspecting Christians?

No these women are not affiliating with the Orthodox Church either. The Orthodox does not allow female Ordination. There is a schismatic group that affiliates with neither the CC or the OC called the Orthodox Catholic group or something to that affect in order to give a false sense of validity to unsuspecting Christians from these groups that may not understand these teachings. I would not say that someone using the Orthodox name would take away from validity as we share MANY doctrines with the Orthodox Church and will probably see Communion with them on some level in our lifetime. (well at least mine I don’t know how old everyone on this thread is.)

 

[paduard]

You seem to be conflating “can’t” with “won’t” in such a way as to question the ontology of Catholic theology. This amonts to an equal conflation of Church teaching with mere mutable opinion. This has a certain nihilistic aroma which has set some of my coreligionists’ emotions aflutter. If you believe that the only reason women can not be ordained is that nobody performs the appropriate actions, your question is against the very theology of ordination and its only consistent expression from the very foundation of Christendom. If you think the Pope or a council or a wide enough consensus can overturn such a thing in Catholicism, your understanding of Catholicism is itself fundamentally flawed.

In concision: If Catholicism is true, women’s ordination is impossible. If women’s ordination is possible, Catholicism is untrue. To convice a Catholic that women’s ordination is possible, you must dissuade him of his Catholicism. You are thus barking up the wrong tree via this argumentation. Equally, those who wish to dissuade purveyors of women’s ordination with arguments toward form, matter, and subject must first establish the axioms which necessitate these assertions.

Yes I agree.

Regarding the last sentence concerning axioms - I cannot see any ‘supplementary reason’ so to speak - for not considering such. However such has not so far been established within this topic - in one sense not being theologically necessary, yet as an aside is of intellectual interest.

 

[Blossoming]

Such would not be the correct understanding of the nature of the Church or of her teaching.

Truth does not contradict truth. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit in terms of infallibility from saying such silly things as 2+2=5. No worries.

This is correct.

The best thing about the Church is that it is the one true faith and consistent. Women are not called to be priests but there are many ways in which women can respectfully act on behalf of their faith.

Not all men are called to be priests either, even if they have a strong desire to become priests. The selection for ordination is very specific and those chosen fulfill the requirements.