Why aren't women allowed to be priests?

[bibleguy180]

Ahh I see… I suppose you’re one of those people who still think women shouldn’t vote

 

[cargau]

But Jesus never chose any Americans to be apostles. But certainly there is no such law that would prevent me from becoming a priest if I feel called.

Actually, Bibleguy, you ask a very good question…

Becoming a priest is not like getting a “job” or even landing a “career”. Becoming a priest is a grace giving, sacramental calling. Unlike any other job, the priest acts in the very person of Christ. When, at Mass, the priest says “This is my body”, it is not his own body he refers to but that of the Redeemer. When he says I absolve you…it is not his own action to absolve but rather that of Christ, himself. Since Christ was a man (not a woman), it makes sense that only a man can fill this holy role.

When ever a sacrament occurs the signs (words, action and form) that signify the much greater reality must be appropriate, consistent and uniform with what Jesus intended. For example, my daughter has celiac (No wheat), yet in order for the reality of Jesus’ real presence to occur, the host must contain wheat. Is that fair? That question is not really relevent…

The Church is powerless to change the actions, words and forms Jesus used. We cannot, for example, hand out potato chips and say that is the Eucharist. In the same sense, we cannot say that women can be priests when Christ never used this form Himself.

As to the question of Americans…Christ did make it known that He came to save all men. He told His disciples to baptize all nations…Ordaining an American does not change the form any more than wheat grown on American soil changes the form of the Eucharist.

The priesthood is a precious gift. It is something that needs to be protected and reverred. It is not something that should be one more cog in the social engineering machine agenda. Rather, looking at the manner in which one is called should be based on what Jesus taught and did. And, it must be imitated at every ordination…

That does not mean that a woman is “less” than a man. Remember who was at the foot of the cross with our Lord as he was dying. Women have a great role to play in salvation history starting with their primary God-given role as mother.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

1 Cor 9:5* – Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?*

“Cephas” was another name for Peter. Paul was basically saying, “Don’t I have the right to have a wife, just like Peter and the other apostles, or Jesus’ family, do?”

–Mike

OR a sister. It did not state specifically a wife ONLY. A sister (or a niece, or unmarried female relative, or even a widowed mother-in-law) is not necessarily the same as a wife. That’s why it said a sister OR a wife, not simply ‘a wife’. “Sister” would have been understood (in the context of the time) as not simply one’s full blood sister but as a female relative, unmarried and therefore without her ‘own’ protector.

So basically, you’re making your own interpretation and trying to ‘fit’ it on something which is not limited to your interpretation.

 

[minkymurph]

I haven’t read all the posts here but as far as I know, the only things women cannot do is offer the Mass and hear confessions.

This is because the maleness of Christ is important and Catholics believe the Mass is an actual sacrifice. I believe it has something to do with the origninal sin of Adam and Eve being different; Adam was more culpible. Paul develops a theological arguement in relation to this and women being saved through childbearing. If anyone wants to expand on this I would be delighted to hear it as I have an intrest in this topic. If my memory serves me right, all animals sacrificed under the Mosiac Law had to be male.

Don’t think they had to be celibate.

The problem is not the maleness of Christ and priests but the abuse of power or privilege. God said it would happen in Genesis! Think of the way Kings of England treated their queens and the way women are treated in some Muslim countries. Being a priest does not mean you are spiritually stronger, more intellegent, more knowledgeable, and men are not called to the priesthood for the purpose of having power over others. That’s a human distortion of God’s purpose. In recent years the Church has done a lot to restore the human diginity of women.

Celibacy is another matter. I’m not against celibacy for those who are given the ‘gift of self control’ and I think it is beneficial for the Church to have in it’s ranks those who devote their lives to God. I can’t think of a valid theological reason why the person who offers the Mass cannot be married.

 

[mpartyka]

OR a sister. It did not state specifically a wife ONLY. A sister (or a niece, or unmarried female relative, or even a widowed mother-in-law) is not necessarily the same as a wife. That’s why it said a sister OR a wife, not simply ‘a wife’. “Sister” would have been understood (in the context of the time) as not simply one’s full blood sister but as a female relative, unmarried and therefore without her ‘own’ protector.

So basically, you’re making your own interpretation and trying to ‘fit’ it on something which is not limited to your interpretation.

“Sister” also could have been understood as “a Christian woman” according to the context of the time. And there is no “OR” in that verse differentiating between “sister” and “wife,” which more likely means that the two ought to be considered one – a “sister-wife” or, more appropriately, a “Christian wife”. This is how most Bibles translate that verse:

KJV - 1Cr 9:5 - Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

NKJV - 1Cr 9:5 - Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

NLT - 1Cr 9:5 - Don’t we have the right to bring a Christian wife along with us as the other disciples and the Lord’s brothers and Peter* do?

NIV - 1Cr 9:5 - Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas*?

ESV - 1Cr 9:5 - Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife*, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

• Greek a sister as wife

NASB - 1Cr 9:5 - Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

RSV - 1Cr 9:5 - Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

ASV - 1Cr 9:5 - Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

YNG - 1Cr 9:5 - have we not authority a sister – a wife – to lead about, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

DBY - 1Cr 9:5 - have we not a right to take round a sister [as] wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

WEB - 1Cr 9:5 - Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

HNV - 1Cr 9:5 - Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kefa?

I’d be curious to know if your own Bible translates the verse differently.

–Mike

 

[Califman831]

Why? How is what I said any more sexist than this?

Eph 5:22-24 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Pet 3:1-6 – Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

1 Cor 14:34-35 – For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The principle is clear: The wife is to learn from her husband, who is head of the household. The husband, in turn, is to make sure he learns from the priest, who is head of the household of God, which is comprised of all the households in the congregation.

For a woman to have priestly authority over a man would introduce confusion in this order in the ways I have already explained.

I realize this makes some women chafe because they think that a wife’s reverence for her husband, and his leadership in the household, ought to be earned by him rather than simply be his given right as husband, but this view is clearly in opposition to Scripture. To me, then, the lesson for any woman contemplating marriage is, “Make sure you marry a man whom you find worthy of being your head, because once you’re married, that’s what he’ll be.”

–Mike

Amen brother

 

[bibleguy180]

Regarding the Bible verses: I think we have to look at it differently now because of the time change. If Jesus and the early Church had preached equality for women, the Romans would’ve killed them off alot sooner.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Regarding the Bible verses: I think we have to look at it differently now because of the time change. If Jesus and the early Church had preached equality for women, the Romans would’ve killed them off alot sooner.

Oh yeah. Cultures like the Greeks and Romans who in fact USED priestesses would have so totally not been down with the SAME type of practice by the Christians.

And they were persecuting them, but they would have somehow what, persecuted them MORE?

Yeah, it’s all about how women were SO persecuted that GOD HIMSELF couldn’t MAKE the big bad MEN treat em right. Wah wah.

(I’m a woman BTW).

IMO the only thing lower than your (generic you) opinion of the average man–and by extension, Jesus Christ who didn’t ‘step it up enough’ by your skewed ‘logic’ above, is your opinion of women. . .whom you think are gullible enough to fall for the inverted, “you were so victimized, therefore you are now entitled to the world, bwa-ha-ha” type of revisionism.

WERE women mistreated throughout history? Yes, many were. So were many men. And children. Various social groups. You name it, there was somebody to ‘persecute’ somebody else. So?

Jesus Christ was NOT ‘mistreating women’ in His institution of priesthood any more than He was ‘mistreating men’ when He created women with a uterus and men without.

The priesthood isn’t a job or role that anybody, male or female, is ‘entitled to’ by right. Nor is it some ‘prize’ that is being DENIED to one group ‘unfairly’.

Get OVER yourselves, is what I feel like saying to the screaming Mimis (and the men they’ve somehow managed to either guilt or otherwise intimidate). You want to serve God? Have a cup of humility and OBEY Him instead of demanding that HE obey YOU.

 

[choy]

Paul advocate celibacy in general (i.e., as the preferred way of life for everyone, if they could bear it and were meant by God to bear it), but when advising Timothy and Titus on how to recruit new bishops, he did not forbid them from choosing married men. Indeed, he encouraged Timothy and Titus to select men whose headship over their own households were exemplary of the headship they would have over the household of God – hardly a workable guideline if he were simultaneously encouraging Timothy and Titus to pick celibate men.

–Mike

no they didn’t.
but remember priestly celibacy is not a Divine or Canon Law of the Church. its a discipline imposed on Latin Rite presbyters, and for the entirety of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches for bishops. Paul made the case for people who serve the Lord to be celibate. and the primary of these servants are those who receive Holy Orders

 

[mpartyka]

Paul made the case for people who serve the Lord to be celibate. and the primary of these servants are those who receive Holy Orders

Paul did state that an advantage of celibacy was the ability to serve God without having to be concerned also about a spouse and children, but he did not state anything in his epistles advocating that priests or bishops be either single or celibate within marriage. Indeed, consider Paul’s instructions in 1 Tim 3:2,4-5 and Titus 1:5-7:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;…one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)…

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God…

Likewise deacons in 1 Tim 3:12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”

Like I said before, the Church is “the household of God” (per Paul in Eph 2:9), and in Paul’s mind, one good indicator of whether a man should rule over the household of God is the record of how he has ruled over his own household. This is not to say that Paul would have rejected or discouraged single men from becoming bishops – far from it, given that by all accounts Timothy and Titus were single men themselves – but he certainly never considered being married a strike against a candidate for Holy Orders.

–Mike

 

[Major_Tom]

Um, a widower has certainly been REALLY MARRIED so I fail to understand why you phrased it in that way? As we have mentioned rather frequently in this thread, nobody has disagreed that some of the apostles were probably married, or that married men had served at some times/places (and in some rites still do). That is not the point, and we aren’t trying to argue that St. Peter wasn’t ‘really married’. A widower has been married. We are trying to point out that the argument of ‘see, they were all married then, should be married now’ is a false one. That’s all. Some were, some were not, but there is no rock solid evidence either way that St. Peter was absolutely ‘married’ with a living wife or absolutely ‘widowed’ and therefore with no living wife. Only his mother-in-law is mentioned. It is specious reasoning to insist that he absolutely HAD TO HAVE a living wife because of the mention of the mother-in-law. And if people make that kind of ‘jump’ then they’ll make other incorrect ‘jumps’ as well if they aren’t put straight. Neither you nor I can say with absolutely certainty that St. Peter was married with a living wife or that he was a widower. . .you must admit that there is a possibility of either.

And with the possibility comes the sinking of the argument of ‘they were then, they must now’ and comes the fact of 'they could have been either then (married or single), they can be now, but the majority of them for pastoral reason choose to be single. THEY choose.

Maybe I misunderstood the comment that I responded to. As you stated, my point was: Jesus selected a married man, Peter, as the rock of his church. I thought that your comment, stating that he might have been widowed, was a counterpoint along the lines of “well, he chose widowers, not married men or men with families”. I wasn’t trying to suggest that being a widower qualifies you as “not really” married. Sorry for the confusion…

And with the possibility comes the sinking of the argument of ‘they were then, they must now’ and comes the fact of 'they could have been either then (married or single), they can be now, but the majority of them for pastoral reason choose to be single. THEY choose.

Well, that’s not exactly it. I’m not suggesting that “they did it then, they should do it now”. The point is more like: societal forces shape policy, including church policy. To suggest that you can change THIS qualification for priesthood, but THAT can’t even be discussed, doesn’t follow, logically, with me in this case.

To illustrate that point that other forces can influence policy: Jesus chooses married men to be apostles, Paul advocates the opposite: celibate men. He makes this change within a few years of Jesus’ death, so it’s not like major events have transpired, or major societal change has occurred. No one has a problem with this change.

I have read the other posts regarding Adam, original sin, etc… I’m sorry, I must be dense, that just makes no sense! A man committed the original sin… so only men can atone for it by becoming priests? Only they have the “burden”, I think one poster phrased it? Seems very convoluted. Worse yet, convoluted with no real purpose.

 

[Major_Tom]

I think it bears repeating–as obviously too many haven’t heard it, or are trying to ignore it, that it is NOT a question about ‘allowing women to be priests’.

The fact of the matter is, The Church has no AUTHORITY to ordain women.

Can’t be done. There is simply no way possible for the Church to ordain women; it does not have authority.

The Church likewise has no authority to confect pizza and sangria as the Eucharist, though obviously pizza dough and bread have great similarity (wheat and water go into both, but pizza dough ‘adds’ other things, especially toppings!), and sangria contains wine but likewise has fruit juice added.

There is nothing wrong with eating pizza and drinking sangria. They are perfectly lovely ‘foods’ and ‘drinks’. . .but they simply are not valid matter for the Eucharist.

And since they are not, the Church has no authority to confect the Eucharist with something that is not valid matter.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you trying to suggest that the Church has no authority to ordain women?

Sorry, couldn’t resist!


I, for one, do realize that this is Church policy. I think the basis for it rests on points that I don’t agree with, so I merely point them out for discussion. I have read the links and basis for the decision, but a lot of it seems to rely on “well, it’s been that way, we can’t change it”. Many generations, simply repeating the same point over and over, doesn’t necessarily make the logic of the argument any stronger.

I’ll try and wrap up with one more point and then let the issue rest. Probably have to make it tomorrow, it’s gettin’ close to bedtime…

 

[mpartyka]

Jesus chooses married men to be apostles, Paul advocates the opposite: celibate men.

Where on earth do you get that idea? See my post just prior to yours.

–Mike

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you trying to suggest that the Church has no authority to ordain women?

Sorry, couldn’t resist! LOL, thank you. That gave me a good laugh, because I could see you meant it in fun. I don’t really lack a sense of humor --I hope!


I, for one, do realize that this is Church policy. I think the basis for it rests on points that I don’t agree with, so I merely point them out for discussion. I have read the links and basis for the decision, but a lot of it seems to rely on “well, it’s been that way, we can’t change it”. Many generations, simply repeating the same point over and over, doesn’t necessarily make the logic of the argument any stronger.

I’ll try and wrap up with one more point and then let the issue rest. Probably have to make it tomorrow, it’s gettin’ close to bedtime…

So sleepy. . .Thing is, it’s not 'Church policiy". It’s “God policy.” Church policy is discipline things (like celibate priests. Stuff that can change). Church policy is having Mass said in the EF (Latin) or the OF( vernacular).

GOD policy is stuff that doesn’t change. . .like God being THREE persons in one and not the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four. Things like the Eucharist being the Real Body and Blood of Christ, not just a ‘symbol.’

The Church has no more power to ordain women than it would to declare that from now on, God is TWO persons in one, or that the Eucharist will from now on be confected as beer and pizza. We can’t ‘change’ God’s teachings.

 

[Biedrik]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you trying to suggest that the Church has no authority to ordain women?

Sorry, couldn’t resist!


I, for one, do realize that this is Church policy. I think the basis for it rests on points that I don’t agree with, so I merely point them out for discussion. I have read the links and basis for the decision, but a lot of it seems to rely on “well, it’s been that way, we can’t change it”. Many generations, simply repeating the same point over and over, doesn’t necessarily make the logic of the argument any stronger.

I’ll try and wrap up with one more point and then let the issue rest. Probably have to make it tomorrow, it’s gettin’ close to bedtime…

The point of the idea that “it has been that way” is simply that we see no reason why we have any right to change this. It has been the rule since the Old Testament that the priests of God are to be men. Why should this suddenly change now? There is no reason to assume that this change should happen to be right now when it never was considered so before. The fact that it started along with feminism shows that it is in the end a human construct, and a human idea, not a divine one.

 

[DavidKays]

Why not? I just don’t seem to get it. I’ve never had it explained in a way that makes sense to me. Especially with the way the Church honors Mary and stuff. Any help?

Hi I am a Greek Orthodox Christian and I will put to you an Orthodox perspective. Basically we are not to ordained women at all and I will explain why. To put it bluntly by not allowing women to be priests saves the bishops alot of time. Now they only have to worry about the men. And many of then should not have been ordained! But that can be another story. Now back to the question of why women cannot and ever be ordained. This is the Orthodox position. We will never ordain women and hopefully you Catholics will not also. I believe it will be impossible anyway because here goes my arguement. Jesus is the Groom and the Church His Bride. The Bride is feminine and the Groom masculine. Now let us take it to the next step. The priest is married to his parish. Thus he becomes the groom and the parish his bride. See what we are getting at. The final step is the marriage between a man and a woman. The man is the Groom and the woman his Bride. So in each category there is a groom and there is a bride. In all 3 cases a woman always represents a bride. Therefore she cannot be a priest for she cannot represent being a groom. Do you see now why women cannot be priests. If this was the case then a woman representing the groom will be married to a bride. This is impossible for then a bride will be with a bride. Women cannot be priests for the simple reason they cannot represent being the groom. All the priests are grooms to their parishes which is their brides. Just as Jesus the Great Groom is married to His Bride the Church so to is the husband married to his bride. You cannot change this. God Bless!

 

[jmcrae]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, are you trying to suggest that the Church has no authority to ordain women?

Sorry, couldn’t resist!


I, for one, do realize that this is Church policy. I think the basis for it rests on points that I don’t agree with, so I merely point them out for discussion. I have read the links and basis for the decision, but a lot of it seems to rely on “well, it’s been that way, we can’t change it”.

This isn’t “Church policy” or “it’s been that way for so long that we can’t change it.” We are always changing things. Even before Vatican II, there were always changes being made to the discipline of the Church, and to various details of the Mass (the Mass of 1962 was only actually around for about three or four years, and that was the typical lifespan of a Mass, back then. The so-called “Novus Ordo” (the Ordinary Form), by contrast, is more than 40 years old.

It’s an actual matter of the fact that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, in exactly the same way that you have no authority to declare war on France on behalf of the United States of America. Someone could ask you and ask you to do this, but you would never be able to do it, and all you could ever do was say “No, I can’t do that. I don’t have the authority to do it, even if I wanted to.”

Because of the fact that the Church has no authority to ordain women, and is not simply refusing to do so based on longstanding tradition, or because of policy, it’s simply not going to happen.

 

[DCNBILL]

This may sound a bit sexist, but I think the major reason is to keep the alter servers from having to constantly hear the question…

“Does my backside look big in this alb?”

 

[mpartyka]

Well, I’m sure I’ll be accused of sexism again for this, but let’s look at Paul’s explanation of why there should be no women priests:

1 Tim 2:11-15 – Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Four points here:

1. It’s clear that Paul was 100% against the idea of women priests, so it’s right there in Scripture: No women priests, period.
2. There is a natural order of authority based in the creation story. Adam was first, Eve was second, therefore the man has authority over the woman, and not the other way around.
3. Satan chose to deceive Eve rather than Adam – i.e., he picked the woman rather than the man to try out his lie on. Does that mean that women are more naturally gullible than men? I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that there was a definite precedent set in Eden, and according to Paul, that precedent is reason to limit the priesthood to men.
4. Just as men have a function to which women do not have access (i.e., the priesthood), so do women have a function to which men do not have access (i.e., childbearing). The man’s unique role as priest is to raise up spiritual children; the woman’s unique role as mother is to raise up natural children.

Add to these points Paul’s clear teaching that the man is head of the household – and that includes the household of God, which is the Church – and you have Paul’s rationale for excluding women from the priesthood.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

1. Satan chose to deceive Eve rather than Adam – i.e., he picked the woman rather than the man to try out his lie on. Does that mean that women are more naturally gullible than men? I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that there was a definite precedent set in Eden, and according to Paul, that precedent is reason to limit the priesthood to men.

A little more on this point: Eve listened to Satan, and consequently she ate from the Tree. To whom did Adam listen, so that he, too, ate from the tree? Eve. Is this why Satan chose to lie to Eve rather than Adam – because Satan knew that Adam wouldn’t listen to him, but Adam would listen to Eve? It’s a possibility. Personally, I think women have enormous power over men already. Sometimes all a woman has to do is bat her eyelashes, touch a man gently, or pout a little, and suddenly he’s caving in to whatever she wants. And now women demand religious authority on top of that? No way – we poor men would be doomed! :nope:

–Mike