Why can't women be ordained, when they can be baptized

[DCNBILL]

Could the Holy Spirit show the church that it had misinterpreted what the Holy Spirit had been saying?

What if we declared that, by law, men had no say in how their children are raised? It’s simply a matter of biology. Women bear the children, men don’t. So treating them as different in authority isn’t at all unfair. They are still equal souls.

Using your comparison of ordination to the ability to bear children, that’s what it would look like.** Because denying you ordination is about denying you authority,** not about biological differences. You’ve said your soul is equal to a man’s. But how is your soul different so that you are prevented from exercising the authority of a pope?

Ordination is not about authority it is about service,

John 13:1-17New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet

13 It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.

2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; 4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

8 “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

 

[revert_jen]

Could the Holy Spirit show the church that it had misinterpreted what the Holy Spirit had been saying?

No. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus promised to be with us always. The Holy Spirit would prevent the error, not rectify it.

What if we declared that, by law, men had no say in how their children are raised? It’s simply a matter of biology. Women bear the children, men don’t. So treating them as different in authority isn’t at all unfair. They are still equal souls.

Using your comparison of ordination to the ability to bear children, that’s what it would look like. Because denying you ordination is about denying you authority, not about biological differences. You’ve said your soul is equal to a man’s. But how is your soul different so that you are prevented from exercising the authority of a pope?

Nope. It isn’t a matter of authority–it is a matter of service. Also, as I said, my soul is equal to but different from a man’s. How do I know exactly how men’s and women’s souls are different or why it would be impossible for me to be pope? Why do I care? To me it is a bit like the question about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Interesting, but not particularly relevant.

The Pope is the only person on Earth whose free will God will directly interfere with (and only in extremely limited circumstances, to protect Jesus’s promise to the Church).* That isn’t the pope having authority. The authority is God’s. The popes exercise that authority, but they do not own it.

–Jen

*This is my own thought, not AFAIK any kind of Church teaching. But to me it follows logically from Church teachings.

 

[edwest2]

1. The priesthood is corporate too, yes? No individual priest has a monopoly on Christ.
2. This gives me an interesting idea. In keeping with your suggestion, to signify that in the Bride, the female is fully mature and the male is still unborn, there could be a priestess who acts “in personam ecclesia” or something and accepts the sacrifice from priest/Christ on behalf of the church/Bride.

No. It is as it has been interpreted by the Church. There cannot be a priestess. The priest acts “in persona christi.”

Ed

 

[MarkInOregon]

Was Bishop-elect Barron’s teaching about baptism incorrect then? Only men are baptized into Christ as priest, prophet, and king?

No. I think you’re confusing the priesthood of the faithful with the ministerial priesthood.

The priesthood of the faithful: The priestly people of God. Christ has made of his Church a “kingdom of priests,” and gives the faithful a share in his priesthood through the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.

The Ministerial priesthood: The ministerial priesthood received in the sacrament of Holy Orders differs in essence from this common priesthood of all the faithful. It has as its purpose to serve the priesthood of all the faithful by building up and guiding the Church in the name of Christ, who is Head of the Body.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[7_Sorrows]

The sacraments and the priesthood were instituted by God, not man. The Church can’t make the sky brown and the earth blue. They can intepret the deposit of faith, and establish binding disciplines and canons to govern the Church. But this matter is divine law, and thus infallible doctrine. It’s not just something the Church made true, it’s something that’s always been true.

Good reply.

 

[eamonnroma]

Father Barron certainly did not mean to imply what you are imagining. All Christians do have a union with Christ, but His Apostles taught that only men could be ordained.

Could you kindly show me where the Apostles taught that only men could be ordained? Thank you.

 

[eamonnroma]

But “what Jesus established” is a matter of interpretation, as I just pointed out with regard to the Jewishness and number of apostles. Those aren’t interpreted as establishing qualities for ordination, but maleness is, so it’s not like “what Jesus established” is some kind of church-independent standard that the church is then bound by.

Exactly. Where did Jesus state that women could not be ordained? In fact, when did he ever speak of ordination?

 

[MarcoPolo]

1. The priesthood is corporate too, yes? No individual priest has a monopoly on Christ.

I wouldn’t use the term monopoly but yes, indeed, when a priest consecrates the Eucharist, he, individually is “in persona Christi” in a real sense. And the great part of the mystery is that one priest does not intrude on another priest being fully able to represent Christ somewhere else in time and space. The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was a signal for this kind of “plural” presence from a singular source.

there could be a priestess who acts “in personam ecclesia” or something and accepts the sacrifice from priest/Christ on behalf of the church/Bride.

I see you are trying very hard to justify the idea of a “female ministerial priesthood,” and what you say is a fine concept, but it’s crudely what already exists in baptism.

Obviously, the idea of woman best represents the Church as bride, because otherwise the term bride would not make sense. In fact, the catechism speaks of Mary as the great figure of the Church as bride:
*CCC#773 In the Church this communion of men with God, in the “love [that] never ends,” is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world. “[The Church’s] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the ‘great mystery’ in which **the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom.” Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as “the bride without spot or wrinkle.” This is why the “Marian” dimension of the Church precedes the “Petrine.”***But again, Mary, as woman, contains man. In fact, theologically speaking, consider two concepts: Mary contained Christ. And Christ’s body is the Church in another sense (Eph. 1:22-23). So you see how theologically Christ’s body is contained in Mary, that figure of the Church in a sense other than his specific sacrifice on the cross, which is that in which the priest participates in a special way. In Mary, Christ’s body resembles the Church, receiving from her what she has already received. But the priest in the Liturgy gives something that only originates from the bridegroom.

 

[ahs]

Could you kindly show me where the Apostles taught that only men could be ordained? Thank you.

Exactly. Where did Jesus state that women could not be ordained? In fact, when did he ever speak of ordination?

The last time I tried to summarize someone’s statement I got it wrong, so let’s see if I can hit the mark here. Are you asking for the written Scripture passage, where such a teaching or statement was recorded in the works we now know collectively as “The Bible”?

Or is any Apostolic teaching okay?

We know that not everything the Apostles and Christ taught is in Scripture, because 1) there’s no logical reason to expect that and 2) the Scriptures actually say so.

What the Scriptures DO say is that Christ explicitly told His Apostles that:
-they speak with His very Voice, AND on behalf of the Holy Spirit (Lk 10:16; Acts 15:28))
-who rejects them also rejects God (Lk 10:16)
-the Holy Spirit will guide them to ALL truth for ALL time (Jn 14:16, 16:13; Mt 28:18-20)

The Apostolic teaching you are looking for has been stated over again, but the most recent example is in Post#8, in that link to a very short summary of the Apostolic teaching by a Successor of Peter, Apostle. You can presume they are Christ’s own Words if you believe Christ was telling the Truth in the above Scriptural references.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus spoke about many things not recorded in sacred scripture.

it is meaningless to ask where did Jesus say that when no one knows most of what Jesus taught the apostles except for the apostles and their successors.

we know what Jesus taught through the magisterium He created for that very purpose.

that magisterium has taught from the beginning, without interruption, that only men may receive Holy Orders.

an imaginative person might say that the apostles did this even though Jesus taught them that they should ordain women, but that would mean that Jesus failed to preserve His teachings and His grace because the mechanism He chose to use to preserve them had failed to do what He designed it to do. that in turn would pretty much render Jesus in to being a mere mad man or charlatan who was incapable of preserving His salvation for all time.

 

[SerraSemper]

This is a logical fallacy of composition. The fact that the Church is the Bride of Christ does NOT mean that each individual member of the Church is ALSO the Bride of Christ.

In other words, no man is the “Bride of Christ.” The role of the Church as the bride of Christ does not extend to us as individuals but rather only to the Church as a whole. This metaphorical relationship ALSO extends, however, to the role that nuns (women) play in holy orders, but never to men as individuals.

Please explain my title as a Bride of Christ. I am a sacred virgin solemnly consecrated by my bishop. I am an individual female virgin.

 

[Duane1966]

If Jesus intended there to be priestesses in His Church, one must wonder why He did not choose one to be an Apostle, or sent women as part of the seventy two. Would not His own mother be a perfect choice if He had intended for His Church to have priestesses?

The argument that Jesus could not choose a woman because of the time and place He lived in, is weak. While it is true that Judea was patriarchal, in the gentile world that He would be sending the Apostles to, in at least Rome and Greece, priestesses were common.

After the Ressurection, Jesus has a perfect chance to appoint a female Apostle to replace Judas and forestall any possible priestess controversy down the road. It is highly doubtful that the other Apostles would have argued with Him over His choosing a female, after all, they had just seen Him resurrected. And He would not care what the Jews thought, after all, He’s God.

The argument could be made that having a priestess actually would have made it easier to evangelize in those places that were used to priestesses. But again, Jesus was silent at this time. And that silence speaks louder, in my opinion, than any argument I have ever heard in favor of female ordination.

 

[CaptFun]

“All the baptized participate in Christ. Since Christ is the fulfillment of the priest, prophet, and king that means that all the baptized are those as well.” Bishop-elect Robert Barron

1. Women are baptized.
2. Anyone who is baptized is the fulfillment of the priest, prophet, and king through Christ
3. Women fulfill the priest, prophet, and king through Christ
4. Anyone who fulfills the priest through Christ may become a priest and perform the acts Christ performed as priest (such as offering his sacrifice in the eucharist).
5. Women may become priests and perform the acts Christ performed as priest (such as offering his sacrifice in the eucharist).

Some good thoughts there. Number 5 is almost correct, but you must insert the word “not” between “may” and “become” .

Why: It was Christ who selected men for his shared priesthood. In the Old Testament God ordained an all male priesthood as well. < Not every man could be one then either. Only the descendants of Aaron and Levi were allowed to (for reasons Moses didn’t make up … but followed). The Church follows those early examples of Jesus.

“God made them male and female” (equal in dignity … and complementary to one another in ways that made each more when working together). But not equal in a uniform way.

To go even beyond you for a moment … women “offer sacrifices” as priests do … just not the ceremonial sacrifices of a Bishop or a Bishop’s assistant. This was not made up by the Church, just carried forward from what Christ ordained.

The complaint is often a political one. Popular at present for its side effect of being an argument one can make with sniffing disapproval – or indulging one’s sense of social superiority against that sexist old arcane church that is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense anyway. < This may not be YOU by the way … and of course I don’t see my CHURCH that way - but it notes those aspects of the conflict.

Women are honored and exalted by the Church … and they CAN be saints, which in fact outranks all the clergy, even unto the Pope. < Who are at best, still trying to make that holy rank. So … there is not a glass ceiling issue here. What’s more, done right the priesthood is service before it is “ruling hierarchy” … and after it too (the greatest serves the least in Christianity … again, if done right).

One could view it as a restriction or a prohibition - but it need not be viewed that way.

There’s no apt analogy either. The closest bad one I could come up with was that we
could say women aren’t allowed to play shortstop in the Major Leagues. But in that case its not an impossibility … it has just not been the case. A female good enough would get the job - no restriction. In fact she’d probably be celebrated even out of proportion to her skills these days. To continue freeing baseball from a sexist charge first let me add … there may never have been a woman manager … but women have been team OWNER(S). < All the men worked for them. Sexism should be made of sterner stuff!

Many of the particularly gratifying perqs of the priesthood are shared with women more nowadays too. When I was a child, only a priest could touch or distribute the Eucharist at mass. These days a woman distributing communion right next to Father as the lines process through … is not even an unusual sight. And “she” didn’t have to spend the better part of a decade studying theology etc., or take a vow of celibacy to earn the honor.

By the way, I’m male, baptized … but not ordained a priest. When I explored that option per inquiries (twice in my life, years between) … I was not accepted (by the Diocese I was applying to). I was not prohibited from applying elsewhere … but I took the
non-acceptance per guidance at the time.

A woman priest would not make the Eucharist more the Eucharist even were it allowed.

And our eyes should be more on the Lord than His ministers.

In some ways women run the Catholic Church like a mother runs a home. Many women serve on Parish Councils and head important Church ministries. And at the end of the Book of Revelations the Church is depicted as the “bride” of Christ. And one with him.

In Chapter 12:1 A woman is crowned in heaven, clothed in stars with the moon under her feet. Let’s consider her … and all women … to be ordained … for something else.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Please explain my title as a Bride of Christ. I am a sacred virgin solemnly consecrated by my bishop. I am an individual female virgin.

Your title does not suggest that you are the entire Church, does it? It is used in a different sense, no? What does your order say of the title? It is more of a reference to your consecrated virginity and spiritual espousement by way of your vocation, no?

 

[SerraSemper]

Your title does not suggest that you are the entire Church, does it? It is used in a different sense, no? What does your order say of the title? It is more of a reference to your consecrated virginity and spiritual espousement by way of your vocation, no?

I am not sure what your question is. I asked mine because the OP’s question was why can’t women be ordained when they can be baptized. Well, why can’t men be consecrated virgins when they can be baptized? What does my order say? The Rite of Consecration says that I share with the Church the title of Virgin, Bride and Mother, and that I am solemnly espoused to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium has definitively taught that the Church has not been given the authority from Christ to ordain women to the priesthood.

It is an open question as to whether or not women can be ordained to the diaconate.

 

[zz912]

Could you kindly show me where the Apostles taught that only men could be ordained? Thank you.

St Paul wrote at least three letters instructing Timothy and Titus about the men they would ordain. He specifically mentioned men.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am not sure what your question is. I asked mine because the OP’s question was why can’t women be ordained when they can be baptized. Well, why can’t men be consecrated virgins when they can be baptized? What does my order say? The Rite of Consecration says that I share with the Church the title of Virgin, Bride and Mother, and that I am solemnly espoused to Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

My question was because you mentioned you had a title of “Bride of Christ” but that you were an individual. But I was saying that your title was used in a different sense than the term Bride of Christ as in the corporate Church. Maybe I’m mixing up too many conversations. But I think it is a fair point that only women are consecrated virgins because they, too, best resemble the corporate Church as Bride.

 

[James82]

So the church has authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, but using that authority to ordain women would be presumption? Why?

Just an FYI:

A lot of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, mistake the binding and loosing for what it really is. The statement taken literally would read something like **“…whatever you loose on earth shall having been loosed in heaven.”
**

However, that would come across as very awkward in an English translation. The point is that it is not arbitrary power in the Church’s control but more of a mandate from heaven. Unfortunately Protestants have taken this to an extreme and you can end up with a sort of semi-montanism.

It was a Hebraism that Peter and the other Apostles would have understood quite well as the term bind and loose were used frequently by rabbis.

I’m just going off the top of my head, someone correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Actaeon]

Please explain my title as a Bride of Christ. I am a sacred virgin solemnly consecrated by my bishop. I am an individual female virgin.

The logical fallacy of composition is one where you assume that because the whole is made of one thing, that each individual part is made of the same thing. That is the logical fallacy I was referring to. It does not mean that some of the individual parts couldn’t share a feature of the whole.

Let me give you an example: a military unit has uniforms. It would be a fallacy of composition to assume that each member of that unit has uniforms just because the unit as a whole does. Some of the employees could very well be civilians or contractors who come to work in plain civilian clothing. Even though some of the members wear uniforms, not all do.

In the same way, the Church is the Bride of Christ. That doesn’t mean that all members are individually Brides of Christ, even though some members (like yourself) may be. It would be a fallacy to assume that all men are the Bride of Christ simply because they are subordinate members of the Church, which is corporately the Bride of Christ.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion about what I was getting at.