Why Do Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc ordain women?

[Contarini]

I would suggest thinking rather hard about this one. Catholicism does not claim that her REASONING is infallible or divinely revealed, just the conclusions. Sometimes right conclusions can be reached even though the initial reasoning was faulty. Abortion was always condemned by the Church as morally wrong. There was a lot of wrangling about whether it was murder in the days when the idea of the man ‘planting his seed’ was the understanding of reproduction. Under that understanding, nobody thought that semen contained human life, but this raised the question about when the seed became a human. During the whole fracas, there was no wavering on the fact that abortion was wrong, we just didn’t have the knowledge to know WHY it was wrong at the time. Revelation preceded the science. (And of course there are AMAZING examples of that in the OT Mosaic laws given WAY before human reason comprehended contagion and hygiene)

I think the same thing applies here. The fact that there was once a common view that woman was inferior to man does NOT automatically mean that that view was the REASON for the reservation of Holy Orders to men. Again, no claim has ever been made that catholic reasoning is infallible, just the defined doctrines.

The narrow road lies in between the ditches of total confidence in human reason and unreflecting reliance on infallible doctrine.

Personally, I think that humanity will eventually come out of this androgenous fad we are now in and learn more about the inherent differences in the sexes in a way that is not a power struggle. Things will likely become more clear when that happens.

Manualman,

I have thought rather hard about this one, in fact. (Note: it’s generally both rude and counterproductive to tell people with whom you disagree to think harder or reread a text or something of that nature. It’s often tempting to do this, and I have sometimes succumbed to the temptation. But you should always bear in mind the possibility that the person you’re arguing with has in fact thought about the matter a great deal but has still come up with what you regard as the wrong conclusion. Human fallibility being what it is, this is always very likely.)

I have a lot of respect for your line of argument. You may well be right. However, I’m not certain that you are. That being the case, I think it’s a good thing both that some Christians are ordaining women and are pressing the Catholic Church to come up with a better explanation (since the ones you guys have come up with so far are quite bad), and that the Catholic Church is being stubborn about it (forcing us to think harder about the issue and not simply accept the assumptions of our culture.)

It’s very possible that eventually the Church will come up with a good explanation of why women can’t be ordained. But until then, you need obnoxious heretics like me to point out the flaws in the arguments that you have come up with! Much as I hate Christian divisions, this may be why God allows (not wills or desires) them. In a sinful world, it may be the only way for the Church to come to a fuller understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

it’s entirely irrelevant whether outsiders to the catholic faith reject our reasons for not ordaining women as not sufficiently rational. the truths of our religion are not intended to be entirely subservient to everyday rationality – if they were we would not be dealing with a religion, but a self-help manual. as C.S. Lewis observed about the C of E (although it applies equally to the Catholic Church) in his essay “Priestesses in the Church?”:

*The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it - as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion.[/l]

as for the proposition that Christ’s maleness and that of his chosen apostles was an arbitrary product of his cultural milieu, Michael J. Tortolani wrote:

"To bind Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, with cultural constraints is historically and theologically inept. As the 1977 Declaration (nos. 3, 4) points out, Jesus often broke with religious and societal convention: He converses with a Samaritan woman (John 4:27), pardons a woman caught in adultery and indicates that a man is equally guilty of sins of lust (John 8:11), and departs from the “unbreakable” Mosaic law concerning the rights and duties of both sexes in marrigage (Mark 10:2-11). Jesus surrounds himself with women in his ministry and even appears first to women after his Resurrection.

Despite these and other examples of breaking with prejudices and discriminations of his own time concerning women, Jesus appoints only males to serve as the twelve apostles in his ministry. This was a freely made decision on Christ’s part, as he was not constrained by culture or convention. The Declaration (no. 2) recalls Pope Innocent III’s thirteenth-century teaching: “Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

what makes ordination of female clergy possible within protestantism is their rejection of sacred tradition and the sacrificing priesthood that is central to that tradition. to quote michael tortolani again

"*sacramental theology teaches that a grace-giving sacrament instituted by Christ must be carried out the way Christ intended it - this is considered “essential and normative” for the Church.

Most Protestant churches have entirely rejected the sacramental system of Rome and the Eastern churches and, as a result, have rejected a sacrificing priesthood as well. Instead, they ordain “ministers, " a role very different from that of priest. Ministers do not act in the person of Christ and make no claim to do so. Furthermore, not all Protestant churches ordain women.*”

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp*

 

[Harpazo]

it’s entirely irrelevant whether outsiders to the catholic faith reject our reasons for not ordaining women as not sufficiently rational. the truths of our religion are not intended to be entirely subservient to everyday rationality – if they were we would not be dealing with a religion, but a self-help manual. as C.S. Lewis observed about the C of E (although it applies equally to the Catholic Church) in his essay “Priestesses in the Church?”:

The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it - as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion.[/l]

as for the proposition that Christ’s maleness and that of his chosen apostles was an arbitrary product of his cultural milieu, Michael J. Tortolani wrote:

"To bind Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, with cultural constraints is historically and theologically inept. As the 1977 Declaration (nos. 3, 4) points out, Jesus often broke with religious and societal convention: He converses with a Samaritan woman (John 4:27), pardons a woman caught in adultery and indicates that a man is equally guilty of sins of lust (John 8:11), and departs from the “unbreakable” Mosaic law concerning the rights and duties of both sexes in marrigage (Mark 10:2-11). Jesus surrounds himself with women in his ministry and even appears first to women after his Resurrection.

Despite these and other examples of breaking with prejudices and discriminations of his own time concerning women, Jesus appoints only males to serve as the twelve apostles in his ministry. This was a freely made decision on Christ’s part, as he was not constrained by culture or convention. The Declaration (no. 2) recalls Pope Innocent III’s thirteenth-century teaching: “Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

what makes ordination of female clergy possible within protestantism is their rejection of sacred tradition and the sacrificing priesthood that is central to that tradition. to quote michael tortolani again

"*sacramental theology teaches that a grace-giving sacrament instituted by Christ must be carried out the way Christ intended it - this is considered “essential and normative” for the Church.

Most Protestant churches have entirely rejected the sacramental system of Rome and the Eastern churches and, as a result, have rejected a sacrificing priesthood as well. Instead, they ordain “ministers, " a role very different from that of priest. Ministers do not act in the person of Christ and make no claim to do so. Furthermore, not all Protestant churches ordain women.*”

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp

Great post! I made that point about Christ should not be confined to the culture, and as usual, it was ignored. I don’t know if it’s because I’m Catholic or young (or a combination of both), but people refuse to acknowledge it. Kyrie eleison!

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[Contarini]

Great post! I made that point about Christ should not be confined to the culture, and as usual, it was ignored. I don’t know if it’s because I’m Catholic or young (or a combination of both), but people refuse to acknowledge it. Kyrie eleison!

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

It wasn’t ignored, it was refuted. No one is restricting Christ to the culture. I agree entirely that Jesus could have made a clear affirmation of gender equality, and He chose not to do so. He also could have made a clear affirmation that the maleness of the Twelve was theologically significant, and He chose not to do so. That being the case, it is reasonable to assume that the matter was not of great importance one way or the other. Clearly Jesus saw no need to make some sort of egalitarian statement when He chose the Twelve. That’s all you can conclude.

The idea that Jesus was in no sense a man of the first century is nonsensical and probably heretical (Docetistic). And that is implicitly what you are claiming. It’s not about being “bound” by cultural conventions that conflict with His mission. We all agree that He was not so bound. It does not follow that He went around breaking cultural conventions for the fun of it, or even that He instituted every social reform that might have been desirable.

If you want to talk about 'ignoring" points, then why have you ignored this fatal objection to your argument (which I’ve raised a couple of times already):

Why didn’t Jesus explicitly teach that slavery was wrong? Does it follow that He approved of it? Or why didn’t He teach germ theory and other scientific truths that would have had a huge effect on alleviating suffering and improving people’s lives?

Why are you ignoring this? Why do you assume that if Jesus doesn’t overturn gender hierarchy, he must approve of it, when you don’t apply this argument to the many other things that Jesus could have objected to and didn’t?

Edwin

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Christ being God, could have chosen women if he wanted to. Why are you putting limitations on Him? He’s not bound to any culturalisms. Christ was the most politically incorrect man to walk the Earth, you know this.

It is so clear that he was continuing the line of priesthood from Melchizedek. Women have their roles in the Church, as do men.

Re-read Revelation 12 and you will see what I was talking about. A woman cannot be in the role that Christ had set aside for men. The same way a man cannot be in the role that Christ set aside for women.

Please enlighten me with the issue of homosexuality in your community. As the rest of the Christian world sees it, as well as your hierarchy, your hierarchy accepts it and embraces it.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

**He “could have” chosen Gentiles to be among His disciples - He didn’t. Yet most Catholic priests are Gentiles. **​

---

**What evidence is there that the 12 Apostles were priests ? (That is, in a sense in which other Christians were not.) The question arises because much of the argument seems to centre on the details of the identities of the 12 in particular. **

 

[tomarin]

with apologies to Cole Porter (cue the orchestra):

In olden days a female priesthood
Was looked on as something not good;
But now, Who knows?
Anything goes!

 

[murtad]

I think that is called Eisegesis. If one reads scripture as a whole and takes what it says in a literal way ie. " I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." this is in line with the order of creation. If one believes the scripture is the inerrant Word of God they should cling to it, If they don’t why be a Christian.

Can you prove Scripture is the inerrant Word of God from the Scripture itself ? I doubt you can. You need Church to act as a guardian of Scripture as the Scripture in its present form was put together by the Church.

 

[murtad]

Why didn’t Jesus explicitly teach that slavery was wrong? Does it follow that He approved of it? Or why didn’t He teach germ theory and other scientific truths that would have had a huge effect on alleviating suffering and improving people’s lives?

Edwin, you are correct Jesus did not teach slavery is wrong because it was right in his time. Also, are you aware slavery was practised in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which had a feudal system of serfs? Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, a born-Christian called this system of serfs “truly Christ-like”. Do check out the news source at the external link, as it is good article.

Germ theory is just that a theory. We do not need to believe in such theories as both Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and Saint Constantine the Great, Emperor of the Romans did not. We do not need science to survive as Catholicism is enough. Roman Rite is a perfect lifestyle, while science is imperfect.

Science caused dark ages in Europe today but the period which the Church ruled Europe before the Protestant “reformation” was truly Golden Ages. Of course, scientists hate those days and love to make the false accusation that it were dark ages.

Why are you ignoring this? Why do you assume that if Jesus doesn’t overturn gender hierarchy, he must approve of it, when you don’t apply this argument to the many other things that Jesus could have objected to and didn’t?

If Jesus did not overturn gender hierarchy, we know it is needed. Today, many Western women have given up “traditional” roles and being a Catholic of Muslim-background, I do not find it surprising of moral decay in the so-called “Christian” West. I do admire Islam for its great moral code, called the Sharia.

 

[tbuley]

Can you prove Scripture is the inerrant Word of God from the Scripture itself ? I doubt you can. You need Church to act as a guardian of Scripture as the Scripture in its present form was put together by the Church.

2Timothy 3 v16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

If this comment / question was a push for the necessity of the R.C.C. I don’t buy it.
Sorry for not staying on topic.

 

[bengal_fan]

Michael J. Tortolani wrote:

"To bind Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, with cultural constraints is historically and theologically inept.

just as to bind Jesus to the sex in which He took form on earth is also to be historically and theologically inept. to say that because Jesus only took on the male form equates to only males being priests is to deny the feminine aspect of God that is inherent in the creation story. and the argument that He only chose men breaks down when you realize He only chose jewish men, yet the jewish requirement is not enforced today.
tomarin;3624773:

Most Protestant churches have entirely rejected the sacramental system

wrong. most protestant churches actually embrace sacramental theology. just not in the exact same way roman catholics do.

of Rome and the Eastern churches

true

and, as a result, have rejected a sacrificing priesthood as well. Instead, they ordain "ministers, " a role very different from that of priest.

most protestants would disagree that the priest and the minister are completely different.

Ministers do not act in the person of Christ and make no claim to do so.

wrong. they do claim to do so. they claim that we all act in the person of Christ, hence the priesthood of all believers talked about in 1Peter 2 (i think…it’s one of Peter’s letters). the minister represents Christ to their congregation. but each believer acts in the person of Christ to the world. even women!

 

[tomarin]

just as to bind Jesus to the sex in which He took form on earth is also to be historically and theologically inept. to say that because Jesus only took on the male form equates to only males being priests is to deny the feminine aspect of God that is inherent in the creation story. and the argument that He only chose men breaks down when you realize He only chose jewish men, yet the jewish requirement is not enforced today.

i’m not sure race or ethnicity is equivalent to sex. after all, you can change your ethnicity or have more than one (Paul was a hellenized Jew) but your sexuality is an aspect of your biology.

wrong. most protestant churches actually embrace sacramental theology. just not in the exact same way roman catholics do.

catholicism is a sacramental religion. there may be sacramental denominations within protestantism such as those anglicans who believe that their sacraments are efficacious and more than merely symbols, but from what i understand, that is entirely up to the individual believer. so it really is quite different, and i don’t think i’m saying anything controversial or biased in stating this.

most protestants would disagree that the priest and the minister are completely different.

see above. they are different insofar as the sacraments are the life of our church and they require a sacrificing priesthood to carry them out.

wrong. they do claim to do so. they claim that we all act in the person of Christ, hence the priesthood of all believers talked about in 1Peter 2 (i think…it’s one of Peter’s letters). the minister represents Christ to their congregation. but each believer acts in the person of Christ to the world. even women!

exactly so. if all believers act in the person of christ already, why the need for a special class of priests? you have made them redundant.

 

[Harpazo]

**He “could have” chosen Gentiles to be among His disciples - He didn’t. Yet most Catholic priests are Gentiles. **​

---

**What evidence is there that the 12 Apostles were priests ? (That is, in a sense in which other Christians were not.) The question arises because much of the argument seems to centre on the details of the identities of the 12 in particular. **

Are you advocating for female “priests?” If not, then please don’t make it look as if you are by arguing against the orthodox position. It causes great scandal for yourself and the Church.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[tomarin]

**He “could have” chosen Gentiles to be among His disciples - He didn’t. Yet most Catholic priests are Gentiles. **​

---

**What evidence is there that the 12 Apostles were priests ? (That is, in a sense in which other Christians were not.) The question arises because much of the argument seems to centre on the details of the identities of the 12 in particular. **

Gottle:

do you view Sacred Tradition as authoritative? or is it just a collection of small “t” traditions?

 

[peary]

Women in protestant denominations are allowed to be priest(esses) for the same reason that these denominations are entertaining the idea (and some have gone the direct route) of allowing active homosexual individuals (with their partners) to become members of clergy and even bishops in their ecclesial communities - it’s called ‘zeitgeist’.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Why are you ignoring this? Why do you assume that if Jesus doesn’t overturn gender hierarchy, he must approve of it, when you don’t apply this argument to the many other things that Jesus could have objected to and didn’t?

Edwin

It is a good point, Ed. As always, I enjoy your posts and your reasoning.

O+

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are you advocating for female “priests?”

**No - but the arguments are not exactly water-tight, nor do they convince everyone. And where there is reasoning for positions taken, there can be reasoning to point out the weaknesses in those positions: on both sides. **​

If not, then please don’t make it look as if you are by arguing against the orthodox position. It causes great scandal for yourself and the Church.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

**All I intended (or intend) by asking, was to ask questions to which I have not yet seen an answer. If the orthodox position is sound, it won’t collapse when questions are asked about it. Asking questions about a position, is not the same thing as saying it’s wrong. **​

**Why the defensiveness? How is asking for an explanation or an answer to two perfectly reasonable questions ****“caus[ing]…scandal”, “great” or otherwise ? You don’t even say what was scandalous in them. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle:

do you view Sacred Tradition as authoritative? or is it just a collection of small “t” traditions?

**I would ask a different question: how do we know that what is said to be traditions or Tradition, really is or are ? ISTM that Tradition as a concept lacks a determinate unified meaning - so it can contain anything the Church of the moment chooses. **​

 

[SIA]

None of Christ’s Holy Apostles were women, even though He clearly revered women. And so did the Church throughout the ages.

I personally believe, along with other Catholics (and even the Orthodox), that the Church is the Bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. Following Our Lord’s example, both Churches never ordained women to the Priesthood.

Do many Protestants think that they are above Christ’s example? I’m curious in this regard, because I can see no definitive reason through history, Tradition, and even the Scriptures for that matter. I never understood why women were to be ordained as ministers when I was a Protestant, and as a Catholic it makes even less sense.

I’m in no way trying to offend those Protestants of traditions that support this. I just want to see why they accept it and see it as valid.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

why not?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, you are correct Jesus did not teach slavery is wrong because it was right in his time.

No, it wasn’t.

Since you have offered no argument, I need offer no refutation. When you give me a justification for ancient slavery, I will tell you why the justification is wrong. (I do agree, however, that slavery as practiced in 19th-century America was far more clearly contrary to natural law than Greco-Roman slavery.)

Also, are you aware slavery was practised in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which had a feudal system of serfs?

Serfdom is not quite the same thing as slavery. Russian serfdom was fairly close (inasmuch as serfs could be bought and sold, which I don’t think was the case in more strictly “feudal” serfdom in the medieval West). But at any rate that serfdom had been abolished in 1861.

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, a born-Christian called this system of serfs “truly Christ-like”. Do check out the news source at the external link, as it is good article.

Unfortunately the link doesn’t work. What you are saying makes no sense on any level, so in the absence of any evidence I’ll just dismiss it. (If Stalin did say that Russian serfdom was Christ-like, I don’t think he was praising serfdom but rather attacking Christ. But then, this is Stalin we’re talking about, so you never know!)

Germ theory is just that a theory.

You don’t seem to understand what the word “theory” means in a scientific context. Let’s cut to the chase: are you saying that germ theory does not make it easier to prevent disease and save lives? If it does, then why didn’t Jesus teach it (or some other paradigm that would help people prevent or cure infectious disease)? Does the fact that He didn’t mean that He didn’t care about human life? We know it can’t mean that. So the only possible conclusion is that the Incarnation is far more closely related to cultural particularity than your argument implies.

We do not need to believe in such theories as both Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and Saint Constantine the Great, Emperor of the Romans did not.

Let’s not get into the question of Constantine’s sainthood! Anyway, you’re making my point for me. Jesus and Augustine (leaving the murderer of Fausta and Crispus out of the picture) got on without germ theory. Yet germ theory clearly saves lives. Similarly, Jesus and Augustine got on without an egalitarian social structure. That doesn’t make such a social structure wrong. The entire assumption that Jesus disregarded cultural norms is clearly wrong. Not just wrong, but absurd and foolish.

We do not need science to survive as Catholicism is enough.

I am probably alive today because of (under God) modern medical science (I have a blood-clot condition that would probably have killed me more than eight years ago if not for recent advances in hematology). So some of us do need science to survive in the literal sense. Spiritually and culturally, I agree with you. Modern science is a mixed blessing and we could have a decent society without it. But it does in many cases save lives. That is my point.

Roman Rite is a perfect lifestyle,

I thought you were an Eastern Catholic? Probably I shouldn’t even examine this bizarre statement.

while science is imperfect.

True but irrelevant. I am speaking about a specific aspect of modern science that demonstrably saves lives and eases suffering.

Science caused dark ages in Europe today but the period which the Church ruled Europe before the Protestant “reformation” was truly Golden Ages.

I don’t believe in golden ages, and I don’t really believe in dark ages either (though I could more easily be brought to believe in the latter than the former). We could have a thread to discuss whether the Middle Ages were really all that golden, but my heart wouldn’t be in it. Personally, I love the Middle Ages (though I would almost certainly be dead by now if I’d lived back then, owing to my blood condition if nothing else). But they weren’t perfect. And our society has its good points as well as its great darknesses.

Of course, scientists hate those days and love to make the false accusation that it were dark ages.

I would hope that most scientists would have something better to do, but some of them are ignorant bigots (just as many of us non-scientists say silly things about science from time to time, like your use of the phrase “just a theory”). Historians, however, have not used the phrase “dark ages” in the sense you are using it for about a century.

If Jesus did not overturn gender hierarchy, we know it is needed. Today, many Western women have given up “traditional” roles and being a Catholic of Muslim-background, I do not find it surprising of moral decay in the so-called “Christian” West. I do admire Islam for its great moral code, called the Sharia.

Well, at least we know where you are coming from! (The Shari’a was a relative good when first implemented, but it’s hardly something modern Western Christians have much reason to admire, in my opinion.)

Edwin

 

[peary]

The answer is in understanding the nature of priesthood.

In historical Christianity, ordination is understood as the means by which one is included in the priestly orders of either deacon, priest or bishop. It is understood that only men are ordained to the priesthood. The Church does not ordain women because Christ did not mandate it, and it is not an apostolic tradition which has come down to us.

In protestant Christianity, the priesthood as understood by historical Christianity is rejected. It is understood more in line with general pastoral work. Thus, it is then permissible to allow women to serve in a more direct role as ‘pastor’.