Women as priests

[guanophore]

Well, I don’t want to get into “peeing” contest with you. However, calling folks who maybe want to see a change in doctrine a enemy of the faith and similar to the devil from hell is going overboard IMO. Misguided, maybe, what you said, no I don’t think so. A little too dramatic for me.

Drama or not, that is in reality the case. We were given one deposit of faith, and it cannot be changed.

“I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the **faith which was once for all delivered **to the saints.” Jude 3

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -
…Gal 1:6 & 9

9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

Scripture teaches us, as does the Church, that the doctrine cannot be changed, and that attempts to change it are from an evil source. Such persons are truly enemies of the faith.

I do apologize for coming on a little strong in my previous post, but I get so sick and tired of some posters on this board berating and dissing other folks who may question some Church teaching. If you want to disagree, fine, but everybody should try to leave the condescending attitudes and berating out, including me.

Absolutely.

 

[thomasf]

I was shocked today to see a bumper sticker on the back of a car parked at the church parking lot that said “Ordain Women NOW! Or stop baptizing them.”

 

[catharina]

I was shocked today to see a bumper sticker on the back of a car parked at the church parking lot that said “Ordain Women NOW! Or stop baptizing them.”

Horrifying to me too - but there are people with other sensibilities (OPINIONS!).

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I was shocked today to see a bumper sticker on the back of a car parked at the church parking lot that said “Ordain Women NOW! Or stop baptizing them.”

Shocking in a number of ways – shockingly silly, shockingly disobedient, shockingly ignorant of the teachings of the Church, and more.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[thomasf]

Shocking in a number of ways – shockingly silly, shockingly disobedient, shockingly ignorant of the teachings of the Church, and more.

Blessings,

Gerry

I absolutely agree.

 

[FCEGM]

Shocking in a number of ways – shockingly silly, shockingly disobedient, shockingly ignorant of the teachings of the Church, and more.

Such bumper stickers sometimes make me question the wisdom of allowing us women to drive.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Such bumper stickers sometimes make me question the wisdom of allowing us women to drive.

Yipes! Take them off the road and the proportion of dangerous drivers will skyrocket.

But you know, some of the most eloquent defenses of the teaching of the Church on this matter, that I’ve heard, have been from women. And one thing stands out. Although the proponents of women priests, on the showing of their utterances, have not a clue about what the priesthood is all about, the women who defend Church teaching clearly do.

Let 'em drive, I say,

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jmcrae]

Yipes! Take them off the road and the proportion of dangerous drivers will skyrocket.

But you know, some of the most eloquent defenses of the teaching of the Church on this matter, that I’ve heard, have been from women. And one thing stands out. Although the proponents of women priests, on the showing of their utterances, have not a clue about what the priesthood is all about, the women who defend Church teaching clearly do.

Let 'em drive, I say,

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Contarini]

Shocking in a number of ways – shockingly silly, shockingly disobedient, shockingly ignorant of the teachings of the Church, and more.

Perhaps. But also theologically unanswerable. At least I have yet to hear an answer, and I see no attempt on your part to provide one.

There is no justification for this dichotomy between ordination and baptism.

Edwin

 

[catharina]

Perhaps. But also theologically unanswerable. At least I have yet to hear an answer, and I see no attempt on your part to provide one.

There is no justification for this dichotomy between ordination and baptism.

Edwin

The justification is as old as the one true Church
(and yes, that’s what we call the Roman Catholic Church).

**That is, neither Scripture nor Tradition would support
such a change, therefore women are not ordained. **

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps. But also theologically unanswerable. At least I have yet to hear an answer, and I see no attempt on your part to provide one.

There is no justification for this dichotomy between ordination and baptism.

Edwin

Why are you assuming that there should be equivalency between baptism and ordination?

 

[catharina]

Why are you assuming that there should be equivalency between baptism and ordination?

Excellent question.

Not all baptized Roman Catholics are called to marriage and there is no dichotomy related to Baptism and Matrimony. Many of the baptized die without the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. God knows that many small children die without the benefit of Reconciliation, Hioly Eucharist, etc… Shall we stop baptizing everyone until they are on their deathbeds and then load on as many Sacraments as possible? Untenable and ridiculous.

 

[Contarini]

Excellent question.

Not all baptized Roman Catholics are called to marriage and there is no dichotomy related to Baptism and Matrimony. Many of the baptized die without the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. God knows that many small children die without the benefit of Reconciliation, Hioly Eucharist, etc… Shall we stop baptizing everyone until they are on their deathbeds and then load on as many Sacraments as possible? Untenable and ridiculous.

But obviously that’s not the point. The point is that any baptized person is in principle capable of receiving any of the other sacraments.

The only exception would be marriage, and the reason for that is that marriage pertains to the natural order of the body as well as to the supernatural order of the soul. The heart of your Communion’s error on the question of women’s ordination lies in your equation of ordination with marriage rather than with baptism. Why on earth do you do this? Isn’t ordination quite obviously more like baptism (i.e., ordered toward our supernatural end) than it is like marriage (present from

Marriage is a sacrament of creation–it is by definition ordered to the relationship of men and women in this life, although it is also a means of supernatural grace.

However, the argument still works to some extent even with regard to marriage. The only people who (as individuals) cannot contract a valid marriage are those who suffer from some serious physical or mental defect, or those who are not yet of the age of reason. (I say “as individuals” because of course a same-sex couple can’t contract a valid marriage, and that brings us back to my previous point about the exceptional status of marriage among the sacraments.) Do you really want to say that being female is a defect? This is the key issue, because it’s clear that at one time people did think this way. You want to construct an argument for the male-only priesthood that completely bypasses this historic reality.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

But obviously that’s not the point. The point is that any baptized person is in principle capable of receiving any of the other sacraments.

The only exception would be marriage, and the reason for that is that marriage pertains to the natural order of the body as well as to the supernatural order of the soul. The heart of your Communion’s error on the question of women’s ordination lies in your equation of ordination with marriage rather than with baptism. Why on earth do you do this?

Because Marriage and Holy Orders are the two Sacraments of Service.

As with all Sacraments, there is sign value as well as the Sacramental character. The sign value of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is the maleness of the person receiving the Sacrament, due to the fact that Jesus was incarnated as a male human being.

This has nothing to do with there being anything “defective” about women. God’s most glorious creation is Mary - a married lay-woman.

Women in the Church have power of their own, as Abbesses and Mother Superiors. (Mother Teresa answered to God alone; not even the Pope could overrule her day-to-day decisions regarding her Order.) This is not a recent feminist development - women’s Orders and Abbeys have been around at least since the time of the Desert Fathers, if not earlier.

In the day to day running of the local parish, we also see a great deal of involvement from women - both as volunteers and as paid staff. (The male-only priesthood actually ensures that there is at least one male represented in the Church office, in many cases - it is a sort of “affirmative action” for men, I think. )

 

[catharina]

But obviously that’s not the point. The point is that any baptized person is in principle capable of receiving any of the other sacraments.

The only exception would be marriage, and the reason for that is that marriage pertains to the natural order of the body as well as to the supernatural order of the soul. The heart of your Communion’s error on the question of women’s ordination lies in your equation of ordination with marriage rather than with baptism. Why on earth do you do this? Isn’t ordination quite obviously more like baptism (i.e., ordered toward our supernatural end) than it is like marriage (present from

Marriage is a sacrament of creation–it is by definition ordered to the relationship of men and women in this life, although it is also a means of supernatural grace.

However, the argument still works to some extent even with regard to marriage. The only people who (as individuals) cannot contract a valid marriage are those who suffer from some serious physical or mental defect, or those who are not yet of the age of reason. (I say “as individuals” because of course a same-sex couple can’t contract a valid marriage, and that brings us back to my previous point about the exceptional status of marriage among the sacraments.) Do you really want to say that being female is a defect? This is the key issue, because it’s clear that at one time people did think this way. You want to construct an argument for the male-only priesthood that completely bypasses this historic reality.

Edwin

Now I better see your confusion. You are supportive of events that have occurred OUTSIDE the RC Church and count them as being of equally grave effect. As a Roman Catholic. I do not. What you refer to as my ‘commuinion’ is a bit more - in the sense that I am a part of the Church and you are a part of a denomination. Learning from those who perceive error as truth isn’t a part of my frame of reference nor will it become so.

The historical reality of my faith, of The Church, is that neither Scripture nor Tradition speak to any possibility of women in the priesthood. It’s truly that simple. As a woman I have never been made to feel “in defect” or “less than.” That might be your fantasy for me but it’s not my reality.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Perhaps. But also theologically unanswerable. At least I have yet to hear an answer, and I see no attempt on your part to provide one.

There is no justification for this dichotomy between ordination and baptism.

Edwin

Well perhaps not in Anglican thought, but so what? Good heavens, in Anglican thought, Holy Orders isn’t even a Sacrament.

If it’s an answer you want, there is one. The attributes of the Sacraments are those that were in place when they were given to the Church. The Church cannot change them, because she did not make them. And if there are differences between the attributes, then perhaps they are differences of the same kind as were put in place when females were created to bear children, males to impregnate, but not vice-versa?

There’s just no point in arguing against the nature of any of the Sacraments. It’s a waste of time.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mgrfin]

Do you really want to say that being female is a defect? This is the key issue, because it’s clear that at one time people did think this way. You want to construct an argument for the male-only priesthood that completely bypasses this historic reality.

Edwin

The historic reality is that women were not capable of being recipients of the Sacrament of Orders. It was not an historic reality in the early days of the church. Inherently, women were not ordained, and could not be ordained

Something other than ‘tradition’ was at stake here.

We have some arguments against the ordination of women from Scripture: 1 Cor xiv 34-35, and 1Tim ii 11-12. These are as good as it gets if we have to rely on SS for proofs. We have some arguments from Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and others.

The main difficulty in this issue for Anglicans, and maybe for some Roman Catholics is the current teaching Magisterium. The Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994

His expressed concern was the growing practice within the Anglican Church. He wished to remove a new obstacle to Christian unity by reminding Anglicans of the position of the Church, that it is not possible to ordain women to the priesthood.

I find the wording curious, for the Church has already decided on the issue of Anglican Orders, in the ordination of men. Ordaining men in the Anglican communion was already invalid; ordaining women similarly would be invalid. It has to do with the invalidity of the minister of the Sacrament. John Paul, however, adds another type of invalidity, namely the ordination of women.

The 1994 Letter gets very heavy on the issue at hand. The prohibition to the ordination of women is not just Scriptural, nor due to Tradition. Nor is it a matter of sociology, nor due to cultural issues. It is much more elemental. It is what you fear in asking the question, “Do you really want to say that being female is a defect?” Yes, and why? “Christ established things in this way.”

The Church has always played up to our humanity. She has tried to soften the burdens laid on our backs. We get proofs from Scripture, from Tradition, for the historic practice of the Church. We are told by Jesus, “my burdens are sweet, my cross is light”. But not here. Here we are told: “Christ established things this way”. Plain and simple.

That women are not part of the ‘chosen’ ‘is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe”. He adds a very humbling thought, for our consolation, that the greatest in heaven are not the ministers (priests), but the saints.

Now, he adds heaviness to heaviness, that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

The Church has not authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women! And here comes the closer: “that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”.

What? He is defining this? He is making it an infallible judgment?

I think so. St. Augustine: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed”

maranatha

November 1 is our feast day, the Feast of All Saints.

 

[mgrfin]

CCC 1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

More authoratatively:
Canon 1024: “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly”.

peace

 

[Alterum]

I find this quote from C.S. Lewis helpful:

“Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins by saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to “Our Mother which art in Heaven” as to “Our Father.” Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity may be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does. Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion.” --C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, pp. 83-84; quoted in Pearce, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, pp. 163-164.

 

[Anthony02]

I know this is a pretty general topic, but whenever I’m asked by a Protestant why we don’t let women be priests, I tend to freeze cause I don’t really know. Could someone give me a quick, simple outline of the reasons?

It’s not in the Church’s authority. There is no other way to put it. The Church just doesn’t have the authority to rewrite 2000 years of history.