M
mikew262
Guest
Huh?
- Status
T
The_Catholic
Guest
I would have no problem with a woman being a priest, if god said so. But He runs things with an order, and that’s not one of them, so I cannot accept that. Though it has nothing to do with them being female, I am more comfortable talking to females (doctors, dentists, counslers, etc,.) and probaly would be with priests, especially in confession. But God does not want it, so that’s that. I want to follow God, not human kind.
M
mikew262
Guest
Another theory on why Christ did not pick any female apostles (that we are aware of) is that he was Jewish and all his initial followers were Jewish. Women were not allowed into the synagogue to worship and for lack of a better phrase, were considered 2nd class citizens during that time. Many other cultures probably felt the same way. Having women serving in a prime role during that time would not have flown well. Maybe God realized that.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
T
The_Catholic
Guest
LOLHuh?
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
Sure, I think alot of people were sexist in those days, and even today.
But I don’t think God is sexist. He stopped the stoning to death of an adulterous woman. And I’m sure there are other stories too to prove otherwise.
Male priesthood is not a man made tradition, but a God made Sacred Tradition.
So, I still stand by my explanations above (that The Church is feminine and the male priest, in Persona Christi, come together to give us sanctifying grace - spiritual everlasting life - that Adam and Eve lost for us).
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, and of course God is very sensitive regarding our cultural practices. That is why He made sure that Jesus never did or said ANYTHING which might not have ‘flown well’ with the society in which He lived. I mean, if Jesus had said or done anything out of line with Jewish teaching, like claim that He was the Messiah, or ask people to ‘eat His Flesh and drink His Blood’, or criticize the Pharisees, or claim that He was God, well just THINK what they would have done with His teaching! It would NEVER have gotten off the ground. . .
J
japhy
Guest
Read three (post-V2) documents from the Church on the matter…
Three documents MS Word, 92 K, 10pp] (On ordination of men only)
Three documents MS Word, 92 K, 10pp] (On ordination of men only)
- Declaration [Inter Insigniores (http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm) (On the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood) - Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1976)
- Apostolic Letter [Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...i_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html) (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) - Pope John Paul II (1994)
- Curial Letter [In Response to dubium concerning the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM) - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1995)
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
There is a serious problem with that thought.
The position is one that is frequently taken by proponents of women “priests” (typically feminist theologians), who argue that Christ was constrained by the culture of the times, and the situation has changed, therefore so can the priesthood.
Of course, they are accusing Jesus, and therefore God, of the sin of sexism in this observation. Also, they suggest something less than an omnipotent God, who must cave in to the foibles of his creatures.
This stands out even more vividly when we consider the number of times that Jesus, in the Gospels, ran absolutely counter to the cultural and religious traditions he encountered on earth. And yet, it is claimed, he caved in on this one sex-based item.
Doesn’t make any sense, if God is God, and Jesus is God from God, true God from true God.
Blessings,
Gerry
M
mikew262
Guest
You make some valid counter-points. Again, it was just a theory, one I think that is still potentially plausible. Let me ask you this, what if Scripture said there were female apostles? Do you think the early church still would have thrived, or would it have been to much for a male dominated society to swallow?
C
Contarini
Guest
Only a very moderate “feminist” (such as myself) would make this argument. Because of course the assumption is that choosing twelve men and no women does not in any way violate the truth of the Gospel. The argument is not that Christ was “constrained” by the culture, but (quite differently) that He acted in ways that made sense in a first-century context. Of course He said and did things that were startling and offensive to first-century people–*when this was required by His mission. *The assumption behind the argument you’re attacking is that no precept of justice required Jesus to maintain some sort of “gender balance” or indeed to promulgate an immediate teaching clarifying that gender inequality was evil.
Your criticism of this argument founders on one obvious fact–Jesus didn’t attack slavery either. His parables presuppose it as normal. As far as we know, none of the Twelve were slaves (though admittedly in this case we can’t be sure–we can at least say that the New Testament does not tell us that any of them were, and so clearly even if some of them were the inspired authors did not consider the fact very important). Yet I do not hear anyone saying that Jesus was authorizing slavery by His actions. This is a patent double standard.
It is clear that Jesus did not attack cultural attitudes head on except where absolutely necessary. Rather, He undermined sinful cultural attitudes by His general teaching, and left that teaching to do its slow work. This accounts for all the evidence. Your interpretation–that Jesus showed no regard for cultural attitudes–requires you to believe that Jesus was perfectly OK with slavery. Are you really willing to argue this?
People who approach this issue primarily through the lens of feminist ideology do not generally make the argument that you have described. They are more likely to do one of three things:
- They claim that the NT evidence actually points to gender equality, and that gender inequality was a later development; this involves downplaying the significance of the “Twelve,” of course, and thus leads into
- They argue that the NT evidence pointing away from gender equality is the result of the human prejudices of the authors, and that the real Jesus was an egalitarian (this can take a very moderate form, such as the downplaying of the significance of the Twelve; or a more radical form, as in the attempt to make the much later Gnostic Gospels evidence for a suppressed egalitarian tradition)
- They abandon Christianity altogether, or at least reject the historical Jesus as an adequate basis for Christianity
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Straw man. That’s not what I’m arguing for. It’s not clear to me that men and women should have different roles in terms of ordination, but I certainly don’t think they are interchangeable in general. And my primary objection is not even to the idea of men and women having different functions in the Church, but to the specific differences that have existed historically, which clearly have rested on the belief that women are inferior expressions of human nature and make no sense without that belief (desperately as Catholics try to show that they do).
So why can men efficaciously symbolize Christ’s Bride? Why will no one answer this question?
And when men speak of themselves as brides of Christ (in traditional monastic spirituality in particular) or more generally as part of Christ’s Bride, how is that any different?
Well, I can think of a number of reasons why I’d like to be a priest. However, your question is irrelevant for at least two reasons:
- I have not so far been convinced that I have a vocation to be a priest (though I sometimes wonder about it), and
- I am a man, so the Catholic Church’s reasons for considering me an unfit subject for ordination are contingent rather than absolute (I am non-Catholic and married, apart from any more specific reasons they might have)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m Episcopalian. So no, I don’t think that. In the course of examining the issue of women’s ordination, I have realized that my view of ordination is somewhat different from the one that appears to operate in Catholicism (at least in the more conservative Catholic circles). That is to say, I regard the ministerial priesthood as an actualization of something latent in the universal priesthood of the baptized. I don’t think that they are two completely separate things. Therefore, I believe that it’s incoherent to say that a woman can be fully incorporated into Christ in baptism but is simply incapable of sacramentally representing Him as a priest. However, I agree with the basic Catholic understanding of what priests do, as you describe it in this post.
Edwin
B
Brendan
Guest
One other problem is that several of the early Popes were either Greek or Roman.
Their cultural background included women priests, they were common in the pagan cultures.
So these popes did not have the cultural biases against women in priestly roles, yet they did not ordain any.
So the issue has to be deeper that 'sexist 'cultural norms.
C
Contarini
Guest
But this implies some argument showing that
a) the Twelve are the only standards for what it means to be an “Apostle” and
b) Jesus chose twelve men in order to make a point about gender, and not simply because those were the most appropriate twelve people in that particular place and time (“appropriate” clearly meaning something quite wacky given how wildly inappropriate some of them were by all normal appearances)
It is a matter of importance to me for several reasons:
- It is still a subject of debate in the Episcopal Church, and still more so in the broader Anglican Communion (the Episcopal establishment tries valiantly to declare the matter closed, but there are still dioceses where women cannot be ordained–though these dioceses are unlikely to remain part of the Episcopal Church much longer in their present form);
- In the current debates about homosexuality, people on both the liberal and the (for us) extreme conservative side link the two issues, and these arguments need to be addressed by those of us who believe in WO but not in the legitimacy of homosexual relationships
- Christ calls us to be one, so the beliefs and practices of any one Christian church cannot be matters of indifference to members of any other–this is true all the more when we are speaking of the Roman Communion, which unquestionably holds a central and indispensable place in Christianity
- Given the place of your Communion in the broader Christian tradition, disagreement with the See of Rome is not something that any Christian should take lightly–the fact that Rome is against a new development in Christianity is a very powerful reason to reject it, although not quite powerful enough if the arguments on the other side are sufficiently strong; and finally
- Given the authority of the See of Rome, the importance of Christian unity, and (more contingently) the current crisis in Anglicanism, I obviously take very seriously the possibility that it might be my duty to seek personal reconciliation with your Communion.
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
This is actually an argument on the other side, if you look into what the role of these priestesses was. They fulfilled ritual roles rather than having authority within Roman society, and often (not always) their ritual roles included sexual activity. It is quite understandable that early Christians would not want to do anything that might associate Christian presbyters with this particular form of pagan priesthood.
Christian priests were presbyters–“elders” who had authority within the community. They did not simply have a ritual function.
Edwin
B
Brendan
Guest
Actually, if you agree with the basic understanding of what a priest does, and you believe in a fair God, the Catholic understanding should logically follow.
The Human person is a union of body and soul, we are not creatures of both independant of each other, but rather, we are where the two meet.
God designed a woman’s biology to bring forth biological life. But that is just one aspect of the human person. We are also Spiritual creatures.
If God is fair and not sexist, the male should also be designed to bring forth life, ONTOLOGICAL Life.
Therefore the Ontology of the male is designed to bring for Spiritual Life ( in the Eucharist, in Absolution)
As the Church cannot issue a declaration that changes a man’s biology to bring forth biological life; the Church cannot, likewise, issue declarations that change a woman’s ontology to bring forth ontological life.
Now, does this mean that the male’s soul is somehow superior becuase it can accomplish this task? Not any more so than we should consider a woman’s biological design to be ‘superior’ because they can bring forth biological life.
And, as Catholics, we are not Gnostics, who consider spirit to be of greater value than matter. Both female and male, biology and ontology, are required in the human person. The tasks assigned to each are different, and unique, but both are required.
And God designed each to perform the task assigned, and no declaration of the Church can change that.
Z
Zooey
Guest
For an interesting read, on the EO view of this subject:
frederica.com/writings/womens-ordination.html
The author, the wife of an EO priest, was once pursuing ordination in the Episcopal Church.
Its not a complete answer, surely, but I found it helpful to see the diffentiation between a priest and a preacher/teacher…
frederica.com/writings/womens-ordination.html
The author, the wife of an EO priest, was once pursuing ordination in the Episcopal Church.
Its not a complete answer, surely, but I found it helpful to see the diffentiation between a priest and a preacher/teacher…
C
Contarini
Guest
Agreed. That is precisely why orthodox Christians could not ordain women as long as it was believed that women were imperfect instances of the divine image by reason of biology (I think that this argument, drawn from pagan science, was itself contrary to the Gospel–it was ironically an example of Christians listening too much to what then seemed to be valid secular science).
That’s an incredibly silly argument. Men play a vital role in bringing forth biological life as well. And since when was God “fair” in the sense you are implying?
It’s not about fairness. It’s about ontology. It’s about women being created in God’s image and fully incorporated into Christ through baptism.
In Thomistic thought at least, the soul regarded in abstraction from the body (as distinct from the separated soul after death, which has been marked by its union with the body) is simply the common human nature. We are individuated by matter. So if this is correct, the question is put in the wrong way. We are not talking about Gnostic/Platonic souls with no regard to bodies. We are talking about whole human beings.
And there is no question that Aquinas and other premodern Christians thought that males (as body-soul composites) were superior to females.
You are making a radically non-traditional argument. I believe that the modern position defended by most orthodox Catholics (i.e., those who reject women’s ordination but do not subscribe to the traditional view of female inferiority) breaks with Christian tradition more radically than women’s ordination itself does.
Exactly. So why did you speak above only of the “male’s soul,” since by definition any individual human being is both a soul and a body? Why speak as if only the soul is relevant?
Edwin
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
You are out of line in this attack Please follow the rules of this forum, and address the arguments made, and not drop pronouns that impute either bad motives or bad abilities to the poster of a response. If you ever “you” me again in this manner, things just might get nasty.
As for the point that is presented, it must then follow that there exists in the world only feminists “in the broadest and weakest sense.” The argument is virtually universal, since it is the only argument that seems to be at hand for the action of Christ. Never mind, by the way, that he was acting in a manner fully consistent with that of his Father, who also only chose men as priests (and only the men who were descendants of Aaron at that).
But of course in the end, people who argue for women priests always end up attacking Catholics and the Church. They pretty well have to. Because, there is simply no question of whether or not the Catholic Church will have women priests. She won’t; that’s settled, and has been for millennia. The only question open is whether or not those who would have, or would be, women priests will have the Church.
Further, this is a question, at root, of authority – God-given authority, given to his Church. That is enough to settle the issue. To those who come to the Catholic with erstwhile logic or arguments, mostly from the social sciences, which are, at base, anti-Christian and virulently anti-Catholic (if you want to find Catholic haters at a university, the first place to look is the sociology dapartment and the second the psychology department), the only reply to be given is that God is simply not limited to that which appeals to August Comte and those who followed him.
Equality to God is not like in terms in a mathematical equation, he has revealed. It is like harmony in music.
In the end, Rome has spoken; the issue is settled. That may well cause problems for a non or anti-Catholic, but from Catholics, it evokes love and loyalty, and for that, we offer neither explaination nor apology. And we grow weary of arguments that, in the end, amount to accusing God of sexism by not chosing women to be his priests.
Blessings,
Gerry
B
Brendan
Guest
- Status