Women as priests

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The story can indeed hold meaning as a myth. But not the meaning you wish for it. To me, it rings of the kind of embellishment people put into a story to accentuate the importance of the hero. But that doesn’t make it factual history. The reason nobody bothered to critique it to death at the time is that nobody SERIOUSLY contemplated the possibility of ordination for women. It simply didn’t warrant the attention at the time, because nobody was pushing that agenda.

Manualman, in my post, I didn’t write that I was referencing the great god “Factual History” (which is more and more being revealed to me as the bedrock of Christianity (something which was news to me)). Nor did I suggest that women’s ordination was a pressing issue for the medieval church in Ireland at the time.

The meaning I derive from the story is, in fact, that the ordination of Brigit was a non-issue. That her worthiness for ordination was *not questioned either popularly or by the authorities. *Of course such a thing has heroic overtones and may be the subject of an embellishment or may have been meant as a minor miracle. The point is, she was considered worthy. Brigit, the woman, was worthy. That’s all I derive from the story in this context–that it has not been *impossible *for the catholic mind to conceive of a woman being worthy of ordination. It may have been extraordinary, but not inconceivable, and perhaps not even surprising given Brigit’s legendary witness.

The further implication that I draw, though, is that women are valid matter for the sacrament. That’s a conclusion you don’t reach. Great! But don’t malign the legend and your own Christian heritage by suggesting it is meaningless or frivolous because you don’t agree with my conclusion!

Again, the appropriateness of women receiving the sacrament is a separate issue not dealt with in the story (given its heroic/miraculous overtones) and not really dealt with by me either.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Contarini]

Steve40, spot on!!!
“Blessed is the fruit of thy womb”
Jesus is the fruit of the womb. Here is the best explanation I have read, and I have read oh so many. lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=147
It isn’t about a culture, it is about Scripture, and what it has to say. Please read. God Bless.

I think this gives sex too much significance in Christianity. What would “lumen gentleman” or you make of St. Paul’s statement that in Christ there is no “male and female.” I understand that this is not a knock-down prooftext for women’s ordination, particularly given what St. Paul says elsewhere. But it seems to me that it does exclude the ascription of such incredible importance in liturgical/ecclesiastical matters to sexual differentiation. It seems to me that St. Paul, like conservative Protestants, is talking about questions of good order and hierarchy when he says things like “women should be silent.” The Pope has himself said that these statements must be “relativized” in the light of cultural shifts. So instead, the Catholic Church puts forward these more mystical interpretations, which have a great appeal but seem to me to fly directly in the face of “no male and female.” I am not one to use the word “pagan” as a slur, but I question whether this kind of sexual mysticism is compatible with orthodox Christianity when taken this literally and this far.

I think one of the bigger questions here is what it means for the priest to be in persona Christi. To me, the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi is actually an argument against the necessity of the male priesthood. The priest is not fructifying the sanctuary (viewed as a mystical womb) in virtue of his own maleness, but in virtue of his sacramental identification with Christ. The question remains open, then, why a baptized woman, fully incorporated into Christ’s Body, cannot act in persona Christi in exactly the same way. It is simply not clear why the sexual identity of the priest is so important. Giving it such importance seems–once again–to verge on a worship of sex that has been traditionally rejected by both Jews and Christians. Ironically, it is the proponents of the male priesthood who seem closer here to the sexually charged view of the priesthood held by ancient pagans (this is ironic because the fact that pagans had priestesses is often used as an argument against the ordination of women).

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

Edwin;

You make some good points.

The bottom line is that nobody in the Church, not even the Pope, has the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. It was never granted by Christ.

Once you start to get to know the Church and how it works, it does become clear that, if they thought it were possible to ordain women, they would do it. There is nothing in Catholicism as a culture and as a way of thinking that would prevent women from being ordained, if it were possible.

Women have traditionally held strong positions in the Church. Convents and Abbies are, in essence, female-run corporations, and are independent of the authority of their local Bishop - women living and working in these institutions report to their Mother Superior or to their Abbess; not to the Bishop. The Bishop may make suggestions to them (and it is considered politically correct to at least consider his suggestions), but he has no actual authority over them. These institutions did not arise out of the recent feminist movement - they’ve been around at least since the times of the Desert Fathers, if not longer.

As far as I know, they are way ahead of most modern secular corporations in this regard.

Far from the stereotype of mysogynistic old men, the Bishops and other authorities in the Church have great respect for women in general, and are used to dealing with women of authority - greater, even, than I had experienced in my liberal Protestant church. And although there are the occasional mysogynists in our midst, none of them have any power in the Church - those guys don’t make it past the psychiatric interview.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

One of the ingredients that keeps the pot brewing when the question of women and the priesthood comes up is the sacramental view of creation – or rather, the rejection of it outright, or the failure of those who claim Catholic identity to understand it.

The Sacramental view of creation is central to Catholic thought. It holds that everything in the universe points to something beyond itself in creation. Not only does it do so, but it is meant to do so, and to treat it in a manner that thwarts its doing so is to abuse it.

This view is fully consistent with the Church’s teaching on, say, marriage. It points to something beyond itself, in this case, the relationship between Christ and his Church, his bride. It points to the indisoluable nature of marriage, and its sanctity. It is no mere happenstance that the Protestant rejection of the sacraments, and with it the Sacramental view of creation, has led to the practices of pretending that marriage is other than until the death of either the husband and the wife.

Now Holy Orders is a Sacrament. But virtually all of the arguments that are attempted to justify women’s ordination either implicitly or explicitly reject this notion. Even Anglicans, in their 39 Articles, flatly deny that Holy Orders is a Sacrament. (I have witnesses some very heated and almost nasty arguments between Anglicans who insist that there are but the two sacraments named in the 39 Articles, and those who claim there are more. It makes their statements about Catholics seem almost cordial.) On rejecting this view, the priesthood is invariably reduced to a functional undertaking – some kind of job, or corporate position. That is the horse that is ridden as the banner is paraded for women priests.

Worse yet, the rejection or downplaying of the Sacramental view makes it impossible to accept that the Sacraments were given to the Church, not invented by her. Hence, nasty Catholics, it is claimed, have somehow oppressed women for years. Good grief, if the people who claimed that had a true grasp on what was involved in being a priest, they would be screaming blue murder about what has been done to MEN who have been ordained over the millennia.

That’s why the discussions usually end up going nowhere. Each side uses the same word, “priest”, but those advocating women priests use the word to mean something other than that which is conferred in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and Catholics will have none of the suggested substitution.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[mgrfin]

I think this gives sex too much significance in Christianity. What would “lumen gentleman” or you make of St. Paul’s statement that in Christ there is no “male and female.” I understand that this is not a knock-down prooftext for women’s ordination, particularly given what St. Paul says elsewhere. But it seems to me that it does exclude the ascription of such incredible importance in liturgical/ecclesiastical matters to sexual differentiation. It seems to me that St. Paul, like conservative Protestants, is talking about questions of good order and hierarchy when he says things like “women should be silent.” The Pope has himself said that these statements must be “relativized” in the light of cultural shifts. So instead, the Catholic Church puts forward these more mystical interpretations, which have a great appeal but seem to me to fly directly in the face of “no male and female.” I am not one to use the word “pagan” as a slur, but I question whether this kind of sexual mysticism is compatible with orthodox Christianity when taken this literally and this far.

I think one of the bigger questions here is what it means for the priest to be in persona Christi. To me, the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi is actually an argument against the necessity of the male priesthood. The priest is not fructifying the sanctuary (viewed as a mystical womb) in virtue of his own maleness, but in virtue of his sacramental identification with Christ. The question remains open, then, why a baptized woman, fully incorporated into Christ’s Body, cannot act in persona Christi in exactly the same way. It is simply not clear why the sexual identity of the priest is so important. Giving it such importance seems–once again–to verge on a worship of sex that has been traditionally rejected by both Jews and Christians. Ironically, it is the proponents of the male priesthood who seem closer here to the sexually charged view of the priesthood held by ancient pagans (this is ironic because the fact that pagans had priestesses is often used as an argument against the ordination of women).

Edwin

The exclusivity of maleness in the Catholic priesthood has to do with some need intrinsically a priest be a male based on the fact that Jesus was male (in persona Christi), or the Apostles that he chose were male.

Having said that, I have to insist that ordaining a women is not a question of liceity, but a question of validity as well.

The Church has said for 20 centuries that is the way it has to be. So the essence of the priesthood revolves around the candidate for ordination must be a male, otherwise, such ordination is not only illicit but invalid.

Maybe, as a Protestant, that rales against your sense of liberty, or freedom, or intellect, or reason. It has nothing to do with any of that. It is a theologic and a practicality matter, and celibate males don’t see women having an essential, ministerial part in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, dispite the universality of Jesus’ Priesthood.

The Protestant dilemna of ordaining women does not enter into Catholic thinking. As usual, Catholics aren’t concerned with specifically Protestant problems. Of course, the Protestant problem becomes more complicated when the woman in qestion is an active lesbian, or ‘blesses’ same sex unions. All that, are part of the reasons Catholics aren’t concerned with the Protestant dilemna. It is even deeper than this: Catholics don’t see any validity to Protestant Orders (Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Evangelical), so it matters not whether you have women in the mix or not.

The Church can’t get over the problem of celibacy. They need priests, but will not open the door to a married priesthood, which would take the pressure off as far as numbers go. They will not even accept back priests who have resigned and who have married and who have been ready for 40 years to come back. (An exception is the ordination of Anglican minister converts).

The question of female gender in the Catholic priesthood is a “bridge too far”. A’int on the horizon in our lifetimes.

peace

 

[jtt97mmt]

Well, that’s begging the question. If you simply mean that we have no record of Jesus saying “It’s OK to ordain women”–well, we have no record of Him saying “it’s OK to ordain Japanese men” either, or for that matter no record of Him saying “It’s OK to ordain left-handed people.”

Again, this presupposes a particular understanding of why gender is significant. Since the understanding of gender that the Catholic Church defends today is radically different from that of the ancient or medieval or early modern worlds, you cannot simply invoke tradition in favor of the practice without examining the theory of gender that lies behind it.

Edwin

I agree it would be nice to be able to know “why” Jesus selected 12 men as His Apostles. I don’t pretend to know why, but I know that He did. I do believe that the Apostles knew why though, maybe not at first, but certainly after Pentecost. Who knows what conversations they had with Jesus during His 3-year ministry. Given my lack of certain knowledge as to the “why” question, I will graciously submit to those who I trust do know either the “why” or the “Will of God” in this matter.

The Apostles, in Acts 1:15-26 selected a replacement for Judas. From Acts 1:21-22:

“Therefore, it is neccessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection”

If anyone knew the Will of Jesus in this matter, I would think it would have been Saint Peter.

As well, what about in Acts Chapter 6, “The Need for Assistants”. “So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to the ministry of the word.””

Without a certain quote from Jesus on the matter, where else can we turn? We turn to examples like this, we turn to the teachings of the early Church Fathers who learned from the Apostles, we look to the Tradition of the Church establish by Christ and given authority by Christ. That is why there is no issue with the ordination of Japanese men or left-handed men, those who knew God’s Will have passed it on to us. Those who have been given the authority have taught us. We can reason our way into circles on this issue. We can over-think it to death, but this is the crux of the argument to me.

May God bless you on your journey.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree it would be nice to be able to know “why” Jesus selected 12 men as His Apostles. I don’t pretend to know why, but I know that He did. I do believe that the Apostles knew why though, maybe not at first, but certainly after Pentecost. Who knows what conversations they had with Jesus during His 3-year ministry. Given my lack of certain knowledge as to the “why” question, I will graciously submit to those who I trust do know either the “why” or the “Will of God” in this matter.

The Apostles, in Acts 1:15-26 selected a replacement for Judas. From Acts 1:21-22:

“Therefore, it is neccessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection”

If anyone knew the Will of Jesus in this matter, I would think it would have been Saint Peter.

As well, what about in Acts Chapter 6, “The Need for Assistants”. “So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to the ministry of the word.””

It’s interesting that in this case, they chose men for what traditionally would have been considered women’s work -waiting tables and feeding the hungry. Yet we have no record of any women having been ordained to the early Diaconate.

 

[jtt97mmt]

It’s interesting that in this case, they chose men for what traditionally would have been considered women’s work -waiting tables and feeding the hungry. Yet we have no record of any women having been ordained to the early Diaconate.

I agree that it is interesting to consider. The NAB has a footnote to this verse as well:

6, 2: To serve at table: some commentators think that it is not the serving of food that is described here but rather the keeping of the accounts that recorded the distribution of food to the needy members of the community. In any case, after Stephen and the others are chosen, they are never presented carrying out the task for which they were appointed (2-3). Rather, two of their number, Stephen and Philip, are presented as preachers of the Christian message. They, the Hellenist counterpart of the Twelve, are active in the ministry of the word.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… The question remains open, then, why a baptized woman, fully incorporated into Christ’s Body, cannot act in persona Christi in exactly the same way…

Another question would be, “Why do we need a priest at all??!!”

If Jesus is the male, and The Church is the female, and they come together to give us spiritual life, then we don’t need a priest at all!!

But, that’s not how it works. Jesus created the Catholic priesthood.

The day the Catholic Church allows female priests is the day the Catholic Church stops being Catholic. The foundation of the Catholic priesthood is that the priest acts in Person Christi and becomes The Groom. A woman can’t become “The Groom”. If you say that being the “The Groom” is only symbolic and not really that important, then you are effectively saying that the Catholic Church and it’s priesthood is a 2000 year old lie!

A female Catholic priest is a contradiction. It cannot happen! If it does, the Church stops being Catholic and becomes Protestant.

 

[mikew262]

Another question would be, “Why do we need a priest at all??!!”

If Jesus is the male, and The Church is the female, and they come together to give us spiritual life, then we don’t need a priest at all!!

But, that’s not how it works. Jesus created the Catholic priesthood.

The day the Catholic Church allows female priests is the day the Catholic Church stops being Catholic. The foundation of the Catholic priesthood is that the priest acts in Person Christi and becomes The Groom. A woman can’t become “The Groom”. If you say that being the “The Groom” is only symbolic and not really that important, then you are effectively saying that the Catholic Church and it’s priesthood is a 2000 year old lie!

A female Catholic priest is a contradiction. It cannot happen! If it does, the Church stops being Catholic and becomes Protestant.

I would hope the Catholic Church’s survival wouldn’t hinge on whether there are female priests or not. I feel the Church is a little more solid than that.

While I’m not advocating female priests, I don’t have a huge problem with it either. Serving God in what ever capacity has merit in my book and I think God’s.

I don’t buy into the groom/bride argument on why the Church can’t have female priests. While God in the form of Christ was indeed male in his human form. God is really spirit in the true form, neither male or female. As a result, the priest, acting in persona in Christ shouldn’t make any difference whether he/she is male or female.

Having said all that, I don’t think the Church will ever see female priests, if no other reason because the Church hierarchy is male dominated and they wouldn’t let it happen.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .I don’t buy into the groom/bride argument on why the Church can’t have female priests. While God in the form of Christ was indeed male in his human form. God is really spirit in the true form, neither male or female. As a result, the priest, acting in persona in Christ shouldn’t make any difference whether he/she is male or female. . .

Do you not yet know that Christ continues as High Priest? No wonder you have problems, then, with the truth that the Bridegroom-Bride imagery presents. He didn’t set-aside His manhood upon His Resurrection. The Incarnation continues with Christ ascended into heaven Who will remain for all eternity. Christ is High Priest-as-male, male-as-High Priest. His maleness is not incidental to Him (no person’s gender is simply incidental to who that person is). Suggesting that whether a priest is a man or a woman is a matter of personal gifts, implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference with regard to the Incarnation of God, and that implies being a man or a woman is a superficial difference as such. But such is a superficial understanding of human nature, the Incarnation, and so the symbolism of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, for the Church considers it a very deep question as part of Divine Revelation.

The Church is teaching that the difference between being a man or a woman goes to the heart of the Divinely-revealed Mystery of the Incarnation of God as a Man, or to put it in reverse, that the basic Mystery of the Incarnation is necessarily connected in fact with Our Lord choosing only men to be Apostles (as opposed to the ethnic difference of Jew/non-Jew) since the Twelve are to be icons or living images of this Man Jesus in being His priests. That distinction is not important for Baptism or Confirmation, but it is for Holy Orders.

Having said all that, I don’t think the Church will ever see female priests, if no other reason because the Church hierarchy is male dominated and they wouldn’t let it happen.

I hope a deeper faith will bring you out of such a shallow understanding.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I remember the Priest I was studying under receiving the then latest statement issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger about the issue of women priests. As i recall, the Church admitted there was virtually no biblical admonition against women in the priesthood but that it was traditional and that was sufficient. That would have been in about 1994.

I seem to recall as well some of the house churches in the early church were run by women, or at least they seemed to have played an equal roll in the liturgical events.

I suspect things will change as the shortage of priests continues to rise. Nuns are running a ton of dioceses now, a priest stops by on Sunday for one mass. Something is gonna have to give, either women will be ordained or men will be allowed to marry. I have no particular desire either way. Its just the writing on the wall as it were.

And just for the record, I think we arrived at this place mainly because of patriarchial systems having been in place for so long. Its a long and laborious struggle women are well familiar with.

 

[japhy]

Something is gonna have to give, either women will be ordained or men will be allowed to marry.

… or more men will accept their calling to the priesthood. Perhaps there are reasons for the decline in vocations to the priesthood. Perhaps identifying the reasons and resolving the problems behind them will help the vocations crisis.

And just for the record, I think we arrived at this place mainly because of patriarchial systems having been in place for so long.

Yes, God certainly is a bully to let men run the Church for so long.

 

[mgrfin]

…
Yes, God certainly is a bully to let men run the Church for so long.

God is a bully? What??

God is provident, even though we may not always like what He decides.

peace

 

[SpiritMeadow]

… or more men will accept their calling to the priesthood. Perhaps there are reasons for the decline in vocations to the priesthood. Perhaps identifying the reasons and resolving the problems behind them will help the vocations crisis.

Yes, God certainly is a bully to let men run the Church for so long.

whyever would you say God is a bully? odd to say the least.

 

[japhy]

whyever would you say God is a bully? odd to say the least.

Sorry, there should’ve been a there. Let me explain the comment.

“And just for the record, I think we arrived at this place mainly because of patriarchial systems having been in place for so long. Its a long and laborious struggle women are well familiar with.”

I took that to mean that your opinion of the hierarchy of the Church is that is a man-made (that is, male-made) structure imposed on top of what God intended. So the only reason there are only male priests is because men say it has to be that way, and that allowing women to be priests is an element of the liberation of women.

 

[Odell]

So why can men efficaciously symbolize Christ’s Bride? Why will no one answer this question?

Edwin

As much as men become “bride” as members of the Church, women become “priest” as members of the priesthood of all belivers (see 1Pt 2:9) Every baptised man and woman participates in Christ’s priesthood by living a sacrificial life in union with him.

But we enter a different realm as soon as we talk about an individual person becoming A sacrament of Christ.

remember for sacraments to be efficacious the physical reality must properly symbolize the spiritual reality.

 

[mgrfin]

Sorry, there should’ve been a there. Let me explain the comment.

“And just for the record, I think we arrived at this place mainly because of patriarchial systems having been in place for so long. Its a long and laborious struggle women are well familiar with.”

I took that to mean that your opinion of the hierarchy of the Church is that is a man-made (that is, male-made) structure imposed on top of what God intended. So the only reason there are only male priests is because men say it has to be that way, and that allowing women to be priests is an element of the liberation of women.

Yes, the Church is a ‘male’ domination organization. Who is to say that is not what God wanted?

That’s the way it is, so I guess that is the way he wanted it?

peace

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I don’t buy into the groom/bride argument on why the Church can’t have female priests. While God in the form of Christ was indeed male in his human form. God is really spirit in the true form, neither male or female. As a result, the priest, acting in persona in Christ shouldn’t make any difference whether he/she is male or female.

I suspect you don’t see the priest as The Groom. (I too find it difficult to understand. I really only accept it because it is Sacred Tradition.)

Is it a fair question if I ask, “Do you think a woman can become a Groom?”

Hopefully, if you answer “No”, then you’ll know why a woman can’t be a priest.

Having said all that, I don’t think the Church will ever see female priests, if no other reason because the Church hierarchy is male dominated and they wouldn’t let it happen.

That’s kind of like a conspiracy theory. I think we should be past that.

 

[japhy]

Yes, the Church is a ‘male’ domination organization. Who is to say that is not what God wanted?

That’s the way it is, so I guess that is the way he wanted it?

My original comment was sarcasm. The comment you’ve responded to was the reason why I made the sarcastic comment: I was explaining how I interpreted SpiritMeadow’s post.