Women In the Priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Juxtaposer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**1 Cor 11:7-9 **A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;

How are we to understand this? This seems counter-cultural today especially in the secular world.

JamesS said:
1 Cor 14 "…the women should keep **silence **in the churches. For they should not be permitted to speak. But should be subordinate, as even the law says.
Click to expand...

What about women who are lectors?

**1 Cor 11:5 **But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head,…

Why don’t we follow this also?

Greg
 
40.png
Greg_McPherran:
Why don’t we follow this also?
Click to expand...
Greg,

This is a problem in the Church today. The granting of titles that one does not diserve.

A lector is a ministry that is granted by the bishop in a service and only a male can be installed as one.

In the absence of an instituted lector a lay person may fill in as a reader.

A reader, while doing the same thing, is not a lector.
 
Heathen Dawn:
I don’t get it.

Surely the portrayal of the Church as the Bride of Christ, and Jesus as the bridegroom, is metaphorical—the Church is not a literal woman that one single man could consummate the marriage with. And a priest is not a literal father of his parish, since he did not beget all its members, nor a literal husband of the parish, since he is one man and the parish is many men and women. Are you agreed this is all metaphor? If the talk of father, husband, wife and bride is all metaphorical, how can you let it intrude into the real, literal situation? Yes, a woman can’t be husband to her parish; but then, neither can a man! And if a priest is metaphorical husband to his parish, why can’t a woman priest be the same? Or, instead, switch metaphors, and have the woman be the wife to her husband the parish.

I don’t care either way—it’s your internal issue. But it seems the Catholic stance against the ordination of women is based on a less than solid foundation. My 2¢, anyway.
Click to expand...
No, your understanding of the Catholic stance is clouded by your pagan religion. To most Catholics who are clear on the teachings of the church this is not an issue. A woman can not be a husband or a father even in a metaphorical sense. Those are roles that in the eyes of the Church (as I mentioned in the above post) are reserved for men. Another example is the metaphor in the book of the prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem (and likewise the Church, the New Jerusalem) where the prophet says, “Oh that you may suck with delight at her abundant breasts.” Jerusalem (and the Church) in this sense is referred to as a woman. Now, are you going to say this can be interpreted in a masculine way? I would say no since according to the roles defined by the church, a man cannot suckle an infant at his breast. Only a woman can do that. The roles are well defined regardless of the sense that is being used be it literal, allegorical, or metaphorical. Only society with its neo-pagan attitudes blurs the line.
 
Greg_McPherran said:
**1 Cor 11:7-9 **A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man;

How are we to understand this? This seems counter-cultural today especially in the secular world.

What about women who are lectors?

**1 Cor 11:5 **But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head,…

Why don’t we follow this also?

Greg
Click to expand...

I don’t know?..Why don’t we?..I think we should!

Don’t worry about culture for these things. The only thing we can reasonably apply cultural things to are some of the dietary habits of leviticus. Why? Because we don’t live in barren deserts where certain meats can go bad, fast.

But dietary habits and hardwired spiritual programming given from God are two different things.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
A reader, while doing the same thing, is not a lector.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, but it’s still speaking in Church.

**1 Cor 11:5 **But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head,…

Also, why don’t we observe this regarding head coverings?
 
40.png
JamesS:
I don’t know?..Why don’t we?
Click to expand...
What does the magisterium teach about head coverings?
40.png
JamesS:
The only thing we can reasonably apply cultural things to are some of the dietary habits of leviticus. Why? Because we don’t live in barren deserts where certain meats can go bad, fast.
Click to expand...
I think we don’t follow these dietary laws because Jesus authoritatively taught that we don’t need to.
 
Heathen Dawn:
I know, I know. I’m familiar with the OT in its original language. But my question still stands: prophetesses yes, priestesses no—WHY? What’s so special about the priesthood that only men can be members of it? Is there any reason behind this, or is it plain arbitrary?
Click to expand...
This distinction was outlined by chb03c’s post
Heathen Dawn:
It is not doctrine, in the Bible, saying women can’t be priests, but mere omission: from the fact that you don’t find Israelite priestesses in the OT, you gather only men can be priests. In like manner, we could deduce slavery were God-sanctioned, since it’s widely attested to in the OT (conditions of slaves ameliorated, yes, but slavery not prohibited). If the ordination of women is a change of doctrine, then so is the abolition of slavery. But society has forced its hand upon the church to change on the issue of slavery, as of divine right of kings, stake-burning and geocentrism. Find me a clear “a woman shall not be a priest” in the Bible, just as we have a clear “thou shalt not” against homosexuality, and then I’ll be convinced.
Click to expand...
This isn’t exactly the argument being made. It’s not “it is a doctrine that women should not be priests” rather “Jesus has not given the Church authority to ordain female priests.” He could have easily made a woman be among his apostles but he chose only males. The modernist reasoning for this is generally that “his mission would not have been successful because no one would have listened to women, therefore he did not choose women” is unsound since it seems that his mission would not have been successful if he had chosen uneducated, ordinary men. God has the power to do all things.
 
Heathen Dawn:
But my question still stands: prophetesses yes, priestesses no—WHY? What’s so special about the priesthood that only men can be members of it? Is there any reason behind this, or is it plain arbitrary?
Click to expand...
Heathen,

It’s not that the priesthood is “special” per say. No one bust a gut about this sentence until I explain my point.

It’s that because men and women are different, and complimentary, that their natures are best suited to accomplish the most wonderful things in different ways.

Priests are special because they devote their lives to being servants for God. They serve the people. Not as mothers, but as fathers would. It’s metaphorical; plus innate essence of being, intwined with our sexuality.

I (a woman, just to be perfectly clear) have no desire to be that kind of servant.

My Holy Father, Pope JPII has, truly invigorated the lay ministry in the Church. He has repeatedly pointed out and emphasized that All laypersons have a special call to serve in a way that befits who they are.

Women in the Church are spiritual mothers who breathe a certain life into the Gospel. Women have a tendency to exude the Word in the most minute ways, a million times a day. Men can, and are called to do this too, but they’re not as good at it. (They’re more efficient in other ways-- for example, Priesthood.)

Another way to say it, is Priests are special because they’re priests, not because they’re men being priests. It’s a difference- thing, not an exclusion-thing. Does that make sense?

Much Peace to you.
 
Gerry Hunter:
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 28, 1995

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: In the affirmative.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting the definitive response from the CDF.
That pretty much settles it.

So why is this thread going on so long?
 
40.png
JimG:
So why is this thread going on so long?
Click to expand...
hahahaha
Around here you might as well answer that with, well, with anything you’d like. 👋

Peace.
 
40.png
JimG:
Oh my. I’m not even going to touch the one about not speaking.
Click to expand...
I will. The sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted by Christ Jesus. He is its author, and only the author of a work has the right to change it. The Church is the guardian of Christ’s work, not the editor of that work. The Church cannot change the sacraments.

The same isn’t true of Paul’s admonition against women speaking in the assembly or about women wearing head coverings. These disciplines applied only to the church in Corinth, and were culturally conditioned by the horrible treatment women received under pagan law in that city.

In Corinth, a woman in public without her head covered was dressed as a prostitute. It was a form of immodest dress, to say the least, in Corinthian society. A woman who spoke in public without permission could be subjected to corporal punishment, up to and including having a hot poker rammed through her tongue.

Paul’s orders about women being silent and wearing head coverings were intended to protect women from pagan persecutors. They were not intended as binding doctrine or dogma.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
I will. The sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted by Christ Jesus. He is its author, and only the author of a work has the right to change it. The Church is the guardian of Christ’s work, not the editor of that work. The Church cannot change the sacraments.

The same isn’t true of Paul’s admonition against women speaking in the assembly or about women wearing head coverings. These disciplines applied only to the church in Corinth, and were culturally conditioned by the horrible treatment women received under pagan law in that city.

In Corinth, a woman in public without her head covered was dressed as a prostitute. It was a form of immodest dress, to say the least, in Corinthian society. A woman who spoke in public without permission could be subjected to corporal punishment, up to and including having a hot poker rammed through her tongue.

Paul’s orders about women being silent and wearing head coverings were intended to protect women from pagan persecutors. They were not intended as binding doctrine or dogma.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I would like to see your sources for what you have stated above.
If this was Corinth specific (as you state), why would Paul start off by saying “As in **all **the churches of the Saints…”
If this was Corinth specific (as you state), why would paul conclude V 36 by saying “**What! **Did the word of God originate from you, or are you the only ones it has reached?”
 
Men are the only ones who can be priests.

Women are the only ones who can give birth.

There are just some things in natural law that can’t be changed.
 
40.png
DeniseR:
Men are the only ones who can be priests…There are just some things in natural law that can’t be changed.
Click to expand...
This is a “natural law”???

You’ve got to be kidding (or totally brainwashed).
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Greg,

This is a problem in the Church today. The granting of titles that one does not diserve.

A lector is a ministry that is granted by the bishop in a service and only a male can be installed as one.

In the absence of an instituted lector a lay person may fill in as a reader.

A reader, while doing the same thing, is not a lector.
Click to expand...
Our parish is careful NOT to use the word “lector.” I am a reader but considering stepping down (although I do it very well, if I do say so myself) just because of this confusion you cite.

I am absolutely CERTAIN that if any man in the parish were to approach the pastor about seeking installed lectorship, he would be rejected because the host of non-instituted readers would largely be out of work and they (especially the women) would be seething with rage (did you say something about pride?).

OK. That’s off topic. Now back to the original thread . . .
 
Back to Heathen and others. . .

It strikes me that the “concern” you seem to feel that we women are UNFAIRLY (in your opinion) “kept from the heart of spiritual life” is somewhat disingenuous.

One: The priesthood is NOT the “heart of spiritual life”. The priesthood is a VOCATION. Marriage is a vocation. Single life is a vocation. The “heart” of spiritual life is not any given VOCATION–the heart of spiritual life is GOD ALMIGHTY. I am not “kept from the heart of spiritual life” by anything other than MY OWN WILL IF I CHOOSE SIN INSTEAD OF GOD.

Two: I am no “closer” to God, nor am I “better” than others, in my given vocation than is anyone else. God does not “prefer” priests, or married people, or single people. All have unique and special roles to play. May I remind you that the saints were not all priests? That we have, not only married people, single people, men and women of every race, as saints?

Three: The issue of “women priests” is, was, and WILL BE closed. Priesthood is a sacrament, and sacraments need VALID MATTER. Just as the issue of the sacrament of marriage requires as VALID MATTER one MAN and one WOMAN, and may NOT be changed. Just as the issue of the sacrament of the Eucharist requires as VALID MATTER wheat bread and grape wine, from the mustum state at the very beginning of fermentation through fully fermented wine, and may NOT be changed.

Now, you could (and apparently you are) argue that nothing can stop you from having Adam and Steve come forward and recite vows, even in some church, and be CALLED “married”.

You can take nachos and beer, have some “priest” come forward and supposedly “Consecrate” them, and CALLl it “Eucharist”.

You can take a woman, have her receive “Holy Orders” and CALL her a “priest”.

You can also go to a court and legally get yourself to be CALLED “Jesus”. . .but that doesn’t make you the second person in the Trinity.

Adam and Steve together are not valid matter–therefore, there is no sacrament of matrimony for them–EVER.
Nachos and beer are not valid matter–therefore, they are not Eucharist. Ever.
A woman demanding Holy Orders is not valid matter–therefore, she may not be a priest. Ever.

A human being is not GOD ALMIGHTY, so a human may not presume to override God’s own law with impunity. Ever.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Our parish is careful NOT to use the word “lector.” I am a reader but considering stepping down (although I do it very well, if I do say so myself) just because of this confusion you cite.

I am absolutely CERTAIN that if any man in the parish were to approach the pastor about seeking installed lectorship, he would be rejected because the host of non-instituted readers would largely be out of work and they (especially the women) would be seething with rage (did you say something about pride?).

OK. That’s off topic. Now back to the original thread . . .
Click to expand...
You make the false assumption that to be an instituted lector, all that is asked for is the right plumbing below the belt. That is not true. The Office of Lector is an honorable one, but not one which is likely to have multiple canddiates in a typical parish.

Simply making every man who current is a non-instituted lector an instituted one is evidence that there is a certain sinful sexism lurking around.
 
40.png
JimG:
Thanks for posting the definitive response from the CDF.
That pretty much settles it.

So why is this thread going on so long?
Click to expand...
A very good question. 👍

I have some Anglican friends who bemoan the situation they are in, describing it as one where the Ten Commandments are treated like the Ten Suggestions for Dialogue. Some things are just not open to discussion – or at the very least, not to Catholic Christian discourse.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top