Women priesthood

[Mannyfit75]

I am not disagreeing with your positions in the slightest. I am 100% behind your reasoning in this. My question was for Nella whom suggested that Jesus did commission women as priests.

I know.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Were all of theapostles levite jews? Are all priests today levite Jews?

Jesus established a new covenant and form a new priesthood. He kept the traditions of the Jewish old covenant.

The Old Covenant priesthood died out after the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The only thing that was left was the Rabbis.

 

[Valke2]

Jesus established a new covenant and form a new priesthood. He kept the traditions of the Jewish old covenant.

The Old Covenant priesthood died out after the Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The only thing that was left was the Rabbis.

ok. Then you can’t rely on Jewish tradition to support the position that Jesus wanted only men to serve as priests in the future. You (or someone else stated) in an earlier post that Jesus as a Jew would only want male priests because there were only male priests at the Temple.

 

[Gnosis]

I acknowledge that the admission of women into the priesthood would be an enormous change and an obvious step away from traditional Catholic practice. I also find some of the traditional answers against ordaining women to be lacking in some regards. In my experiences with Catholicism not all traditions are automatically worth preserving simply because “thats the way it has been done”. Traditions that I would generally support in the Church not only have been practiced in some form or manner since antiquity, but also have a strong theological backbone to them.

I do not see this theological backbone supporting the tradition against the ordination of women.

1. The 12 Apostles.

Yes, it is true that they were all men. But an honest examination of the Gospels reveals little to nothing about the early Christian priesthood. This is a legitimate historical development within Christianity and reflects a growth in the understanding of the Gospel message. While we draw Apostolic Succession from the Apostles themselves, we have to be careful when projecting a priesthood onto the 12 Apostles. What is most clear is that the authors are intent, along with Jesus, to show that Christ is establishing a new Israel, the “remnant” if you will, when considering Jesus’ foreknowledge of Israel’s impending destruction. The Hebrew Patriarchs from whom the Tribes were grouped around were all male, and thus Jesus’ decision to choose males is obviously an intended sign of the restoration of what Jesus saw as a corrupted Israelite religious life. To choose 12 males as Apostles is a mirroring of the original creation of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not incorrect to see this as the scriptural basis for understanding the emerging Christian priesthood, but neither does it mandate the all male priesthood for all time. That is forcing the text to say something that it simply is not.

1. Patriarchial Society

The second thing to consider is that Jesus was working in the framework of a male dominated society, and this could have been a factor influencing his decision to take only males into his inmost circle. In Judaism, women were forbidden from entering into many of the most sacred aspects of Jewish life. Many counter this typical argument by saying that Jesus would not have been limited by prejudices. If this were true, we could have expected Jesus to enter into history giving women equal wages. He certainly pushed the norms regarding women, but made these progressive steps small enough that society could still swallow them.

For this reason it could be argued that a male priesthood was a neccessary reflection for the times. Jesus clearly preached his ministry both within and outside the boundaries of socially accepted evils. If this were not true he would have seen fit to correct the problem of slavery. Instead of legislating massive societal changes, the Gospel has seeded the human consciousness with an entirely God centred orientation for living; a morality that has to be nurtured and brought to light both immediately but also as society evolves in its capacity to meet the demands of the Gospel.

The evolutionary capacity of society is central to Biblical Christianity. It was God who used the society of Israel to progressively prepare the world for the Gospel. The function of the Church is similar, it is called to seed out the implications of the Easter experience in modern times while preserving the way this was experienced in the past. The Gospel is not stagnant nor is God’s people. In faith there is growth and new understanding.

For this reason, I think using “scriptural” support against the ordination of women is dishonest. The question should not be closed by simply uttering “this is the way it is, God knows why”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

ok. Then you can’t rely on Jewish tradition to support the position that Jesus wanted only men to serve as priests in the future. You (or someone else stated) in an earlier post that Jesus as a Jew would only want male priests because there were only male priests at the Temple.

Jesus is a Jew. He is also the High Priest in Christianity. He commissioned Twelve Apostle, which I stated numerous times that they were men.

Women priesthood was never commissioned by God.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<There is more to the story that just the Apostles. Plus, some linguists say that one of the people explicitely identified by Paul as an apostle was a woman.>>

It’s Junia, the wife of Andronicos, whom St. Paul calls “great amng the apostles.” She is commemorated on the Byzantine calendar along with her husband.

However, there’s something that seems to be getting forgotten.

The function of the ordained ministry is only for this life. There will be no need for sacraments in the world to come.

The acquisition of the Holy Spirit, however, is for EVERYONE, begins in this life, and continues in the next.

 

[FCEGM]

Were all of theapostles levite jews? Are all priests today levite Jews?

The Catholic ministerial priesthood is not like the OT Levitical priesthood - that is, a “priestly caste” unto itself. Because of the sins of the other tribes, only a man from the tribe of Levi qualified as an Israelite priest; and only a Levite from a particular clan or family could qualify as high priest or as one of the chief priests. Yet, in Catholicism, a priest can come from any nation, race, or family within the Church. This is what allowed the Apostles to ordain presbyters from among the native populations of all the city-churches they founded (e.g. Acts 14:23), who would in-turn preside over the local Christian “Passover Meal” (the Lord’s Supper) as father to a particular ecclesial “family” (a particular house-church). In this, the curse against Israel of old was clearly overturned; and the Church (the new Israel) returned to the original form of worship practiced by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in which a father of the family or tribe (a “presbyter” = “elder” …from which we get our English word “priest”) would now offer the ministerial Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist."

In Catholicism, there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile. All belong to the New Israel of Jesus Christ --all are Israelites and heirs to Abraham (Gal 3:29 & 6:16). But the difference here is that the priesthood implies fatherhood. And while all Baptized persons are indeed in Christ (whether Jew or Gentile, man or woman), not all of them can be fathers. Rather, only male Jews and male Gentiles can be fathers. The same Paul who wrote Galatians clearly did not believe that women could be fathers in the Church, or even hold any Church authority. Yet, he did recognize presbyters among both the Jews (e.g. Barnabas, Timothy, Silas) and the Gentiles (e.g. Titus, Luke, etc.).

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.

In Baptism the question is incorporation into the Body of Christ affecting mainly the soul; in Confirmation, the strengthening of that grace of the Holy Spirit. (Galatians highlights the difference between the former Covenant with the Jews wherein the introductory and outward expression – circumcision – was available only for men; now in Christ the new circumcision, baptism, is available for all.) But the specific difference in Holy Orders is to be a visible sign of the Groom to the Bride, the Head to His Body, the Son to the Father, the Father to His children; and the Author of the world to come. That involves not just the soul but the body before the visible communion.

 

[FCEGM]

There is more to the story that just the Apostles. Plus, some linguists say that one of the people explicitely identified by Paul as an apostle was a woman. Order some of the articles from “Christians for Biblical Equality,” cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/free_articles.shtml. There is a lot more to the story that what you know of…

And some ancient codices read “Junias” rather than “Junia.” So, it is a matter of debate whether this person is a man or a woman. It could easily be either one. But, even if it is a woman, so what? She is not called a “fellow apostle”. What we know from the text (Romans 16:7) is that this “Junia” is paired with “Andronicus,” who is listed before “her”. We are also told that Andronicus and “Junia” are St. Paul’s “relatives” and that they were Christians “before” St. Paul was.

The natural conclusion here is that “Junia” (if it is “Junia”) was Andronicus’ wife, and they were “prominent among (or before) the apostles” in one of two senses: 1) Either they were regarded as a “husband and wife team” (with Andronicus being the primary figure as an evangelist --i.e., women were not permitted to preach publicly or have authority over a man). In this, they would have been no different than Aquila and his aristocratic Roman wife Priscilla, who are likewise always paired together, and mentioned in this same Epistle to the Romans only a few verses earlier (Romans 16:3), where they together are called Paul’s “co-workers”; and this by a Paul who does not permit women to preach; or, 2), “prominent among (or before) the Apostles” can mean that Andronicus and “Junia” were held in high esteem among the Twelve, just as Priscilla and Aquila were “prominent” among the disciples of Paul.

This would make sense if they were “in Christ before [Paul],” since that would mean that they were early members of the Jerusalem church, and probably the Apostles’ first emissaries to the Jews of Rome, if not among the very Roman Jews who were converted on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:9-10, where Roman Jewish pilgrims are mentioned). Paul, of course, was a Roman citizen, and so it would make sense for his relative Andronicus and his wife Junia (if it is a woman) to be Roman citizens as well, and so residents of Rome. So, there is no “feminist super-hero” to be found in this verse, but rather a phantasm.

 

[cathgal]

Did Jesus ever say that women absolutely should never be part of clergy?? You seem to think you know everything.

Oh why do the pro-woman priests always complain about equality w/ male priests.

Is their mind so narrow that all they see in the physical realm is what man can do woman can do too.

The fact is, not everything man can do woman can too.

Take for example hard physical labor. How often do we hear that man should do the job or that those jobs are done by men. I don’t hear any pro-woman equality whines about it. They want equality, then take those jobs like a man or shut up about it !

God did not make women as physically strong as men, therefore, men have their places as do women in this world. If He wants all of us to be equal in the feminist narrow point of view, He would’ve just create males or females only.

As in the priesthood, yes, what men physically can do, women can do too, (how fortunate that it’s not hard physical labor ! ) but that’s not the point.

Priesthood is for the spiritual realm

IF the Church is a Bride of Christ and is also the Mother of her children, in what physical form must a priest be ???

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

Plus, in the days of St Augustine there were women priests in Celtic Britian, and Rome knew this, and I don’t think Rome didn’t complain. I’ve never heard that anybody complained about them. The women were accepted in the Celtic lands.

Please name one ancient source which says that any Celtic Christians who were in communion with Rome had female priests. None of the sources mention them: Not Patrick, or Germanus, or Senchnall, or Gildas, or Nennius, or anyone else. Nor, I believe, is there any evidence that even the Pelagian heretics in Britain had female priests (although some Arian heretics in Syria tried them out for a while). So, where’s your evidence for these ancient Celtic priestesses? Just wanting something to be does not make it so. History doesn’t work like that.