Women Priests?

[PRmerger]

\

Bride/female.

Yet no one has yet suggested that men can’t be members of the Church.

This is a classic example of what I mean by “failing to provide an even moderately coherent rationale.” It’s not that complicated an objection–it’s a fairly obvious one. Yet no one who repeats this “bridegroom argument” seems even to have considered it.

Clearly the Church does not in fact require that “biological gender” and “sacramental gender” coincide. Hence, your argument is incoherent–it rests on an unspoken premise that is obviously false, and makes no sense that I can see without that obviously false premise.

Edwin

Edwin

The roles of Bridegroom/Bride are not congruent, Edwin.

A man is never the Bride personally. Nor ministerially. He is simply part of a greater whole, the Church, which functions as the Bride. He is receptive and passive in this role

However, a woman in the putative role as a priest is indeed acting personally. And ministerially. As a priest she functions individually, in an active and ministerial fashion.

As such, the roles, as stated above, are not congruent.

A man may be a passive/receptive member of the Bride of Christ while a woman may never function as the active/ministerial Bridegroom.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, that’s one reason I have never become LCMS!

Just to be clear… my acceptance of the Eucharist from female pastors was from my days in the ELCA. Still to this day, the issue doesn’t bother me too much except for how you have to get there - you have to make a break in tradition, scripture, and authority.

If possible, I look forward to hearing your journey to either the edge or across the Tiber.

Objections such as mine serve the ultimate end of clarifying Church teaching far more than facile agreement does.

You quite correct in the context of CAF and other forums for interrogation, arguments and discovery!

I just stepped out of Divine Service when I wrote what I did - I gist was to perhaps be careful that you don’t quarrel in front of the more trusting sheep in the flock per Matthew 18:6

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare 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.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Just to be clear… my acceptance of the Eucharist from female pastors was from my days in the ELCA. Still to this day, the issue doesn’t bother me too much except for how you have to get there - you have to make a break in tradition, scripture, and authority.

If possible, I look forward to hearing your journey to either the edge or across the Tiber.

You quite correct in the context of CAF and other forums for interrogation, arguments and discovery!

**I just stepped out of Divine Service when I wrote what I did **- I gist was to perhaps be careful that you don’t quarrel in front of the more trusting sheep in the flock per Matthew 18:6

Ben, can I assume you took holy Communion this morning at the ELCA parish you mentioned several weeks ago? I think your opinion on this issue is practical since you have already had a female pastor before you left the ELCA and that you realize that the priesthood has nothing to do with gender but the rather the gifts [sacraments] of God.

 

[Picky_Picky]

From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

Interestingly Ordinatio Sacerdotalis doesn’t go into abstruse matters of brides and grooms, but seems to rest simply on tradition in the Church and the maleness of the Twelve.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No, men are members of the Church (as women are) by virtue of baptism, also a sacrament!

Petitio principii. That’s what you need to establish. Doesn’t baptism initiate the believer into the nuptial mystery as a member of Christ’s bride? Doesn’t reception of the Eucharist renew that mystery? You are simply asserting, without any evidence, that one demands “natural resemblance” and the other doesn’t. It isn’t self-evident from the nature of the respective sacraments at all.

That’s an interesting distinction. But I think, again, it conceals a petitio principii. You are assuming that the physical, natural gender of the incarnate Christ is relevant to His mystical role as the Bridegroom.

But I appreciate the fact that you have articulated a distinction, and I will mull the matter over further.

I am of course quite aware that my own cultural prejudices may be getting in the way. That’s why this is not a matter of conscience for me. There’s a process of reasoning from the intuitive, unquestionable premises that men and women are of equal dignity and that both have been redeemed by Christ (premises which I know are fully shared by the Church) to the conclusion that women are valid subjects for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Edwin

I don’t know what petitio principii means, but it sounds like an academic term about “principal petition” or something. But I think it is self-evident that Christ’s male incarnation is relevant to him being bridegroom to the point that Paul identified Christ’s sacrifice as the pedigree by which husbands must give of themselves to their wives. I don’t think the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are making baseless assumptions there, especially if one also delve into Paul’s teaching of Christ as the second Adam, etc…

Remember also that the bride of Christ is not only a “mystical” body, but a corporate body composed of many members, whereas the priest acts in the person of Christ, a specific, incarnate individual. So I, as a male, do not have to embody the entire bride of Christ in myself when baptized, as I am only a part of a larger body. As an individual, I cannot be the entire bride of Christ. The eye cannot say to the ear, I have no need of you. Only together is the body full, not individually.

Let me also posit this thought: in the order of nature, only a feminine body can “contain” a male body, so even if there were a specific female whose natural resemblance the bride of Christ must embody in every baptized individual, the order of nature demonstrates that a woman can “contain” a male, but not the other way around. And that doesn’t make men any less dignified, FYI to lurkers out there… But having males “in” a female body would be consistent with the unique nature of motherhood and pregnancy.

Staying also with Paul’s notion of a body where the eye cannot say to the ear, I have no need of you, I think we draw from the natural order something about a body with many members. While the Church, the bride, is one body, corporately, the members needn’t be exclusively female. For a female’s body contains a number of “members” that are not exclusively feminine, such as eyes, ears, nose, etc… Thus, I cannot see how a male “member” of the body of Christ would violate the sacramental representation in baptism needed to incorporate one into the mystical body, the bride, of Christ –*which, again, is bride corporately.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interestingly Ordinatio Sacerdotalis doesn’t go into abstruse matters of brides and grooms, but seems to rest simply on tradition in the Church and the maleness of the Twelve.

Well JPII kept it simple and didn’t get picky

 

[benjohnson]

I think your opinion on this issue is practical since you have already had a female pastor before you left the ELCA and that you realize that the priesthood has nothing to do with gender but the rather the gifts [sacraments] of God.

I was married by a female pastor and I cherish the memory, and I’m still good friends with her. Lutherans are not Donatists!

However once informed that female pastors were not traditional, scriptural or confessional, I had to desist in this.

We should not substitute the gift of the priesthood that God with another gift that it only virtue is that it may be more pleasing to us in this modern time.

It’s folly to go down that road - our faith is tenuous enough without having to deny the simple words we read. For if we discount one, what it to keep us from continuing in such a fashion to eventually discount them all.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Well JPII kept it simple and didn’t get picky

Yeah, and believe me I’m grateful. But it seems to suggest that the maleness of the Twelve, a somewhat controversial argument, is the main source of the Church’s teaching rather than eucharistic understanding or bride and groom metaphors.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, and believe me I’m grateful. But it seems to suggest that the maleness of the Twelve, a somewhat controversial argument, is the main source of the Church’s teaching rather than eucharistic understanding or bride and groom metaphors.

Actually, it’s not the “main source”. The main source is the ontological aspects of the sacrament. When the sacrament of ordination is confected, the universe is changed forever. What existed 10 seconds prior, a man before the altar of heaven, exists no more for eternity. Now what is before the eternal throne of heaven is…

a priest.

And a man is needed for this ontological change to occur.

Not a woman.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Actually, it’s not the “main source”. The main source is the ontological aspects of the sacrament. When the sacrament of ordination is confected, the universe is changed forever. What existed 10 seconds prior, a man before the altar of heaven, exists no more for eternity. Now what is before the eternal throne of heaven is…

a priest.

And a man is needed for this ontological change to occur.

Not a woman.

Yes, and sometimes I almost begin to grasp some sense that I might have half a handle on understanding that. But as to “and a man is needed …” , JP2 suggests that is tradition, resting on the maleness of the Twelve.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and sometimes I almost begin to grasp some sense that I might have half a handle on understanding that. But as to “and a man is needed …” , JP2 suggests that is tradition, resting on the maleness of the Twelve.

You may be misunderstanding what “tradition” is here. If by “tradition” you mean “custom”, then you couldn’t be farther from the truth. There is nothing about Catholic teaching regarding a male-only priesthood that rests with “custom”.

However, it is certainly true that JP2 appeals to the maleness of the Twelve as being a factor in our apologia for the male-only priesthood.

 

[Moonbug]

That’s why I am asking Catholics about what the Faith teaches here

The only reason women are not priests is because it was not culturally acceptable in that age, the age that Christ lived. If you looked at all the cultures during that time you will not find women in power positions. It was not safe to make women missionaries and send them out on mission because of the terrible things that might happen to them. Those were heathen times and the only place a woman was safe was in her home surrounded by her family.

I have had priests tell me there is no theological reason why a woman can’t be ordained a priest. Up to about 450 AD there was an estimated 1,600 women deacons in the Church, but from that time forward were gradually pushed out of the deaconate. The Greek Orthodox Church, to this day, has ordained women deacons. Their chain of women deacons has been unbroken from the time of the Apostles. It did fade for awhile, but has come back with a gusto within the past two hundred years. Wait and see. I believe that Pope Francis will give the OK for women deacons. The time of women ordination to the priesthood will surely come, but probably not in our time. :bighanky::

 

[steido01]

The only reason women are not priests is because it was not culturally acceptable in that age, the age that Christ lived. If you looked at all the cultures during that time you will not find women in power positions. It was not safe to make women missionaries and send them out on mission because of the terrible things that might happen to them. Those were heathen times and the only place a woman was safe was in her home surrounded by her family.

False.

I have had priests tell me there is no theological reason why a woman can’t be ordained a priest. Up to about 450 AD there was an estimated 1,600 women deacons in the Church, but from that time forward were gradually pushed out of the deaconate. The Greek Orthodox Church, to this day, has ordained women deacons. Their chain of women deacons has been unbroken from the time of the Apostles. It did fade for awhile, but has come back with a gusto within the past two hundred years. Wait and see. I believe that Pope Francis will give the OK for women deacons. The time of women ordination to the priesthood will surely come, but probably not in our time. :bighanky::

If the priest said that, he was flat wrong. Also, deaconesses were/are NOT deacons, and neither deacon nor deaconess is a priest.

 

[PRmerger]

The only reason women are not priests is because it was not culturally acceptable in that age, the age that Christ lived. If you looked at all the cultures during that time you will not find women in power positions.

The priesthood is not a “power position”. Rather, it is a position of humble servitude.

 

[benjohnson]

The only reason women are not priests is because it was not culturally acceptable in that age

The is demonstrably false!

Jesus broke many cultural norms, the largest one of all was that he rose from the grave. Jews expected a a dead Jew to stay dead. From washing feet, to preaching in the temple - Jesus broke the culture again and again.

Also, powerful women were the norm, not the exception: Judith, Queen Esther, Ruth, Judge Deborah, Rebekah, and Rahab. If you note, they are portrayed in the Bible as regular people not some sort of novelty.

This person is not a fainting flower trapped in a male-only society.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This myth that Jesus was just some culturally blinded dude wrapped up in a falsely depicted male-only culture needs to die a gruesome and horrid death.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yeah, and believe me I’m grateful. But it seems to suggest that the maleness of the Twelve, a somewhat controversial argument, is the main source of the Church’s teaching rather than eucharistic understanding or bride and groom metaphors.

I believe that JPII also has in mind the decree of our Lord since the beginning of time for the male figure, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Levites Priests, David, Isaiah (and all the other prophets), the Apostles, and more importantly Christ - a male.

I think we can agree that Christ was radical enough that if it would have been His purpose, a woman (or more than one) would have been selected as an Apostle.

 

[Moonbug]

False.

If the priest said that, he was flat wrong. Also, deaconesses were/are NOT deacons, and neither deacon nor deaconess is a priest.

The priest that told me that, now deceased, held a very high position in one of the largest archdioceses in America. He was noted for his theological scholarship. He and his brother, who was also a priest, were dear friends of my wife and I. On what authority do you state that he was flat wrong? The person that fills the deaconate position has the same duties, whether male or female.

 

[PRmerger]

The priest that told me that, now deceased, held a very high position in one of the largest archdioceses in America. He was noted for his theological scholarship. He and his brother, who was also a priest, were dear friends of my wife and I. On what authority do you state that he was flat wrong?

On the authority of the Catholic Church, Moonbug.

Friendships with priests notwithstanding, any departure from the One Faith is incorrect, even if it comes from a priest “in a very high position.”

 

[Moonbug]

On the authority of the Catholic Church, Moonbug.

Friendships with priests notwithstanding, any departure from the One Faith is incorrect, even if it comes from a priest “in a very high position.”

That teaching that is touted so widely today has not been proclaimed from the Chair of Peter (Ex Cathedra). The all male priesthood is based solely on tradition, and northing more. It is not an infallible dogma of the Church.