Women Priests?

[benjohnson]

Elizabeth Eaton is the first woman presiding bishop of the ELCA.

Good news! We can now generate 5kWh of electricity by harnessing the power of Martin Luther rolling in his grave.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Good news! We can now generate 5kWh of electricity by harnessing the power of Martin Luther rolling in his grave.

 

[steido01]

Good news! We can now generate 5kWh of electricity by harnessing the power of Martin Luther rolling in his grave.

:bighanky:

“Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”

Lutherans? Sigh…

 

[PRmerger]

Good news! We can now generate 5kWh of electricity by harnessing the power of Martin Luther rolling in his grave.

Cleverly, wickedly sly!

Again, well played, Mr. Johnson.

 

[iheartdance]

I am totally against women priests.God has only men be priests, and He has it that way for a reason

 

[SteveVH]

Good question. As more churches ordain and empower women, the Vatican knows that Catholics wonder why we do not do so. It puts additional pressure on the vatican to follow suit. It is easier to condemn these churches than to do the right thing.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It would not matter if 99.9999% of Catholics wanted to ordain women. The Church does not have the right nor authority to ordain women and that is doctrine which can never be changed.

*"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.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.* (Pope John Paul, II)

 

[cmodrmac]

The premise may be incorrect-the Orthodox I believe do not consider Anglican orders invalid-

The RC Church has clearly defined that = No women Priests period-

I assume the Orthodox say the same -but there is no 1 authority to speak for them

It is a bridge too far for the RC and Orthodox and will totally completely prevent union which the Orthodox show no sign of wanting anyway -they have trouble with an Irishman attending a Greek Church:

There appears an undercurrent that states the RC want union -no union will happen without negotiation & there will never be negotiation on the RC part

 

[GKC]

The premise may be incorrect-the Orthodox I believe do not consider Anglican orders invalid-

The RC Church has clearly defined that = No women Priests period-

I assume the Orthodox say the same -but there is no 1 authority to speak for them

It is a bridge too far for the RC and Orthodox and will totally completely prevent union which the Orthodox show no sign of wanting anyway -they have trouble with an Irishman attending a Greek Church:

There appears an undercurrent that states the RC want union -no union will happen without negotiation & there will never be negotiation on the RC part

It is difficult to generalize about the Orthodox position on Orders. They do not view validity as does the RCC or Anglicanism. I have seen them describe all Orders as empty, rather than as invalid, outside what they consider the true Ecclesia.

GKC

 

[hn160]

I am totally against women priests.God has only men be priests, and He has it that way for a reason

AMEN!

 

[MarcoPolo]

The Blessed Ever-Virgin is all of those things. She still isn’t a priest.

The Church is the Bride of Christ. The Office of the Holy Ministry represents Christ to the Church. The Bridegroom cannot be a Bride. Neither can His presbyters, bishops and deacons. It isn’t any more complex than that, really.

This gives us an idea of why Christ only selected male apostles. Only a male can be a bridegroom. Particularly with the priesthood, the priest, acting sacramentally in the person of Christ, represents Christ’s wedding to his bridegroom when he confects the Eucharist––the representation of the bridegroom giving his body for his bride (cf. Eph. 5:25).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Catholics have so far failed to provide even moderately coherent rationale for why Jesus must be imitated by priests in this particular way and not in others.

The confection of the Eucharist, the re-presentation of Christ the bridegroom’s wedding occasion to his bride, I think is extremely sober theology specific to the ministerial priesthood. Perhaps even beyond “moderately coherent rationale.” It’s the very nature of a sacrament, which, by necessity, must represent that which is signified. Water-washing. Anointing-oil. Bridegroom-male.

 

[Contarini]

The confection of the Eucharist, the re-presentation of Christ the bridegroom’s wedding occasion to his bride, I think is extremely sober theology specific to the ministerial priesthood. Perhaps even beyond “moderately coherent rationale.” It’s the very nature of a sacrament, which, by necessity, must represent that which is signified. Water-washing. Anointing-oil. Bridegroom-male.

\

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

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I wonder where all these LCMS Lutherans will go when their Synod approves female clergy? When one makes absolute statements where there is no absolute it only creates the impression that bias and culture are more important than Christ.

 

[steido01]

I wonder where all these LCMS Lutherans will go when their Synod approves female clergy?

Never gonna happen. It’s against Scripture, Tradition and the Confessions. Not to mention, we’ve seen the decay that takes place in church bodies that go down that road.

When one makes absolute statements where there is no absolute it only creates the impression that bias and culture are more important than Christ.

When one challenges a doctrine on which both Scripture and Tradition are absolutely clear, it only creates the impression that bias and culture are more important than Christ.

Man and woman each have their own gifts, assigned by God.

 

[benjohnson]

I wonder where all these LCMS Lutherans will go when their Synod approves female clergy?

I used to be in the ELCA, and still have my toes wet in that synod. One can be a Lutheran in a failing synod - there’s sill are ELCA churches that just ignore the synod and it’s hijinks.

Frankly, it’s not going to happen in the LCMS.

When one makes absolute statements where there is no absolute it only creates the impression that bias and culture are more important than Christ.

It’s not us that’s changing to mimic the prevailing culture - if anything we’re the ones that are doing their best to follow Christ in this regard. How much easier it would be to change with the times and have the vain approval of secular culture.

 

[benjohnson]

When one challenges a doctrine on which both Scripture and Tradition are absolutely clear, it only creates the impression that bias and culture are more important than Christ.

Man and woman each have their own gifts, assigned by God.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

I sort of agree that the ‘bridegroom’ defense is week - in that I’ve accepted the Eucharist from female priests with the understanding that the gifts are from God and not the person. The sacraments are from God, and I’ve accepted them from people with more personal issues than the lack of being a particular sex.

But… the burden is on the one who would change the church not the other way around. The Catholic who has bound his/her conscious to the church simply has to say “because it’s always been done this way as Christ instituted it” No reasoning needs to be done, no vigorous logical defenses need to be offered.

As I understand it, you seek to become Catholic. Lutherans would tell you some point you’re going to have to relax and accept the church’s teaching and traditions and stop struggling in this. You can seek explications, but while you’re seeking, you still need to accept the answer.

Priests are not female just as the Theotokos is not male.

 

[MarcoPolo]

\

Bride/female.

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

Edwin

Men are not members of the Church by way of holy orders, a sacrament, which demands the natural resemblance to the incarnate, male bridegroom Christ, particularly in that the priest re-presents that event of Christ’s wedding to the Church. There does not exist an incarnate, female counterpart through which we act “in the person of” when we are incorporated into the Church via baptism. The bride of Christ is a “mystical” body, whereas the bridegroom is an incarnate person, hence “natural” resemblance, as articulated in papal and theological texts regarding the priesthood and the character of sacraments.

 

[Contarini]

I sort of agree that the ‘bridegroom’ defense is week - in that I’ve accepted the Eucharist from female priests with the understanding that the gifts are from God and not the person. The sacraments are from God, and I’ve accepted them from people with more personal issues than the lack of being a particular sex.

But… the burden is on the one who would change the church not the other way around. The Catholic who has bound his/her conscious to the church simply has to say “because it’s always been done this way as Christ instituted it” No reasoning needs to be done, no vigorous logical defenses need to be offered.

As I understand it, you seek to become Catholic. Lutherans would tell you some point you’re going to have to relax and accept the church’s teaching and traditions and stop struggling in this. You can seek explications, but while you’re seeking, you still need to accept the answer.

Well, that’s one reason I have never become LCMS! (I did briefly consider it–ironically, I happened on a relatively “liberal” church by LCMS standards, and was put off by the blandness of that particular congregation rather than its austerity, but that was a long time ago when I was more conservative.)

I am willing to accept the Church’s authority. I am not wiling to accept shoddy arguments in support of the Church’s teaching.

I actually think that the “bridegroom” argument may well be the key, in some form. But it needs a lot more work.

The most promising approach, I think, is that women reflect a more “immanent” aspect of the divine and men a more “transcendent” aspect. Men represent that which they do not embody; women embody that which they represent. (Basically I get this from Fr. Louis Bouyer). I think that gives some substance to the “bridegroom” argument–or at least may do so.

I admit that I nurse some faint hope that the decision against women’s ordination will turn out not to be infallible and will someday be reversed. But I’m not pinning anything on this hope, and everything in terms of authoritative Catholic teaching is against it. When a Pope says “in order to end all dispute, I declare that” I understand that if I want to be Catholic I have to submit.

It’s more likely, I think, that eventually the Church will figure out why this teaching is there. But smug, shallow explanations that anyone who tries can knock to pieces in two minutes do not advance that process. Objections such as mine serve the ultimate end of clarifying Church teaching far more than facile agreement does.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Men are not members of the Church by way of holy orders, a sacrament

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

which demands the natural resemblance to the incarnate, male bridegroom Christ

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.

particularly in that the priest re-presents that event of Christ’s wedding to the Church. There does not exist an incarnate, female counterpart through which we act “in the person of” when we are incorporated into the Church via baptism. The bride of Christ is a “mystical” body, whereas the bridegroom is an incarnate person

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