Women's Ordination

[VARC]

I have briefly read up on the debate over women’s ordination. I would like to ask Roman and Anglo Catholics what are the theological reasons to exclude women from ordination. I have read the Bible and the theological reasons I find there seem to go way beyond women’s ordination. It appears that the Bible teaches that women are to be subordinate to men in all things (not just in church). This is very problematic to our society which views women’s equality in all roles of society as a positive good rather than a vice.

Is there another theological reason based on the Bible? If one accepts that the church shouldn’t ordain women because they are commanded to be subordinate to men, why should they be allowed to be supervisors, police officers, or anything else that would give them authority over men?

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

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

… It appears that the Bible teaches that women are to be subordinate to men in all things (not just in church). This is very problematic to our society which views women’s equality in all roles

When religion conflicts with culture / tradition , u will follow / support holy book or tradition ?

 

[VARC]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

When religion conflicts with culture / tradition , u will follow / support holy book or tradition ?

Depends on the conflict. I might follw the book to the letter or re-evaluate its relevancy based on circumstance

 

[ricko]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

When religion conflicts with culture / tradition , u will follow / support holy book or tradition ?

In Catholicisn Tradition and the bible have EQUAL footing and there is no conflict between the two.

 

[ricko]

I have briefly read up on the debate over women’s ordination. I would like to ask Roman and Anglo Catholics what are the theological reasons to exclude women from ordination. I have read the Bible and the theological reasons I find there seem to go way beyond women’s ordination. It appears that the Bible teaches that women are to be subordinate to men in all things (not just in church). This is very problematic to our society which views women’s equality in all roles of society as a positive good rather than a vice.

Is there another theological reason based on the Bible? If one accepts that the church shouldn’t ordain women because they are commanded to be subordinate to men, why should they be allowed to be supervisors, police officers, or anything else that would give them authority over men?

In the Catholic Church, the priest stands in the person of Christ " persona Christi Capitis", the Head of His Body, the Church. Jesus was a man, He appointed men as the Apostles. Through 2,000 years, men have held the position of priesthood.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

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

In Catholicisn Tradition and the bible have EQUAL footing and there is no conflict between the two.

when local culture specially western values contradict / clash with your holy book , then u want to obey your holy book or to prove that you are a liberal /modern person , u are ready to go against religious orders ?

 

[ricko]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

when local culture specially western values contradict / clash with your holy book , then u want to obey your holy book or to prove that you are a liberal /modern person , u are ready to go against religious orders ?

Nothing overrides the teachings of the Church. The laws/teachings of the Catholic Church called “doctrines” are not flexible and do not submit to culture, society, Western or Eastern values.

 

[Cluny]

When religion conflicts with culture / tradition , u will follow / support holy book or tradition ?

Happens all the time.

After all, when the Holy Book (Bible) conflicted with what you wanted to think, you went with Islam.

 

[VARC]

In the Catholic Church, the priest stands in the person of Christ " persona Christi Capitis", the Head of His Body, the Church.

I was looking for a theological reason based on scripture. Please cite the scripture that supports your position
ricko;4939048:

Jesus was a man, He appointed men as the Apostles.

That is an argument from silence and a non sequitor. Just becasue Jesus didn’t appoint any women as apostles it does not follow that he forbid the practice or that competent church leaders couldn’t appoint them in the future.

Through 2,000 years, men have held the position of priesthood.

And for 1800 years the Church regarded slavery as acceptable but today it regards it as intrinsically evil.

I’m looking for for a theological reason that can be cited from scripture. The most clear scrpural references to WO are

1Cor 14:34-35
As in all the churches of the saints, (S) 34 the women [h] should be silent in the churches, (T) for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands (U) at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting.
and

2 Tim 2

Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, (O) with decency and good sense; not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, (P) pearls, or expensive apparel, 10 but with good works, (Q) as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God. 11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. (R) 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. (S) 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. (T) 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues ** in faith, love, and holiness, (U) with good sense**
1 Cor 11

A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image (I) and glory, (J) but woman is man’s glory. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man; (K) 9 and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10 This is why a woman should have [a symbol of] authority on her head: because of the angels.
In these examples, women are told to be submissive and silent in church thus ruling out their ordination. But it begs the ? why the oppostion to WO stops at the church. The very same reason that women are denied orders could also be used to deny them the right to vote and hold other positions over men. Why deny them ordination but allow them to possess other authority?

 

[VARC]

The only theological reason I can deduce from the above citations is that women are to be subordinate to men because “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed” and “man was not created for woman, but woman for man”. It is because of the order of creation and the fact that Eve caused Adam’s fall which determines sexual subordination. Is there another scrpitural reason that I’m missing? If so please cite.

 

[ralphinal]

There are other reasons, but they are not as simple as pulling chapter and verse from a Bible. First, Jesus only had males as Apostles at the Last Supper. It is one of the few times we see him segregate the sexes, and it is when he began the Sacramental life of the Church. Had he wanted woman as priests, they would have been there, too. Second, it is understood that the priest acts in persona christi or in the person of Christ. The Church has always understood that as meaning he must be male. Finally, and there is beauty in this position, women bring new physical life into the world. As part of the balance, men are able to aid in spiritual life-giving.

As far as the subordinate position goes, there is much made over little. Women are to be subordinate in some ways, yes, but not subhuman. Further, it is not a weakness of their sex. After all, the most exalted saint is a woman.

 

[ricko]

Well, I gave the reason. The priest stands in the person of Christ, a man. A woman cannot do that. If you are looking for a verse that says “Women cannot be priests” you won’t find it.

Also the Catholic Church which has been given the keys to bind and loose has released a statement about it:

The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith released
a statement November 18 saying the Church’s traditional ban on women
priest “requires definitive assent…(and) has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

The teaching that the Church possesses no authority to ordain women,
declared the letter, “is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as
belonging to the deposit of faith.”

 

[VARC]

There are other reasons, but they are not as simple as pulling chapter and verse from a Bible.

This is the first problem between protestants and catholics in this issue. When you demand that doctrine is to be given assent than you must have a scrptural foundation for the doctrine (especially if it involves discrimination). I know catholics don’t think that way but was still wondering if they had a biblical basis for their position.

First, Jesus only had males as Apostles at the Last Supper. It is one of the few times we see him segregate the sexes, and it is when he began the Sacramental life of the Church. Had he wanted woman as priests, they would have been there, too.

There are two things wrong with that answer

1. There were women at the last supper. Women were obliged to take part in the Passover meal. Notwithstanding that they weren’t in DaVinci’s painting, you can rest assured they were there.
2. It is a nonsequitor to say that because none of the apostles were women that Christ forbid WO. Using the same logic, one could easily argue that to be a Jew is a requirement for ordination because none of the apostles were Gentiles.

Second, it is understood that the priest acts in persona christi or in the person of Christ. The Church has always understood that as meaning he must be male.

First the doctrine that the preist acts in persona christi is a Latin doctrine that the Orthodox traditionally rejected. The Orthodox believed that the epeclesis was the solemn consecration of the eucharist rather than the words of institution thus rejecting in persona christi in favor of in persona ecclesia (in the person of the church). Either position is feasible.

Regardless, I’m still looking for scrptural citations which give theological reasons to ban WO
Finally, and there is beauty in this position, women bring new physical life into the world. As part of the balance, men are able to aid in spiritual life-giving.

As far as the subordinate position goes, there is much made over little. Women are to be subordinate in some ways, yes, but not subhuman. Further, it is not a weakness of their sex. After all, the most exalted saint is a woman.

St Paul states that women are to be subordinate to men and he forbids them to have authority over a man. That is the only scrptural reason I can find to ban WO.

 

[Sillara]

I actually would not mind if women could not vote. I find it incompatible with my feminine, life-giving, qualities.

But actually, the Church did NOT “approve slavery” for 1800 years. During the Middles Ages, slavery was outlawed in Christendom. That’s right: when the Church held temporal power, slavery was outlawed. Women, incidentally, were also able own property, be merchants, etc., and there were abbesses who wielded as much power as any feudal king. It was with the reintroduction of Roman law, with its jus utendi et abutendi, that brought back slavery and the subjugation of women, too.

 

[VARC]

Well, I gave the reason. The priest stands in the person of Christ, a man. A woman cannot do that. If you are looking for a verse that says “Women cannot be priests” you won’t find it.

Also the Catholic Church which has been given the keys to bind and loose has released a statement about it:

The Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith released
a statement November 18 saying the Church’s traditional ban on women
priest “requires definitive assent…(and) has been set forth infallibly by
the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

The teaching that the Church possesses no authority to ordain women,
declared the letter, “is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as
belonging to the deposit of faith.”

So you don’t base your beliefs about the male character of orders on scripture but rather on the teaching of the Pope.

I am looking for a theological reason to ban WO based on scripture. If your beliefs on WO are based on papal teachings apart from the Bible than you need not take part in the conversation.

I know that the Pope has and probably always will teach that WO is wrong. But the Pope’s explanation as to why it is wrong (apostles were men) is a non sequitor. I was wondering if catholics could articulate a reasonable theological explanation to ban WO based on scrpture. The only reason I could find was that women are to be subordinate to men based on the order of creation and the fact that Eve caused the Fall.

 

[VARC]

I actually would not mind if women could not vote. I find it incompatible with my feminine, life-giving, qualities.

But actually, the Church did NOT “approve slavery” for 1800 years. During the Middles Ages, slavery was outlawed in Christendom. That’s right: when the Church held temporal power, slavery was outlawed. Women, incidentally, were also able own property, be merchants, etc., and there were abbesses who wielded as much power as any feudal king. It was with the reintroduction of Roman law, with its jus utendi et abutendi, that brought back slavery and the subjugation of women, too.

You’re wrong

Although many Popes condemned the excesses of the international slave trade, the official Magisterium of the Church endorsed the legitimacy of slavery as such until Pope Leo XIII in 1888! Look at some of the facts, abbreviated for lack of space:

The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor, in 362 AD, excommunicated anyone telling a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service;

The same decree is repeated in a Council under Pope Martin I in 650 AD;

The ninth Council of Toledo in 655 AD imposed slavery on the children of priests;

The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests;

The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens;

The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226;

In 1454, through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorised the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan people his armies would conquer;

The Holy Office in Rome still declared on 20 June 1866: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

 

[ralphinal]

This is the first problem between protestants and catholics in this issue. When you demand that doctrine is to be given assent than you must have a scrptural foundation for the doctrine (especially if it involves discrimination). I know catholics don’t think that way but was still wondering if they had a biblical basis for their position.

Sorry, I thought you wanted where Jesus said “No Female Preists.” Typically, that is all that Protestants will accept as proof. Anything involving multiple verses or thought is right out.

There are two things wrong with that answer

1. There were women at the last supper. Women were obliged to take part in the Passover meal. Notwithstanding that they weren’t in DaVinci’s painting, you can rest assured they were there.

And yet they are not mentioned in the Bible…You want proof then you deny what is there?

1. It is a nonsequitor to say that because none of the apostles were women that Christ forbid WO. Using the same logic, one could easily argue that to be a Jew is a requirement for ordination because none of the apostles were Gentiles.

Actually, you can say that. However, the Church, using the Great Commission as its guide, opened herself up to all peoples. At that time, Gentile men could become priests, but still not women.

First the doctrine that the preist acts in persona christi is a Latin doctrine that the Orthodox traditionally rejected. The Orthodox believed that the epeclesis was the solemn consecration of the eucharist rather than the words of institution thus rejecting in persona christi in favor of in persona ecclesia (in the person of the church). Either position is feasible.

Do they allow women to be ordained?

Regardless, I’m still looking for scrptural citations which give theological reasons to ban WO
Finally, and there is beauty in this position, women bring new physical life into the world. As part of the balance, men are able to aid in spiritual life-giving.

St Paul states that women are to be subordinate to men and he forbids them to have authority over a man. That is the only scrptural reason I can find to ban WO.

Also, the Catholic priesthood is the fulfillment of the OT priesthood. All of them were male, too.

Please, do you want it to say in the Bible: No women priests for this reason? Is that what you want to see?

 

[Tomster]

I have briefly read up on the debate over women’s ordination. I would like to ask Roman and Anglo Catholics what are the theological reasons to exclude women from ordination. I have read the Bible and the theological reasons I find there seem to go way beyond women’s ordination. It appears that the Bible teaches that women are to be subordinate to men in all things (not just in church). This is very problematic to our society which views women’s equality in all roles of society as a positive good rather than a vice.

Is there another theological reason based on the Bible? If one accepts that the church shouldn’t ordain women because they are commanded to be subordinate to men, why should they be allowed to be supervisors, police officers, or anything else that would give them authority over men?

Two conditions are required for valid ordination, the male sex and baptism. That women cannot be validly ordained is clear from St. Paul’s Epistles, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12, from Apostolic Tradition and from the constant practice of the Church. St. Epiphanius remarks that if it were lawful for women to be priests, Mary, the Mother of God, would certainly have been the first.

 

[slyboots]

Do you also want the Bible to say specifically that you can fly in airplanes or rides on trains?
How about whether you can use computers?
Or have a Democrat in the White House?

 

[Leopard]

So you don’t base your beliefs about the male character of orders on scripture but rather on the teaching of the Pope…

Not “but rather”. “Both and”

…I am looking for a theological reason to ban WO based on scripture. If your beliefs on WO are based on papal teachings apart from the Bible than you need not take part in the conversation…

That’s too bad. Catholic teaching derives both from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You cannot bully Catholics by inviting them to participate in a discussion about the Catholic Church’s position on the ordination of women, but disallow them from raising legitimate points based on Sacred Tradition, which is a broader category including, but not limited to papal teaching. Indeed, the Scriptures are part of sacred Tradition and derive from the same Authority. If you disallow a Catholic discussion of Sacred Tradition on principle, then you also disallow a Catholic discussion of Scripture based on the same principle. We accept that you may not agree with these points, you must accept that we do.

(Please note, I am not suggesting that it is your intention to be a bully, but there are some others here who repeatedly and deliberately try to squelch legitimate discussion based on Sacred Tradition even when repeatedly reminded that Sacred Tradition is held just as important as the the Scriptures. That is bullying.)