Women's Ordination

  • Thread starter Thread starter VARC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
VARC said:
I know the party line of the Vatican concering WO. If I didn’t, I would go to the apologetics forum and ask for it. “The nature of this discussion” was an inquiry into scriptural reasons to ban WO. If you didn’t have one, then you shouldn’t feel a compulsion to parrot the papal party line. Just don’t answer.
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of how people try to hamstring Catholics in discussions. It is a combination of imposing incompatible presuppositions upon them, and belittling their beliefs by reducing everything to private or political opinion. To wit:

The insistence on a scriptural reason is a common enough ploy. Tacitly, it imposes the assumption that only Holy Scripture is the authoritative source of the contents of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics know that not to be the case. It is sufficient that Holy Scripture not be contradicted by teaching in, or from, the Deposit of the Faith. However, the priesthood founded by Christ is not the only priesthood God founded. Yet nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find one so founded to be open to women. Indeed, some were extremely restrictive, open to only descendants of one man - Aaron. Is that discriminatory? No. God chooses his priests. Does he violate Holy Scripture when He does so? No.

The reference to the teachings of the Church, as enunciated by the Magisterium, as the “party line of the Vatican” is vulgar, abusive, and offensive in the extreme in a Catholic context - and this forum is a Catholic context. The teachings are, of course, no kind of party line.

There is another implicit trap here. TEC is well known for denying that there is an authoritative interpretation of Holy Scripture, so that trying to impose it as a sole standard is imposing a condition that do not themselves accept. Catholics, on the other hand, know that the Magisterium teaches without error, and will not argue as if they do not.

Blessings,

Gerry’
 
O.S.Luke said:
I don’t believe in alternate worlds - I believe in being as faithful to Christ and the Kingdom as we can be. I hear conflicting takes on Paul here from Catholics: do we read Paul in context, or do we read Paul as law? Was he writing to individual churches, or was he writing to us all? If Paul is law, should seminaries have women professors who teach men? Should Catholic high schools have women who are principals or teachers if there are males 18 or older present? Or, since in Paul’s day, boys were men and often married in their teens, should women teach post-pubescent boys?

It is clear that Paul told some women in some churches to remain silent, while in other letters he gave thanks for the ministry and propheticness of other women. In the bible, it’s clear that women DID teach and DID lead: cases in point: Deborah (a ruler), Miriam (a spiritual leader), and Huldah (a prophet). Junia was mentioned by Paul in Romans as "outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was (Romans 16:7). Priscilla and her husband Aquila were called “co-workers” by Paul. Phoebe was a deacon of the church at Cenchreae (the Greek text says diakonos), and NOT a deaconness). If he had meant deaconness, why didn’t he say diakonissa? And if we say he SHOULD have said deaconness… why don’t Catholics have deaconesses now?

I’m not a women’s libber, but I do take biblical study and exegesis seriously. If the Catholic church is not going to ordain women I’m certainly not going to change it or picket the local parish, but I think you need some consistency in reasoning.

Consistent: We don’t have the authority to do so.
Inconsistent: We don’t ordain women because Paul was clear about women not teaching or having authority over men.

The former is a good argument. I suspect you should stick by your guns on it.

The problem with the latter is that, unless I am mistaken, there are women (some are nuns) who ARE teaching or have authority over men. In some parts of Canada, nuns are even given dispensations to witness marriages - a role usually reserved for males (deacons and priests). Should catholics attend university and colleges where there are women professors or presidents?

I think you have some consistency problems to deal with. You have company: the Southern Baptists have them too.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming that this is a reply to me as it addresses no one poster. I think one can argue both easily. It is a bad idea because Paul was against it. It was a bad idea because Jesus never ordained women. It was a bad idea because the Fathers were against it. It was a bad idea because it defies the logic of the priesthood itself, the essence of it. It was a bad idea because only gnostics had priestesses and they were heretics. It was a bad idea because it’s not Biblical. Any way you slice it, W.O. loses IMO. I don’t have any consistency problems, you do. You can’t give me one historical source, one Biblical source, or one inkling of tradition that indicates this is even remotely sound, permissible, or that we as Christians have the authority to do such a thing. I think it’s almost hysterically funny that a person can come on here and put the burden of proof on a Christian who is against women’s ordination to prove it is wrong when there isn’t one precedent, one shread of Biblical basis for it, and tradition as well as common sense rails against it. As if I’m the one with the ludicrous idea? And go ahead and lump me in with Southern Baptists on this if it pleases you to do so. They are right on this one. There are no holes to poke in this debate. There is no debate. Women’s ordination is heresy. It was in ancient times, is now, and will be forever, period. End of story. You can go ordain a Rubic’s Cube for all I care. It’s not legit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top