Women in the Priesthood – Reasons for and against?
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. He didn’t follow the norms anyway. He touched Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, a big no-no in the Jewish religion. He allowed the woman who’d been bleeding to touch him, immediately rendering him unclean. He talked to the woman at the well. Suzanne Yes. In the later part of my post, where I attempted to argue the Vatican’s position, that was exactly my point. Christ did NOT follow the norms of the times. Therefore, if he wanted woman priests, he surely would have included then among the 12. But he did not. Q.E.D.
I think they were. I think Christ gave women much more powerful roles in the church than we have been led to believe. The early church had enough problems without adding to them by putting women in positions of power. They were trying to get people to hear their message. In those times women simply did not have any authority and no one would listen to their words if women were speaking them. Without Christ in their midst to guide them, the early Christians eventually pushed women into the background and refused to allow them the authority of the priesthood as given to them by Christ at the Last Supper. CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. He didn’t follow the norms anyway. He touched Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, a big no-no in the Jewish religion. He allowed the woman who’d been bleeding to touch him, immediately rendering him unclean. He talked to the woman at the well. Suzanne Yes. In the later part of my post, where I attempted to argue the Vatican’s position, that was exactly my point. Christ did NOT follow the norms of the times. Therefore, if he wanted woman priests, he surely would have included then among the 12. But he did not. Q.E.D.
** Yeshua/Jesus was killed because of priests. Why would he have intended to create more priests – especially in light of his advice that everyone has a direct line to the heavenly Father in one’s own closet ? I think they were. I think Christ gave women much more powerful roles in the church than we have been led to believe. …
** which seems to be validated by the report in the Q-4 Scrolls of him having talks with small groups of women. — Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Response:
<< Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope.
That’s a very controversial teaching concerning infallibility. The church has taught traditionally that women cannot be ordained to the clerical state, but there are historical exceptions (abbesses who managed churches, deaconesses in the Eastern church, for example) which need to be considered. In order for an issue such as this to be settled once and for all, traditionally either a council of the church or more recently the pope alone with counsel of the bishops, would declare a "tradition" as part of Sacred Tradition, and therefore an infallible part of the deposit of faith. These decrees, formally approved by the pope "ex cathedra", do not change Tradition, but rather confirm it. What the pope did was such a declaration, but not such a declaration. He confirmed Tradition, but not "ex cathedra." That’s very confusing. If the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, then how can such a declaration be infallible? If it is not infallible, how can he call it infallible? Are we opening up a new category of "non-ex cathedra infallible statements by the pope"? Is the existence of this category to be believed "infallibly", or can we doubt that such a category exists? Doesn’t the very fact that a large portion of the church disagree with the statement indicate that we cannot consider it part of the deposit of Faith? Or are we to believe that the "sensum fidei" of the faithful can go that far wrong? The controversy won’t go away, I think, until there’s another council and a lot more thought goes into this whole area. It’s hard to believe that believing in or not believing in the ordination of women is the kind of thing that keeps people out of heaven. And if it’s not a faith-breaking belief, how can anyone declare or not declare that it’s part of Sacred Tradition and therefore must be believed under pain of hell???
Response:
<<Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather "a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself." The divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the continuation of Christ’s work on earth as well as the means through and by which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has "defined" as part of the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. This is the key point of controversy. How can the Church not have the same authority that Jesus had? Is it not the continuation of Jesus’ ministry in the world? If it is for the good of souls, how can ANYTHING be outside the authority of the Church? And whose to say that at some point in time the good of souls will not require women to be ordained in order to provide the sacramental life to God’s people? A society of only women, or women and children, is conceivable and has even existed. (All men are drafted; all men are killed; all women are isolated from men in order to wipe out a national group.) Is that society to be denied the Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick, of Holy Orders, because there are no men present? In the apparent rush to squelch debate, questions like this get shoved under the rug. Protecting the male hegemony appears more important than truly doing comprehensive theology.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <Snip confirm the brethern in the fait [cf. Lc 22:32], I declare that the Church does not possess in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this statement ought to be considered as definitive by all the faithful of the Church." If you notice the last part of the statement, we see that to disagree, is to put yourself outside the Church. Just to further clear this up. On October 28, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in reply to the DUBIUM concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, states that the teaching requires definitive assent and that it is infallible. I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. -Tony
Tony, The Dubium was in response to the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which was an apostolic letter by Pope John Paul II on 22 May 1994. The text of the Dubium, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is below: 1761 Dubium: Whether the teaching that the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith. Responsum: In the affirmative. This teaching requires definitive asset, since, founded on the written word of God and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium [cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Luman Gentium, 25.2]. Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren [cf. Luke 22: 32], has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere and by all as belonging to the deposit of the faith. God Bless.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope. That’s a very controversial teaching concerning infallibility. The church has taught traditionally that women cannot be ordained to the clerical state, but there are historical exceptions (abbesses who managed churches, deaconesses in the Eastern church, for example) which need to be considered. In order for an issue such as this to be settled once and for all, traditionally either a council of the church or more recently the pope alone with counsel of the bishops, would declare a "tradition" as part of Sacred Tradition, and therefore an infallible part of the deposit of faith. These decrees, formally approved by the pope "ex cathedra", do not change Tradition, but rather confirm it. What the pope did was such a declaration, but not such a declaration. He confirmed Tradition, but not "ex cathedra." That’s very confusing. If the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, then how can such a declaration be infallible? If it is not infallible, how can he call it infallible? Are we opening up a new category of "non-ex cathedra infallible statements by the pope"? Is the existence of this category to be believed "infallibly", or can we doubt that such a category exists? Doesn’t the very fact that a large portion of the church disagree with the statement indicate that we cannot consider it part of the deposit of Faith? Or are we to believe that the "sensum fidei" of the faithful can go that far wrong?
I think it might make a difference to note when this large portion of the Church who disagree with the statement live, and what influences them. If they are found throughout the history of the Church, and are not just one or two voices in history, then I would agree. But if the widespread disagreement is a new thing, inspired by 20th century secular morality and the feminist movement, the isn’t it a case of it simply being a modern (and modernist) phenomenon and NOT a true reflection of what the Church has believed for 2000 years? If, for 2000 years, a doctrine has been accepted by the whole Church (such as Mary’s perpetual virginity) and suddenly 20% of Catholics start thinking otherwise, I’d consider that to be a deviation from the deposit of faith, and not a valid manifestation of the "sensum fidei." I don’t know enough history on this issue to make a formal pronouncement from my own fake leather chair, however. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman www.theotokos.co.za www.theotokos.co.za/adventism IC | XC NI | KA
Response:
Sorry Tony – this does meet the definition opf infallibility: Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: ". . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church." [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ] "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." [Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church. "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" not only passes all four tests, but it is manifest that the Pope deliberately phrased the teaching to ensure that this would be obvious Point 1: The pope clearly intends to teach something; in fact, he intends to do so in such a way that "all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance". Point 2: The pope is teaching by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority; he specifically alludes to that authority, "in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren"–a reference to the precise passage which forms the chief Scriptural basis of infallibility (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers." This passage has no meaning apart from the exercise of supreme authority, since it is only in the exercise of this authority that the promise of Our Lord to Peter applies. Point 3: The subject in question is a matter of Faith; the Pope deliberately states that it is not a matter of discipline, but rather "a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself." The divine constitution of the Church, of course, is the central mystery in the continuation of Christ’s work on earth as well as the means through and by which God brings men to salvation. What the Pope has "defined" as part of the Catholic Faith is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Point 4: The pope intends the teaching to bind the whole Church; this is manifest when he says that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful." jim b – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <Snip confirm the brethern in the fait [cf. Lc 22:32], I declare that the Church does not possess in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this statement ought to be considered as definitive by all the faithful of the Church." If you notice the last part of the statement, we see that to disagree, is to put yourself outside the Church. Just to further clear this up. On October 28, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in reply to the DUBIUM concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, states that the teaching requires definitive assent and that it is infallible. I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "it is all too easy for human beings to prooftext their way into hell." — James R. Black.
Response:
@colisp.com says… Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope.
Possibly arguing against my own post, an article on EWTN’s website states that "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" (not a bull, as I stated, but an Apostolic Letter) is an exercise in Papal infallibility: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT Edward
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope. Edward
I think you stated this beautifully. I’ll posted the resources I used in another post. God bless.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have some questions related to women in the priesthood. First, is there any evidence that the Blessed Virgin was at the Last Supper? For that matter, is there scriptural evidence to exclude the possibility of any woman having attended? If women were present, would that not be a possible clue to Christ’s wish that they be included in the priesthood? Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood?
Albeit, maybe off the point of your post. I posted this on another newsgroup concerning the validity of Catholics and beleifs on woman’s ordinations (not that I’m accusing you of heresy or supporting women’s ordination). NB: This is in response to another post, not yours. I’m addressing you directly. Also, I may have incorrectly stated the meaning of "heretic". Someone actually must know the truth of the church and then denounce it to be a heretic. You are not a heretic you don’t know the teaching of the church. You can not state the Catholic (RCC) Church will eventually ordain women. She doesn’t have the power! And yes, if you strongly feel women should be ordained after the Church has said otherwise, you are not a Catholic, you are a heretic. Notice the proof is of the Church, which I’ll explain below. To sum up women’s ordination, the Church has made the following points (this appearing in Oct 1976: Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, INTER INSIGNIORES, on the question of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood) (also, reaffrimed by Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Exhostation: CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI on December 30, 1988): 1) The Church’s constant tradition has been to ordain only men to the priestly ministry; 2) Jesus did not call any women to be members of the Twelve; 3) the apostles did not include any women in the apostolic group; 4) the practice of Christ and the apostles in this regard is permanently normative; 5) the priest must have a "natural resemblance" to Christ, and the male sex is constitutive of this resemblence; 6) the issue of equality in the Church and of human rights is irrelevant to the question of priestly ministry for women. Now, the issue came up over whether this was still open to discussion. Pope John Paul II states in his Apostolic Letter, ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (22 May, 1994): "Thus, so as to remove every doubt regarding a question of such great importance, which entails the divine constitution of the Church, and in virtue of my ministry to confirm the brethern in the fait [cf. Lc 22:32], I declare that the Church does not possess in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this statement ought to be considered as definitive by all the faithful of the Church." If you notice the last part of the statement, we see that to disagree, is to put yourself outside the Church. Just to further clear this up. On October 28, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in reply to the DUBIUM concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, states that the teaching requires definitive assent and that it is infallible.
Response:
says… I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope.
In fact the Ratzinger stated that it was NOT meant to be an Ex cathedra statement. As to the ordinary magisterium being infallible, it’s not. Quite simply it can be shown to be wrong in the past. Therefor it can be wrong now. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Edward
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope. Edward
** human infallibility has gotta be one of the most laughable oxymorons in existence. — Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Response:
says… I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now.
Pope John Paul issued a bull about it a few years back, but if my memory serves me right, it was simply reiterating a doctrine that was *already* considered infallible in the *ordinary magisterium* – that is, the historic teaching of the Bishops in union with the Pope. (I mean that in the general sense; the women-priests advocate will of course disagree.) This type of infalliability does not require an "Ex Cathedra" statement by the Pope. Edward
Response:
<Snip confirm the brethern in the fait [cf. Lc 22:32], I declare that the Church does not possess in any way the faculty to confer priestly ordination on women, and that this statement ought to be considered as definitive by all the faithful of the Church." If you notice the last part of the statement, we see that to disagree, is to put yourself outside the Church. Just to further clear this up. On October 28, 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in reply to the DUBIUM concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, states that the teaching requires definitive assent and that it is infallible.
I don’t remember this being stated Ex Cathedra. Can you point me to the appropriate documentation to support it? As far as I know, infallibility has only been invoked twice. If it had been invoked again, I’d have figured I’d have heard about it by now. -Tony — For fairly troll free Catholic discussion, join on the web at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romancatholic/ "it is all too easy for human beings to prooftext their way into hell." — James R. Black.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. He didn’t follow the norms anyway. He touched Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, a big no-no in the Jewish religion. He allowed the woman who’d been bleeding to touch him, immediately rendering him unclean. He talked to the woman at the well. Suzanne
Yes. In the later part of my post, where I attempted to argue the Vatican’s position, that was exactly my point. Christ did NOT follow the norms of the times. Therefore, if he wanted woman priests, he surely would have included then among the 12. But he did not. Q.E.D. KJ —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have some questions related to women in the priesthood. First, is there any evidence that the Blessed Virgin was at the Last Supper? For that matter, is there scriptural evidence to exclude the possibility of any woman having attended? If women were present, would that not be a possible clue to Christ’s wish that they be included in the priesthood? Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just.
He didn’t follow the norms anyway. He touched Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, a big no-no in the Jewish religion. He allowed the woman who’d been bleeding to touch him, immediately rendering him unclean. He talked to the woman at the well. Suzanne
Response:
<<Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood? There is also no indication that the Catholic Church (the mainline church of the bishops) in the early years ever had a woman preside at Eucharist. The heretics did, and the Fathers attacked the practice. So it is not part of the early Tradition of the Church.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hope this helps: http://www.catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp God Bless, – Dave Dave, Thanks for the reply. And I have a link too… http://www.womenpriests.org/interact/cnwe.htm But your link did not answer my last question… Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood? I am concerned about Christ’s supposed reason for not having female apostles/priests. What is the Vatican’s explanation? KJ
Hi KJ: First, let me humbly submit to you that your question itself is slightly flawed. There is no "Catholic Church’s ‘guess’ to the underlying reasoning" or a "supposed" exclusion by Jesus. It is what the Catholic Church "knows" and what Jesus "taught," not supposed. Your mention the priesthood while the site of your link is about the deaconate. When it comes to deaconesses, there is no question or argument that this title was once used for women in the early Church. But it was a lay function and never one of ordination. Some of the earliest Church councils back to the 4th century confirm and clarify that matter. The priesthood is guaranteed to no one. Most men cannot be priests either. Is that fair? Yes. The priesthood is NOT a job that one applies for. It is not subject to equal opportunity employment because it is not an employment, it is not a job. It is a vocation in which GOD PICKS YOU FOR, and the Church confirms. Fairness is not the issue, God-given roles properly administered is the issue. Women cannot be priests because first Jesus did not choose any women to be priests. And contrary to any who say that given the times Jesus could not have appointed women priests, they are wrong. Jesus flouted the typical treatment of women during the 1st Century and allowed women to be close to him in ways that the norms of the times never allowed. He raised the status of women to equal dignity with men. This was unheard of for the times. Jesus, who is God, remember, certainly could have appointed women priest if He wanted to. The structure of the Church is "paterfamilias" (father, the head of the family) which we believe was setup by God during Creation. God the Father is Himself a "Paterfamilias" and as he made man in his image he has made us human beings in a manner of social interaction based upon the paterfamilias pattern. Thus, since women cannot be fathers or represent fathers, women cannot be priests any more than a man could have been the Virginal Mother of Jesus. Jesus and the Catholic Church has raised womanhood to a lofty and dignified position that in many ways outranks the position of men. It is a human woman who is Queen of Heaven. The King is Jesus, thus no other human male gets that position other than the God-man. "Jesus elevated women to a place of dignity that had never been experienced before in history: to a place of equality in spirit and dignity and person. But equality in spirit, dignity, and person does not give equality in function. Women can give birth, men can’t. That is an inequality. Men can impregnate, women can’t. That is an inequality. Women can be mothers. Men can perform mothering tasks, but cannot be mother. Men can be fathers. Women can perform fatherly tasks, but cannot be father. Likewise, the priesthood is reserved to men because it is a function of the father of the family. The husband and father is the priest of the home. The patriarch is the high priest of the clan, the parish priest is the father of the parish family, the bishop is the father of the local church family, the Pope (which is a word that means father) is the father of the whole Christian family." – Br. Ingatius Yours in JMJ, BAB
Response:
I hope this helps: http://www.catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp God Bless, – Dave
Dave, Thanks for the reply. And I have a link too… http://www.womenpriests.org/interact/cnwe.htm But your link did not answer my last question… Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the
priesthood? I am concerned about Christ’s supposed reason for not having female apostles/priests. What is the Vatican’s explanation? KJ —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just.
It is also worth noting that Jesus had no qualms about violating the "norms" of society of that time with regards to women. A religious Jew, he talked in public to a Samaritan woman. He rebuked others’ objections when a repentant prostitute anointed Him with perfumes. And He forgave a woman caught in adultery (ever notice in that story, there is no sign of the man she was caught with? ISTM the Jewish law on adultery was being applied unfairly there!) If he was so "progressive" in those cases with regards to His treatment of women, what was keeping Him from choosing women for His Apostles? Unless of course to do so would be against His Will. Food for thought. Edward
Response:
One more link… http://www.womenpriests.org/scriptur.htm —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
http://www.catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp God Bless, – Dave
Check that out. It basicly says that the Church is unable to ordain women. (look on the Vatican website for the Pope’s declaration of this.) -E.A.03
Response:
I hope this helps: http://www.catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp God Bless, , what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood?
+ Good answer, David….
Response:
I hope this helps: http://www.catholic.com/library/women_and_the_priesthood.asp God Bless, – Dave – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I have some questions related to women in the priesthood. First, is there any evidence that the Blessed Virgin was at the Last Supper? For that matter, is there scriptural evidence to exclude the possibility of any woman having attended? If women were present, would that not be a possible clue to Christ’s wish that they be included in the priesthood? Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood? KJ —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Hello, I have some questions related to women in the priesthood. First, is there any evidence that the Blessed Virgin was at the Last Supper? For that matter, is there scriptural evidence to exclude the possibility of any woman having attended? If women were present, would that not be a possible clue to Christ’s wish that they be included in the priesthood? Arguing against the above, scripture does say that all 12 apostles were male, correct? Some have observed that this was merely due to the fact that Christ was following the norms of the time. However, Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God. So given the magnitude of THAT claim, why would the possibility of women apostles (priests) cause him to "cave in" to the customs of the time? Surely he would NOT have allowed a cultural norm of the day to prevent the inclusion of woman if he believed doing so were right and just. Finally, other than the fact that Christ was male and the apostles seem to have been male, what is the Catholic Church’s guess to the underlying reasoning behind Christ’s supposed exclusion of women from the priesthood? KJ —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Filed under: Feminist
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.