www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Higher Calling? Women Ordained to the "Catholic" Priesthood

That "image" belongs in the trash.

And, as Father Immanuel from Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church of Belleville, IL said, "Women cannot become priests for the same reason men cannot become pregnant."

Folks, isn't this a non sequitor? How does one thing have anything to do with the other?

Joe

The sacraments are not democratically chosen by us. It would seem out of place for us to say, "Oh, Lord Jesus, you didn't really mean for the sacrament of priestly orders to fall only on male shoulders, now did you?"

Terry

Terry, I am not advocating women's ordination. I am just saying that the arguments typically used against women's ordination are not very strong.

It appears to me that there are only two credible arguments against women's ordination. The first argument would involve following the logic of St. Vincent of Lerins. If we use consensus and antiquity as our standards for determining correct doctrine and practice, then it seems we must exclude women's ordination. The second argument is biblical. St. Paul says, "I do not permit women to teach men." In other passages St. Paul talks about the wife being in submission to the husband and that women, following Eve, are easily deceived. One might counter that this is just first century Jewish sexism. But, the New Testament is divinely inspired and St. Paul is making a theological argument. So it seems that these are the two obstacles that the proponent of women's ordination must face. The proponent of women's ordination has to say that basically St. Paul and the early Church blew it on this question. How this can be reconciled with the claim that the Church's unanimous tradition is infallible I have no idea.

Joe

I would add though that St. Paul also insists that women pray with their heads covered. We might think that this is just cultural and disciplinary. Yet St. Paul makes a theological argument for this as well. It puzzles me that neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church requires this today. If it were merely cultural, why would St. Paul make such a strong theological argument, based on Genesis, where the sons of God look upon the daughters of Eve with lust.

I don't want to derail this thread. I only bring up this example because it is pertinent to the question of how we decide what is theological and what is merely cultural. Could not the injunctions against women leading and teaching in the Church be merely provisional and cultural, in the same way women's head coverings are? Both practices are founded on the notion that women are weaker than men, subject to deception, and a source of sin and confusion. Until recently, nearly every Christian would agree and without doubt you could go back to the fathers and doctors of the Church and find them making just this argument. Yet today we here that men and women should be in "mutual submission," and that women should not be denied a certain status because of the deception of Eve. I honestly think that there is enough inconsistency in both the theology and practice of the Church to justify some doubts as to whether the prohibition of women to the priesthood is absolute and irrevocable.

Joe

You don't mention the fact that Jesus, although he had very holy women as close followers (Mary Magdalene, his mother, etc.), only chose men to be his apostles. I don't think we can credibly accuse Christ of "Jewish Sexism"; thus, it seems to me that he purposefully intended only men to be ordained.

Furthermore, your use of St. Paul's teachings about the "weakness" of women falls into the same mistake made by proponents of women's ordination: that the priesthood is conferred on the "worthy". The blessed Theotokos is the most "worthy" person to ever live, yet she was "denied" ordination by Christ. Mary Magdalene was privileged to be the first to see the Risen Christ, yet she was "denied" ordination by Christ. Any discussion of the strengths and weakness of either sex in relation to ordination reveals a flawed understanding of the nature of the priesthood.

Joe, the Pauline injunctions you mention have been disregarded, either overtly or in spirit. The tradition argument on its face would seem the strongest, but how many things that were not part of the church tradition have eventually become part of the tradition? I also believe the Vincentian canon is a nice idea, but is actually untenable in the light of history.

The apostles being all men is to me just another one of the bad reasons, and has logic that can simply be reversed.

The prohibition on the ordination of women is primarily cultural in my estimation.

Also, I would disagree with the people who say they support women's ordination should just go somewhere else.

Joe,

I don't think this is a non sequitor. I think Father Immanuel's point was that there is an ontological difference between men and women and that just as women are only called to be mothers, only certain men are called to be priests.

Men cannot become pregnant, except through some abominable scientific act (not possible yet.) And, women cannot become priests, except through some abominable farce.

Francis, those are very good points. Indeed, Jesus could have chosen women to be apostles had he wanted to. On the other hand, being an apostle and being a presbyter or even a deacon is not the same thing, though they are connected. Symbolically, it would make sense for Jesus to chose 12 men to be apostles because in chosing the 12 he was reconstituting the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 tribes, of course, descending from the 12 sons of Jacob.

As for your second point, this is what is said by St. Paul:

I Timothy 3:11-14, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

In other words, because God formed Adam first to be first in priority and because Eve was deceived, women are not to have the function of a presbyter, leading and teaching.

And look in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Now compare this with 1 Corinthians 11:3-16

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.5But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. 7 5 A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9
nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; 10
for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority 6 on her head, because of the angels. 11
7 Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. 12 For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, 15 whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? 16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. NAB

Notice that St. Paul really seems to be saying that head coverings are not optional, because of the priority of man over woman in creation and her dependence on the man as well as "because of the angels," which is likely a reference to Genesis 6:2. It was a common interpretation that angelic beings had lusted after women and so the woman was to cover her head so that, when praying, she wouldn't tempt the angels.

Now, how much of this is cultural? I don't think that the answer is self-evident. I think that St. Paul intends all of it to be binding and that St. Paul would not have imagined these rules changing.

But, it seems to me that the Churches do not want to use this argument today because it is unpopular and is sounds sexist. So the Church tries to look for other arguments (Jesus didn't ordain women, the priest is an icon of Christ, etc.) But these arguments are actually much weaker.

Joe

And one more thing, this passage:

"because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man."

really does seem to be implying that women are only indirectly made in the image of God; that women find their fulfillment through man who finds his fulfillment through Christ in God.

Not saying I agree or disagree. Frankly, this is one of those areas of biblical teaching that I find to be quite hard to swallow.

Joe

Dr. Eric, I think that the analogy is weak. Priesthood has to do with something spiritual and with service to the Church. Motherhood is simply biological. There is a biological impossibility of men becoming mothers, but what is the analogous spiritual impossibility that prevents women from becoming "spiritual" fathers. One would have to show that the connection between being a spiritual father and a biological father is more than linguistic. Of course, if you accept the pauline arguments that woman is second in the order of creation and subject to man, then you can do this. But often, people try to argue without underscoring St. Paul's rationale.

Joe

So do I.

Instead of Axios Axiox Axios the participants should have acclaimed Invalid Invalid Invalid!
Stephanos I

Was Jesus cultured bound?
Look at all the cultural taboos that Jesus ignored.
The Samaritan woman at the well involves several.
She was Samaritan.
She was a woman.
She asked her to draw water for him. The water itself would be come unclean because it was touched by a Samaritan.
He was frequently in the company of sinners.
He was a glutton and a drunkard.
He worked on the Sabbath.

All the neighboring countries had priestesses but Israel didn't as prescribed by God.
There were a large number of women that followed Jesus including his own mother and Mary Magdalene. If Jesus wanted women priests (apostles) he would have picked one. He picked a betrayer, a denier, a doubter and a tax collector.
To say that Jesus was culture bound means that you are attributing sexism to Jesus himself.

Perhaps the argument is that ministerial priesthood in the household of God involves taking man's natural capacity for fathering and elevating it to a sacramental level? I do not think that one can just dispense with the biological connection. To be a father is to generate life...to be a mother is to be a sanctuary and nurturer of that life. All of this points to a deeply Trinitarian connection and is manifested in different ways in the Church.

Salvation history also demonstrates the important link between ministerial priesthood and fathering and/or primogeniture (first born son), which excludes women. The New Testament is the fulfillment of this. Ultimately, I think its root is Trinitarian, since all fatherhood on earth - natural and spiritual - comes from God the Father. It is also apostolic, and is connected to Christ's intention to establish the New Israel upon the apostolic foundation of twelve chosen disciples, all men - the same with the Old Israel.

Priesthood qua priesthood is not the exclusive domain of men, however. The notion of the baptismal priesthood, which, apart from the cultic priesthood of the Old Testament and the High Priesthood of Christ, is the only type of priesthood that is explicitly mentioned as such in the New Testament and includes both men and women. (I am not arguing against acribing a sacerdotal role to the bishop and presbyter, BTW. It is just not as explicit according to the New Testament data.) Our nature as human beings in the image and likeness of God is priestly...we are created naturally to be mediators between heaven and earth and stewards of the cosmos.

But clearly Christ's intention was that His apostles be only men, and that they, like Him, image God's paternity to the Church in their exercise of messianic authority and the Priesthood of Melchizedek in the New Israel. I think it is for us to discern how this intent is manifested and fulfilled in the Old and New Testaments.

Just a few random thoughts...

Gordo