Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 23 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Question about Female Clergy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:10 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10571
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
CVMG wrote:
Hello,

I am an Episcopalian who lately has been reading about Catholicism. However, there are certain matters of doctrine I don't understand, particularly the ban of female priests. I'm not trying to troll, I would just really like a reasoned explanation why women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church, because for the following reasons, I believe there should be no barrier to female clergy:

1. I have heard Catholics say that because Jesus only selected men as His disciples, only men can be priests. However, there were many female disciples, including, of course, Mary Magdalene, who was considered an "apostle to the apostles," as well as others. Not only this, but women were the first to see the risen Jesus, and He sent them to tell the rest of the disciples--which is, in a sense, a form of preaching. While there were no women among the twelve disciples, one could also say that because every one of these disciples was Jewish, Jesus only wanted priests to be of Jewish descent--but we don't say that, because we recognize that Christ came for all people. Why is the distinction made when it comes to gender?

3. Lastly, I don't see, theologically, how banning women from the priesthood could be justified. Jesus did not make such distinctions between the sexes, at least not that I am aware of. And in Galatians 3:28-29, Paul writes "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." We are on board when it comes to the first two claims, so why does the distinction continue to be made on the basis of sex?

Again, I am really not trying to cause discord or to annoy anyone. I just truly would like to understand the ban on female clergy given the above points.

Thank you so much.


1. To understand the male priesthood, you must understand the structure of covenant and God's covenant relationships. The word "covenant" is probably the most misunderstood word in the Bible, yet one of the most important since it appears over 300 times in the whole of the Scriptures, beginning with Genesis. First of all, we need to establish what a covenant is and is not. A covenant is an agreement between two parties in which they establish a relationship. Many people, unfortunately, have the idea that a covenant is a legal contract, and while it does have certain principles which are based in language similar to law language, covenant goes much deeper than a mere contract. Example: I signed a legal contract with Mrs. Lillian King almost 50 years ago to buy my first and only house. Did I know her? Did I have any kind of relationship with her to make the deal? No. In fact, she was in a nursing home and her children, acting as her legal guardians, sold the house to me. But my contract was with her. Once the deal was done, there was no relationship, i.e., no further contact with them.

A relationship is much deeper than a contract, for in it, the parties have communication and care for one another, something which can be utterly lacking in a contract. Now, move this to God. There is the relationship between God and His Word (Christ/God) in which there is the love, communion, and care for one another in their relationship. Yet theologians have insisted in the past on the "Monarchical Rulership" of God the Father in that relationship, that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit procede (are spirated) from the Father. He is the Great Ruler (aka the "Covenant Head") in this relationship. What does this mean to us?

It means that the family unit, as created, is a picture of the relationship of the Trinity. Adam was created first and as covenant head over the unit which would be known as the family. From Adam came forth Eve, a picture of the Son's spiration from the Father. It is a picture of the same authority which God, the Great King of the Covenant (many references to God's kingship in Psalms!) bears over all things. In the sense of essence, Adam and Eve are of the same essence just as the Trinity, as we profess in the Creed, are also of one essence. Yet the Father rules. There is an equality of being, but not of authority in the Kingdom. This is the covenant structure. In every covenant structure, there is headship, helper, and dependents. Let me show you this in an earthly fashion. (Remember, earthly analogies of heavenly truths are close, but not perfect)

Husband, wife, children
Bishop, Priest, laity
Priest, parish, laity (The priest is the head of the parish, the parish cares for the needs of the laity by offering the Sacraments. This is akin to the family structure where the husband rules, the wife cares for the needs of the children in feeding and caring for them)

Within the boundaries of the Church, female ordination would break the covenant mold that is established since Genesis. Study covenant examples and this will help. Women are created as helpmeets to the husband in his rulership. God is referred to as "Father" in the Scriptures. It backs up the understanding of male covenant headship in creation. Now you could possibly find some exceptions, but remember, exception is not the rule.

Within covenant there are also patterns of submission. The Suzerainty Kingdom treaties (covenants) of the ancient Middle East in the time of the Patriarchs give us a typology of the Covenant of God and its structure. A Suzerain is a great king, one who would be over a large kingdom of great power, often having numerous vassal kingdoms which had been incorporated by war or treaty into the Great Kingdom. This Suzerain might look at a smaller kingdom outside his boundaries and decide he wanted it to be part of the Great Kingdom. As such, he would send emissaries to offer terms of peace. This is the first step in covenant - the greater offers covenant (relationship) to the lesser (weaker). In our salvation, which is a covenant (the New Covenant) the greater (God) comes to us with the Gospel, offering us terms of peace.

Within those terms would be promises of protection and help. The offer of covenant from the Suzerain was usually a very good deal for the vassal kingdom, as opposed to getting killed in war. It made sense for the vassal king to enter into covenant, much the same as salvation is a most generous offer to us and offers us a plenitude of blessings and gifts. But these blessings for the vassal king depended upon submission to the rules (ethics) of the covenant, which would be agreed upon terms by both sides.

What does this mean to us? Simple. We are a people of rebellion (sin). We have a nature that inclines to follow the wicked one in rebellion. Yet Scripture says that God has not delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings, but obedience (submission). The laity must learn to submit to their Mother, the Church. The women in the Church must learn to submit to God's place for them in the divine order. And the men, even priests and bishops, must learn to submit to Christ through the Body of Christ, which is the holy, universal Church. Each one of us must learn this lesson. Women who desire the priesthood are being rebellious to the covenant structure and order that God has established here on earth. I hope this might make a bit of sense to you , and would be open to further discussion.

As for the passage in Galatians, you cannot take a single verse out of context and make a dogma from it. You must look at the whole context, which in this particular book of the Bible has to do with St. Paul's lifelong struggle against the Judaizers, those who insisted that only by circumcision can a person be right with God. When Paul makes this statement, he is saying that in being in Christ, the distinctions which the Jews said made one accepted by God (saved) did not really exist. Remember, the Jews thought that females and Gentiles (which would include their Gentile slaves) did not have a soul and were damned. So Paul is telling them that neither being a Jew nor Gentile, a male or female, or a free man or slave has anything to do with being in Christ (verse 28). It has NOTHING to do with authority in the Church. Those who say it does are twisting the meaning of what St. Paul was trying to convey. This is very easy to do when one is 2,000 years removed from the essence of the arguments which Paul was dealing with at that time.

Again, hope that helps a bit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question about Female Clergy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:27 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 7:04 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th KofC
The points offered in authority for the ordination of women are questionable, both in interpretation and in validity. The Testamentum Domini, for example, was supposedly written by Jesus, Himself!

Look at the Episcopal Church -- when they started ordaining women, they basically committed ecclesiastical suicide. They went on to ordain practicing gays and so on. As a result, whole Episcopal Dioceses and Parishes have come over to the Catholic Church. We now have an Anglican Rite in the Western Church.

Do we want to go that way?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question about Female Clergy
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:24 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19648
Vern Humphrey wrote:
The points offered in authority for the ordination of women are questionable, both in interpretation and in validity. The Testamentum Domini, for example, was supposedly written by Jesus, Himself!

Look at the Episcopal Church -- when they started ordaining women, they basically committed ecclesiastical suicide. They went on to ordain practicing gays and so on. As a result, whole Episcopal Dioceses and Parishes have come over to the Catholic Church. We now have an Anglican Rite in the Western Church.

Do we want to go that way?



Anglican Use.

I'll voice an opinion.

No. No, you don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 23 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


Jump to:  
cron