Women in the Priesthood - Hope through Mary?

[Elvendon]

Something that recently has piqued my interest is the issue of women in the priesthood. It seems, at least to me, to be one of the widest praxial gaps between the Anglican communion and the other apostolic churches. I have already discussed the issue at length with JamesThePersian, who has given me great insight into the Eastern Orthodox view. I am still largely in the dark about the RC view (bar that the ordination of women is not accepted), so if any of you Catholics visit this thread, please articulate the outlook of your church.

Though Paul did state we are all equal in Christ, the difference between priest and congregation is not one of superiority - it is one of performing a role. Just as a doctor is no better or worse than an engineer, so a priest is different, yet equal, to those he ministers to. However, I myself feel that women make excellent priests (my local parish priest is female), but my personal feelings are not the issue - rather that Jesus himself and his apostles were male, thus it appears to be difficult for women to claim apostolic succesion. Jesus, quite obviously, did not make women apostles (even though there were many prominent women in his life, one immediately thinks of Mary) so this seems to indicate that, indeed, women claiming the apostolic succession is false. Just as a doctor should not sign an engineer's charter of good conduct, so an engineer should not swear to uphold the hippocratic oath.

I have a suggestion - one that may perhaps satisfy the example of our Lord, the teachings of Paul and the desire for ordination in my own church. It lies in what authority a priest is ordained in. Quite clearly, if we are following Jesus' example strictly, women cannot be ordained - for he did not appoint any as apostles. But my question is, did he need to? Mary, the mother of God, did something all women theoretically have the capacity to do - give birth to a child. But she gave birth through the presence of the Holy Spirit, and thus was exposed to it in a way that no other, perhaps, has ever experienced. She bore Christ, the Son of God, within her for (presumably) nine months. The angel Gabriel himself proclaimed that she was favoured by God. Jesus did not "ordain" her as an apostle - she was of holy orders already.

In my view, it is not through the authority of Saint Peter that women should be ordained, but through Mary herself - the embodyment of righteous women everywhere. Just as apostles carry Christ and the good news wherever they go, women that follow the path of Mary would carry Jesus' presence, and the presence of God into the world. So, male priests should be ordained in the name of the twelve apostles, female "priests" could be ordained through Marian authority.

Thoughts?

 

[Mister Emu]

there were many prominent women in his wife

Freudian slip?

so if any of you Catholics visit this thread, please articulate the outlook of your church

As far as I have been taught, the position, and this is dogmatically defined, not changeable, is that only males can be validly ordained as priests.

 

[Elvendon]

Freudian slip?

Whoops! It's not, honest - I'm no Magdelene fanboy

As far as I have been taught, the position, and this is dogmatically defined, not changeable, is that only males can be validly ordained as priests.

Okay. Thanks for telling me. What are your personal thoughts on my idea?

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not sure...

While I hold no grudge against women, and have no personal issues with them being priestesses... The Church teaches that such is not theologically sound, and while at the moment I do not have the nessecary knowledge base to make an arguement, I must bow out of anything which might be called an intellectual debate on the merits of a holy order of priestesses, and (even with the proper knowledge) accept her wisdom on the matter.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Something that recently has piqued my interest is the issue of women in the priesthood. It seems, at least to me, to be one of the widest praxial gaps between the Anglican communion and the other apostolic churches. I have already discussed the issue at length with JamesThePersian, who has given me great insight into the Eastern Orthodox view. I am still largely in the dark about the RC view (bar that the ordination of women is not accepted), so if any of you Catholics visit this thread, please articulate the outlook of your church.

Hi, Elvendon! I don't think we've been introduced, I'm FerventGodSeeker (as you can probably tell already ) I am still "officially" a Protestant, but I am seriously considering conversion to the Catholic Church, and so I thought I'd offer my thoughts from what I know and understand of the Catholic position.

In my view, it is not through the authority of Saint Peter that women should be ordained, but through Mary herself - the embodyment of righteous women everywhere.

Except as you said, she wasn't an Apostle...if she wasn't an Apostle, then other women cannot possible claim apostolic succession through her.

Just as apostles carry Christ and the good news wherever they go, women that follow the path of Mary would carry Jesus' presence, and the presence of God into the world. So, male priests should be ordained in the name of the twelve apostles, female "priests" could be ordained through Marian authority.

Laywomen in the Church can and should do that anyways, they don't need to be ordained priests for that. Carrying the good news wherever you go, being a light for God to all people...those are basic commands for all Christians, I don't think they are really grounds for validating female priesthood. Like I said, Mary was neither a priest nor an Apostle, so claiming "Marian authority" in order to ordain female priests doesn't seem valid to me. Those are my thoughts anyways, hopefully the other Catholics on the forums agree...Just so you know, if you're looking for the full Catholic view on the issue, Victor is the guy to talk to....he is extremely knowledgeable about the Church and its teachings.

FGS

 

[James the Persian]

I'd second FGS's view that you should talk to Victor about the RC position. I do, however, fully expect that it will be nigh on identical to the Orthodox view that we have already discussed. About the only slightly related aspect of women's roles in the Church on which we appear to differ (that I can think of) is whether or not one can have a female confessor, but this is down to the fact that we may have lay confessors (though only a priest can grant absolution) whereas RCs do not appear to be able to do this.

James

 

[Elvendon]

I'm not sure...

While I hold no grudge against women, and have no personal issues with them being priestesses... The Church teaches that such is not theologically sound, and while at the moment I do not have the nessecary knowledge base to make an arguement, I must bow out of anything which might be called an intellectual debate on the merits of a holy order of priestesses, and (even with the proper knowledge) accept her wisdom on the matter.

Okay, that's very honest of you. I myself am just dipping the big toe here, so I can't get into any in-depth theological debates either.

Hi, Elvendon! I don't think we've been introduced, I'm FerventGodSeeker (as you can probably tell already ) I am still "officially" a Protestant, but I am seriously considering conversion to the Catholic Church, and so I thought I'd offer my thoughts from what I know and understand of the Catholic position.

Hi there! I did contemplate converting at one point (I have visited the Vatican once, and I must say, the sacredness of that place was just... wow!) but I think I'm too much of a theological lefty

Except as you said, she wasn't an Apostle...if she wasn't an Apostle, then other women cannot possible claim apostolic succession through her.

Exactly. They couldn't claim apostolic authority, but perhaps they could claim a different, yet equal, variety of authority via Mary.

Laywomen in the Church can and should do that anyways, they don't need to be ordained priests for that. Carrying the good news wherever you go, being a light for God to all people...those are basic commands for all Christians, I don't think they are really grounds for validating female priesthood. Like I said, Mary was neither a priest nor an Apostle, so claiming "Marian authority" in order to ordain female priests doesn't seem valid to me. Those are my thoughts anyways, hopefully the other Catholics on the forums agree...Just so you know, if you're looking for the full Catholic view on the issue, Victor is the guy to talk to....he is extremely knowledgeable about the Church and its teachings.

I don't think we can say that Saint Peter was a "priest" in the modern sense either. However, it is by the fact that Jesus vested some of his authority and power into Peter that priests are able to claim apostolic authority and thus lay claim to that divine power. If being a priest has nothing to do with role, as you rightly point out, then surely it is a case of power - a priest taps into the divine power of God and relays that to believers who cannot spend that length of time engaging in such practices. Therefore, so long as a gender is affiliated with a figure that was touched by Christ, then surely they can claim a priestly role through that figure's link to God. Women priests would claim a different authority to male priests, but they would still have the same divine connection.

I'd second FGS's view that you should talk to Victor about the RC position. I do, however, fully expect that it will be nigh on identical to the Orthodox view that we have already discussed. About the only slightly related aspect of women's roles in the Church on which we appear to differ (that I can think of) is whether or not one can have a female confessor, but this is down to the fact that we may have lay confessors (though only a priest can grant absolution) whereas RCs do not appear to be able to do this.

I think I will talk to Victor, see what his views are. I'm sometimes surprised by the similarities between some denominations! Just out of curiosity, how long does the Orthodox tradition of confession go back?

 

[James the Persian]

Just out of curiosity, how long does the Orthodox tradition of confession go back?

Do you mean the whole thing as it is today in every respect or just the idea of confessing your sins before a confessor, be he priest or lay? If the former, I can't say exactly when, though it certainly appears to be pre-Schism as it's very similar to the RC practice apart from a few minor details (such as monastic confessors, monasticism being apparently more important in east than west and certainly having a longer tradition in the east, and the post-Schism RC development of the confessional). If you mean the latter, then it goes right back to the New Testament and the early Fathers.

James

 

[Ceridwen018]

I'm not Catholic, but I went to a Catholic high school and we talked about this is class.

You are correct, Emu, that the Catholic Church rejects the idea of women priestesses because it goes against doctrine. Why does it go against doctrine, you ask? Well, I'll tell you! Essentially, because Jesus didn't appoint women to be apostles, (there were women disicples, like Mary Magdalene and others, but no woman apsotles), and because Paul trounces women as priests and spiritual leaders in some of his letters, (a bit of a misogynist, of you ask me), therefore, women can't be priests. I didn't say it was a logical reason.

Additional reasons include: The priest's job is to sort of "portray" Jesus during the mass, so women can't be priestesses because Jesus wasn't a girl, and so people won't "see Jesus" when they look at them. Also, the priesthood is not a "right." Many women claim they have a right to be a priestess, but they don't.

Alright, allow me to refute all of this.

First of all, there is a perfectly good reson for why Jesus didn't appoint women to be his disciples. During his time, women were sort of second class to men, and no one was going to listen to anything a woman had to say. Jesus wanted his message to be heard, and so, being a practical guy, he chose people who would be listened to, aka, men. The fact that Jesus had women as his disciples was rebellious enough.

Second of all, women shared a special bond with Jesus that none of the men did. Obviously, God chose for Jesus to be born of woman. There are other instances, such as when Jesus rose from the tomb. Who were the first people to get there? The women! How did they react, and how was it different from the precious men? They believed instantly, however, the men doubted.

As for the priest, "portraying Jesus" during the mass, I think that's just silly. First of all, I have never been taught to see the priest as "Jesus," and secondly, if that is a valid argument, I guess we should get rid of all the blck priests, and blonde-haired, blue-eyed priests, because even some women look like Jesus more than they would! Also, isn't God supposed to be genderless here? Men are dominating this church, and as long as a bunch of old men in committee control the changes made, I predict we won't be seeing very many changes for a long time.

Essentially, the idea that women can't or shouldn't be preists is simply the Catholic Church's interpretation of what they think Jesus was trying to say, and I think it was a fault interpretation. I think that sometimes, people need to use their logic and come to their own conclusions based on what they think makes sense, instead of blindly following what some old church says, even if that Church's message is blatantly sexist, (whether they're trying to be or no.)