Women in the Priesthood

[Ceridwen018]

In all of my years here at RF, I don't believe I have ever seen this topic properly discussed.

Those against ordaining women in the Catholic Church base their arguments on Jesus' actions in the Bible. They say that since Jesus only appointed males as his apostles, (although he had many famous female disciples), that means he only wanted males to be priests. They also say that The purpose of the priest is to represent Jesus during Mass, and that a woman would not be able to represent Jesus as well, because Jesus wasn't a woman.

Those for women in the priesthood argue that Jesus didn't appoint women as his apostles for a reason: because they society at that time was highly patriarchal, and a woman would never have been taken seriously. the fact that Jesus kept women around as his disciples was already considered to be rebellious. Also, women couldn't just leave their families to go preaching around the world at that time: they had to take care of the children, a responsibility that the men rarely shared. What's more, women played a huge role in Jesus' life. Mary Magdalene and a few others were the first to see Jesus after he was resurrected, and they were the only ones who believed in him immediately, (all of his wonderful male apostles either didn't recognize him, or did not believe him at first.) One other point: if the priest is supposed to emulate Jesus, then why are we allowing blonde haired, blue eyed men to be ordained?

In my opinion, as long as all of these issues are being argued and resolved by a room full of crotchety, old, MALE bishops and cardinals, things probably aren't going to change in the near future. However, we can still debate them here!

 

[Booko]

In my opinion, as long as all of these issues are being argued and resolved by a room full of crotchety, old, MALE bishops and cardinals, things probably aren't going to change in the near future. However, we can still debate them here!

Hm, since you put this in General Religious Debates, I'll just mention that Baha'is have solved this problem by not having priests at all.

This would also apply to Quakers, eh?

 

[finalfrogo]

I know! You're right. There's no solid reason why women should be disallowed priesthood.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Alas, I believe this is one of the dogmas of the Catholic Church. It is their tradition. I do not understand it. But I also do not understand why they practice confession. Why, if we are to have a personal relationship with Jesus, the saviour, why do catholics go through the middle man (priest)..... My mother converted us to Catholicism from Baptist when I was 15 and we went every Sunday, I was later married in a Catholic church, but there were a lot of things I just did not understand about this religion.

I won't go into a list here, that is for another thread. I do not know how we could really discuss this properly as you suggest. The Catholics do what they do for a reason. I don't think they will be changing it any time soon. I have been called to minister, and being a nun is not for me, so I could not remain with the Catholic church.

While I think they are a little strict in keeping women out of the priesthood, they almost make up for it in their worship of Mary. I, personally believe that both Mary, the Mother, and Mary Magdelene would have been the best disciples EVER!!!!! I wish we had a religion that followed their interpretation of Jesus, or do we? HMMMM?

 

[Katzpur]

Well, the LDS are with the Catholics on this one. We do not allow women to hold the Priesthood. Never have. Probably never will. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm not sure what you mean by "properly discussed" - but I'm fairly certain it has come up quite a bit.

 

[Bishka]

I hold the Preisthood......












I hug my husband.

 

[Booko]

Well, the LDS are with the Catholics on this one. We do not allow women to hold the Priesthood. Never have. Probably never will. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

That never bothered me as a Protestant either, fwiw.

 

[James the Persian]

We are also with the Roman Catholics on this as are the Oriental Orthodox. It's very unlikely any of us will ever accept female ordinations (and as an aside, confession before - not to - a priest is common to all the Apostolic churches also and is based on Scripture telling us to confess our sins to one another and Christ giving the Apostles the authority to bind and loose). I know that we have discussed this issue in the past and I don't recall either of Ceridwen's positions being dominant themes in the discussion. There are plenty of theological and scriptural reasons for our opposition to female ordination, though I'm sure many will not accept them. The cultural relativity argument for female ordination is, though, probably the weakest argument our counterparts have for female ordination, I feel. It's quite clear from the NT that Christ was only too willing to flout social conventions of the time, so why would female roles in religion be any diferent?

James

 

[zombieharlot]

I never understood how women get denied of such things. There isn't anything concrete in the Bible that says women shouldn't be leaders. Jesus never stated any reasons as to why women weren't appointed. Paul (correct me if I'm wrong about it being him) said that pastors/priests must be the husband of one wife. Some might argue that that is stating that women can't be leaders because he doesn't say they must be the wife of one husband. However, if Paul's words were to be taken so literally, he himself would be going against them because he wasn't the husband of one wife. He wasn't married. His statement was in regards to polygamy. This is the only statement in the Bible I know of that can be used to deny women priesthood, and I just gave you an argument against it. Are there any specific scriptures that are used in denying women to be appointed?

 

[James the Persian]

Are there any specific scriptures that are used in denying women to be appointed?

Quite a few, but for those of us in the Apostolic churches that existed prior to the Reformation, they are hardly the crux of the matter. If you want to demand that any prohibition of female ordination must be based solely on Biblical verses then you can only argue with Protestants and those others who follow the recent doctrine of sola scriptura. Any such argument is nonsensical to us as we do not hold that Scripture alone is in any way the foundation of the Church.

James

P.S.
I agree completely with your interpretation of that verse as being against polygamy, but then I've never heard it used as a basis for denying female ordination. It does, in the language used, presuppose that the priest is male but that does not seem at all to be the main thrust of the topic.

 

[Mister Emu]

In my opinion, as long as all of these issues are being argued and resolved by a room full of crotchety, old, MALE bishops and cardinals, things probably aren't going to change in the near future.

Things aren't ever going to change, near or far future. It is a Dogma of the Church that only males can be priests. It cannot change. Just thought I would get that out there.

 

[Opethian]

Well, I think it's a ridiculous dogma, but praise yourself fortunate that these are the only kinds of sexist effects of your religion. If you would be a muslim, it would be far worse (especially in poor countries).

 

[Tigress]

Hm, since you put this in General Religious Debates, I'll just mention that Baha'is have solved this problem by not having priests at all.

This would also apply to Quakers, eh?

To some Quakers, yes. Others attend programmed meetings; meetings with a paid minister (male or female).

 

[Booko]

Well, I think it's a ridiculous dogma, but praise yourself fortunate that these are the only kinds of sexist effects of your religion. If you would be a muslim, it would be far worse (especially in poor countries).

Many of those treatments of women you think of in Muslim countries have more to do with pagan Arab practices prior to Islam than with Islam itself.

Not like I'm denying that women get treated awfully in those places, but there was a time when Muslim women had more freedom and more rights than Christian women did. fwiw

 

[Booko]

To some Quakers, yes. Others attend programmed meetings; meetings with a paid minister (male or female).

Is that a difference between Orthodox and Liberal Quakers? I didn't even know there were differences in Quakers until I took the Belief-o-Matic thingy and Liberal Quaker came up 2nd in the list.

 

[sojourner]

We are also with the Roman Catholics on this as are the Oriental Orthodox. It's very unlikely any of us will ever accept female ordinations (and as an aside, confession before - not to - a priest is common to all the Apostolic churches also and is based on Scripture telling us to confess our sins to one another and Christ giving the Apostles the authority to bind and loose). I know that we have discussed this issue in the past and I don't recall either of Ceridwen's positions being dominant themes in the discussion. There are plenty of theological and scriptural reasons for our opposition to female ordination, though I'm sure many will not accept them. The cultural relativity argument for female ordination is, though, probably the weakest argument our counterparts have for female ordination, I feel. It's quite clear from the NT that Christ was only too willing to flout social conventions of the time, so why would female roles in religion be any diferent?

James

I think that there is a difference between flouting social conventions (or even religious Law) when putting them aside furthers the cause, and flouting social conventions that do not further the cause.

Jesus was looking for leaders -- people that the general populace might listen to, might follow. In that culture, no one was going to follow a woman. In other words, while healing on the Sabbath was conducive to illustrating Jesus' point of the Law becoming an end in itself, appointing female leaders would not have been very effective in spreading the movement.

 

[James the Persian]

I think that there is a difference between flouting social conventions (or even religious Law) when putting them aside furthers the cause, and flouting social conventions that do not further the cause.

Jesus was looking for leaders -- people that the general populace might listen to, might follow. In that culture, no one was going to follow a woman. In other words, while healing on the Sabbath was conducive to illustrating Jesus' point of the Law becoming an end in itself, appointing female leaders would not have been very effective in spreading the movement.

Which culture? Just the Jewish one, or does Gentile culture count also? There was, after all, a long tradition of priestesses in pagan religions in Greece, for instance. I still think that the cultural relativity argument is weak (not non-existent, you understand, just a great deal weaker than certain theological arguments that can be made in favour of female ordination). I'd say that St. Mary Magdalene's success in preaching to the Greeks of Asia Minor shows that women could have an impact on the spread of the Church, even if this would not have been as great amongst Jewish populations. I'm still not in favour of female ordination because, whilst I can see some reasonable arguments in the opposing camp (theological and not cultural) I don't believe that the weight of evidence is sufficient to warrant overturning 2000 years of Holy Tradition. I don't doubt that others will disagree with me on this and I respect their right to do so, but I still feel that the Orthodox position is the correct one.

James

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I think this is an issue for everyone, not just Catholic churches. I'm a protestant, andI don't believe women should be evangelists, elders, song leaders, etc. I know of some Bible verses that I will post for consideration, but I'm @ school right now, so I don't have my Bible w/ me. I will post them when I get home.

 

[James the Persian]

I think this is an issue for everyone, not just Catholic churches. I'm a protestant, andI don't believe women should be evangelists, elders, song leaders, etc. I know of some Bible verses that I will post for consideration, but I'm @ school right now, so I don't have my Bible w/ me. I will post them when I get home.

I didn't mean to imply that the topic was only of relevance to us. Sorry if that is the impression you got. All I meant to say was that requiring us to provide justifications for an all male priesthood based on scripture alone was non-sensical. Such a tack only makes sense with an adherent of sola scriptura which we, most certainly, are not. As I said, there are scriptural arguments but these are by no means the be all and end all for us.

James