Struans and I have been having too interesting a discussion to be confined to those who read the comments sections, and here I want to set out the reasons why the Catholic (and for that matter the Orthodox and many Protestant churches) still hold to the universal tradition of the Church that women cannot be priests.
The best place to catch the Catholic position (and I make no apology for not adding the word ‘Roman’ as I know no Anglo-Catholics who adhere to the contrary position) is in the CDF document from the 1976 DECLARATION INTER INSIGNIORES ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD.
The Church acknowledged, and acknowledges, that as societies change, the roles open to women have also changed and, whilst recognising the tremendous role women have played in the history of the Church from the Blessed Virgin onward, welcomes the expansion of opportunities for the talents of women. So why not also admit them to the priesthood, that, after all, in the secular world, would be the obvious terminus for such a line of argument; the answer is because we are not, here, in the realm of the secular and of ‘job opportunities’. The Congregation for the Defence of the Faith concluded:
the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.
That is the decisive argument – that Our Lord did not ordain women to be Apostles; nor can we. This is in faithful imitation of Our Lord and of the universal practice of His Church; to overturn this is not within our gift. The Church is bound by Christ here, and elsewhere. The Churches of the East, who in some areas (such as married priests) have a greater diversity of practice, are at one here with Rome, as are many Protestant denominations. In this respect we are all following the example of the Apostles themselves. Struans rightly point out that there are arguments for thinking Jesus thought His followers should keep Torah, but this was not the practice of the Apostles, and there His Church has followed that example. It was not their practice to ordain women; we have also followed their practice. The idea that this was for cultural reasons will not wash, as many Graeco-Roman cults had priestesses, and we know that in the early church there were many socially prominent women; but none of these things led the successors of the Apostles to depart from their example.
This is not an inflexible attitude to what is stated in Scripture and tradition. So, if we take what St Paul has to say about women wearing a veil in church, that is clearly culturally conditioned, but if we take what he has to say about women having authority in church, then not before the later twentieth century in the West has anyone suggested that this is in the same category; common sense would suggest they are not, and in practice, the Church has proceeded according to such common sense. As the CDF concluded:
The practice of the Church therefore has a normative character: in the fact of conferring priestly ordination only on men, it is a question of unbroken tradition throughout the history of the Church, universal in the East and in the West, and alert to repress abuses immediately. This norm, based on Christ’s example, has been and is still observed because it is considered to conform to God’s plan for his Church.
For St Paul, the representative function is part of the Apostolic role, and at the Eucharist the priest acts in persona Christ; Christ Incarnate was a man, and the priest takes on Christ’s role:
The Christian priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible and which the faithful must be able to recognise with ease.
A woman acting in place of Christ would not fulfil this condition. As the CDF goes on to say:
Christ is of course the firstborn of all humanity, of women as well as men: the unity which he re-established after sin is such that there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28). Nevertheless, the incarnation of the Word took place according to the male sex: this is indeed a question of fact, and this fact, while not implying and alleged natural superiority of man over woman, cannot be disassociated from the economy of salvation: it is indeed in harmony with the entirety of God’s plan as God himself has revealed it, and of which the mystery of the Covenant is the nucleus.
Christ in the Bridegroom, the Church His Bride:
This nuptial theme, which is developed from the Letters of Saint Paul onwards (2 Cor.11:2; Eph.5:22-23) to the writings of Saint John (especially in Jn.3:29; Rev.19:7,9), is present also in the Synoptic Gospels: the Bridegroom’s friends must not fast as long as he is with them (Mk.2:19); the Kingdom of Heaven is like a king who gave a feast for his son’s weeding (Mt.22:1-14). It is through this Scriptural language, all interwoven with symbols, and which expresses and affects man and women in their profound identity, that there is revealed to us the mystery of God and Christ, a mystery which of itself is unfathomable.
The full document can be found by following the link. It concludes:
But it must not be forgotten that the priesthood does not form part of the rights of the individual, but stems from the economy of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The priestly office cannot become the goal of social advancement: no merely human progress of society or of the individual can of itself give access to it: it is of another order.
Now it may simply be the case that the whole Church has been wrong on this for most of its history and still is, and that only a small group of enlightened Westerners have it right, but that would be to subvert the way in which Christ’s Church has always proceeded, placing the fashions of an age within the wider and wiser context of what has been taught at all times and in all places. To depart from that is a bold move. Those who have done so are confident they are right; time will tell. In the meantime, most of Christendom stands where it has always stood and watches those so confident of the power of their own reason with interest. As neither the Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite or Orthodox Churches has any intention of following suit, those Anglicans who have taken such a move have placed yet another obstacle in the way of unity.
All Along the Watchtower 
Ah how true my son Chalcedon. Our beloved catholic church changes not. Go in peace my son.
LikeLike
Thank you for this. For my lot it would be those unfashionable words of St Paul. Discard them because you think them culturally-conditioned and precisely where and how do you stop that process? Of course, you can’t, as what one reads from time to time about the Episcopalians shows. You can explain away most of the stuff atheists don’t like about Christianity this way – not that you’ll convert them, though you will lose many devout Christians.
Perhaps only those with PhDs need apply? Maybe up to date ones, as mine doesn’t lead me to embrace this hermeneutic of convenience. 🙂
LikeLike
As you’ll see from my discussion with Struans, he leans heavily on the culturally conditioned argument. One can always find reasons for explaining Scripture away, indeed some have found enough to explain it all away.
LikeLike
Aye, well, I see that from his perspective they work, but if you don’t share it, they don’t, and as most don’t, they won’t. Another barrier erected by those confident that they are right. Oh well.
LikeLike
Indeed, clearly what has been believed at all times and in all places by everyone won’t do any more 🙂
LikeLike
Certainly not, not very modern that 🙂
LikeLike
A weak strapline from you there C: “what has been believed at all times and in all places”. It’s a statement that there’s been no change in the church at all, and that there have never been differing views in the church. Plain wrong, although a good slogan for rousing the rabble clamouring for certainties – which is why it’s often trotted out. Rhetoric is no substitute for content though – as an academic, I am sure you would agree.
S.
LikeLike
Father Bosco – time for you to join the Salvation Army.
LikeLike
Sister Anna with the banner had better be very afraid 🙂
LikeLike
“That is the decisive argument – that Our Lord did not ordain women to be Apostles”
By this logic we can conclude that since the Apostles were all Jews, only Jews can be ordained. Or since most of the Disciples were a decade younger than Jesus, only men not older than 20 can be ordained. The Acts of Thecla and the Gospel of Mary were not included in the canon because they would give evidence that indeed women did and are entitled to roles of leadership including ordination. The deletion thereof evolves into the thinking that leadership of women is not scriptural with no documentation which is the essence of your presentation and the like position of those in agreement including orthodoxy of Catholic and Protestant thinking on the matter. The evidence was dismissed by a male dominated agenda. Reminds of a recently created of a sub committee of US Congressmen to present conclusions re abortion. )The committee was composed of a dozen old white men only). Women headed churches in their homes and a group of widowed women were granted formal ministry in some churches(I Tim I 5:9-10 ). The efforts of Mary Magdalene, Junia, Prisca, Eurodia, and Syntyche also also mentioned by Paul. In the early centuries the Book of Thecla was used as scripture by many groups. For evidence role of women see writings Prof. Elaine Pagels PhD. Shall we declare that only men are called to preach the Gospel? Does man’s creation of the rite of ordination supersede and make unavailable to minister those called as women? Lastly, I can’t recall anything in scripture wherein Jesus ordained His followers. They were merely called to follow.
LikeLike
Carl – furthermore, it isn’t clear to me that the apostles actually had any priestly duties. If one goes down the sacramental Catholic route, it was Jesus who blessed and administered the bread and wine; he didn’t ordain any of his disciples to re-present his sacrifice on his behalf. There is no evidence that the apostles were ordained to carry out the priestly sacramental side of things that one sees within the Catholic Church. With the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus by himself, the entire function of the Aaronic priesthood is fulfilled. The new priesthood mentioned in Hebrews seems to be Jesus Christ himself and there is no mention at all about instituting a new priesthood to re-present the sacrifice at mass.
The whole business of women is resolved if one joins the Salvation Army, where it was one of the founding principles that men and women were treated equally. The problem with this solution is that they don’t allow the educated man to enjoy a quiet drink; one glass of wine sends you straight to hell.
LikeLike
“If one goes down the sacramental Catholic route, it was Jesus who blessed and administered the bread and wine; he didn’t ordain any of his disciples to re-present his sacrifice on his behalf.”
I suppose that one could say the same of the Levites then in the OT Church? Because to the ears of a Jew the ‘pouring out of blood’ was a priestly function and Christ could not have said to the apostles at the Last Supper to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ after He had just said that this was His blood which was to be ‘poured out for the many.’ That would have immediately understood by religious Jews at the time. Notwithstanding the Deacon Philip who Baptized (which is a function of a Deacon as well as priest) but the ‘Bishops’ came to lay hands on the Baptized so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. (Sounds a whole lot like Confirmation to me.):
Acts 8:12-17 “But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place. Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
LikeLike
Servus – you’re talking in riddles. You wrote ‘Christ could not have said to the apostles at the Last Supper to ‘do this in remembrance of me’ after He had just said that this was His blood which was to be ‘poured out for the many.’’ Well, he did say that – it says so in Scripture, so I wonder by what authority you claim that he couldn’t.
Of course, there’s a big difference between an act of remembrance and a re-presentation. On the Sunday before 11th November, we remember the first war and those who fell; what goes on at the cenotaph is an act of remembrance. We don’t do a re-presentation of the war.
Confirmation may (or may not) be a sensible idea – but trying to equate confirmation with apostles laying on hands so that the Holy Spirit is received looks like pure eisigesis to me. I haven’t heard anybody at all, Catholic or Protestant trying to make that identification before. These signs and wonders confirmed the apostles as people whom they claimed to be; eye witnesses to the real risen Saviour, who were called by God and who had been faithful to their calling. There were no attempts to develop a theology of confirmation around these passages – that is pure eisigesis.
LikeLike
Well, as a Catholic you would see the reason for why Baptism and Confirmation are different and why a Deacon can do one and only a Bishop do the other.
I also was not saying the Jesus did not do what He did at the Last Supper. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. What I was trying to get across was that He was commanding the Apostles to do what only Priests in Judaism were allowed to do: pour out the blood of a sacrifice. No one else has that power. Therefore, the ordination was implicit even if not explicit.
Also, the word for the remembrance was the same that the Jewish nation used for a Memorial Sacrifice. I doubt the Apostles missed the meaning.
LikeLike
Servus – oh my goodness. It had never occurred to me before that ‘confirmation’ had anything to do with the apostles laying on hands so that the people received the Holy Spirit.
I’d say that this proves that the whole thing is counterfeit. When the apostles laid on hands, the people really did receive the Holy Spirit and this was accompanied by signs. Are you telling me that every single person who is ‘Confirmed’ in the Catholic Church by some Bishop laying on hands really does receive the Holy Spirit? Because I’m afraid I simply haven’t see it.
As to the other point – everything is against the apostles understanding, at the time, the meaning that you ascribe. For a start, it still hadn’t occurred to them that Jesus would be crucified. After he was crucified, it didn’t occur to them until they had seen the hard evidence, that he would rise from the dead. Even when they did understand all this, there are huge rivers that are missing from Scripture about the technicalities of turning the Last Supper into the mass where some priest says ‘this is my body’ and in that moment it is supposed to be Jesus Christ himself uttering these words in some sense.
I would suggest that ‘normal’ people, armed to the teeth with knowledge about Old Testament Scripture, and faithful to Jesus, would still have understood it as a powerful graphical image rather than anything further. There was no tradition in the OT of grape juice transubstantiated into the blood of the sacrificial goat.
LikeLike
Well if you expect to “see” the Holy Spirit with your eyes I wouldn’t doubt that you’d have a problem with it. And, of course, as a non-Catholic without any belief at all concerning Confirmation as a Sacrament I wouldn’t expect that either. I’m simply showing you that we Catholics do see something in these scriptures that you do not or will not – in other words, we did not just manufacture things out of thin air.
Grape juice can never be transubstantiated by anyone. Wine, yes. In the OT you had the Bread of Presence and the Sacrifice of the Lamb. They are now combined in our Lord Jesus: just as the feast of Passover combined the feast of Unleavened Bread with the New Passover Sacrifice.
LikeLike
Servus – if the claim is that a bishop confirming someone is analogous to the apostles laying on hands and people receiving the Spirit then – yes – I expect to see exactly the same accompanying signs, or the analogy breaks down. In particular, it breaks down when the confirmees show by their very behaviour and nature that they never once had the Holy Spirit in any measure.
By the way – how much alcohol does it have to contain before you decide that it’s no longer grape juice and can be classed as wine?
LikeLike
Not so weak that you could not recognize it as wine and not over 18% by volume – not that you really cared. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – I do care deeply – right now, the topic of vinification is very important to me. Recently, I was out of the country when my grapes were ready to be taken in. I don’t have too many, just enough to make a few bottles of plonk. My mother-in-law (without asking first) helpfully took in the grapes and then helpfully turned them into some sort of grape juice, by a process that involved boiling them, thus killing off all the enzymes that might have turned the sugar into something more interesting. I’m sure that if the Salvation Army existed here, she would be an enthusiastic member. From what you say, I gather that the resulting liquid (which actually tastes rather good) would be inappropriate for use at a Catholic mass.
LikeLike
Ahh. I see you are man who knows a bit about wines. Then it isn’t surprising to you that we use naturally fermented wines from grapes which usually ends up in the 10% to 14% range with 18% alcohol being on the extremely high side for naturally fermented wines.
LikeLike
WILLIAM Booth is said to have claimed that some of his best men were women. He was wise man following clear Biblical and apostolic principles.
I suggest those with contrary opinion read the whole book and search out church history quotes to evidence this. I’m fairly sure you will not and that If I did so for you would remain un-moveable!
LikeLike
The priesthood is something Booth failed to understand. John Paul II’s words, quoted in my last post, really say all that I could say Rob.
LikeLike
An excellent commentary, although I must that that whilst I sympathise, the Acts and Gospel texts you quote are not canonical. However, they are evidence that there are ancient theologies – if not practices – as to womens roles in the church of the type that C has claimed are entirely novel today and caused by 20th century feminist talk. That the church at the time struck such ideas down was a contextual decision – as all human decisions are contextual. Even the decision on the canon of Scripture was contextual – although we work with Scripture defined as Tradition says it is, the temporal who claim that they have absolute knowledge of God’s revelation are able to be labelled with a word: Wrong.
S.
LikeLike
Carl, Struans, you will note that my argument is grounded in What Jesus did, but also I what the early Church did. The early Church decided the issue of whether those ordained as priests needed to be Jews? It is my view and that of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches that the early church also decided that issue when it came to women and the priesthood. No one denies that women functioned as deacons in places, but there is no record that they served as priests in any Orthodox Church. Those who wish to say that something which has been believed everywhere by everyone at all times should now be changed because they think so, take on themselves a responsibility for further dividing the churches – and for what?
LikeLike
Yes, you did couch in such terms, but the point is still to be made that all human decisions are contextual.
Re the ‘strapline’, as I have termed it, there are those within your church who presently do not agree, as one example of the weakness of this line.
However, you have asked a very difficult question about which I can sense that there is much thinking needing to be done: you pose “for what?” – I do not have an immediate answer. A very good question indeed. Truth, yes – however…..to what extent ought truth to be established piecemeal rather than persuading the whole (or not). Hmmmmm. I will return !
S.
LikeLike
I take it by your response that you do not accept the authorities that gave you the Holy Bible and had you been the one to decide the books of the Bible that you would have chosen other books to be added. I wonder how many other books you would add that were lost to history? Such an attitude, it seems to me, is not an attitude of faith which relies on the Holy Spirit to bring to bring all truths to mind. For in your mind the Church was corrupt almost from the beginning and the Holy Spirit had no effect whatever. Christ lied when He said He would send an advocate and lied when He said He would not leave us as orphans. I think such a path of thinking leads one to speculate any way they want: regardless of faith. There is nothing left to base our faith on: one writing is as good as another, so take your pick.
Since the books in the Bible do not claim their own infallibility or disclose which books should be considered Holy Scripture, why should I believe any of them? If that were how I treated the literature of the day then I would certainly not be a Catholic; but then again I would not even be a Christian. There would be nothing left to recommend the faith to me if it cannot make any claims more substantially than does Mohammed or Buddha or any other religion. Which religion is true? They can’t all be true. And it would be possible that none of them are true. Sounds like you are only Christian because you want to believe Christianity for personal reasons.
LikeLike
Who is your comment directed to: me or Carl or both? I take it that it’s Carl only, but it’s not that easy to see on the thread.
S.
LikeLike
I know what you mean, Struans. It often gets hard to follow the threads. You are right, it was directed to Carl.
LikeLike
Part of my thinking re women is based on the development of what is known as the “democratization of American religion” and the continuing effort to guarantee gender equality. Naturally the Faith is not a democracy. It is a monarchy created by God for the glory of His creation. If we accept the invitation offered by Jesus to become a subject we are blessed through God’s grace. I submit to that but the fact remains that I am unable to be objective about it because the words of Thomas Jefferson leak over into my religious thinking. All here would declare that inappropriate. I know the two do not intersect or blend together but I am guilty of being influenced. Whether the “democratization of American religion” may not be acceptable to God and traditional Catholic and Protestant orthodoxy , it is in fact a dramatic historical trend. If the Faith was indeed a democracy I would certainly vote for Jesus and the Disciple Party .
In any event I appreciate comments directed at my presentations (so few are)as they force me to qualify my thoughts or accept sometimes that my understandings are incorrect and incongruent with Faith and always that my thinking may be subject to modification and refinement. Authority? I question all authority especially the self anointed authorities of the early orthodox church and the declarations of their councils. I do have mixed emotions on my last statement because Eusebius repeatedly asserts the sincerity of these early church fathers to be true to original intent.
As far as the canon goes my thinking on Revelations is that its author/s ate too many mushrooms and would delete it in favor of including texts of ancient traditions that have been dismissed . Heretically yours, I remain……
LikeLike
Although, I too hold Thomas Jefferson in high esteem, it is because he champions human freedom and liberty. But liberty and freedom have a solely different function within Christianity. Liberty from Sin and Freedom to live according to God’s Will gives me another more important use of the same words. I appreciate your response, Carl.
LikeLike
Alas, it’s now a Monday and I have no time to contunue this interesting debate – for now! I will be back. I will not be conceding the points through lack of engagement 🙂
A few preliminaries though:-
(i) the post that C and I had a recent ding-dong on is here: https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/anglican-attitudes/
(ii) C’s title of this post “Ordaining Women” is worthy of a brief reflection that women have been ordained in the ancient Church. Albeit, as deaconesses, not priests – nevertheless to be ordained, set apart for service and self-sacrifice, has been shown by tradition not to be the sole preserve of men.
(iii) the main point I want to make at this state is to highlight this subject as a matter of conducting theological discourse. As the course notes have shown, explicit theology has many sources: however all theology is contextual because it is conducted by humans in time. God is personal too: therefore it is to be expected that each of us will from time to time have differing understandings of God as our relationships are different with God. So those who wish to throw their hands in the air and advance the commonly heard line of “Pah! Those ridiculous Anglicans just don’t know what they believe. Submit to Rome/Scripture [depending on choice]” don’t know what they’re talking about if it is suggested that ‘right’ theology only produces one line-to-take. That’s not to say that there is not good theology and bad theology: but the qualitative distinction there depends on the extent to which a particular persons theological views are supported by the sources and by reputable others in the Church. Good theology doesn’t have to be agreed to be other people for it to be recognised as good. Indeed, good theology can be struck out as admissible by the Church for all sorts of reasons: and indeed, this is where our arguments concerning the differing forms of ecclesiology come in. Now, no theology on this blog is going to be of an academic quality due to time pressures and just the nature of the beast – but that’s not to say that there won’t be elements of the good and bad on display here. I am heartened that C can see that there are some good points that I make, albeit that he disagrees, as does his Church. Now, that’s OK as far as I am concerned: my aim here is not to prove others right, but rather to show that the views I have can be advanced by good theology – and I will address this matter with more substance to C’s points later on when time permits. With good theological views advanced, the matter then moves onto ecclesiology: and many others would claim that Anglicans might have some good theologies, but the Church structures are wrong/inadmissible and all the rest of it. I hope to post at some point in the future about ecclesiology and theology: in a nutshell, it would be to elaborate on what I have set out just now, but also to note that the Anglican way of doing things is traditional – more traditional than other parts of the Church catholic and perhaps therefore more authentic. The typical Anglican forms of worship (leaning towards scripture, tradition and reason respectively) is a result of what is firmly Anglican – namely the interaction between theology and ecclesiology. All forms of Anglican churchmanship take full account of the contextual nature of theology. The model of church that Anglicans have, that I claim is more authentic and traditional than other forms is based on these points: (i) theology is personal, as is our individual relationships with God, (ii) the local church is that gathered around the bishop, (iii) disagreements between bishops are those resolved in conciliar manners: synods, and – in the ultimate – all of the bishops of the Church catholic in ecumenical council; and (iv) tradition shows that councils are there to police borders of the Church, not to determine the precise nature of one exact line of thought – indeed, such a human limitation on the work of God is arguably bad theology in itself.
S.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on ZEITGEIST and commented:
Amen. The Church is not governed by the Zeitgeist but by Scripture and her teaching.
LikeLike
My son Michael, you know very well that our beloved catholic church hates the scriptures. We made our own bible, the catechism. We tell people not to read the bible. Our beloved catholic church calls the bible a dead letter. But its faithful catholics like you my son who claim the CC is based on the scriptures. We tell you it is and then tell you that you cant understand the bible.Hahahahahahha. We have your soul. You think our beloved CC is bible based? Hahahahaha. Tell me. Do you use a white cane? If not, havent you noticed all the graven images we supply our beloved flock, so they can bow to them? Go in peace my child.
LikeLike
This is perhaps my number one reason for being against ordaining women:
LikeLike
The style would look better if he/she/it were wearing a hat – a red cardinal’s hat would go nicely with the outfit. Go in peace, etc …..
JCM
LikeLike
I see you that you have joined Fr. Bosco but quickly attained the rank of Cardinal. Well done, Jock Cardinal McSporran. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus – there are (of course) the usual channels for attaining the rank of Cardinal, but I preferred to adopt the approach of the community of musicians (Sir Charles Thompson, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, ….). Go in peace, etc …..
JCMS
LikeLike
May Glenn Miller and Artie Shaw be with you . . . 🙂
LikeLike
I baptized my children and grandchildren myself. I blessed my mother as I held her hand at the moment of her death and I said a prayer of resurrection as my father, son and I cast her ashes into a gentle stream. Do you think I will get into a lot of trouble with God for this? I gotta go with the grape juice too. Clean and sober 11 and 1/2 years.
LikeLike
Of course you’re not in trouble, but at the same time one is called to a part of church in some form or other – to be serve others….others who one might not meet otherwise. Of course, many people volunteer in all sorts of ways, yet still church can connect people – via clergy structures – that might otherwise not be possible. One of the mail functions of clergy is to help people: to be a body to listen in confidence and to keep confidences – confidences that might otherwise not be shared. At some point, to be a part of the whole, personal choices have to stop. That’s a personal choice in itself as to when, to it’s a circular argument to some extent. Even the more conservative elements of the RC bridgade frequently decide themselves that something or someone is heretical – personal choice.
It is through church though that service can be performed.
I’ve become aware that I’m rambling and probably preaching to the choir anyway.
S.
LikeLike
Pingback: Are Venus and Mars Alright Tonight? | Resting in His Grace
Have bookmarked this post for a fuller reply to C re women priests later on.
I was saving myself up at the time for an argument on teleology, but I’ve now pretty much put forth what I wanted to say in that regard here: https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/returning-to-old-questions/
I paste below the key comment of mine from that dialogue:
And so we arrive inexorably at the predictable teleological question: what is God’s purpose for humanity, and for those parts of the Body of Christ?
Surely it is human flourishing? Surely that each human, sinner that he is, disordered that we all are as sinners, is able to be as fully a participant in that abundance of life eternal? To turn away from sin is involved, for sure. Flourishing cannot be achieved without effort there: yet sin is what? A separation from our Lord. A separation from his purposes for us. Surely the answers are to be found by looking through Christ.
It is in this area that Christianity concerns itself with as regards life and death. Death to self, and resurrection in new life with Christ, with that Christian hope of eternal life being within reach.
Life does indeed beget life. All are made in the image of Christ and can be partakers in that beatific vision of the eternal feast. God’s plan for humanity has surely been shown in the Son – the incarnational nature of reality.
That nature shows that some do not breed does not mean that they are of lesser value to our Lord than those that do. That is not God’s plan for those who may, for whatever reasons, not begat issue. Scripture, after all, suggests that Jesus had no issue.
The human family is one of love. A holistic understanding of science – natural, human and philosophical – indicates that which Christians believe – in the Truth of the Gospel.
The Roman Magisterium is hamstrung by previous adherence to a scholastic way of thinking, coupled with the limitations of it’s centralised nature of conducting theology. It is a tragedy indeed. As many RCs will tell one, if one cares to listen to them.
So, that’s that comment, now to continue what I want to say here:-
As regards female priests, it is not so much that there should be space for women to flourish as if to be a priest were a job, but rather on what basis might someone be excluded from being a priest.
First of all, it is to be noted from C’s text above that the two key phrases that he uses to bolster his position involve opinion by the Roman magistirium. That it doesn’t consider itself in a position to confer female priestly ordination, and that in consideration that there is no firm Biblical evidence for female apostleship, there is no reason to change its custom.
However, Rome changes its customs over time. At one point it considered itself to have supreme universal temporal jurisdiction over the whole of the world. It has not rescinded that position, yet it whinges whenever there is a move to caution against this potential power of Rome to have its adherents become tools of their church.
C states that the evidence of priestesses at the time elsewhere but not in the nascent Jesus movement is conclusive that there is no cultural argument that will wash. This seems a particularly weak line, as he seems to be implying that culture is something that is either same at all times or in all places. Priestesses in Athens, but not for Jesus – therefore Jesus firmly intended that “maleness” was a key attribute, notwithstanding that there is nothing explicit on this in the Bible. But the culture of Athens is not the same as for Palestine, both then and now.
The killer argument, it seems to me, is that God is unsexed, as evidenced in Scripture. At the second coming of Christ, in the fullness of time, with the whole church, including those who have gone before, there will be females.
No doubt we will go back to other arguments on this blog sometime, as this issue often pops up. The Melchizedek priesthood as a masculine line is another argument that I have heard, but which again fails to convince.
Enough for now though – if anyone will read this comment on an old post.
S.
LikeLike
Jesus failed to select women as Apostles. He could have done so, he did not. Some churches know better than Jesus, some follow His teaching.
LikeLike
“Failed”? You mean that it was a failure that he didn’t?
Some churches follow His teaching? Like with Torah?
C’mon…there have got to be better arguments for your position. I have yet to hear them. The lines that have been wheeled out so far I find weak.
S.
LikeLike
No, I mean He did not ordain women. He did not teach that Gentiles should keep Torah, as Peter and Paul confirm, so quite why you introduce that red herring! who can say? We follow Jesus’ example. I am sorry you find him unconvincing, but then you belong to a church which disregards his clear words on divorce and remarriage, so I am not surprised you find him unconvincing.
LikeLike
Wrong on all counts. The C of E does not condone divorce, as you suggest. And Jesus wanted the law kept.
LikeLike
On ‘all counts’? Really, so Jesus did appoint women as Apostles. Goodness me, you should write that one up at once, it is a huge discovery. Indeed, if vindicated by others, it might even convince the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to follow suite. I am surprised it has remained hidden all these years.
On the marriage issue, Jesus was clear; it is clear your Church does not obey Him. So where am I wrong in stating that? I did not say your church condemned it, I said it allowed it and remarriage in church, things it used not to do before it was infected by the liberal virus which is destroying it.
Jesus did not state that Gentiles should keep Torah – or is this another astonishing new discovery of your own? Paul and Peter and the Apostles decided, as was their right (having the power to bind and loose), that Christians were not bound by Torah.
So, no, not wrong on either count – unless of course, you con produce evidence to show that Our Lord ordained women as Apostles and said Gentiles should keep Torah and did not give the Apostles the power to bind and loose.
LikeLike
OK. so you win the cheap point about ‘all counts’, then. I’m happy to let you have the low hanging fruit that a child can reach if you want to score such points in a comments thread on a blog that is written quickly.
There is no virus in the C of E. If you’re looking for viruses, I suggest you be careful in throwing the first stone, given all of the RC scandals recently.
The point is that your argument fails fully: Jesus clearly wanted the law kept by his community – a Jewish community – yet in the pages of Scripture it was decided that the nascent church would do things otherwise, gentiles with no Torah. So you claim that absolutely everything that Jesus is said by the Gospel authors to have wanted is somehow set in stone for all time is negated.
You keep on wheeling out the proof texting argument that basically states that Gospel authors stated something of Jesus and therefore nothing can be done otherwise. One only has to look at the development of the church to show the weakness of that one.
LikeLike
So, us take stock. You have no evidence that Jesus made women Apostles or wished to; you have no evidence that any Catholic Church thought this possible. You wish to make the claim your own Church is Catholic, so, unable to sustain the primary claim about women, you go to a subsidiary, Torah. You offer no proof Jesus thought Torah binding on Gentiles.
You accept, because you have to, that the Apostles decided that Torah was not binding on Christians. You then, in an act of splendid casuistry, attempt to claim that a consensus of the Apostles on Torah can be applied to the unilateral claim of your own church on the ordination of women.
You clearly have no argument, and I can appreciate your need to scrabble around searching for one. Were there one then the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would have found it. There isn’t one, but your own Church, relying solely on its own reasoning and ignoring Tradition and Scripture, has given in to the spirit of the times in the West. It really would be more fitting if you simply acknowledged it you know.
The red herring you keep dragging across the path is just that. At no point have I stated that the Apostolic Church can only do as Jesus did. It can, if there is consensus, change; but do tell me, who, other than some Protestants, agrees with your Apostles on this?
LikeLike
Very well. This one clearly needs revisiting in a post, as you cannot see the argument.
You seem to me to be blinked by taking a somewhat historical approach alone – and I never claimed that Jesus appointed women as apostles either – I conceded the point in my previous comment…my previous comment to that wasn’t intended to make that claim, although what I have conceded is that it appeared that I did.
There is no irrelevance in what you call a red herring whatsoever.
Time for me to share the final lecture notes that I have – principally from a RC theologian. After that, I shall return to these points.
You are most certainly mistaken in your assertion that I “clearly have no argument” – this frequent assertion by you I do find puzzling – after all, I am not expecting one moment that you agree with me, but it is rather why you cannot see that has me scratching my head.
Let us take this one forward in a post where others can add too. I want to share those lecture notes first.
As for your other points, that’s just the usual claims of RCs trotted out about the C of E – and about its own claims to a definition of catholicity. Those points need to be addressed to.
S.
LikeLike
Ah yes, history, tradition and Scripture together, they do, I admit, make a rather adamantine substance. Your arguments are those of the modern secular West, unknown to the Church before recent times, and as such, especially suspect.
The claim to Catholicity is the one made by all Catholic Churches and the OC and the RCC can substantiate them. Your own church cannot, and it drifts further than further into being a branch of secular social work, a useful task, to be sure, but one others do equally well.
When I say you have no argument, I mean none which the Catholic Churches accept. The Apostles thought it mattered to be in the Church Christ founded, and they thought it had certain features. This the OC and the RCC still think. Your own church is so broad that it has diluted those features until in many places they exist in doses only homeopaths would recognise.
This saddens me, as even as recently when I was a young man, the Church of England had more in common with the OC and the RCC than it had with Protestant dissenting sects. Now, well, there are parts of your Church which cling to that, but they are disappearingly small.
I don’t know how often you get back to the UK, but as one who lives here, I can only say that the place of the Church in our public life is purely ceremonial.
If you wish to dispute the title of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome, then I fear you will have to resort to history, and there you will need rather more than what passes for that in Anglican quarters. Newman took that route and found where it led; in a lesser way, I and many others have; perhaps if you take history seriously, you will too.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose you do have to defend why you swam the Tiber – so I do detect the personal commitment to your position.
I refute your claims, of course, but note your reference to my arguments – which does imply some form of comprehension now – a flip from your previous position a moment ago where you stated that I clearly had no argument.
I am sure that when the former bishops of Canterbury and Rome met for chats they discussed the nature of catholicity – it’s a favourite of Rowan. It’s hardly a shock horror that Rome rejects that. Rome has a lot of funny ways, with its continuing claims to universal temporal jurisdiction – Unam Sanctam and all the rest of it.
It’s quite clear that even the thought in your church isn’t uniform, whatever picture might be claimed by those who like to quote from Vatican documents as if it were.
We shall return. Not now though, late on a Sunday night.
S.
PS Taking history seriously? There seems to be a commitment underlying that point as to your opinions of what history is and what it is not. Perhaps you can share that at some point too.
PPS Purely ceremonial? You really need to get out more…..there’s a lot more going on than just ceremonial bits and bobs. Goodness me.
LikeLike
On the last point, whatever is going on, the fact that this is the most secular nation in Europe tells its own story; that is not a record of which the C of E should be anything other than ashamed. I don’t say it is did this alone, but it has a uniquely privileged position, and if this is its fruit, well, I should not think it anything about which to boast.
I think you and Bosco read too much into Unam Sanctam, and at some point I must blog on it and the other odd claims made about the Church. It might also be a useful peg to hang some reflections on history upon too.
There’s no need to defend the crossing of the Tiber, many do it; not many go across the Stour.
LikeLike
Pingback: Rome’s ‘funny little ways’? | All Along the Watchtower
We simply understand priesthood as defined by Saint Peter and are subject to him in this matter as was William Booth.
LikeLike
No one denies the priesthood of all believers, Rob. But Jesus ordained twelve Apostles, and the early church regarded them as having a different role from other believers. It also regarded succession from them as important. Not sure Booth was in tune with that 🙂
LikeLike
Jesus is still the only one who can do any ordaining in His church – I think Booth was in tune with that – no case of ‘ordination is found in scripture’.
LikeLike
Matthew 18:18 is a clear commission from Christ. Acts 1:12-26 shows that the Apostles recognised a need to replace Judas. The Church has always taught this. Booth was not in tune with the early Church but with the restorationism of the reformed churches who, alas, threw quite a few babies out with the bathwater.
LikeLike
NT scripture that is.
LikeLike
C: We will not agree on these matters, my purpose in posting is to present an alternate exegesis for the record.
Matt. 18:18; has nothing to do with ordination. It is about the binding and loosing authority of the church to deal with one causing offence to another. It is in the context of the gathered church, as that is the only church that could know those in dispute, addresses the one causing the problem and be able to judge the case justly.
18:17. “Tell it to the church” in context is the final stage in the process of an attempted reconciliation of an offence and indicates that the highest authority is the ‘local gathered church not the apostles or elders.
18:18 summarizes the authority and function of the church in dealing with one who has caused offence. I believe that the original has the sense “whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven … etc.” but I am going from others knowledge of Greek so you may need to check this; in which case we have an implied promise that heavens judgement will be revealed to the gathered church.
18:19 Emphasises this understanding by relating the ‘authority of binding and loosing’ to “two of you agreeing on earth” and in 18:20 to “two or three gathered together in Christ name”.
Matt. 18:15-17 and 21-35 give the overall context as one of forgiveness or resolution of offences caused to one another.
Acts 1:12 -26 Deals with the replacement for Judas into the office / ministry of the apostle, there are several other offices / ministers / servants identified in the NT and I did not question this. My statement was that only Christ ordains / commissions such servants and imparts to them the necessary spiritual gifts for that service.
The case you quote perfectly support this claim as the apostles did not choose Judas’ replacement but left it to ‘the lot’. This was the method frequently employed in OT to determine the Lords decisions and direction – the apostle clearly did not take this authority to themselves indeed they dared not to which is why they resorted to ‘the lot’. Subsequent to Pentecost we hear no more of ‘the lot’ but much more of the direction of the Holy Spirit.
I could give better text than Acts 1:12-26 from which to try and establish the authority of the church to ordain persons to spiritual ministry / authority but careful reading will reveal how in each case the church only recognized what Christ or The Spirit had ordained e.g. Acts 13:2; & 20:28.
I am aware that the authority of the church in matters of ordination is not derived from the earliest tradition of the church we see in scripture but form a later church tradition.
A bit heavy for new years day, I think its time for a break.
LikeLike
Interesting, Rob, and what is very much so is that no one seems to have interpreted the Bible in this way before the sixteenth century. Why do you suppose that all Christians for 1500 years failed to see what you see so clearly? There seem to me two explanations: they received from the Apostles what the Catholic and Orthodox Churches still practice; or suddenly, in the sixteenth century, a few Christians in the west were visited by the Holy Spirit. I don’t see an third one. The people closest to the time of the Apostles did what my Church still does; Christians very far removed from that time did otherwise.
LikeLike
If you present the earliest the citations and we will see how early their provenance is and just how much is read back into the citation from later opinion.
I have a few early ones that bring into question the Catholic position on ordination of women.
LikeLike
That’s a very Protestant methodology; let us ignore the continuous witness of the Apostolic churches. But let us go with it all the same.
Here is the earlier from Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, which is c.100 AD:
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the Apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.”
My second is equally obvious, Ignatius to the Trallians c.110
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?”
Thirdly, this from Tertullian in about 209
“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33.
I should be interested to see whether your views to the contrary meet Tertullian’s test – what line of Bishops in what Church going back to the Apostles unbroken has ever taken the views you take on this? C
LikeLike
“That’s a very Protestant methodology; let us ignore the continuous witness of the Apostolic churches.”
You certainly win points on rhetoric, C. An erstwhile debating fan, me thinks.
S.
LikeLike
Too long an experience in the seminar room in all probability. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m nobody’s expert but, just from a cultural view it would seem highly unlikely for the early church to have ordained women.
Perhaps the most relevant modern organization is Islam. Can anyone imagine a female Imam? And I think Islam to be perhaps to be the most orthodox of religions (or perhaps cult, really). Christianity is a few hundred years older and was (is?) the major force in the advancement of women.
Given all that it seems very unlikely that early Christianity would have given women an official position of leadership.
I also note that quite a number of conservative/traditional protestant bodies (foremost perhaps Missouri Synod Lutherans) stoutly refuse to ordain women even as ministers. And even amongst the more liberal groups there is still an uneasiness about it as well, witness the CofE and ELCA Lutherans who both are still having trouble with the ordination of women.
LikeLike