Women Priests & Women Bishops
There is a lot of important theology in this article. So please take time to read- and re-read. To prayerfully reflect and absorb the contents. A race through in one sitting may not do the subject justice!
But before we start let me state categorically that Women priests, (and potentially women bishops), are committed Christians. People who love, and are deeply loved by, God. Fellow ministers of the Gospel who act in accordance with what they believe to be God’s will. This is evident in the skilful way many run parishes, preach, teach and care for their people. That women priests are capable is not in question. Nor should it be. What is in question is the ‘sacramental’ validity of women acting as priests and bishops in God’s Church.
Conflicting ideas about gender
Unfortunately society and Traditional Christianity hold contradictory views on gender. Current society, with its emphasis on the individual, promotes the belief that men and women are virtually interchangeable in both role and function. Gender is seen as largely irrelevant in choice of partner, job suitability or vocation. The media has powerfully moulded opinion in this regard. So much so that very few question it.
But Traditional Christianity, with its emphasis on the family, refutes any notion that gender is irrelevant. It teaches full equality whilst accepting that man and woman are created different. God has made us equal but with different roles and functions. We were made to compliment each other- not compete with one another!
Unfortunately most people approach the issue of ‘women priests’ understanding only the societal view of gender. Thus thinking sociologically not theologically! Priesthood is treated much like any other job. It is thus assumed that female candidates have as much ‘right’ to this ‘job’ as all others. And were priesthood just a job- concerned with ‘doing’ not ‘being’ – they would be right!
But Catholic theology advocates priesthood as vocation –concerned with ‘being’ not ‘doing’. It has little to do with ‘rights’ and everything to do with ‘role’. Priesthood is not akin to a secular job but to such things as motherhood, fatherhood, being a wife or husband. Something in which gender becomes a determining factor.
We must understand this basic fact before turning to the following reasons why this ‘priestly servile vocation’ has traditionally been understood as male in essence:
Part 1: Theology
1. Jesus fully valued, respected and upheld women. He called them into ministry as disciples. Yet Jesus chose no women ‘apostles’. Furthermore Mary Magdalene, chosen as ‘first witness to the resurrection’, was obvious replacement for Judas- yet the male Matthias was chosen instead. Surely this is not accidental.
Supporters of women’s ordination counter this by suggesting Jesus was limited by the wisdom of his age. But this seems dubious. After all Christ was ever willing to defy convention. He countered pharisaic teaching where necessary. Furthermore the pagan world of his day was awash with female priests. They were not an alien concept. Jesus could easily have followed such example if he willed. The evidence suggests he chose not to.
2. St Paul taught that women were equal to men (‘In Christ…there is no male or female, slave or free’) Yet also taught that their role was to be different. (Forbidding women to have ‘ liturgical authority’ in Church.) This suggests how St Paul interpreted the fact that Christ appointed no women apostles.
3. There were no women bishops or presbyters in the early Church. This indicates that St Paul’s take was not just his own (some even suggest sexist) opinion. But the consensus among all the Apostles- handed down to their successors.
4. In the 3rd century, a group known as Montanists formed. Their teaching was rejected as dangerous because they questioned the reliability of Tradition. (Montanists wished to change things due to “new revelations of the Spirit”.- sound familiar?) What ultimately condemned them was their desire to ordain women – seen as evidence that they were un-faithful to scriptural Tradition. This further proves that ‘male-only priesthood’ was the authentic teaching of the Early Church. (It also assures us that the issue is hardly new – as we are often led to believe!!!)
5. The earliest Canon Law forbade women’s ordination. These canons were endorsed by the Council of Nicaea (who gave us ‘The Creed’ in 325.) To endorse women priests we must assume the council of Nicaea gave wrongful teaching on matters of holy orders. Yet they certainly got things right in the Creed. So is this tenable? Just as the Nicene creed is fundamental to Christian doctrine, so surely their opinions matter today?
6. One can only argue Scripture endorses women priests, by attributing St Paul’s teaching against them as;
a) wrongful personal opinion –or-
b) applicable only to his time and place.
However there’s a right and wrong way to interpret Scripture. The traditional way is to endorse scripture where clear – and mould our lives accordingly. Choosing our preferred interpretation, making scripture say what we wish to hear, is most definitely not right. Therefore S. Paul’s teaching is hard to dismiss.
7. As noted: Secularism promotes gender as interchangeable- the Church upholds a celebration of two different natures- leading to a belief in a difference of role and function within equality. We see this clearly in Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul. Both witnessed to Christ with equal integrity – but by very different callings- as man and woman. One was the priest -Peter- the other the beloved disciple -Magdalene. Both equal disciples, yet utterly distinct.
8. This difference in role leads to the Mass. At the Eucharist the priest stands ‘in persona Christi’. “The person of Christ”. (hence Orthodox priests have beards and long hair!) Christ cannot be ‘sacramentally’ represented by a woman because Christ’s ‘maleness’ is not incidental- its revelatory. (It tells us something about God) It would be silly on stage to cast a man in the role of Mary. It seems equally silly at Mass to ask a woman to stand in the place of Christ. He was a man- and there is not avoiding that fact.
9. Jesus is bound to his role as Father not mother. This revelation of a ‘male God’ says something subtle yet profound. We see this in the following:
Pagan religion used priestesses to promote the ‘mother god’ who gives birth to creation. (Hence nature worship) But Judaism challenged this- making God life giver instead- revealing a separateness to created order. Nature created by him not of him. The priest ‘in persona Christi’ symbolises this at a deep, unconscious level. A woman priest leads us back to the pagan understanding of the feminine divine. (And its interesting how –where women have been ordained- a more earthy, pagan spiritually seems to have arisen.)
10. Scripture teaches that Christ’s relationship with his people is signified by the imagery of Christ as groom and His bride the Church. This is cemented in both the marriage ceremony and mass! It follows that we- the bride of Christ must open ourselves to our groom in order to be impregnated by his Word. We then ‘give birth’ to fruits of the Spirit. At the Eucharist created order is echoed. Marriage and the Mass tell us about our relationship with God. Alas a female priest confuses this image of ‘Christ and bride’ at a subtle yet profound level.
11. Mother Church (feminine not masculine) has always taught that changes to belief and practice can only be accepted when backed by scripture, reason and tradition. All three -not just one. If something cannot be proved by all 3 then we lack authority to adopt it. So even if modern ‘reason’ suggests women’s ordination to be correct – it cannot be accepted- unless equally revealed by Scripture and tradition. (Which it is patently not).
12. All arguments in favour of women priests return to the Secular argument for ‘inclusivity’– which itself stems from a misguided definition of man and woman as same and interchangeable. Orthodox Christians prefer to uphold the divine revelation of ‘equal but different’. I am yet to hear a convincing theological argument in favour of women priests. Pro arguments appeal powerfully to the heart-but are entirely sociological and based on the secular concept. This is not the right starting point for a believer who is called to use scripture to discern what God teaches regarding creation.
13. God does not do U-turns. Why would the Holy Spirit teach that women’s ordination is wrong through scripture and the teachings of the early church – only to declare such practice valid in the 21st Century? God is surely the same yesterday, today and forever! We should be wary when we consider that the cry to ordain women – a so-called ‘revelation of the Spirit’ has only really arisen alongside the rise of the liberal political opinion of the last Century. Surely God would have been more impressive ‘revealing’ this in the 1st Century? Unless of course this is a case of society wagging the tail of the church – and not Mother Churches true teaching on matters of gender, equality, role and function.
14. If God wants women priests and bishops- he wants them for the whole Church. To ‘Anglo-Catholic’ Anglicans this is crucial! I cannot accept that the Church of England- which makes up only a tiny fraction of global Christianity- has authority to make such immense decisions alone. Only when Rome and Constantinople agree – can we possibly proclaim the ordination of women as a decision from God. Yet Rome and Constantinople remain utterly opposed. Subsequently the Anglican place within mainstream Christianity is being seriously undermined. It has become a major stumbling block on the path to Church unity.
15. In 1992 we were promised that ‘women priests’ would restore the image of the Church. It was stated powerfully that people, especially the young, would flood back to our pews. The reality has been quite different!
Though many women priests perform excellent work, the decision to ordain them has deeply damaged our Church. A schism was created and, for the first time in history, endorsed by the establishment who declared both proponents and opponents to be valid! Hundreds of faithful priests were lost to Rome. People left in droves. Should current trends continue there will be no ‘C of E’ worshippers in 2040. Hardly the promised outcome.
Part 2. The Practical problems:
When discussing priesthood we must first ask: What are Holy Orders for? The answer to this question is of paramount importance- but it is a question the C of E refuses to debate! Little wonder – Anglicanism is far too woolly! You would get three different answers; Evangelical, broad and Catholic! But according to divine tradition; Holy Orders exist for two reasons. (Note we are not asking what vicars do!)
1) In order to authenticate sacraments.
2) In order to authenticate doctrine through preaching.
The priesthood should ensure then that all teaching is broadly correct and not invented. And that sacraments are truly valid. Within this Bishops act as ‘the focus of unity’. The fount of Holy Orders and defenders of doctrine.
A) Think horizontally! By definition a Church must be united in its priesthood. With all pulling together in common mission. This means that across the world priests are interchangeable; able to stand in place of one another at pulpit and altar.
Yet since the ordination of women there is not one diocese where this circle of unity has not been broken. Legislation allows people to deny the validity of women priests if they wish. Which necessarily means that dioceses can no longer unite at the altar. No one priest can stand in for another. Ordinary people are allowed to decide (quite legally) if someone’s ordination is valid or not. (What compromise but what utter nonsense!)
When the first woman was ordained Canon A4 of the Church of England was abolished: It read ‘Those ordained should be seen as fully valid by all.’
The result is that we no longer have unity. The seriousness of this cannot be underestimated. It is growing increasingly evident. How can you have private judgment in orders? Collegiality is rendered dormant and the Church turned into an international conference of conflicting beliefs. There is no priestly authority as has been handed down since the time of the apostles.
Its easy to assume this is academic fluff or hysterical theory: but we only have to open our eyes to see it as fact. Cracks are now opening up all over the communion, widening and growing. Once scripture was ‘overlooked’ to ordain women – it was only a matter of time before it happened on other matters. No surprise then that the homosexual lobby used similar secular ‘social justice’ arguments for their own propaganda and agenda. Once we commissioned ‘flying Bishops’ we gave licence to leadership choice based on personality and belief- a defiance of binding holy orders. Today + Akinola of Nigeria will not sit at the same table as +Schori of USA! What is there to stop hundreds of splits over a plethora of differing issues- each with their own figureheads and heroes?
2) Think Vertically The ordination of women has shattered the historic line handed down through the apostles. A woman priest would not be recognised by those serving in living two hundred years ago. Which breaks the unity of past and future. Augustine could not be replaced at his altar by Patricia – a deep strain of Holy tradition is now fractured.
Our Ordinal makes it clear that this tradition is what provides validity. It is fact not opinion. We are a Church built on Apostolic succession. Sadly no more… we have become a Church that has performed a wilful act of disunity. A Church that refused to work with -or wait for- Rome or Constantinople. (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy respectively)
Our Church foolishly refused to wait for all her members to agree. Instead it made silly and impossible legislation- i.e. allowing traditionalists to disbelieve in women’s orders. Little surprise that the Church is now in a frightful mess. We are a Church that has dismissed tradition and scripture in pursuit of sociological ideals. Something that causes me deep sorrow.
To the uninformed and those outside of the Church- ‘women priests’ was a modernising act. One that liberated a stuffy, archaic institution. But to the orthodox Christian it is a sign of a Church in which unity and continuity have been destroyed! I pray that we can find a way to restore our Church to its true nature. A protestant part of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Conclusion to the reasons!
I hope you see why I believe the decision to grant women the ancient ‘sacramental’ role of priest and bishop was misguided. I hope you also see how the decision to ordain women damaged our Church, and could damage it even further should women be consecrated as Bishops. For this would throw into doubt all those they declared to be priests.
Yet despite all this we must acknowledge that sexism has NO PLACE in our Church. God created us equal – man and woman are called to compliment and uphold the other. Thus I am fully committed to supporting female Christians as inspiring Christian colleagues. I wish we could find a way, other than priesthood, to offer modern women a vocational position within the Church- aside from a life as a nun. Perhaps a new order is needed? Full time parish workers, on equal stipend, with functions not open to men but without a sacramental role and purpose. Is this the way forward for the Church?
Perhaps you draw different conclusions? Maybe you can help me to see a theological and scriptural purpose in ordaining women? Regardless let us remember that what unites us–is our love of the Lord Jesus. And even in disagreement we must draw together in working for his kingdom in this place.
How have Anglo-Catholics responded to women priests
The Anglo-Catholic movement was shell shocked by General Synod’s decision in 1992 to ordain women. But since that time its organisations have worked tirelessly to try and find a way forward – seeking as much unity as possible -whilst retaining an authentic sacramental identity. How could we work alongside the newly ordained women priests- offering them due support and care- when we were convinced (for the reasons above) that the decision to ordain them was theologically flawed? We needed space and distance in which to retain the faith we held dear- alongside the ability and grace to remain within this rapidly changing Church.
Although slightly messy theologically- the best way forward came through the creation of ‘flying Bishops’ who would care for parishes unable in conscience to accept the ordination of women. +John Broadhurst of Fulham is one such Bishop and well known to all at S. Barnabas. His tireless ministry has allowed us to maintain an Anglo-Catholic integrity, without having to leave the Church that we love.
It often surprises people that traditional Anglo-Catholics, though opposed to women priests, have petitioned for women bishops! Why? Because we believe that if a woman CAN be a priest- she MUST be eligible to be Bishop- not allowing this is ludicrous. We believe the decision of Synod to create women priests but not bishops is blatant sexism and therefore abhorrent! Why create a glass ceiling?
Trad. Anglo-Catholics do not believe the Church was right to ordain women – but now it has happened – we believe they must be treated with proper respect. To achieve this requires us finding a safe place in which to witness to the faith as we received it. We believe that if the Church wishes to bring about new innovations – previously denounced by all Christendom- it owes safe sanctuary to those who do not embrace its changes.
In 1992 Traditional Catholic Anglicans were assured we remained a valued part of the Church. Promises were made that we would be treated as valid members whose opinion was authentically Christian. Alas – many people forget this or behave as if it isn’t true. Despite us never altering our beliefs, practice or expression – despite us not changing in any discernable way- we are often labelled troublemakers! We are misrepresented and misunderstood. So much so we are even accused of ‘sexism’ by those wishing we would withdraw altogether! A label I find hurtful – as I am a strong believer in true equality.
Thus its not always easy being an orthodox Catholic in today’s Church of England! We tend to be pushed to the margins. And since 1992 virtually none of our priests have been promoted to higher office. We exist as lepers- an irritation to those who want change. But despite this we keep good spirits and our churches- in opposition to most others – show signs of real growth and renewal! God has blessed us enormously. In our ever changing world people are drawn to the stable church that stands as a sign of loving contradistinction to our society. (As opposed to those churches who seem to endorse secular opinion).
And now the saga is about to take another turn. In July 2008 the Synod meets to discuss a way forward for Women Bishops. It will also hear the reflection of the ‘Manchester Group’- who considered what provision should be made for the opponents.
Traditional Anglo-Catholics are seeking the creation of new ‘traditional Dioceses’. Three would be created – two in the north and one in the south. All her clergy would witness to the Catholic understanding of male-only priesthood. Any parish in the land could opt in or out by decision of its PCC. This would allow us to have unity and confidence in holy orders- whilst also remaining within the Church of England. It is our way of allowing women priests to have what they desire – whilst granting space to those who, in conscience and sympathy with 90% of Christians worldwide – do not embrace the innovation.
But a leaked report in the newspapers suggests that the House of Bishops would prefer a model whereby ‘flying bishops’ are scrapped and traditional parishes given the least possible provision. In short they would give us ‘their word’ that we would be treated fairly and could select a male bishop if desired. Clearly such provision falls way short of what we require. We have learnt the painful way that promises are easily broken or forgotten. In addition a huge sacramental problem arises. Because we are uncertain that women really CAN be priests- it follows we do not have full confidence in their sacramental ability. This means we would be uncertain if those ordained priest by a woman bishop were the genuine article. At best a question mark would hang over their credentials.
In truth it is a mess and it will not be easy to sort things out. But then it is not a mess that we Anglo-Catholics created. In the coming weeks and months we must pray for a way forward without further fracturing the church. And most importantly a way forward that allows churches like S. Barnabas to retain the faith as it has always been practised in past generations and today.
I have no idea what the future holds. But I am passionate that S. Barnabas’ will remain a house of genuine prayer and a place in which all men and women are equally loved, upheld and respected. Those who worship here regularly know that we are sincere, devout and inclusive of all. A true Church that values the individual within the wider family. A family who strives to retain the faith that comes to us from the apostles. Quite simply we cannot endorse anything that cannot be backed by scripture, reason and tradition. For they are the yardsticks on which our faith is based.
A powerful and thoroughly unarguable peice about which I can find no objections. It needs to be publicised more widely. You are certainly correct in one particular area: no person in favour of female priests/bishops that I have questioned has been able to give me anything like a theological reason for their position on the matter.
Fr Butcher and I should get together for a pint sometime. I promise not to breathe even the word “inclusivity!”
As a late comment, I have to say that there’s little I agree with in this article. To me, the whole underlying theology is just wrong. The teaching of the apostles is that all believers are priests unto the Lord, and so the concept of “holy orders” is not something that can be substantiated from Scripture. I find it curious that so much emphasis is placed on a word, “ordination”, which I don’t think appears in the Bible.
Dear Fr. Edward,
I am a Roman Catholic. And a majority of Roman Catholic priests and lay people do think that women should be ordained (as well as married men). This opinion typically runs about 67% among Roman Catholics, including many otherwise “conservative” people. Some Orthodox churches have been eying the diaconate for women as well, since women deacons were quite widespread in the East in the early church.
I value tradition highly. But in this case, tradition has forgotten much of its history. Women were ordained over and over in the church up to the 1200′s. there is an extant ordination rite for the simultaneous ordination of male and female deacons; and both are entrusted with the Eucharist in the rite. Inscriptions over crypts, paintings in catacombs, and other evidence attests to the ordination of women deacons, priests, and bishops. Some as far north as Germany. They cannot simply be written off as Montanists (i.e. heretics). Apparently the proscriptions and condemnations against ordaining women were ignored. Ordaining women now is simply reclaiming what was once done. And throwing the Letter to Timothy into the mix is simply a red herring since Paul did not write the Letter to Timothy. It is Paul who commends Junia (an apostle) and Phoebe (a deacon). In Timothy, we are already seeing a writer who simply didn’t get: In Christ there is no male or female.
One of the respondents to this page is quite correct: ordination of Christian priests (male or female) is not in the bible IF one is talking about Jesus ordaining priests. He didn’t. It is a development of church structure that developed among the early Christians after the death of Jesus – creating a new tradition.
Traditions is not static. Tradition is process – it is always moving and changing. To quote one of my professors: “Tradition is not wearing grandfather’s hat. Tradition is having a baby. ” That is: tradition is both old and new at the same time. The church has been pretty free about adapting to new conditions – as in the conflict between Paul and Peter about circumcision. A change was made.
The sacrament of baptism is the basis for the sacrament of ordination: how can anyone be denied any of the sacraments? If women cannot image Christ, then women cannot validly receive the sacrament of baptism since baptism is about being conformed to Christ and imaging Christ in the world (among other effects of community, etc)?
How is it different when it comes to women? What is it about some men that they cannot accept that before God there is no difference between men and women? The Roman Catholic Church claims that women cannot be called to priesthood. How can a person who is biased against even considering whether women can be ordained know that a woman cannot be called?
Presumably the woman would be in a better position to know if she is called. And like any vocation, a woman’s call to the priesthood must be tested. It must be a call to serve the body of Christ. I am a woman priest. And I know many women priests. All all are called to service in the church, and live out their lives in service to the body of Christ.
Interesting that this column states that men and women are equal – oops, except for ordination. It’s a theological statement in contradiction with itself.
I know that the ordination of women is a contentious issue for the Anglican Communion. No one wants to see a schism. But in the case of ordination of women, I believe that the schism already exists – the act of ordaining women only lays it bare. The schism lies in a theology of woman that does not stand up to the Gospel and the New Testament.
As a Roman Catholic, I don’t believe most “conservative” Anglicans or Episcopalians will be happy as Roman Catholics. Rather, I pray for healing for the Anglican Communion.
Kathleen Kunster, RCWP
I would seriously question your *facts* but thank you for posting. If it is ok with you I will listen to the cdf for my guidance…
I too question Kathleen’s “facts” but I also note that she does not really understand sacramental theology OR Scripture or Tradition. The fact is that the Ordination of Women is not allowed in the Catholic Church and the late Pope John Paul 11 supported the then Cardinal Ratzinger in the statement that the ordination of men only is part of the deposit of the faith. If there was ever to be any change in the sacrament of orders in the way she hopes, this would be a massive hurdle to get over.
Yes Tradition moves and develops, and it has developed to this point where the ordination of women has been declared impossible. As for what happened or not in the past, this is not a theological argument. Many things happened in the past and are now discarded. At the same time, if she is right that 67% of Catholics agree with the ordination of women, this proves nothing. Many Catholics also do not understand Scripture or Tradition (thanks to bad catechesis over the last 30 years) and the plain fact is that if we are going to quote numbers we should remember that the majority of Orthodox and Catholics together reject women’s ordination. Catholics, like Anglicans, must not see themselves as an isolated group. Unity is our goal, and the ordination of women does not bring unity, it brings bitter disunity. If anything is a sign of it being wrong, that is it.
Pingback: The General Synod of the Church of England: A brief introduction to the issues | Tom Mendelsohn | Independent Notebook Blogs
Pingback: The Synod: On the consecration of women bishops | Tom Mendelsohn | Independent Uncategorized Blogs
“And a majority of Roman Catholic priests and lay people do think that women should be ordained”
This is of course simply untrue – such statistics are clearly false. I am a Catholic and I am far from alone in taking the stance that in the highly unlikely event the Church falls into the error of ordaining women then I will join the SSPX, a bastion of true tradition forced into regrettable schism by the excesses of the Church’s own liberals.
I would point out that the letters “RCWP” indicate that she is a member of an heretical group which “ordain” women – they stand for “Roman Catholic Woman Priest”. Of course, there is no such thing. As such, she is not a Roman Catholic, and is not in communion with the Church, and as such her comments misrepresent reality in pursuit of her own agenda and are not to be taken as representative of Catholic opinion in any way.
This is an interesting article though one which seems to skip important facts;
1. The society in Jesus lived was a patriarchal society. It would have been unthinkable to put a woman in a position of power over men in any way and to do so would have meant the whole cause would have been lost. Thus the fact the disciples were men was hardly surprising.
2. There was not the distinction between lay and clergy for quite along time and the majority of the NT hardly supports such a distinction. In fact it is around the work of Augustine that we see the now entrenched role of the clergy as against the laity leaving the laity with no power or influence.
3. Paul does not always go against women. hew rites ‘When women are teaching…’ going on to discuss the hair or hat style they should wear. He acknowledges this happening to the extent it was worth commenting on.
4. Paul taught Timothy how to chose bishops priest and deacon – they should all be married with children. The decision in the 8th century CE to make priests celibate went against the teaching of Paul and ought to be condemned then and now. There should not be unmarried clergy in the church if the church really respects Traditional Christianity.
So a view should be taken that if, on the basis that Traditional Christianity should reign, then the era of the unmarried clergy should be over – unless Paul was wrong when he told Timothy… Of course he was wrong too to encourage women preaching but…..
Let me reply to each.
1) Deborah was a prophetess, judge and singer who ruled the Jewish northern tribes of Israel c. 1150BC. Esther was another very powerful Jewish woman as was Jezebel, Queen Athalia and others. Furthermore the Roman world was awash with women in priestly roles- think vestal virgins- and in positions of influence and power. Cleopatra is another name Jesus would have probably heard of and he was happy to afford women great influence and respect thus Magdalene is made the first evangelist at the resurection. This ‘patriarchal’ argument is often put forward but doesnt really hold much water not least because the emergence of a more liberalised and feminine culture is not evidence in itself that Jesus would have acted any differently. And finally ponder what it might mean if we claim that Jesus words and actions depend on cultural setting. It could soon render him entirely pointless.
2) There was a CLEAR distinction between the Apostles and disciples and the priesthood flows from that distinct ministry…..all ages of Christians have claimed as much
3) nor do I always go against women. Not sure I see your point but it is clear Pauline teaching affirms a notion of man and woman as equal but different.
4) Paul a self described apostle was himself single which rather refutes this argument. Secondly he tells us that chastity in marriage or the single life is deemed acceptable to God. And in any case celibacy within RC is not a matter of doctrine and discipline and several popes were themselves married as are many current priests in the Eastern rite and converts from Rome. It is quite reasonable for the Latin rite to set its own disciplines.
So your final point is completely off track imo!
i notice that the woman deacon has been fogoten by most, this role is complentery to the male deacon and priest while not creating isues of athority as the deacon holds no full seacremental right in themselves but only as it is given to them by the priest or bishop who is over them. also the deacon is a full role and deeply syimbolic in a way which few who are not scholers of the feald realise, in that the deacon is symbolic of may things including the true nature of the church.
the deacon is a role which is open to women in most churches but seems to be forgoten by many which i think is why so many women who are called to the deaconate end up as priests as noone thingks to point out the option of distinctive deaconal ministy. there is a larg scope for womens minstery in deaconte and serving if people would only recoise the validity of the call to sevice, there were many female deacons and monatic leaders but they did not feel the need to become or press to be priests as they exerised their gifts under the athaority of men as the church is under Christ.
Gosh! I am an OU student currently writing an essay which “analyses and explains the reasons why the ordination of women has been such a controversial issue”. As far as I can see for every argument and example from scripture for the ordination there is one against, I agree with lots of the points made in all the comments and I sense the fear and anguish in everyone’s replies. But as far as I can see it all boils down to whether you personally feel it is right or it is wrong – if a new scripture was discovered tomorrow that showed Jesus ordained women the people who were against it would still be against it as it is a strong emotional feeling that shouldnt be underestimated. Such feelings aren’t going to be undone easily from all points of view. I have no doutbt that the church will survive, not in the same format as before but what does? The only constant is change and I know that your individual faith will give all of you the strength you need. Now back to my essay…..
Great post! It’s ironic that those who propound female ordination, at the same time denigrate the amazing vocations open to women. ‘Those little nuns will never be priests’ is such a contemptuous catch-phrase. And ‘those lay-women have no say’ is another. But it is estimated that in the past year as many as 300,000 (although some say it was three times as many) people visited the relics of St. Therese in the UK. The Little Flower felt enormous desire to be a priest, but offered up her unfulfilled longings and merited great grace. The Little Flower is also one of the most feminine saints of all time, and showers humanity with scented roses.
Ireland’s Edel Quinn was a profoundly influential lay-person; co-founding the Legion of Mary with Frank Duff. Whether she was helping hundreds of Dublin’s prostitutes escape the snares of ‘the street’ or spreading love to Our Lady in isolated parts of Africa, this mere ‘laywoman’ bequethed a legacy of motherly love.
PS – I have just been asked to write for an Irish newspaper on why I may not pursue a priestly vocation, and why I do not support women priests. Reading this has affirmed me in my Catholicism – well done Fr. Edward!
A wonderful article that I will share with all the members of our chapter of Forward in Faith, N.A in the Diocese of Quincy (Southern Cone and ACNA) in Illinois, USA.
I have heard most of the arguments trying to support women’s ordination, but in the final analysis we are to follow Jesus’ example and the fact is that He did not select any women to be Apostles, but He did send them off as missionaries (e.g. the woman at the well and Mary at the tomb who He sent as a messenger to the Apostles).
In the most recent Assembly of FiF, N.A. we had many discussions re the Oxford movement, and it appears that a renewed Oxford movement is necessary. We do not need to be conforming to society, but we need to be looking back to what Jesus did and taught, and the theology of the early Fathers; but, most particularly, His example. The argument ends there with me. He did many other things (such as speak to women in public and teach women), so there is no reason, culture or no, that He could not have chosen a woman Apostle had He wished to do so.
not least when one considers the abundance of women priests in temples all around Caeasaria Phillipi, Jerusalem, etc, etc….. the idea was not unknown to Jesus.
Every time there is a split in the church we must look
back on what Jesus said and did. This would include the Eucharist, Baptism
and the Priesthood. Let us all follow what Jesus Said and be in union as one
Church with Christ
I do chuckle when I read the “anthropological/cultural” arguments about the patriarchal orientation of middle-eastern and Jewish culture used to explain Jesus’s exclusive choice of men as his apostles. I must have misunderstood the wonderful nuns that taught me, as a boy, that Jesus was the Lord incarnate…one would think that God would recognize such an evil as a male only clergy!
Joanna (@10:49 17 July 2010),
You wrote
To be quite fair, and intending no disrespect, were a “new scripture” to be discovered tomorrow overturning any teaching surviving from the ecumenical councils, particularly the first seven, it is highly doubtful whether the issue of its authenticity would be resolved during the lifetime of anyone able to read this blog on the day you posted your comment.
Your comment that
ignores the possibility that Catholics, and not a few Anglo-Catholics as well, adhere to St. Anselm’s adage with respect to the teachings of the Church, to wit:
To state it another way, I am indebted to John Henry Cardinal Newman who wrote in 1845 in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer