By the authority of Christ and His example of ordaining men. The Church only has the authority to do as Christ did when He taught the apostles what to do, how to do it, and who to do it to. If Jesus would have wanted women to be priests He would have ordained His mother first of all since she was more holy than all of the apostles. But He didn't. Priesthood is a calling, not a right. .
That argument won't fly without the additional appeal to Tradition (an appeal I accept, but that's beside the point). Whereas Jesus did teach the Apostles at the Last Supper to remember Him henceforth when the bread becomes His Body (and even that command found only in Luke 22:19), He never told them to choose additional or replacement apostles. When the Seventy-two were sent, Jesus appointed them (Luke 10:1).
Personally I have found women priests (while I was Episcopalian from 1992 to 2004) to be as good as male priests. I think the case from Tradition is quite strong against women bishops. Among EO who accept married priests, they still refuse to consecrate married bishops. As there is almost unanimity of Tradition against even males who are married, how much more the argument from Tradition against female bishops?
Even apart from the argument that Jesus did not explicitly authorize ordaining new priests, bishops, or apostles. the New Testament gives the example of Matthias. But all we know is that he was chosen to replace Judas. All we can necessarily infer from the Bible is that we should continue to replace the Twelve. That barely overs the current Patriarchs, to say nothing of bishops.
And Matthias was chosen by the casting of lots. That seems to have fallen out of favour as a method of choosing a replacement these days.
__________________ Poverty is not only low income and no assets. It is a condition of exclusion from the institutions and organizations of modern life. In many countries law courts, banks, education, health services, roads, water, electricity, even respect, are not available to the poor.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And Matthias was chosen by the casting of lots. That seems to have fallen out of favour as a method of choosing a replacement these days.
Was he a woman? If not, I don't see what it has to do with the OP. .
__________________ "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder" - Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, par. 58
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." -Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 36
Was he a woman? If not, I don't see what it has to do with the OP. .
Actually his comment is quite fitting (how have you been Ray?)
The Roman Catholic Church claims that they cannot ordain women because they haven't the authority to do so. Why do they have authority to chose a replacement in a method contrary to the only one example given in Scripture? Obviously the Church adopted a more rational method to chose Apostolic successors why could they not adopt a more rational method of deciding who is fit to be ordained?
__________________
Just a Christian
Please note if I am posting in an inappropriate manner or unintelligibly please notify a moderator. I take some very serious medications which alter my Level of Consciousness. Mods please remove anything necessary.
I think the case from Tradition is quite strong against women bishops.
What about women deacons? 1st Timothy 3:10-11 says a deacon must also be the husband of one wife. And since these are the only two Biblical positions of clergy in the New Covenant, I conclude that women are excluded from every position.
You also must think of non-catholics such as myself. If I saw the Catholic Church supporting this, while reading 1st Timothy 3, I would have a strong case to believe somethings not right.
Actually his comment is quite fitting (how have you been Ray?) The Catholic Church claims that they cannot ordain women because they haven't the authority to do so. Why do they have authority to chose a replacement in a method contrary to the only one example given in Scripture?
You are grasping at straws trying to compare apples to oranges. Casting lots was appropriate for the time, and the Catholic Church has never taught that it wasn't appropriate. So there is no contradiction. If the need were to ever arise for a bishop to be chosen by casting lots, there would be a biblical precedent. And come to think of it, I don't think the process is very different from how the Pope is selected with the college of cardinals while being guided by the Holy Spirit. And the casting of lots was to decide between two men. It wasn't to decide whether to ordain a man or a woman.
But there is no precedent in the Bible and no precedent in the Sacred Tradition of the Church for the ordination of women. The best that pro-women's ordination people can do is point to something where the memory of the Church is very foggy on the matter. But what is very clear is the fact that Jesus appointed all men, and the apostles did the same for their successors. And it is also clear that not only the Catholic Church but also all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have had a universally male only priesthood for the past 2,000 years.
Before claiming that the Catholic Church contradicts scripture, you should check the facts more closely because if it were so easy to prove the Catholic Church wrong she wouldn't have lasted for 2,000 years with so many fierce enemies. One question for you is this. If Jesus wanted women to be ordained, why didn't He ordain His mother who was more holy than all of the apostles and all of us combined? .
__________________ "The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder" - Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, par. 58
"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." -Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, par. 36
Last edited by LivingWordUnity; 22nd July 2009 at 05:10 AM.
You are grasping at straws trying to compare apples to oranges.
No no straw grasping here. The question is about authority. You claim that the Catholic Church hasn't the authority to violate the practice of Christ and the Apostles yet the method of choosing a replacement originally was the casting of lots which the Catholic Church no longer practices. What gives them the authority to discard this practice?
Casting lots was appropriate for the time, and the Catholic Church has never taught that it wasn't appropriate.
And many argue that the ordination of women is appropriate for this time. And I ask again if the casting of lots is the example given by the Apostles then why was its practice abandoned? By the way who and what exactly was Junias?
So there is no contradiction. If the need were to ever arise for a bishop to be chosen by casting lots, there would be a biblical precedent. And come to think of it, I don't think the process is very different from how the Pope is selected with the college of cardinals while being guided by the Holy Spirit.
You don't see a difference? Honestly? Besides since it is the only example given in Scripture why was it not practiced every time? Because the Church had the authority to change its practice, just as it does concerning ordination of women.
And the casting of lots was to decide between two men. It wasn't to decide whether to ordain a man or a woman.
That's not surprising for the culture and the social constructs of the time. We don't live in the 1st century Middle East.
But there is no precedent in the Bible and no precedent in the Sacred Tradition of the Church for the ordination of women.
Again who was Junias and what about the deaconess' mentioned in the ECF's?
The best that pro-women's ordination people can do is point to something where the memory of the Church is very foggy on the matter.
I'm sorry but I find that laughable.
But what is very clear is the fact that Jesus appointed all men, and the apostles did the same for their successors.
Yes and they were all Jewish and they were all of Middle Eastern parentage and they only spoke certain languages. Wow should we allow North American, Anglo descent, English speaking men? You are making an argument out of silence. Which I am sure you realize is a logical fallacy.
And it is also clear that not only the Catholic Church but also all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have had a universally male only priesthood for the past 2,000 years.
Which could be attributed to many things. There is also a history or warfare, forced conversion at the point of a spear, Simony, Corruption etc.
Before claiming that the Catholic Church contradicts scripture, you should check the facts more closely because if it were so easy to prove the Catholic Church wrong she wouldn't have lasted for 2,000 years with so many fierce enemies.
You have got to be kidding. The Roman Catholic Church isn't much older than Islam, isn't as old as Buddhism, or Shintoism and is predated by many Pagan religions. All of which have had fierce enemies including the Roman Catholic Church.
One question for you is this. If Jesus wanted women to be ordained, why didn't He ordain His mother who was more holy than all of the apostles and all of us combined?
.
Could be any number of reasons but the first that comes to my mind is to protect her. Again you are arguing from silence.
__________________
Just a Christian
Please note if I am posting in an inappropriate manner or unintelligibly please notify a moderator. I take some very serious medications which alter my Level of Consciousness. Mods please remove anything necessary.
Hey guys. This has been an interesting thread so far. I have to ask a question, though. This thread seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot by accusing the opponents of female ordination of having only vapid re-hashings of an argument from Tradition (and tradition, for that matter) and the examples given in Scripture. However, I haven't seen any stunning argument in support of female ordination. So, what is the argument on that side?
I have to admit, the argument from T/tradition makes up a strong part of the opposition's side, and I think it is somewhat disgraceful for seemingly everyone on the side of the support to have discounted it so blindly. The Church rests on her T/traditions, and they are not easily changed. To be specific, I would like to address kiwimac's quote from the rabbi. I am certainly of the opinion that a rabbi is qualified to make harshly sarcastic criticisms of the Church's tradition. Good one...
Seriously, though, the fact of the matter seems to rest on the fundamental question of whether there is any substantial difference between men and women. If there is, then we can't say that ordaining a man and ordaining a woman are one and the same thing. If there is not, then perhaps we can.
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Hey guys. This has been an interesting thread so far. I have to ask a question, though. This thread seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot by accusing the opponents of female ordination of having only vapid re-hashings of an argument from Tradition (and tradition, for that matter) and the examples given in Scripture. However, I haven't seen any stunning argument in support of female ordination. So, what is the argument on that side?
I have to admit, the argument from T/tradition makes up a strong part of the opposition's side, and I think it is somewhat disgraceful for seemingly everyone on the side of the support to have discounted it so blindly. The Church rests on her T/traditions, and they are not easily changed. To be specific, I would like to address kiwimac's quote from the rabbi. I am certainly of the opinion that a rabbi is qualified to make harshly sarcastic criticisms of the Church's tradition. Good one...
Seriously, though, the fact of the matter seems to rest on the fundamental question of whether there is any substantial difference between men and women. If there is, then we can't say that ordaining a man and ordaining a woman are one and the same thing. If there is not, then perhaps we can.
There are a number of substantial arguments for the ordination of women. The reason that these threads go the direction this one has is because these arguments regardless of how substantial they are, are always countered with "Tradition" "Authority" this is the reason that these threads always end up rehashing every point. Because the only seemingly reasonable argument against ordaining women is the Tradition argument. Yet one often wonders why the Roman Catholic Church insists on men because Jesus didn't choose a female apostle yet they also forget that there are several "Traditions" that they seemingly have the authority to change including the wording of the Nicene Creed without the benefit of an Ecumenical Council. It seems the Roman Catholic Church only has the authority to change Tradition that they want to change.
__________________
Just a Christian
Please note if I am posting in an inappropriate manner or unintelligibly please notify a moderator. I take some very serious medications which alter my Level of Consciousness. Mods please remove anything necessary.
It seems the Roman Catholic Church only has the authority to change Tradition that they want to change.
Hmm....I'm not sure I agree with this phrasing. Nevertheless, I have no desire that this become a purely semantic dispute, and so I will leave it as is and ask: What, exactly is the alternative? Would you rather that the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed supreme authority to change any aspect of the faith regardless of its origin or status? Would you really rather that the Church professed even greater authority? I have to admit, it just tickles me pink that so many of the people who support female ordination also tend to whine about the authoritarian nature of the Church, and yet, in this instance, the problem is that the Church has proclaimed its awareness of a divine limit on her own authority.
By the way, your ever-so-thoughtful dismissal of the argument from Tradition (let us maintain a distinction between upper- and lower-case "Ts," eh?) might need to be reconsidered. Why is it apparently irrelevant to you that the Church considers the form and matter of the Sacraments to be of divine origin?
__________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
