How connected is attitude towards women and inerrancy?

[Tallguy88]

They already do. Priests can (and do) marry in every Rite of the RCC except the Latin Rite.

And even then, married Anglican priests can sometimes be converted into married Latin Rite priests.

 

[JackRT]

The former, absolutely. The later, never. Not without a schism, at the least. Nothing unbiblical about a married priesthood, but conversely, a female priesthood is unbiblical and it goes against 2000 years of Sacred Tradition which cannot be changed since it comes from God. The Catholic and Orthodox churches won’t budge on that issue.

Although I won't live to see it, I will stand by my prediction. Is a posthumus "I told you so" possible?

 

[Tallguy88]

There's also at least one female priest, Ludmila Javorová. No, I'm not talking about "womynpriests," but several women who appear to have been ordained by a Catholic bishop in an underground church.

But those aren’t actually female Catholic priests. They are schismatics who are automatically excommunicated for ordaining without permission. Even if they reconcile with the Church, they would only be laity. There’s no such thing as a female priest in Catholic theology. It is impossible.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I would have to stand by that as well. I didn't even address it. But Orthodoxy will not have female priests. Isn't going to happen.

We haven't even had a council for how to relate to Protestants, and that's 500 years now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It was during a time of persecution. Her defense is that women were dying in prison without access to priests. Since the end of that period, she has acted like a normal Catholic layperson. No, she wasn't and isn't excommunicated, but I don't believe she has attempted to function as a priest. She did attempt to get the pope to acknowledge her. I don't believe she's renounced anything, at least in principle.

She has been very reticent to talk about it. It was decades before anyone said anything, and even now few details are known.

That is unfortunate.

I think in such a situation Orthodoxy would have the means to perhaps allow for deaconesses, which used to perform certain tasks for women when and where necessary, such as when people were baptized in the nude. It has been discussed because we have precedent, such things as those with a Muslim cultural background where women are restricted from relating to men in certain ways.

It might also be possible for them to bring the Eucharist to the women. We also have women who sometimes hear confession, but it is not sacramental. I dont know if anything could be done about the gaps. But I think all of the most important functions could be legitimately filled.

 

[WolfGate]

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

I believe many Pentecostal churches would fit that question.

Assemblies of God website has the following comments on biblical inerrancy and women in ministry.

We understand infallibility to mean that the Scriptures are true and reliable in what they intend to assert. Inerrancy is a near synonym to infallibility and has been used more recently to further attest that Scripture as recorded in the original manuscripts, the autographs, is without error. Being without error and completely truthful, the Scriptures are absolutely trustworthy (2 Samuel 7:28; Psalm 119:160; John 17:17; Colossians 1:5). Infallibility and inerrancy likewise apply to all of the Scriptures.

After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.[/quo]

 

[Simon_Templar]

Catholicism has been brought into the conversation here in a couple of ways, so I'd like to comment on that aspect of things.

1. The Catholic Church does not ordain women to Holy Orders for several reasons. Two of the most important reasons are that Catholics understand the role of priesthood to be by definition an act of fatherhood. In fact, Catholic teaching would generally hold that the fatherhood of priests is closer to true fatherhood (that of God) than biological fatherhood. Catholics don't call priests "father" as an honorific title. We call them Father because that is their most fundamental identity. That is who and what they are. The other most important reason is that Priests and Bishops, in their sacramental roles, act in Persona Christi. They are a stand in through whom Christ becomes present and does the work of the sacrament.

Women can't be fathers and Jesus is not a woman. As a result, it is impossible for women to be ordained to Holy Orders. The Church has no authority to alter this.

This is, of course, not to deny or denigrate the reality that there is spiritual motherhood as well. It is, however, a different role. The Church functions along family lines. It needs both Mothers and Fathers, but they are not the same thing. One is not higher than the other.

In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the greatest saint, the most venerable human being (excluding Jesus of course) and God's masterpiece within creation. She is greater than any Pope, including Peter, and yet she was not ordained to Holy Orders.

The Church recognizes women who have been great teachers, great leaders, including women who have taken Popes to task. It just holds that women are not meant to be fathers.

2. Priestly Celibacy is not an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a continuous tradition spanning from the original Old Testament Tabernacle and Temple and it is practiced in the Eastern Church as well as the Western Church.

I'm sure some are about to point out that the Jewish priests and Eastern priests can marry etc. This is correct. However, in the Israelite / Jewish temple, priests did not serve continuously. The priests were divided up in to 24 groups and each group would serve a set number of weeks per year. When the priests were in service in the temple they were required to be celibate. If they engaged in the marital act during this time they were considered ritually defiled and could not perform their service in the temple. The same is true today for Eastern Orthodox priests. When they offer the sacrament they are required to be celibate on that day.

The discipline of permanent celibacy became the norm for Latin Rite Catholic Priests because they are to regard themselves as always on duty. They offer the sacrament on a daily basis (often). The Latin Rite will allow married priests in some special circumstances, such as Anglicans who convert etc. However, they cannot undertake the same duties as a normal Latin Rite priest because they are not ready for service at any time.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Oh, so a bit analogous to the ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi; an ordination of a woman when there were no men available for the ministry?

It worked out okay for us, but I'm guessing Rome's not going to cope so well... has she been required to resign her orders? Or would they see that as validating them in the first place?

This is what a lot of people don't understand about the Catholic belief about ordination. Saying that there aren't any men so at a pinch a woman will step in and do it, kind of implies that this is something women can do, but we just don't let them do it because we think men are better or some such. This is not the case at all. From the Catholic point of view, this is like saying "well, there aren't any men around to be a father figure to you, so your mother will just be your father figure..." It doesn't work that way.

First, we believe that the sacrament of Holy Orders bestows a permanent mark upon the soul of the recipient. There is a real supernatural event that takes place which the Church has no power to change or alter in any way. It's not just the Church's way of saying.. "ok you're hired for this job and now we'll let you run this ministry".

Further, because sacraments carry very important and in most cases permanent, non-repeatable, effects, God has established conditions that define whether the sacrament actually occurred or not.

Sacraments have two basic components, form and matter. In order for a sacrament to be valid, it must have both valid form and valid matter. For example, with baptism the valid matter is you must have a living human being, and you must have water. The valid form is you must pour the water on the person (or dunk them in it) and say "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" or some close variation of that, and you must have the intent to baptize them, and they must not be opposed to being baptized. If all those things are in place, you have valid form and valid matter. Therefore the sacrament is valid and it worked.

The required matter for Holy Orders is a baptized confirmed Catholic man.

It's not a matter of the Church simply refusing to ordain women, it is a matter that a woman cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. It's impossible. Even if the ordination ritual is performed, it does nothing. It's not a matter of the Church approving it or disapproving it. The Church has no power to change this.

It would be like trying to baptize a cat, or to marry a car. Performing the ceremony or ritual is meaningless because the sacrament cannot be bestowed upon that kind of matter.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Catholicism has been brought into the conversation here in a couple of ways, so I'd like to comment on that aspect of things.

1. The Catholic Church does not ordain women to Holy Orders for several reasons. Two of the most important reasons are that Catholics understand the role of priesthood to be by definition an act of fatherhood. In fact, Catholic teaching would generally hold that the fatherhood of priests is closer to true fatherhood (that of God) than biological fatherhood. Catholics don't call priests "father" as an honorific title. We call them Father because that is their most fundamental identity. That is who and what they are. The other most important reason is that Priests and Bishops, in their sacramental roles, act in Persona Christi. They are a stand in through whom Christ becomes present and does the work of the sacrament.

Women can't be fathers and Jesus is not a woman. As a result, it is impossible for women to be ordained to Holy Orders. The Church has no authority to alter this.

This is, of course, not to deny or denigrate the reality that there is spiritual motherhood as well. It is, however, a different role. The Church functions along family lines. It needs both Mothers and Fathers, but they are not the same thing. One is not higher than the other.

In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the greatest saint, the most venerable human being (excluding Jesus of course) and God's masterpiece within creation. She is greater than any Pope, including Peter, and yet she was not ordained to Holy Orders.

The Church recognizes women who have been great teachers, great leaders, including women who have taken Popes to task. It just holds that women are not meant to be fathers.

2. Priestly Celibacy is not an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a continuous tradition spanning from the original Old Testament Tabernacle and Temple and it is practiced in the Eastern Church as well as the Western Church.

I'm sure some are about to point out that the Jewish priests and Eastern priests can marry etc. This is correct. However, in the Israelite / Jewish temple, priests did not serve continuously. The priests were divided up in to 24 groups and each group would serve a set number of weeks per year. When the priests were in service in the temple they were required to be celibate. If they engaged in the marital act during this time they were considered ritually defiled and could not perform their service in the temple. The same is true today for Eastern Orthodox priests. When they offer the sacrament they are required to be celibate on that day.

The discipline of permanent celibacy became the norm for Latin Rite Catholic Priests because they are to regard themselves as always on duty. They offer the sacrament on a daily basis (often). The Latin Rite will allow married priests in some special circumstances, such as Anglicans who convert etc. However, they cannot undertake the same duties as a normal Latin Rite priest because they are not ready for service at any time.

While we are not in perfect agreement, I can appreciate much of what you've said here.

The most important being that mothers and fathers are not roles that are interchangeable. To think that they are denigrates both roles, IMO. And if Catholics have a similarly high opinion of women as Orthodox do, that is good to hear.

Anyone who thinks Orthodoxy denigrates women should meet female monastics, especially an abbess.

 

[hedrick]

The required matter for Holy Orders is a baptized confirmed Catholic man.

The sources I've checked, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that the matter of ordination is the laying on of hands. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis appears to have been intended to teach infallibly. It definitively restricts priestly orders to men. While ordination of women to the diaconate is not permitted, I don't think that decision is quite so definitive.

 

[JackRT]

The sources I've checked, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that the matter of ordination is the laying on of hands. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis appears to have been intended to teach infallibly. It definitively restricts priestly orders to men. While ordination of women to the diaconate is not permitted, I don't think that decision is quite so definitive.

When the time comes, theology will be invented to justify it.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not a matter of the Church simply refusing to ordain women, it is a matter that a woman cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. It's impossible. Even if the ordination ritual is performed, it does nothing. It's not a matter of the Church approving it or disapproving it. The Church has no power to change this.

I understand everything you've said in your post. But it's completely wrong. I am a woman who is a priest; I live this thing the Catholic church says is impossible. And there comes a point where one starts to suspect that the church is being wilfully wrong on this point, which is why a lot of people talk as if the church can do this, but doesn't want to.

Comparing ordaining a woman to marrying a car is skirting the part of the SOP of this forum which says that ordained women and their ministries are to be respected here.

 

[Tallguy88]

I understand everything you've said in your post. But it's completely wrong. I am a woman who is a priest; I live this thing the Catholic church says is impossible. And there comes a point where one starts to suspect that the church is being wilfully wrong on this point, which is why a lot of people talk as if the church can do this, but doesn't want to.

Even if the church started ordaining women, they wouldn't be priests since women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

From Pope Saint John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."

...

Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, "the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church."

...

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II, 22 May 1994 - Apostolic Letter | John Paul II

 

[hedrick]

Even if the church started ordaining women, they wouldn't be priests since women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.

If the Church does that, they'll reinterpret Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Note that it doesn't say the women are incapable of being ordained, but the Church no authority to ordain them. The reinterpretation is obvious.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I understand everything you've said in your post. But it's completely wrong. I am a woman who is a priest; I live this thing the Catholic church says is impossible. And there comes a point where one starts to suspect that the church is being wilfully wrong on this point, which is why a lot of people talk as if the church can do this, but doesn't want to.

Comparing ordaining a woman to marrying a car is skirting the part of the SOP of this forum which says that ordained women and their ministries are to be respected here.

I'm well aware that everyone in this forum disagrees with the Catholic understanding of Holy Orders and it was never my intention to tell them that they are all wrong and the Catholic Church is right. My objective was and is to clear up misunderstandings and ambiguities about what the Church actually teaches and why. Feel free to disagree all you want, but I want to make sure that what you are disagreeing with is what we actually believe, not a caricature and a misrepresentation.

I had and have no intention of being disrespectful to women and their ministries, but I want to make clear why this is not a matter of the Church deciding one way or the other, approving one way or the other. In our view the Church did not decide this, we received it and as a result there is no authority to change it. From the Catholic view point, it is impossible for such an ordination to be valid regardless of whether we approve of it or not.

Regarding you personally, I'm sure you are well aware that the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican Orders as valid in any case. I obviously don't expect you to agree with that view either.

However, one of the ironies of this conversation is that Catholics, in general, often don't have a problem with protestant women ministers. Protestants and Catholics have significantly different views about what the role of the Minister/Priest actually is, and what they actually do. From the Catholic view, we have no problem with women ministers doing all the things that most Protestants actually believe that their ministers do. In the Catholic Church women can basically do all of those same things.

This, of course, might not apply to some High Church Anglicans but even probably many Anglicans don't really have the same view of the priesthood that the Catholic Church does. For example, the Catholic Church believes that the Eucharist is a real, literal, sacrifice and that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Those things are central to what Catholics believe priests are, and what their primary role is. Some Anglicans would believe the same, but many wouldn't as well.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I would have to stand by that as well. I didn't even address it. But Orthodoxy will not have female priests. Isn't going to happen.

We haven't even had a council for how to relate to Protestants, and that's 500 years now.

And that's why it will remain unrelatable.

 

[Simon_Templar]

The sources I've checked, including the Catholic Encyclopedia, say that the matter of ordination is the laying on of hands. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis appears to have been intended to teach infallibly. It definitively restricts priestly orders to men. While ordination of women to the diaconate is not permitted, I don't think that decision is quite so definitive.

You are correct, most of the sites do list the required matter as the laying on of hands, and the form as the prayer which is said. However, sacraments must also have a valid minister and recipient. Sometimes this is listed separately but I believe it does also fall under form and/or matter. For example, only a priest or a bishop can celebrate the Eucharist. Only a living human who is not opposed may receive baptism. Only a man and a woman may receive the sacrament of marriage. Only a sick person may receive the anointing of the sick etc. It is the same with Holy Orders and the recipient must be a initiated man. Without that recipient the ordination is not valid, just as it would be invalid if it was not performed by a Bishop.

The only sacrament in which the recipient does not matter for the validity of the sacrament is the Eucharist. This sacrament is not performed "on" a person in the same way that the others are. The person is not the object of the sacrament. The elements are trans substantiated regardless of who receives them. For this reason it may have grave effect on a person who receives unworthily.

If the Church does that, they'll reinterpret Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Note that it doesn't say the women are incapable of being ordained, but the Church no authority to ordain them. The reinterpretation is obvious.

Here is the official statement in the catechism

“Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church #1577

 

[Simon_Templar]

While we are not in perfect agreement, I can appreciate much of what you've said here.

The most important being that mothers and fathers are not roles that are interchangeable. To think that they are denigrates both roles, IMO. And if Catholics have a similarly high opinion of women as Orthodox do, that is good to hear.

Anyone who thinks Orthodoxy denigrates women should meet female monastics, especially an abbess.

Catholics hold women in very high regard. We often get accused of worshiping one.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

nvrmnd

 

[Simon_Templar]

I grew up in a very ant-liturgical church and family. My mother had grown up Lutheran, my dad joined the Lutheran church when they got married, but they both left and rejected all liturgy as "dead" and "traditions of men" when they had born again experiences. The ended up helping to start a non-denominational charismatic church which I was in for about the first 30 years of my life. When I first found CF decades ago, I originally spent all my time in the Spirit Filled forum because that was my faith community. I'm sure looking back at all of my ancient posts would show a strange journey of faith.

Now, I just came back to the forums here for the first time in probably 4 years or so. I was bored and thought, hey.. I'll check out old CF and see what's going on these days. So I basically know nothing about what's going on in the forums here.

However, in my life in the real world, I can say that for quite a while now there has been a significant movement of people who grew up in the non-liturgical churches that are going back to the liturgical/traditional styles of worship. Some of them are doing it by actually going back to the Historic Churches, others are doing it by incorporating more liturgy into their existing churches, or starting new churches etc. So maybe you are seeing it in the forums because it is a significant movement in our culture at large.

Never the less, I don't want to mess with your enjoyment of your forum etc. So I'll bow out.