Disunity ‘is the cost of women being bishops’

Note that Christ chose no female disciples, not even his Mom.

Do we really know that?

Well, yeah, we'll all have some 'splainin' to do.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I think there's a lot of fuzzy thinking about this topic (including mine, on occasion) and it's an important topic.

I understand that radical feminism and homosexuality have some common goals, and that these groups have frequently worked together. No question there. Here's the problem, as I see it: to say that women can't be bishops/priests/whatevers because the radical feminist agenda, (RFA), has worked in concert with the radical homosexual agenda, (RHA), and therefore, women as a group should not be considered for bishops/priests/whatevers just doesn't work. Are you going to tell me that because Vicke Gene Robinson and his comrades push the RHA, that men shouldn't be considered for bishops/priests/whatevers? Of course not. But that is the same argument you are making against women. There may be reasons for not having women bishops/priests/whatevers, but this ain't it.

And as far as the "theological and ontological problem"s go - we get into a circular argument. We don't have women priests because we haven't traditionally had women priests. Say what?

We don't have women priests because Paul said women can't talk in church. Obviously, this is something that we don't maintain (I'm only talking Anglicans here - I know Orthodox, Catholics, etc. have differing opinions. Even amongst themselves). So we don't have women priests because women can't talk in church, but they can and do talk in church, so..........?

I'm not talking about radical feminists. I'm talking about us. Here, pondering this question. I'm ready and willing to listen.

(And, Torque, I once donated to NOW. I cringe to think of it now. But, in my defense, that was before I understood that abortion and anti-Americanism are their main goals.)

Hey SuzyQue,

You are right, the poor example of some is not a good reason to proscribe an entire group.

However, with regards to a male-only priesthood, this has been the universal tradition of the Church (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) for as long as we have records. Christ ordained 12 Apostles, and they were all male. The priesthood was established through this group, and it has been all male since that time. One might ask, why?

One argument against an all-male priesthood is that it is unjust, and that it is a fossil left over from a chauvinistic and male-centered first century culture.

However, if there were ever going to be Christian priestesses, the first century was the time, as many other religions of the time had priestesses. In fact, within the culture that Christianity spread, some priestess were quite prominent. One example is the Vestal virgins who were considered sacred within Roman Religious system. The Oracle of Delphi was the most important temple in Greece and was considered to be the center of the world. It was staffed by the priestess of Apollo. As I understand it, the Judeo-Christian tradition was somewhat unique in having an all male priesthood. It's something that made it very distinct from the surrounding cultures, including that of the Greeks and Romans, so it's difficult to pin that tradition on a sexist mindset. Christ Himself was not afraid to break taboos--he spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, he challenged the Pharisees, he broke laws of his society (healing on the Sabbath, for example,) and defended his Apostles who did so as well (picking grain on the Sabbath or not undergoing a ritual purification before eating.) Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male.

Another argument is that it was simply too dangerous for women to be out traveling during the time of Christ. Since this is no longer the case, according to this logic, it should be possible to ordain priestesses today. However, there were women who followed Jesus around, including his mother and Mary Magdalene, so it's hard to substantiate that argument either.

So how can we understand this tradition? As far as I can tell, the theology of gender is poorly developed, so it's challenging to do. It's easy enough to demonstrate the arguments against an all male priesthood are flawed. It's more difficult to say with certainty why the tradition exists. It's often the case that Church traditions are carried out and not fully explained until they are challenged. Such seems to be the case now with the theology of gender, and the conversation has really only begun to develop in the last 30 years.

One starting place is the point in time immediately before human beings were created. An all powerful God could have created us anyway He wanted. He did not need to make male and female, we could have reproduced asexually, or we could all have been "dual gendered." But God chose to create us in His own image as male and female. From that we infer that there is a purpose to our gender, a meaning to it. It is not somehow interchangeable or irrelevant, and if I understand Jesus' saying on marriage, there is something extremely important about the union of man and woman in marriage.

Now as Christians, we do not believe that one gender is inferior to the other. There have been many extraordinarily holy men and women who are recognized as tremendous examples of the Christian life. Within the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions, quiet a few women have been recognized as Saints. Mary, in particular, is held to have been especially favored by God. There are also women such as Catherine of Sienna and Therese of Lisieux who are recognized as Doctors of the Church, an extraordinary level of recognition. Within the Church, women have organized and run important religious communities and orders, they have founded hospitals,orphanages, and schools. So why not have women in the priesthood?

The answer is tradition. We inherited, from the early Church a sensus fidelium, a sense of the faithful as to what Christianity consists of or how it should look, from the earliest days of the Church, Christ showed special solicitude toward many women, and singled many out as models of extraordinary faith. We Catholics believe that He gave Mary to us as our Mother, he commended a Samaritan woman for her great faith, and decreed that the story of Mary Magdaelen's love should be told wherever the Gospel is preached. Christ is the ruler of the universe. He was completely free to do whatever he choose, and was surrounded by many extraordinary women. But he did not ordain any of them. Nor did his apostles, although women clearly played an important role in the early church, at least one even owned the house were mass was said. We see the Apostles greet many important women in the early Church with respect and something approaching deference. One of the Apostle John's letter's is addressed to a woman and appears to have been written solely for her benefit. Yet there were no ordinations. We might postulate a number of theories as to why, but all we know for certain is that there were no priestesses in the early Church.

We do not believe that the priesthood is a right--rather it is an extraordinary calling. We believe, moreover, that gender does matter, that men and women have different tendencies and different roles. In the case of the all male priesthood, it's a tradition that appears to date to the time of Christ. Within the Roman Catholic Church, the question was raised back in the 1960's as to whether women might be allowed to serve as priestesses within the Catholic Church. After about three decades of intense discussion and debate, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that it did not have the authority to ordain women to the priesthood.

"Do we really know that?"

There were women disciples yes, but Christ did not appoint any women as Apostles. Interestingly, there is a reference to a "Junia" in Romans 16: 7 that appears to indicate that this person was an apostle. While the women's ordination groups insist this must have been a woman, and use it as perhaps the most central part of their historical case, the claim itself is disputed, as many of the early texts are apparently ambiguous on this point. There is also a deaconess by the name of Phoebe mentioned in the New Testament.

Thank you. That is one of the more succinct responses I've ever read on the issue of catholic priestesses I've read lately. SuzyQue simply misunderstood the the point of my post. It was NOT to argue the point that women shouldn't be ordained to the catholic priesthood because they support radical feminist or homosexual agendas. It was merely to reveal what I see as the connection between the "innovation" of ordaining women to the catholic priesthood & the subsequent slide of that church's clergy & laity into the heresy & apostasy that in the process of destroying it today. What an awful thing that is...& what an awful thing that the people who are most responsible for allowing the rot to get a foothold in that church are people like SuzyQue & me, who are/were so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures, the ancient teachings & formularies of our church that we swallowed all the lies & heresies & just "went along to get along." Shame...shame on all of us for allowing the Father of Lies to gain control of the ECUSA.

What an excellent answer! Thank you.

I don't care about the feministic*/new-agey type of arguments, and am not trying to advance any of those. I just want to deal with what is in the Bible, and tradition, to a lesser extent.

You are right, the poor example of some is not a good reason to proscribe an entire group. Not only an entire group, but an entirely different group.

Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male. I'm not sure what I think on this one. I'll get back to you.

So how can we understand this tradition? As far as I can tell, the theology of gender is poorly developed, so it's challenging to do. It's easy enough to demonstrate the arguments against an all male priesthood are flawed. It's more difficult to say with certainty why the tradition exists. I agree, there are many traditions with respect to gender, such as Islam's take on proper gender roles. Whether or not they are relevant and appropriate with regard to Jesus' teachings and God's plan, is the question.

It's often the case that Church traditions are carried out and not fully explained until they are challenged. Such seems to be the case now with the theology of gender, and the conversation has really only begun to develop in the last 30 years. Exactly. But, I want to do so in a respectful and logical way, and not as a way to advance some socio-political ideology, left or right.

Now as Christians, we do not believe that one gender is inferior to the other. This may be true in theory, but is often not true in reality.

The answer is tradition. Ah, back to that.

But he did not ordain any of them. The word used for ordained is ginomai which means "cause to be". I'm not sure that what they did bears much resemblance to what we now mean by "ordain", but I'm still reading.

*I think we should tar them with their own brush and start calling them neo-feminists (as in "neo-con", "neo-nazi" etc).

No, I didn't misunderstand you. I was trying to politely point out that an argument against women priests must be based on something other than the radical feminist/homosexual argument.

And, speak for yourself about ignorance of Scripture and tradition. I haven't swallowed anything, and don't plan on doing that here either. While it is often uncomfortable, I've never been one to "go along to get along".

May I remind you that the bishops voting to confirm Gene Robinson were men?

Feminized men and homosexuals.

You got it.

And, obviously, I'm a little sensitive about it! Sorry, that was fairly snarky.

"what an awful thing that the people who are most responsible for allowing the rot to get a foothold in that church are people like SuzyQue & me, who are/were so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures, the ancient teachings & formularies of our church that we swallowed all the lies & heresies & just "went along to get along."

Most of us have been in this position. Many in ECUSA have fought the good fight, and set an example for the rest of Christianity. What's happened in the ECUSA over the last few years is a reflection of what's happening in our broader culture. I'm sorry for what's happened to the sincere and faithful Christians in the Episcopal Church here, but nobody can accuse them of just rolling over and playing dead.

The Anglican Church has the oldest history of worship in the English language. That's something to be very proud of. The Anglican tradition in this country also has a reputation for patient dialog and compassion for the less fortunate. Those are all good traditions. Unfortunately, many wonderful Christians are being driven out of the ECUSA by the current political situation. That's a tremendous boon for the communities they join, but it has not been a good thing for the ECUSA.

"....misunderstood the the point of my post. It was NOT to argue the point that women shouldn't be ordained to the catholic priesthood because they support radical feminist or homosexual agendas. It was merely to reveal what I see as the connection between the "innovation" of ordaining women to the catholic priesthood & the subsequent slide of that church's clergy & laity into the heresy & apostasy that in the process of destroying it today."

Yes. There is no reason that the abuses of the few would disqualify everyone. However, from a pragmatic standpoint, the recent history of questionable innovations and challenges to Christian ethical norms is problematic. AnAmericanMother, in her eminently sensible way has pointed out what appears to be a very common perception--that this is a package deal.

There are those who assert that if the Apostles had been women, Christianity would be radically different in terms of it's stance on issues such as abortion, and in Roman Catholicism, artificial contraception. The underlying assumption is that Christian ethical teaching is arbitrary. This implies that truth is relative.

"I don't care about the feministic*/new-agey type of arguments, and am not trying to advance any of those."

I'm sympathetic to feminism if that term means the work to achieve just treatment of women, and a rejection of the idea that men's experiences are normative for the human species. I very much doubt what you have in mind with the terms you used above though.

"I just want to deal with what is in the Bible, and tradition, to a lesser extent.... I want to do so in a respectful and logical way, and not as a way to advance some socio-political ideology, left or right."

That sounds very good SuzyQue, I wish you the best in your investigation. I think you are going to find it to be a fairly one-sided discussion. Many of the people involved in the women's ordination movement are highly educated and have managed to put a lot in print. There are a number of organizations with a strong presence on the web, and their arguments are easy to access.

In terms of tradition, the word is often misunderstood. What I mean is sense of the faithful that was handed down from those who with and were formed in the faith by Christ and the Apostles.

"You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 2 Cor: 3-4.

Nonetheless, he choose twelve apostles all of whom were male. "I'm not sure what I think on this one. I'll get back to you."

I'd be very interested in hearing what you think. IMO, a very common view in our society over the last 30 years is that gender is not fundamental to who the person is. It's something that was assigned randomly by a flip of the coin in terms of X and Y chromosome assortment, and much of the differences between men and women were asserted to be socially conditioned. Gender is, in a sense, interchangable, which means it can be surgically re-assigned, or mixed and matched in different combinations in Marriage. Couple that to that the feminist outlook that the defining force of history is men of sinister motivations collectively oppressing women to maintain power, and it makes sense that women should be ordained, simply on principles of justice.

From a certain Catholic perspective, however, gender is indeed fundamental to the person, it is not an accident, but rather was chosen by God, and the two genders necessarily represent something fundamentally important. Both genders are important, but they are also distinct, and in very real sense, are made for each other. This view has implications in the Sacramental life with relation to Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, the Sacraments are the reason for the priesthood. Without them, we would have no reason for it. We already have chaplains, parish administrators, and "pastoral life directors," who effectively run many parishes. There is no gender restriction in those roles.

"The word used for ordained is ginomai which means "cause to be". I'm not sure that what they did bears much resemblance to what we now mean by "ordain", but I'm still reading."

What I had in mind is the ordination of the Apostles at the last supper.

And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;...... And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Excerpted from Luke 22: 14-20)

Christ is our high priest, and as believers we all participate in His priesthood in various roles. We also have a ministerial priesthood. The Eucharist is central to the Catholic experience of Christ, and the priesthood is required to have the Eucharist.

Christ is the source of all priesthood, and we believe that the priest acts in persona Christi--in the person of Christ, during the consecration of the Eucharist. I'm not sure about the Anglican liturgy, but in our Liturgy the priest says, "this is my body...... this is my blood...." He does not say, this is Jesus' body, this is Jesus' blood, because the priest himself is acting in the person of Christ during the Consecration.

This is our understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. If one believes that gender is fundamental to who the person is, then gender was a fundamental part of who Christ was, and the gender of the priest matters. Christ is the lamb of God. His Sacrifice on the cross and the Eucharist were prefigured in the Old Testament in the paschal lamb. (Christ being the lamb of God.) You will note that Scripture here also specifies that the paschal lamb to be sacrificed must be a male without blemish.

I've been blessed to know some very holy women in my life, and one once made the remark that men have an ethic of self-sacrifice that is part of their nature--they want to sacrifice for a good cause, and many men are attracted to the idea of bravery and courage, of laying ones life down for family or country. If she's right, it has implications about how men would best relate to society. From a sacramental perspective, however, her idea of men having a sacrificial nature has a very different implication. The example of Christ was of course one of sacrificial love, and so it is entirely possible to argue, if one accepts her proposition, that the priesthood must necessarily be male because of the element of self-Sacrifice and it's implications for the Eucharist. It's an interesting theory.

By the way, the goal of the women's ordination movement in Roman Catholicism is said to have shifted from wanting to obtain the priesthood, to ultimately desiring to abolish it. The reason being that the priesthood is a ministry of subjection, it is a call to serve the most lowly. Their proposal is being framed as a priesthood of "equals."