The Church of England will no doubt push forward on Women Bishops and then Lesbian Bishops...................all reminiscent of The Gaderene Swine

"There are 14 provinces in the Communion that have already approved women as bishops. Only eight do not have women's ordination."

Uhh, I guess that would be decreasing to 12 once the Episcopal Cult USA and Anglican Cult of Canada complete their schismatic race to irrelevance in 2008.

What discussion? What theological justification? It simply happened.

We blinked once, and there were female Priests. We blinked again, and there were female Bishops.

I do not want to think about what happens if I blink again.

Mrs Rees is free to begin whatever good work she wants. She is free to gather together as many like-minded persons as she can find. But to call it consistent with the 1970 years of Church history and tradition is not possible.

The theological assertions which have thus far been brought forth in order to justify female Priests have about the same significance to me as the discovery by Constantine's mother of the fragments of the True Cross, the bones of Abraham, and the bones of Adam.

Not.

Present a reasoned and cogent discussion. Lay off the misogynist polemics. Leave off the cries of racism, sexism, male domination, and all other perjoratives.

Provide me with a closely reasoned, thoroughly considered, carefully studied series of papers which thoroughly explores the idea of a sacramental church, the Apostolic Succession, the role of the Priest in pronouncing absolution and consecrating the Elements, and so on. Let me have the documents to read, consider, and examine.

But do not cram it down my throat under threat of being politically incorrect!

"It reads: "There is ample evidence from church history, not least, and most recently, in the Anglican Communion, that actions by individual provinces touching the scriptural and traditional faith and order of the Church, actions that inevitably unchurch those who cannot accept such changes, do not serve the unity which Christ asks of his Church.""

---

Indeed, such actions 'unchurch' those who do not believe that God's will is being faithfully discerned.

God made both man and woman in His image, but He made them very, very different. As such, they each have roles which are better suited to them (otherwise, they're being different would mean nothing).

Further, many honest and faithful Christians discern a great deal about those roles in an honest reading of the Bible. I do. And it makes sense to me.

Western democracy gives each citizens equal rights, even though one citizen may generate more income that another. Communism tried to force an artifical equality of outcomes on society, and it really backfired badly. Christian churches afford every man, woman and child equal dignity and value anbd love before the Lord. However, it is trying, in my opinion, to force artificial outcomes on this issue. Men and women are equal in value, but they are not nor will ever be equivalent. Those who insist on such ignore nature, the human condition, and the Bible.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

I'm sorry, but I believe once the door was opened to female priests there's no good reason for preventing them from becoming Bishops. Women either can lead God's people or they cannot... and since the decision was made to allow them to lead, it's now a matter of principle.

It will be interesting to see how the female leadership role plays out in the changes soon to come, however.

"and since the decision was made to allow them to lead, it's now a matter of principle"

---

No, a principle is something that exists outside of the decision.

The 'principles' involved in that decision were: 1) God has nothing to say on the matter that we should listen to; and 2) women are designed, in their inherent natures, for the priesthood in the same way that men are.

I don't believe either one. I (and many, many others) honestly believe both of those to be deep lies.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Hey Esso, I didn't say it was right... just that the church had already made the decision regarding female leadership, thus establishing a principle.

I guess one way of looking at the secondary question of allowing female bishops would be to say "two wrongs don't make a right", huh?

Quote:

Ah yes, we wouldn't want Christina's life's work to be for naught, would we?

Let's see. Your typical angry feminist is in her late fifties now, so that would place Christina in her late twenties when she took up this particular obsession, ca. 1975. If I might conjecture further, that means she went through the university system at some point in the 1960s, give or take a few semesters.

Isn't it astounding how deeply youthful ideas can be implanted? I mean, this woman is frantic to accomplish her mission before she croaks! Absolutley frantic -- as are her colleagues working the homosex agenda.

Forgive me for noticing, but there are two cinematic illustrations of this behavior that come to mind. Tell me if I'm wrong in seeing the similarities:

1. Telefon, 1977, featuring Donald Pleasence and
2. The Manchurian Candidate, 1962, starring Frank Sinatra

In both, unwitting subjects were programmed to do unthinkable acts of barbarity, initiated by vocal commands and unstoppable until their mission was completed. Any impediment to the mission was met with a high state of agitation and "extreme prejudice".

I submit that persons such as Christina are acting on a real-life, low intensity version of such programming. They are immune to ciritcism, to reason, to reevaluating their commitment to the cause, and impediments are met with "extreme prejudice".

Much mischief was done to the Western World during the Cold War. Having spent some amount of time with New Lefters such as David Horowitz et al, I frankly put nohting past our Adversary.

Women either can lead God's people or they cannot... and since the decision was made to allow them to lead, it's now a matter of principle.

I have experienced women priests.............I am not overly impressed...............however since the Church of England is moving into realms not connected with Orthodox Christianity and I must find a Church that conforms to Belief there are things I shall no longer be willing to indulge.................we are moving in opposite directions

1. Telefon, 1977, featuring Donald Pleasence and
2. The Manchurian Candidate, 1962, starring Frank Sinatra


You might add "V"

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: 16. One to change it and 15 to form the support group.

--From A Prairie Home Companion

Christina Rees is a PR woman with a little business called MediaMaxima.com or something similar. She is not a cleric but a self-publicist who is an obsessive. I still have not worked out if these people want to destroy the Church from within or just to destroy it from without.

http://openchurch.info/signs4.htm

http://www.mediamaxima.com/pumpkin/frame.html




Christina Rees
A writer, broadcaster and speaker, appearing on network as well as local radio and television. She is a long-standing contributor to BBC Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' and contributes to programmes including 'Woman's Hour', 'Heart of the Matter' and 'Newsnight.' She also contributes to broadsheet newspapers, journals, magazines. She is a member of General Synod and a founder member of the Archbishops' Council, and was on the Communications Committee of the Church of England. She is an experienced executive and life coach.


Unfortunately the Labour Government created a bonanza for so-called "training" companies to take the unemployed off the register and these groups have sprouted on public money providing "training" but in reality are useless and self-important


How we work
Our aim is to work with our clients to identify their maximum personal and organisational potential. Our role is to help clients attain this level of performance.
We offer solutions tailored to issues and requirements based on development courses and workshops which can be run as practical group sessions or offered as one-to-one tutoring or coaching.
In order to ensure training is efficient and highly cost effective, all our services are specifically tailored and resourced to meet customer need and timescale.


Benefits
• With a highly developed and motivated workforce organisational change can be achieved smoothly with minimum disruption
• Business performance is enhanced and better able to capitalise on future opportunities
• This is a development opportunity, equipping managers and staff with high level skills needed to operate in a complex and changing business environment
• Personal performance and work satisfaction are improved
• Investment in staff development is usually accompanied by a reduction in staff turnover and talent is retained
• Measurable output improvement

Voyager wrote:
"Unfortunately the Labour Government created a bonanza for so-called "training" companies to take the unemployed off the register and these groups have sprouted on public money providing "training" but in reality are useless and self-important"

That goes back well before Labour, Voyager. The Tories were just as bad. However, I don't think that Ms Rees's company operates at that kind of level. The management psychobabble which you cite elsewhere indicates posh training for executives in companies which have outsourced the training function.

What I found interesting about the letter was that it goes a little way beyond the "usual suspects". The "big beast" among these prelates, as David Virtue indicates, is +Tom Dunelm: He is one of the "big five" - the two Archbishops, London, Winchester and Durham - and his choosing to align himself with those prelates who stongly oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood is an encouraging sign.

"I guess one way of looking at the secondary question of allowing female bishops would be to say "two wrongs don't make a right", huh?"

---

Agreed, db!

With Christian love,

Essodalori

I am really surprised they haven't got the "race and diversity" angle covered.............that is simply sublime now that public bodies have to prove they are non-discriminatory each year..........they are sitting ducks for the snake-oil salesmen.

This kind of gibberish training is for public sector junkies so they meet the ideological state of grace demanded by political masters - in the private sector it is usually psychologists who are sent in to bore the staff by arranging the feng shui between their ears if they cannot escape to the Times crossword or sending messages on their PDAs.

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
quote by jmoyers.

Hey, how about this one...

"How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?"

answer: "Just one...but the whole world has to stand and watch.!"

Why are women so eager to become bishops? Why are women so eager to become priests? Why are women so ambitious and eager to become major players in a traditionally male environment?

Does Scripture count for nothing?

Why does authority/strength/leadership in most women come across as "bitchiness" instead of humility, and strength under control?

Why does there seem to be a correlation between decline in the Church and the increase of women's involvement at a leadership level...? Hmmmm...just a few questions I would like a female to answer, please explain.

I think that the real problem was when Christianity allowed women and men to worship in the same space. The truly orthodox should separate the women from the men as do orthodox Jews and Islam. In fact, why do we allow the feminine contagion to touch the vessels on the altar? This truly is an abomination! What will be next? Women will want to read the Epistle! Imagine. Obviously omosexuality and bestiality and adultery will follow and be the norm in the church. Abolish the ECW and ACW and close the doors to all but the men--women can read the Bible in the privacy of their own homes. Then the Church will be truly pure.

Gentlemen--get back to basics. Read the Gospels and be instructed on what Jesus thought of women. Who were the women in the early church?

Guess who.

Fiona, thank you for tearing yourself away from laundering the alter linens to make this post.

I have puzzled and prayed about this thread for days and didn't know how to respond. I have a few observations and one question.

There is way too much testosterone floating around this thread. It's hard to tell from the names, but it looks to me that Fiona is the only woman with the courage to respond to this misogyny.

The plain truth is that the ordination and consecration of women is untraditional but is in no way sinful. The ordinatiion and consecration of homosexuals who are having sex outside marriage is both untraditional and sinful.

The "male only" club is quite articulate is sounding off about what the role of women "should not" be in the Church. But what exactly "should" the role of women be according to the "male only" club? Is it washing and ironning the altar linens? Preparing Sunday School lessons? Maybe cooking and cleaning at the annual dinner? (All valuable and needed tasks but why should ANY such important contributions be limited to one gender?)

How about this... Some of us would say that, if the "male only" club has their way, we will work tirelessly to elect "women only" to the Standing Committees in the diocese and the parish. How do you feel about being being excluded from the Standing Committees--based only on your gender with no reference to your qualifications?

The ordination of women is not a "slippery slope" to the ordination of homosexuals. Blaming women (Eve) did not work for Adam and it won't work here. God saw through this lame excuse. The men at General Conference 2003 who supported +VGR acted on their own accord and bear the guilt of their sin.

The 1979 Prayer Book is not a "slippery slope" to the ordination of homosexuals. God looks into your heart when you pray from the Prayer Book, he doesn't just listen to the words that come from your lips. "Almighty God, to you all hearts are open, all desires know, and from you no secrets are hidden."

So speak, if you dare, what exactly is the contribution of women in this "male only" paradigm? In the words of Governor Schwarzenegger to the California legislature--"Don't be little girly men." Speak up and tell us SPECIFICALLY how women are graced in your paradigm.

Fiona...you underscore my premise nicely...

"Gentlemen--get back to basics. Read the Gospels and be instructed on what Jesus thought of women. Who were the women in the early church?"quote by Fiona.

The basic story of the early Church can be read in Acts. The women were there for sure, playing all sorts of important roles...but I ask you to point out a single female bishop, priest, or deacon. Surely if it was the desire of God to establish a co-ed pastoral ministry it would have been flourishing in those heady days of Acts.

Jesus regarded all women with honour and respect. The point of all this is not a woman's worth or value or intellectual ability, or anything else...(looking at some of the men currently in Orders it is obvious it isn't about THEIR great ability ) the issue is "Is this what God intended? Is it what He planned and desires?" How do we best please God and remain faithful to nearly 2000 years of accepted teaching?

Are there no boundaries anymore? Anyone can marry anyone they wish, anyone can take Holy Orders, anyone can divorce at will, anyone can live with anyone, or live with one and have kids with another...where do we draw the line? Where are the "sides to the box" that we as Christians are called to conform ourselves to? Is it too great a sacrifice for a woman to defer to someone of the opposite gender?

I'll make an enemy of you I'm sure...

Shytech--you are certainly no enemy of mine. My post is to point out that there are often, but not always gray areas. Our challenge as thinking Christians is to discern what is truly evil and what is untraditional. Let us explore that together.

But now I have to get back to the Altar Guild,
Fiona

I had a thought today while cleaning the sacristy.

What if in the 1960's a group of radical churchmen in the Episcopal Church said, we want to make some significant changes in the church and liturgy. To do so will really inflame some true believers who will fight us every inch of the way. How can we get those truly orthodox out, leaving the moderates who can be inveigeled to look at it our way? Women's ordination! That's good for a start. Then will bring in a new prayer book, taking out all the nasty bits about sin and wretches. We can still fool the complacent by putting the 1928 stuff in first as Rite I. They will never suspect.

You know it worked. Many fine people left over women's ordination. The muffled moderates who remain lukewarm in even the most desperate of crises, stayed. The radical revisionists rode right over them. Feminists became priests, Rite I was never offered, confirmations became few and far between. We got Eucharistic Prayers A, B, and my personal favorite, C, the starwars one. With the staunch orthodox conservative wing decimated, the revisionists could now focus on God's love, and equality and listening, while leaving out the tricky stuff like the Big Ten. There was no one to stop them. The sad thing, as Fr_Steve points out, with the shifting numbers in ECUSA, with only the moderates remaining, no one will stop them.

So with or without women being ordained as deacons or priests, or lay eucharistic ministers, Vicky Gene Robinson or someone like him would have been made a bishop in the Episcopal church, because that was always the plan.

Or maybe I have just been listening to too much Art Bell.

Fiona

the 1960's


the 1960s


Spot the difference !!!

Well, in this "male only" clergy world, still NO comment on the "special role" that women qualify for in the Church? What specifically is the role that women fill in the Church? I mean, we know what they don't "qualify" to do...

Fiona, when you finish with the sacristy, the lavatories need some attention. And I think we're running low on cream and sugar for coffee hour. Would you mind picking up some supplies while the men discuss the business of the Church--especially the role that women should play?

Do you realize how important your role is, by the way? I hate to take my coffee black.

Fiona, when you finish with the sacristy, the lavatories need some attention. And I think we're running low on cream and sugar for coffee hour. Would you mind picking up some supplies while the men discuss the business of the Church--especially the role that women should play?


H*ll you a patronising B@stard.............bet your mother got used to slaving for you. Still I met enough spineless tw$rps in the US to enable me to recognise a User like yourself. Try having more respect for women, you might even become a Christian instead of being such a condescending fool.

I think we need to stop being politically correct in the world of theology. While we can all agree on all of us being created equal in God's eyes, we need to stop imposing societal ideology in the world of theology. Christ, a male, picked 12 male apostles. His following at the time if one is to believe Scripture and Tradition, was both male and female. However, He chose only men. Only men can consecrate. Women have remarkable roles to play in the church. EWTN was started by Sister Angelica. A most remarkable woman. Mother Theresa, another remarkable woman. Mary, Mother of God, a truly remarkable woman. Women priests - no. Does this make women any less valuable in the church - not at all. Everyone has a role to play in the scheme of things. We have to stop inflicting society's political correctness - and incorrectness - into our theology. Theology and sociology really need to stay separate and apart.

And, PS, I am a woman. I do not feel slighted about the fact that the RC church does not allow women to be priests. And, I am not intimated by this fact. It is a theological point of view - not mandated by society.

"Theology and sociology really need to stay separate and apart."

How many books in your Bible were written by women? Our Judeo-Christian theology was written by men, for men.

For uncountable centuries, women were discouraged from reading or writing because (after all) how much education does a woman need to...)

There's no harm in re-examining and discussing our theology, which at face value is male-centered.

Glad you broached the subject of the RC clergy. It seems that Jesus selected married men. (We don't know for sure because women aren't written about much in the New Testament.) If the RC can overrule Jesus and select only single men as clergy, why can't they overrule Jesus and select women as clergy?

Or is it your premise that Jesus selected celebate and unmarried men as apostles?

Mark:
It would be my pleasure--I can be a Martha as well as a Mary. I just make sure that my Martha role does not confine me to the kitchen. Somehow I always get the ear of the Archbishop or Bishop or Deacon as make sure that they don't have black coffee.

Seriously, we are all taught to be as Christ, and to serve others (washing feet, etc) but I am an educated woman and I know that if Jesus were here today, He would want me to be with "the men discuss[ing] the business of the Church" just as He wanted Mary with Him.

Pleasantly persistent, Fiona

a long post but one that makes sense:

The Male Priesthood: The Argument From Sacred Tradition
by Mark Lowery, Ph.D.
Introduction
In May of 1994 John Paul II promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which declared definitely that the Catholic priesthood is reserved for males. That document nonetheless contained some language that was difficult to interpret. As a result, Cardinal Ratzinger made an official clarification (Responsum ad Dubium) in November of 1995, making it quite clear that the Church has taught infallibly on this matter.
Hence, the question of the priesthood in its relation to sexuality - a question usually posed more simply as "Why can there not be women priests?" - has now been answered in a definitive way. There is no longer any doubt that reserving Holy Orders to males is part of the deposit of faith. While Catholics are not to question the teaching of the Magisterium on this matter, the time is ripe for all interested to come to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the Church's teaching.
The documents themselves are not meant to provide such theological information for us. Although they contain and allude to theological arguments, they are not primarily meant as theological documents. The situation is similar to the role of Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical on the regulation of birth. As Janet Smith has aptly noted, that encyclical was not meant to provide a full philosophical and theological rationale for the Church's position. Rather, it alluded to some of the central arguments, presuming that philosophers and theologians would flush them out.1 Similarly, Inter Insigniores (issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Paul VI in 1976), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Responsum ad Dubium exist not primarily as theological explanations, but as teaching documents making clear the Church's position, containing an implicit invitation to theologians to flush out the arguments. In this article I propose to present the argument from Sacred Tradition in favor of the male priesthood.
In considering that argument, we want to examine what Tradition says, the factual or empirical side of the question. This Tradition contains three aspects, as aptly summarized in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis no. 1 when it quotes a 1975 letter of Paul VI to the Archbishop of Canterbury: "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 [Magisterium] which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Let us consider each of the three points.
The Action of Jesus
Jesus clearly called only 12 men to be His apostles. Judas abandoned his call; when he was replaced, as described in Acts 1, it is interesting to note that no women were considered for his position, even though there were many women who would have fit the bill as faithful followers. Instead, Matthias was chosen (cf. Inter Insigniores, no. 14).
As John Paul II makes clear in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it is especially remarkable that Mary was not chosen:
... 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 pope goes on to mention the important and dignified roles that women have played throughout the history of the Church (also noted in Inter Insigniores, no. 6), and then makes the following important point:
Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: "the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the Saints (no. 3).
Such a perspective helps immensely in dealing with a delicate matter: the fact that a variety of women today feel called to the priesthood. They may well be confusing a desire for the priesthood within them with a more authentic and a higher calling, the call to holiness. Inter Insigniores no. 35 notes that "there is a universal vocation of all the baptized to the exercise of the royal priesthood by offering their lives to God and by giving witness for his praise."
Many argue that Jesus' choice of men only was conditioned by the historical context: people of the time simply could not accept women as leaders. But this argument is unsound. Jesus was very quick to re-figure or even dispense with Jewish customs (as opposed to essential truths of Judaism, such as monotheism, or the moral law as found in the Ten Commandments). Why not dispense with the Jewish custom of a male priesthood? Inter Insigniores no. 11 and 12, from which we paraphrase, gives some examples of Jesus' behavior:2
1) He showed His concern for a Samaritan woman (Jn 4:27) - Samaritans were shunned by much of Judaism of the time.
2) When the woman suffering from hemorrhages approached Him (Mt 9: 20-22) He took no notice of her state of legal impurity.
3) He allowed a sinful woman to approach Him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Lk 7:37ff).
4) He pardoned the woman caught in adultery, showing that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (Jn 8:11).
5) He challenged the chauvinism in Jewish law that allowed men to divorce their wives. "He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9)."
6) In His ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk 8:2-3).
7) The Gospels present women as the first witnesses and believers after the Resurrection.
Given these facts, it would seem quite natural, then, to have women apostles, and hence women priests. The fact that Christ retained the Jewish practice in this area suggests that there is more behind it than a mere custom. As John Paul II notes in his letter Mulieris Dignitatem:
In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time. Consequently, the assumption that he called men to be apostles in order to conform with the widespread mentality of his times, does not at all correspond to Christ's way of acting (no. 26).
We must also consider the consequences of claiming that Jesus did not intend, in calling twelve men to be apostles, the priesthood to be reserved for males. Consider this line of argument:
a) If in fact there is no doctrinal barrier to women becoming priests, then 60 generations of women have been wronged. Whether or not they wanted to become priests is not at issue. They should have been allowed the priesthood.
b) Now if this is the case, the cause for 60 generations of injustice is that Jesus appointed only male disciples. (Some might say the leaders of the early Church were the cause but clearly they were motivated by Jesus' action, which then remains the first cause.)3
c) Hence, Jesus made a mistake on a very crucial matter. If so, His divinity is seriously called into question.
d) The other possibility is that Jesus did God the Father's will, but that God the Father Himself did not foresee that such an action would result in so much discrimination. Of course, then God is not omniscient, and hence not God.
e) In a word, the argument for female priests denies either the Incarnation, or the omniscience of God.4
In sum, Jesus' own action is at the heart of the argument from Tradition.
A Constant Tradition
The second part of the argument from Tradition is that the apostles and their successors throughout history imitated Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the question of the male priesthood in one article, which articulates the first and second parts of the argument from Tradition:
"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) 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 (no. 1577).
Although Jewish society may not have welcomed a female priesthood, the Gentiles to whom Paul and others preached would certainly have been open to it. The Greek mystery cults, for instance, included priestesses. Hence, if the male priesthood was only a custom, conditioned by the historical setting of Jesus, then it seems likely that the early Church would have abandoned this custom among Gentile Christians (especially since the Council of Jerusalem made the momentous decision that Jewish customs need not be embraced by Gentiles converting to Christianity). That she did not again suggests that there is more behind the male priesthood than mere custom. Inter Insigniores is well worth quoting at length on this point:
When [the apostles] and Paul went beyond the confines of the Jewish world, the preaching of the Gospel and the Christian life in the Greco-Roman civilization impelled them to break with Mosaic practices, sometimes regretfully. They could therefore have envisaged conferring ordination on women, if they had not been convinced of their duty of fidelity to the Lord on this point. In the Hellenistic world, the cult of a number of pagan divinities was entrusted to priestesses.
The apostles certainly had available good candidates for priestesses if they had so chosen:
In fact we know from the book of the Acts and from the letters of Saint Paul that certain women worked with the Apostle for the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3). ... All these facts manifest within the Apostolic Church a considerable evolution vis-a-vis the customs of Judaism. Nevertheless at no time was there a question of conferring ordination on these women.
Interestingly, Paul himself uses different formulas, as noted in Inter Insigniores no. 17, when referring first to men and women who help him in his apostolate ("my fellow workers," Rom 16:3, Phil 4:2-3) and second to those set apart for the apostolic ministry and preaching of the Word such as Apollos and Timothy ("God's fellow workers," 1 Cor 3:9, 1 Thess 3:2).
It is true that there were some heretical sects in early Christianity that had priestesses (see Inter Insigniores, no. 6). These were Gnostic sects, and one hallmark of Gnosticism is a refusal to see any inherent goodness in the created order. Maleness and femaleness are closely bound to our creatureliness, and Gnostics were unable to see any meaning infused into such realities. It is understandable, then, that their ministry would be androgynous.
A common complaint about the early Church is that a certain misogynism is found in the writings of some of the Church Fathers, but as Inter Insigniores no. 6 notes it is not clear that such prejudice had any influence on their pastoral activity. It is always important to distinguish the doctrine taught by personnel of the Church from their own opinions on various matters. Christ's gift of infallibility means that the Magisterium will not err on matters of faith and morals, not that representatives of the Church will be perfect in all respects.
Also of import is that fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches have taught unanimously the same points as the Roman Catholic Church. As Inter Insigniores no. 9 notes, "Their unanimity on this point is all the more remarkable since in many other questions their discipline admits of a great diversity." For instance, priestly celibacy is a disciplinary, not doctrinal matter, in Catholicism. East and West practice differently on this matter. That the East shares the doctrine of male priesthood with us is a signal that the teaching is not in the realm of custom or discipline.
In sum, the Tradition has been so firm throughout the centuries that, as Inter Insigniores no. 8 notes, "the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law that was not challenged. ... each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church's desire to conform to the model left to her by the Lord." But of course such principles and laws have been challenged in the past thirty years. Hence, the recent Magisterium has had to respond, and it has done so carefully, patiently and firmly. And so, we now turn to the third aspect of the argument from Tradition. (Keep in mind that the arguments presented here simply establish the data about what Tradition has authoritatively taught.)
The Dogmatic Status of the Male Priesthood
We clearly see an unbroken tradition regarding the male priesthood. There is every reason to believe that it constitutes part of the dogmatic and infallible deposit of faith. Still, we must inquire about how a teaching enters the actual deposit of faith, and how this particular teaching is dogmatically taught. This teaching is infallible by virtue of - here is a mouthful -the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium.
The authority of Christ is found in the apostolic succession throughout the Christian centuries. Such an understanding is rooted in a sacramental view of reality that sees the human realm as capable of bearing absolute truth. The apostolic succession consists of human beings specially guided by the Holy Spirit. When we turn to the Magisterium, we are turning to the apostolic succession living in our own time. (For a fuller treatment of the concept of Tradition, see "Tradition: the Presence of Christ Echoing Across Time," The Catholic Faith, Nov./Dec. 1995).
It is by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium that the doctrine of the male priesthood is infallibly taught. When a) all bishops throughout the world, at any particular time in history, have b) concurred on some matter of faith and morals, c) teach it definitively, and d) in union with the teaching of the Bishop of Rome then that matter is considered to be infallibly taught. Note that it is not defined infallibly, as would be the case if there were an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. Whether taught infallibly or defined infallibly, the matter is still just as infallible.
Matters that are defined infallibly were taught infallibly prior to the extraordinary definition. Usually what causes a matter to be raised to the level of an infallible definition is some type of crisis requiring a more official definition. It is always a question of prudence as to whether or not to define a matter that is already infallibly taught by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium. Hence, the pope could have used the occasion of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to formulate an ex cathedra infallible definition, but he chose not to for prudential reasons. Likewise, the recent encyclical Evangelium Vitae could have been the context within which the pope defined infallibly the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life, on abortion, and on euthanasia. Instead, the pope (wisely in this author's opinion) used the encyclical to point out, in the midst of carefully reasoned argumentation, that these matters are already taught infallibly by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium. If some bishops today have taught otherwise, they themselves stand in conflict with the tradition, and in a sense are standing outside the apostolic tradition at least on a particular issue.
It is well worth noting that all moral matters that have infallible status are taught, not defined, infallibly by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium. Examples include the items noted above contained in Evangelium Vitae. To these we could add the Church's teachings on the nature of the conjugal act as unitive and procreative, which affects issues such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, contraception, and some of the new birth technologies. This is an opportune occasion to unmask one of the most popular arguments put forth by dissenters on such issues. You can quiz yourself by trying to find the fallacy in the following line of argument:5
a) It is argued that no matters of morality have ever been defined infallibly by the Magisterium.
b) Therefore, all matters of morality are in the realm of fallible teachings that do not demand our assent of faith, but rather assent of mind and will.
c) Such teachings have changed in the past. For instance, the teaching that condemned religious liberty was not infallible, and it changed at Vatican II.
d) We are in the midst of another such change regarding the issue of contraception and other related issues. Hence, while giving due respect to the Magisterium, it is legitimate to dissent from these teachings.
Answer: Point "a" is correct in what it states, but errs by omission. Matters of morality have not been defined infallibly, but they have been taught infallibly. One whole category of infallible teaching is ignored in this argument. Points "b" and "c" are true, but irrelevant, and point "d" is a false conclusion because some of its premises are irrelevant or incomplete.
What about the dogmatic status of the male priesthood? Until June of 1994, the question of the dogmatic status of the male priesthood was unresolved. Since it had not been challenged before recent decades, the Church had not had an opportunity for careful theological reflection on the nature of maleness and femaleness and how that might affect the priesthood. Certainly the current crisis has born and will continue to bear fruit in that regard. Up until Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it was probable but not definitive that the teaching was infallibly taught. Those in legitimate doubt about the infallibility of such teachings still were required to give the obsequium religiosum (reverent obedience) that Lumen Gentium asks of us for non-infallible teachings.
With Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, we find a clarification on the matter. Consider the final statement of the letter:
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 judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
While it is clear that the teaching is to be held definitively, the letter did not specify (as was done on the three issues noted above in Evangelium Vitae) that the teaching was infallibly taught by the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium (though the word "definitively" echoes one of the criteria by which a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium is to be considered infallible). Rather, the final statement gave the impression of being just on the verge of being an ex cathedra definition - the word "define" is conspicuously absent, but everything else is there!
One can understand the confusion this caused. Clearly the teaching had not been defined infallibly, and since it only came close to doing so, it made it appear as if the teaching might not be infallible. And since the document did not make clear reference to the other mode by which the teaching could be infallible -the ordinary universal episcopal Magisterium - the faithful were left somewhat in a state of perplexity. Hence, the official request for clarification and the response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger made it clear in this brief statement that the teaching was infallibly taught by the ordinary, universal, episcopal Magisterium.
Dr. Lowery is Associate Professor of Theology at the University of Dallas.

This is all very interesting, but as Mark pointed out then why does the RC church not allow married priests if indeed, Jesus picked married men as disciples?

Also, (I really want to say, who made you Pope? but I will be nice), the early church was not just limited to the cities that Paul visited? Christian communities were already in Britain, as well as other areas without the benefit of Paul! Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and much of the Western Christian world did not pay homage to the pope until the bishop in Rome became the most powerful bishop in the West.

So what the current Pope thinks does not have much weight with me.

Women were definitely an important part of Jesus' group. He wanted them to be with them. Women were deaconesses in Paul's time and played an important role (and not just to help women be dunked for baptism as the RC's allege).

As I have said often, when Celtic people were converted, women became abbesses that had a higher role than a bishop. It was only when Rome forced her influence on the north, that women were pushed into the background. This is historical fact, not just my opinion.

I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PRIEST! My point is that I have met Episcopal women priests (some, not many) who are very devout, holy women who are perfect in their positions. Some of these priests have left with their congregations to join other Anglican groups. Are you going to dismiss them all as revisionist scum? This is crazy.

I do not think that the orthodox churches would fall apart if women were participating as lay readers, alcolytes, lay eucharistic ministers or chaplains. I had all those roles and I am the same person today as I was then.

At the last Episcopal Church I attended, I was no longer able to be a lay eucharistic minister because I was "too orthodox" whatever that meant. Now I can not be one, because that is not the role of a woman? I just don't get it.

My husband says that is why he hates "religion."

I looked around at our church last week. If only men were allowed, we would have had two in the congregation. In my former Episcopal church, the men numbered about 12 every Sunday.

Again, there is nothing inherently evil or revisionist in being a woman.

Fiona

Again, there is nothing inherently evil or revisionist in being a woman.
quote by Fiona.

Of course not. Who said there was...?

"looked around at our church last week. If only men were allowed, we would have had two in the congregation. In my former Episcopal church, the men numbered about 12 every Sunday."
quote by Fiona.

Speaking as a male, with many male friends who are not Christians, I grieve for the image the Church has in Ontario as a "women's social club". It is no wonder young men my age scoff at the idea of going to church or Christianity...it is a feminine weakness...after all, the church is full of women right? Fishing or hockey seems infinitely more exciting and rewarding to these people...they can relate to their male buddies..teach their boys how to do stuff manly like excel in sports, etc.

I'm not advocating for them, or justifying such doings on their part. I just point out that no normal, moderately educated, non-Christian male, is going to consider the idea of spending an hour of their time listening to some woman tell them how to live their life. Men are selectively dense...

Even in churches with male clergy, the men are outnumbered...usually they die off before their wives..or there is a bunch of single mothers. The petty squabbles that go on beneath the surface between the various women...the little "competitions" and trivialities that consume some women are absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of most men...and they mock secretly...

On the whole, men see Church as more and more irrelevant, and prefer to leave it to the women. They send the kids and the weekly cheque with them and take the boat and go fishing with a six pack...after all he figures "if men can't be bothered with becoming ministers, it can't be that important for me..." and this whole "Bride of Christ thing..."
sure honey...whatever you say is fine, see you this afternoon...

do not think that the orthodox churches would fall apart if women were participating as lay readers, alcolytes, lay eucharistic ministers or chaplains. I had all those roles and I am the same person today as I was then.

I know some very orthodox priests within the angloCatholic denominations who have no problem with these roles held by women - the RCs also have no problem with this - where are you attending and what denomination that this is not allowed -

PS: I don't think the Pope is losing any sleep over the fact that you don't care about him - but you really should try reading some of his works - books and papers alike - he is a very wise, brilliant, man.

We also recognize the ancient primitive church office of Deaconess as a unique and important ministry for those women called to serve the church.
Taken from Christ the King Anglican Church in Hollywood, Florida

Fiona - I think you have some issues being a woman - you appear to be a warm, friendly, intelligent person - so you're a woman - so what?

Gentlemen--get back to basics. Read the Gospels and be instructed on what Jesus thought of women. Who were the women in the early church?

Read the posting from 5degrees above - it addresses those women who were involved with Jesus - most informative - and Fiona - why the argument with the Pope - this is not just "what the Pope thinks" - it is what the RCs teach as well as several "orthodox" denominations as well -

6degrees, I think you're the only one who answered the question of what a woman's role should be in the Church. If I heard you correctly, with Mother
Angelica, Mother Teresa, and Mary (Theotokis) this primary role is "mission." While I don't necessarily agree--I can understand the premise. Thank you for the good examples, I admire contribution of all the women you mention.

On the topic of women clergy and married clergy, many questions go unanswered.

Still noteworthy is the fact that the gospels were written by men, for men, and women are excluded from organizational power in the Church both in ancient times and (less so) now.

What of the question of the celebate RC priesthood? If the pope can change these rules, as he did in c. 1200AD, then why can't women be admitted to the
clergy? The RC clergy has been celebate for less time (800 years) than the RC clergy has been married (1200 years.) And does the recent precipitous
drop in priestly vocations perhaps provide an indication that it's time to open field? Or shall we just move blindly to the time when we have lay
people presiding at the worship services and distributing the hosts that have been consecrated by the bishop at the diocesan center? How many
parishes are without priests?

With leadership comes responsibility. Shytech74, if your post is accurate:

"On the whole, men see Church as more and more irrelevant, and prefer to leave it to the women. They send the kids and the weekly cheque with them
and take the boat and go fishing with a six pack...after all he figures "if men can't be bothered with becoming ministers, it can't be that important
for me..."

It's the men in power who have created this "irrelevant" Church you describe--not women. And my advice is to go fishing if you don't get anything out of Church. God looks into your heart not to your physical location. Sincere prayers said on a lake with a fishing pole would (I'm sure) be very pleasing to God. And I'm quite sure Jesus said a few prayers in a boat himself.

My point is as follows: the Network came face-to-face with at least one issue. The orthodox are of two minds on the topic of women's ordination and consecration.

We can enjoy the debate as an intellectual exercise but those of us who support women's ordination will never "go back." I, for one, would also never advocate that a parish be forced to accept a woman priest. But, using the example of the Network, there will need good-spirited coexistance on this issue if we are to successfully address the "gay" issue.

"Fiona - I think you have some issues being a woman - you appear to be a warm, friendly, intelligent person - so you're a woman - so what? " by geoff

And, yes Fiona, you "appear" warm, friendly, and intelligent even if you are a woman. So what? Over half the world lives with this deficiency.

And, yes Fiona, you "appear" warm, friendly, and intelligent even if you are a woman. So what? Over half the world lives with this deficiency.

No MarkP - it is NOT 'even if you are a woman" - it is "so you're a woman" - big difference -

"18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 16:18-20

So if the RC pope has the "keys to the kingdom" and "whatsoever he declares loosed on earth..."

Explain to me why (again) he "can't" ordain women?

from catholic.com: (remember that this is "discipline and not doctrine)

Biblical evidence for the discipline of celibacy can be found in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old, Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. "The word of the Lord came to me: 'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2).

Also in the Old Testament, God asked even married couples to practice celibacy on certain occasions. For example, Moses asked the Israelites to abstain from marital intimacy while he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15), and Jewish tradition attests that he remained celibate for life following the command of Exodus 9:15 and Deuteronomy 5:28. The Lord also asked that the priests refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their time of service in the temple. In yet another example, the priests ordered King David and his people to abstain from marital relations on the occasion of eating the holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4).

In all these instances, there is a theme of abstaining from marital relations due to the presence of something very holy. It is not that the marital act is sinful, but that when one is in such proximity to God, it is right to offer him an undivided mind, heart, and body. If it was fitting under the Old Covenant to serve the temple, to approach God, and receive the holy bread with a consecrated body, it is no surprise that permanent celibacy is fitting for a Roman Catholic priest, since his priestly service is continual.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus states, "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (19:12 NAB). This is an invitation from Christ to live as he did, and there can be nothing unacceptable in that.

Paul recognized the wisdom in this, and encouraged celibacy in order to free a man to be anxious about the things of the Lord and to serve him undividedly (1 Cor 7:8,32-35). In his words, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. . . . I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:8, 32-35, 38).

Explain to me why (again) he "can't" ordain women?

I thought the posting by 6degrees was very clear -

Shytech:

I loved this part of your post "The petty squabbles that go on beneath the surface between the various women...the little "competitions" and trivialities that consume some women are absolutely ridiculous in the eyes of most men...and they mock secretly..."

Have you had the opportunity to read any of the postings of the men of this site?

At any rate, for those of you who care, just as the song says, "I enjoy being a girl!" If I had had the choice, which I didn't I would have chosen to have born a woman, as long as it was stipulated that I was to be born in a Christian country. So let's put that "issue" of mine to rest.

I admire the present Pope immensely as I did the former. But he is not my pope. Enough said. I am not crossing the Tiber.

However, now that England has just experienced another terrorist attack, we realize again that there are more important issues for Christians than what prayer book we use and what the sex (I did not say, Fr Steve, what sexual perversion) of the person is who is leading us in prayer. We are back to the time of the Crusades--people want to either kill us (as well as Jews and anyone else they think are infidels) or convert us by the sword. This is the sword of Islam. What are we going to do as Christians?

Fiona, the Infidel

Geoff, my wife says I "do" sarcasm very badly and I think she's right. I hate it when she's right.

For you to say: "I think you have some issues being a woman.." to Fiona is, I think, very condescending. I think it's typical of the way men disparage women and demean their self esteem. Although, from your previous posts, I doubt this is what you had in mind. You appear to be a very kind and thoughtful person.

Let's face it, women often have their own ways of disparaging men--so nobody's perfect.

It just seems that the genders seem to struggle to be kind to each other and that we all carry a heritage of unkindness and inhospitality that (in your case and my case) we MAY have inherited from our "fathers."

"However, now that England has just experienced another terrorist attack, we realize again that there are more important issues for Christians "
quote by Fiona.

Amen!

The squabbles I had in mind are not the ones we debate on here Fiona... They are the great debates about "who made the most sandwiches at the last luncheon" or "which one of us has done the best or most work, or held the presidency the longest, in the women's ministry dep't" "who has sewn the cutest baby booties for the local hospital..." etc. Stuff that NON CHRISTIAN (note my target subject there) blue collar men consider irrelevant drivel.

We dress up in our pretty clothes, go to our pretty little church, sing pretty songs (an octave too high for most men who just opt out to avoid straining their voice), and tell pretty Bible stories...pretty little "sermonettes" in our "churchettes" full of 'christianettes"...and the big items of interest after the service are the pretty altar flowers, and so and so's pretty new baby.

Completely feminine. Shoot me.

MarkP: Point well taken and that is not what I meant - you are correct - However, I see many women who feel "left out" because they cannot do what men do - and find no worth because of it - I certainly would not want my mother to be my father - I know I cannot have a baby - no matter how hard I try - and I envy women for that - women are wonderful creatures - I do not consider them "unequal" = merely different - some women feel they don't measure up because they are not men - and we all know this is not the case. Fiona has to find her way and stop putting obstacles in her own path - because she is not a man - there are wonderful opportunities for women in the church - all churches - one does not have to "just" join the Altar Guild - by the way, I do know of some priests who go the the Director of the Altar Guild for advice re certain services - she is demeaning herself - unnecessarily so - see - you defer to your wife - there is no problem with that - sometimes women do know better - there is also that old adage "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" - I think the feminist movement in many ways hurt all of us - I believe in equal pay for equal work = but we are not the same and there is absolutely no reason for a woman to feel any less productive, intelligent, useful, whatever, than a man. I think there have been some good posts along these lines - and women should always remember - Mary was the Mother of God = how much more an important role can one have! Fiono should revel in the fact that she is a woman - besides, I don't think she would want to go through a trans-gender operation - there are many, many rewards in being female - and feminine - our women are really missing the point - none of this is meant to be disparaging - I just hate to see someone - male or female - go through life feeling they have been short-changed because of their sex.

PLEASE! LET'S PUT THIS TO REST--I DO NOT FEEL SHORT CHANGED.

FIONA