Women Priests

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Interesting that the Catholic notion of the priesthood seems centered on sacramental ministry. Acts 6:6-7 refers to the appointment of the seven members of the Hellenist party who became priest after being appointed by the Twelve. The Seven's ministry was neither sacramental nor missionary.

However this was not the case in the development of the Catholic Church of Ireland, (due to the non-influence of the Church of Rome on the fledging Church of Ireland).

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

However this was not the case in the development of the Catholic Church of Ireland, (due to the non-influence of the Church of Rome on the fledging Church of Ireland).

It seems the evidence is scattered:

Were women Ordained as Priests or Bishops in the Celtic churches?

According to reliable sources, when Saint Brigid was to be professed as a nun and blessed as Abbess, Saint Mel, the Bishop, read the prayers of consecration of a Bishop over her. Some said it was a mistake, but due to the circumstances with various Bishops wandering Ireland, it was most probably a way to allow Saint Brigid to administer her convent without Bishops' making claim to authority over the community.

There is no indication that Saint Brigid ever functioned as a Bishop. No Bishop ever claimed that she was one of the previous Bishops in his Succession (the list giving the names of the Bishops that Consecrated him, and the Bishops that Consecrated them, etc., back to the time of Christ). Furthermore, we know that no Abbess or Archabbess ever functioned as a Bishop. Each abbey had its own Priest and each arch-abbey had its own Bishop. These male chaplains reported to the Abbess. Had the Abbess been a Bishop or Priest, there would have been no need for a chaplain to be available to administer the Sacraments or to profess nuns.

http://celticchristianity.org/library/faq.html

Sounds like a standard male monopoly on the priesthood and its sacramental prerogatives.

[Netti-Netti]

Jesus abolished the earthly priesthood when he became mankind's only intermediary to G-d.


If Jesus were taken seriously, no one would see the need for an ecclesiastical system, for priests (male or female), for bishops (male or female), for casuistic defenders of ideologies that are removed from core teachings, for a hierarchical distribution of religious work, for differential social status or power relations, let alone church land ownership, tolerance for human slavery, aggressive evangelism, crusades of orthodoxy, or collusion with evil empires.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It seems the evidence is scattered:

Were women Ordained as Priests or Bishops in the Celtic churches?

According to reliable sources, when Saint Brigid was to be professed as a nun and blessed as Abbess, Saint Mel, the Bishop, read the prayers of consecration of a Bishop over her. Some said it was a mistake, but due to the circumstances with various Bishops wandering Ireland, it was most probably a way to allow Saint Brigid to administer her convent without Bishops' making claim to authority over the community.

There is no indication that Saint Brigid ever functioned as a Bishop. No Bishop ever claimed that she was one of the previous Bishops in his Succession (the list giving the names of the Bishops that Consecrated him, and the Bishops that Consecrated them, etc., back to the time of Christ). Furthermore, we know that no Abbess or Archabbess ever functioned as a Bishop. Each abbey had its own Priest and each arch-abbey had its own Bishop. These male chaplains reported to the Abbess. Had the Abbess been a Bishop or Priest, there would have been no need for a chaplain to be available to administer the Sacraments or to profess nuns.

http://celticchristianity.org/library/faq.html

Sounds like a standard male monopoly on the priesthood and its sacramental prerogatives.

Again, I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else one way or the other. None of us were there. History is subject to personal translation/interpretation. What I know of Irish history and women priests is irrelevant to one who wishes not to acknowledge such "facts".

take care.

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Jesus abolished the earthly priesthood when he became mankind's only intermediary to G-d.


If Jesus were taken seriously, no one would see the need for an ecclesiastical system, for priests (male or female), for bishops (male or female), for casuistic defenders of ideologies that are removed from core teachings, for a hierarchical distribution of religious work, for differential social status or power relations, let alone church land ownership, tolerance for human slavery, aggressive evangelism, crusades of orthodoxy, or collusion with evil empires.

No, Jesus never abolished anything, nor did he come to change the law, but rather to uphold the law...(his own words).

I'm not certain where you are leading with this, but it hint's strongly of an anti -something as opposed to discussing women priests...

v/r

Q

[greymare]

well, i also would love to hear more about this subject and the abbessess. lol

[Francis king]

thanks q... for the celtic abbesses info...

and thanks to seattlegal... for the link to the, erm, urantia book... (Is it a new cult?)

to q, (and Thomas), I say... (jokingly)... take no notice of thomas, Q, I have it on authority he wears orange...

" One educated Irishman does not a rennaissance make"... Ur a cheeky one, Thomas...

Netti-Netti- u sound like a gnostic...lol...

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Francis king

Netti-Netti- u sound like a gnostic...lol...

Last time I did the Beliefnet religions test, I was 100% Mahayana Buddhist. Before that I was mostly Sikh. It seems I'm in flux.

Don't know anything about Sikhism except that they have special lifestyle requirements that are a bit of a nuisance, that "Sikh" means "disciple, learner" and that daily prayers for them tend along the lines of Jesus' love ethic and Buddhist Bodhisattva vows.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Let me first say, as a holder of an Irish passport I love the idea of the Irish saving Europe, and to hear an Irishman tell it, you'd swear it was true ... but let's not go overboard. I know of John Scottus Eriugena reintroducing Plato and St Maximus to his king ... but one swallow doesn't make a summer, and one educated Irishman doesn't make a renaissance.

Let us also remember that the 'Celtic Christian' was effectively a Christian who maintained a certain lyricism of heart ... whilst the Fathers of the East went to the Desert, in the absence of deserts the Fathers of the West went to the wild headlands and islands to establish their communities.

+++

Let's also clarify — from the Abessess I've looked at, they seemed to have followed the normal procedure of taking the veil — becoming a nun — although obviously the educated womenfolk of the nobility because of their education and experience would have risen quicker in the order.

And an abbess did wield a fair amount of authority, and indeed comparable to a bishop, but she was not an ordained priest, and therefore can undertake none of the sacerdotal functions nor is invested with the authority and charism of the bishop on matters of faith and morals.

But ... and this is a big but ... anyone ordaining a woman would be in breach of the Faith and the ordination would be illicit and defective. The East did not ordain women ... in fact as far as I know no Christian community ordained women and if the Irish did, then that was an error.

At the Synod of Whitby — the famous meeting between the Ionian or 'Celtic' Tradition and Rome — matters under dispute were the dating of Ester (the Irish followed the Eastern rule), the monastic tonsure ... and a new idea that spread right across Europe, private as opposed to public confession.

Thomas

I'm a bit slow...I just caught on to the "one Irishman telling a story"... and "one educated Irishman does not make for a renaissance". lol

How many "irishmen/women" would it take to make for a renaissance? I was always taught that if one could move a woman's heart, then 10 could move the world, and 100, the universe (as long as Mary Whiskey didn't get involved)...

"Dia's Muire duit", Thomas.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Jesus abolished the earthly priesthood when he became mankind's only intermediary to G-d.


If Jesus were taken seriously, no one would see the need for an ecclesiastical system, for priests (male or female), for bishops (male or female), for casuistic defenders of ideologies that are removed from core teachings, for a hierarchical distribution of religious work, for differential social status or power relations, let alone church land ownership, tolerance for human slavery, aggressive evangelism, crusades of orthodoxy, or collusion with evil empires.

Yeah, that seems to go back to Jeremiah 31:27-34, where everyone will have the law written on their heart, and no one will say "know the Lord," because they will all know God. Sour grapes will longer be propagated--past sins will be forgiven. There will no longer be a need for a (church) bureaucracy to contain the sour grapes.

That's probably why I don't really have a problem with women being excluded from the bureaucracy--the bureaucracy is not the be-all, end-all thing. The Holy Spirit, not the bureaucracy, is really where it's at.

[greymare]

actually s/g that makes a whole lotta sense to me
chicks arent missing out on anything, they dont NEED to be ordained. (they KNOW). LOL


sorry guys, you just dont get it.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by greymare

sorry guys, you just dont get it.

Not often enough...apparently.

[greymare]

lol

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, Jesus never abolished anything, nor did he come to change the law, but rather to uphold the law...(his own words).

Hi Q,

Just wanted to call your attention to Luke 24:44. This is Jesus speaking: "all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."

Jesus did uphold the (Mosaic law) which calls for perfect obedience and which anticipated his Messiahship by prophesy. However, at the same time he did abolish the old in important ways. Jesus ushered in the New Covenant: "He is the mediator of a new covenant" ~ Hebrews 9:15

The New Covenant replaced the old. At the same time, it abolished the old priesthood that was associated with the Old Covenant. As a result, Jesus made any other mediator or priest unnecessary. In that sense, Jesus abolished the need for a priesthood. Here it is: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Messiah Christ Jesus." ~Timothy 2:5

Jesus made priests obsolete. He abolished the priesthood principally because he replaced all other priests, which had theretofore failed to guide mankind to perfection. They were the purveyors of an ineffectual system, with "gifts and sacrifices" that could not "make the worshiper perfect in conscience since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body" ~ Hebrews 9:9-10

Far from endorsing a continuation of the old system, the Gospel shows a new way for the faithful, who "like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." ~1 Peter 2:5

Thomas has alluded to the well-worn premise that we need priests to perform sacramental functions and that the priesthood is presumably defined by these functions. As noted previously (my Post #45), the Biblical support for this view is inferred. Jesus never said anybody needed to be ordained as priest in order to do any sacramental ministry.

Remarkably, as noted previously (my Post #45), none of primary sacramental functions that the Church now holds out to be "priestly" were strictly within the purview of ordained priests in the early Church. The early Church practices confirm this in that people other than priests were doing Christian "priestly" stuff - sacramental ministry, evangelism, and charity. In the early church there was nothing so special about "priestly" work that non-priests couldn't do it. The bureaucratic cult of paid professionals is a later invention.

The position that have been implicitly attributed to Jesus by the church - i.e, that there should be a priestly class - has no basis in Jesus' teachings. The teachings in fact contradict the position ascribed to him in this regard.

I'm not certain where you are leading with this, but it hint's strongly of an anti -something as opposed to discussing women priests...

I'm not against anything I am for trying to follow Jesus' teachings faithfully. The teachings would seem fairly clear and do not in any way preclude a universal priesthood that includes women. In fact, women in the priesthood is totally compatible with Jesus's teachings if you think of it in terms that he had in mind, namely, universal priesthood. That is, the bureaucratic cult of paid professionals is a later invention that would appear to be contrary to Jesus' vision for this evolutionary planet.

All I'm saying is that this is not really an ecclesiastical issue. It's a matter of hearing the Word. Again, Jesus never said there should be priesthood ordinations. He never said there should be a cult of people who assume special powers that presumably are unavailable to others. What Jesus called for is more like a "nation of priests" that would include all brothers and sisters who are equal before G-d, without special function or priviledge: "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God" ~1 Peter 2:9

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That's probably why I don't really have a problem with women being excluded from the bureaucracy--the bureaucracy is not the be-all, end-all thing. The Holy Spirit, not the bureaucracy, is really where it's at.

Yes! That's what I was getting at. The issue is not whether women should or should not be priests. The real question is: should there be any priestly class at all? My reading of what Jesus said is that the answer is: No.

To my way of thinking, priestly ordination and the denial thereof to women, is interesting mainly from a sociological perspective for someone who wants to study sexism in the Church.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hi Q,

Just wanted to call your attention to Luke 24:44. This is Jesus speaking: "all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."

Jesus did uphold the (Mosaic law) which calls for perfect obedience and which anticipated his Messiahship by prophesy. However, at the same time he did abolish the old in important ways. Jesus ushered in the New Covenant: "He is the mediator of a new covenant" ~ Hebrews 9:15

The New Covenant replaced the old. At the same time, it abolished the old priesthood that was associated with the Old Covenant. As a result, Jesus made any other mediator or priest unnecessary. In that sense, Jesus abolished the need for a priesthood. Here it is: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Messiah Christ Jesus." ~Timothy 2:5

Jesus made priests obsolete. He abolished the priesthood principally because he replaced all other priests, which had theretofore failed to guide mankind to perfection. They were the purveyors of an ineffectual system, with "gifts and sacrifices" that could not "make the worshiper perfect in conscience since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body" ~ Hebrews 9:9-10

Far from endorsing a continuation of the old system, the Gospel shows a new way for the faithful, who "like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." ~1 Peter 2:5

Thomas has alluded to the well-worn premise that we need priests to perform sacramental functions and that the priesthood is presumably defined by these functions. As noted previously (my Post #45), the Biblical support for this view is inferred. Jesus never said anybody needed to be ordained as priest in ordee to do sacramental ministry.

Remarkably, as noted previously (my Post #45), none of primary sacramental functions that the Church now holds out to be "priestly" were strictly within the purview of ordained priests in the early Church. The early Church practices confirm this in that people other than priests were doing Christian "priestly" stuff - sacramental ministry, evangelism, and charity. In the early church there was nothing so special about "priestly" work that non-priests couldn't do it. The bureaucratic cult of paid professionals is a later invention.

The position that have been implicitly attributed to Jesus by the church - i.e, that there should be a priestly class - has no basis in any of Jesus' teachings and that the teachings in fact contradict the position ascribed to him in this regard.


I'm not against anything I am for trying to follow Jesus' teachings faithfully. The teachings would seem fairly clear and do not in any way preclude a universal priesthood that includes women. In fact, women in the priesthood is totally compatible with Jesus's teachings if you think of it in terms that he had in mind, namely, universal priesthood. That is, the bureaucratic cult of paid professionals is a later invention that would appear to be contrary to Jesus' vision for this evolutionary planet.

All I'm saying is that this is not really an ecclesiastical issue. It's a matter of hearing the Word. Again, Jesus never said there should be priesthood ordinations. He never said there should be a cult of people who assume special powers that presumably are unavailable to others. What Jesus called for is more like a "nation of priests" that would include all brothers and sisters who are equal before G-d, without special function or priviledge: "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God" ~1 Peter 2:9...

Um, you're also preaching to the choir Netti.

I don't need a mediator to converse between me and Christ either...

Never did.

The question was about Women priests, and I merely presented historical issues pertaining to actual catholic priests who happened to be women...

v/r

Q