When proponents on both sides of an issue are both wrong!
I came across an interesting exchange on the opinion pages of the Cincinnati Enquirer regarding women in the Roman Catholic priesthood. The first letter was from Heidi Bright Parales, titled Anti-female priests decree not based on Bible. Here is a sample of her reasoning....
Why does the Catholic Church ban women's ordination? Because Christ chose only men for his apostolate, the pope says.
There are two serious problems with this assertion.
First, Jesus also selected women apostles. In fact, Jesus selected Mary Magdalene for his original apostle. At the tomb scene, Jesus deliberately did not appear to his male disciples, including Peter and John; he waited until they left before appearing to Mary Magdalene (John 20). Then he commissioned her to tell his followers he had appeared, making her the primary witness to the Resurrection. This transformed her into the unique role of first apostle, the earliest person sent to tell Jesus' followers he had risen from the grave. If Jesus could entrust a woman with the status of primary apostle, why can't the Vatican?
Well the glaring issue here is that there is no indication that Mary Magdalene was "ordained" an apostle nor does she act in the capacity of one anywhere in the Bible. Was she a follower, one with a unique blessing of meeting the Risen Christ? Of course, but that doesn't make her an apostle and she has never been considered an apostle by the church.
A second critical problem lies with the Vatican's explanation for excluding women. Even if we were to agree that Christ chose only males for his apostolate, it also is true that he selected only from among Jews. If we follow the Vatican's reason to its logical conclusion, then the church should be ordaining only Jewish men from the Middle East for the priesthood.
What Ms. Parales is missing is that while the Bible does away with ethnic and racial distinctions between believers, it never does away with the explicit command that the office of bishop/elder be held exclusively by males. Fact is, if you are a Roman
On the response was Rev. Kyle Schnippel, director of vocation's for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. His rebuttal is titled: Discipleship, priesthood aren't the same. A sample from the Reverend...
In her "Your Voice" column "Anti-female priests decree not based on Bible" (May 31), Heidi Bright Parales commits a common but serious flaw: She ignores the distinction between the discipleship demanded by all Christians versus the ministerial priesthood bestowed upon the Twelve Apostles during the Last Supper.
All disciples have an obligation to make Christ known through the witness of their lives: Mary Magdalene did in the post-Resurrection accounts in the Gospels; Mary, the mother of the Lord, did in the Nativity narrative; and Peter, John and Paul, and many others, did throughout the Acts of the Apostles.
However, this commission to go forth and preach is quite different from the obligations given to those chosen for a special ministry and passed on through prayer and the laying on of hands: the Twelve Apostles.
He makes a valid point, that being called to be a disciple and being called to the ministry. What is ironic is that both of them are arguing about the ministry and both of them are wrong. The ministry of Christ is not something that is granted just because of a sincere desire but through very specific qualifications, but it is also not the Roman view of a special class above the people, standing in place of and between the laity and God in the place that Christ alone functions in. Both very passionate about their argument, but both wrong because their basic assumptions about the priesthood are wrong.
I came across an interesting exchange on the opinion pages of the Cincinnati Enquirer regarding women in the Roman Catholic priesthood. The first letter was from Heidi Bright Parales, titled Anti-female priests decree not based on Bible. Here is a sample of her reasoning....
Why does the Catholic Church ban women's ordination? Because Christ chose only men for his apostolate, the pope says.
There are two serious problems with this assertion.
First, Jesus also selected women apostles. In fact, Jesus selected Mary Magdalene for his original apostle. At the tomb scene, Jesus deliberately did not appear to his male disciples, including Peter and John; he waited until they left before appearing to Mary Magdalene (John 20). Then he commissioned her to tell his followers he had appeared, making her the primary witness to the Resurrection. This transformed her into the unique role of first apostle, the earliest person sent to tell Jesus' followers he had risen from the grave. If Jesus could entrust a woman with the status of primary apostle, why can't the Vatican?
Well the glaring issue here is that there is no indication that Mary Magdalene was "ordained" an apostle nor does she act in the capacity of one anywhere in the Bible. Was she a follower, one with a unique blessing of meeting the Risen Christ? Of course, but that doesn't make her an apostle and she has never been considered an apostle by the church.
A second critical problem lies with the Vatican's explanation for excluding women. Even if we were to agree that Christ chose only males for his apostolate, it also is true that he selected only from among Jews. If we follow the Vatican's reason to its logical conclusion, then the church should be ordaining only Jewish men from the Middle East for the priesthood.
What Ms. Parales is missing is that while the Bible does away with ethnic and racial distinctions between believers, it never does away with the explicit command that the office of bishop/elder be held exclusively by males. Fact is, if you are a Roman
On the response was Rev. Kyle Schnippel, director of vocation's for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. His rebuttal is titled: Discipleship, priesthood aren't the same. A sample from the Reverend...
In her "Your Voice" column "Anti-female priests decree not based on Bible" (May 31), Heidi Bright Parales commits a common but serious flaw: She ignores the distinction between the discipleship demanded by all Christians versus the ministerial priesthood bestowed upon the Twelve Apostles during the Last Supper.
All disciples have an obligation to make Christ known through the witness of their lives: Mary Magdalene did in the post-Resurrection accounts in the Gospels; Mary, the mother of the Lord, did in the Nativity narrative; and Peter, John and Paul, and many others, did throughout the Acts of the Apostles.
However, this commission to go forth and preach is quite different from the obligations given to those chosen for a special ministry and passed on through prayer and the laying on of hands: the Twelve Apostles.
He makes a valid point, that being called to be a disciple and being called to the ministry. What is ironic is that both of them are arguing about the ministry and both of them are wrong. The ministry of Christ is not something that is granted just because of a sincere desire but through very specific qualifications, but it is also not the Roman view of a special class above the people, standing in place of and between the laity and God in the place that Christ alone functions in. Both very passionate about their argument, but both wrong because their basic assumptions about the priesthood are wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment