24. Distorted Scriptures

An Argument Against Priestesses

John 3:16-17; 6:54-56 - Bread of Life & Cup of Salvation

The first reference to John merely states that God sent his SON into the world that it might be saved through HIM. As for the second, look at what Jesus says in the prior verse, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the SON OF MAN and drink HIS blood, you do not have life within you." Sorry, this reinforces the teaching of an exclusively male Christian priesthood. What bible are you reading?

Matthew 4:1-10; John 18:36 - Servant Messiah

I fail to see how Matthew's rendition of the temptation scene is applicable to your argument. Do you just pick verses at random and hope they apply? Notice the footnotes in the New American translation: "Jesus, proclaimed SON of God at his baptism, is subjected to a triple temptation. Obedience to the FATHER is a characteristic of true SONSHIP, . . . ." The second citation is Christ's admission that his kingdom is not of this world. Again, what does this have to do with women priests? After Pentecost, we know his kingdom will be breaking into the world through the vehicle of his Church.

John 4:27; 16:13; Galatians 3:27-28; Hebrews 7; Acts 15 - New Order

Jesus talks to the Samaritan woman. However, instead of being evidence that Jesus was sympathetic to the notion of women priests, it merely illustrated that his message of repentence, faith, and salvation should have universal significance. Indeed, this case illumines the fact that Jesus was not hesitant to shake the status-quo, as in this instance wherein he speaks to a foreigner, heretic, and a promiscuous "unclean" woman. Nevertheless, he still did not create a female priesthood. Sorry, you just scored a point for the other side! The second citation reflects the fact that the Lord simply did not want to overwhelm his disciples. Later would come the Paraclete who would confirm them in the truth. You take things out of context and give them unsubstantiated and false content. Jesus did not refrain from instituting women priests because he would have to impose them by force; rather, it was because such was counter to his will and the elected economy of salvation. The mention of Galatians has nothing at all to do with ordination but is a baptismal formula expressing ethnic, socio-economic, and sexual equality in Christ the Savior. This putting on Christ is inseparable from our acquisition of salvific grace. As for Hebrews, the entire letter reinforces the status-quo. Christ as the SON of God is forever the perfect priest: "For the law appoints MEN subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a SON, who has been made perfect forever." Jesus is still SON. Earthly priests who participate in his high priesthood must literally be SON. Your citation of Acts 15 is too vague to know what you want to draw from it. Certainly at the Council of Jerusalem, baptism was given precedence over circumcision as the rite of initiation; but, what does this have to do with priesthood. Yes, there is a new order or dispensation, but the rupture with the past is not complete. There is also continuity and progression from the Jewish inheritance, most notably in the Jewish Messiah who is the SON of God. The letter to the Apostles seems to stress the male leadership of Christ's Church: "The apostles and presbyters (priests), your BROTHERS, to the BROTHERS in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings." Again, a clear and honest review of the texts contradicts your position.

Matthew 12:8; 16:19; 18:18 - Authority to Ordain Women

The first citation is in reference to Christ, not the Church. "For the SON of MAN is Lord of the sabbath." Right, and if it is the will of Christ that only men can be ordained, then ONLY CHRIST can change it. The Church is BOUND by what it has formally received. The citations about the keys are crucial, especially regarding sin and pardon, the precepts of the Church, and disciplinary aspects of the Church's structure and tradition. However, if the Church were to act against the will of Christ, as you would force it to do, Jesus could rightly say from verse 23: "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." Thus, the authority of the Church, placed in Peter, is not unlimited. The Church can get rid of women's Mass veils, the subdiaconate, the agape meal, etc. BUT there are revealed things at the core of the Church's deposit of faith that are unchangeable-- things like the resurrection, the eucharistic presence, the ten commandments, the male priesthood, etc. Just as God gave us the decalogue, divine positive laws, the Church is powerless to abrogate them. However, where she is the lawgiver, as in the precepts, she can alter them according to the powers invested in the keys. Please read von Balthasar's book, The Office of Peter.

John 10:10 - Abundant Life of Grace

Huh? Okay, Christ comes to give us abundant life, but I suspect by surplanting your will over that of Christ and his Church on the issue of women priests, you are more like the thief in this passage who comes to steal and slaughter and destroy. I see no connection with this topic. Any link between the Church and the thief is contrived and unscriptural.

Matthew 19:11-12 - Priestly Celibacy

Actually the citation for celibacy is in verse 10 and this one is misplaced in your handout. The citation here goes under your next heading. The Church contends that all men called to priesthood will also be given the charism of single-hearted love. Christ works with his Church and gives his priests the necessary graces to fulfill their vocations. I dare anyone to show me a man who has left priesthood for the love of a woman who did not on some level forget his life of prayer and his union with the Church, the bride of Christ.

Acts 1:21-23 - Against Compulsory Celibacy

There is nothing in this citation about any kind of celibacy. Rather, it is about the selection of another MAN to take the place of Judas, who turned traitor.

John 6:35-58; 17:21-23; Colossians 2:9-12 - Gifts Transcend Gender

The elements of the institution are FOOD, Jesus gives them an identification with HIMSELF. It is unnecessary to see gender in the accidents of the Eucharist. Later in chapter 6, Jesus says: "For this is the will of my FATHER, that everyone who sees the SON and believes in HIM may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day. . . . Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the SON of MAN and drink HIS blood, you do not have life within you." You must not take passages out of context. You twist their meaning. The second citation is a reference to work on the sabbath and Jesus contrasts circumcision (purifying the man by a removal of flesh) with his healing of a man (person) on the sabbath. If one is legitimate then so must the latter be. Nothing at all is said about women or ordination. It is not topical to these verses. The citation from Colossians as in Paul's baptismal formula is specifically regarding initiation into the Body of Christ, not Holy Orders. Baptism conforms the faithful to Christ as his body, making possible the laity's active discipleship in society while passively disposing them to the receptivity necessary in regards to the sacramental life. Ordination builds upon the first sacraments, more perfectly aligning and sealing the Christological identity of the "sacerdotal" priest with Christ the head, taking a secondary role in the political life which he admonishes upon but relegates to the laity; while he ascribes to himself as an "alter Christus," the active task of shepherding through preaching and administering the divine mysteries, particularly the Eucharist and Penance. There is a difference.

Not a single one of your Scripture quotations has anything to do with this topic and is just filler for the vacuum in your research. This is all getting rather embarrassing. Do you have any new approaches to the question of women's ordination or are you just going to continue with the same aborted lines of thought previously presented? It is my hope that I will so saturate you with the futility of your endeavor that you will see sense and give it up. Your last couple of responses really were poor and did nothing to take away from my observations. And I should say, I am putting only minimal effort into this project. Before you write further, I would urge you to acquire Manfred Hauke's book, Women in the Priesthood? from Ignatius Press. It is probably the best current treatment on the question. I must warn you that it is a concise work by a serious German scholar and is just shy of 500 pages. Newman Bookstore near Catholic University can get it for you. For the sake of a truly educated dialogue, hold your correspondence until you are well versed with his treatment of this subject. It will save you from more errors and unnecessary work. Hopefully it will systematically answer the many questions that necessity forces me to ramble upon as a simple parish priest.