The Tablet is actively campaigning for the ordination of women

The Tablet, the self styled ‘International Catholic weekly, is actively campaigning for the ordination of women to the priesthood in open defiance of the Magisterium of the Church.

For the past five weeks The Tablet has run adverts from the dissenting group, Women can be priests, and in the latest issue has run an article by Elena Curti promoting the ordination of women under the title, ‘The issue that keeps resurfacing’.

The five adverts from ‘Women can be priests’ is an invitation for others to join their campaign, ‘Join our campaign and become one of our 72 disciples’. It continues, ‘To help us enlighten the Church visit:

By running the advert over five weeks and commissioning and publishing the article promoting the campaign for women priests The Tablet is openly advocating and supporting this dissent.

The Tablet’s campaign is in open defiance of Blessed John Paul II’s definitive statement ‘ 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’ (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Pope Benedict XVI has explained the significance of Pope John Paul II’s judgment in his recent interview with Peter Seewald:

‘John Paul II’s formulation is very important: The Church has “no authority” to ordain women. The point is not that we are saying that we don’t want to, but that we can’t. The Lord gave the Church a form with the Twelve and, as their successors, with the bishops andthe presbyters, the priests. This form of the Church is not something we ourselves have produced. It is howhe constituted the Church. Following this is an act of obedience. This obedience may be arduous in today’s situation. But it is important precisely for the Churchto show that we are not a regime based on arbitrary rule. We cannot do what we want. Rather, the Lord has a will for us, a will to which we adhere, even though doing so is arduous and difficult in this culture and civilization.’

Pope Benedict goes on to emphasize the contribution women make to the life of the Church in other important vocations:

‘Incidentally, women have so many great andmeaningful functions in the Church that there can be no question of discrimination. That would be the case if the priesthood were a sort of dominion, whereas it is actually intended to be pure service. If you look at the history of the Church, women—from Mary to Monicaand all the way down to Mother Teresa—have so eminenta significance that in many respects they shape the image of the Church more than men do. Just think of major Catholic feast days such as Corpus Christi or Mercy Sunday, which originated with women. In Rome, for example, there is even a Church where not a single man can be seen in any of the altarpieces.’ (Light of the World, p.150-151)

The article by Elena Curti supporting the ordination of women justifies its dissent by pointing to the positive statements about women’s ordination by Bishop Morris, recently removed from his Diocese, Bishop Markus Buchel of Sankt Gallen and Bishop Gebhard Furts of Rottenburg-Stuttgart. Also, Elena Curt quotes Tina Beattie’s suggestion of tacit support from the Bishops of England and Wales:

‘Tina Beattie, professor of Catholic studies at Roehampton University, said bishops in England and Wales were maintaining a public silence on women’s ordination but were nevertheless allowing lay Catholics and theologians the freedom to express their views. As an example, she pointed to the fact that Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics, recently delivered a ‘Faith Matters’ lecture at Westminster Cathedral Hall supporting women’s ordination’. p. 7

Protect the Pope comment: The Tablet’s support of the ordination of women is pointless and cruel. Its pointless because the Church has spoken definitively of her incapacity to admit women to Holy Orders. To do so would be to join the Protestant ecclesial communities rejection of the Church’s apostolic faith.

It is cruel because it encourages a tiny minority of Catholic women to misread their unique vocation from God and go down a fruitless path. The Tablet is encouraging the mistaken subjectivist understanding of vocation to Holy Orders. It is never enough for an individual, male or female, to believe they have a vocation to priesthood or the diaconate. It is only recognized as a genuine vocation if the Church judges so and publicly acknowledges it.

Pope John Paul’s formal statement, and Pope Benedict’s explanation of it, have made it clear that the Church judges that women are not called by God to ministerial priesthood.


54 comments to The Tablet is actively campaigning for the ordination of women

  • Robin Leslie

    Conor Gearty is not an expert in matters of Catholic doctrine nor does he have a remit to speak on such matters, and neither are the subjective views of women on the matter of priestly ordination anything other than that.
    The priesthood is a gift to the Church and NOT a right and tradition does not support
    the legitimacy of female orders except those in religious orders such as Abbess, Mother Superior etc.
    After Vatican 2 there was an endless bricolage of speculation and alternatives to the celibate priesthood including multiple books on women priests, having read the literature on the subject the closest onwe gets is for women as spiritual directors and moral and ascetical theologians or in the pastorate. If the Anglican Church is anything to go by women priests have simply become rivals with men within a male priesthood in which they have lost their distinctively feminine contribution. Women have played a major part in religious orders and in other areas of the Church for two millenia. The Church needs to strengthen the male celibate priesthood now has and provide non-priestly roles for women,
    the tradition which they already have.
    Does the Tablet seriously think that all those Anglicans who left the Anglican Church on account of women’s ordination are going to accept women priests in the Catholic Church?

  • Gerry

    Do people pay to put adverts in The Tablet?

  • May I link up to your site and Posting?


  • The Tablet is getting worse as a Catholic Periodical and Catholic should not buy it, as it is a: platform of Apostasy

  • Pedro

    OK, so the official line is, “We’d love to have women priests. No, honestly we would. Women priests would be just great. The thing is, you see, they just can’t be. Jesus said so, or at least fairly heavily hinted so.”

    So I suppose the question then becomes, why doesn’t Jesus want women priests?

    • Karla

      Scripture tells us Christ is the Bridegoom of the Church, Priests carry on this Bridegroom role which means only men can become Priests. “in the person of Christ the Head” on behalf of the faithful (Catechism, no. 1548). A woman can not be a Bridegroom.

      A priest represents Christ at mass, a priest must bear resembelence to Christ i.e. be a man. This does not stem from personal supeiority, but God has delegated specific roles for men and women.

      • Pedro

        Thanks for that Karla, but I’m not sure if it helps me to understand any better.

        “Scripture tells us Christ is the Bridegoom of the Church”

        You mean like in the Song of Solomon? Have you ever read that book? Christ doesn’t get mentioned very much in it.

        “a priest must bear resembelence to Christ”

        Yes, but without wishing to sound like a five year old, why? Why does a priest have to look like Christ and how close does the resemblance have to be? Why does Jesus insist that priests have to be anatomically similar to him?

        • louella

          Why shouldn’t He?! Even normal people in authority have the privelege of choosing the characteristics they require in their successors or employees. It happens in secular society all the time. So too with Jesus Christ!

          When you meet Jesus Christ you can ask Him yourself. Until then….we must follow His commands.

          • Tim

            “Why shouldn’t He?! Even normal people in authority have the privelege of choosing the characteristics they require in their successors or employees.”

            fair enough, it but isn’t capriciousness a rather unworthy emotion for the creator of the universe?

        • Karla

          Not Song of Solomon, but in the New testament Ephesians 5:25-27 ”Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and hgave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by ithe washing of water jwith the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, lwithout spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

          Christ chose the Chuch to be His Bride, just as a Bride and Groom are seperated before the wedding, Christ is seperated from Christ during the Church age. Her responsibility during this time is to be faithful to Him. 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:24. At the Second coming of Christ the Church will be united with the Bridegroom, the official ”wedding ceremony” where the eternal union of Christ and His Bride will be actualised. Revelation 19:7-9; 21:1-2

          Answer to your second question, Because as you can see from the text above, a woman can not be a Bridegroom. The roles are distinct.

          Read this if you want to know why only a woman can be a sign of the Bride, the Church, and man, a sign of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ:

          Pope Benedict: “The church has ‘no authority’ to ordain women. The point is not that we are saying we don’t want to, but that we can’t…”

          • Pedro

            “Not Song of Solomon, but in the New testament Ephesians”

            Ah, sorry. Some people try to dismiss the erotic imagery of Song of Solomon as the love of Christ for the Church. As regards St Paul, you could easily interpret those passages as figures of speech.

            But taking the interpretation favoured, it seems, by Catholics, you seem to be saying that Jesus thinks the entire Church is female and he’s male. Presumably if Jesus had been born a girl, I’d now be asking why men can’t be priestesses?

            “Read this if you want to know why only a woman can be a sign of the Bride, the Church, and man, a sign of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ:

            He just says the same as you said but with a lot more words.

            Seriously, is that the argument? Because St Paul used the imagery of marriage to describe the relationship between the Church and Jesus, that’s how we know Jesus doesn’t want women to be priests?

            We atheists are often accused of not being well read in theology. What have Catholic theologians been doing for the last 2,000 years if that’s the best they can offer?

          • Deacon Nick

            Here’s Pope Benedict on the erotic nature of the Song of Songs in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est:

            ‘Here we can find a first, important indication in the Song of Songs, an Old Testament book well known to the mystics. According to the interpretation generally held today, the poems contained in this book were originally love-songs, perhaps intended for a Jewish wedding feast and meant to exalt conjugal love. In this context it is highly instructive to note that in the course of the book two different Hebrew words are used to indicate “love”. First there is the word dodim, a plural form suggesting a love that is still insecure, indeterminate and searching. This comes to be replaced by the word ahabà, which the Greek version of the Old Testament translates with the similar-sounding agape, which, as we have seen, becomes the typical expression for the biblical notion of love. By contrast with an indeterminate, “searching” love, this word expresses the experience of a love which involves a real discovery of the other, moving beyond the selfish character that prevailed earlier. Love now becomes concern and care for the other. No longer is it self-seeking, a sinking in the intoxication of happiness; instead it seeks the good of the beloved: it becomes renunciation and it is ready, and even willing, for sacrifice.’ (6)

          • Karla

            I don’t understand your point at all, what has the Song of Solomon got to do with this at all, you are dismissing the New Testament. The question of ‘if Jesus was a girl’ is silly and inconsequential, Jesus was not born a girl, Jesus was born a man.

            There is male/female imagery right through redemptive history. Christ began his public minsitry at the wedding of Cana, this ties in to the Bride and Bridegroom of Christ.

            There is also the fact that Jesus didn’t choose women to be Priesteses. The idea of priestesses was not unknown to him. They were a common practice in the religions of his time, and culture although not in Judiasm. If Jesus wanteed women to be priestesses an ideal candidate would of been Mary. Jesus had in mind other roles for women, they played a key role in spreading the Gospel, the first to spread news about the risen Christ.

          • Pedro

            “Here’s Pope Benedict on the erotic nature of the Song of Songs”

            That’s actually rather nice.

            “you are dismissing the New Testament”

            No, I’m saying you have to distinguish between a similes/metaphors and and hard and fast rule. If St Paul thought women couldn’t be priests, when didn’t he just issue a rule, “women can’t be priests.” (Actually, come to think of it, I think he probably does say somewhere that women aren’t allowed to teach – or something like that).

            You keep telling me what Jesus does and doesn’t want. I started off by acknowledging that and asking why? I’m still waiting for some sort of rational response other than a NT metaphor.

          • Karla

            Actually Paul says: 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, says that bishops and deacons must be husbands of only one wife, indicating that only men could be ordained. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” 1 Timothy is a Pastoral letter, dealing with how to run he Church in Ephesus, Paul is most likely referring to teaching in an official capacity, which only priests can do. In fact, he seems to be linking teaching with authority, so he must be referring to the priesthood, the only teaching office in the Church with ecclesiastical authority.


            There is no exact quote from scripture where God says only men can be priests. This “prove-it-to-me-from-scripture” argument has no biblical basis. Scripture says nothing like this. The Church has always taught that scripture is to be read and interpreted in the light of the Church’s tradition. Scripture must be interpreted by tradition; tradition must be interpreted by scripture. And, scripture must not be privately interpreted (2 Peter 1:20-21). The divinely-appointed authority to interpret scripture (in the light of tradition) is the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

            The following verses will help to shape this:

            Jesus chose certain men to participate in his mission: Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; 1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9

            Jesus gives the Twelve a share in his authority: Luke 9:2:

            Through them he directs the Church: Luke 22:29-30:

            The priest acts in the place of Christ: Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14

            No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders: Hebrews 5:4

            On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit filled both men and women, but the proclamation of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus was made only by “Peter and the Eleven”: Acts 2:1-14

            The women who worked with the Apostles were never considered for ordination
            Rom 16:3-12; Phil 4:3, Acts 18:26

          • Pedro

            “The Church has always taught that scripture is to be read and interpreted in the light of the Church’s tradition.”

            Well, I’m glad you finally agree with me about that. A few months ago you seemed to be convinced that scripture was innerrant.

            Again, you’re giving me quote after quote saying that women can’t be priests. I accept all that but it’s not my question. Sorry to have to say it for umpteenth time, but why does Jesus not want women priests?

            I can’t believe that no one has ever thought about this.

          • Karla

            I have always seen the Bible for what it is, a collection of reliable and historical documents that are guided by 2000 years of tradition.

            It’s not that Jesus does not want women Priests, is that it is imposibilie for women to represent Christ at mass, when The Church is the BRIDE of Christ and the priest is acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). A woman cannot be married to a bride (the Church). Christ is a man and if a person is going to act in the person of Christ, it would have to be a man.

          • Tim

            “It’s not that Jesus does not want women Priests, is that it is imposibilie for women to represent Christ at mass,”

            Why isn’t it impossible for a white German or a black African to represent an ethnically jewish Christ at mass?.

            As ususal it isn’t the catholic logic that is faulty it is just the arbitatry decison that some issues are more important than others that reveals the whole system as man made. I am not saying that gender isn;t an factor in symbolism, bur as taking mass doesn;t involve any use of skills or anatomy posessed only by males, then the decision that gender is important for the symbolism but skin colour or sge or sandle-wearing or hair length isn’t important is arbitrary. If a woman damages the symbolism, they why does a preist wearing specs not also damage the symbolism?

            I have no problem with people wanting male preists simply for the sake of tradition. But if that is the only reason then questioning the tradition is hardly heresy is it?

          • Karla

            I have done some more research on this. I don’t think it is a matter of “representing” Christ. A priest must act “in the person of” Christ, which is something different than representation. It is a matter of identity. Jesus as man was a human male. The priest does not “play” Jesus, as one might in acting a part in a play. Jesus rather uses the priest’s human person to act sacramentally.

            Jesus gave all authority to His Church. He said “whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you rejects me and Him who sent me!”

  • Karla

    The Tablet has exposed itself finally.

  • Michael Petek

    Bishop Furts? The very surname makes me laugh, as I speak German and know exactly what the identically pronounced “Furz” means. Find a German-English dictionary, discover what it means, and then laugh with me!

  • Fr. Roberto CRSA

    These problems kept on resurfacing. If this “women” likes to become a priestess, join the protestant sect. After all they are not consider valid. As stated by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the church has no authority to ordained women full stop.; Why they impose their beliefs which majority do not share. Pronto Finito.

    • I always read …

      “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

      …as Jesus saying to Peter “it’s up to you, mate”.

      So I dont know how the church comes up with this idea that it has no authority in this area. It seems to me more likely that it does have authority but …erm … doesn’t want to do it. Which is fair enough.

  • Pedro

    Karla’s reply to my previous question has raised some further questions. Just how male does a person have to be in order to be a priest?

    For example, can a hermaphrodite be a priest? Or what about a female to male transsexual?

    • Andrzej

      Such a person cannot be a priest because they cannot fulfill the requirement of celibacy. Celibacy, properly understood, is the sacrifice of giving up the possibility of marrying and starting a family. If you cannot make this sacrifice, even if it isn’t of your own fault – you’re gay, impotent, castrated – you cannot become a priest.

      • Pedro

        “If you cannot make this sacrifice, even if it isn’t of your own fault – you’re gay, impotent, castrated – you cannot become a priest.”

        They test to make sure seminarians aren’t impotent?

        • Andrzej

          I don’t know if they take tests, probably not – but you are probably asked and if you know it, should disclose it. This is how I think it is, but I am not sure. The same probably goes for being gay.

          Of course, I am talking here of a type of impotence that it obvious to the man without the need of intercourse. The same question is asked of men before they get married.

          • Pedro

            “Of course, I am talking here of a type of impotence that it obvious to the man without the need of intercourse. The same question is asked of men before they get married.”

            You know, I’ve been to quite a few Catholic weddings. It’s quite possible I nodded off at some point, but I’m fairly sure I would have woken up with a start if that question had been asked.

          • Tim

            “The same question is asked of men before they get married.”

            Really? no-one ever asked me before I got married.

      • “Celibacy, properly understood, is the sacrifice of giving up the possibility of marrying and starting a family”

        This entirely new area of Roman Catholic “theology” dates only from 2005.

        Pope Benedict XVI in his book “Light of the World” appears to state that Homosexuality and the Priesthood are completely incompatible “The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”

        But it is not to my knowledge official church teaching….yet.

        Frankly it seems to me to be another example of the Catholic Church going out of its way to annoy even non active gay people.

    • Karla

      Neither a hermaphrodite, or a female to male transexual can be a priest.

      • Pedro

        “Neither a hermaphrodite, or a female to male transexual can be a priest.”

        OK, but of they’ve got all the bits that a man has, why? What bits are they missing that Jesus insists they have to have?

        Also, suppose a transsexual has tricked his way into becoming a priest (you know how cunning these ex-women can be). He might even get become a bishop. so then you’d have a fake bishop going around created fake priests and bishops. How would you ever know?

    • Karla

      I have done some more research on your question and found this infomation. A hermaphrodite (I don’t think that’s a current term, anyway) has an ambiguous gender.

      A female to male transexual person is genetically female. Surgery to alter her outward appearance doesn’t change that.

      Beyond the biology, a person who undergoes transexual surgery is not likely to be considered mature and stable on a psycho-sexual basis. Priestly candidates must be psychologically sound.

      • Pedro

        Thanks for that, although I think that anyone who goes to such extreme lengths to change their sexual appearance probably has a pretty strong idea of their sexual identity.

        The bottom line remains, I still don’t understand what Jesus actually has against women priests. Are you really saying, that after 2,000 years of Catholic theology that the “Church is the bride of Christ” is the be all and end all of arguments? That’s it? No one’s even speculated as to why Jesus told St Paul to say that?

        • Karla

          What it is about men that makes them unfit to bear children. Surely a man is just as physically strong as a woman and psychologically and emotionally capable of the demands of giving birth. Surely he is not inferior to a woman. Isn’t it unfair to men that only women can have babies?

          This line of logic descends into absurdity because women having children is a natural fact of life, something easily seen and understood. To shake one’s fist at the heavens and demand equal rights for men to give birth is to rail against the natural order. men being priests is a supernatural fact of life, and to object to it is to object to the supernatural order. The fact that the supernatural order cannot be seen and is not as easily understood as the natural order does not mean that the supernatural order does not exist.

          The reason that women are not to be ordained is because they are not men. Sounds politically incorrect, doesn’t it? But the fact is that God created men to be men and women to be women. When God chose to incarnate, he did not just choose to become a human being; he chose to become a man. Just as he chose to incarnate into a specific time, place, people, family, and woman, so he chose to become a specific human being, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, those human beings who serve as priests in the person of Christ are men and not women.

  • Marguerita

    A year ago today the tablet published a pro abortion edition. See for more information.

  • SpeSalvi23

    Well, it seems to me that some women with a serious insecurity problem keep whimpering about not being allowed into a male field of work.

    I don’t think it really matters to them that the Priesthood is not to be regarded as a regular job (surely, our atheist friends will neither comprehend nor agree), it’s mostly about the fact that they simply are not ALLOWED to be ordained, which is naturally unthinkable for a modern woman in our modern times!!

    Which then catches the attention of some Gutmensch type men, who are deeply hurt and offended by such cruelty, and who think they do those poor, mistreated women a favour by speaking up in their behalf.

    Bah… being a woman myself, I cringe at the idea some tablet pseudo theologian’s support of a hapless cause.
    Rational?? Nope!! A waste of time? Yes!

    I think it’s time for the Tablet to become officially Anglican / Lutheran.
    Is there a way to disallow them to call themselves Catholic? The Bishop?

    The why and what and how Kindergarten game is useless and also a rather boring waste of time.

  • Honest Seeker

    Christ was circumcised. Do priests have to be circumcised too? If not, why not?

    • Deacon Nick

      Go read St Paul on why Christians don’t need to be circumcised. We thought this through 2,000 years ago.

      • Pedro

        It’s a good job we had St Paul around to figure which bits of the law to abolish. Otherwise people might have taken Jesus literally when he said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

  • Lisa

    Pedro, I think you should ask Jesus why he did not ordain women as priests. He was rather revolutionary for his time, and he could have ordained women as priests if he wanted to. So, the fact that he did not do it means that the Church cannot ordain women. Priesthood is spiritual fatherhood and a woman cannot be a father. Hence, a woman cannot be a priest even if she calls herself a priest or dresses and acts like a priest. Some people believe this is discriminatory, because they do not understand that being a priest means sacrificing one’s own life for others. They do not understand that priesthood is spiritual fatherhood. It is not a position of privilege. That is the basic reason behind it. I personally thinks it is pure common sense.

  • On a completely unrelated matter I was walking down Cannon Street during the Pope’s visit and the Women Priests organisation had an advert on the sides of several busses. The Humanists and Atheists often have adverts on sides of busses. So if the Tablet didn’t give them advertising space surely they’d just buy it somewhere else…?

  • Robin Leslie

    The service of Our Lord and of the believing community can never be, and never has been a right, it is a gift from God and entered into (munera) with humility and never with self-assertion. This gift involves a lifelong self-sacrifice in imitation of Our Lord and witnessed and lived out in particular historical circumstances.
    Lisa is quite right for in the case of Catholic tradition, and intelligent faithfulness to tradition (not mindless routine following)the priesthood develops the person (in persona Christi)and not the reverse, though a person may bring peculiar gifts and abilities to the apostolate. Christianity is not and never has been easy it is hard, but it is not inhuman if followed faithfully
    so it can never simply ‘adapt’ to the circumstances of the times.
    Since the circumstances of the present historical period are those of abuse of power, degradations of the natural habitat and of human persons (both are two sides of the same coin)and a complete lack of humility. The idolatrous servitude of the market and of the dictatorship of money and power necessitates great self-discipline and self-sacrifice both in the priesthood and among lay people. Other priesthoods are now forming out of the purloined shards of tradition, clothing themselves in the aura and mantles of
    their religious and Christian predecessors.
    Even as we speak the Humanists in our midst are inaugurating a new university to be called the New College for the Humanities based on the Oxbridge pattern shaped for centuries by its Christian forebears. Needless to say New College Oxford objects to pervenues
    breaking and entering!

  • Robin Leslie

    The aristocracy was very largely formed after the theft of monastic lands were transferred to the accomplices and favourites of Henry V111 and his successors to the English throne. Current
    peers are increasingly recruited for their services to the Corporate plutocratic State and, at a guess, I would say they took no ‘care’ of anybody but themselves and, of course, their accomplices in the allegedly meritocratic order. Whether they are ‘good chaps’ or not who can say. However the Nazis were good and loving fathers to their families but brutal psychopaths in their workplaces. So we are not currently concerned about the distant past but more about the recent past and primarily about the present and its cruelties.

  • Teresa

    To the question “why doesn’t Jesus want women priests?”

    Could it be that Jesus’ Church is a spiritual version of Israel (the New Israel). The 12 tribes of Israel from 12 sons of Jacob become 12 Apostles (all men).

    In addressing the church, James refers to Christians as the twelve tribes scattered abroad (James 1:1).

    Matthew tells us “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’”(Matthew 19:28).

    In Luke’s the account of the Last Supper, Jesus tells the apostles “I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:29-30)

    I think I am trying to say that He chose men as it was significant to God’s plan of renewal and redemption. And if that is the case, then He intended men, so ordination should remain only for men. However, I am not an expert – can anyone add anything?

  • Robin Leslie

    OK Gerry I must ask your forgiveness for failing to acknowledge and properly value your irony. That I gave it into a less aesthetic
    turn was, I now see, incompanionable. Mea Culpa Gerry

    • Gerry

      I think you can safely say that I have little time for the aristocracy or their pretensions [other than as characters in films]; specially given that I’m from the North East. Nor do I have much time for ‘breeding’ in general, except for horses, dogs and canaries.

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>