Contarini;5201526:
I have made the Christological/incarnational argument several times on this forum. It has not been refuted. Usually it has not even been addressed. You can ignore it if you wish, but when you say that there is not a shred of argument you are saying something that is plainly false. There is an argument which you have not even tried to refute.
Contarini, Your Chritological/incarnational argument is incorrect. There is where your argument breaks down. At the Last Supper, Jesus conferred the priesthood only upon his male apostles when He said “do this in memory of me” (Mt 14:17; Lk 22:14). Jesus also only breathed on His male apostles in the Upper Room when He gave them the authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:22). Because the priest acts in persona Christi in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and forgiving sins, the priest cannot be a woman. In regard to choosing His male apostles, Mark says that Jesus called to Him “those whom He desired” (Mk 3:13). This proves that Jesus chose men according to His desire. Since Jesus’ will was perfectly united to that of the Father, He cannot be criticized for choosing males only, without indicting God Himself.:
And fatherhood is a vocation that women can’t be a part of. These are biological, natural functions, which are indeed also vocations. The priesthood is something qualitatively different. It pertains to the order of salvation, and hence to say that someone is ontologically incapable of ordination is logically to cast doubt on her salvation (or at the very least, to claim that she has a more remote connection with the saving work of Christ).
I* have rebutted this above. Also it’s not to say that women have no place in the church, After all Mary the Mother Of Jesus is the highest of all creatures, she had been made queen of heaven and earth. The Catholic church has also cannonised millions of women saints, They have their place in the church but according to our lord’s will, it’s not in the priesthood. *
No, that’s not precisely what the priesthood is. The two things are not identical. One is an image of the other. And back to “in persona Christi”–I repeat: if Christ took on the human nature shared by men and women, then women are able to act in persona Christi. If Christ only took on male human nature (assuming that there is such a thing, which is a pretty weird assumption), then women cannot be saved (or they can be saved only as inferior beings who receive salvation through the mediation of maleness, which is intrinsically holier and nobler than femaleness). Refute this argument, or stop claiming that it doesn’t exist.
If that’s the case then why did God make man and woman in the first place? Why didn’t he make man alone or woman alone? Did god not tell eve “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Jesus has taken on the human nature as a male for specific purpose, Jesus, the Son of God, is both priest and King after the order of Melchizedek, and so His priesthood embodies kingship and sonship. Women cannot act in persona christi, because Jesus as the son of God offered up his body (male) for us, when he said “do this in remembrance of me” a woman cannot act in his place because she cannot act as a son to god! She is female! Why can’t women be saved if they cannot be priests? was not mary magdelene saved? was she a priest? The virgin Mary was assumed into heaven!
Exactly. The Gnostics could ordain women because they didn’t care about bodies. The Montanists could do it because they didn’t see ordination as an institutional act but a purely charismatic one. The Catholic tradition didn’t ordain women because they rightly cared about bodiliness and institutional authority. And ancient people were culturally incapable of seeing women’s bodies as equally noble with male bodies (and as full instantiations of human nature). Of course Jesus could have explicitly gone against this if He had chosen. He could have made either gender equality or the abolition of slavery an explicit, essential part of the Christian revelation. He didn’t. He left us to figure out both of them on the basis of the principles He revealed and entrusted to His Church.
*Exactly!! and that church is the holy catholic church! tell me, why does the church keep this teaching if it’s all about culture as you mention above?would it have not “moved with the times” as other denominations clearly have? no, st paul tells us that we are to uphold both the written and oral teachings of the catholic church, end of story!. The onus is on you to refute 2000 years of prayer, teachings and the early church fathers (who some had direct links to the apostles!). You assume that the church downplays the role of women in the church however i think is you who does so, the catholic church ha many great female saints and daughters of the church!
I await your response. I have clearly refuted your argument above, i pray that christ may bring you home to his holy catholic church*.
I get so sick to death of these same garden variety defenses of our faith that are played out and quite frankly weak. We are THE Church and we have been here 2000 years! Blah Blah Blah. It’s sickening and worn out. If this is all you got, then please respectfully just shut up and let someone else try. It’s embarrassing.
Amen! Preach it brother! 
