Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[simpleas]

According to our faith the church insists that women can never be ordained to carry out the duties of a Catholic priest because the church does not have the authority to do so.

This seems to suggest then that God excludes women to ever being mediators between God and man, in the duty of being able to act as an icon of Christ and transmit his grace to others.

I understand so far that the word ontological means the essence or the nature of being.

I see that as Jesus was male, then only males should be priests has been accepted throughout the ages, and still is, but some people do wish to see a change in this traditional teaching.

I’m a little uncomfortable when I think about how the church teaches male and female are equal in Christ but share different roles, when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling, one that would have both men and women if chosen, be able to be ordained and transmit grace to Gods people.

I know I have only touched the surface with trying to understand ontological change.

But even as the congregation for the clergy states :

It is clear then that priestly ordination is not an earthly permission to preform certain actions, but is an ontological change rendered in a person were by they may act as an icon of Christ and transmit his grace to others with special power.

But is limited to the male human being?

Any thoughts on this, or help understanding is appreciated.

 

[1ke]

Yes. It is limited to a male human being.

A valid bishop who illicitly ordains a man really and truly ordains him.

A valid bishop who illicitly (attempts to) ordain a woman, does nothing. It is not possible to ordain a woman. Lay hands on her, say the words, anoint-- nothing happens.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Not well versed in this but i will say that God has given and the Church promotes the Blessed Mother, who is only surpassed by God. She is the daughter of the Eternal Father, Mother of Jesus and Spouse of the Holy Spirit! She is the Queen of the Universe. The only man that can compare and who actually surpasses her is Jesus.

I’d say that’s a pretty big deal!

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Well, what happens if you are a transgender male? Does it work then?

… Before anyone gets angry, I was not serious when saying that, but as you can see, if things continue the way they do with what is taught, then there are such questions to answer.
I wonder though, if someone was born a hermaphrodite, and had both female and male sexual organs, and that person identified with being male most, and they wanted to become a priest, would they be allowed? Or would that be enough to ban them from entering the priesthood? If a bishop were to confer holy orders on such a person, would it be legit?

 

[Tablefor9]

Well, what happens if you are a transgender male? Does it work then?

… Before anyone gets angry, I was not serious when saying that, but as you can see, if things continue the way they do with what is taught, then there are such questions to answer.

I wonder though, if someone was born a hermaphrodite, and had both female and male sexual organs, and that person identified with being male most, and they wanted to become a priest, would they be allowed?   Or would that be enough to ban them from entering the priesthood?  If a bishop were to confer holy orders on such a person, would it be legit?

The teachings of the God and Holy Mother Church shouldn’t change because sinfulness of man abounds.

I’m sure there is Canon law or process that would cover the rare instance of biological hermaphrodites, but a transgender man is still a woman, whatever the outside may look like or the feelings of the person may seem to suggest.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Is the ontological change uniquely associated with Holy Orders, or do the other two Sacraments that leave an “indelible mark” - Baptism and Confirmation - also have something akin to a type of ontological change?

 

[grannymh]

According to our faith the church insists that women can never be ordained to carry out the duties of a Catholic priest because the church does not have the authority to do so.

This seems to suggest then that God excludes women to ever being mediators between God and man, in the duty of being able to act as an icon of Christ and transmit his grace to others.

I understand so far that the word ontological means the essence or the nature of being.

I see that as Jesus was male, then only males should be priests has been accepted throughout the ages, and still is, but some people do wish to see a change in this traditional teaching.

I’m a little uncomfortable when I think about how the church teaches male and female are equal in Christ but share different roles, when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling, one that would have both men and women if chosen, be able to be ordained and transmit grace to Gods people.

I know I have only touched the surface with trying to understand ontological change.

But even as the congregation for the clergy states :

But is limited to the male human being?

Any thoughts on this, or help understanding is appreciated.

I am not sure what ontological means. Can someone help!

What I do know is that because of Original Sin, Jesus stepped into the sandals of Adam, not Eve, in order to repair the original relationship between Divinity and humanity.

Jesus assumed male human nature. Maybe, when a priest is ordained, he steps into the sandals of Jesus.

 

[twf]

Our Lady is greater than all priests and shares in the mediation of Christ in a most profound way. This can be true, to a lesser extent, of other great women saints as well. There is more than one way to participate in the mediation of Christ.

 

[simpleas]

Is the ontological change uniquely associated with Holy Orders, or do the other two Sacraments that leave an “indelible mark” - Baptism and Confirmation - also have something akin to a type of ontological change?

That is a good question, keeping in line with this thread, thanks.

I thought about Baptism, how when baptised, one ‘puts on Christ’ but I don’t think it can be the same as the ontological change that takes place during the laying on of hands, passing on that Grace,it as taught by the church is exclusive to men, I suppose because of the link/teaching of the sin of Adam etc.
But as Jesus freed us from the sin of Adam (original sin) allowing women to participate fully as priestess to Christ would seem logical.

I don’t mean all women, only those called as with men.

 

[TK421]

According to our faith the church insists that women can never be ordained to carry out the duties of a Catholic priest because the church does not have the authority to do so.

This seems to suggest then that God excludes women to ever being mediators between God and man, in the duty of being able to act as an icon of Christ and transmit his grace to others.

I understand so far that the word ontological means the essence or the nature of being.

I see that as Jesus was male, then only males should be priests has been accepted throughout the ages, and still is, but some people do wish to see a change in this traditional teaching.

I’m a little uncomfortable when I think about how the church teaches male and female are equal in Christ but share different roles, when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling, one that would have both men and women if chosen, be able to be ordained and transmit grace to Gods people.

I know I have only touched the surface with trying to understand ontological change.

But even as the congregation for the clergy states :

But is limited to the male human being?

Any thoughts on this, or help understanding is appreciated.

Yes, women are excluded from the sacrament of Holy Order: not just as a Church discipline but as a rational & ontological reality, i.e. a round square or a circle with straight edge do not exist and neither does an ordained female.

This is something taught to us through apostolic authority by the Magisterium. It’s not as though we have a scientific way of verifying that a bishop who attempts to ordain female does nothing, or that he does anything when he ordains a baptized male. It is something that is accepted by faith.

All of humanity is in one sense ‘Christ’ since all of humanity is made in God’s image, but in another sense the sacraments operate objectively & tangibly and only a priest operates in persona Christi sacramentally.

Contemporary society has a very strong notion of fairness (but not necessarily justice) so this teaching is difficult for some. It doesn’t make you at all a bad person. I would just read up on the subject by popes or other authors since their explanation will be much better. Unlike secular occupations, it must be accepted that priestly ordination (along with every sacrament) are divine gifts and not based on human merit, human accomplishment, human talent, human willpower, human effort, or human rights. So that might be a beginning point.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes. It is limited to a male human being.

A valid bishop who illicitly ordains a man really and truly ordains him.

A valid bishop who illicitly (attempts to) ordain a woman, does nothing. It is not possible to ordain a woman. Lay hands on her, say the words, anoint-- nothing happens.

How do you know nothing happens when a bishop lays hands on a woman and tries to ordain her? It can’t even be proven in any observable or scientific way that anything happens when a bishop ordains a man.

 

[turtle18]

I think you are looking at it wrong. Woman do not need an “ontological” change to be bearers of grace. Because they already do that through motherhood. God made us BODY and soul; is is the feminine blessing to be the bearers of the human race. Furthermore, women very much act “in persona Christa” in their very bodies. They have to bleed and suffer to give physical life to their children and then they take their bodies and feed their babies/children. They share their bodies in a way more profound that a man ever could. Christ is literally imprinted in on a women’s body in her biological functioning.

 

[edwest2]

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was not bound by the customs or traditions of His time on earth.

Pope John Paul II explained it in great detail.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

. Christ is literally imprinted in on a women’s body in her biological functioning.

 

[grannymh]

All of humanity is in one sense ‘Christ’ since all of humanity is made in God’s image,

… **is **in one sense 'Christ" …
Pardon me, but that sounds a tad like Pantheism or Panentheism. Genesis 1: 27 refers to humanity as spiritual beings that can share in God’s life, not in one sense of being Christ, the Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[Vico]

According to our faith the church insists that women can never be ordained to carry out the duties of a Catholic priest because the church does not have the authority to do so.

This seems to suggest then that God excludes women to ever being mediators between God and man, in the duty of being able to act as an icon of Christ and transmit his grace to others.

I understand so far that the word ontological means the essence or the nature of being.

I see that as Jesus was male, then only males should be priests has been accepted throughout the ages, and still is, but some people do wish to see a change in this traditional teaching.

I’m a little uncomfortable when I think about how the church teaches male and female are equal in Christ but share different roles, when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling, one that would have both men and women if chosen, be able to be ordained and transmit grace to Gods people.

I know I have only touched the surface with trying to understand ontological change.

But even as the congregation for the clergy states :

But is limited to the male human being?

Any thoughts on this, or help understanding is appreciated.

If by ontological change you mean “indelible spiritual character” then regardless of that we have it in baptism, confirmation (chrysmation), and holy orders. However holy orders iincludes deacon, priest, and bishop. Now the deacon does not act in the persona of Christ. The Catholic Church has been studying the topic of the female diaconate.
ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-institutes-commission-study-female-deacons-appointing-gender-balanced

CIC

Can. 1009 § 3 Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity.

 

[Rau]

Well, what happens if you are a transgender male? Does it work then?

… Before anyone gets angry, I was not serious when saying that, but as you can see, if things continue the way they do with what is taught, then there are such questions to answer.

I wonder though, if someone was born a hermaphrodite, and had both female and male sexual organs, and that person identified with being male most, and they wanted to become a priest, would they be allowed?   Or would that be enough to ban them from entering the priesthood?  If a bishop were to confer holy orders on such a person, would it be legit?

A great many complexities arise in the context you raise, and in a very small percentage of people, male and female are not readily distinguished. But from this one can’t conclude that all things which rely on such distinction are fatally flawed.

Note also that not being male is but one of a number of factors that may exclude one from the priesthood.

 

[TK421]

I think you are looking at it wrong. Woman do not need an “ontological” change to be bearers of grace. Because they already do that through motherhood. God made us BODY and soul; is is the feminine blessing to be the bearers of the human race. Furthermore, women very much act “in persona Christa” in their very bodies. They have to bleed and suffer to give physical life to their children and then they take their bodies and feed their babies/children. They share their bodies in a way more profound that a man ever could. Christ is literally imprinted in on a women’s body in her biological functioning.

That’s isn’t why.

A woman who does not become a mother - as many do not, especially those who are religious, along also with those who are barren or past menopause and lose their window - nonetheless 100% retains her femininity. Her femininity is not dependent on anything she does or does not do. It simply is. Nor does it affect her capacity to have grace or give grace.

 

[grannymh]

… **is **in one sense 'Christ" …
Pardon me, but that sounds a tad like Pantheism or Panentheism. Genesis 1: 27 refers to humanity as spiritual beings that can share in God’s life, not in one sense of being Christ, the Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[TK421]

… **is **in one sense 'Christ" …
Pardon me, but that sounds a tad like Pantheism or Panentheism. Genesis 1: 27 refers to humanity as spiritual beings that can share in God’s life, not in one sense of being Christ, the Second Person in the Most Holy Trinity.

@Grannymh:

Of course a person isn’t ‘Christ’ in the way a pantheist would mean it. Each individual is a separate person, and Jesus Christ is a separate Person. But, Christ - being God - is also spiritually omnipresent and the way we treat each person is literally how we treat Christ. There is no distinction given between abusing Christ and abusing another human being. That’s how intimate Jesus is with us. That’s why St Mother Teresa saw each person she dealt with as though she were dealing with Jesus. Jesus existed (and exists) for her “in the distressing disguise of the poor”. This speech is more than figurative. Although we each have our own individuality and there is an objective and profound distinction between Creator and creature, Jesus mystically exists within us, so that a violation against anybody - however small and marginalized - is simultaneously a violation against the person as well as against God.