Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[Gorgias]

It’s not a big deal to me either, I’m just not convinced that Jesus would be offended by a priestess.

The question isn’t “would he be offended?” so much as it is “did he intend it?”… isn’t it?

After all, no one and nothing offended him here on earth… but he certainly did have standards for our behavior that he had no compunction in sharing with us!

 

[simpleas]

The question isn’t “would he be offended?” so much as it is “did he intend it?”… isn’t it?

After all, no one and nothing offended him here on earth… but he certainly did have standards for our behavior that he had no compunction in sharing with us!

Jesus may have not intended the church to do many things.

Yes Jesus choose 12 men to follow him and lead others to him, did he intend that only men should be active in this role as priests and never women as priestess, I can’t say.

Standards for our behaviour? What does that mean regarding women being able to participate in the church along side men, not under them?

 

[Rau]

Jesus may have not intended the church to do many things.

Yes Jesus choose 12 men to follow him and lead others to him, did he intend that only men should be active in this role as priests and never women as priestess, I can’t say.

Nor can I. The question is - who ought to answer that question? Have they done so?

 

[simpleas]

Nor can I. The question is - who ought to answer that question? Have they done so?

The leaders of the church have given an answer, which is they have no authority to allow women priests, but I don’t think that really answers the question I posed in the OP.
The female nature is unable to be changed as a male nature can be according to some peoples thoughts on the matter.

 

[simpleas]

Jesus assumed human nature.

Human nature is both male and female.

How do we understand Jesus came as male, but as human nature, unless females are males

 

[STT]

Jesus assumed human nature.

Human nature is both male and female.

How do we understand Jesus came as male, but as human nature, unless females are males

Great question. Keep it up. I think you should open a thread for this great question.

On top of that why has He never had sex?

 

[Rau]

Jesus assumed human nature.

Human nature is both male and female.

How do we understand Jesus came as male, but as human nature, unless females are males

My nature is human. My wife’s nature is human. We are different. What can be concluded?

 

[simpleas]

Great question. Keep it up. I think you should open a thread for this great question.

On top of that why has He never had sex?

I think that we can discuss my question in this thread, Christology is something I have never looked into.

As for your question, I don’t see how it is relevant to this subject, if you do, please explain.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

My nature is human. My wife’s nature is human. We are different. What can be concluded?

With all due respect, you are not the son of God, who came to redeem mankind, mankind is male and female.

The terms, True God and True Man are given to Jesus.

Man is used to describe male and female, that I have come to learn since I questioned why man is used in the bible so much as reference to humanity. Also the word brothers, apparently included sisters among the address in scriptures.

Jesus assumed human nature as a male, I think it was once thought that females were not saved (St. Gregory Nazianzen, “What is not assumed is not saved.” )

But we don’t believe that because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Human.

So when thinking about Jesus we can see he shows us what it means to be human, male and female, not excluding one or the other. Hence why women serving as priestess makes sense, they too could partake in the ontological change that happens during ordination.

Thoughts?

 

[STT]

I think that we can discuss my question in this thread, Christology is something I have never looked into.

As for your question, I don’t see how it is relevant to this subject, if you do, please explain.

Thanks.

It is related. Sex is a part of human nature. There is nothing bad in it. So my question is relevant.

 

[simpleas]

It is related. Sex is a part of human nature. There is nothing bad in it. So my question is relevant.

Yes sex is part of human nature, not a problem. One need not to have to engage in intercourse in order to be human (though some may have a different view) One does need to engage in intercourse if they wish to add to the human race.
Jesus’ mission doesn’t seem to have needed to add to the human race, he came to save us from ourselves, plus there is the teaching that Jesus is the groom and the whole church is his bride, even though his bride includes males.

 

[davidv]

With all due respect, you are not the son of God, who came to redeem mankind, mankind is male and female.

The terms, True God and True Man are given to Jesus.

Man is used to describe male and female, that I have come to learn since I questioned why man is used in the bible so much as reference to humanity. Also the word brothers, apparently included sisters among the address in scriptures.

Jesus assumed human nature as a male, I think it was once thought that females were not saved (St. Gregory Nazianzen, “What is not assumed is not saved.” )

But we don’t believe that because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Human.

So when thinking about Jesus we can see he shows us what it means to be human, male and female, not excluding one or the other. Hence why women serving as priestess makes sense, they too could partake in the ontological change that happens during ordination.

Thoughts?

It seems there is some equivocation of the terms human and man going on here. In the context given, man and human are synonyms.

A specific gender, male or female, is a trait of a particular human person.

It would also seems much of the understanding who Jesus is had how he relates to the male role is discarded in coming up with the conclusion.

 

[grannymh]

The leaders of the church have given an answer, which is they have no authority to allow women priests, but I don’t think that really answers the question I posed in the OP.
The female nature is unable to be changed as a male nature can be according to some peoples thoughts on the matter.

As far as I can tell, the nature of the male humans I have seen never changes. Dang!

 

[grannymh]

Jesus assumed human nature.

Human nature is both male and female.

How do we understand Jesus came as male, but as human nature, unless females are males

Human nature is a marvelous spiritual rational soul and a rotten decomposing anatomy. Human nature is not both male and female at the same time.

 

[grannymh]

Jesus may have not intended the church to do many things.

Yes Jesus choose 12 men to follow him and lead others to him, did he intend that only men should be active in this role as priests and never women as priestess, I can’t say.

Standards for our behaviour? What does that mean regarding women being able to participate in the church along side men, not under them?

12 men are not the only members of the crowds who followed Jesus.

Check out the Stations of the Cross.

 

[grannymh]

With all due respect, you are not the son of God, who came to redeem mankind, mankind is male and female.

The terms, True God and True Man are given to Jesus.

Man is used to describe male and female, that I have come to learn since I questioned why man is used in the bible so much as reference to humanity. Also the word brothers, apparently included sisters among the address in scriptures.

Jesus assumed human nature as a male, I think it was once thought that females were not saved (St. Gregory Nazianzen, “What is not assumed is not saved.” )

But we don’t believe that because we believe that Jesus was fully God and fully Human.

So when thinking about Jesus we can see he shows us what it means to be human, male and female, not excluding one or the other. Hence why women serving as priestess makes sense, they too could partake in the ontological change that happens during ordination.

Thoughts?

Maybe we ought to stop thinking that male and female are clones of each other.

 

[grannymh]

Yes sex is part of human nature, not a problem. One need not to have to engage in intercourse in order to be human (though some may have a different view) One does need to engage in intercourse if they wish to add to the human race.
Jesus’ mission doesn’t seem to have needed to add to the human race, he came to save us from ourselves, plus there is the teaching that Jesus is the groom and the whole church is his bride, even though his bride includes males.

“Jesus is the groom and the whole church is his bride, even though his bride includes males.” is a beautiful metaphor which helps explain the relationship between Jesus as Head of the Mystical Body and we as members of His Mystical Body.

 

[STT]

Yes sex is part of human nature, not a problem. One need not to have to engage in intercourse in order to be human (though some may have a different view) One does need to engage in intercourse if they wish to add to the human race.
Jesus’ mission doesn’t seem to have needed to add to the human race, he came to save us from ourselves, plus there is the teaching that Jesus is the groom and the whole church is his bride, even though his bride includes males.

I see.

 

[omgriley]

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (OrdinatioSacerdotalis 4).

This is a moot point at best. The issue has been settled for years. It will never change, ever. Get over it.

Jesus isn’t some kind of sexist. There are roles in salvation which God appoints uniquely to men, and which he appoints uniquely to women.

 

[simpleas]

Maybe we ought to stop thinking that male and female are clones of each other.

I never thought this, on second thoughts, Eve was sorta cloned from Adam…