Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[simpleas]

“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.

Yes, and so my thinking then says, this would not stop women becoming a priestess…

 

[simpleas]

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.

So when the church uses the word man, what is the church referring to?

 

[grannymh]

Thank you all for an interesting discussion. It is time for me to leave this thread.
I have said all that I can say.

Being older than dirt, I go by the simple Catholic teaching that both women and men can have joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision following bodily death. Nothing else can top that.

I do know that there are some popular public speakers/internet writers who are hacking away at the foundation of the Catholic Church.

 

[simpleas]

The thread was not questioning the fact that men and women can have joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision following bodily death.

But I think you know that.

 

[davidv]

So when the church uses the word man, what is the church referring to?

Depends on the context.

 

[simpleas]

Depends on the context.

Well there are various examples in the scriptures, but one that does come to mind relating to man is the Nicene creed.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

Men = male only? Or Mankind? male and female.

Became man = male only? Or Mankind? male and female.

When we say men, I believe we are referring to male and female, but when we say man, we can only be referring to male?
Makes no sense, would make better sense if the prayer said and became a man.

 

[Rau]

Well there are various examples in the scriptures, but one that does come to mind relating to man is the Nicene creed.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

Men = male only? Or Mankind? male and female.

Became man = male only? Or Mankind? male and female.

When we say men, I believe we are referring to male and female, but when we say man, we can only be referring to male?
Makes no sense, would make better sense if the prayer said and became a man.

You can say that he became “man” or “a man”. Both are true, and the latter is more informative. So while he became “man” as in mankind, he did not become “a woman”.

 

[simpleas]

You can say that he became “man” or “a man”. Both are true, and the latter is more informative. So while he became “man” as in mankind, he did not become “a woman”.

Thanks.

Yes it is obvious that Jesus is a male. So when we are reading something that is teaching or instructing man we may not be speaking of woman?
I take it that the word men is exclusive to males?
I must say I thought it odd to exclaim ‘for us men’ when I’m not a man.

 

[Rau]

Thanks.

Yes it is obvious that Jesus is a male. So when we are reading something that is teaching or instructing man we may not be speaking of woman?

I can’t imagine why this use of language presents such difficulty for you.

 

[simpleas]

I can’t imagine why this use of language presents such difficulty for you.

Not sure if this was a question or a statement.

To keep pulling out bits of my post rather than addressing all the post is not helpful to me.

But thanks for reading.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Simpleas,

I had a little time to visit the CAF and look for something stimulating, and I found it here. Nice thread!

I did not read the whole thread, but I liked, and agreed with, Vico’s comments on ontology. The priest who taught us said, however, that the sacraments are signs of what has already occurred, what is occurring in the moment, or what will occur in the future. For example, a child who simply “goes through the motions” in confirmation will not undergo any change whatsoever. The change occurs when the child embraces a commitment to Christ, a manifestation of the Spirit working in the individual.

In addition, no person can limit the workings of the Spirit. The gifts that come through you are the inspiration of your accepting, child-like way of looking at the world and our faith. You communicate a universal respect for everyone, which in my eyes is a work of the Spirit; you mediate His love and mercy.

Concerning the role of women, no human can limit what the Holy Spirit does in our Church; and remember, revelation unfolds…

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

I had a little time to visit the CAF and look for something stimulating, and I found it here. Nice thread!

I did not read the whole thread, but I liked, and agreed with, Vico’s comments on ontology. The priest who taught us said, however, that the sacraments are signs of what has already occurred, what is occurring in the moment, or what will occur in the future. For example, a child who simply “goes through the motions” in confirmation will not undergo any change whatsoever. The change occurs when the child embraces a commitment to Christ, a manifestation of the Spirit working in the individual.

In addition, no person can limit the workings of the Spirit. The gifts that come through you are the inspiration of your accepting, child-like way of looking at the world and our faith. You communicate a universal respect for everyone, which in my eyes is a work of the Spirit; you mediate His love and mercy.

Concerning the role of women, no human can limit what the Holy Spirit does in our Church; and remember, revelation unfolds…

Hi Onesheep

Nice to hear from you.

The thread seemed to ‘fall apart’ toward the end, not sure much more could be discussed, if you want to have a crack at the original question be my guest

I know you believe in revelation unfolds, but many do not.

Thanks for adding your thoughts.