Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks.

Yes I think it is a good step forward from the pope in investigating the workings of the early church, much I think has been dismissed through the ages.

The “indelible spiritual character”

Is it the same as ontological change? If it is in some way limited to the male human?

 

[simpleas]

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.

I read something similar to this thought a few years back. It was in Jewish teaching, something a long the lines of women having more of a spiritual connection with God because of carrying life within them, giving birth to that life, nurturing the child etc. Men on the other hand do not experience this divine connection.

It was about the wearing of the Tefillin for men in the Jewish tradition, though I don’t know if what I read was true.

 

[Vico]

Thanks.

Yes I think it is a good step forward from the pope in investigating the workings of the early church, much I think has been dismissed through the ages.

The “indelible spiritual character”

Is it the same as ontological change? If it is in some way limited to the male human?

Baptism, Confirmation (Chrysmation), and Holy Orders are the three sacraments that seal (mark) our souls indelibly, which is why they are given only once per person. These are ontological changes.

 

[grannymh]

The naked truth, back in the early days of women’s rights and yes, I am that old – is that getting equal pay for equal work is a valid goal – and yes, a vice-president told me that his wife did not understand him.

I am not exactly sure when Catholics popped up with the idea that women should be Catholic priests. On the surface, there are sincere reasons. What I see now is that “sincere” is the frosting on a cake that could sink a ship. For example. Has anyone considered the role of the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism? There is true equality between women and men regarding the reception of this Catholic Sacrament. Those CAF participants who like to dig deep – Would anyone venture into the basic equality in the Sacrament of Baptism and then determine if that equality is needed in the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders? (CCC 1536 and following.)

 

[Sarcelle]

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!

What has that got to do with the male only priesthood?

The male only priesthood was never meant to push forth the agenda that men are superior to women. Only men can be “in persona Christi” hence a male only priesthood.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

You do realize that not all women are mothers?

While all mothers are women it does not mean that all women are mothers.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

For example. Has anyone considered the role of the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism? There is true equality between women and men regarding the reception of this Catholic Sacrament.

Yes, apparently anyone Baptised as Catholic regardless if they practise or not is always consider a Catholic, importantly they died with Christ and ‘put on’ a new person.
So all very much equal in that sense.

But to follow Christ in the works of a priest is not equal to all. There is a ‘cut off’ there, even for some men, as we know not all men make it to the priesthood. Women are not even allowed to consider that vocation because…

BTW for me this is not about women’s rights, but about how the church teaches that God seems to will that women are unable to transmit grace.

 

[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.

The instrumental cause of grace is by the holy Sacraments of the Church, instituted by Christ, and a woman may administer baptism, which is one of the means by which grace is transmitted.

Women and men may both be icons of Christ: Galatians 3
26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

 

[Rau]

…BTW for me this is not about women’s rights, but about how the church teaches that God seems to will that women are unable to transmit grace.

The Church merely holds it has no basis (authority) to ordain women. The apostles were all men, and they appointed further men. Had historical facts been different, so would Church practice today. The Church is not asserting an “incapacity” of some kind that is particular to women. At the end of the day, perhaps this is how it is and only God can fully explain it.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, apparently anyone Baptised as Catholic regardless if they practise or not is always consider a Catholic, importantly they died with Christ and ‘put on’ a new person.
So all very much equal in that sense.

But to follow Christ in the works of a priest is not equal to all. There is a ‘cut off’ there, even for some men, as we know not all men make it to the priesthood. Women are not even allowed to consider that vocation because…

BTW for me this is not about women’s rights, but about how the church teaches that God seems to will that women are unable to transmit grace.

Quote from post 25.
“BTW for me this is not about women’s rights, but about how the church teaches that God seems to will that women are unable to transmit grace.”



The best advice is to skip the preaching of people who are basically attacking the Catholic Church at its foundation.

As for the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism, it is God in His Sacrament, not the human pouring water, Who has the power to transmit the State of Sanctifying Grace in all its glory. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God,” (CCC 405)

 

[Thorolfr]

The instrumental cause of grace is by the holy Sacraments of the Church, instituted by Christ, and a woman may administer baptism, which is one of the means by which grace is transmitted.

Women and men may both be icons of Christ: Galatians 3
26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

And yet Paul also implies in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 that women are inferior to men:

7 For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. 8Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.

 

[Vico]

And yet Paul also implies in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 that women are inferior to men:

The Church does not say the women are inferior to men.

St. Thomas Aquinas thought that the male was more perfect (from Aristotle active = perfect, passive = imperfect) and Aquinas takes it as evident that if males are meant to rule that it must be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

We know that some females are intellectually superior to some males, so it is a generalization.

 

[Thorolfr]

The Church does not say the women are inferior to men.

St. Thomas Aquinas thought that the male was more perfect (from Aristotle active = perfect, passive = imperfect) and Aquinas takes it as evident that if males are meant to rule that it must be by virtue of intellectual superiority.

We know that some females are intellectually superior to some males, so it is a generalization.

If we are all created in the image of God, Paul makes it sound like women are a kind of second hand reflection of God by way of man.

 

[grannymh]

If we are all created in the image of God, Paul makes it sound like women are a kind of second hand reflection of God by way of man.

Please. How do you interpret Genesis 1: 27?


Please. How do you interpret the dramatic shift from
Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27?

 

[Vico]

If we are all created in the image of God, Paul makes it sound like women are a kind of second hand reflection of God by way of man.

Haydock Commentary Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Ver. 16.
And thy conceptions. Septuagint, “thy groaning.” The multifarious sorrows of childbearing, must remind all mothers (the blessed Virgin Mary alone excepted) of what they have incurred by original sin. If that had not taken place, they would have conceived without concupiscence, and brought forth without sorrow. (St. Augustine, City of God xiv. 26.)

— Conceptions are multiplied on account of the many untimely deaths, in our fallen state. Power, which will sometimes be exercised with rigor. (Haydock)

— Moses here shews the original and natural subjection of wives to their husbands, in opposition to the Egyptians, who, to honour Isis, gave women the superiority by the marriage contract. (Diodorus i. 2.) (Calmet)

 

[simpleas]

The instrumental cause of grace is by the holy Sacraments of the Church, instituted by Christ, and a woman may administer baptism, which is one of the means by which grace is transmitted.

Women and men may both be icons of Christ: Galatians 3
26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

Yes this I know, any person who believes in Jesus Christ may baptise another in certain situations.

But a woman may never be a priestess of Christ, I can only see that this is down to the authority of some men.

 

[simpleas]

The Church merely holds it has no basis (authority) to ordain women. The apostles were all men, and they appointed further men. Had historical facts been different, so would Church practice today. The Church is not asserting an “incapacity” of some kind that is particular to women. At the end of the day, perhaps this is how it is and only God can fully explain it.

I don’t think we know every historical fact about our Church.

 

[simpleas]

Quote from post 25.
“BTW for me this is not about women’s rights, but about how the church teaches that God seems to will that women are unable to transmit grace.”



The best advice is to skip the preaching of people who are basically attacking the Catholic Church at its foundation.

As for the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism, it is God in His Sacrament, not the human pouring water, Who has the power to transmit the State of Sanctifying Grace in all its glory. “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God,” (CCC 405)

I agree, it is God acting through the person, male or female, shouldn’t really be an issue.

 

[simpleas]

And yet Paul also implies in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 that women are inferior to men:

This and other writings seem to be the bases for keeping the idea that women should not be priestess’ within Catholicism.

No one actually refers to writings that demean women, but they did in the past, that was how they understood things. (except for some fundamentalists)

Saying Jesus didn’t choose women among his apostles doesn’t hold much water. Jesus also did not say women could not be leaders among men, all that came after.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

The church says who has spiritual authority over who and how that authority flows downwards. A priest must get authority from a bishop in order to perform an exorcism. Other people have legitimate spiritual authority over their own things and over some people without being priests or deacons.

A priest can bless anybody (not sure if he can bless a bishop but let’s put that aside for now). The father of a family can bless anybody in his family; he can bless his wife or his children. Similarly, his wife, the mother of his children, cannot bless him because she does not have authority over him, but she can indeed bless her own children. The children cannot bless their father or their mother except under special circumstances (like, say, if the parent has slipped into mental incapacity) because, in the normal scheme of things, they are not normally granted that authority.

I myself, being unmarried, cannot bless a wife nor any children, although I can say binding prayers to clear the air (send any spirits not of the Holy Spirit to the foot of the Cross for Christ’s judgement) of a house if I own one or an apartment if I am renting one.

Similarly, I think I can bless my cat because I think I have that authority . . . I think . . . hmm . . . not sure about that one . . .

So, yes, women can dispense grace if they have that authority.

PS: Can a Mother Superior bless the nuns she has authority over? Not sure about that one, but I would guess so. Can the nuns bless the Mother Superior? My guess is probably not, although again I am not sure about that one. If the Mother Superior became deathly ill and was no longer capable of carrying out her duties, and if a priest or bishop raised one of the nuns to the position of Mother Superior, I suspect that the new Mother Superior would have the authority to bless the old one. Again though, that is just a guess on my part.

Can a nun bless me? I don’t know. I rather doubt that I can bless a nun though, or indeed anybody else at all.

I came to these ideas from listening to exorcists like Father Ripperger speak about whether or not any given person has the authority to caste out demons in the course of an exorcism. I think other priests have spoken on the general issue of authority too. For me, this is mostly just priests talking on youtube, and I am assuming they are telling the truth. If somebody can point out any mistakes I am making, I would be eager to have the record set straight.