Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[simpleas]

You are posing the hypothetical question - “were a woman to be ordained - contrary to what the Church believes is its authority - would the bond arise.?” The question is academic don’t you think.

AFAIK, it is not written that Jesus Christ said that any person - man, woman or child - is able to receive a mark on their souls which will separate them from the rest of the people. Is it that you believe unless the Bible records Jesus as saying something, it is to be rejected?

So it’s just because the church believes it is its authority not to do so and nothing more?

 

[Rau]

So it’s just because the church believes it is its authority not to do so and nothing more?

Do you have a contrary view?

 

[sudy]

Perhaps there is something in this article which could help you to understand, or at least to accept, the priesthood being male only.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-can-t-women-be-priests.html

As you made clear in your opening post, the priesthood is a calling and not a career choice. It is not intended as a slight on women. Male priesthood was instituted by Christ himself.

Becoming a priest is not the only way to serve God fully and to attain the Beatific Vision. It’s not the only way to preach the Good News to the world, either, so we needn’t be jealous or feel any inequality, many men can’t become priests either. With the priesthood comes great responsibility and a total giving up of self to God. A priest is not his own. He is a servant of God and his people.

The biblical reference for the Catholic priesthood is the Last Supper of Christ. This is where Jesus institutes the ministerial priesthood. Not only is this where the institution of the Holy Eucharist takes place, there is the washing of the feet, too. This is foreshadowed in Exodus 40:12-13.

I know it can be difficult to understand and accept some doctrines, but we know that Jesus built his Church on the rock of Peter. He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truths. We are to submit obediently and humbly

In all other ways women can serve Christ, except for the priesthood. The Church is right when she declares that she has absolutely no authority to change this doctrine.

…though it does bring up the question of why some priests have started washing the feet of women, too.

 

[Vico]

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.

It is from God that gave the authority to the Church.

Pope Pius XII gave the following in his encyclical On The Sacred Liturgy (Mdeiator Dei):

1. This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. “Not only,” says Innocent III of immortal memory, “do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.”[84] We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine’s many statements on this subject. “The sacrifice,” he says “is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.”[85]
2. De Missa, 1, c. 27.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html

 

[grannymh]

I bet that no one is interested in consulting the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

Because this is a free speech public message board, I offer this bit of Scripture (Genesis 3: 6) news as a surprise. Warning–this citation does not , repeat does not mean that Eve committed the Original Sin. However, it does prove that women can think for themselves.

Another warning–the tree in Genesis 2: 15-17 is not the priesthood. CCC 396 specifically refers to “insurmountable limits” which are due to the fact that Adam could only live in a friendship relationship with his Creator God by living in free submission to His command.

The bottom line of Original Sin is that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity had to step into the sandals of the human sinner who was male. This is accomplished by the Incarnation. John 3: 16-17

Chapter 14, Gospel of John, assures us that we will not be left orphans. This has been accomplished by the gift of “In Persona Christi”. Here, the “insurmountable limit” is that the assumed human nature cannot be both male and female at the same time. Historically, Jesus chose the male option.

Reading chapter 14, Gospel of John, slowly, we find the promised Advocate and the basic protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth in regard to Catholic teachings.

By the way, this granny, as a child, wanted to be a priest because when a priest was ordained, his first Mass at his home parish was followed by a great party. I still love parties.

Going back to “In Persona Christi”, we cannot change the Divine choice of male human nature to our preference of both a male and female Savior so that the men/women equality in our eyes is met.

The Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders uses the gift of “In Persona Christi” in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Read again, the marvelous Scripture detailing the Last Supper. Because of “In Persona Christi” we can receive the True Presence of Jesus Christ.

Jesus could, by assuming human nature, step into the sandals of our first human person. Sometimes, I wonder about what some popular people are really trying to do.
Is there some kind of attempt to have a human step into the shoes of divinity? Maybe not step into divine shoes, but rather to set aside some of the difficult teachings found in the Catholic Church. I do not believe that rebuilding Catholicism is the proper answer.

Genesis 3: 6 usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps there is something in this article which could help you to understand, or at least to accept, the priesthood being male only.

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/why-can-t-women-be-priests.html

As you made clear in your opening post, the priesthood is a calling and not a career choice. It is not intended as a slight on women. Male priesthood was instituted by Christ himself.

Becoming a priest is not the only way to serve God fully and to attain the Beatific Vision. It’s not the only way to preach the Good News to the world, either, so we needn’t be jealous or feel any inequality, many men can’t become priests either. With the priesthood comes great responsibility and a total giving up of self to God. A priest is not his own. He is a servant of God and his people.

The biblical reference for the Catholic priesthood is the Last Supper of Christ. This is where Jesus institutes the ministerial priesthood. Not only is this where the institution of the Holy Eucharist takes place, there is the washing of the feet, too. This is foreshadowed in Exodus 40:12-13.

I know it can be difficult to understand and accept some doctrines, but we know that Jesus built his Church on the rock of Peter. He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truths. We are to submit obediently and humbly

In all other ways women can serve Christ, except for the priesthood. The Church is right when she declares that she has absolutely no authority to change this doctrine.

…though it does bring up the question of why some priests have started washing the feet of women, too.

Yes thanks for the links

This bit screams out at me :

Two thousand years later, no one – including the pope – has the authority to change the designs of the Church that Christ instituted. Specifically, the Church is unable to change the substance of a sacrament. For example, a person cannot be baptized in wine, nor may a substance other than bread be used for the consecration at Mass. If invalid matter is used, then the sacrament does not take place. Likewise, since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ.

I know referring to the use of something other than water of baptism or chocolate for bread is an example of invalid matter, it makes me think women are ‘invalid matter’.
Women have spiritual souls too, and it is the soul that is changed not the body.

I think I give up, something just makes me feel uncomfortable about it all.

Thanks.

 

[Vico]

Yes thanks for the links

This bit screams out at me :

I know referring to the use of something other than water of baptism or chocolate for bread is an example of invalid matter, it makes me think women are ‘invalid matter’.
Women have spiritual souls too, and it is the soul that is changed not the body.

I think I give up, something just makes me feel uncomfortable about it all.

Thanks.

This statement does not include the diaconate since those receiving it do not act in the person of Christ: “since the priest acts in the person of Christ, the Church has no authority to confer the sacrament [of Holy Orders] on those who are unable to represent the male Jesus Christ.”

 

[sudy]

Women are not invalid matter. God created us male and female. He doesn’t consider any of us as invalid matter and wants each of us to seek him. We aren’t all called to serve in the same way, but we are all called to serve. We all aspire to become as little children, with humble and trusting hearts.

Priests aren’t free to marry and have children. I reckon that some of them aren’t pleased about this but they accept it with humility.

I’m sorry the article I posted made you uncomfortable, though.

 

[faithsmind]

Yes thanks for the links

This bit screams out at me :

I know referring to the use of something other than water of baptism or chocolate for bread is an example of invalid matter, it makes me think women are ‘invalid matter’.
**Women have spiritual souls too, and it is the soul that is changed not the body.
**
I think I give up, something just makes me feel uncomfortable about it all.

Thanks.

I’m not sure you are getting the concept of sacrament. God’s love is made known through tangible works using bodies. Each sacrament is very specific, and reaches a Christian where his or her needs and desires are at in physical form, unifying him and completing him in mind body and spirit with Christ, in love.

The priesthood is the most perfect depiction of Christ in word, body, and spirit that we have on earth. The purpose of the priest is to allow His flock to see Christ as much as is humanly possible in mind, body, and spirit. We are not just dealing with the soul. It is essentially the meaning of a person’s physical existence on earth. It is the ultimate demonstration of love.

But yes, men and women both are equally valued and loved by God, even though their actions may be different.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks all.

I hear much about what it means for a man as a priest to be in Christ but not much of what a women is in Christ.

PS.

The whole article didn’t make me feel uncomfortable, the basis of belief from early writings regarding human nature makes me feel uneasy.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks all.

I hear much about what it means for a man as a priest to be in Christ but not much of what a women is in Christ.

PS.

The whole article didn’t make me feel uncomfortable, the basis of belief from early writings regarding human nature makes me feel uneasy.

Technically, a woman is not “In Christ”. A human cannot be physically present in a Divine Person.

As a woman, one of my favorite Scripture lines is in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.

15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

That is why it is important for women to completely learn about the Mystical Body of Christ. Obviously, a sweet talking internet writer is counting on readers not knowing the full story about the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

 

[grannymh]

The opening Post 1.

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.

Now that this thread has been moved to the Philosophy Forum from its original Forum, perhaps someone can give us the philosophical explanation for ontological change.

On the other hand, perhaps “ontological change” is a distraction which has the possibility to confuse the innocent.

 

[grannymh]

From post 1.

“…when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling,…”
When I was young, the “higher calling” was often mentioned in my geographic location. Then, “higher calling” seemed to disappear because some people thought that “higher calling” could diminish, in some way, the power of the seven Catholic Sacraments.

Question for Simpleas and others. Today, what does “higher calling” mean to you?

 

[JimG]

The ontological change which is not possible is for a woman to become a man (or a man to become a woman.) A woman cannot become a priest because she is not male.

If the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman, could men become priests? No. It has to do with Jesus’ humanity, not with any inequality of the sexes.

 

[simpleas]

Technically, a woman is not “In Christ”. A human cannot be physically present in a Divine Person.

As a woman, one of my favorite Scripture lines is in 1 Corinthians, chapter 12.

15
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

That is why it is important for women to completely learn about the Mystical Body of Christ. Obviously, a sweet talking internet writer is counting on readers not knowing the full story about the Mystical Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

I have heard the phase In Christ many times, you may prefer with Christ.

From the CCC for example :

1694 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.8 Following Christ and united with him,9 Christians can strive to be "imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love"10 by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the "mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,"11 and by following his example.12

 

[simpleas]

From post 1.

“…when I don’t see the priesthood as a ‘role’ like normal everyday man/woman roles. I see it as a higher calling,…”
When I was young, the “higher calling” was often mentioned in my geographic location. Then, “higher calling” seemed to disappear because some people thought that “higher calling” could diminish, in some way, the power of the seven Catholic Sacraments.

Question for Simpleas and others. Today, what does “higher calling” mean to you?

Higher calling in a way that a person leaves the wants of the material world so is able to give all of their life to God through prayer and serving the people of the church.

 

[simpleas]

The ontological change which is not possible is for a woman to become a man (or a man to become a woman.) A woman cannot become a priest because she is not male.

If the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a woman, could men become priests? No. It has to do with Jesus’ humanity, not with any inequality of the sexes.

As far as I understand ontological change happens at baptism, which all humans can receive.

It’s not about changing sexes? It’s about the soul of the person being changed in a way that allows that person to act as an Icon for Christ and administer his Grace to others.

A woman may not become a priest because she is not male.

A women may become a priestess, though that ‘option’ does not exist in the Catholic teachings.

 

[Rau]

As far as I understand ontological change happens at baptism, which all humans can receive.

It’s not about changing sexes? It’s about the soul of the person being changed in a way that allows that person to act as an Icon for Christ and administer his Grace to others.

A woman may not become a priest because she is not male.

A women may become a priestess, though that ‘option’ does not exist in the Catholic teachings.

It’s more than the ‘option’ not existing, the end - “priestess” - does not exist.

 

[JimG]

As far as I understand ontological change happens at baptism, which all humans can receive.

It’s not about changing sexes? It’s about the soul of the person being changed in a way that allows that person to act as an Icon for Christ and administer his Grace to others.

A woman may not become a priest because she is not male.

A women may become a priestess, though that ‘option’ does not exist in the Catholic teachings.

I always heard the permanent change effected at Baptism and Confirmation referred to as an “indelible mark” on the soul, a spiritual imprint. In any case, the reason for ordaining only males has to do not with the soul, but with Jesus’ human nature as a male. The priest acting in persona Christi, steps into Jesus’ persona in stating the words of consecration. That’s my take on it, anyway; I don’t think the Church has ever given a specific reason, except that we do as Jesus did. As I said before, if the Second Person of the Trinity had become incarnate as a female, I don’t think that men would be able to be ordained.

\

 

[grannymh]

I have heard the phase In Christ many times, you may prefer with Christ.

From the CCC for example :

1694 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.8 Following Christ and united with him,9 Christians can strive to be "imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love"10 by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the "mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,"11 and by following his example.12

This is a wonderful CCC reference to the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism within the Mystical Body of Christ. Thank you. And yes, it says into Christ. However, that is not what is meant by another reference to “in Christ.” My suggestion is to look at the full context, like the CCC, in order to determine what is being suggested. I hope you never see what I have seen on the internet.

The CCC section, “The Church–Body of Christ” beginning with CCC 787 and following is also very interesting. Since part of our current culture seems to be in the mood for tampering and updating the Catholic Church, would some basic teachings belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ be omitted?