Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

  • Thread starter Thread starter simpleas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
simpleas said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is what I remember many years ago. In my geographic area, some of the young men were invited to be a priest instead of getting married. Being married and having sex was on the bottom rung of vocations.

Fortunately, common sense took hold. The Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony is a powerful life-long Sacrament. Women do not need the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders to give their life to God in serving their family and often their Church and their neighbors

This does not mean that every woman should be married. Single women have the life-long power of the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism and the power of the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation. All of us need to ask the Holy Spirit to stir up, within us, the graces of our Baptism and Confirmation.
 
simpleas said:
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.
Click to expand...
The spiritual, ontological change is enabled at baptism (a form of priesthood) and in the actual sacrament of priesthood, but the adult male body most fully communicates and mediates Jesus’ spirit to us. IOW the sacrament is not about the spirit itself (because it exists in a void on earth since it is unable to connect with others without a body). The sacrament of priesthood is about communicating God’s spirit through a body. Coming into connection with God’s spirit as a human. And a better communicator of God’s spirit does not exactly mean a person is better or holier, because it is God, not the person. Ideally, the body is used as a mask of God’s expression.
And would a lady be chosen in the role of Ben Hur? It would be ridiculous. I don’t know what more you want, and I’m sorry you don’t feel comfortable with this expression. In my opinion, your uncomfortable feelings show a lack of respect for the dignity of male and female differences, each very important.

I think it is significant that Jesus came in male form. His role is public sacrificial hero and leader. Maybe this is the part you are struggling with. Refer to the JP2 link. Very good.
 
edwest2 said:
Pope John Paul II explained it.

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

Ed
Click to expand...
I have read the letter twice and find no explanation of how the church understands ontological change that only men can be received into the priest hood.

But put very simply is this :

the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church."(1)
 
grannymh said:
That is what I remember many years ago. In my geographic area, some of the young men were invited to be a priest instead of getting married. Being married and having sex was on the bottom rung of vocations.

Fortunately, common sense took hold. The Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony is a powerful life-long Sacrament. Women do not need the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders to give their life to God in serving their family and often their Church and their neighbors

This does not mean that every woman should be married. Single women have the life-long power of the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism and the power of the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation. All of us need to ask the Holy Spirit to stir up, within us, the graces of our Baptism and Confirmation.
Click to expand...
So what does ‘a higher calling’ mean to you then? I’m referring to what the church says is a higher calling, I don’t think it suggests one is better than the other, (priesthood v marriage) but they are different callings, one of which is superior.
 
simpleas said:
So what does ‘a higher calling’ mean to you then? I’m referring to what the church says is a higher calling, I don’t think it suggests one is better than the other, (priesthood v marriage) but they are different callings, one of which is superior.
Click to expand...
The “church” has never officially formally declared that the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders is a higher calling or superior. The trouble is that we often have to separate free speech explanations (higher calling or superior) from formal doctrines. The CCC is full of explanations. Please read CCC 20-21.

When the CCC uses common phrases or descriptions, we must look at the context, including cross-references in the margins, in order to understand how some common phrase is being used. Another suggestion is to go to the “In Brief” at the end of a section.

Instead of asking “Did God exclude…” in my humble opinion, we should be asking “What did God give us so that we can make it to heaven.”
 
simpleas said:
I have read the letter twice and find no explanation of how the church understands ontological change that only men can be received into the priest hood.

But put very simply is this :

the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church."(1)
Click to expand...
Why start the search with the word exclude? I am beginning to wonder if one of the best tactics a public person can use to draw Catholics away from their Church is to present the negative first. Yes, we have to know the negative. However, the temptation to leave “negative” Catholicism is a lot easier than searching for the actual truth.

Why get hung up on “ontological change” when we should be looking forward to receiving Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass exists because of the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.
 
faithsmind said:
The spiritual, ontological change is enabled at baptism (a form of priesthood) and in the actual sacrament of priesthood, but the adult male body most fully communicates and mediates Jesus’ spirit to us. IOW the sacrament is not about the spirit itself (because it exists in a void on earth since it is unable to connect with others without a body). The sacrament of priesthood is about communicating God’s spirit through a body. Coming into connection with God’s spirit as a human. And a better communicator of God’s spirit does not exactly mean a person is better or holier, because it is God, not the person. Ideally, the body is used as a mask of God’s expression.
And would a lady be chosen in the role of Ben Hur? It would be ridiculous. I don’t know what more you want, and I’m sorry you don’t feel comfortable with this expression. In my opinion, your uncomfortable feelings show a lack of respect for the dignity of male and female differences, each very important.

I think it is significant that Jesus came in male form. His role is public sacrificial hero and leader. Maybe this is the part you are struggling with. Refer to the JP2 link. Very good.
Click to expand...
Could you kindly explain how the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders is about communicating God’s spirit through a body?
 
As it pertains to priesthood, the answer is “yes”, as spoken from the Chair itself.

But you don’t even need the Chair. For reasons I don’t know, God gave man the headship.

-He was called forth first, and woman was called forth from him as a “help-meet”.
-The Fall occurred when Adam ate, even though Eve ate first.
-Men were ordained the high-priests of their home in the age of the Patriarchs.
-In the age of the Levitical priesthood, men were exclusively chosen as the priests.
-When God incarnated, He chose the male form.
-All the Christ-chosen disciples/apostles were men.

I think there’s a theme here.

As a man, am I any “better” than a woman? I don’t think so. But for reasons I don’t know, headship was granted to me in a way not granted to my wife, God help me.
 
Vonsalza said:
As it pertains to priesthood, the answer is “yes”, as spoken from the Chair itself.

But you don’t even need the Chair. For reasons I don’t know, God gave man the headship.

-He was called forth first, and woman was called forth from him as a “help-meet”.
-The Fall occurred when Adam ate, even though Eve ate first.
-Men were ordained the high-priests of their home in the age of the Patriarchs.
-In the age of the Levitical priesthood, men were exclusively chosen as the priests.
-When God incarnated, He chose the male form.
-All the Christ-chosen disciples/apostles were men.

I think there’s a theme here.

As a man, am I any “better” than a woman? I don’t think so. But for reasons I don’t know, headship was granted to me in a way not granted to my wife, God help me.
Click to expand...
Headship. That sounds like a mile away from the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.
 
Back in the days when I had a baby dinosaur as a pet, we learned that the seven Catholic Sacraments were instituted to give grace or something similar to that fundamental idea.
 
simpleas said:
I have read the letter twice and find no explanation of how the church understands ontological change that only men can be received into the priest hood.

But put very simply is this :

the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for his Church."(1)
Click to expand...
Jesus established things in this way. No authority was given to the Church to ordain women.

Best,
Ed
 
simpleas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Holy Orders changes the person, not the soul.

In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the man being ordained is “conformed to Christ the Head.” This conformation is to Christ, who is both divine and human, and in particular, is a human male. In his 1998 address to the Congregation for the Clergy, Pope John Paul II said,
Through the sacrament of Orders, the priest is transformed into “Christ himself” in order to accomplish Christ’s works. His conformation to Christ the Head and Shepherd comes about through a specific character. This indelible character is the inseparable mark of priestly consecration (cf. Presbyterorum ordinis, n. 2; Lumen gentium, n. 21; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1558).
Click to expand...
40.png
simpleas:
I think I give up, something just makes me feel uncomfortable about it all.
Click to expand...
I think the discomfort proceeds from a commonly-held cultural notion that men and women are equally capable of performing the same set of tasks. The priesthood, however, is not just an employment opportunity with a set of job-related tasks. The discomfort, I think, is from the perception that we’re crossing a line that cultural political correctness tells us is uncrossable. 🤷
 
grannymh said:
Headship. That sounds like a mile away from the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Click to expand...
Not to me. When you validly put on the collar, your word on matters Catholic matters a bit more than folks who don’t have one.
 
Gorgias said:
Holy Orders changes the person, not the soul.

In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the man being ordained is “conformed to Christ the Head.” This conformation is to Christ, who is both divine and human, and in particular, is a human male. In his 1998 address to the Congregation for the Clergy, Pope John Paul II said,

I think the discomfort proceeds from a commonly-held cultural notion that men and women are equally capable of performing the same set of tasks. The priesthood, however, is not just an employment opportunity with a set of job-related tasks. The discomfort, I think, is from the perception that we’re crossing a line that cultural political correctness tells us is uncrossable. 🤷
Click to expand...
Please note from post 1

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.
 
In visits to Episcopal churches I’ve seen female priests who performed their duties as well as, or better than, any Catholic priest I’ve ever seen. And having been raised Catholic, I’ve seen a lot more Catholic priests than Episcopal ones. Whatever the nature of this ontological change, the change and its effects are something that’s visible only to God.
 
simpleas said:
I’m a little uncomfortable when I think about how the church teaches male and female are equal in Christ but share different roles
Click to expand...
So… your discomfort is with the notion that women and men are complementary but not identical? :hmmm:
 
billsannie said:
In visits to Episcopal churches I’ve seen female priests who performed their duties as well as, or better than, any Catholic priest I’ve ever seen.
Click to expand...
Again, it’s not about the ability to perform functions.
Whatever the nature of this ontological change, the change and its effects are something that’s visible only to God.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Yet, the substantial change to the bread and wine into the Eucharist is something “that’s visible only to God”. Are you suggesting that that’s up for grabs, too? :hmmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top