Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

[grannymh]

I think your ultimate challenge is to try and convince your fellow discussion partner that the Church has ruled conclusively on the matter.

Thank you.

My actual challenge is to convince modern Catholics that the first three often trashed chapters of Genesis are filled with basic truths including some reasons for a male priesthood.

As you can lead a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink - Good Luck.

My mother would often talk about that horse. But it never stopped her when truth is involved. Personally, I have great respect for our guests who are not CAF members. Often, my reply is directed to their needs.

The answer to the thread question as it pertains to priesthood is “Yes”. The issue is about as debatable for a Catholic as the existence of the trinity or the divinity of Christ - which is to say “it’s not debatable”.

Off CAF, there is some evidence that some speakers/writers are debating some of the “not debatable issues”. However, this is done in various subtle ways. Those persons who understand Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 & 12, will recognize the warning of Pope Pius XII.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[sudy]

The other question is one of safety. As we hear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, travel in those times was very dangerous. Without modern weaponry, self-defense depended mostly on brute force. The Apostles were called to travel far and wide. Travelling with another woman or only one man, a woman would be in serious danger. Certainly many Christians are called to martyrdom, but unnecessarily death is another thing. This problem rarely applies to priests today.

I always got the impression that people were travelling from town to town all the time, that you could almost always be assured of travelling companions. Even Our Lady travelled to the hill country to visit Elizabeth, and this was reckoned to be a journey of about 80 miles. Travelling today is equally dangerous in non-Christian countries. Priests are being killed even today, unfortunately. I don’t mean this to discount what you’re saying… it’s just an observation.

Also there are other important characteristics of the Apostles which the Magisterium has not chosen to make requirements of the priesthood. For example, the Apostles were all Jewish. As they were all circumcised, this was as much a part of their flesh, their very being as their maleness. Yet being neither Jewishness nor circumcision is required to belong to the Catholic priesthood. Also, except for Judas, who was considered a failure, they were working-class men with little formal learning. That is certainly not a requirement for the priesthood.

It’s true that the Apostles were all Jews, but Jesus said in Mark 16:15 to preach the Gospel to the whole creation. This shows that his Church is for all peoples, not just the Jews. In Acts, the Church held Council on the circumcision subject, and it was declared that Christians needn’t be circumcised to be accepted.

And for good measure there is St. Paul’s metaphor of the Bride and the Bridegroom. But this is a metaphor. The image has to do with great personal intimacy, not gender, and with Christ, not with the person of the priest. Indeed, if we were to take the gender symbolism to its logical conclusion, the congregation would have to be all female! And as far as being a metaphor for an intimate relationship, the modern male priest hardly conveys that idea. The image is rather one of sterile aloofness.

I’m not sure that taking it to its logical conclusion requires all the congregation to be female In French, certain terms are masculine and feminine, giraffe is feminine but all giraffes aren’t female. I think there is far more involved with the gender symbolism, however. I don’t think it should be discarded so lightly. We’re talking about something more profound… Christ - the Head, The Church - his Mystical Body.

Ephesians 5:31-33 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and his church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Regarding the rule of tradition, if that were consistently followed we would still have married clergy and the Latin Mass would never have existed. So that’s something of a hit-and-miss proposition, not a solid rule.

Married clergy would have less time to dedicate to God as they would be tied with family matters, too.

As for infallibility, the Magisterium has defined these rules and if they felt so moved, they could overthrow them.

Jesus promised us that the Spirit of truth would lead us into all truths. You either believe this or you reject it.

If I have offended anyone by this, please forgive me. That is not my intention. I only wish to express my opinion and, perhaps, provide material for discussion.

I doubt anyone would feel offended but I wonder how many of these views are your own and how many you’ve researched just to find support for your argument.

 

[simpleas]

1Corinthians, chapter 12
usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/12

14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
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.
16
Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

Apparently, some members of the Corinth community had arranged the Holy Spirit gifts according to some standard of a higher calling. Pride in having certain gifts followed. Apparently pride was so strong that it made the foot and ear feel that they did not belong. Today, there are some women who feel that they do not belong. Today, it appears that there is a longing to be equally proud so that some women seek the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders which is the “hand” and “eye” of St. Paul’s observation.
Today, both women and men need to accept the teachings of St. Paul in 1Corinthians, chapter 12.

4
There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit;
5
there are different forms of service but the same Lord;
6
there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
7
To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
In real life pride has many forms. Sometimes, it is pride in a job, etc. But when a particular job excludes women because they are women, then women feel the opposite of pride.

What is unique is that pride does not have to come from being a certain kind of a person. It can come from the job. For example, the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders. Some women may say that they have the right to be equally proud of how they serve others.

It does not matter to me if no one agrees with this version of pride.

I agree people can be prideful.

We aren’t discussing at type of job that excludes women, we are discussing a vocation, which is entirely different.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t mean to criticize I just wanted to add that pride is the root cause of envy …at least the way I see it.

Of course, women who feel called to serve God in the priesthood are just envious of men!

 

[sudy]

I can assure you that I wasn’t talking about you. You are simply asking questions in order to understand the whys and why nots of this topic.

I was pointing out that pride is the origin of envy, and not its opposite. If you notice, I quoted somebody else

 

[simpleas]

The answer to the question – Is ontological change limited to the male human being? – is that common sense would answer that ontological change, which enables, is unlimited.

bustedhalo.com/questionbox/can-you-explain-what-happens-at-ordination-when-the-ontological-change-happens

link to CCC in above link.
**CCC1583 **It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

I asked the question about an ontological change.

Since the start of this thread, I’ve learned properly, that ontological change happens during each sacrament. At least this is what I’ve come to understand. All sacraments are available to both sexes, just the one of the priesthood is limited to a man.

The quote from the CCC above sounds much like baptism. Once baptised, the person can not be un-baptised, they are marked permanently, even if they do not wish to live the Christian life, and I would think, even if they are excommunicated from the church.

It shows that ontological change is a very powerful gift.

 

[billsannie]

I always got the impression that people were travelling from town to town all the time, that you could almost always be assured of travelling companions. Even Our Lady travelled to the hill country to visit Elizabeth, and this was reckoned to be a journey of about 80 miles. Travelling today is equally dangerous in non-Christian countries. Priests are being killed even today, unfortunately. I don’t mean this to discount what you’re saying… it’s just an observation.

It’s true that the Apostles were all Jews, but Jesus said in Mark 16:15 to preach the Gospel to the whole creation. This shows that his Church is for all peoples, not just the Jews. In Acts, the Church held Council on the circumcision subject, and it was declared that Christians needn’t be circumcised to be accepted.

I’m not sure that taking it to its logical conclusion requires all the congregation to be female In French, certain terms are masculine and feminine, giraffe is feminine but all giraffes aren’t female. I think there is far more involved with the gender symbolism, however. I don’t think it should be discarded so lightly. We’re talking about something more profound… Christ - the Head, The Church - his Mystical Body.

Ephesians 5:31-33 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and his church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Married clergy would have less time to dedicate to God as they would be tied with family matters, too.

Jesus promised us that the Spirit of truth would lead us into all truths. You either believe this or you reject it.

I doubt anyone would feel offended but I wonder how many of these views are your own and how many you’ve researched just to find support for your argument.

For whatever it’s worth, they’re all mine.

 

[grannymh]

I agree people can be prideful.

We aren’t discussing at type of job that excludes women, we are discussing a vocation, which is entirely different.

That is a very interesting point. I have nothing to add.

 

[grannymh]

I asked the question about an ontological change.

Since the start of this thread, I’ve learned properly, that ontological change happens during each sacrament. At least this is what I’ve come to understand. All sacraments are available to both sexes, just the one of the priesthood is limited to a man.

The quote from the CCC above sounds much like baptism. Once baptised, the person can not be un-baptised, they are marked permanently, even if they do not wish to live the Christian life, and I would think, even if they are excommunicated from the church.

It shows that ontological change is a very powerful gift.

Ontological change would be the result of a powerful gift, not the gift itself. That is why we need to find out why a particular Catholic Sacrament exists. Next, we need to find out how a particular Catholic Sacrament carries out its particular purpose(s). For example. What are the purpose(s) of the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Providing the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a main purpose. Providing the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is a main purpose.

 

[grannymh]

This is a very interesting thread.
I look forward to reading it when I return.

 

[sudy]

For whatever it’s worth, they’re all mine.

From a personal point of view, as a Catholic I truly believe:

that the Church was established by Christ [Matthew 16:18],
that Jesus left us a shepherd to tend his flock [John 21:15-17],
that Our Lord did not to leave us orphans [John 14:18],
that the Spirit of truth leads the Church to all truth [John 16:12-13].

and, as such, I humbly and obediently submit to the Church teaching.

For what it’s worth, priests must submit to the Church, also:

1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God.69 Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

 

[Sky_River]

Yes. It is limited to a male human being.

A valid bishop who illicitly ordains a man really and truly ordains him.

A valid bishop who illicitly (attempts to) ordain a woman, does nothing. It is not possible to ordain a woman. Lay hands on her, say the words, anoint-- nothing happens.

I red regarding the priesthood of all believers, that godly women are priestesses-is that false teaching?

 

[simpleas]

I red regarding the priesthood of all believers, that godly women are priestesses-is that false teaching?

This is how I have heard it explained :

“All who are baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is no longer any discrimination between Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female.” Galatians 3,28
Every baptised woman shares fully in Christ’s priesthood, kingship and prophetic mission. Baptism implies a fundamental openness to all the sacraments, including the ministerial priesthood.

 

[simpleas]

Ontological change would be the result of a powerful gift, not the gift itself. That is why we need to find out why a particular Catholic Sacrament exists. Next, we need to find out how a particular Catholic Sacrament carries out its particular purpose(s). For example. What are the purpose(s) of the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Providing the Sacrament of the Eucharist is a main purpose. Providing the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is a main purpose.

Yes a gift given that has to be used for there to be any change in the person. Still the gift is given and can not be returned.

 

[simpleas]

Thank you.

My actual challenge is to convince modern Catholics that the first three often trashed chapters of Genesis are filled with basic truths including some reasons for a male priesthood.

My mother would often talk about that horse. But it never stopped her when truth is involved. Personally, I have great respect for our guests who are not CAF members. Often, my reply is directed to their needs.

Off CAF, there is some evidence that some speakers/writers are debating some of the “not debatable issues”. However, this is done in various subtle ways. Those persons who understand Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 & 12, will recognize the warning of Pope Pius XII.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

What are some reasons for an all male priesthood expressed in the creation story?

 

[grannymh]

What are some reasons for an all male priesthood expressed in the creation story?

The basic reason is that the first human Adam is male. It is the original male Adam who commits the Original Sin. Adam is original because Eve is not present during Genesis 2: 15-18.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

Eve is created because Adam is alone.
18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

It is only the Divine Creator Who can give the human Adam and Eve the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam, because of his rational spiritual soul, image of God, can choose to be in this relationship with God or not. The way Adam chooses is by living in submission, obedience, to his Creator God.

Genesis 3: 9-12
usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard You in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”
11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

As I read the above, I do not see any indication that Adam is somehow superior to Eve. Genesis 1:27 refers to both man and woman.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

I think that the modern solution is to recognize that there cannot be two equally first humans in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. Both humans can be wonderful, but in the creation story, there has to be a tie breaker. Only one human can receive the Blue Ribbon.

Can we pause here? For any comments? Actually, I need to pause for breakfast so that my brain will work.

 

[simpleas]

The basic reason is that the first human Adam is male. It is the original male Adam who commits the Original Sin. Adam is original because Eve is not present during Genesis 2: 15-18.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.

Eve is created because Adam is alone.
18
The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

It is only the Divine Creator Who can give the human Adam and Eve the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam, because of his rational spiritual soul, image of God, can choose to be in this relationship with God or not. The way Adam chooses is by living in submission, obedience, to his Creator God.

Genesis 3: 9-12
usccb.org/bible/genesis/3
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard You in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”
11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

As I read the above, I do not see any indication that Adam is somehow superior to Eve. Genesis 1:27 refers to both man and woman.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
27
God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female* He created them.

I think that the modern solution is to recognize that there cannot be two equally first humans in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. Both humans can be wonderful, but in the creation story, there has to be a tie breaker. Only one human can receive the Blue Ribbon.

Can we pause here? For any comments? Actually, I need to pause for breakfast so that my brain will work.

So what you are saying is it’s a structural thing?

The first human God created was a male, the female came after.

God
Male Human
Female Human

This quote gets to the nitty gritty I think, and it’s something I wonder if some in our church hold onto as a reason :

.“Since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.” (Thomas Aquinas)

In Christ there is no one higher or lower, both male and female are in the image of God as stated above. Why that doesn’t included priesthood as our human church sees it is confusing.

 

[Vonsalza]

In Christ there is no one higher or lower, both male and female are in the image of God as stated above. Why that doesn’t included priesthood as our human church sees it is confusing.

Which is exactly why Christ chose both male and female Apostles!

Oh, wait…

 

[grannymh]

So what you are saying is it’s a structural thing?

The first human God created was a male, the female came after.

God
Male Human
Female Human

This quote gets to the nitty gritty I think, and it’s something I wonder if some in our church hold onto as a reason :

.“Since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.” (Thomas Aquinas)

In Christ there is no one higher or lower, both male and female are in the image of God as stated above. Why that doesn’t included priesthood as our human church sees it is confusing.

Thomas Aquinas was wrong in some of his thinking. That is why it is important that Catholics understand the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. Basic preparation for a major Ecumenical Church Council includes a thorough examination of what our friend Thomas wrote along with what everyone else wrote. In addition, liturgy across the globe was studied because it would reflect teachings. **CCC Liturgy, **page 738-740. Naturally, Scripture was reviewed forward and backward. No word would be left unturned.

There would still be arguments…

In God’s love for us, the Holy Spirit was sent to us as an Advocate, One Who would make sure that the Council was determining the truth. Chapter 14, Gospel of John.

The advice is that when some Saint says something weird, we check actual Catholic teachings. The **CCC Index of Citations, **starting on page 688, can be helpful along with the regular CCC Index, starting on page 752.

 

[grannymh]

So what you are saying is it’s a structural thing?

To me, structural sounds good. The structure of a house benefits all the family who lives there. Fortunately, there are bathrooms along with the marvelous kitchen.