Did God exclude females from receiving an ontological change

  • Thread starter Thread starter simpleas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"Sky River:
I red regarding the priesthood of all believers, that godly women are priestesses-is that false teaching?
I wouldn’t call it “false teaching”, although from the Catholic perspective, it’s explained in a slightly different way. Keep in mind, too, that the “priesthood of all believers” – and the notion of the “ministerial priesthood” – were issues at the core of the Reformation. One of the core beliefs of Luther was that there was no such thing as the “ministerial priesthood”, but only a “priesthood of all believers.” Therefore, according to Luther’s personal theology, the full extent of humanity’s share in Christ’s priesthood was through the “priesthood of all believers.”
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.
So, here’s the way the Church teaches it:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through Baptism, have been constituted as the people of God; for this reason, since they have become sharers in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal office in their own manner, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each one.”
“In virtue of their rebirth in Christ there exists among all the Christian faithful a true equality with regard to dignity and the activity whereby all cooperate in the building up of the Body of Christ in accord with each one’s own condition and function.”
The very differences which the Lord has willed to put between the members of his body serve its unity and mission. For “in the Church there is diversity of ministry but unity of mission. To the apostles and their successors Christ has entrusted the office of teaching, sanctifying and governing in his name and by his power. But the laity are made to share in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly office of Christ; they have therefore, in the Church and in the world, their own assignment in the mission of the whole People of God.” Finally, “from both groups [hierarchy and laity] there exist Christian faithful who are consecrated to God in their own special manner and serve the salvific mission of the Church through the profession of the evangelical counsels.”
Now, while there is “true equality… among all the Christian faithful… with regard to dignity”, it is also the case that we exercise our identity in Christ according to the particular role that we have in the Body of Christ.

All share in Christ’s offices – prophetic, priestly, and kingly.

Ordained ministers exercise the priestly office: “The bishop is ‘the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,’ especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example.” (CCC, 893)

Lay faithful also exercise the priestly office: “the laity, dedicated as they are to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvelously called and prepared so that even richer fruits of the Spirit maybe produced in them. For all their works, prayers, and apostolic undertakings, family and married life, daily work, relaxation of mind and body, if they are accomplished in the Spirit - indeed even the hardships of life if patiently born - all these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. In the celebration of the Eucharist these may most fittingly be offered to the Father along with the body of the Lord. And so, worshipping everywhere by their holy actions, the laity consecrate the world itself to God, everywhere offering worship by the holiness of their lives.” (CCC, 901)

A similar distinction exists in the ways that the kingly office is exercised by ordained ministers (see CCC 894) and by the laity (see CCC 908), and the way the prophetic office is exercised by ordained ministers (CCC 888) and by the laity (CCC 904).

Although there are differences in function, all have equal dignity in the Body of Christ. St Paul mentions this: “there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone … Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds?” (see 1 Cor 12)

So, no… simpleas is inaccurate when he states that “baptism implies a fundamental openness to all the sacraments, including the ministerial priesthood.” If that were the case, then we’d have to conclude that St Paul was wrong.

Rather, baptism explicitly grants a share in Christ’s offices (priestly, prophetic, and kingly), but not exercised in the same way among all. This is, as Paul reminds us, by God’s plan.
 
If God doesn’t wish females to be part of the priesthood, then what more is there to say…

God excludes women from an ontological change.

The End.

Thanks for the discussion.
 
If God doesn’t wish females to be part of the priesthood, then what more is there to say…

God excludes women from an ontological change.

The End.

Thanks for the discussion.
But He also excludes most men, eh?
 
The Beatitudes are a vocation we’re all called to. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven.
 
Church history teaches us that most of the decisions about the Church’s structure and worship patterns were made for practical reasons. The theological reasoning came later.

This is one reason why I believe that the Catholic Church may well someday ordain women, but not for a long time. Certainly not before married men commonly allowed into the priesthood. Until married priests outnumber the single ones, womens’ ordination won’t be practical.

As for the ontological change, this is something we can’t prove one way or the other. Either you believe the Holy Spirit empowers Bishops this way, and has inspired the Magisterium to limit this to men, or you don’t. That’s the bottom line.

Personally this is something I struggle with for a variety of reasons, so my answer to the question is, I really don’t know.
 
If God doesn’t wish females to be part of the priesthood, then what more is there to say…

God excludes women from an ontological change.

The End.

Thanks for the discussion.
Personally, I believe that you are using the wrong explanation for ontological change.

Way back when I was an university student, we would say that “ontological change” belongs in the Ivory Tower. Ontological change still belongs in the Ivory Tower.

God doesn’t wish – perhaps this is describing God as a human. That is popular on CAF.

Forget the ontological change and do your own research about the Seven Catholic Sacraments. Obviously, you are intelligent. Use your own intelligence and not the stuff which comes from internet meditations. Exclude the preferences of those who are seeking to rebuild Christianity as if Jesus Christ did not fully exist as the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Blessings,
granny

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Church history teaches us that most of the decisions about the Church’s structure and worship patterns were made for practical reasons. The theological reasoning came later.

This is one reason why I believe that the Catholic Church may well someday ordain women, but not for a long time. Certainly not before married men commonly allowed into the priesthood. Until married priests outnumber the single ones, womens’ ordination won’t be practical.

As for the ontological change, this is something we can’t prove one way or the other. Either you believe the Holy Spirit empowers Bishops this way, and has inspired the Magisterium to limit this to men, or you don’t. That’s the bottom line.

Personally this is something I struggle with for a variety of reasons, so my answer to the question is, I really don’t know.
Well the Holy Spirit has moved the minds of men in the church to change things before, so I don’t know either.
 
Personally, I believe that you are using the wrong explanation for ontological change.

Way back when I was an university student, we would say that “ontological change” belongs in the Ivory Tower. Ontological change still belongs in the Ivory Tower.

God doesn’t wish – perhaps this is describing God as a human. That is popular on CAF.

Forget the ontological change and do your own research about the Seven Catholic Sacraments. Obviously, you are intelligent. Use your own intelligence and not the stuff which comes from internet meditations. Exclude the preferences of those who are seeking to rebuild Christianity as if Jesus Christ did not fully exist as the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Blessings,
granny

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
Grannymh, that is what the church teaches and has been repeated on this thread over and over.

From various writings not just meditations I have not seen where anyone wants to teach that Jesus did not fully exist as the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, but you must see it that way, and that is fine.

Reading quotes from the past writings in our church opens ones eyes to how things used to be, how they have changed, and how they may change in future.

I’m not that intelligent, but I’m not completely stupid either 😃
I know this teaching will not change in my life time, yet I wonder what God, not man, actually wants for the female human.
Does God really not want a female human to have the spiritual essence that of a man, we can say a priests hands are holy, because of the Grace or change he receives, yet we couldn’t say that of a women.
 
Well the Holy Spirit has moved the minds of men in the church to change things before, so I don’t know either.
Things may be changed. Divine Revelation properly defined and duly proclaimed does not change.

It is Divine Revelation that Jesus Christ assumed the male human nature which is the doctrine of Incarnation. Jesus Christ did not assume the female human nature in addition to His Divine Nature and male nature.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said: “Do this in memory of Me.” Luke 22:19.

I am not kidding about these questions.
Is the Jesus Me both an equal ontological boy and an equal ontological girl at the same living time?
Is there additional information such as Jesus told someone to quick find a female so My ontological can be an equal female?
What is so terrible about a Male Jesus Me?
Does ontological mean that God does not have a choice?

No wonder that some, not all, ontological people can be confused and blind about the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

May those people who are interested in the Catholic Church find peace in the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
From various writings not just meditations I have not seen where anyone wants to teach that Jesus did not fully exist as the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, but you must see it that way, and that is fine.
Modern Arianism is definitely not fine. Arianism, in our life time, is referred to as Stealth Arianism for the simple reason that it is hard for current Catholics to spot it.
The “fly in the ointment” is an example of modern Arianism which refers to another topic that some, not all, Catholics are afraid to deal with because they do not want to lose the “easy life.” When we tamper with Original Sin, we can lose sight of John 3: 16.
Does God really not want a female human to have the spiritual essence that of a man, we can say a priests hands are holy, because of the Grace or change he receives, yet we couldn’t say that of a women.
Please accept my apology. I have no clue which Christian religion you are talking about. I read that there is a movement to rebuild Christianity aka Progressive Christianity or the old Emerging Christianity. Please, I would appreciate knowing which “Christianity” you are talking about.

Here is a relevant, I think, question. Is the spiritual essence something like the Catholic teaching of the rational spiritual soul? Women do have a rational spiritual soul according to the Catholic Church. Genesis 1: 27. Why is it special that priests hands are holy? The whole body is holy when it is part of the Mystical Body of Christ.

My sincere apology. I do not intend to be rude. I simply want to make sure that we are talking about the seven Catholic Sacraments – each one has a different purpose.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Things may be changed. Divine Revelation properly defined and duly proclaimed does not change.

It is Divine Revelation that Jesus Christ assumed the male human nature which is the doctrine of Incarnation. Jesus Christ did not assume the female human nature in addition to His Divine Nature and male nature.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said: “Do this in memory of Me.” Luke 22:19.

I am not kidding about these questions.
Is the Jesus Me both an equal ontological boy and an equal ontological girl at the same living time?
Is there additional information such as Jesus told someone to quick find a female so My ontological can be an equal female?
What is so terrible about a Male Jesus Me?
Does ontological mean that God does not have a choice?

No wonder that some, not all, ontological people can be confused and blind about the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity and the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

May those people who are interested in the Catholic Church find peace in the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
I have no idea how to address those questions, only there isn’t anything terrible about a male Jesus.
 
Originally Posted by grannymh
Modern Arianism is definitely not fine.
I didn’t say modern arianism was fine, I was referring to how you read what others are teaching, that is fine.
Please accept my apology. I have no clue which Christian religion you are talking about. I read that there is a movement to rebuild Christianity aka Progressive Christianity or the old Emerging Christianity. Please, I would appreciate knowing which “Christianity” you are talking about.
Definitely talking about Catholicism :

Priestly hands are holy.

The hands of the priest hold up the bread and wine when they are changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the consecration of the Mass. Their hands also make the Sign of the Cross while absolving sins, anointing the sick and dying, baptizing, praying and serving their flocks in so many ways.

During the anointing, the bishop prays: “The Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit, empower, guard and preserve you, that you may sanctify the Christian people and offer sacrifice to God.”

ncregister.com/daily-news/holy-cloth-for-mom-custom-of-giving-manutergium-renewed-by-priests
 
The basic gift of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is "In Persona Christi".

I am very sad to discover that this basic gift of “In Persona Christi” is no longer important due to the rush to have women Catholic priests. It appears to me that the title “Woman Priest” is more important than exploring God’s intentions for the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Because I want to keep my Catholic Faith, I need to leave. :o

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
The basic gift of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is "In Persona Christi".

I am very sad to discover that this basic gift of “In Persona Christi” is no longer important due to the rush to have women Catholic priests. It appears to me that the title “Woman Priest” is more important than exploring God’s intentions for the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Because I want to keep my Catholic Faith, I need to leave. :o

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.
I think part of the problem is the troubled nature of the priesthood. When the only thing the priest has in common with Christ is his gender, it’s hard to see him as being “In Persona Christi”.

It also begs the question of what it means to be “In Persona Christi”. Does it mean to reflect Christ in what one says and does, and to lead others to do the same, or does it mean to be of the same gender as Christ?
 
That strikes me as harsh. A priest has dedicated his entire life to God. He is no longer his own but is servant of God and his people, with true humility and obedience, and he gives up all worldliness.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

You should be able to detect more of a similarity to Christ in a priest than simply his maleness.
 
That strikes me as harsh. A priest has dedicated his entire life to God. He is no longer his own but is servant of God and his people, with true humility and obedience, and he gives up all worldliness.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

You should be able to detect more of a similarity to Christ in a priest than simply his maleness.
Sometimes, certainly. But there are many of the other kind. I’m not referring only to the pedophiles. That’s an extreme case. The priest may be troubled in his faith, or in his sexuality, and really have nowhere to get help. Or he may just be bored, or weary from the struggle. And it’s not really the priests’ fault. Most men don’t find the priesthood attractive anymore, so even if they’re called, they don’t want to listen. But the Church must have priests, so doubtless many are ordained who shouldn’t be. And so it goes.
 
I think part of the problem is the troubled nature of the priesthood. When the only thing the priest has in common with Christ is his gender, it’s hard to see him as being “In Persona Christi”.

It also begs the question of what it means to be “In Persona Christi”. Does it mean to reflect Christ in what one says and does, and to lead others to do the same, or does it mean to be of the same gender as Christ?
It would seem to mean one needs to be the same gender as Christ.
 
The priest acts “in the Person of Christ.” Christ in his human nature is a human male.
The priest saying the words of consecration does not say: “This is Jesus’ body.” he says, acting in the person of Christ, “This is my body.”

I said it before but I still think it applies. A man cannot be a mother; a woman cannot be a father. The change that is impossible is to make a woman into a man. It is not a matter of holy hands or of not being capable of receiving grace. It is a matter of being able to act in the person of the man Jesus Christ, as a man.
 
The priest acts “in the Person of Christ.” Christ in his human nature is a human male.
The priest saying the words of consecration does not say: “This is Jesus’ body.” he says, acting in the person of Christ, “This is my body.”

I said it before but I still think it applies. A man cannot be a mother; a woman cannot be a father. The change that is impossible is to make a woman into a man. It is not a matter of holy hands or of not being capable of receiving grace. It is a matter of being able to act in the person of the man Jesus Christ, as a man.
How then can a women act in the person of Christ? Male and Female are made in the image of Christ.
At the last supper Jesus’ words were spoken to all, men and women.
Women are to follow Christ as men are, yet they are not allow to act in the person of Christ because they are female.
It doesn’t make sense if you believe male and female are made in Christs image, there is no exclusion then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top