Did Jesus choose men because of the culture?

[Beth10]

Isn’t it possible Jesus called men to be his apostles because women were held in such low regard in the culture and economy of the time? Women had to rely on men to survive. I think one way this is shown is in the reaction Jesus got when he spoke with the woman at the well and asked the adulteress if anyone was left to accuse her. Jesus understood the climate of the times. Couldn’t it be that Jesus called only men, not because they were men, but because of the situations women were living with at the time?

I have to wonder if any thought was given to this as the research was done to determine if a male-only priesthood was doctrine.

I am aware that there were some women deacons and followers but I doubt that it was Jesus who placed a barrier against women to enter what would eventually become the priesthood.

Actually, I believe a better argument for only men entering the priesthood would be that the identity of Jesus would be diluted over the decades and centuries. Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The “me” happened to be born male. The “me” modeled how we should live to glorify God. The “me” healed the sick and forgave sins. The “me” died & rose for our salvation. The “me” feeds us. If the priest at Mass and in the sacraments is to be “persona Christi,” the fact that the priest is a man helps identify who the "me’ is we are remembering. If the priest could be either male or female, I would be concerned that the “me” would become “someone” over time. If Jesus was born female, the same argument could be made for the priest being female.

Thanks for reading. Feedback?

 

[GEddie]

Priests are not male solely because the Apostles were male.

They are male because they stand in the place of our LORD, who was male.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[dmar198]

Isn’t it possible Jesus called men to be his apostles because women were held in such low regard in the culture and economy of the time?

I don’t think that is possible. The fact that women were held in low regard did influence Jesus’ actions, but in the opposite way you suggest: He showed women a special, dignified attitude in order to correct the more negative attitude held by the Romans. In that light, the fact that Jesus would not call them to the priesthood establishes a norm, because we can know He did not do it out of a disregard for women.

I have to wonder if any thought was given to this as the research was done to determine if a male-only priesthood was doctrine.

I’ve never looked it up, but among the early Church Fathers, the same argument that we use today, about Jesus not ordaining women, was used for the same purpose we use it, i.e. to show that we cannot do so either. For example, in 225 A.D., the Didascalia says, “For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us.” (Didascalia 3:6:1–2)

I am aware that there were some women deacons and followers but I doubt that it was Jesus who placed a barrier against women to enter what would eventually become the priesthood.

Actually, I believe a better argument for only men entering the priesthood would be that the identity of Jesus would be diluted over the decades and centuries. Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The “me” happened to be born male. The “me” modeled how we should live to glorify God. The “me” healed the sick and forgave sins. The “me” died & rose for our salvation. The “me” feeds us. If the priest at Mass and in the sacraments is to be “persona Christi,” the fact that the priest is a man helps identify who the "me’ is we are remembering. If the priest could be either male or female, I would be concerned that the “me” would become “someone” over time. If Jesus was born female, the same argument could be made for the priest being female.

Thanks for reading. Feedback?

I definitely think that you have almost hit the nail on the head in your paragraph about the identity of Jesus. Jesus was the Son of Man, and the priesthood is supposed to be in His image. Therefore, to fulfill this image, He chooses men, who are already natural “sons of men.” It has nothing to do with the dignity of women; in Catholic history, women have a place of equal dignity, and special positions of honor, including in education, spiritual devotion, and the hall of saints. For more info, you may be interested in the following document:

Catholic History and Women’s Equality: A Timeline
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12356238

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[John_Martin]

“Do this in remembrance of me” has nothing to do with “doing this while thinking about me”, but “do this just like you just saw me doing it, so it is always done this same way”, and is a direct parallel to Moses’ command of how the Jews were to celebrate the Passover, taking the lamb, slaughter, eat the flesh, etc.
The apostles were familiar with that command of Moses, and they knew this particular Passover with Jesus was different, and with his command of “do this in remembrance of me” they knew they had a new Covenant Sacrifice to perform in a precise way, what to say, what to eat, what to drink.

These words had nothing to do with the choice of apostles, or priests, but was instruction to the apostles, to the priests, who were already chosen.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Every Tom, Dick, & Harry pagan fertility religion had priestesses.

Judaism (and later, Christianity) was radical for not having them.

:twocents:
tee

 

[John_Martin]

Priests are not male solely because the Apostles were male.

They are male because they stand in the place of our LORD, who was male.

ICXC NIKA.

Perhaps more explicitly, because they stand in the Person of Him who is husband of the Church, husband of the People of God. And it would then be out of character for a woman saying “This is my body (, my Bride the Church), given for you”. It would then appear as a “description” of what happened that day rather than actually happening right now.

 

[glendab]

Hello Beth10.

Isn’t it possible Jesus called men to be his apostles because women were held in such low regard in the culture and economy of the time? Women had to rely on men to survive. I think one way this is shown is in the reaction Jesus got when he spoke with the woman at the well and asked the adulteress if anyone was left to accuse her. Jesus understood the climate of the times. Couldn’t it be that Jesus called only men, not because they were men, but because of the situations women were living with at the time?

I have to wonder if any thought was given to this as the research was done to determine if a male-only priesthood was doctrine.

I am aware that there were some women deacons and followers but I doubt that it was Jesus who placed a barrier against women to enter what would eventually become the priesthood.

Actually, I believe a better argument for only men entering the priesthood would be that the identity of Jesus would be diluted over the decades and centuries. Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The “me” happened to be born male. The “me” modeled how we should live to glorify God. The “me” healed the sick and forgave sins. The “me” died & rose for our salvation. The “me” feeds us. If the priest at Mass and in the sacraments is to be “persona Christi,” the fact that the priest is a man helps identify who the "me’ is we are remembering. If the priest could be either male or female, I would be concerned that the “me” would become “someone” over time. If Jesus was born female, the same argument could be made for the priest being female.

Thanks for reading. Feedback?

There is so much in your question that I’d love to give a response to both as a Catholic and as a woman but you are new and this is only your second post. Usually the threads only ask one or two specific questions and there are many that require much in this your second post. So I will begin by focusing on the first falsehood I found in your questions, that of women being held in “low regard” among the culture of the times.

The Lord God called a woman to be the bearer of His only begotten Son, the Redeemer of the world, the Holy Child Jesus in her womb and God was brought to His people by her fiat to His will and His Word became flesh to make His dwelling among us. He still is and does. There is no other person or position so exalted in the Heavens or on earth than that held by our Blessed Mother, the Ever Virgin Mary, the Theotokos nor will there ever be a human being so exalted. Does that say anything at all to you about how God truly feels about women?

I will conclude by repeating words used by St. John Paul II regarding this very issue, that of women aspiring to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: “If God had meant women to be Priests, Mary would’ve have been the first.” I agree with him. I hope that by coming here and discussing this with other faithful Catholics, you will see the Wisdom of God and the folly of those who choose to dissent from Church teaching in this regard.

May Jesus Christ be praised!

Glenda

 

[twoshoes]

Hello Beth10.

There is so much in your question that I’d love to give a response to both as a Catholic and as a woman but you are new and this is only your second post. Usually the threads only ask one or two specific questions and there are many that require much in this your second post. So I will begin by focusing on the first falsehood I found in your questions, that of women being held in “low regard” among the culture of the times.

The Lord God called a woman to be the bearer of His only begotten Son, the Redeemer of the world, the Holy Child Jesus in her womb and God was brought to His people by her fiat to His will and His Word became flesh to make His dwelling among us. He still is and does. There is no other person or position so exalted in the Heavens or on earth than that held by our Blessed Mother, the Ever Virgin Mary, the Theotokos nor will there ever be a human being so exalted. Does that say anything at all to you about how God truly feels about women?

I will conclude by repeating words used by St. John Paul II regarding this very issue, that of women aspiring to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: “If God had meant women to be Priests, Mary would’ve have been the first.” I agree with him. I hope that by coming here and discussing this with other faithful Catholics, you will see the Wisdom of God and the folly of those who choose to dissent from Church teaching in this regard.

May Jesus Christ be praised!

Glenda

Your response is spot on. No human is as exulted in Heaven or on Earth as Our Blessed Mother except Jesus Christ… All Popes pray for her guidance daily. Got to love Our Mother.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Priests are not male solely because the Apostles were male.

They are male because they stand in the place of our LORD, who was male.

ICXC NIKA.

Since Jesus was human and women are human why couldn’t a woman “stand in the place of our LORD” Who was human?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Isn’t it possible Jesus called men to be his apostles because women were held in such low regard in the culture and economy of the time? Women had to rely on men to survive. I think one way this is shown is in the reaction Jesus got when he spoke with the woman at the well and asked the adulteress if anyone was left to accuse her. Jesus understood the climate of the times. Couldn’t it be that Jesus called only men, not because they were men, but because of the situations women were living with at the time?

I have to wonder if any thought was given to this as the research was done to determine if a male-only priesthood was doctrine.

I am aware that there were some women deacons and followers but I doubt that it was Jesus who placed a barrier against women to enter what would eventually become the priesthood.

Actually, I believe a better argument for only men entering the priesthood would be that the identity of Jesus would be diluted over the decades and centuries. Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The “me” happened to be born male. The “me” modeled how we should live to glorify God. The “me” healed the sick and forgave sins. The “me” died & rose for our salvation. The “me” feeds us. If the priest at Mass and in the sacraments is to be “persona Christi,” the fact that the priest is a man helps identify who the "me’ is we are remembering. If the priest could be either male or female, I would be concerned that the “me” would become “someone” over time. If Jesus was born female, the same argument could be made for the priest being female.

Thanks for reading. Feedback?

You wrote, “Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” The “me” happened to be born male.”

The “me” is God-Incarnate, Who does happen to be a Male but, more importantly, became a human and as it is written, “Became like us in ALL ways except sin”, or words to that effect.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since Jesus was human and women are human why couldn’t a woman “stand in the place of our LORD” Who was human?

Priests stand in the place of Jesus.
Jesus was a male human.
Therefore, priests stand in the place of a male human.
Therefore, priests must be male humans.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Hello Beth10.

There is so much in your question that I’d love to give a response to both as a Catholic and as a woman but you are new and this is only your second post. Usually the threads only ask one or two specific questions and there are many that require much in this your second post. So I will begin by focusing on the first falsehood I found in your questions, that of women being held in “low regard” among the culture of the times.

The Lord God called a woman to be the bearer of His only begotten Son, the Redeemer of the world, the Holy Child Jesus in her womb and God was brought to His people by her fiat to His will and His Word became flesh to make His dwelling among us. He still is and does. There is no other person or position so exalted in the Heavens or on earth than that held by our Blessed Mother, the Ever Virgin Mary, the Theotokos nor will there ever be a human being so exalted. Does that say anything at all to you about how God truly feels about women?

I will conclude by repeating words used by St. John Paul II regarding this very issue, that of women aspiring to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: “If God had meant women to be Priests, Mary would’ve have been the first.” I agree with him. I hope that by coming here and discussing this with other faithful Catholics, you will see the Wisdom of God and the folly of those who choose to dissent from Church teaching in this regard.

May Jesus Christ be praised!

Glenda

Beth10’s question was concerned with the human culture of Jesus’s day not “how God truly feels about women”.

It was not only womem but also children who were held in ““low regard” among the culture of the times”, again she was speaking of the human culture.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Isn’t it possible Jesus called men to be his apostles because women were held in such low regard in the culture and economy of the time? Women had to rely on men to survive. I think one way this is shown is in the reaction Jesus got when he spoke with the woman at the well and asked the adulteress if anyone was left to accuse her. Jesus understood the climate of the times. Couldn’t it be that Jesus called only men, not because they were men, but because of the situations women were living with at the time?

I have to wonder if any thought was given to this as the research was done to determine if a male-only priesthood was doctrine.

I am aware that there were some women deacons and followers but I doubt that it was Jesus who placed a barrier against women to enter what would eventually become the priesthood.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the fact that Jesus went “counterculture” in almost everything he said and did, so why would it only be on this issue alone that Jesus would defer to cultural ways? It just doesn’t fit the narrative. He consistently tore down engrained cultural beliefs without compromise - which is what got him crucified, by the way, since a man claiming to be God was about as offensive as anyone could get towards the culture of his time and place (and that didn’t stop him, either.)

The Beatitudes, for example, were direct attacks at cultural standards, as was, to pick one example of many, the fact that he defended his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath knowing full well that his words were a full frontal attack on the cultural determiners of his day - the Pharisees and Chief Priests - by setting up his lowly regarded disciples as the new priesthood to replace them. (You do understand why he brought up the story of David in this instance, correct?)

Your argument also ignores the fact that, according to the Old Testament, it was God, not man who insisted on an all male priesthood, so, contrary to your premise, it was God who initiated the cultural standard of an all-male priesthood and the apparent misogyny that attended it.

From where I sit, it would appear to take a rather dim view of the omniscient God to insist he didn’t realize the full impact of his choosing an all-male priesthood to begin with and only after realizing that it discriminated against women that he would not have the courage to face up to that little issue. Recall that Jesus claimed to have God’s authority behind him and he countered objections to overturning the Law with “But I say to you…”

I suspect his stance had very little to do with cultural standards and more to do with the essential nature of what it means to be a man and a woman such that clearly defined roles are not antithetical to those natures.

It is only in a culture that blindly and blandly equates value with roles and performance in those roles that there is an apparent issue with differing roles for men and women.

Peter Kreeft has an excellent article/talk on “priestesses” and why the issue is a contrived one based upon poorly argued assumptions. If you are interested I can dig up the links.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beth10’s question was concerned with the human culture of Jesus’s day not “how God truly feels about women”.

It was not only womem but also children who were held in ““low regard” among the culture of the times”, again she was speaking of the human culture.

No actually, her argument implies that Jesus was not God because he acted - out of weakness and deference to morally wrong standards - in an unjust and discriminatory manner by selecting only males to found the priesthood of the Church through Apostolic succession.

If Jesus acted in such a way as to be unduly influenced by his culture to follow inherently discriminatory mores then he could not have acted deliberately in choosing his Apostles. It could only have been through weakness and not strength of will and moral courage that he made his decision, ergo he could not have been perfect, nor could he have been God,

 

[PennyinCanada]

Jesus is the head, the Church is his bride.

This question keeps coming up over and over. I think the more pressing question is what I’ve observed over the decades in RC churches. Where are the men? Other than the priest, it’s the women who are serving in all kinds of capacities. (God bless them!) What happened to those boys who grew up and abandoned the Church? Where are the husbands and fathers of the women in the pews?

Instead of looking at the one male who is serving as priest and wondering why he can’t be replaced by a woman, let’s pray that men start filling the pews and serving their communities with love and faithfulness.

 

[powerofk]

Hello Beth10.

I will conclude by repeating words used by St. John Paul II regarding this very issue, that of women aspiring to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ: “If God had meant women to be Priests, Mary would’ve have been the first.” I agree with him. I hope that by coming here and discussing this with other faithful Catholics, you will see the Wisdom of God and the folly of those who choose to dissent from Church teaching in this regard.

Glenda

No kidding - Mary was Jesus’s first, and most perfect, disciple. Honestly, though, it is more than just the priest being “in persona Christi” - though that is an important piece. Another important part of the importance of an all-male priesthood goes to the fact that priests, and most especially bishops, are called to be “spiritual fathers of their communities”. They are not called to be “spiritual mothers of their communities”. Obviously, only men can be fathers - women can never be fathers, just as men can never be mothers. Part of our problem in understanding this isn’t due to Jesus’s time - it’s due to our own, especially due to the high rate of divorce and children born out of wedlock, along with the redefinition of marriage and other issues. This leaves children (and the culture) confused as to what the actual roles of “mother” and “father” are, as, often, one parent (usually the mother) has to act as both the “mother” and “father” to her children. Traditionally, though, mothers were the nurturers, while fathers were the providers of instruction and discipline - and the protectors of their household.

 

[PennyinCanada]

No kidding - Mary was Jesus’s first, and most perfect, disciple. Honestly, though, it is more than just the priest being “in persona Christi” - though that is an important piece. Another important part of the importance of an all-male priesthood goes to the fact that priests, and most especially bishops, are called to be “spiritual fathers of their communities”. They are not called to be “spiritual mothers of their communities”. Obviously, only men can be fathers - women can never be fathers, just as men can never be mothers. Part of our problem in understanding this isn’t due to Jesus’s time - it’s due to our own, especially due to the high rate of divorce and children born out of wedlock, along with the redefinition of marriage and other issues. This leaves children (and the culture) confused as to what the actual roles of “mother” and “father” are, as, often, one parent (usually the mother) has to act as both the “mother” and “father” to her children. Traditionally, though, mothers were the nurturers, while fathers were the providers of instruction and discipline - and the protectors of their household.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Science fiction author John C. Wright has an excellent series of essays collected together into book form - Transhuman and Subhuman: Essays on Science Fiction and Awful Truth.

A couple of his essays do touch upon this thread topic. Probably the most compelling one is called Saving Science Fiction From Strong Female Characters. His larger point is that by fictitiously over-developing male traits in female characters, science fiction writers are creating implausible personae which simply don’t “ring true” with audiences, even where “fiction” is the assumed ground.

He would insist, at least on my reading, that it would be better for writers to uncover the real strengths of women in their stories, rather than perpetuate the lie - prevalent even in our “equal rights” culture - that only male traits are those worthy of possessing, especially as the determiners of what makes women “strong,” thereby, completely nullifying strengths that women, as women, ought to be nurturing and developing.

Paradoxically, it is the “Nazi” feminists who are completely undermining and demeaning women by claiming the only worth women could possibly have is to be “like men,” or, even worse, aim for a kind of neutered androgyny.

 

[SPH1]

Who said that women were held in low regard? Shall we assume that because women couldn’t vote in the USA until relatively recently that they were held in low regard?

 

[GEddie]

Since Jesus was human and women are human why couldn’t a woman “stand in the place of our LORD” Who was human?

Because our LORD was a specific human being, with a male body. The Priest represents HIS physical presence.

(And before anybody objects that most priests are not Jews or Middle Eastern, etc.; remember that such attributes are “accidental” to the human being; maleness and femaleness are not.)

ICXC NIKA.