Did Jesus choose men because of the culture?

[Beth10]

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’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 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!

 

[adrift]

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?

This would mean that Jesus being God would be influenced by the time that He chose to enter the world. It does not take into consideration that the priesthood did not begin with Jesus. When God instituted the Jewish priesthood He did not make Mariam a priestess. The religions that surrounded them were full of priestess. It would have been natural to them but He didn’t.

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.

You have mixed two stories together and come to an erroneous conclusion.

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?

Have given the reason this is no above.

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.

This blows my mind away that such a statement could be made. It makes it seem that the Pope is an imbecile.

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.

Are you also aware that no woman was ever ordained? Jesus left His Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You have what to substantiate your doubt?

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.

So God only “happened” to choose a male:shrug:

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?

 

[glendab]

Hello Tom.

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.

Nice to bump into you again.

The problem is the offering of a fallacy from which the discussion is supposed to begin. This fallacy is this: that women were of low regard in the culture of the time in which Jesus came. You’ve added more falsity to the original fallacy by adding that children too were held in low regard. Both of these are wrong. So how can I reply to them if replying I inadvertently validate them? I cannot do that, so??? The truth is that women and their children were cherished by those who cherish their loved ones and those who didn’t, well they didn’t. But there is no validity in generalizations that speak for everyone at that time, Jew, Gentile, Greek, Pagan, Hellenist, etc. Remember that Jesus said that “even the pagans do as much…” when He spoke about loving one’s enemies, etc. So, if even the pagans loved their families, which includes women and children and even other members of the household, servants, etc…well that leaves a generality of “low regard” as a non-Biblically supported speculation whose only purpose is to deceive.

Can you think of any other reasons why this fallacy is being brought to bear?

Glenda

 

[edwest2]

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.

This is very true. Radical feminists are radical because they deny the concept of what a family is and deny that there is even a species relationship between men and women. And they certainly don’t want equality. They are out to destroy the ‘male dominated’ society, including the Church.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II gives us the correct answer:

"2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

“In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)”

Source: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Ed

 

[Beth10]

EdWest2

Thank you for your informative response and link to the source.

Beth10

 

[TK421]

Early Christianity was unique because of an all-male priesthood, not normal because of it. If there were ever a time that was ripe for the Church to adopt female priests, it would have been at its earliest conception. Granted, priestesses in the pagan world (usually) still did not have much in the way of temporal powers, but they were nonetheless openly accepted as having gifts that transcended the material world. In a sense, Christianity did grab and absorb the orders of priestesses in pagan societies, except that Christianity understands its priesthood very much differently than the pagan societies. You still can (and do) have orders of holy women, some of whom in history have been mystics that experienced profound miracles, but the sacrament of Holy Orders itself is uniquely and explicitly bound to the apostolic succession. These men stand in the person of Christ. It is not something women can ever do, not by any lack of virtue, but because the male gender is the one that exists as an earthly sign of God/Christ, whereas the female is the Bride. It would be harmful to her station to suggest such a thing as becoming what she is not, as though the will of God were flawed, however, we exist in a world that is intoxicated with power, and it is expected that secular societies would want female’s becoming priests/bishops/Popes, because the bishops and Pope’s are the ones that have the temporal power, and temporal power is the only thing the world understands. It does not grasp the hidden power within Mary, nor does it grasp the words of St Gregory the Great when correctly identified himself as 'The servant of servants". Temporal powers exist only that they may be used towards the betterment of others.

 

[edwest2]

You’re welcome, Beth10.

Ed

 

[Ignatius]

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

He violated all of the societal norms of the time where he lived to the point that they were going to kill him, why would he worry about that one

 

[Beth10]

He violated all of the societal norms of the time where he lived to the point that they were going to kill him, why would he worry about that one

Because in sending them out to teach and preach the good news, he would not always be with them to counter the societal norms of the time. They would be on their own to deal with this and it might prove to be an obstacle to his ultimate mission.

Was just speculating.

Beth10

 

[dmar198]

Because in sending them out to teach and preach the good news, he would not always be with them to counter the societal norms of the time. They would be on their own to deal with this and it might prove to be an obstacle to his ultimate mission.

Was just speculating.

Beth10

The passage where Jesus sends them out to teach and peach the good news is the very passage where He says, “And lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world.” Thus, I don’t think it is correct to say they would be alone in dealing with this. But if they were going to be on their own, that would seem to suggest that, if Jesus wanted the Church to have women priests, He should have told the Apostles in advance that they should ordain women later, and we have no record of that.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

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?

Your above would place social norms above God, in that God would have to act within the social norms (men held in higher social esteem then women); and it’s quite clear from Scripture that Christ did not let social norms interfere with His work.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;12430244:

He violated all of the societal norms of the time where he lived to the point that they were going to kill him, why would he worry about that one

Because in sending them out to teach and preach the good news, he would not always be with them to counter the societal norms of the time.

What they were preaching violated the societal norms of the time. In face He told them that they would be persecuted and put to death for what they were preaching.
Additionally, it should be noted, it was actually the societal norm to have priestesses in all of the nations of all the world to which they would go.

Sorry to say it, but the argument for societal norms being the reason is completely specious and doesn’t hold water.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

Most of the atheists I know are men. They consider religion as more suitable for weaklings or for.the stupid.

 

[Mintaka]

Judaism in Jesus’ time did have some special roles for women in religion, as indeed it does today. If you ever go to a Jewish home on the Sabbath, you will notice that there are special prayers said only by the woman in charge of the household, for instance. Woman prophets and seers were reasonably common in Jewish history, and I’m sure you know of the various Biblical ones, right up to Anna in the Temple. In the wild times, there was even Deborah, who served as prophet, Judge, and fighting general. And you find Christian women taking many of these same special roles. Women also dealt with all sorts of specifically women’s matters, as well as ensuring their huge extended families stayed on the straight and narrow, that good marriages were made, and that their own private enterprises made money for the family.

But Jewish women didn’t serve as Jewish priests (except as part of the “priestly people” as a whole, which was everybody Jewish including babies), even though every other culture around them had priestesses. (Although usually only presiding over sexual sacrifices, sometimes they did do blood ones too, and certainly plenty of cultures elsewhere around the world had female priestesses doing animal and even human sacrifice.)

Likewise, even though many cultures have baby and toddler priests and priestesses, the Bible demanded that men attain a certain age before they served in the Temple. So the Jewish people didn’t have itsy-bitsy boy babies gurgling out Temple prayers, and we don’t have itsy-bitsy boy babies gurgling out Masses.

Although you could say that violates baby rights, since obviously prayer is something you don’t have to be past the age of reason or the age of majority to do. Babies can’t commit sins, per se, and a baptized baby would be a saint praying perfectly for us. And yet, we don’t vest up the babies, except in their baptismal alb as part of our “priestly people” and the priesthood of all believers.

We don’t do it because it’s not the way God set it up. If you want to know why, ask Him. (And that’s a serious suggestion. You’d be surprised how much learning that God will shove your way if you ask.)

Jesus did not choose to change His Father’s existing policy regarding women as priests, and we don’t have the authority to override Ultimate Authority. He did choose to make ordinary Jewish men of non-cohanim families into priests (which was part of the point of footwashing, as that was part of how Moses made Aaron and Co. into cohanim priests). He also chose to take off the age limit about men not serving as priests after a certain age; our priests can serve until they’re Methusaleh’s age if they should live so long. We also don’t have special rules for the eldest sons having a special priesthood.

Jesus changed what He wanted. He purposefully didn’t change everything.

 

[Beth10]

Your above would place social norms above God, in that God would have to act within the social norms (men held in higher social esteem then women); and it’s quite clear from Scripture that Christ did not let social norms interfere with His work.

As Creator, God is above everything but he allows some things, like free will which does much to shape social norms.

Doctrine states that Jesus chose only men to be priests.

I think this helps us to keep in mind that he and what he was about is real,

Beth10

 

[Beth10]

Most of the atheists I know are men. They consider religion as more suitable for weaklings or for.the stupid.

I feel this is starting to change with those who are believers - especially with the younger generations. Maybe an atheist needs to be befriended by a believer - just as a friend.

Beth10

 

[Beth10]

Judaism in Jesus’ time did have some special roles for women in religion, as indeed it does today. If you ever go to a Jewish home on the Sabbath, you will notice that there are special prayers said only by the woman in charge of the household, for instance. Woman prophets and seers were reasonably common in Jewish history, and I’m sure you know of the various Biblical ones, right up to Anna in the Temple. In the wild times, there was even Deborah, who served as prophet, Judge, and fighting general. And you find Christian women taking many of these same special roles. Women also dealt with all sorts of specifically women’s matters, as well as ensuring their huge extended families stayed on the straight and narrow, that good marriages were made, and that their own private enterprises made money for the family.

But Jewish women didn’t serve as Jewish priests (except as part of the “priestly people” as a whole, which was everybody Jewish including babies), even though every other culture around them had priestesses. (Although usually only presiding over sexual sacrifices, sometimes they did do blood ones too, and certainly plenty of cultures elsewhere around the world had female priestesses doing animal and even human sacrifice.)

Likewise, even though many cultures have baby and toddler priests and priestesses, the Bible demanded that men attain a certain age before they served in the Temple. So the Jewish people didn’t have itsy-bitsy boy babies gurgling out Temple prayers, and we don’t have itsy-bitsy boy babies gurgling out Masses.

Although you could say that violates baby rights, since obviously prayer is something you don’t have to be past the age of reason or the age of majority to do. Babies can’t commit sins, per se, and a baptized baby would be a saint praying perfectly for us. And yet, we don’t vest up the babies, except in their baptismal alb as part of our “priestly people” and the priesthood of all believers.

We don’t do it because it’s not the way God set it up. If you want to know why, ask Him. (And that’s a serious suggestion. You’d be surprised how much learning that God will shove your way if you ask.)

Jesus did not choose to change His Father’s existing policy regarding women as priests, and we don’t have the authority to override Ultimate Authority. He did choose to make ordinary Jewish men of non-cohanim families into priests (which was part of the point of footwashing, as that was part of how Moses made Aaron and Co. into cohanim priests). He also chose to take off the age limit about men not serving as priests after a certain age; our priests can serve until they’re Methusaleh’s age if they should live so long. We also don’t have special rules for the eldest sons having a special priesthood.

Jesus changed what He wanted. He purposefully didn’t change everything.

Thanks for your interesting reply. I am aware of the many roles women do and have had in Judaism & Catholicism. I’m not pushing for women to be priests. I am much more concerned about the evils in the world we all have to deal with - abortion, war, ebola, lies, judging, gossip, etc., etc. I do need to make more time for prayer - especially conversational and listening.

Beth10

 

[Beth10]

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.

I agree that it would be great if a women today could develop and use her real strengths as woman, but if she chooses to do that, she is putting herself at risk. Whether a single woman, married. stay-at-home Mom, single Mom, divorced, abandoned or widowed woman, she faces the very real possibility that she will need to have developed “male traits” to get a job that pays a decent livable wage and take care of those things that the male refuses to do, isn’t around to do, isn’t capable of doing, etc.

We don’t live in a perfect world. While I definitely don’t agree with radical feminism, I can certainly see how the pains and wounds women can suffer can lead them there.
There are pains and wounds that men suffer that make their lives incompatible to allowing women to develop the traits Gad gave them.

Life is not as simple as we would like it to be.

Beth10

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree that it would be great if a women today could develop and use her real strengths as woman, but if she chooses to do that, she is putting herself at risk. Whether a single woman, married. stay-at-home Mom, single Mom, divorced, abandoned or widowed woman, she faces the very real possibility that she will need to have developed “male traits” to get a job that pays a decent livable wage and take care of those things that the male refuses to do, isn’t around to do, isn’t capable of doing, etc.

We don’t live in a perfect world. While I definitely don’t agree with radical feminism, I can certainly see how the pains and wounds women can suffer can lead them there.
There are pains and wounds that men suffer that make their lives incompatible to allowing women to develop the traits Gad gave them.

Life is not as simple as we would like it to be.

Beth10

Very insightful of you and I agree. It is unfortunate that we live in such a spirit numbing age that requires a great deal of courage to be authentic and true to our real selves.

I don’t agree that Gad gave women any of their traits, however.